The Nazarene Fund and The Middle East with Johnnie Moore

Making their way to eastern Europe --- just in time for Christmas --- is the first group of refugees being saved by The Nazarene Fund. How are they feeling?

According to Johnnie Moore, author of Defying ISIS, they're still in a bit of shock, wondering if this is too good to be true. Having experienced persecution and the ravages of war, they're astonished by this outpouring of compassion.

The families feel comforted about their final destination --- an eastern European nation that is selectively taking Christian refugees only. Of course, there's trepidation in the mix as well, and the fear that --- as Syrians --- they might be mistaken as former members of ISIS.

Glenn and Johnnie discussed on air today how The Nazarene Fund is providing a bit of peace and security for a persecuted and desperate community.

If you would like to help rescue highly vetted Christian refugees, make a donation by visiting #NeverAgainIsNow or calling 844-637-2791.

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

GLENN: Johnnie Moore is joining us now because he has been on the front lines leading the fight to bring in Christian refugees. And, Johnnie, can you tell me the difference between a Christian refugee? I mean, how dare you make this racist and this Islamophobic differentiating point, but can you tell me the difference between the Christian refugees and the Muslim refugees?

JOHNNIE: Yeah, exactly. And it's really, really simple. There is no Christian member of ISIS. Not one. Not a single Christian member of ISIS.

And, by the way, all these Christians, are Middle Eastern pacifists to begin with. You know, they wouldn't even know what to do with a gun if they found one.

I mean, this is totally, totally incomprehensible last week when the president spoke most passionately in an hour-long press conference at the G20, he spoke most passionately about what I characterize as discriminating against Christians. Because that's what he's decided to do.

And, you know, what's so strange about this, Glenn, is that the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the UN convention on genocide, official State Department policy, every nonsectarian, nonreligious NGO in the world has always provided special treatment to those who have been persecuted for religion. And yet for months, we've been saying -- we've been saying it, we've been very, very clear about it, that it seems like this administration is discriminating against Christians, and they denied it. The State Department released press release after press statement after press statement, and then the president just came clean last week in front of world leaders at the G20 and made it very, very clear, Christians aren't welcome from the Middle East in the United States, unless they just slip in.

GLENN: He's saying that there is no genocide of Christians.

JOHNNIE: No -- and he's said it from the beginning. And it's crazy. I don't even know how he believes this. A million Christians are gone from Syria in five years. A million Christians. Over a million Christians are gone from Iraq in the last seven or eight years. I mean, this is like -- it is really, really, really shameful. And the fact that the president spends all of his energy, you know, trying to make those of us who want to provide special treatment to genocide victims look like bigots at this time when we're facing a just total crisis, when it comes to the fact that, in Europe and the United States, we haven't a clue who is here. I mean, this is really, really terrible. And it's very, very, very dangerous.

You know, and, by the way, he speaks, you know, caustically about all this stuff. You know, last week he said sarcastically, "What do these Republicans, what do these conservatives want? You know, they're scared of widows and orphans from Syria." Well, you know, the truth is we are scared of widows and orphans from Syria because we don't know if they carry the ideology.

You know, why is this woman a widow? Did her husband die fighting for ISIS? You know, what have they been teaching their children? What about the communities they're going in, in the United States? Those of us who are close to the situation know two things: The first thing that we know is, the vast majority of Muslims aren't going to strap a bomb to themselves. The second thing we know is, those that are often ideologically led by the woman in the home. It's the woman that teaches the ideology to the children. And oftentimes the husbands, you know, follow that path. So, you know, I think a lot of us that are close to the Middle East are -- are terrified of the fact that we're not scrutinizing things.

And, you know, the other side of this too is, we right now at the Nazarene Fund with Mercury One, we have employed former United States intelligence agents that are doing our own vetting of our own Christian refugees before resettlement. And I was just talking to one of them last week and she told me. She said, "You know, vetting is difficult for professionals. It's difficult for CIA people." So the fact that we're leaving this to untrained UN people or, you know, immigration people, it's just -- it's just really, really scary, Glenn. Just so many things to be worried about right now.

GLENN: How do you argue this with your friends? If you're listening and your friends are going to be around a Thanksgiving table, and I can guarantee you, some of them are going to say, "We have to bring the Syrian refugees in. We have to. This is so un-American to say 'no' to Syrian refugees." How would you argue that?

JOHNNIE: I'd tell them how compassionate are we being, if we're endangering the United States of America, endangering our own children? You know, it's absolutely true that most of these refugees aren't going to strap a bomb to themselves. But it's absolutely true that the United States of America hasn't effectively figured out how to discern who is and who isn't dangerous.

And, you know, we just discovered last week in a Senate hearing, Glenn, that there were five individuals who were recruited by ISIS that worked in the United States airport, including LAX. You know, the airport I fly out of every day of my life. I mean, there are really, really alarming, alarming things. And, by the way, don't mention the fact that, you know, Europe has embraced such -- such an you attitude of tolerance, like you were describing moments ago, that they allowed all of this to fester.

You know, and those of us that have been studying this and close to this, this wasn't a surprise to us. Paris wasn't a surprise. You know, when I wrote my ISIS book a year ago, one of the most startling pieces of information I stumbled upon was that 31 percent of the Arabic language tweets in Belgium that mentioned ISIS were in support of ISIS.

And, you know, this information was in the public domain a year ago. I remember being in France in Leone just seven or eight years ago with a group of students from Liberty University. We were distributing food in a poor community, a poor immigrant community outside of Leone. And we were run out of that immigrant community, like people throwing stones at us, literally throwing stones at us. I mean, this has been allowed to fester.

And now we're living in a global world. And so right now, one of the things that we know is at least 1800 French citizens, French citizens with French passports traveled over to Syria. They fought for ISIS because they have French passports, unless they're on a list. And everyone has admitted, the EU and the United States has admitted that our lists are insufficient. Those people with French passports can fly back to France. They can get on a French plane and because of the visa waiver program, they can arrive at any airport in the United States and do whatever they want unless they happen to be on a list.

And the FBI director told our Congress just over a month ago that our Syrian list is dismal. And, by the way, a number of people in France were on our list, but we're still incapable of organizing our intelligence and working cooperatively with other countries that these people were just sort of allowed to warned around Europe. This is really, really a precarious moment.

GLENN: Johnnie, I know that the first group of refugees is coming out of Syria here in the next few weeks, before Christmas. How are they feeling? Because I would imagine -- I spent a lot of time this weekend thinking, "If I'm one of them and I see the world collapsing around, I'm -- I don't know where to go, I don't know what to do." Because you're not going to escape this -- you know, what are they feeling?

JOHNNIE: I think they're sort of feeling two things. And the first thing is, they're still feeling that this is too good to be true. I just -- I think down deep inside, they're all waiting for something to fall apart because they're not used to the world showing this type of compassion to Christians.

And we keep telling them, "It's not too good to be true. It's actually going to happen." And secondarily, I think they actually feel a bit of comfort because they're going into a country in eastern Europe that very, very early on stood up and said, "We're a Christian country, you know, we're more than happy to take Christians, but we're not going to take everyone." And I think that provides another level of security.

And then you have on the same token, because of the way the migration system in Europe has been allowed to function, you know, without -- without sufficient regulation and vetting, they're also fearful that people will confuse them as persecuted Christians for Syrians that -- that, you know, might be former members of ISIS. I mean, this is what's so, so crazy, you know, about the situation, that -- that they're facing.

I mean, the world is in total upheaval. Everyone is confused. Our leaders are doing crazy things. I mean, just today, you know, I was reading the news from Iraq. And Russian missiles have accidentally gone into Iraqi airspace where ISIS isn't even. So you can imagine what could happen if a Russian missile, because of their imprecise activity, ends up falling on Baghdad. I mean, we could just have 1,000 apocalypses in every direction that we look. And so what we've done is we've carved out a little bit of peace and security around a really, really persecuted and desperate community. And we're bound and determined that if all hell breaks loose around them, that they will be saved and they will have a future and we will have done our part.

GLENN: Johnnie, we thank you. And we pray for you. And we pray for the refugees that we're trying to get out. If you would like to assist, you can go to now.mercuryone.org. Or you can call 844-637-2791. And make a donation. I went to a book signing this weekend. People came with 5-dollar, 10-dollar checks, hundred dollar checks, and one family came with a 10,000-dollar check and said, "We really want to help a mom and a dad get their family out of there."

JOHNNIE: Wow.

GLENN: Johnnie, thank you very much, I appreciate it.

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.