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

Jason Chaffetz announces run for Speaker of the House

October 06, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz joined Glenn on radio Tuesday to share why he wants to run for Speaker of the House.

Glenn introduced Chaffetz as a good friend who he hasn't had a chance to catch up with for quite some time.

"I've kind of lost track of Jason and what he's been up to lately," Glenn said. "We wanted to talk to him firsthand and hear his case."

Listen to the exchange or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Congressman Jason Chaffetz. He's from Utah. He's a guy who actually sleeps at his office. He's been -- when he was at Fox. He was one of the refounders. He was a guy who was right there on the front lines and has been working hard to change the way things are done in America. Has been a good time -- or good time? Good time friend. A long-time friend and a good friend for quite some time. We haven't -- we haven't had a chance to catch up with each other for I don't know how long. So I've kind of lost track of Jason and what he's been up to lately. But I saw he was announcing he wanted to be Speaker of the House. And we wanted to talk to him firsthand and hear his case.

Hi, Jason, how are you, sir?

JASON: Hey, Glenn. Glad to be with you.

GLENN: Good. Tell me, you've decided to run for Speaker of the House. A, is this real? I'm not putting you in this category. I hear some people are doing it just to get their name out, et cetera. Et cetera. Is this real, and why do you want it?

JASON: You know what, it's time for a fresh start. And when John Boehner was up last time, nobody ran against him. And I thought, "Shame on us." There should be choices. You're either part of the solution, or you're part of the problem. And so I think if I got better, smarter way to do it, I should throw my name in the bucket. And, you know, guys like me who are underdogs, there's no way we're supposed to be able to do this. But, gosh, you can't win if you don't try. So I'm throwing it all out here. I don't plan to be in Congress for very long. But when I'm here, I'm going to give it everything I got.

GLENN: So, Jason, tell me what the biggest problem, and what you're going to change.

JASON: Internally, we're breaking apart. We don't have the process to allow that groundswell of expertise so that members can represent their own districts and that they can actually bring forth amendments and vote on things that they want to vote on. It's been too much of a top-down process. I'm tired of reading my phone, what the speaker is going to tell me, and then go into a meeting and the Speaker says, "This is what we're going to do."

It's supposed to happen organically from the bottom, up. I also do believe that once the conference gets behind something, we have to go fight for it. We have to take that battle to the Senate, to the White House, and to the American people. We don't -- we're not very good communicators. I actually want to be a Speaker who speaks and goes out and makes the case to the American people why the conservative viewpoint -- why what Republicans stand for is the right thing to do in this country.

GLENN: Okay. So give me a couple of -- the biggest mistakes, the things that we should have done that Boehner just didn't do.

JASON: Well, look, the debt and deficit is right near the top of my list. I was elected same time as Barack Obama. The debt has gone from 9 trillion to $20 trillion.

The president the other day said he's not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling. He's not going to negotiate on -- well, what he's saying is, he's okay with borrowing more money from China as opposed to actually fixing the underlying problem.

We were elected not to perpetuate the status quo, to actually fix the problems of this country. And we fixed some of them, but I want to start scoring some touchdowns and putting bills on the president's desk. And that, we haven't done. And I'm not here --

GLENN: Tell me about the continuing resolutions.

JASON: Well, I voted against the last one. That's a terrible way to do business. We want to have more open process so that you can actually go through what's called regular order where members are allowed, page by page, line by line, to offer amendments. And then you vote on those.

And on some of those, we did that. You know, when I was here when Nancy Pelosi was running the place, we never even did that. So we started that process. We came almost halfway. But I'd like to keep pushing that. Pushing that. Because regular order and better process yields a better product. It won't be everything I want or Glenn Beck wants or any other member wants. But it does yield a better, more respectful process. That's what we're here to do.

GLENN: Jason, I will tell you this, based on just your voting record, you're our guy.

JASON: Well, good. I better hang up now.

(laughter)

GLENN: Daniel Webster, however, was on with us, and he was quite clear on the process. Now, he wants to run for Speaker of the House too. According to his voting record, he's not the guy I want. However, when he was talking, he talked solely about the system. And he's like, "Look, the system will work itself out if the system is used." And the continuing resolution is something that is really, really boring to a lot of people.

JASON: Right.

GLENN: But it's probably the most critical thing we have in the process to stop the Republicans from this constant retreat. It's not the way our system was meant to be done. And it's why they always have a government shutdown if you say I want to change The Birdcage paper. Oh, you want to shut down the government. It's because of the continuing resolution. So how can you -- what you just said to me, I want to keep moving forward. No, I don't. I want our government to run the way it was designed. Will you as a Speaker of the House take that stand?

JASON: That's what -- that is what I'm saying. There's a lot to learn from Daniel Webster because what he did in Florida is very important. And he's very smart on these issues. He and I have very different voting records. But I'm not there as the Speaker to impress upon everybody else my political agenda.

The role of the Speaker is to make sure that the process is such that the will of the body actually surfaces. And to that extent, the process is broken. And there has to be changes on how we pick committee chairmen, on how we go through the process of the regional representatives. A lot of the internal structure stuff that no matter where you are on the political spectrum, we have a lot of people that are terribly frustrated.

And if you can get the process right, this is where I think I agree with Daniel Webster. You get that process right. I think then you're going to get a better product. And I want it to be as conservative as possible. But I recognize I'm probably much more conservative than the bulk of other members. And that's okay. But I'm not here just to dictate to them, "Oh, you have to do it my way." I've been on the receiving end of that, and I don't like it.

GLENN: According to my notes, you took Mark Meadows off his committee assignment, presumably for voting against John Boehner. Was that retaliation? What happened there?

JASON: That wasn't the only reason. It was about some other things. But, you know what, I overreached. And, you know what, we all make some mistakes. I would like to think as a leader, I was smart enough and humble enough to listen to my committee members who thought I was too harsh. And it was a good lesson for me, that you're not going to build unity and move the ball forward by breaking knuckles. I overreached. And I shouldn't have done it. And I recognized it. And we reimplemented him a few days later.

And Mark and I have a good working relationship. He has to represent his constituents from North Carolina, I have to represent mine from Utah. If we agree, we agree. But that's a valuable lesson that I learned.

GLENN: May I just delve a little further into that?

JASON: Sure.

GLENN: What -- how did you learn that lesson? Why did you learn that lesson? And when you said there were many things, it wasn't just that, why did voting --

JASON: Not many things, but yeah --

GLENN: But why did the Boehner thing even come into play? Why should anyone be punished for standing up against the leader?

JASON: First of all, I never spoke with the Speaker about this. I never spoke with his staff about it. That was my decision. But I -- I had some discussions, very candid discussions with Mark Meadows, and I think we both are in a good place now. But you learn that lesson.

And partly, it was listening to the 25 -- we have 25 members on my committee. I'm the chairman of the Oversight Committee. Most of them came in. We sat down, and we talked for an hour and 40 minutes. And it was very healthy.

And I said, "All right. Let me sleep on it. I believe in prayer." And I prayed about it. And I came back out of that and thought, "You know what, darn it. I overdid myself. And I shouldn't have done that." And I announced the next day that I would make the change back. They were right. I was wrong.

GLENN: Good for you.

PAT: But Jason you did vote for Boehner last time.

JASON: Yes, I did. Yes, I did.

GLENN: Why?

JASON: Partly because he was the only nominee. We didn't have anybody else. And like I said, here we go again. And, look, I'll support the nominee. And I said I'll do that. But I put myself in the ring now. So if I think have a better way, then you better get in and run. And so I do think I got a better way. I do think I could do some of these things. A guy like me is not supposed to rise up and -- after just -- you know, in his fourth term become a Speaker. I get that. But I think I can do things a little bit better. And so you put your hat in the ring. If I lose, I lose. But now that I'm trying, I'll know that I gave it my best shot.

PAT: That's not entirely true that nobody ran against him. Because Louie Gohmert did. I know a lot of people didn't think he was a serious candidate.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: But I don't fully understand that. Because Louie a pretty strong conservative. And maybe there just aren't enough conservatives in the Republican Party anymore to elect one as Speaker. What is -- is that what it is? And if so, how does that affect your candidacy?

JASON: Well, I don't believe it should be a litmus test on how conservative or how liberal a person is. You're electing a person who is going to speak for the body, negotiate with the White House, the Senate, who is going to be a fair arbiter of the full political spectrum within the Republican conference. And so, you know, I -- I have a lot of respect for John Boehner. And I know a lot of people don't. But John Boehner was very good to me. And I didn't owe him anything. He didn't ask for anything. But of the candidates out there, yeah, I -- I -- I did vote for John Boehner.

GLENN: I will tell you this, think what you want about somebody when they say, I have a lot of respect for John Boehner, but I will tell you that coming on this program --

PAT: And telling us that.

GLENN: And telling us that and telling this audience that, it takes some real balls.

JASON: Well, yeah. Let me tell you why. I fought to get rid of earmarks. And when I first got elected in 2008, everybody else in the delegation was for them. And I went to John Boehner and I said, "Can a guy like me survive here because I'm fighting against earmarks?" And he said, "Jason, I've never asked for earmarks." And I do appreciate that John Boehner, when he actually became the Speaker, you know what he did? He got rid of earmarks. That has been the political candy that leadership uses to coerce votes and get bills passed. It made it easier. And he took it away from himself and took away power from himself. And I do admire him for that.

PAT: He also got none of the things done he said he was going to. He said they were going to get 12 things done in 12 weeks. And none of them -- I think one of them happened.

JASON: I'm telling you --

PAT: One.

JASON: There are a lot of things I like about him. And a lot of things I don't. A lot of things are frustrating. I'm not going to trample on him as he goes out the door. That's just not my style.

GLENN: Yeah, it's not necessary to do that because we're talking about the future. So what will set you apart from John Boehner?

JASON: Well, I want to be a Speaker who speaks and goes out and makes the case to the American people and takes the fight to the president and to the White House. I'm tired of just gravitating to the lowest common denominator. And if Mitch McConnell and the United States Senate can't get something done, you know, we have to figure out where we'll hold the line here.

GLENN: Would you shut down the government over Planned Parenthood?

JASON: Look, the discussion is -- it's not just Jason Chaffetz. It's the conference as a whole. So I've hold the president say things like this. I don't think having $20 trillion in debt is the right solution. I really don't. I think that question is for the president of the United States. Our job in Congress is to get that bill on his desk. And if we can't get that bill on his desk, then we can't even get to that next step. That decision on shutdown is the president's.

GLENN: Jason, we haven't talked to each other for I don't know how long.

JASON: Yeah, it's been a while.

GLENN: How is your soul?

JASON: I'm so comfortable with myself at this point. I have this amazing wonderful wife and family that I couldn't be more proud of. And I know that I'm not -- this is temporary in its time. And part of the reason I'm running, Glenn, is I'm -- I'm fine with losing. You know, I'm okay with losing. Because I'm not trying to be here forever. I'm going to give it everything I got and then go home. That's -- that's where my heart is. My heart is at home.

GLENN: So you're telling me -- are you making an announcement that you will not run for Orrin Hatch's seat when he retires?

JASON: I might make that announcement -- if I wanted to be here for a long time, I would run for the Senate, and I have not. Nor do I anticipate doing that. But I'm not making the official announcement here today.

(laughter)

STU: We're trying to bring some --

JASON: Nice try. But go ahead.

GLENN: All right, Jason. Best of luck. And the vote is on Thursday, right?

JASON: That's the first step. That's the conference vote. But the real vote on the floor, that happens at the end of October.

GLENN: And the best way for people if they choose you or somebody else, what's the best way they can support you?

JASON: Call their members. Find out who are their members voting for. I'm not -- I don't have a formal whip operation. Just call your member of Congress. Figure out who they're voting for.

GLENN: Okay. Good. Jason, thanks a lot. Appreciate it. Buh-bye.

How America’s elites fell for the same lie that fueled Auschwitz

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone footage out of Gaza isn’t just war propaganda — it’s a glimpse of the same darkness that once convinced men they were righteous for killing innocents.

Evil introduces itself subtly. It doesn’t announce, “Hi, I’m here to destroy you.” It whispers. It flatters. It borrows the language of justice, empathy, and freedom, twisting them until hatred sounds righteous and violence sounds brave.

We are watching that same deception unfold again — in the streets, on college campuses, and in the rhetoric of people who should know better. It’s the oldest story in the world, retold with new slogans.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

A drone video surfaced this week showing Hamas terrorists staging the “discovery” of a hostage’s body. They pushed a corpse out of a window, dragged it into a hole, buried it, and then called in aid workers to “find” what they themselves had planted. It was theater — evil, disguised as victimhood. And it was caught entirely on camera.

That’s how evil operates. It never comes in through the front door. It sneaks in, often through manipulative pity. The same spirit animates the moral rot spreading through our institutions — from the halls of universities to the chambers of government.

Take Zohran Mamdani, a New York assemblyman who has praised jihadists and defended pro-Hamas agitators. His father, a Columbia University professor, wrote that America and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent — that suicide bombings shouldn’t be viewed as barbaric. Imagine thinking that way after watching 3,000 Americans die on 9/11. That’s not intellectualism. That’s indoctrination.

Often, that indoctrination comes from hostile foreign actors, peddled by complicit pawns on our own soil. The pro-Hamas protests that erupted across campuses last year, for example, were funded by Iran — a regime that murders its own citizens for speaking freely.

Ancient evil, new clothes

But the deeper danger isn’t foreign money. It’s the spiritual blindness that lets good people believe resentment is justice and envy is discernment. Scripture talks about the spirit of Amalek — the eternal enemy of God’s people, who attacks the weak from behind while the strong look away. Amalek never dies; it just changes its vocabulary and form with the times.

Today, Amalek tweets. He speaks through professors who defend terrorism as “anti-colonial resistance.” He preaches from pulpits that call violence “solidarity.” And he recruits through algorithms, whispering that the Jews control everything, that America had it coming, that chaos is freedom. Those are ancient lies wearing new clothes.

When nations embrace those lies, it’s not the Jews who perish first. It’s the nations themselves. The soul dies long before the body. The ovens of Auschwitz didn’t start with smoke; they started with silence and slogans.

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

So what do we do? We speak truth — calmly, firmly, without venom. Because hatred can’t kill hatred; it only feeds it. Truth, compassion, and courage starve it to death.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage. That’s how Amalek survives — by making you fight him with his own weapons. The only victory that lasts is moral clarity without malice, courage without cruelty.

The war we’re fighting isn’t new. It’s the same battle between remembrance and amnesia, covenant and chaos, humility and pride. The same spirit that whispered to Pharaoh, to Hitler, and to every mob that thought hatred could heal the world is whispering again now — on your screens, in your classrooms, in your churches.

Will you join it, or will you stand against it?

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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.