Chris Stewart doubles down, returns to radio after "buzzsaw" interview

January 07, 2015

Writer

Glenn and Chris Stewart have been friends for a while, so when Glenn got home last night after a contentious interview with the congressman he called him to clear the air. To Chris's credit, he agreed to come back onto the show today and talk through the issues again and defend the job being done by the Republicans in Congress. Glenn's never had a guest come back after walking into a buzzsaw of an interview like that, so regardless of Chris's views, he gets big points for guts.

GLENN: Well, it feels a little bit "Groundhog Day," the movie, because at this time yesterday that a friend of ours, Chris Stewart, called in and received -- was on the receiving end of a pretty bad battering. I felt fine while we were doing it because I know our intent. We love Chris Stewart. He is a good friend. And a long-time friend and a guy I've wanted to work with for a long, long time. Tried to hire him here. But we have felt that we were -- we were concerned about the direction he was going, as along with people that we really respect in Congress.

PAT: Brenner went that way, Jim Jordan. Trey Gowdy said he wouldn't vote for Boehner.

GLENN: And we don't understand it. Last night I got home and watched the interview because Chris is my friend and I watched the interview and I felt it's not my best performance. That's not the way I want to -- that's not the way I want to be. But I still had good intent while trying doing it. So I called Chris last night. We haven't spoken. I left a message on the phone last night apologizing. Telling him that you know, I think he walked into a buzzsaw yesterday. However, I don't apologize for the intent and I don't apologize for having my opinions. And I don't apologize for believing he is absolutely dead wrong on John Boehner. And wrong that we have the facts wrong. We double-checked them yesterday. We're correct. With that being said, Chris Stewart is here because I would like to change the tone. Hello, Chris. How are you?

STEWART: I've got on my body armor, I've got on my combat gear. You can start slaying away again.

GLENN: I will tell you, you deserve a lot of extra points for having the balls to come on yesterday and then again today.

PAT: Again, yeah. No one else would have done that, credit is.

GLENN: No one else.

PAT: I don't think anyone else has ever done that.

GLENN: No, no.

PAT: Newt Gingrich --

GLENN: Newt Gingrich did it once.

STEWART: It's probably against my better judgment, but Glenn, here I am again. I'm actually glad to be with you.

GLENN: So Chris, here's the thing. We want you to prove us wrong in -- let's say by June. We'd like to have you back on where we can say, you know what, Chris? You were right.

PAT: Great agenda.

GLENN: Great agenda. You guys did it. Because I don't understand. There's nothing you can say. We double-checked all the facts on John Boehner and what he's been for and against. And I'm sorry, you're drinking too much Kool-Aid. I'm sorry. We have the facts right. You can't convince me that John Boehner is a good guy, because a good guy yesterday doesn't do what John Boehner does and get up and start punishing the people who ran against him.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: That's breaks.

STEWART: I appreciate the invitation to come back in June. I look forward to that.

I'd love to come back in February and March and do a month-end recap of what we do. Because I think we may not be perfect, and you may not be entirely satisfied, but I think you and listeners by and large are going to see things begin to move you on. And I told someone the other night, the worst-case scenario over the next two years is far better than anything that we've lived through in the last two years. Because we've had Harry Reid who had jammed every piece of legislation that we've tried to do. And we're going to get past that now. We've got friends in the Senate. And the second thing is to your point about John and retribution, I agree with that. I said to the speaker, and I would say this to others, we're better United than we are when we attack each other. Can I just say quickly, the former military guy, it's in my D.N.A. that you stand by your brothers. You may -- you may not like them. They may be different. You may have different opinions. We're in a war, we're in a fight for the heart and soul of our country. And I don't think --

GLENN: That's --

STEWART: Speaker to divide or to --

(overlapping speakers).

STEWART: Attributing retribution against hem. I certainly don't agree with that.

GLENN: That's the biggest point, Chris, I think people like you may be missing because you're inside the beltway. You don't see the frustration outside the beltway. You know, when Elizabeth Warren who's one of the most rad cam people on the planet runs in the Democratic Party, they celebrate. They want her to run for president. But if you stand by the Constitution, you're a radical that's trying to destroy America. And I can get that from CNN. I can get that from MSNBC. I can get that from Barack Obama. I don't need that from the leadership of the GOP.

STEWART: Glenn, listen, you know my family. And I go home every single weekend. I spend every moment that I can out of D.C.

I'm anything but an inside the beltway guy. But believe me, when you say that I don't see that or I don't hear that, I mean, believe me, Glenn, I do. I hear it. I see it from my own wife, I hear from it my children, I hear from it my brothers, my sisters, and I hear it from every person that I meet back in the district. I hear it all the time. And I agree with it all the time.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me what the plan is, because I don't understand this vote. So what is -- what is it that they said yesterday that made everybody fall in behind John Boehner? What is the great change that has coming that John Boehner --

STEWART: It was nothing that was said yesterday. This this is a battle that's been going on for months. It's an ongoing battle. Just like every two years I know I'm going to be challenged. I know this seat is not a guaranteed to me. I'm going to be challenged and expect to be challenged every two years. I think the speaker expects to be challenged and they should be challenged. I support that.

GLENN: No, he doesn't expect to be challenged. Otherwise, he wouldn't be punishing people. But let's not focus on that STEWART: I think any speaker would. They know there's some people that are going to be unhappy with the way regardless of who they are and there were some viable alternative candidates. But none of them stepped forward. Trey Gowdy, for example, he's one of those who nominated speaker in November. And I tried to make this point yesterday. Louie Gohmert is a friend of mine. And I have tremendous respect for him. He's one of the most clever and one of the most articulate members of the House, but he is not the person to unite the House. And I think we saw that in the vote yesterday. He only got two votes and --

(overlapping speakers).

GLENN: That's fine. That's fine. You could have voted for a cat. Let's please -- let's not concentrate on this. Let's concentrate, please, on what is the plan now?

STEWART: And I'm glad you asked that, because that is the primary thing that I think we should be talking about. And that's what are we going to do moving forward. I could talk to you -- I'm developing -- we're in the process of merging with other people. We call it 12 and 12 plan. 12 weeks, 12 major pieces of legislation. We start with Keystone, which is very important in energy independence and also job creation. But we can't go to our summit or move anywhere else beyond next week without coming back to border security and looking at what we did with defunding amnesty, what the president did is clearly unconstitutional. That's not a partisan opinion. It's clearly unconstitutional what he did with amnesty. We have to find a way to defund that and we have to do it early. Can't wait wait till February or even -- even late January. I want to move that legislation --

GLENN: But you -- you left on the table the defunding of Homeland Security and you gave him everything else. Do you really think that president doesn't want to have that fight? Doesn't want to get on television say, they defunded Homeland Security.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: You immediately lose. Because the American people see the threat of terror and -- and he will spin it. You've taken away all other tools except for Homeland Security.

STEWART: Well, he will spin it. There's no question and the press will back him up on that. And our intention isn't to defund all of Homeland Security. Our intention is to defund every part that deals with his executive amnesty and to fund every other part of Homeland Security, including attaching to that the border security bill that I helped right that is for the first time in a generation truly committed to securing borders. But I don't think the question is not defunding the entire program or Homeland Security. Clearly we want to fund those parts that are important as you said, Glenn. People understand that terrorism is a real threat. But we have to in my opinion defund the amnesty part to that.

GLENN: Can you just sequester that money?

STEWART: Yes.

GLENN: You can just do it, just taking away this line.

STEWART: It's part of the appropriation process. Now that we have united House and Senate, for the first time in Barack Obama's presidency, we have an appropriation process that will work where you can specifically identify pieces of legislation for funding and not fund both.

GLENN: All right. Now, let me ask you this. John Boehner is, you know, best buddies, tongue down each other's throat with Jeb Bush kind of people and Jeb Bush does not -- will not agree on the amnesty thing. He just started the, you know, reach for the stars no matter where you're from, hey, everybody can be equal here in America kind of crap yesterday. Do you really think the progressive Republicans are going to be on board for actual border security?

STEWART: Yes, I do. I do. And by the way, Jeb Bush is not our nominee, thankfully.

GLENN: Yet.

STEWART: And I think his stand on immigration and Corpus Christi and other things will probably preclude him from ever being our nominee, thankfully, because I disagree with him on those issues. But he's not the leader of the party and there are others who have a strong voice in this that you know and that I know. But yes, I think we can have some progress on that. And it's not -- it's not up to the speaker. It's not up to leadership. It's up to the Conservatives in Congress and there are enough of us that we can push that legislation.

STU: Isn't the issue that you have a lot of conservatives who are really about border security. You obviously have another portion of the Republican party that is not so aligned with your views on that. And when you have a person like Boehner as you kind of described, his job is to unite the party and that's what frustrate people like us because you see people -- you want a strong border bill and then the effort is to unite the party with the people who don't want a strong border bill and then what you get is crap.

GLENN: Ted Cruz said it best. It's always next time. Well, next time is now.

STEWART: Yeah. I agree with that, Glenn. And I've been saying that for months now. I've been saying next time is now, since before the election. That is the reason we needed the election, to make it now. And coming back to the border security, because I really think that's an important point you're making, and that is, things have fundamentally changed on the border security bill over the last two years, in the two years I've been in Congress. And part of it was what we saw with unaccompanied minors last summer. The tragedy that happened and the atrocity where because of Obama's policies that encourage this idea, that if you're an unaccompanied minor, many of who were not truly minors anyway, but you would get across the border and find sanctuary. And there are other elements of that where the opinion of the Congress has significantly shifted to the right on border security.

GLENN: I believe it when I see it, okay, so that's one of your 12 points. Okay, so Chris, give me just -- I've only got about a minute left. Give me the 12 topics that you want to -- that you say you're putting together with a group of people that you're going to be able to get through in 12 weeks or you hope to get through in 12 weeks. Give he the 12 points.

STEWART: Let me go through them quickly. Keystone Pipeline, border security, Reins Act, which is to pull back the regulatory agencies and who have become the most powerful force in Washington. Tax reform. I want to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS, Lois Lerner and others -

GLENN: Boehner was against it.

STEWART: We'll continue to work to repeal ObamaCare and also have a replacement for that expecting and hoping the Supreme Court actually finds the exchanges are unconstitutional, that they're not within the language of the law. Unborn Child Act which is prohibits abortion for those children unborn children who actually can feel pain. And we know now scientifically that they do. Audit the Fed. Some reforms in the EPA. And finally, the Antiquities Act which deals with federal land out here in the west and the president's ability to use a law that have nothing to do with that in order to claim for federal land.

GLENN: So you -- if you get all that done, I will throw a parade for you.

STEWART: Will all right, gets let some confetti.

GLENN: Yeah. You'll get more than confetti. You get all that done and -- are you working on the Senate with that, too?

STEWART: Yeah. And we have this historic opportunity and I wish I could just help people understand that. And it really is historic --

GLENN: No --

(overlapping speakers).

GLENN: Chris, Chris.

PAT: People understand that. They just don't believe it because they've seen it before.

GLENN: We saw it under Bush.

(overlapping speakers).

GLENN: And we saw it with the same people, the same promises, the same bull crap. We're done.

STEWART: I agree. We did see it under Bush. I agree. I understand that. But what I was saying is that there's this opportunity with the House and the Senate we're having a summit next week for the first time, I don't know that we've ever done that, where we have the House and the Senate together for two days to do one thing and that's to define this agenda. How do we move this legislation in the first 12 weeks, maybe four months, of our term in power and I'm so confident that when we've done this and the American people see what we're trying to do and what we're able to do, it's going to eliminate some of the frustration of so many --

GLENN: I will promise you that as you get these done, we will check them off and 12 weeks -- we'll check them off week by week or however -- you tell us what it is. But you give us the date, we'll check them off and we will make sure that everybody knows, at least in our audience, that these things are being done. I have to tell you, between John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, I think you are in some sort of an acid trip that you think you can get this done. But I want to be wrong. I want to be wrong.

STEWART: Well, Glenn, we're going to try. We're going to try and I think we're going to have success. I really do, maybe not a all of it, but we're going to try and get as much done as we can and I want to go for all 12.

GLENN: Chris, thanks a lot. God bless you. Thank you, bye-bye. He's a good guy.

Featured image courtesy of the AP.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Exposed: The radical Left's bloody rampage against America

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

For years, the media warned of right-wing terror. But the bullets, bombs, and body bags are piling up on the left — with support from Democrat leaders and voters.

For decades, the media and federal agencies have warned Americans that the greatest threat to our homeland is the political right — gun-owning veterans, conservative Christians, anyone who ever voted for President Donald Trump. President Joe Biden once declared that white supremacy is “the single most dangerous terrorist threat” in the nation.

Since Trump’s re-election, the rhetoric has only escalated. Outlets like the Washington Post and the Guardian warned that his second term would trigger a wave of far-right violence.

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing.

They were wrong.

The real domestic threat isn’t coming from MAGA grandmas or rifle-toting red-staters. It’s coming from the radical left — the anarchists, the Marxists, the pro-Palestinian militants, and the anti-American agitators who have declared war on law enforcement, elected officials, and civil society.

Willful blindness

On July 4, a group of black-clad terrorists ambushed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Alvarado, Texas. They hurled fireworks at the building, spray-painted graffiti, and then opened fire on responding law enforcement, shooting a local officer in the neck. Journalist Andy Ngo has linked the attackers to an Antifa cell in the Dallas area.

Authorities have so far charged 14 people in the plot and recovered AR-style rifles, body armor, Kevlar vests, helmets, tactical gloves, and radios. According to the Department of Justice, this was a “planned ambush with intent to kill.”

And it wasn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a growing pattern of continuous violent left-wing incidents since December last year.

Monthly attacks

Most notably, in December 2024, 26-year-old Luigi Mangione allegedly gunned down UnitedHealth Group CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan. Mangione reportedly left a manifesto raging against the American health care system and was glorified by some on social media as a kind of modern Robin Hood.

One Emerson College poll found that 41% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 said the murder was “acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.”

The next month, a man carrying Molotov cocktails was arrested near the U.S. Capitol. He allegedly planned to assassinate Trump-appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In February, the “Tesla Takedown” attacks on Tesla vehicles and dealerships started picking up traction.

In March, a self-described “queer scientist” was arrested after allegedly firebombing the Republican Party headquarters in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Graffiti on the burned building read “ICE = KKK.”

In April, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s (D-Pa.) official residence was firebombed on Passover night. The suspect allegedly set the governor’s mansion on fire because of what Shapiro, who is Jewish, “wants to do to the Palestinian people.”

In May, two young Israeli embassy staffers were shot and killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Witnesses said the shooter shouted “Free Palestine” as he was being arrested. The suspect told police he acted “for Gaza” and was reportedly linked to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

In June, an Egyptian national who had entered the U.S. illegally allegedly threw a firebomb at a peaceful pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado. Eight people were hospitalized, and an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor later died from her injuries.

That same month, a pro-Palestinian rioter in New York was arrested for allegedly setting fire to 11 police vehicles. In Los Angeles, anti-ICE rioters smashed cars, set fires, and hurled rocks at law enforcement. House Democrats refused to condemn the violence.

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

In Portland, Oregon, rioters tried to burn down another ICE facility and assaulted police officers before being dispersed with tear gas. Graffiti left behind read: “Kill your masters.”

On July 7, a Michigan man opened fire on a Customs and Border Protection facility in McAllen, Texas, wounding two police officers and an agent. Border agents returned fire, killing the suspect.

Days later in California, ICE officers conducting a raid on an illegal cannabis farm in Ventura County were attacked by left-wing activists. One protester appeared to fire at federal agents.

This is not a series of isolated incidents. It’s a timeline of escalation. Political assassinations, firebombings, arson, ambushes — all carried out in the name of radical leftist ideology.

Democrats are radicalizing

This isn’t just the work of fringe agitators. It’s being enabled — and in many cases encouraged — by elected Democrats.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz routinely calls ICE “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass attempted to block an ICE operation in her city. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu compared ICE agents to a neo-Nazi group. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson referred to them as “secret police terrorizing our communities.”

Apparently, other Democratic lawmakers, according to Axios, are privately troubled by their own base. One unnamed House Democrat admitted that supporters were urging members to escalate further: “Some of them have suggested what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.” Others were demanding blood in the streets to get the media’s attention.

A study from Rutgers University and the National Contagion Research Institute found that 55% of Americans who identify as “left of center” believe that murdering Donald Trump would be at least “somewhat justified.”

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing. They don’t want the chaos to stop. They want to harness it, normalize it, and weaponize it.

The truth is, this isn’t just about ICE. It’s not even about Trump. It’s about whether a republic can survive when one major party decides that our institutions no longer apply.

Truth still matters. Law and order still matter. And if the left refuses to defend them, then we must be the ones who do.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

Chris Stewart doubles down, returns to radio after "buzzsaw" interview

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

Narrative engineering from the top

Institutional and media coordination

Surveillance and suppression

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Peace requires concessions

Peace or bloodshed?

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Outsourcing presence

Reclaiming our humanity

Exposed: The radical Left's bloody rampage against America

For years, the media warned of right-wing terror. But the bullets, bombs, and body bags are piling up on the left — with support from Democrat leaders and voters.

Willful blindness

Monthly attacks

Democrats are radicalizing