This has been pretty entertaining today. I’ve been catching a bunch of Nick’s videos in between stories, and holy smokes – what he’s finding doing his trademark wander around and knock on doors is, well, classic Shirley.

That sweet face and so innocent, pre-pubescent teenage boy’s voice, ‘If I open a hospice, can I get a brand new Maybach, too?’

The kid is a treasure.

This is where it all starts. He’s at what looks like an old, rundown two-story motor inn. The kind you might remember from trips as a kid, where you drove through some sort of an arch into a courtyard sort of parking lot, and all the rooms faced inward.

The problem is that there are no guests, and, astonishingly enough, all the hotel rooms seem to be hospice businesses. There’s, like, thirty of them in this one motor lodge.

There are also very many nice, shiny new cars.

WHAT ARE THE ODDS?

How peculiar.

If you’ll remember, back at the end of January, Dr. Oz was loudly rebuked and condemned as a racist for going to a four-block area of Van Nuys, California, where he found forty-two hospices that had soaked taxpayers for some $16M already.

WHAT WERE THE ODDS?

It turns out that Shirley is the latest to discover the booming dying people business in California. A week ago, even CBS News decided that rather than call someone racist for looking, it was time they went looking themselves.

What they found blew some corporate minds.

CBS News

@CBSNews

CALIFORNIA HOSPICE FRAUD: There’s a stretch in Los Angeles with 500 registered hospice companies within just three miles of each other. And 89 in a single building. But when we visited, we found empty offices, piled-up mail, and phone lines dead.

WHAT WERE THE ODDS?

This fellow was awfully cranky. And to be honest, were a loved one of mine in hospice, not exactly the comforting presence I envisage, you know?

He could at least take a bath or something.

And let me tell you – the fraud numbers we’re talking about in greasy Gavin Newsom’s California should make every American sick to their stomach.

Being the thorough sort of fellow Shirley is, he decided to find a business partner and go into the hospice business himself.

Of course, he wanted to do it correctly, and for that one needs advice from experts.

So he and Derrick, his partner, went to one of the businesses advertising themselves as ‘hospice consultants’ to see if they could get some tips on how to get started.

Wait a second – it’s almost as if this ‘consulting hospice business’ didn’t really have anything to do with hospice consulting.

The young girls seemed very nervous and confused for secretarial help.

How peculiar.

Undaunted, Nick finds a fellow back at the motor lodge who is willing to sit still for a little quizzing about how business is going.

DO YOU LIKE TAKING CARE OF OLD PEOPLE? ARE YOU THE ONE WHO GOES OUT TO VISIT THEM?

But all good things come to an end, and somehow, word got around to all the rooms…oh, excuse me. Hospice businesses. That the little guy in the parking lot was asking questions.

Suddenly, there was a rush for the expensive cars and the freeway.

Nice rides, though.

Shirley’s whole forty-minute report is here when you have time. And blood pressure meds are close by……SNIP

Democrat’s real fear isn’t Islamophobia.

Mike McDaniel | March 18, 2026

Democrats excel at warping the English language, making it say things it was never intended to say. There is “American gun culture,” which amounts to our unalienable, express Second Amendment rights. There are “assault weapons,” a term that exists nowhere in firearm nomenclature, but which in Virginia includes break action, single shot .410 shotguns. And there is “Ultra MAGA,” which is Normal Americans who apparently really want America to be great, prosperous and secure—the horror.

And most of all, there are the phobias. Dictionary.com defines phobia thus:

1. an intense, persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, situation, or person that manifests in physical symptoms such as sweating, trembling, rapid heartbeat, or shortness of breath, and that motivates avoidance behavior.

In other words, not a reasonable concern, but an irrational fear amounting to mental illness. According to Democrats, Normal Americans spend most of their time sweating, trembling and worse at the mere thought of trans, gays, and the most currently trendy phobia: Islamophobia.

The point of this particular warping is to paint sane, rational people reasonably concerned about the very nature of Islam and the murderous acts of its adherents as dangerously mentally ill. They’re irrational, sweaty and trembling haters of innocent, mostly peaceful Muslims. 

It’s also meant to quash any criticism of Islam and Islamists, you know–the whole First Amendment thing.

Sure, Islamists throw gays off high buildings or hang them from cranes, they beat, rape, torture and murder women, burn babies alive in ovens, torture, mutilate, rape and murder Jews and other infidels and are currently firing missiles, rockets and drones at other Muslims but recognition by sane people of Jihadist’s blood thirsty mania and the determination of Islamist’s victims not to be killed is the problem.

Then there’s that whole “Islam mandates genocide of the Jews” thing. For Jihadists, the problem is Jews, for the most part, don’t want to be killed and they’re getting really good—particularly in Israel—at first killing the demons who want to kill them. Islam also mandates conquering the world for Islam, which of necessity mandates killing or enslaving all infidels, which is pretty much the world and every non-Muslim, as well as a great many insufficiently deranged Muslims.

One of the great contradictions of the entire matter is Muslims who do not want to slaughter anyone are not living the text and intention of their faith. One wag noted there are two kinds of Muslims: those who want to slaughter all infidels, and those who want other Muslims to slaughter all infidels. 

Cosmic irony reared its head recently when Sunday, March 15 rolled around. That’s ironic, because it was The International Day to Combat Islamophobia. As one might expect, the UN got in on the fun: 

UN Secretary-General António Guterres wrote late on Saturday evening, “Islamophobia” Day Eve: “Muslims worldwide often face institutional discrimination, socio-economic exclusion, biased immigration policies & unwarranted surveillance & profiling. This International Day to Combat Islamophobia, let’s re-commit to the equality, human rights & dignity of every person, no matter their faith.”

It’s doubly ironic because of the March 1 Islamist attack on an Austin bar that killed three and injured 13. That was followed by the March 7 Islamist homemade fragmentation bomb attack in New York City. Fortunately, those bombs didn’t go off, but the attack gave the media the opportunity to obfuscate what happened to their heart’s content. On March 12 there was a Jihadist double header with the failed attack on a Michigan synagogue and the murder of a ROTC professor at Old Dominion University. That one ended badly for the Jihadist but well for America when a ROTC cadet stabbed him to death. 

So of course, New York’s dimwitted, anti-American Governor had to spout off: 

“On this International Day to Combat Islamophobia, and at a time when fear and division are rising in many places, New York stands firm: Hate has no home here. Muslim New Yorkers strengthen our communities every day, and we will always stand together against Islamophobia.”

One wonders if the equally dimwitted immigration cracktivist with a bullhorn hectoring the crowd about the wonders of illegal immigration at that NYC attack, who had a Jihadist leap on his back while throwing a bomb, is having second thoughts about immigration, or at least about his dumb luck in not being shredded by Islamist shrapnel?

Fortunately, we have a President who isn’t afraid of being called an Islamophobe and who is inducing Americaphobia in the world’s worst Islamists. He’s supported by hundreds of millions of Americans who don’t give a damn what Democrats have to say. 

I suspect that’s what they really fear.

Become a subscriber and get our weekly, Friday newsletter with unique content from our editors. These essays alone are worth the cost of the subscription. 

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor. 

Sizable minorities on both the left and the right want America to intervene in fewer foreign conflicts and to exercise more restraint in foreign policy. In the 2006 midterm elections, antiwar voters contributed to the Republicans’ loss of both houses of Congress. They also helped defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary contest and the Republican nominee, John McCain, at that year’s general election.

While McCain styled himself a “maverick,” the label could be more accurately bestowed upon the anti-interventionist Republican Ron Paul, who shocked the GOP establishment by showing that an unstinting critic of the Iraq War could mount an insurgency within the party of George W. Bush. A decade earlier, Pat Buchanan had also demonstrated that being antiwar could be popular, or at least no barrier to popularity, on the political right.

Donald Trump was well aware of all this when he decided to make his first run for president in 2016. His opponent was Mrs. Clinton, the woman who’d been too hawkish for voters eight years earlier. As a senator, she had supported the Iraq War. As a private citizen – with a visible public profile – Trump was an early critic of the war and made a point of saying so in his campaign.

He won, and in his first term he started no new wars, in contrast to every other president of the past 25 years. Yet two years into his second term, Trump has gone to war with Iran twice and forcibly deposed the dictator of Venezuela, with a warning that the same may soon be in store for Cuba’s communist leaders. Trump built a winning electoral coalition two years ago that absorbed such antiwar ex-Democrats as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, along with their supporters, and he picked as his running mate a rising star of the intervention-critical right, J.D. Vance. Voters who cast their ballots for the Trump-Vance ticket in the hopes of no more wars are feeling baffled or downright betrayed.

Neoconservatives and other hawks who have long loathed Trump are equally disoriented by the turn, with some regretting the way in which they’re finally getting the confrontation with Tehran they’ve always demanded.

Trump has insisted all along that he wouldn’t allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. But when Israel went to war last June to destroy the Islamic Republic’s uranium-enrichment facilities, the task proved tougher than expected. Trump intervened to bring a speedy conclusion to a war whose purpose was in accord with his commitments. The trouble, certainly for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was that his country’s need for American help signaled to Tehran that it might well get away with nuclear weaponization the next time. After all, Trump wouldn’t be around forever. Would America support the next war against Iran’s nuclear program?

The only way to be certain of it was to make sure it happened while Trump was still in office, so Netanyahu and others made the case for a renewed war, with the popular uprisings against the clerical regime in December and January perhaps providing the last incentive needed to get Trump to act. Regime change seemed ready to happen naturally, with just a nudge from outside. Or, in light of the success the Trump administration had with regime decapitation in Venezuela, the President and his planners might have thought that a brittle Iranian regime, jolted by bombing, would cut a deal with Washington as quickly as Nicolás Maduro’s deputy dictator, Delcy Rodríguez, had done.

An explanation of President Trump’s thinking does answer the bigger question, however, which is not why he has waged a war, but why America seemingly never enjoys peace. We’re always at war, whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat, an enthusiast for globalization and the “liberal international order” or, like Trump, a critic of liberal international institutions.

The question’s framing is also its answer: in fact, most Americans do enjoy peace, so why should they worry about war? It adds to the national debt, says Representative Thomas Massie, but so does everything else, and Americans don’t care about that, either – not enough to vote for presidents or Congresses who will cut government services or raise taxes to curb the debt.

The dollar cost of a war will never stop one, not until the country is actually bankrupt. The strategic conditions that noninterventionists point to as the reasons we don’t have to fight wars all around the world are actually the reasons we can, and therefore do: America, with oceans on either side of our homeland and no great-power competitor in this hemisphere, as well as a nuclear arsenal and a conventional military capable of deterring any distant great power, is so safe that it can use its power for more than just local defense.

We enjoy a security surplus, which is more politically significant (for now) than our financial debts, as both the public and the nation’s elites have foreign projects they wish to undertake. When these projects turn out badly, the nation’s morale suffers and the politicians who led the undertaking may lose office and esteem. But as long as the surplus doesn’t disappear as a result of a catastrophic gamble, it remains to be put to new use by the next set of officeholders.

Switzerland is neutral and noninterventionist because, despite its formidable mountains and resilient people, it is a small country with no security to spare. (That wasn’t always the case – the pope has Swiss guards to this day because Switzerland was once so safe from foreign threats it could export mercenaries to its neighbors; back then neutrality arose from the fact the confederation’s constituent cantons were so religiously and politically divided that Switzerland as a whole couldn’t take any one side in Europe’s conflicts without risking civil war at home.) The US cannot be a super-sized Switzerland – for the simple reason that a super-Switzerland with surplus security wouldn’t be Switzerland at all.

Daniel McCarthy, American Spectator

It’s no time to be nice. Freedom is on the line, as never before. If you want to survive and live in prosperity and with liberty, you had better root for Donald Trump. Everyone else is morally weak, paid off or on the side of the bad guys.

You are looking at our last, best hope. GET OVER IT.

Iran is in it to win it. Fox News and others report they are trying to disrupt or paralyze the flow of oil to Western civilization. That will affect all of us, including purple haired, fat, ugly socialists screaming for freebies. An American military plane has gone down over Iraq. I wonder who Iran’s allies are in America? The Democratic Party and leftist billionaires? Might they give aid, comfort and support to our enemies? I believe they absolutely would, because Democrats and leftists hate America and freedom with the same intensity as Iran does. I am also wondering: Might President Trump go nuclear? We would never have defeated Japan without that step. Iran is not as strong, but its regime is as irrational and anti-life as just about any force in human history, to my knowledge. And they have friends in America, and friends with lots of money. I believe it may get to that point, because the mullahs will never, ever surrender unconditionally. I trust President Trump. I believe he will do whatever has to be done, in the end.

Amusing sidenote:

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt demanded Thursday that ABC News retract a story claiming that the FBI has officially warned Iran may try to attack California with drones.

Why would Iran attack California? California’s regime is as hostile to the U.S., its Bill of Rights and to freedom as the Iranian regime is. California is the last place a mortal enemy of the United States would attack.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

This chart shows manufacturing production growth (6-month average vs. a year ago). After spending most of 2022–2024 in contraction, output has surged since mid-2025 and is now approaching +2% — the strongest growth since the post-COVID rebound.

So why isn’t anyone talking about it?

Partly because it’s invisible in the jobs data. Manufacturing payrolls have been declining. If you only look at employment, you’d think the sector is still struggling.

But flat jobs + rising output = productivity growth. The sector is producing significantly more with fewer workers.

This is one more piece of evidence that the productivity acceleration story is real and broadening beyond tech. The gains are showing up in hard, measurable output, but not in headcount.

Source: Federal Reserve Board

Derek Hunter https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.2f70fb173b9000da126c79afe2098f02.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&screen_name=derekahunter&show_count=false&show_screen_name=false&size=m&time=1773766899743 | Mar 17, 2026

I’m not one of those people tapping their foot saying, “When is the war going to end? It’s been dragging on and is a disaster!” No, those people are idiots actively hoping the United States is damaged because of who the President of the United States is. Nor do I think the Iranian regime didn’t deserve to be wiped out – those who used to be in charge (and alive) were evil and them no longer existing is a great thing for humanity. But what comes next isn’t up to us, it’s up to the people of Iran to act. And there is still an open question about what it is they want, so we have to consider the possibility that most of them simply don’t want to be “free.”

The theory of the Bush administration was that the people of Iraq would greet us as liberators when we took out Saddam Hussein, which they actually did. But after that, rather than embrace their newfound freedoms, they simply reverted back to centuries old tribal warfare with each other. 

How could that happen? Because they didn’t have any concept of freedom, or they simply would’ve liked to be the ones forcing their will on others, rather than having the will of others forced on them. Kind of like Democrats here.

If you’ve never experienced liberty before, you don’t know what it is. It’s not the natural state of humanity. Most of human history is riddled with oppression. Not in the way a leftist would have you think, but in a raceless way of there being a leadership that tells everyone else what and how to be. The idea of voting existed in some places, but it was often ignored or tossed when it went against the wishes of the leaders, like Democrats here when they lose a referendum and sue.

We’ve had the concept of liberty in this country for almost 250 years, but another way to look at this is we’ve had the concept of liberty in this country for only almost 250 years. Human beings have been around a lot longer than that, and most of them never experienced anything like we have today.

In Afghanistan, as oppressive as the Taliban is, most Afghans are either down with because they share their oppressive religious beliefs, or they live in such remote, unconnected places that whatever government they have in Kabul doesn’t matter to them either way. We thought they were oppressed, they thought they were living how they’ve always lived. We were both right and they didn’t care to change.

All you can do is give people the opportunity to step up for themselves, you can’t make them take it. 

Iran is slightly different in that before the radical Islamists took over, the country was very modern. There are a lot of people alive who remember what it was like to not have to cover women or fear their government murdering them because they’ve somehow offended religious sensibilities. They’ve likely told stories of what it was like before the fascists overthrew the Shah, so the concept isn’t foreign. But maybe it’s not wanted?

It’s clear there was a desire for ridding itself of the fascist Ayatollah, which brought hundreds of thousands of Iranians to the streets in protest. But maybe that was all they were willing to do – march in protest hoping their government would change? 

Revolutions are rarely bloodless, but to conduct one you must be willing to fight to the point of death, either to you or your opponent. The regime has proven time and again, from its founding, that it has the appetite to kill for power. The people who oppose it have not shown that. 

Every few years, the Iranian people would rise up in the streets, then their government would quash them. A bunch of people would get killed, the world would condemn it, lather, rinse, repeat. Nothing would come of it.

We thought it was because the people didn’t have arms and the government did. Maybe that was part of it, but maybe it was also that protesting was about as far as anyone was willing to go? The regime had no problem killing, but average people do. Without that last step, failure was the only option as regime collapse wasn’t going to happen with nothing there to cast it aside.

Iran just slaughtered anywhere from 30,000 to 50,000 of its own people for protesting, the remaining people are probably a little hesitant to step out again, understandably so. There’s also the possibility that the people willing to do what is necessary to overthrow their government were those people killed. It only takes a few to spark something, but a fuse doesn’t light itself. If the people with the fire are gone…

Or maybe they’re just waiting for the US to tell them it’s go-time, I don’t know. Personally, I think what happens to Iran is up to the Iranian people, so if a military guy is allowed to seize power and dominate, if the religious monsters stay in, or the people take over and implement something better is not my concern. I don’t want them to have a nuclear program, to fund terrorism or have any influence over shipping. The rest is up to them.

The actions the Trump administration have taken are helping on those points, what comes after, or even if there is a change, is up to the Iranian people. There will come a point ever soon where they will have a chance, probably their only chance, to overthrow their despotic oppressors. That is, however, only if they want to. A fish doesn’t know it’s wet, some people don’t know they’re oppressed. All you can do is give them the opportunity to take care of themselves, you can’t make them take advantage of it. I hope they do, because they’ll never have a better one.

How worried should the US be about Iran? We asked an expert.

WASHINGTON — Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman is trashing “ignorant” far-left New York City Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for her “tone-deaf” approach to Israel — and predicted she won’t challenge Big Apple Dem Sen. Chuck Schumer in 2028.

“To accuse Israel [of] genocide, and you’re sitting in Germany, like, can you talk about tone deaf and just ignorant to the history?” Fetterman told podcast host Sean Hannity, referring to AOC’s disastrous gaffe-prone foreign-policy outing in Munich last month.

“I mean, more than 6 million Jews [were massacred] — you know the Holocaust — and now to accuse Israel during that just war for genocide,’’ he said in the interview, set to air Tuesday.

Team USA wins OT thriller over SwedenSPONSORED BY KA-EX

“That’s my issue, not because her answer wasn’t great,’’ Fetterman told Fox News Media’s “Hang Out with Sean Hannity” in a nod to the Democratic Socialist rep’s bungling of her appearance at the time.

Ocasio-Cortez’s participation in the panel at the Munich Security Conference was widely interpreted as a test of her foreign-policy bona fides amid speculation over her 2028 aspirations.

Explore More

Ultimately, her fumbles, such as erroneously claiming that Venezuela sits below the equator, fueled criticism from her detractors that she wasn’t ready for prime time.

The 36-year-old rep, who majored in international relations, has fired back at her critics by contending that she was demonstrating the importance of thinking before speaking.

Fetterman, who revealed that Senate Minority Leader Schumer leans on him, predicted that Ocasio-Cortez won’t challenge his buddy.

“She would never run,” Fetterman said when Hannity predicted that Ocasio-Cortez would crush Schumer in a 2028 primary.

“Either she’ll run for president, or she’ll just kind of continue to rise in” the House of Representatives, the Keystone State senator added.

During another portion of their conversation, Fetterman ripped into Democratic former Vice President Kamala Harris for calling President Trump a fascist.

What do you think? Post a comment.

“That’s just not true, and … that forces people to [be] like, ‘Hey, you must be a fascist, too, because you want’” him to win,” Fetterman said of Trump supporters.

“That makes it more difficult to have a better way forward.”

“That’s why I always refuse” to go there, Fetterman said.

Neither reps Ocasio-Cortez nor Harris responded Monday to Post requests for comment.

Architect of the nuclear program and a former senior commander in the IRGC, was considered the most extreme and influential figure regarding the survival of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The IDF confirmed on Tuesday that the Israeli Air Force, acting on IDF intelligence, and through the integration of unique operational capabilities, conducted a precise strike on Monday that eliminated Ali Larijani, the Secretary of Iranian Supreme National Security Council, who operated as the de facto leader of the Iranian terror regime. The strike was conducted while he was located near Tehran.

Throughout the years, Larijani was considered one of the most veteran and senior figures within the Iranian regime leadership and was a close associate of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Following the elimination of Khamenei, Larijani consolidated his status as the de facto leader of the Iranian regime and led the combat efforts against the State of Israel and countries across the region.

As a part of his role, Larijani led the regime’s national-security coordination and directed its international activity, including engagement with members of the axis.

During the most recent wave of protests against the Iranian terror regime, Larijani advanced violent enforcement measures and repression operations, and personally oversaw the massacre that was carried out against Iranian protestors.

The IDF noted that Larijani’s elimination adds to the elimination of dozens of senior commanders and leaders of the Iranian terror regime, who were eliminated by the IDF during Operation Roaring Lion, and constitutes a further blow to the Iranian regime’s abilities to manage and coordinate hostile activity against the State of Israel.

In his role, he served as a key figure in shaping national security policy, including direct involvement in strategic issues such as the nuclear program.

Following reports of his elimination, Larijani’s official Telegram account said that he would be releasing a statement shortly. A short time later, the account published a handwritten note written for the funeral of the Iranian Navy casualties. The account did not refer to the reports of his assassination and provided no proof that he is alive.

When the U.S. started firing Tomahawk missiles at Iran late last month, many of President Donald Trump’s allies hoped it would be a quick, surgical operation, similar to last year’s strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities or the ouster of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro in January.

Though uneasy, they were reassured by the belief that Trump’s open-ended objectives gave him the flexibility to declare victory whenever he saw fit.

Now, more than two weeks into the campaign, some of those allies believe the president no longer controls how, or when, the war ends. They fear Iran’s attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, which have rattled global crude markets and threaten broader economic distress, are boxing Trump into a situation where escalating the conflict — potentially even putting American boots on the ground — becomes the only way to credibly claim victory.

“We clearly just kicked [Iran’s] ass in the field, but, to a large extent, they hold the cards now,” said one person close to the White House, who like others in this story was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the war. “They decide how long we’re involved — and they decide if we put boots on the ground. And it doesn’t seem to me that there’s a way around that, if we want to save face.”

The concern among some Trump allies is that ensuring the free flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz could require securing parts of Iran’s shoreline, a step that would almost certainly mean putting American troops on Iranian soil.

“The terms have changed,” said a second person familiar with the U.S. operation in Iran. “The off-ramps don’t work anymore because Iran is driving the asymmetric action.”

The dynamic is fueling anxiety among the president’s “America First” allies, who worry he is drifting toward the kind of open-ended Middle East conflict he has long railed against. With Iran able to disrupt global oil supplies and drive up gas prices at the pump, some Republicans fear the conflict could soon become a political liability for a White House already grappling with voter frustration over affordability ahead of the midterm elections.

Oil prices have surged since the conflict began, increasing from less than $70 per barrel to roughly $100 per barrel, while the national average price for gasoline has climbed to $3.70, up about 25 percent from a month ago, according to AAA.

“For the White House, now the only easy day was yesterday,” the person familiar added. “They need to worry about an unraveling.”

White House aides continue to argue the war is not just going as planned but is a “tremendous success,” with Iranian ballistic missile attacks down 90 percent and drone attacks down 95 percent. The operation, they say, will continue until the president determines his goals have been achieved.

“Thanks to a detailed planning process, the entire administration is and was prepared for any potential action taken by the terrorist Iranian regime,” said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly. “President Trump knew full well that Iran would try to stop the freedom of navigation and free flow of energy, and he has already taken action to destroy over 30 minelaying vessels.”

The president has also been clear that any disruptions to energy are temporary and will result in a massive benefit to our country and the global economy in the long-term,” she added.

The allies’ concerns have only been heightened by the U.S. moving additional forces into the region, including the amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli, which is carrying the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit. The deployment places roughly 2,000 Marines and their aircraft within striking distance of the war, capable of seizing ports, protecting shipping lanes and launching limited ground operations.

Watch: The Conversation

Share

In recent days, Trump has oscillated on the war’s trajectory, at times suggesting the fighting could end soon while also warning that the U.S. is prepared to escalate if Iran continues targeting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

Oil prices fell below $95 per barrel on Monday as Trump said he would soon announce which countries have agreed to help secure the strait.

Some of Trump’s most vocal “America First” allies are urging the White House not to rush toward a ground war, arguing the U.S. still has multiple ways to pressure Iran without sending troops ashore. Still, they acknowledge that the president’s alternatives narrow with each additional escalatory step the U.S. takes.

The campaign has so far focused on air and missile strikes targeting Iranian military facilities and leaders, a strategy designed to weaken Tehran’s ability to retaliate without committing large numbers of American troops.

Trump ally Jack Posobiec, appearing on former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon’s show Monday morning, listed a series of ways in which the U.S. could still ratchet up pressure without ground troops — by stopping oil tankers, launching cyberattacks, targeting Iranian financial assets and leaning on allied navies, like Israel’s.

“This also increases the level of escalation, but doesn’t necessarily require boots on the ground,” Posobiec said. “There are people who are deeply and seriously agitating … for the president to put boots on the ground because they realize once he has done so that the mission creep will be so far in that this then could explode into a full-fledged war, and they deeply want that.”

Iran’s strategy has centered on the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway that carries roughly a fifth of the world’s oil shipments. With its conventional forces taking heavy hits, Tehran has leaned into a tactic military planners have long feared, threatening commercial shipping through one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints.

Some Trump allies say the scale of the U.S.’s opening strikes — which killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with dozens of senior commanders and members of his family — may make it harder for the regime to back down.

“You’ve killed one guy, the next guy up is even more radical. You killed his dad and his wife,” said a third person close to the White House, referring to Iran’s new supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the late leader. “Do you think he’s gonna be more — or less — reasonable?”

The person added that putting boots on the ground isn’t Trump’s “instinct” — and suggested doing so would tank Trump’s approval ratings to those of former President Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal. Trump’s approval rating is hovering around 40 percent, down from above 50 percent at the start of his term; Nixon’s approval rating when he resigned was about 25 percent.

“He’s seen that story before,” the person said, “and I think he knows how that plays out politically.”

Dasha Burns contributed to this report.

Collectivism and socialism lead to pain, shortages, deprivation and misery — for most people. But the rulers (always comfortable, and armed) get to feel warm and fuzzy because miserable people are much easier to control. And control is what sociopaths like Mamdani and really all of our career politicians are after. They are twisted, sick and evil tyrants who exploit the low self-esteem and ignorance of average people. The people voting for socialism are flashing a green light for their own destruction–and all of our destruction.

*******

Bill Maher suggests President Trump should get the Nobel Peace Prize for liberating Venezuela, Cuba and Iran, if it all works out. Leftists, of course, are shrieking. To Democrats and leftists, toppling dictatorships is not “peace”. To them, peace means the absence of dissension, and complete control over everything and everyone–control by THEM.

Leftists totally relate to and support dictatorship–because they ARE dictators.

*******

According to the NRA, Democrat representatives and officials in Virginia are exempting themselves from the draconian, brazenly unconstitutional gun ban in their state. “Gun control for thee, but not for me.”

It’s hard for me to fathom why the state of Virginia is not on fire over this. Even the 19th Century French had the spine to rise up (temporarily) against tyranny. And Virginia was once the intellectual center of liberty in America. Now it’s the center of the totalitarian sweep Democrats have planned for us when and if they carry the national elections of 2026 and 2028. If Virginians roll over and accept this without overt rebellion, then we can expect the same lawless measures in many other parts of the country. Totalitarianism with a sneer isn’t just for California and New York anymore. America’s fascists are coming for all of us, because they assume we will tolerate and take ANYTHING.

*******

“The truth does not require your participation in order to exist. Bullshit does.”

— Terence McKenna