The Biggest Threat To Our Country Is Inside Our Borders

When Donald Trump announced that he was running for President in 2016, he opened his announcement speech by insulting his opponents because they “sweat like dogs,” which was great. Then he moved on to the central thesis of his entire campaign and subsequent presidency: foreign countries are “laughing at us at our stupidity” and “the United States has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.”

Just a few minutes later he recalled his opposition to the war on Iraq, which he opposed because he believed it would “totally destabilize the Middle East.” He then went on to promise that he would “stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.”

Six months later, after two radicalized Muslims committed a mass shooting in California, Trump announced a new policy: he called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

At a debate in Greenville, South Carolina in February 2016, a moderator asked Trump if he stood by his opposition to the War in Iraq.

This is what he said:

…obviously the war in Iraq was a big fat mistake all right … they lied they said there were weapons of mass destruction there were none and they knew there were none there were no weapons of mass destruction.

…if you listen to him and you listen listen to some of the folks that I’ve been listening to that’s why we’ve been in the Middle East for 15 years and we haven’t won anything we’ve spent 5 trillion dollars in the Middle East because of thinking like that. We’ve spent five… Lindsay Graham. Graham who backs him who had zero on his polls let me just tell you something we’ve spent we’ve spent we’ve spent I only tell the truth lobbyists we’ve spent $5 trillion all over the middle… we have to rebuild our country we have to rebuild our infrastructure you listen to that you’re going to be there for another 15. 

His campaign was, to put it mildly, truly “America first.” Trump won his election by running a campaign focused on advancing the interests of America. 

Now, with the advent of war in Iran, many of us are asking an obvious question: why are we doing this? Does this benefit our own country first and foremost? The administration struggled with the question for days until last night when Marco Rubio finally gave a clear and straight forward answer:

.@SecRubio: “The president made the very wise decision—we knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we… pic.twitter.com/Jp5rqpRH4T

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) March 2, 2026

Source: @RapidResponse47/X.com

It would be hard to imagine a worse line of reasoning that could be offered at a time like this. Americans were wondering why, exactly, we’re suddenly engaged in a war with Iran. We wanted to hear a compelling explanation that would justify the cost of the war — including the loss of American lives. And instead, we’re told that Israel forced our hand. To be fair the administration has since tried to walk this back, saying it was taken out of context. But the clip we just played was a clip posted by the white house to their social media feeds. And he said what he said. There’s no way around it.

This was not a one-off comment, either. Shortly afterwards, the Speaker of the House said basically the same thing.

Speaker Johnson says Israel was ready to attack Iran and that if Israel attacked, Iran would retaliate against US personnel based in the Middle East.

“You can assume, because it’s common sense, that if Iran had fired its missile arsenal, we would’ve suffered staggering losses.” pic.twitter.com/m0RbO5WR5O

— The American Conservative (@amconmag) March 2, 2026

Source: @amconmag/X.com

With that in mind, here’s some reporting from the New York Times on the lead-up to the war in Iran. Normally, of course, we wouldn’t even bother talking about coverage in the New York Times, which is one of the least reliable news outlets on the planet. But in this case, it’s worth reading, because everything the Times is saying completely matches what Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson are saying publicly. So there is legitimate reason to think that this is true, or some version of it is true:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel walked into the Oval Office on the morning of Feb. 11, determined to keep the American president on the path to war. For weeks, the United States and Israel had been secretly discussing a military offensive against Iran. But Trump administration officials had recently begun negotiating with the Iranians over the future of their nuclear program, and the Israeli leader wanted to make sure that the new diplomatic effort did not undermine the plans.  .. Two weeks later, the president took the United States to war. … Behind the scenes, his move toward war grew inexorably, fueled by allies like Mr. Netanyahu who pushed the president to strike a decisive blow against Iran’s theocratic government; and by Mr. Trump’s own confidence after the successful U.S. operation that toppled the Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January.

The article continues:

There were few voices lobbying against military action. One exception was Tucker Carlson, the right-wing podcaster and close ally of the president, who has met with him in the Oval Office three times in the past month to argue against an attack. … The president said he understood the risks of an attack, but he conveyed to Mr. Carlson that he had no choice but to join a strike that Israel would launch..

Everything about this reporting is consistent with what we’re now hearing from senior Republicans, including Republicans in the Trump administration. Israel is leading the charge.

And by the way, this is nothing new.

According to a memoir written by the U.S. diplomat Aaron David Miller, in 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu visited Bill Clinton in Washington. Netanyahu was the prime minister of Israel at the time, which is the same job he has today. And after Netanyahu lectured Clinton long enough, Clinton became exasperated and told his aides, “Who the f—- does he think he is? Who’s the f—-ing superpower here?'”

This is how Netanyahu comes across in private, apparently. But in public, he’s a very different character.

Last night, Netanyahu appeared for an exclusive interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity. President Trump promoted this interview on Truth Social, and frankly the timing could not have been worse. Just hours after Marco Rubio says that Israel dragged us into a war, the president tells everyone to listen to Israel’s prime minister explain why we’re at war.

Here’s what Netanyahu told Hannity:

NEW: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tells @seanhannity that Iran’s “ballistic missile program and atomic bomb program” would have soon been “immune” to attack without Operation Epic Fury: “Action had to be taken, and you needed the resolute President like Donald J.… pic.twitter.com/YGJysdeFl1

— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 3, 2026

Source: @FoxNews/X.com

A couple of things to note here. First of all, Netanyahu keeps talking about how “America” is supposedly at risk of an imminent attack by Iran. He doesn’t even mention “Israel,” for the most part. But obviously, that’s his main concern. When it comes to Iran, a devastating attack on Israel is far more likely than a devastating attack on the United States. But in this interview, Netanyahu knows his audience. He knows he has to talk about the alleged threats facing America.

But wait a minute. What threat did Iran pose to America? In this interview, Netanyahu makes the case that Iran was months away from making their nuclear weapons program effectively invincible. But that contradicts what the White House said last summer, when they repeatedly claimed that Iran’s nuclear weapons program had been “obliterated.”

On top of that, Netanyahu’s comments contradict what Ted Cruz said on “Face the Nation” just two days ago. The White House has stated that Cruz received a briefing and was functioning as a White House surrogate.

And here’s what Cruz said:

Ted Cruz claims that there is no intelligence indicating that Iran is anywhere close to having a nuclear weapon

Can we get even a basic coherent message on the war we are actively engaged in?pic.twitter.com/55v2DgqS6A

— Auron MacIntyre (@AuronMacintyre) March 1, 2026

Source: @AuronMacintyre/X.com

Cruz states, “I don’t have present-day intelligence on what progress they’ve made towards rebuilding nuclear weapons since we bombed their facilities. I have no indications they were anywhere close to getting nuclear weapons.”

This is a problem. It’s a glaring inconsistency. Cruz could have said that, according to the latest intelligence, Iran was months away from developing an invincible nuclear weapons program. But Ted Cruz didn’t say that. So why is Israel saying that?

In response to one of my posts on X — where I asked for a clear explanation outlining the case for attacking Iran — the White House press secretary offered this response. It’s part of a much larger response, which you can go read on my feed.

As to the nuclear weapons question, it was a different explanation.

While Operation Midnight Hammer did obliterate Iran’s major nuclear sites, the regime was fully committed to rebuilding their nuclear program, and they REFUSED to make a deal, despite months of extensive talks and good faith efforts by President Trump’s top negotiators.

So wait a minute. They were “fully committed to rebuilding their nuclear program.” I can believe that. But how close were they? Were they months away from the invincible bunkers or not?

The press secretary wouldn’t say. But U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff spoke to Hannity last night, and he provided yet another version of events. He was negotiating with Iran, before strikes began. And what he said, undeniably, contradicts the remarks from White House surrogate Ted Cruz. It also differs substantially from the implication of the press secretary’s post on X. 

Watch:

Steve Witkoff:

Let me say this, because I forgot this small little detail.

In that first meeting, both the Iranian negotiators said to us directly, with no shame, that they controlled 460 kilograms of 60% and they’re aware that that could make 11 nuclear bombs, and that was the… pic.twitter.com/cT9VAfv8PD

— Clash Report (@clashreport) March 3, 2026

Source: @clashreport/X.com

So in the very first meeting, the Iranian negotiators said that they could make 11 nuclear bombs, with the material they currently controlled. We aren’t told how quickly Iran could make those bombs, but right away, that’s very alarming. Why hasn’t anyone else mentioned this? Why didn’t Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or the White House press secretary mention it? Why are we learning this very important fact — or alleged fact — in an off-hand comment during a Hannity interview?

Every day we spend trying to untangle this mess — and trying to make sense of what our elected officials are saying — we’re running the risk of repeating the exact same mistake that the Bush administration did. We’re setting ourselves up for the same result: A quagmire overseas, while our domestic security collapses around us. We cannot end up with a situation where we’re fighting Muslim terrorists overseas, while hordes of anti-American Muslims continue to stream into the United States. Which is basically the story of America in the 21st century up to now.

That’s a story worth talking about, whether you agree with this operation in Iran or not. It’s been argued that this war in Iran is really about Russia and China — asserting our dominance on the global stage against our chief rivals. That would be an entirely different justification than the four or five other reasons we’ve been presented, but regardless, dominance on the world stage is fairly meaningless if our sovereignty is destroyed at home. The border is now closed, which is a massive victory, but we are still sitting at the end of 25 years of unchecked migration, legal and not, mostly from the third world.

If you look at the history of Muslim migration to the United States, and how quickly our demographics have changed, you begin to realize how dire this problem is. The Iranian-born population in the United States roughly doubled from 1980 to 1990, largely as a result of refugees from the Iran-Iraq War. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of new Iranians in the United States.

Meanwhile something like 150,000 Iraqi refugees settled in the United States post-2007. Another 150,000 came from Bangladesh, mostly from diversity lotteries. Around 100,000 Afghans arrived in the United States in 2021 alone. We took in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees during the Obama administration. Around a quarter-million Pakistanis have received legal permanent resident status in the past two decades. And hundreds of thousands of Somalis have entered the United States since 2000 — despite the fact that Somalis brutally murdered American soldiers who were trying to help address their food shortages in 1993, depicted in the movie “Black Hawk Down”, and despite the fact that Somalis routinely engaged in acts of piracy against the United States in the 21st century.

That last point deserves some emphasis. In 2009, Somali pirates seized a U.S./Danish cargo ship called the Maersk Alabama, around 240 nautical miles southeast of Somalia. It was the first time since the 19th century that pirates seized a ship that was registered under the U.S flag. You might have seen the Tom Hanks movie about this incident, called “Captain Phillips.”

Two years later, in February of 2011, Somali pirates seized an American yacht and four American citizens. SEAL Team Six Gold Squadron attempted to free the hostages, but all of them were shot to death by their captors. And there have been several other incidents where Somali pirates have fired on U.S. warships, apparently because they mistook them for trading vessels. (Those attempts didn’t end well for the Somalis).

This is the culture that we’ve been importing, in massive numbers, to states like Minnesota and Ohio. These are people who still see piracy — a barbarian pastime that peaked many centuries ago — as a viable career path in the 21st century. They slaughter our troops and parade them like animals. And we invite them into the United States and shower them with stolen tax money. And then, when a majority of Americans vote to get these people out of our country, our leaders essentially back down, or heavily moderate, because Leftist whiners (mostly women) became hysterical.

In 1920, according to Pew, we had something like 50,000 Muslims in the country, tops. By 1970, that number had risen to 200,000. By 1990, we were up to 1,000,000 Muslims.

In 2000, just before the beginning of the War on Terror, there were around 2 million Muslims in the United States. Now we’re around 3.5 to 4 million — roughly double.

Put another way, most Muslims living in the United States arrived in this country after 9/11. Something like 60% of our Muslim population is foreign born. And they’re much younger than the typical American.

If you’re the cynical type, you might suspect that all of this migration is related to the Patriot Act, and the mass surveillance regime that both parties implemented after 9/11. After all, if you flood the country with Muslims, you’ll have no shortage of “investigations” and “wiretaps” to conduct. That’s a guarantee. So maybe all of this migration was a way to facilitate the growth of the surveillance state, and the gradual eradication of civil liberties in the United States.

More likely, all of this migration is part of the larger effort to dilute the votes of American citizens by replacing us with foreigners who despise the United States. Whatever the case, the top priority of this administration should be to reverse this catastrophic and deliberate effort to fundamentally alter the demographics of this country. This is the top national security threat we face. It’s not even close.

Even if you support the current war in Iran, you should be on board with this. Every single one of these third-world foreigners is a clear and present danger to the lives of American citizens — particularly when we’re going to war with a Muslim nation. Just the other day, according to prosecutors, an illegal alien from Sierra Leone named “Abdul Jalloh” murdered a white woman named Stephanie Minter at a bus stop on Richmond Highway in Fairfax County. 

Source: Dignity Memorial/NY Post

Supposedly, this is one of the “nicer” areas of the country. But lately, Northern Virginia has been overrun with foreigners, particularly Muslims.. So now, residents have to contend with brutal stabbings with no apparent motive.

Source: Fairfax County Police/NY Post

The alleged killer, according to the New York Post, “entered the US illegally from Sierra Leone in 2012 and had an ICE detainer lodged against him in 2020 — with a judge granting him a final order of removal to a country other than Sierra Leone, DHS said in a statement.  The accused killer has been arrested more than 30 times for a laundry list of offenses, including rape, malicious wounding, assault, drug possession, identity theft, trespassing, larceny, firing a weapon, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and pickpocketing.”

But none of this — the illegal entry, the 30 crimes, the order of removal — resulted in this barbarian being deported. Actually, 30 crimes is understating it. According to the local ABC affiliate, he has more than 40 crimes on his record. And in every case except one, the Fairfax County DA dropped all charges. 

Watch:

Local ABC affiliate reports that an illegal immigrant from Sierra Leone who murdered a woman at a bus stop had over 40 previous charges (including rape), but Fairfax County prosecutor Steve Descano dropped the charges in almost all of those cases.

pic.twitter.com/hjXj43xUHz

— AG (@AGHamilton29) March 3, 2026

Source: @AGHamilton29/X.com

Source: Fairfax County, VA

That’s Steve Descano. According to the American Enterprise Institute: 

“Descano is in office because of left-wing billionaire George Soros. … Descano raised about $1 million between the primary and the general election, a shocking amount for a downballot county race. About two-thirds of his cash came from two Soros-funded organizations, the Justice and Public Safety PAC and the New Virginia Majority PAC. … Descano also tried to single-handedly turn Fairfax County into something a sanctuary county: “Wherever possible,” Descano’s website declared, “Steve will make charging and plea decisions that limit or avoid immigration consequences.'”

That’s why he won’t charge illegal aliens when they commit 40 crimes. He doesn’t want them to be deported. He’s wants violent criminals to remain in this country, roaming free, where they can brutally murder random Americans they come across. The mission of George Soros and his prosecutors is to spring barbarians loose, so that Americans are slaughtered. It happened to Iryna Zarutska. It happened to Stephanie Minter. It happened to the victims of the mass shooting in Austin — a 30-year-old man, a 19-year-old man, and a 21-year-old woman. And it will continue to happen, whether or not we achieve our objectives in Iran — objectives that, to this day, no one can really articular.

As it stands, this is the status quo you’re expected to accept: We can terminate the Supreme Leader of Iran, despite all of his security and paranoia and power. But we can’t deport Somali fraudsters in Minneapolis. We can’t denaturalize scammers and grifters who openly declare, for the world to see, that they despise the United States and seek to destroy it. We can’t get gangster thugs and illegal aliens like Kilmar Abregio Garcia out of the country, without ten different female judges — all of them with foreign last names — issuing an immediate nationwide injunction. We can’t imprison the insurance executives who are ripping off Medicaid by sending massive payouts to fake “autism treatment clinics” and “lear-ing centers” — while keeping a cut for themselves. None of that’s possible, apparently. We can eliminate a threat thousands of miles away — a threat that’s supposedly urgent — but we can’t do anything about the clear and obvious threats that are living in this country right now.  Apparently, all it takes is some low-testosterone schizophrenic fighting with Border Patrol while armed with a handgun, along with an unemployed lesbian extremist driving an SUV directly at a federal agent, to completely derail immigration enforcement within our borders.

For the past several months, I’ve been told continuously that we can’t actually do mass deportations (much less mass denaturalizations) because it’s impractical, expensive, politically unpopular, and risky. Deporting illegal immigrants who haven’t committed additional crimes — who have no criminal record aside from coming here illegally — is especially fraught, I’m told. That was the argument I heard when Los Angeles burned, and Trump had to send in the National Guard. It was the argument I heard when ICE was forced to flee Minneapolis. Maybe there’s some truth to it. Maybe mass deportations and mass denaturalizations are impractical, expensive, politically unpopular, and risky. I can’t say for sure that a deportation operation targeting all illegal aliens, at the kind of scale we need, wouldn’t result in massive backlash from the electorate. I think those fears are overblown, but maybe they aren’t.

Well, Mr. President, the war in Iran is also impractical, expensive, politically unpopular, and risky. That in and of itself doesn’t mean it’s wrong. And I acknowledge that it’s your call to make in the end. You are the commander-in-chief after all. But if we’re going to do something drastic and explosive and unpopular thousands of miles from home, why can’t we do it here too?

That’s the question your base is asking. If we’re going to give a major prize to the donors and pundit class — people who hated you and tried to undermine you the entire way, people who oppose your domestic agenda and want you to be impeached and imprisoned — if we’re going to reward them, then will you also reward your America first base?

Will you bring back the Muslim ban? Restart workplace raids? Suspend the legal immigration system?

Will you strip citizenship from paper Americans who use the word “they” when they describe the country?

Strip citizenships from “Americans” who can’t even speak English and don’t respect our laws?

Will you finish the big beautiful border wall?

You can capture Maduro and kill the Ayatollah — both impressive feats, even if I’m skeptical of the objectives and downstream effects related to the latter.

But if you can do all of that, then I ask you — we ask you — will you finish the thing you set out to achieve: will you make America great again?