Trump's Security Issues: Media Conflation or Real Conflict?

In for Glenn Beck, John Cardillo spoke with former NYPD Chief of Intelligence Edmund Hartnett on Monday, covering implications about Donald Trump's private security force conflicting with the U.S. Secret Service.

Cardillo's guest seemed to think this was nothing more than the media doing what the media does best.

"Good security is done almost like the umpire in the baseball game. If it's done right, you don't even see the guy. You don't even hear from the guy," Hartnett said. "So, anything I see being blown up by media like Politico or Salon is ridiculous."

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

JOHN: As a former law enforcement guy, when people get stories about security wrong, it's a pet peeve. It irks me. And there's a story in Politico from Ken Vogel. Now, Ken Vogel, you remember this guy, he was the reporter in the WikiLeaks emails, who was sending his stories to the DNC for edit and approval.

So anything this guy writes, I take with a grain of salt. And the story is entitled, Trump private security force playing with fire. And the implication is that Donald Trump is disregarding the Secret Service and fielding his own security force, which is kind of ridiculous. But I wanted to bring somebody in to talk about this, who intimately understands the dynamic of the Secret Service's interaction with private security teams and local police. Very good friend of mine is joining me.

Edmund Hartnett. Ed was chief of intelligence. The NYPD's chief of intelligence on 9/11 went on to be the police commissioner of Yonkers, New York, and is now a global private security expert. He's an expert on terror and global security. Really my go-to guy. Commissioner, thanks for being here. Good morning.

EDMUND: Good morning, John. Merry Christmas to you and your family.

JOHN: Merry Christmas. Long overdue this call.

So there's this article, and basically the implication is that Donald Trump has this private security force that's getting in the way of the Secret Service. I read it differently. Maybe you and I have unique perspectives on this, some of these guys -- one is a retired NYPD guy who left the job in 1999. He's a Navy veteran. He -- I'm sorry -- worked for Trump since '99.

And these guys to me have really just become Donald Trump's aides and body men. They're not interfering with the Secret Service. The rallies I've been to, it seems, like a well choreographed, well oiled machine where they're all working very effectively together.

Now, when you were chief of intelligence -- I'm sure most listeners don't know, but the NYPD intelligence division, is the unit that liaises with the Secret Service, when the president or the first family is in New York City. So you have intimate experience dealing with the private security teams and the staffs of presidents of the United States.

Tell us a little bit about this. Am I downplaying this, or is this a genuine concern?

EDMUND: To me, John, it's not a genuine concern. Anything I've seen, anything I've heard from people I know in the business, in the public sector and the private sector side, describes Donald Trump's security team relationship with the Secret Service as seamless coordination.

The guy we always see on TV with the president-elect, Pete Shiller (phonetic), is the gentleman you referenced. He's retired NYPD. Retired Navy officer. Consummate professional. Everything I've seen and heard about him -- he does not get away. Good security is done. Almost like the umpire in the baseball game.

If it's done right, you don't even see the guy. You don't even hear from the guy. So anything I see being blown up by like Politico or by Salon.com, where they're referring to the president-elect's security team as this private mercenary army, I think, is one of the quotes, is ridiculous. They don't seem to refer to Jay-Z and Beyonce as having a private mercenary army, but they probably have just as much security as Donald Trump does.

JOHN: Maybe more. I mean, we saw that Ivanka Trump and her husband were harassed on a JetBlue flight. They didn't have a phalanx of security officers around them.

And in addition to now being a part of the first family, they're a wealthy couple who could certainly afford it.

If anything, it seems the Trump family was just trying to live a pretty normal life, before being elected. Look, he's a famous guy. And he lives opulently. But with the way the kids, his children and the grandchildren were trying to operate, it seems like they didn't have these armies of security around them, like you so accurately say, Ed. We see celebrities have, with their motorcades.

You know, I read a story. Chris Pine, the actor who is in the Star Wars movies. He plays Kirk. Jeff Bezos had a role on the set of the new film. And Chris Pine didn't know who he was. But he said, "Well, Jeff Bezos is the CEO of Amazon." But he said, "Well, I knew he was someone important when he showed up with like 25 SUVs and a security army." And he said, "You know, the heads of the studios didn't that have."

So you make a great point. So tell us a little bit -- because I know people are interested in this.

How -- for example, Donald Trump is going to be spending a lot of time in New York City. The president-elect is going to be there. It's his second home. His wife and young son are staying there. What's the NYPD's role going to be in all of this? How are they going to interact with the Secret Service and at the same time effectively police the rest of the city?

EDMUND: Again, having firsthand experience, John, nobody -- no place in the country is the relationship between Secret Service and the local police stronger than it is in New York City. Because of -- of the nature of the city and the United Nations being there and every dictator, king, president, ruler, prime minister comes to New York City, sometimes a few times a year -- so that -- that role -- that coordination between the Secret Service and the NYPD is outstanding. It's exemplary. It can't be matched anywhere else in the country.

So the NYPD will coordinate with the Secret Service for everything that involves the Trump family, if there are private security officers involved -- we've had it many times. Again, dignitaries, where they come with their people. It will be seamless.

When the president is sworn in, he will be the -- his security will be run by the Secret Service. They will liaise with his private security people. They'll tap into their knowledge and expertise because they'll need it.

But security for the president of the United States and his immediate family will be run and coordinated by the Secret Service in DC in New York City and wherever the president goes.

JOHN: I'm speaking with Edmund Hartnett, former chief of intelligence of the New York City Police Department and Yonkers police commissioner. Also, very good personal friend of mine. You're always my go-to guy on these issues. You're the most knowledgeable guy on this. And you stay very current.

Let's talk a little bit about the upcoming New Years holiday. Now, we've got the president-elect from New York City. Most of his family living in New York City. We've got New Year's Eve in New York City, arguably the largest gathering of people in the world every year.

Without disclosing operational security, I always want to have the listeners understand what goes into the security protocols. But at the same time, these are always careful segments for me. Because I never want to tell too much of how we do what we do. But insofar as you can tell through your experience, what is NYPD going to do to both protect the family of the president-elect and safeguard the city on New Years Eve, as they would if the president-elect's family didn't live in New York?

EDMUND: Well, first, the planning that goes into this stuff is incredible. It's mind-boggling. They don't just take out last year's folder, dust it off, and set the plan in place. These plans are made months ahead of time. These plans were made with contingencies with either Clinton winning or Mr. Trump winning. So planning those, like I said, is incredible. They'll also tap into anything that's going on in the world right now, no matter where it is. It could be areas of the country we're not familiar with. But there's something happening there. Some hot spot there and maybe there's some connection now to New York City, trust me, the NYPD and their federal partners will be all over it.

The planning that goes into a regular New Years Eve, if there is such a thing, Times Square detail, the -- the -- the back flips that people have to do to get into the pen alone, the screening that goes on overtly and covertly, is incredible. You can't rule out anything. You can't rule out some lone wolf trying to do something.

On the investigative side even, they're looking at various people that may or may not cause problems. And they want to know exactly where they are at any given moment. So, again, the planning that goes into it is incredible. I think people that want to go to New Years Eve should go and have a good time, be safe. But obviously, look around for anything suspicious. But I think it's going to be a great New Year's, as always. And I know I'm prejudiced. But nobody does it as well as the NYPD.

JOHN: No. I happen to agree. And we might get flamed for that. But I don't think it's because it's our alma mater. I think it's out of necessity, right? Out of necessity and sheer size. We've got New York City and all its landmarks. We've got the New York City stock exchange or the hub of banking and finance for the world. The exact targets that terrorists want to hit. They want to destroy capitalism. You're going to hit New York, you're going to hit London. And the NYPD, being the largest, being the most robust, well-funded agency out there. They really didn't have a choice, but to be thrust into the role they were.

And I think with Edmund Hartnett, former chief of intelligence of the NYPD -- and I've got a question for you that might be depressing this holiday season. But I've been talking a lot today about global security, terror, lone wolfs.

What's the situation that keeps you awake at night? You're now with the private firm, Brozlin Rist (phonetic), from -- by another good friend of ours. You guys have state-of-the-art intelligence on the private side. You've seen it up close and personal. You have the highest levels of security clearance. you know how this stuff works. What's the one thing that keeps you awake at night in terms of a terror threat in the United States as we sit here today, December 26th, 2016?

EDMUND: You know, we always talk about various things: Suicide bombers, explosive laden vehicles, and Mumbai-style mass shooting instances.

All of that stuff always concerns me. Kind of a subset of that to me is a group that cannot be cracked, that cannot be infiltrated. And I use an example -- and I hate them, but I use them as an example.

I have brothers in Boston, in the Boston Marathon bombing. You know it's your brother. You know your brother is not an informant. You know your bother's not been flipped. You know your brother is not an undercover FBI agent.

When you get a group like that, that just can't be infiltrated, to me, that's the one -- that's the thing that makes me most fearful, that you get two guys or three guys, family members that have grown up, that have maybe even done bad acts together -- if you've seen someone kill someone, say for example, five years earlier, you pretty much know that that guy is good. He's a good member of your team. He's not been turned. He's not been infiltrated. He's not an agent.

So you get that kind of hard-core group that just can't be cracked. That's what probably concerns me the most. And that kind of group can do a bomb attack. They can do a Mumbai-style attack. They can do the explosive laden vehicle or the truck driver thing like we've seen in Nice and in Berlin.

JOHN: So it really does come down to, for average Americans, if you see something, say something. If that family next door seems to be doing something nefarious, call 911.

I mean, really, American citizens are our best eyes and ears. Because those asymmetrical, low tech attacks that don't require chatter because their family members are friends. I agree with you. They scare me to death. And it really is up to American citizens to tip off law enforcement in the intelligence community, correct?

EDMUND: I think -- and I think hopefully we're seeing society getting away from that a bit. San Bernardino, which resulted in many people getting killed, I think people after that, they wish they had called.

If they had seen something suspicious with that married couple, and they wished they had called. But they didn't want to be branded as bigots. They didn't want to be branded as being prejudiced. I think we're slowly but surely having people come out of that dangerous political correctness that we've seen.

JOHN: You know, I hope you're right. I tend to agree with you, Ed, as I tend to. I hope you're right. You have a great new year, my friend. We're going to be speaking very, very soon. I'm going to have you on air with me often, in 2017. Have a great one.

EDMUND: You're doing a great job. Thanks, John.

JOHN: Thanks. And with Edmund Hartnett. And really is a world expert on this. Former chief of intelligence on 9/11. I'll let him tell his 9/11 story one day. It is absolutely -- absolutely captivating. Real American hero. Understated. Unsung American hero.

Featured Image: Scott Olson/Getty Images

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.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.