Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn interviews Ted Nugent on radio

April 26, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Ted Nugent joined Glenn on radio to discuss some of the ridiculous regulations that have overtaken then country. Nugent explained an incident from a hunting trip in Alaska that gave him some legal trouble - nearly resulting in him being charged with a felony. Watch the clip above, and tune into GBTV tonight at 5pm for more on this story!

Full Transcript Below:

GLENN: Turn that hippie rock‑and‑roll music down. It's too loud. Ted Nugent is with us. He's on tour in Los Angeles. Are you still in Los Angeles? Didn't you have something happen in Los Angeles yesterday, Ted?

NUGENT: Oh, something happens every minute of every day but, yes, it happens in Los Angeles, too. I'm shooting .50‑caliber sniper rifles in Los Angeles legally, 100% legal.

GLENN: Really?

NUGENT: We went up to the hills, up to the Oak Tree Shooting Range to test out some new ammo that I'm creating and just hanging with the SWAT guys and with a bunch of commandos of law enforcement and military, and Mrs. Nugent and I were shooting large caliber weapons getting ready for real rock‑and‑roll excitement.

GLENN: Okay. So Ted, tonight you're going to be on the program and we're going to go into detail about what this government tried to do to you over the last, the last few and what you ‑‑ what you've just signed. You want to get into what you've just signed and then we can talk tonight about what the government did to you?

NUGENT: You bet. Bottom line is I've been hunting all my life, Glenn. My mom and dad raised me to be 100% legal, law‑abiding, respect law enforcement and to be in the asset column of life, to use my heart and soul to think and be conscientious about how I conduct myself. And now as a perfect human being, I've stumbled perfectly over the years on occasion, but at the tender age of 63, I don't stumble anymore. I really put my heart and soul, especially as a representative of the honorable hunting outdoor lifestyle and the gun owners of this country and people who celebrate the U.S. Constitution that is enforced and supported at such great sacrifice by the heroes of the military. That being said, I stumbled in Alaska. There was a new law that it's very important to note that I wasn't the only one that had never heard of it. We can't find anybody that ever heard of this new unprecedented law that if your arrow or bullet shows sign of nicking or touching an animal that your big game tag is null and void, including the resident judge in the courtroom who's lived in the only zone where this law exists. He said on record during the court proceedings that he had never heard of the law, and he deals with law enforcement and wild game enforcement all the time.

My attorney has been a lifetime licensed guide and outfitter in Alaska, a lifetime hunter in Alaska. He never heard of the law. That notwithstanding, I have by all information been the first and only person ever charged with this. The State of Alaska was not interested in charging me, but the federal government was.

GLENN: Now, it's very interesting because this has been going on for how long? I'm trying to remember. A year, year and a half?

NUGENT: Well, I ‑‑ the bear hunt in question took place with my sons in the Prince of Wales Island in 2009. Remember, Glenn, I've been hunting in Alaska since 1977 and the law has always been the same, that when you take possession of your animal, you apply your tag. That's the universal law.

GLENN: Sure.

NUGENT: Since the early 1900s.

GLENN: It's like ‑‑ it would be like if you're going fishing and you caught a fish and it got away, you wouldn't count that as one of the fish you caught.

NUGENT: That's it in a nutshell, yes, sir.

GLENN: I mean, it's ridiculous.

NUGENT: It really is. And I've got to tell you, they gave me the ultimatum the day after I endorsed Mitt Romney and this has been ongoing now in the California, I've got to tell you the California no‑contest plea I gave, I'm going to write a piece that's going to tell you about the horror story, the unprecedented horror story. Once again the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service.

Now, if some U.S. Fish and Wildlife service are getting angry at me, that would be guilt, you're guilty of corruption and abuse of power. I'm not talking about good agents. I'm not talking about agents who abide by their oath to the U.S. Constitution and follow the letter of the law, including the Fourth Amendment. I'm talking about jackbooted thugs who are kicking down doors predawn, guns drawn over a charge that there might have been, quote, feed within 450 yards of my tree stand bow hunting for deer in California, Glenn.

GLENN: This is crazy. Now listen ‑‑

NUGENT: Which carries the weight of a jaywalking ticket, by the way.

GLENN: I want you to know they threatened to charge, may I say?

NUGENT: Yes. My friend Mitch Moore.

GLENN: I was going to say that what they threatened to charge you in Alaska.

NUGENT: Oh, in Alaska. Felonies.

GLENN: Felony.

NUGENT: Felony.

GLENN: Felony.

NUGENT: Felony. The Lasiak was first designed many years ago to stop the illegal importation of endangered species. I supported it 100%. But now the Lasiak is being used to charge innocent young men and women who abided by every game law ‑‑ get this ‑‑ for shooting a deer with all the right licenses during the right season with the right equipment but because they used the wrong broad head, a broad head, by the way, which is the number one selling broad head on planet Earth that is legal everywhere except two states and they shoot their deer, proper licenses, proper tags, bring it home and they're charged with felonies equal to armed robbery and rape and murder.

GLENN: Yeah. And going to jail. Now ‑‑

NUGENT: Yes.

GLENN: Now, you lose your right to have a gun forever.

NUGENT: Yes.

GLENN: You go to prison.

NUGENT: To vote.

GLENN: Right. You lose everything.

NUGENT: You become ‑‑ it's just like, let me ‑‑ can I have just 60 seconds ‑‑

GLENN: Yeah.

NUGENT: ‑‑ to make an analogy that no one will fail to grasp? In Michigan they are slaughtering law‑abiding innocent farmers' livestock based on fraudulent terms, claiming they're feral and invasive when everyone on planet Earth knows that livestock within a confined pen or corral or fenced area, it can't be feral or invasive by any stretch of those terms. But they call them feral and invasive and they're destroying private property.

Now Glenn, if you had a lever action 30.30 and all of a sudden the federal government went, "We're now calling lever action 30.30 rifles machine guns. We're going to call them machine guns and we're coming to get them." They can call anything what they want. They're destroying animals that are not feral and not invasive. They're calling them things they're not. It's a lie.

GLENN: So in other words, in case you don't know feral means basically they're wild.

NUGENT: Yeah, feral means the animals have escaped.

GLENN: If they're in a pen ‑‑

NUGENT: They're not escaped.

GLENN: ‑‑ they can't be feral.

NUGENT: But they're enforcing this with guns, Glenn.

GLENN: Now Ted, there's so much more to talk about tonight, but I want to tell you something that I found. I've been reading a lot of stuff from the Communist Manifesto and early communism because you're dealing with a lot of Marxists in this government now, and one of the things they have to do is seize or destroy the property of rebels. And I thought, you know, who, who are the strongest people against this president and they would be the ones in the red states. And the red states, those are farmers and hunters.

NUGENT: Yes.

GLENN: I really truly believe ‑‑ I know why you were targeted. I mean, you were targeted and run through the wringer, and you're not my only friend that this has happened to. And I don't mean just for hunting. I mean for other things. I have had friends who are some of the most honorable men I know. I mean, I about blew my stack on Monday when I came back from the NRA and I heard what they were doing to you and you had to meet with the Secret Service. I blew my stack on the air and ‑‑

NUGENT: A stack blower.

GLENN: And I said, because I know who Ted Nugent is. I know. And I was so angry about it because not only is it Ted Nugent, it's other friends of mine who are being put through the wringer the same way. And they are ‑‑ they are being bullied, they are being threatened with prison time, they are being threatened, "Confess, confess, confess." And they're like, I didn't do anything wrong.

NUGENT: Yep.

GLENN: And in your case you did but it ‑‑ when was that law put in?

NUGENT: That law was enacted in 2004‑2005, and it's only in the Prince of Wales Southeast Alaska area has this law ever existed. Remember the judge that lives there never heard of it.

GLENN: So nobody's ever been charged with it.

NUGENT: No one's ever been.

GLENN: And how is it that the federal government, that the judge didn't know about it but the federal government knew about it and nailed you on it.

NUGENT: Because the federal government for a long, long time has been trying, increasing the net of felonies, what qualifies as a felony. Do you know that the humane society of the United States somehow convinced some soulless people in Pennsylvania that killing a deer illegally is now a felon, a felony. A felony.

GLENN: Can you talk about ‑‑

NUGENT: Now, I'm all for management of wildlife, I think you should stop poaching, I think you have to abide by the law. Even the goofy laws. Until you change a goofy law, you have to abide by it. But some of these laws are indescribably bizarre and illogical.

GLENN: You describe one more law, I've got to go in about a minute, but describe one more thing that is happening on your ranch here in Texas that is not, it's not illogical. It is ‑‑ it's inhumane.

NUGENT: Yes. I ‑‑ the scimitar‑horned oryx was brought to Texas landowners, private land, many years ago because it's a magnificent animal and it was endangered in Africa. It is no longer endangered. We put a value on it where we harvest the surplus bulls and we went from like 1200 to 20,000‑something oryx, more than stabilizing the herd because they're valuable to landowners. The federal government sided with an animal rights maniac to ban the hunting. I have to get federal permits to touch my thriving, growing, healthy heard of oryx. There was a ‑‑

GLENN: And if you leave them alone, if you leave them alone, it's like bunny rabbits. They will overrun everything.

NUGENT: They will eat everything and all life will cease. It will be a moonscape.

GLENN: Okay.

NUGENT: That's why the annual season of harvest is a stewardship duty. So I have a crippled calf oryx that has three legs that is all gaunt and my wife and I are watching it slowly die. But if I were to do the right thing and dispatch this animal, put it out of its misery, I would be a felon, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay. So we have people, we have people in this administration that are actually making the case that you should put a human down, a baby down if they're deformed, if they have any kind of handicap, if they don't have any quality of life, they should be killed; but you can't do it to an oryx.

NUGENT: It's unbelievable. My brain won't accept this vile abuse of power. We've got to take this country back. And I've got to tell you, Glenn, I'm walking the streets of Los Angeles. You wouldn't think it's Ted Nugent country but, my goodness, the support you have out here for blowing the whistle. You're doing We the people, freedom of the press, First Amendment duties, and the supportive out here is unbelievable. Everywhere, Glenn, every cop, every family, every person walking the street, the spiked‑hair, pierced‑ear guy, everybody says, "Go, Ted, we support you. Thank you for standing up for common sense." I've never seen anything like it, Glenn.

GLENN: Well, you won't find that at CNN. Or the administration.

NUGENT: Oh, but when I bring it to Piers Morgan or CNN, my buddy, I can't even think of his name, Anderson Cooper, believe me, when I bring it, their ratings are representative of common sense, I promise you that.

STU: (Laughing).

GLENN: Ted Nugent, we'll talk to you tonight at 5:00 and there's so much more to tell of this story. Thank you very much

NUGENT: God speed, Glenn. You guys are doing God's work. I'm with you.

GLENN: All right. Talk to you later.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Exposed: The radical Left's bloody rampage against America

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

For years, the media warned of right-wing terror. But the bullets, bombs, and body bags are piling up on the left — with support from Democrat leaders and voters.

For decades, the media and federal agencies have warned Americans that the greatest threat to our homeland is the political right — gun-owning veterans, conservative Christians, anyone who ever voted for President Donald Trump. President Joe Biden once declared that white supremacy is “the single most dangerous terrorist threat” in the nation.

Since Trump’s re-election, the rhetoric has only escalated. Outlets like the Washington Post and the Guardian warned that his second term would trigger a wave of far-right violence.

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing.

They were wrong.

The real domestic threat isn’t coming from MAGA grandmas or rifle-toting red-staters. It’s coming from the radical left — the anarchists, the Marxists, the pro-Palestinian militants, and the anti-American agitators who have declared war on law enforcement, elected officials, and civil society.

Willful blindness

On July 4, a group of black-clad terrorists ambushed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Alvarado, Texas. They hurled fireworks at the building, spray-painted graffiti, and then opened fire on responding law enforcement, shooting a local officer in the neck. Journalist Andy Ngo has linked the attackers to an Antifa cell in the Dallas area.

Authorities have so far charged 14 people in the plot and recovered AR-style rifles, body armor, Kevlar vests, helmets, tactical gloves, and radios. According to the Department of Justice, this was a “planned ambush with intent to kill.”

And it wasn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a growing pattern of continuous violent left-wing incidents since December last year.

Monthly attacks

Most notably, in December 2024, 26-year-old Luigi Mangione allegedly gunned down UnitedHealth Group CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan. Mangione reportedly left a manifesto raging against the American health care system and was glorified by some on social media as a kind of modern Robin Hood.

One Emerson College poll found that 41% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 said the murder was “acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.”

The next month, a man carrying Molotov cocktails was arrested near the U.S. Capitol. He allegedly planned to assassinate Trump-appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In February, the “Tesla Takedown” attacks on Tesla vehicles and dealerships started picking up traction.

In March, a self-described “queer scientist” was arrested after allegedly firebombing the Republican Party headquarters in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Graffiti on the burned building read “ICE = KKK.”

In April, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s (D-Pa.) official residence was firebombed on Passover night. The suspect allegedly set the governor’s mansion on fire because of what Shapiro, who is Jewish, “wants to do to the Palestinian people.”

In May, two young Israeli embassy staffers were shot and killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Witnesses said the shooter shouted “Free Palestine” as he was being arrested. The suspect told police he acted “for Gaza” and was reportedly linked to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

In June, an Egyptian national who had entered the U.S. illegally allegedly threw a firebomb at a peaceful pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado. Eight people were hospitalized, and an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor later died from her injuries.

That same month, a pro-Palestinian rioter in New York was arrested for allegedly setting fire to 11 police vehicles. In Los Angeles, anti-ICE rioters smashed cars, set fires, and hurled rocks at law enforcement. House Democrats refused to condemn the violence.

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

In Portland, Oregon, rioters tried to burn down another ICE facility and assaulted police officers before being dispersed with tear gas. Graffiti left behind read: “Kill your masters.”

On July 7, a Michigan man opened fire on a Customs and Border Protection facility in McAllen, Texas, wounding two police officers and an agent. Border agents returned fire, killing the suspect.

Days later in California, ICE officers conducting a raid on an illegal cannabis farm in Ventura County were attacked by left-wing activists. One protester appeared to fire at federal agents.

This is not a series of isolated incidents. It’s a timeline of escalation. Political assassinations, firebombings, arson, ambushes — all carried out in the name of radical leftist ideology.

Democrats are radicalizing

This isn’t just the work of fringe agitators. It’s being enabled — and in many cases encouraged — by elected Democrats.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz routinely calls ICE “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass attempted to block an ICE operation in her city. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu compared ICE agents to a neo-Nazi group. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson referred to them as “secret police terrorizing our communities.”

Apparently, other Democratic lawmakers, according to Axios, are privately troubled by their own base. One unnamed House Democrat admitted that supporters were urging members to escalate further: “Some of them have suggested what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.” Others were demanding blood in the streets to get the media’s attention.

A study from Rutgers University and the National Contagion Research Institute found that 55% of Americans who identify as “left of center” believe that murdering Donald Trump would be at least “somewhat justified.”

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing. They don’t want the chaos to stop. They want to harness it, normalize it, and weaponize it.

The truth is, this isn’t just about ICE. It’s not even about Trump. It’s about whether a republic can survive when one major party decides that our institutions no longer apply.

Truth still matters. Law and order still matter. And if the left refuses to defend them, then we must be the ones who do.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.