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.”
Two former campaign managers for former President Barack Obama warned that the Democratic Party is a mess ahead of the 2028 presidential election, due to not knowing what they stand for.
Jim Messina explained to Axios that while Democrats are planning to rely on voters’ frustrations with President Donald Trump and his administration to pick up additional seats in the upcoming midterm elections, that is not enough to win the presidency.
Meanwhile, David Plouffe warned that Democrats are not ready to win “in what are now red states in neutral and even challenging environments.”
“The midterms are going to be 85-90% driven by voter opposition to Trump and maybe 10-15% based on what Dems stand for,” Messina, who served as the campaign manager for Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign, said.
Plouffe, who served as Obama’s campaign manager for his 2008 presidential campaign, stated: “Democrats for the next decade have to be able to win elections in what are now red states in neutral and even challenging environments. That is the test.”
“Anyone who thinks we are ready to do that is spending too much time inhabiting a political world that does not exist,” Plouffe added.
Per the outlet, the comments from Messina and Plouffe come as a recent poll from NBC found that 52 percent “of voters see the Democratic Party negatively,” compared to 30 percent who “view it positively”:
• 52% of voters see the Democratic Party negatively, while only 30% view it positively, according to a recent NBC survey — worse ratings than they give the GOP, which is also unpopular.
• The same poll found voters trust Republicans more than Democrats to deal with border security, crime and immigration. On the economy, Democrats didn’t have an advantage despite Americans’ anger over continuing high prices under Trump. Voters were split on which party would do a better job handling it.
A previously released poll from the Trafalgar Group, which surveyed 1,084 likely general election voters between February 24-25, showed that 47.1 percent of respondents “strongly approve” of the job Trump is doing, while 39.1 percent of respondents “strongly disapprove.”
Another 3.7 percent of respondents said they approve of the job Trump is doing, while 8.5 percent said they disapprove.
CHAPPAQUA, NY — With TSA suffering severe staffing shortages amid a halt in pay, former President Bill Clinton has volunteered to lend a hand patting down passengers.
A smiling Clinton arrived early for his shift at JFK International, telling TSA agents to focus on checking bags and leaving the pat-downs to him.
“It’s the least I can do,” said Clinton. “When I heard there were thousands of bodies that needed to be felt, I simply answered the call. Does that make me a hero? Well, step into my line here, and I’ll let you be the judge.”
According to airport officials, no one has ever seen a happier, more willing TSA agent than Clinton. “He was born for this,” said local man Roger McCabe. “It’s like Clinton has been doing this his whole life. No one even had to train him. He just stepped right in and got to patting.”
At publishing time, Clinton had asked if there were any TSA agents who might be willing to handle patting down “the uggos.”
The United States is allowing Iranian oil tankers to transit the Strait of Hormuz, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC on Monday.
“The Iranian ships have been getting out already, and we’ve let that happen to supply the rest of the world,” Bessent said in an interview CNBC’s Brian Sullivan in Paris. The Treasury secretary is in France to hold trade talks with China. *** “We think that there will be a natural opening that the Iranians are letting out, and for now we’re fine with that. We want the world to be well supplied,” Bessent said. President Donald Trump is pressuring nations that rely on the Strait for oil to help the U.S. protect tankers from attacks by Iran.
The Strait, which connects the Gulf to the global market, is the most important trade route for oil in the world. About 20% of global oil supplies passed through the narrow waterway before the war.
Oil prices have surged about 40% since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran two weeks ago. The war has triggered the largest oil supply disruption in history as exports through the Strait have collapsed, according to the International Energy Agency.
***
Brent oil prices the international benchmark, were hovering around $102 per barrel Monday. U.S. oil prices were trading around $95 per barrel.
In February 2025, a newly installed Trump Department of Education (ED) issued a so-called Dear Colleague Letter. The letter put educational institutions on notice that ED intended to enforce the nation’s anti-discrimination laws, particularly those in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and in the Constitution. It further specified that “discriminatory practices” would not be tolerated merely because they had been repackaged “under the banner of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (‘DEI’).”
Left-wing media pundits went berserk. They said the policy announcement was a “threat to equal opportunity,” called it an “extreme and implausible interpretation of the law governing diversity, equity, and inclusion,” and claimed it had “no obvious parallels in modern American history.”
The letter put institutions on notice that the Department of Education intended to enforce the nation’s anti-discrimination laws.Lawsuits ensued, including one by the National Education Association in March 2025 and another by the American Federation of Teachers the same month. New Hampshire District Court judge Landya McCafferty wasted no time in granting NEA’s preliminary injunction in April. Maryland District Court judge Stephanie Gallagher followed suit in August, vacating the letter in its entirety. On October 13 of last year, ED filed a notice of appeal in the Fourth Circuit. Then, in late January, ED unexpectedly dismissed its appeal. Why? Before we get to that, we must consider some background on the explosion of DEI on university campuses.
In late January, the Trump administration unexpectedly dismissed its appeal. Why?Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard
Until about five years ago, universities referred to their lawless racial discrimination as “affirmative action.” Federal courts played along in cases such as Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and Grutter v. Bollinger. These decisions glossed over the racism of our nation’s universities by making the constitutional rights of white students contingent on the purpose of the discrimination against them (“attainment of a diverse student body … is a constitutionally permissible goal”) or the passage of time (“25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further [the racial discrimination] approved today”).
But these opinions were not serious legal reasoning, and, by June 2023, even the Supreme Court had had enough. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice Roberts summarized what normal people had known since the Civil Rights era: “A student … must be treated … as an individual—not on the basis of race.” As such, racially discriminatory “admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of” the Constitution. Roberts’s conclusion was also a logical extension of his pithy remark, penned 17 years earlier in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle, that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Justice Thomas, as expected, stated the truth most plainly: “All forms of discrimination based on race—including so-called affirmative action—are prohibited under the Constitution.” This, ED knew, included DEI.
Even though these conclusions were obvious to most Americans, I predicted 15 months ago that “admissions offices [didn’t] care about the Supreme Court’s ruling in SFFA” and wouldn’t comply. Why? Because, “to left-wing political operatives, [laws] are mere words—parchment barriers that can be obeyed or ignored as circumstances warrant.” Once again, university administrators would turn to semantic trickery to conceal their racism. This proved correct, as Orwellian terminology such as “affirmative action” became the even more Orwellian “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” or DEI.
Though DEI dates back to the 1960s or earlier, widespread use of the terminology dates to about 2023. It’s not a coincidence that DEI programs (described as such) exploded on university campuses following SFFA. They were a convenient new cover for an old practice.
This time, however, Trump’s new Department of Education under Linda McMahon was on top of the ball. ED issued the Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) shortly after Trump’s inauguration. That missive immediately exposed DEI for what it was: a new mask cloaking ancient left-wing racism.
Litigation
Judge McCafferty enjoined ED from enforcing the DCL in April 2025, dismissing ED’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s SFFA ruling as “boilerplate,” which she was “not bound” to follow. Her opinion is full of sloppy reasoning and startling naiveté. For example, she observes that, prior to the DCL, ED “had not indicated a belief that [DEI] constituted unlawful discrimination.” Furthermore, in the wake of SFFA, ED issued a “questions-and-answers document in which it stated” that schools could “continue to articulate missions and goals tied to student body diversity.” Thus, McCafferty said, ED’s about-face must support the plaintiff’s claim, since it “force[d] schools to choose between [ED’s] 2023 guidance … or trying to adapt their conduct to the 2025 [DCL] requirements.” In other words, ED couldn’t object to racist DEI practices in 2025 because it hadn’t done so in 2023 under President Biden. Using this backward reasoning, neither Dred Scott nor Plessy v. Ferguson would have been overturned.
According to Judge McCafferty, ED couldn’t object to racist DEI practices in 2025 because it hadn’t done so in 2023 under President Biden.Then, in a section of her order arguing that the term “DEI” was “vague,” McCafferty imagined that a teacher “could seek to establish [DEI] by asking her students [to] sign a collective pledge to follow the ‘Golden Rule’.” This would result in an ED crackdown, McCafferty feared, because “it is more than arguable that such a practice would come within the ocean-wide definition of DEI.” At the risk of stating the obvious, this isn’t serious legal reasoning. Nobody believes DEI is code for “do unto others as you would have done unto you.”
McCafferty’s sloppy reasoning was matched by Judge Gallagher’s technical nitpicking.McCafferty’s sloppy reasoning was matched by Judge Gallagher’s technical nitpicking concerning the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which has become a powerful end-run around the United States Constitution. It’s so powerful, in fact, that left-wing activists routinely cite the APA when the Constitution isn’t on their side. Here, the Equal Protection Clause, the Supreme Court, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act all prohibit discrimination on the basis of race. Yet Gallagher vacated the DCL because ED didn’t follow the notice-and-comment rulemaking process of the APA. The absurdity of subordinating constitutional rights to inane statutory requirements was highlighted by another of Gallagher’s findings: The DCL had to be vacated because ED failed “to comply with, or even consider, the Paperwork Reduction Act.” Got that? Your constitutional rights can’t be enforced because the government wasted paper.
That said, it must be acknowledged that ED’s litigation tactics made the courts’ decisions easier. For example, both McCafferty and Gallagher had to find that the DCL was binding in order to strike it down under the APA. This put ED in the awkward position of arguing that the DCL wasn’t binding. While technically true (the DCL merely reminded educators of the requirements of the United States Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which are binding), the rhetorical effect of ED’s position was the equivalent of wading in the Rubicon without crossing it. That’s not a smart move: akin to saying “we didn’t really mean it” after striking the first blow.
But this is a small criticism. Judges McCafferty and Gallagher, like all activist judges, had made up their minds before the cases began. The fact remains that DEI is a thin veneer concealing invidious racial discrimination by the nation’s universities and other schooling institutions—discrimination that the Left has fully embraced and will not relinquish. That’s essentially what the DCL said. On this primary issue, ED was on solid ground. Given the Supreme Court’s ruling in SFFA, ED had reason to be confident in its ultimate success.
So why didn’t it appeal?
Political Appointees Versus the Deep State
The DCL was issued only weeks after Trump’s inauguration. Ordinarily, the short turnaround would suggest that it was rushed. Its contents suggest otherwise. It is a well-reasoned and thorough attempt to erase decades of misguided ED directives in favor of a plain understanding of the law: American educational institutions shall not discriminate on the basis of race using DEI or other theoretical underpinnings. These facts show that the DCL was not the product of career ED lawyers, who rarely act quickly and never against prevailing left-wing orthodoxies. Career ED lawyers were kept out of the loop until the DCL was ready to be released.
It stands to reason, then, that the DCL was the product of thoughtful work by one or more political appointees with experience handling civil-rights issues. These yeomen performed their work in relative secrecy, perhaps beginning shortly after Trump’s election. Moreover, these political appointees knew that the DCL would result in immediate litigation against ED, just as it did.
Once sued, ED staffed the case with trial attorneys who supported the mission. Those trial attorneys would have anticipated an adverse district-court ruling from the outset, steeling themselves for the inevitable appeals process. In short, everything about the DCL—its contents, release, and the ensuing district-court litigation—would have been handled by political appointees or trial attorneys hand-selected based upon their support for the cause.
When Judge Gallagher vacated the letter, career appellate lawyers at the Department of Justice had their chance to gum up the works.But then, when Gallagher vacated the DCL, career appellate lawyers at the Department of Justice had their chance to gum up the works. How? Executive-branch agencies such as ED cannot pursue a “discretionary appeal” without the approval of the solicitor general, whose office is part of the DOJ. That office is staffed by career lawyers. ED couldn’t appeal Gallagher’s ruling without their approval. But, as career lawyers, they shared the leftist plaintiffs’ sentiments and opposed the DCL’s conservative agenda.
When it comes to lawfare, the Left is the undisputed champion of the world.Admittedly, this is a partial explanation. The fact remains that the ultimate decision must have been made, or at least approved, by the solicitor general himself. Here, that meant John Sauer, nominated by Trump to be solicitor general in January 2025 and confirmed by the Senate in April. Sauer could have overruled the Deep State career lawyers and authorized ED’s appeal, but he didn’t. Which brings me to the second part of my explanation.
The Trump administration is mired in lawsuits. According to one tracker, approximately 655 cases challenging Trump’s executive actions have been filed since the president’s inauguration. Of those, plaintiffs have amassed a 49-5 win-loss record, 72 cases have been dismissed, and most of the balance are ongoing. DOJ is involved in most or all of them. Sauer would have known these facts. Furthermore, his office has only two dozen attorneys or so. Even with the help of other appellate attorneys—those at various federal agencies such as ED and the United States Attorneys’ Offices—the fact remains that the administration is legally outgunned and drowning in lawsuits. This is by design. When it comes to lawfare, the Left is the undisputed champion of the world.
I suspect that the above explains why the DCL was deep-sixed. Career lawyers at DOJ, miffed at being kept out of the loop when their approval wasn’t required, seized the opportunity to tank the DCL when it was. They may have advanced their agenda to Sauer with practical arguments about limited staffing and legal arguments about the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of the APA. If so, the practical arguments were valid. The legal ones, not so much. One does not restore constitutional rights with labyrinthine bureaucratic processes and interminable delays.
In the end, the administration abandoned a major battle to restore the constitutional rights of the majority of Americans harmed by DEI. As a result, universities won’t stop discriminating.
T.J. Harker is the general counsel of a Knoxville, Tennessee, company. Prior to that, he was an assistant United States attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, where he investigated and tried national white-collar fraud and espionage matters. He writes atAmicus Republicae on Substack.
A senior adviser to President Donald Trump is urging Washington to seek a swift exit from the escalating conflict with Iran, warning that continued fighting could further destabilize the Middle East and continue to rattle the global market even worse than they already have.
David Sacks, the White House adviser overseeing artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency policy, said the United States has already achieved significant military objectives and should now consider stepping back before the conflict widens further.
Speaking on the widely followed “All-In Podcast,” Sacks argued that the moment may have arrived for Washington to pursue an off-ramp rather than escalate further. “We’ve degraded Iranian capabilities massively,” Sacks said. “This is a good time to declare victory and get out.”
The remarks represent one of the clearest calls from a prominent Trump-aligned figure urging a negotiated exit from the conflict. Sacks framed the issue not in ideological terms but as a matter of strategic realism and American national interest. “If escalation doesn’t lead anywhere good, then you have to think about how you de-escalate,” he said, adding that de-escalation would likely involve a ceasefire or negotiated settlement.
The conflict began on February 28, when the United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes against Iranian military targets. Tehran responded with missile and drone attacks across the region, while its ally Hezbollah in Lebanon launched additional strikes against Israel.
The growing confrontation has already rattled financial markets and pushed energy prices higher. Oil prices have surged as investors brace for potential disruptions to Middle Eastern supply routes and infrastructure.
Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations says more than 1,300 people have been killed in Iran since the conflict began. Israeli authorities report 12 deaths from Iranian-linked attacks inside Israel, while the American military has confirmed that seven American service members have been killed during the fighting.
Despite those casualties, Sacks argued that Washington must carefully consider whether prolonging the conflict actually serves American strategic interests. Within the America First wing of the Republican movement, skepticism toward open-ended foreign wars remains strong.
Many national-conservatives argue that American foreign policy must prioritize sovereignty, stability, and the well-being of American citizens rather than drifting into prolonged regional conflicts. Sacks’ comments appear to reflect that cautious strain of thinking within the broader Trump coalition.
He warned that deeper escalation could unleash a cascade of consequences across the region. One scenario he described involves Iranian retaliation against Gulf oil infrastructure, which plays a critical role in global energy supply.
Even more alarming, Sacks suggested, would be attacks on desalination plants that provide drinking water across much of the Arabian Peninsula. “I think it’s something like 100 million people on the Arabian Peninsula that get their water from desal,” he said, warning that such strikes could trigger severe humanitarian and economic disruption.
Sacks also cautioned that prolonged missile exchanges could strain Israel’s air defense systems if the conflict drags on. The broader danger, he suggested, is that the war could spiral into a wider regional confrontation that becomes increasingly difficult to control.
He described Iran as possessing what he called a “dead man’s switch over the economic fate of the Gulf States,” referring to the country’s ability to threaten energy infrastructure and shipping lanes that are essential to the global economy.
Financial markets appear to be reacting to that risk. Oil prices have already jumped sharply since the conflict began, reflecting fears that prolonged fighting could disrupt critical energy supplies.
Sacks suggested that a rapid de-escalation could calm markets and reduce economic uncertainty. “This is clearly what the markets would like to see,” he said.
The geopolitical stakes became even more apparent after President Trump announced a major American bombing raid targeting Iran’s Kharg Island, one of the country’s most important oil export terminals. The facility handles roughly 90 percent of Iran’s crude oil exports.
Trump said American forces had “obliterated” military targets on the island. The strike underscored how closely military escalation and global energy markets are now intertwined.
A wider conflict could threaten oil flows and intensify economic instability across much of the world. Inside Washington, however, the debate over how to proceed remains unsettled.
Some policymakers favor maintaining pressure on Tehran and continuing military operations. Others fear that a prolonged war could drain American resources while creating new strategic vulnerabilities. The divide reflects a broader shift within the American right. While national conservatives strongly support defending American interests and allies, many remain wary of repeating the mistakes of earlier interventionist eras.
Sacks’ intervention highlights that emerging debate. His argument is not that Iran should be trusted or appeased, but that strategic victories sometimes require strategic restraint.
In his view, the United States has already demonstrated its military power and deterrence. Continuing the war indefinitely could risk triggering instability that ultimately harms American interests.
Gun control advocates do not just oppose civilian gun ownership; they also argue that guns in the hands of police make people less safe.
In January, a Border Patrol agent in Portland shot and wounded two Venezuelan nationals who belonged to the violent Tren de Aragua gang after they allegedly tried to run agents over with their vehicle. In response, Kris Brown, president of Brady United, tweeted the following:
“We don’t know the details behind the shootings of 2 people by a Border Patrol agent in Portland. But I know one thing for certain: whether in the hands of federal officers or everyday Americans, guns do not make us safer. Yet Trump is reshaping our country based on this lie.”
What were the Border Patrol agents supposed to do when an illegal alien with a criminal record tries to run over an agent? How are unarmed agents supposed to apprehend and detain violent gang members?
Currently on its website, Brady United explains: “Why Police violence is gun violence … As we work to tackle the gun violence epidemic in America, we cannot ignore police violence or its devastating effects.”
The same claim is made repeatedly by other gun control groups.
“Police violence is gun violence and that’s why our movement must be responsive as well,” declares Shannon Watts, president for Moms Demand Action.
“Police violence is gun violence,” proclaims Gabby Giffords, with the Giffords Law Center.
These last two statements are from 2021 and 2020, so their opposition to police having guns isn’t a new focus.
Gun control groups sometimes openly acknowledge their goal of banning all guns. In a 2023 interview with Time magazine, for example, Gabby Giffords – who heads the Giffords Law Center – answered a question about her goal by saying: “No more guns.” When the interviewer asked whether she meant no more gun violence, Giffords clarified: “No, no, no. Lord, no. Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.”
Time magazine itself treated the remark as significant enough to place Giffords’ line – “No more guns, Gone” – in the headline.
If firearms are bad per se, it should be easy to find places where either all guns or all handguns have been banned and murder/homicide rates have gone down. One would think out of randomness there should be at least one place where murder rates have gone down or at least stayed the same, but every single time, even for island nations, murder rates have gone up immediately after the ban.
A simple logic is at play here: Who is most likely to obey the law? While such statutes may take a few guns from criminals, they primarily disarm the most law-abiding citizens, making it easier for criminals to commit crimes.
Similar problems exist for police. Taking away the guns that both civilians and police have doesn’t mean that criminals will readily forfeit their weapons. Criminals have strong incentives to keep and obtain weapons. Drug gangs can’t go to the police and ask for help to get their drugs back when another gang steals their drugs. The gangs have set up their own little paramilitaries to protect their valuable stash.
Gun control advocates point to the low murder rate in the United Kingdom, with its largely unarmed police forces, as evidence that disarming police can make people safer. But they ignore that the U.K. had an even lower homicide rate relative to the U.S. before they enacted strict gun controls, and that after a 1997 handgun ban, Britain experienced increases in homicide rates.
Gun control advocates often frame their proposals as modest steps to reduce violence, but their own statements often reveal a far broader goal. The evidence from places that have banned guns also shows a troubling pattern: Disarming the law-abiding does not disarm criminals. If we want to reduce crime and protect the public, policies must focus on stopping criminals – not on leaving both citizens and police defenseless.
This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire. Click To Republish
John R. Lott Jr. is a contributor to RealClearInvestigations, focusing on voting and gun rights. His articles have appeared in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, USA Today, and Chicago Tribune. Lott is an economist who has held research and/or teaching positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford, UCLA, Wharton, and Rice.
“But the American people are probably not willing to accept the level of pain economically in the world that is commensurate with what Iran is willing to tolerate for its own people.”
Morris argued that Iran’s leadership has historically demonstrated a willingness to absorb significant hardship in pursuit of geopolitical goals — a dynamic that could create a mismatch with what U.S. voters would accept if tensions escalate and disrupt global markets.
Because of that imbalance, Morris said the United States should focus on limiting Iran’s ability to cause widespread harm rather than pursuing broader goals such as regime change.
“The objective must become to curb Iran’s ability to inflict massive global harm and stop Iran from destroying the global economy,” Morris said. “Even if Iran is allowed to survive, that’s good enough for us.”
Morris also warned that conflicts abroad have historically damaged U.S. presidents when policy goals become too expansive or idealistic.
“I think that there’s a real potential here for serious damage to the MAGA coalition and to President Trump,” he said.
Morris said he had written down his thoughts earlier in the day to clarify the risks.
“The presidents failed when their policy objectives become so important to them that they take over their administration and lead them to destroy themselves,” Morris said.
“[Former President Lyndon B.] Johnson in Vietnam, [Former President Joe] Biden in Afghanistan, Bush 43 [former President George W. Bush] in Iraq are potent examples of how idealism gone astray took over the presidency and led to its ruin.”
He said in those conflicts, U.S. military dominance did not translate into lasting victory because adversaries were willing to endure far greater hardship.
“In these cases, the willingness of our adversaries, economic and human, exceeded our ability to accept pain and led to a humiliating defeat,” Morris said. “We will always fail to realize how a modern military arsenal is no match for our enemy’s fanaticism.”
Morris cautioned that U.S. military superiority could create a sense of overconfidence if policymakers assume battlefield strength alone will determine the outcome.
“It’s easy to see how military superiority could lead Trump to overconfidence and his administration to ruin,” he said. “And this is really what worries me.”
Instead, Morris said Trump should narrow U.S. objectives to preventing Iran from inflicting major economic or geopolitical damage while avoiding a broader effort to overthrow the Iranian regime.
“Stop them from destroying the world’s economy, stop them from inflicting tremendous harm,” Morris said. “But don’t accept the political destruction of MAGA in an effort to change the regime in iran.
Political analyst Dick Morris warned Saturday that escalating conflict with Iran could damage President Donald Trump politically if U.S. war aims expand beyond limiting Tehran’s ability to threaten the global economy.
Speaking on Newsmax’s“Saturday Report,” Morris said Trump’s core supporters remain loyal but cautioned that the broader American public may not tolerate the economic pain that could accompany a prolonged confrontation.
“I think the MAGA base has long patience with Donald Trump,” Morris said.
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 