When Our Side Lies, We Must Call It Out

The year was 1781, and British statesman Edmund Burke took to the floor of parliament and said these words:

There are three estates in parliament. The first estate is the clergy. The second is nobility. The third, the common man. But there in the reporter galleries yonder there sits a fourth estate, much more important by far than the rest."

What Burke was saying was really simple: In a democratic society there are institutions like religion, government agencies, unions, political parties. To ensure proper governance and fairness, they come together. They debate. They find agreement. They make new laws and repeal old laws. But Burke was saying right then, and he identified the value of a fourth estate in society, a free and independent press.

The press needs to act as a people's watchdog. They ensure the people retain their access to truth, that we are informed and aware of what the institutions and our leaders --- whether they're clergy, unions or governments --- what our leaders are doing and if our leaders are telling us things that are truthful and consistent. They are the fourth estate. And they are elevated above the government, above unions, above our churches, above our religious figures. They protect us by finding and publishing and exposing the truth, so then we can make an informed decision, so that we the people are not misled and aren't lied to, so our freedom can't be taken from us by con men.

RELATED: Obama Spills Beans on Mainstream Media Working for Him

So what happens when the press starts to lie? What happens when they make it their goal not to discover and present the truth, but rather to fulfill a particular political agenda? What happens when the press aligns itself heavily with a single political party and begins to shape stories to support a particular moral ideology? We know because we've seen it.

Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

What happens is this: The truth is lost, and the people begin to trust no one. When the watchdog aligns itself with the wolves, it is the sheep who become the victims. The goal of the majority of the press stopped being about telling the truth around the time of Woodrow Wilson. That's when it became a coordinated effort, the fourth estate merged with the first and second estate.

It was three estates against one. The press stopped being about telling the truth and became about transforming the world, shaping it closer to their heart's desire, about getting certain candidates elected or changing the perception about human morality or our culture. The press developed an agenda that was far beyond fact-finding.

It began about presenting a story that gave readers and viewers a certain perception. It is the reason the Council of Foreign Relations was begun. Facts could be left out if they cricked the agenda. Certain photos or videos would be used or edited to tell the story, the editor, the reporter, or the company owner, or the politician, the government wanted to tell. And in their hearts, they had justified it, because to them, they were making the world a better place because they believed their agenda was right.

They were fighting against evil. They were fighting against deforestation. They were helping put a stop to gun violence. They were reducing alcoholism. Preventing obesity. Trying to put an end to income inequality. So a little lie here, a little omission here, a little snip of a video here or a sound bite --- you just select the right image, and you can create whatever perception you want among the readers.

So what if you have to bend the truth a little bit, if you have to smear a good man's name in the meantime? So what if you have to make people who look like they read the Bible, look like toothless rednecks to prevent gun violence, to save a child, it's worth that the truth be damned. We all know this because we've watched it for 100 years.

It's the job of the press to discover the truth and to present and inform us of the truth, but it hasn't been done in a long time. And without it, you know, because you see it. We become blind. We are lost because we cannot make an informed, rational decision about our future. And no one even looks to the press anymore because people say, "They're all lying." And when everyone is perceived as a liar, then there cannot be any search for truth. The truth becomes irrelevant.

RELATED: Media Gasps at State Department Lies: ‘Never Said No Boots on the Ground’

Without a free press actually doing their job, the common man cannot do his job. We cannot protect each other's freedom. We can't act in concert to defend our neighbor's liberty.

We've known for a long time that the mainstream media has leftist bias. Independent watchdog organizations have released study after study showing how that bias impacts the veracity of their stories and their conclusions, how the truth is left behind. And every conservative knows it. We have lamented it for years. We have nicknames for it --- lame stream media, the drive-by media, the left stream media. It's even funny until we have completely lost the truth.

And now we find ourselves in a situation to where nobody is even looking for the truth --- because there is no standard of truth.

What we're lamenting is not just the lost of journalistic integrity. It's not just that they have a left-leaning bias. We have lost access to truth. And now the game has changed almost entirely, as it should have. But it's gone down the same road. In today's media world, the goal is just to sell eyeballs, to get shares, to get clicks. The more sensational the coverage, the more scandalous the story, the more bias you can pack into a story, the better. Throw them the red meat that they want. It's more likely to get shared, more likely to get clicked on. And, therefore, more likely to drive advertising dollars and high CPMs.

Show a polar bear standing alone on a tiny iceberg and write a story about global warming. Millions of shares. Millions of eyeballs. Millions of people all around the world feeling sorry for the polar bears who are going to drown out there in the freezing ocean.

Photo: CARMEN JASPERSEN/AFP/Getty Images CARMEN JASPERSEN/AFP/Getty Images

Should I mention the polar bear population is increasing dramatically? No, no, no. I say that, it takes away from the goal here, which is to paint a certain picture. To give a certain impression. To get more click-through his and comments. Don't let the truth get in the way of doing good. You may not get a promotion at the Huffington Post. If your story doesn't get clicks and comments, the polar bears, they don't care. So really, who gets hurt?

We know this problem has existed. We know that it's existed in media for probably since the beginning of time. But as a coordinated effort by the progressives --- on both sides of the aisles --- for 100 years.

Quite honestly, the only reason why I have any career and the reason why people know my name is because I was willing to go on radio and go on TV and simply tell the truth, first about me, and then about the truth as I understood it. And audiences were so hungry for it because they couldn't find authenticity anymore in their newspaper or broadcast news channel. They couldn't find somebody who would say what they mean and mean what they said.

Now, if we conservatives and Libertarians and constitutionalists, those of us on the political right, those of us who have seen the rise of leftist bias and willful deceit, if we are to take over the mainstream media and we do the same thing, why would we expect different results? Why would we expect to be able to garner trust?

When the New York Times --- when anybody does it, when Facebook does it --- it has to be called out. Bias is bias. When it's proven, bias is bias. When the Huffington Post does it, we have to call it out. But when our side does it, perhaps it's more important to call it out on ourselves because we don't have this image yet. We're not known as the liars, yet. They think we are. They think we're no different than they are. But I contend we are different than they are. I contend we do have higher values and higher principles. I contend we do have the truth. So when you hear somebody on our side smear to smear, print falsehoods, we need to call it out.

Yesterday, the Drudge Report posted a story about Bill Cosby, formerly facing sexual assault charges, as he should have. He should face that. But what was amazing was Drudge rightfully led with that story, but he also put a picture on top. And so the lead picture was Bill Cosby standing in front of a very young, maybe 10-year-old picture, of Hillary Clinton. So she was in the picture behind Bill Cosby.

RELATED: Has Bill Cosby Been Found Guilty in the Court of Public Opinion?

How long did it take to find a picture of Bill Cosby that could implicate Hillary Clinton in his rape case? A picture of Bill Cosby in the foreground, with Hillary in focus in the background, completely out of context. How is that any different than the polar bear on the ice cap? How is that any different than the picture of that one polar bear floating there?

Photo: William Thomas Cain/Getty Images Photo: William Thomas Cain/Getty Images

I want you to know, I have no sympathy for Hillary Clinton. She has led the way of smearing the right for decades --- "the vast right-wing conspiracy," a lie to protect herself. There is plenty of very low-hanging fruit that she deserves to be attacked for, but this isn't about her. This is about us.

Do we or do we not hold a higher standard for ourselves? Because if it's wrong when the left-leaning press uses an image that misleads or confounds the truth, if that would have happened and it was a picture of Donald Trump, do you think Drudge would have used that picture? Of course not. He was furthering an agenda. Do you think if you would have had that picture and it was Donald Trump and the New York Times did it, do you think we would be outraged? Of course. Of course we would.

We believe in principles.

RELATED: Chalkboard Lesson: What Principles Should We Be Fighting For?

Everybody knows how I feel about Ted Cruz and constitutionalists, yet the one charge --- I've heard a lot of charges: I'm a drunk. I'm failing. I'm out of control. I'm crazy. I'm on drugs. I've sold out all my values. I'm not the guy I used to be. I got paid off by Ted Cruz, his super PACs. I've made millions of dollars. I've heard it all. But the one thing I haven't heard is that TheBlaze sold out and became an organ for Ted Cruz.

I believe in principles. The news must be separate from an agenda. That doesn't mean you don't stand for something, but we don't lie. We don't smear. We don't publish stories with iffy sources, no matter how much we want a story to be true. And believe me, there are stories we have wanted to be true. But we must go where the truth leads us. That must be our mission as people, to help others discover the truth, not to be hoodwinked into it. But to question with boldness, even the very existence of God. For if there is a God, he must surely rather honest questioning over blindfolded fear.

So where do we go now? We must go where the truth leads us. It must be the mission to help people discover the truth.

Featured Image: The Glenn Beck Program, May 25, 2016

The great switch: Gates trades climate control for digital dominion

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.