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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Texas = the opposite of Massachusetts

July 19, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Glenn talked about how thrilled he was to be in Texas - especially considering voters appear to be voting on principle not party politics. In Massachusetts, noted liar Elizabeth Warren is somehow still leading in polls despite being caught in the humiliating ‘Cherokee’ fib. It’s a different story in Texas, where voters are going after the GOP establishment. Glenn interviewed candidate Ted Cruz on radio today for an update on his race.

Transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: 150 hours to go before the very first Restoring Love event and that is Freedom Works. Freedom Works is having their Free PAC event and one of the guys who is going to be there is Ted Cruz. He is running for Senate here in Dallas, Texas. And what is the latest poll, Stu?

STU: The last one I saw was Cruz up 5, I believe.

GLENN: Ted Cruz is on the phone with us now. Hi, Ted. Ted, are you there? Ted's not there.

STU: Now he's only up 4 after that.

GLENN: 3, 2 ‑‑

STU: Oh, gosh, it's slipping away.

GLENN: 1. Ted's gone.

STU: David Dewhurst has won. Wow, it happened that first.

GLENN: His internal poll says he's up by 9 points.

STU: Yeah, he had one that he released an internal poll was up 9. Then I think I saw another poll released after that that had him up 5, which was huge. I mean, people ‑‑ this will be one of the biggest upsets in all of this Tea Party stuff that's gone on over the past few years.

GLENN: This is the biggest, this is the biggest one.

PAT: My internal poll, the one in my head has him up by 47 points.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Does it really?

PAT: 47 points.

GLENN: Yeah. Huh.

STU: Wow.

PAT: In fact, he just won. We've just declared Ted Cruz the winner of Texas.

GLENN: I'm so proud of Texas. You know, I feel the opposite of Texas that I do about Massachusetts. I think what's her face, you know, the Indian squaw, what's her name?

STU: Oh, yeah.

PAT: Elizabeth Warren.

STU: Elizabeth Warren.

GLENN: She's winning. She's up in all the polls in Massachusetts.

PAT: She is?

GLENN: Yeah. She's up?

PAT: She's up?

GLENN: Yeah. In Massachusetts.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Massachusetts, you get what you deserve.

PAT: That is unreal.

GLENN: You get what you deserve.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: The difference here is in Texas they are not going to put Dewhurst in. Let me go to Ted Cruz now. Are you there, Ted?

CRUZ: Good morning, Glenn. Great to be with you.

GLENN: What is your ‑‑ what does the average poll say? We know your internal is up 9. We've seen 7 and 8. Do you know what the average is?

CRUZ: Yeah. Our internal poll has us up 9, 49‑40%. There have been two independent polls. One had us up 91/2, the other had us up 5.

GLENN: That would be sweet. What do you attribute this to? Because I saw the ‑‑ I saw the ad. I saw one of the ads against you on television. It's like ‑‑ it was like, "Ted Cruz is a lying liar that lies all the time."

PAT: And he's a lawyer who lies. That's even worse.

GLENN: He's a liar.

PAT: A lying lawyer who lies.

GLENN: I saw one ‑‑ I saw one of the worst attack ads I've ever seen. I didn't even hear it. It was just on and I look up and it was like, "Ted Cruz killed a bunch of people."

PAT: (Laughing.)

GLENN: I don't think that's true.

CRUZ: Look, I mean, it's ‑‑ at the Republican state convention I joked that by the end of this David Dewhurst was going to tell you that I want to eat your children.

PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.

CRUZ: What I didn't understand is that that wasn't a joke. That is, in fact, just how low they're going to stoop. I mean, they are pulling out all of ‑‑ all of the guns. They're flooding the airwaves.

GLENN: Big time.

CRUZ: With false negative attack ads. You know what, I think those, though, are actually rebounding on them and hurting them. People are tired of the lies and the false character attack ads. You know, we've kept our focus on policy, not on ‑‑

GLENN: Can I tell you something? I think that's the secret with Mitt Romney right now, too. Mitt Romney is running a very positive campaign. He's holding his feet to the fire but he's like, "You know..." it's almost like you're dismissing these guys because they really are. It's time for them to be dismissed. Go away. Go away. It doesn't matter what you say. Oh, really? "Yeah, I eat children at night, you know, for dinner as well as snacks. And my wife yells about it all the time." So anyway, thank you for that cute little argument but here's what we're going to do. And it seems to be working.

Let me ask you a tough question. You have described Chief Justice John Roberts as a mentor and a friend.

CRUZ: Right. I have. And which of many tough questions is coming next?

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: How are you feeling about his ruling there?

CRUZ: Look, it is heartbreaking. I was shocked. I was incredibly disappointed. You know, in the debate Tuesday, the moderator asked, knowing what you know now, would you, would you vote to confirm Chief Justice Roberts. And I tell you it was painful that I had to answer, no, I would not. Because I think the Supreme Court's decision, I think the Court abdicated its responsibility.

GLENN: So what led ‑‑ in your opinion you know, you describe him as a friend. There is a story out that he changed it at the last minute and it's well documented. I mean, the whole thing is written as if he is on the other side.

CRUZ: Right.

GLENN: So he changed it at the last minute. They said he came with red eyes, he really looked distraught while this was going on. Kennedy was pissed at him.

CRUZ: Yeah.

GLENN: What do you ‑‑ you know, in your uninformed, or maybe you have information. In your uninformed opinion, speculate a little bit: What do you think happened?

CRUZ: I have no reason to doubt those reports, and unfortunately what I think happened is I think President Obama's threats to the Court worked. And I think what happened was I think he got nervous about the Court striking down ObamaCare and made effectively a political decision ‑‑

PAT: Wow.

CRUZ: ‑‑ not to do so because he thought it would save the credibility of the Court. I think ironically it did exactly the opposite. I think this decision is going to go down in history as a Cravenly political decision and I think it is undermining the credibility of the court.

GLENN: Oh, big time.

CRUZ: Their job is to enforce the Constitution, not to be political players.

PAT: And if that's your opinion of why he did what he did, then you're doing the right thing in saying that you wouldn't vote to confirm him. Based on what you know now. That's what it's all B. It's about upholding the Constitution, not whether or not this Court has, you know, a legacy.

CRUZ: Well, and that's why they're given life tenure is to make decisions that might be politically unpopular. They might be criticized for. That's the entire purpose of life tenure and I think when they worry about the political consequences of the immediate moment and they don't stand up and do their job, it undermines the entire reason we have the Court in the first place.

GLENN: So what part ‑‑ and I'm asking this because I want to know about your character. What part of John Roberts' character would lead you to that conclusion that he made a political decision? What part of his character or what did you see that would make you say, "Yeah, that's probably, that's probably what he did"? Because that's quite a charge to make that a guy who was in the Supreme Court, is a Supreme Court justice, chief justice, would do that.

CRUZ: Look, I mean, I'm not claiming to have had any inkling of this beforehand. I mean, I was shocked at the outcome. It was not something that had entered my mind as remotely a possibility. But, you know, I base that on reading the opinion. The opinion to me reads like a political opinion. The reasoning trying to contort the statutes and turn it into a tax. Listen, I've read a lot of judicial opinions and it's an opinion that's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and the only reasoning that makes sense is it is he was nervous about the outcome if he actually ruled on what was obvious, that it wasn't a tax because they said it wasn't a tax because they weren't willing to pay the political consequences of calling it a tax. And I think, you know, the gymnastics to turn it into something it wasn't, the only explanation I can come up with because a political outcome.

STU: And, of course, it never would have passed if it was called a tax, which makes it that much more frustrating. Let me ‑‑ go ahead.

CRUZ: And that's where the Constitution where the framers knew what they were doing. There's a reason taxes are treated differently. When politicians vote for taxes, they tend to get thrown out of office. And the framers understood passing taxes aren't popular and if congress can pass something, not call it a tax and let the Court magically turn it into a tax, that removes one of the most significant constraints on government power there is.

GLENN: Wow, I never thought of it that way.

STU: And that, you want to talk about judicial activism.

GLENN: Yeah, that is.

STU: That is the ultimate. I mean, he changed the actual bill. It's like he changed the text of it retroactively to make it constitutional. I mean, it's just ‑‑

CRUZ: Right, right.

STU: I could whine about that all day. Let me ask you, Ted, about illegal immigration for a second. You ‑‑ there's a story in the, I believe it was the Houston Chronicle that cited a speech from David Dewhurst in which he seemed to back amnesty. What happened the next day on David Dewhurst's website.

CRUZ: No, that's exactly right. So to back up a little bit, in the first televised debate we had in the runoff, Dewhurst looked in the cameras and told everyone he did not support amnesty, he has never backed amnesty, never backed the guest worker program. The next day the Chronicle broke the story that in 2007 he had given a speech where he called for amnesty for every single illegal alien currently in the United States today. And what was astonishing is the Dewhurst amnesty program was broader than Barack Obama's amnesty program. Obama's amnesty just extends to kids who came here illegally. Dewhurst wanted to give a guest worker program to every single person illegally in this country today. And the source of this was the written text of a speech he had given that was on his official lieutenant governor website. So when this broke, obviously a lot of reporters began calling, began looking at the story. And several days later Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst ordered the stay employees who maintain the website to take his speech down, to delete it and, in fact, to delete every speech he had ever given as lieutenant governor. And, you know, it strikes me as remarkable that he is literally trying to whitewash his record and delete his record.

PAT: Wow.

CRUZ: Because he wants to hide from the fact that he advanced an amnesty program broader than Barack Obama's.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: The election is next week. I know you're going to be at Free PAC.

CRUZ: Yes.

GLENN: This, a week from Thursday ‑‑ I'm sorry. It's not next week. It's a week from, is it Tuesday?

PAT: Yeah.

CRUZ: Well, it's actually both.

PAT: The 31st.

CRUZ: So early voting in Texas starts on Monday of next week, and all next week Monday through Friday is early voting. So any Texan can vote any day next week and then election day itself is the next Tuesday, July 31st. And I'll tell you, to win we've got to do two things: One, we need conservatives to show up. I would ask every one of your listeners in Texas please, please, please come out and early vote next week or vote on the and Ist. But number two, Dewhurst is running millions of dollars of false character attack. We desperately need to raise the money to stay on TV. I'll tell you every time you've had me on the radio, hundreds of your listeners have gone to TedCruz.org, have contributed, hundreds of Texans and hundreds of conservatives nationally because every penny we raise goes to being up on television and radio to respond to these attacks. And we're leading statewide but if he's able to dump millions in attacks and we can't respond, what he wants to do is buy this race and I think that would be very, very dangerous and we desperately need the funding to respond.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you this: This race is probably the biggest sign of the Tea Party's power and the freedom movement. And if Texas can't do it, nobody can do it. Ted, best of luck and we'll see you next week at Free PAC.

CRUZ: I look forward to it. And thank you for your incredible support, Glenn. And you know what? You're right. If we win, the national headlines will be the Tea Party is transforming the country. And if we lose, every reporter will point to it as proof that the Tea Party is dead and it will hurt lovers of liberty across the country.

GLENN: Big time.

CRUZ: So I am pleased to stand shoulder to shoulder with you and lovers of liberty across Texas and across the country.

GLENN: All right.

Bill Gates ends climate fear campaign, declares AI the future ruler

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.