Election 2016: Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum calls in to discuss the issues facing the country

The list of potential GOP nominees keeps growing, and the latest man to enter the race joined Glenn on radio this morning. When it comes to standing against radical Islam, no one speaks louder than Rick Santorum. He spoke about the threat of the Islamic State, the role of government in the gay marriage debate, the police officer in McKinney, TX, and more.

GLENN: Rick Santorum is a good friend. And a good friend of the program. And somebody that I have -- and I truly believe this -- is the closest thing to Winston Churchill that we have on the planet today. Probably next to Benjamin Netanyahu. When it comes to radical Islam. Rick and I have talked about rallied Islam before radical Islam was cool. And talked about these kinds of days and what it's going to take and the kind of enemy we would face. Unfortunately, we're seeing all of the things that when Rick was even a senator, he was talking about, we've seen them all come true. And he's a guy who has truly been raised for this time to be able to deal with things like rallied Islam. We haven't spoken about this in a while. I'd like to get his take on it. He declared his candidacy for president of the United States when we were away on Memorial Day. So we have our first chance to speak to him now. Senator, or, Mr. Presidential Candidate, Rick Santorum. How are you, Rick?

RICK: I'm doing great, Glenn. It's so great to be back on your show. Thank you for having me.

GLENN: Thank you. How is your wife? How is your daughter?

RICK: Thanks for asking. Everybody is doing just great. Thank you. Our girl just got a great clean bill of health. And life is good.

GLENN: Good. So, Rick, let's start with ISIS. The president in so many words said, I don't really have a strategy on ISIS. The strategy that we are using is obviously not working. What do we do?

RICK: Well, the strategy is not working because we haven't identified who they are, what they want to accomplish, and why they're trying to accomplish it. I mean, it's all just denial that this has anything to do with Islam or that they have any designs that are religiously motivated.

It's really clear -- Glenn, you and I talked about this years ago, when he talked about the establishment of the caliphate and what that means. And ISIS has established a caliphate. They now have legitimacy within the Islamic world, at least the radical Islamic world, to call people to jihad, not just in Iraq and Syria, but all over the world, including the United States. And they're doing that. And as long as they can maintain territorial control in an area and expand that area, I believe they will grow exponentially. Because when I say grow exponentially -- and be able to recruit jihadists. What they believe is, if they can maintain this territory and expand it, that shows that Allah is blessing them, that Allah is with them, that they're defeating the great Satan. As America tries to stop them, that they can't. This will encourage more and more people to join them. So what the president is doing is the worst of all things. He's saying that he's fighting, not committing any real resources to do so, and giving ISIS an easy victory, if you will, as he moves into Ramadi -- as they move into Ramadi and other places.

GLENN: So, Rick, you're president of the United States. What's the first thing you do?

RICK: Well, the first thing you do is -- you step up the real campaign against ISIS.

Number one, we arm the Kurds. That's the first -- that's the easiest thing to do. This is a fighting force that can fight, will fight, and can win. We have to have a real air campaign. We're flying, according to Centcom that I saw recently, something on the order of 14 HEP sordis a day against ISIS. Which, 70 percent of the airplanes aren't even dropping ordinances. So we're not -- during the Gulf War, we flew 800 to 1,000 planes a day to try to win the battle. We aren't even touching ISIS with the handful of bombs that are being dropped on them. We have a real coordinated campaign with the Kurds. With whatever Iraqi forces that are willing to fight. We have to support the Jordanians. I mean, the Jordanians are in this fight they're willing to fight. They need more resources. They need more help. We can provide it to them. The Egyptians. The kidnapping of these 88 Christian girls in Libya. And the Egyptians are willing to fight the -- the -- ISIS in Libya. But we're holding back --

GLENN: It's truly amazing. We didn't hold back supporting Mubarak, a bad guy. But a better guy than we had with the Muslim Brotherhood. Then we supported the Muslim Brotherhood. Now we get a guy who may be the best person in the presidential palace in Egypt that they have had in modern -- in modern history, and we're nowhere to be found around this guy.

RICK: Well, that's because the president supports the Muslim Brotherhood controlling Egypt. I mean, it's just almost impossible to conceive that the president is standing by this terrorist organization that was turning Egypt into a Sharia radical state, you know, sustaining the judiciary, doing all these things that were making it very clear that they were going to move away from democracy. The Egyptian people got it. They rose up along with the military and took the Muslim Brotherhood out. And our president continues to stand with them and objects to this government because they overthrew a legitimately elected government. This is the kind of -- I just -- it's almost incomprehensible how the president can look at that situation and not see who the good guys and the bad guys are.

GLENN: Okay. A couple of other things that are going on. One is, injustice on the streets. Our police now are no longer -- I mean, we have a guy in McKinney, Texas. Have you followed the McKinney, Texas, story at all?

RICK: Yeah.

GLENN: So this police officer has now retired. He quit the force. He's gone. That's insane to me. If I'm a police officer, I don't go and answer some of these calls now. And that's what's happening in some of these bigger cities. We've made our police officers guilty until proven innocent. And even when it's innocent, we don't really care. We are giving the rule of the street to thugs. In Baltimore, they were actually thanking -- the city officials were thanking the Nation of Islam and the Crips and the Bloods for holding the peace in the streets. What do you do? You're president of the United States, how do you get your arms around this one?

RICK: You know, this is a really tough one because what we've had unfortunately is a president who was in a position to actually heal a lot of racial divide in this country and he's done anything, but that. Which is unfortunate. Which makes it that much harder for the person who comes in after this president and try to repair that. The only way you do that is actually in my opinion is going after the root cause of the problems here and start talking about what's going on within the black community. Within the minority communities. And many poor communities. Not just black communities across this country. Which is the lack of opportunity. The breakdown of the family. The lack of opportunity for jobs and good-paying jobs because of a lot of other factors. Poor schools. I mean, there's just a whole series of issues here that have led to hopelessness and despair. And we -- this president simply has not addressed them.

He's promoted more government, more transfer payments, and not real opportunities, not real -- trying to heal the family and the family situations within those communities. All of those things are key. There's a big just published about six weeks ago by a guy named Robert HEP Putnam. And Robert Putnam is a liberal Harvard sociologist. And he concluded, in looking at the problems of being able to rise in America, that the number one issue was the breakdown of the family in these communities.

And we've had a president who had an opportunity to do something dramatic about that. And he's chosen not to. He's chosen to play the vice of politics. What I'm going to do, and one of the things that I pledge as president, we're going to focus on children and providing a society that will help nurture families again. That will start putting families as the number one priority for our country to try to heal those -- the wounds in these communities by restoring the building block of those communities, which is the traditional family.

GLENN: Okay. And the traditional family is usually supported by the traditional church.

RICK: Yeah.

GLENN: And I know last time -- it used to be, Rick, that they would ask people about gay marriage and everything else. And there was no reason to ask that. Nobody would change gay marriage. And nobody was trying to change the Constitution one way or the other on that. In a serious way.

Here's what's happened. The president -- now the Supreme Court is going to deal with gay marriage. And the -- we had David Barton on yesterday who showed us some things that came from the Department of Justice, their attorneys on the changes that they will inflict on churches. We will lose our -- our tax-free status.

RICK: Yeah.

GLENN: They will start telling us who we can and cannot hire. What we can say. What we cannot. Who we can marry, who we cannot. You're going to have to deal with that as president of the United States, what do you do there?

RICK: Well, this is tantamount to government establishing religion. When the United States government comes in and says, this is what you'll believe. This is how you'll practice your faith. This is a new religion. This lies, in my opinion, in the establishment clause of the Constitution that says the Congress shall make no law with respect to establishing a religion.

If the government goes around and tells churches what they have to believe in and what their doctrine is, that is something that is a violation of the First Amendment. That's why I have actually some hope that the court will not get this wrong. That they will not go as far as some are suggesting. Because there is no -- there is no way that the left will stop at just tolerance. They will demand conformity. They will demand it from the church and every institution. They will demand it from businesses. And there will be no tolerance to a different point of view on this issue. And that's why, again, I'm hopeful that the court will not do what it is -- does. But if it does, I will tell you, and I said this on Meet the Press a couple weeks ago -- that's the court's opinion. They're entitled to their opinion. But the president and the Congress have an opinion too of what the Constitution is. And if they get it wrong and the consequences are what I suspect they will be toward people of faith, then this president will fight back.

PAT: Rick, the media's tactics with you last time and now are either ignore you or attack you. And still last time you finished second. Now, the latest thing is that supposedly one person showed up in Iowa. Tell us what really happened there.

RICK: Yeah. Well, the funny thing was. The last time around, I had that happen to me once too. I went to a town hall meeting, and only one person showed up. It turned out to be in all honesty the best town meeting I ever had. The one person who showed up became my coordinator for the county. She actually became the regional coordinator. And it turned out, the fact that I had time with her to be able to talk with her, it turned out to be the greatest thing.

GLENN: Which, by the way, had you -- had you end up second place. So it's happened before.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: In a town of 300 people. So three people show up. And you're 1 percent of the town showing up. And it's happened before. But they're attacking you.

RICK: Yeah. You know, look, when I did this the last time, no one was paying any attention to me. I mean, I was going around, going to all these small towns with 2- to 300 people. And, of course, you won't get 50 people. I mean, last night, we were at a town a little larger in Iowa. And we had 50 people at a reception. They didn't cover that. We had a great town hall meeting for an hour and a half.

But when you go to a lot of small towns during the middle of the afternoon, during workdays, and people are out doing their things, you will get a smaller crowd, and that's what's expected. That's what makes this so hard because politicians are used to being cheered by big crowds and being in front of audiences. And this is all about meeting real people and the one person, by the way, who was there signed up to be a caucus chairman for us. Agreed to actually run the county for us.

GLENN: Now, I've read conflicting reports that there were more than one.

RICK: There actually was more than one. There were three or four people there.

GLENN: Okay. Doesn't make it that much better.

RICK: One person was at the bar and had a milkshake with me. I think that's what they were taking. But the point is, we don't -- to me, it's all about quality and not quantity. Particularly these little counties of just a few thousand people in the county. That's what makes it hard to do. That's why people don't want to do it because you don't want to take a hit. And from my perspective, I'll just keep chugging away. They can criticize my one or two or three people that I get to volunteer in every county. But, you know what, that's how I won Iowa last time.

GLENN: Rick, would you do me a favor? Can we sit down sometime? I want to meet you someplace. Your house. Someplace. I'll bring my cameras, and I want to put a list of, I don't even know, 25, 50 questions together. And I'll ask all the candidates that I would seriously consider voting for -- I'm not going to ask Jeb Bush or Chris Christie or some of the other clowns -- but, you know, about four guys who I would consider voting for. I'm going to ask them exactly the same questions, so there's no gotchas or anything else. Would you do that?

RICK: Yes! I will never forget, one of the first interviews you ever did with me. We did this, and I was in a parking lot in north Pennsylvania. And you said, I have 20-some questions, yes or no answers.

GLENN: That's right.

RICK: You asked me about 20-some questions, and you demanded yes or no answers. No caveats. I finished. And I'll never forget what you said as long as I live. I finished the last question, and you said, I want to kiss you in the mouth.

[laughter]

GLENN: Well, that's sick. Although, we have found out now, it's perfectly normal.

RICK: Normal. It's a natural reaction for that.

GLENN: That's right. It's a perfectly natural reaction. Rick, all the best of luck to you. And we will -- we will schedule sometime where we can really sit down and go in. Because I want to talk about the size of government and where you stand on some of the more Libertarian issues.

RICK: Love to talk about that.

GLENN: Is there a website? I'm doing Pat's job.

RICK: RickSantorum.com. Even a dollar helps us. Help us out. Join the fight and get out there and make a difference for your country.

GLENN: RickSantorum.com. Thanks a lot, Rick. I appreciate it.

RICK: Thank you.

GLENN: You bet. Buh-bye. He's a really good guy. Really, really good guy.

PAT: He is.

GLENN: Why are we not on his bandwagon?

PAT: I don't know that we're not. I mean, we're still deciding. Still deciding.

GLENN: He's probably one of the four.

PAT: He's in there. Yeah.

Bill Gates ends climate fear campaign, declares AI the future ruler

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.