Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

TheBlaze TV host Dana Loesch reacts to her most recent death threat

September 30, 2015
Ted Tuttle

Editor

On radio Wednesday, Glenn was joined by Dana Loesh who told Glenn she's been talking to the FBI since receiving a really nasty death threat.

Here's how Dana told the story.

"It happened on my birthday, and Sunday, some dude who was really bad at graphics put up this video where he edited the NRA video that I did, the 'Moms Like Me' video, and it shows this like weird hand coming up, you know, with a Glock in the hand. And it pulls the trigger and shoots me right in the face, and blood splatters on the screen, and I fall over," Dana said.

The video was posted and subsequently shared on Twitter, until Dana eventually saw it while watching a baseball game with her family. The creepy part is that this wasn't the first time the person who posted the video had tried to contact Dana.

"This guy has been trying to get my attention for a long time. Apparently he lives in Illinois. And I've never engaged," Dana said.

She decided to take action when she realized her 14-year-old son had seen the video on Instagram.

"I just thought, 'all right, that's it. I'm done.' And so I'm trying to pursue options and see what happens. Because I'm just done dealing with this," Dana said.

Dana explained she reached out to the FBI and they are now carrying out an assessment of the situation.

"Well, if you just gave up the gun, then you would not have this problem," Glenn said jokingly.

Dana's response?

"That's exactly why I carry because guys like [him] who are bigger than me and stronger than me in a number of different ways are threatening me physically, yes, you're right, that's exactly why I have a firearm. You just proved my point, thank you," she said.

Listen to the full interview or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: You are talking to the FBI because you actually have some really nasty death threats.

DANA: Yeah, it's been fun. It happened on my birthday, and Sunday, some dude who was really bad at graphics put up this video where he edited the NRA video that I did, the Moms Like Me video, and it shows this like weird hand coming up, you know, with a Glock in the hand. And it pulls the trigger and shoots me right in the face, and blood splatters on the screen, and I fall over. And he posted that to Twitter because Twitter has video now. Put it up on Twitter, and it kind of went from there.

So I'm at the ball field. My son plays fall baseball. I'm at the ball field on Sunday, and I see all this weird stuff. You know, I made the mistake of, "Oh, well -- you know, he had a double-header. I'm like, "Okay, we have a break, let's look at Twitter." Which you shouldn't do on a Sunday.

So I open my phone. I look at Twitter, and I see all these weird mentions in my mentions column. And it's this video. And so I play it, and I'm watching it there. And the crazy thing is my oldest son is now aware of it because my oldest son is 14. And he and his friends, they're all on the Internet. He had saw it before -- we weren't even going to say anything to him, but he had already seen it.

GLENN: I remember the first spooky video death threat I ever got were from 9/11 truthers. And they made -- they took the stuff that I had done on CNN and slowed it way down and then put driving rock music behind it, and then a disembodied computer voice said, "All traitors must die." And then they put underneath my face, the word "traitor."

"All traitors must die. All traitors must die." It was the spookiest thing. Now it's kind of like, "Okay, well, it's Tuesday." But it was really spooky.

DANA: Yeah, it was creepy. And this guy has been trying to get my attention for a long time. Apparently he lives in Illinois. And I've never engaged. If it doesn't advance a message I'm trying to get out, then I don't engage.

GLENN: Oh, you are evil.

DANA: If it doesn't serve my purpose in some way, then I never engage that person. And I've ignored him. And this has been going on for a very long time. And then I saw that video.

GLENN: Like, what's he trying to contact you for?

DANA: Oh, just on Twitter, constantly writing stuff.

GLENN: Nasty stuff about you?

DANA: Oh, yeah. I mean, yeah, really ignorant. I mean, really trying to get a reaction out of me. And I ignored it. You know, I just muted him. I don't like to give them the satisfaction of seeing me block them, so God bless the mute button. So I just muted him, and that was about it. And then until this video came out.

And I don't know if it was the combination of me just being crabby, how you should have known it was my birthday. How dare you. You should have waited a day. Or it was the fact that, you know, my 14-year-old son had seen it because he's on Facebook as are a lot of kids who are 14 years old. And he's on Instagram, as are a lot of other 14-year-olds. Maybe it was that and the fact that he had seen it as well. And I just thought, "All right, that's it. I'm done." And so I'm trying to pursue options and see what happens. Because I'm just done dealing with this.

GLENN: Did the FBI reach out to you? Or did you --

DANA: Oh, I reached out to the FBI. I reached out to Cyber Crimes Division in Dallas. I also reached out to the FBI bureau here in Dallas. I heard back from them. I spoke with them today. They're assessing right now. They're in the assessment portion of, I guess, like a pre-investigation. So that's where it stands.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: Well, if you just gave up the gun, then you would not have this problem.

DANA: And that's the other thing because I had a number of grown adult males who were telling me yesterday online, yesterday and Sunday, that one of them said that he wants to beat my face in. The other one says that he wants to blank me up because I hide behind my guns. And I'm like, "Yes, that's exactly why I carry because guys like you who are bigger than me and stronger than me in a number of different ways are threatening me physically, yes, you're right, that's exactly why I have a firearm. You just proved my point, thank you."

GLENN: Where do you think this goes? I think we're headed with the Democratic Convention and everything else -- I was just up in the library today, and I was looking at some old Black Panthers stuff that we have up in the vaults in the Mercury library. And they're all old newspapers from 1968 and 1969 from the Black Panthers. It is Black Lives Matter. One hundred percent Black Lives Matter. I mean, word-for-word, Black Lives Matter.

And you know what the country was like in 1968 and '69. And I think we're headed for that. I think we'll see violence in Philadelphia. I hope I'm wrong. I think we'll see violence in Philadelphia and violence next year. Really bad violence. Assassinations I think are on our horizon. Because that's the only thing that hasn't been repeated. That's what happened in the early 1900s. It happened in the 1930s. It happened in the 1960s. And it will happen again. Whenever progressives really take root, it's a pattern. And the only thing we haven't done is riots in cities. We've started it, but not really. Riots in cities and assassinations.

DANA: Right. Right. I hope that's not the case. And I hope that our side can not take the bait on that. I mean, I think that there are people who just want to bait both sides really into exactly what you're describing, unfortunately. But I just -- it's always the people who preach nonviolence and unity that are the most unhinged and they're the most violent. And everything that they accuse everyone else of is everything that they commit themselves. They do all of this stuff. The Occupy -- the Tea Party never did anything bad. It's always been the Black Lives Matter and the Occupy people. They don't know how to live peacefully.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. I'm preaching peace and unity. So...

DANA: Yeah, but you're not going out there and like committing acts of violence or using violent rhetoric, or whatever that phrase is. You're not -- I mean, you're actually living it. I mean, you're actually going to help people. And, you know, you're traveling and visiting with people. I mean, it's like a big difference from what these people are doing. They're just there to start riots.

GLENN: Well, some people believe it, and some people use it as a slogan to hide behind.

DANA: A lot of people use it as a slogan to hide behind, yeah.

GLENN: So let's switch gears here for just a second. I don't know if you saw the Carly Fiorina -- or did you meet her when she was in the studio?

DANA: I interviewed her in your office when you weren't here one day.

GLENN: What do you think of her?

DANA: I think that she -- she's impressive. I haven't made up my mind yet because I -- she's impressive. I just have some questions about her business record. You know, I had asked her the question -- it was something to the extent of, "How are you going to be able to persuade Vladimir Putin and the religious leaders in Iran if you weren't able to win over the HP board? You know, how is that going to work out?" So, I mean, I think that -- she still needs to convince people on that end.

Her answer as to how she used to support the mandate for catastrophic coverage, I mean, great, we're all about liberty evangelism, right? If she comes out and says, "Okay, well, I agree with everyone now. I was wrong." Okay. Well, I can understand that. People do. They can become persuaded, and they can come around. I'm just a little hesitant to trust that answer because it seems like she just came around now because she's in the primary. So I think that she needs to persuade people a little bit more that that was a genuine reconsideration.

GLENN: I had a great conversation with her yesterday on the TV show. And I like her a lot. I'm still -- I'm hesitant to pull the trigger as well and say, "You know what, I back you 100 percent." She hasn't said anything that turns me off.

DANA: Right.

GLENN: She said many things that I really, really like.

DANA: Right.

GLENN: I think she's honest. At least that's the feeling I got from her. I'm just not sure on her pivot point on some of those things. She claims that she hasn't had those extreme views on very many things. But she did actually -- and I was surprised she didn't play this card. But she has had a massive pivot point in her life. You know, losing her child, and breast cancer in 2009, 2010, she -- that was a pretty major pivot point. She didn't tie that to anything, which surprised me.

DANA: I've appreciated how she hasn't really played the gender card because that would have been a huge turnoff.

I do think she has a commanding presence. You can tell she's a boardroom person.

GLENN: She is good.

DANA: When you meet her and she looks at you, you can tell that she's making some judgments right when she's looking at you and she's sizing everything up.

GLENN: Do you trust her?

DANA: I don't trust any of them, really. Honestly. Can I be honest?

GLENN: Who is your candidate?

DANA: I don't have one.

GLENN: You don't have one?

DANA: I do not have one.

GLENN: Not one that you're even, eh, you really like that person --

DANA: I mean, I like some of them, and then I really don't like some of them.

GLENN: Tell me the people you like.

DANA: I like Ted Cruz. But I'm not like endorsing Ted Cruz. I mean, I like Ted Cruz. I think he has the most small government record. He doesn't have a perfect record. But, you know, I like him. There's a few of them that I -- that I kind of like. All of them --

GLENN: How about Rubio?

DANA: I don't like him on amnesty. I don't like him on amnesty. That's a big thing with me.

GLENN: Have you sat down and talked with him?

DANA: No, I have not. He and Jeb Bush, shockingly, and John Kasich. I haven't spoken with those guys.

GLENN: There's only one of those three that I have spoken to and want to speak with. I had an hour sitdown with Rubio. Just without a microphone or camera, just two men sitting there talking.

I came away really liking him. Really respecting him. He's thought things through. He just disagrees with us on a few things, like the NSA. But he's -- he's worth -- he's worth looking at. I don't know if I trust him. You know, I don't know where his --

DANA: Right.

GLENN: -- where he really is when it comes down to the Constitution. But I think he's generally okay. He bothers me with his big government solutions on the war and --

DANA: Yeah. I don't know if it's an issue of trust. Or if I'm interested to see how easily they can be persuaded. Each one of these candidates can be persuaded to do the right thing by the Constitution and limited government.

GLENN: Do you think that's what the problem was with Rand Paul? That he started --

STU: You're talking about him in past tense. This is not a good sign. He's still in the race.

DANA: I know. But what is he? He's barely at 1 percent. He's not going make it after the next debate, if he makes it to the next --

GLENN: He's not going to make it.

DANA: And that's not to say that he's a bad person. He lost that momentum.

GLENN: No, I love him.

DANA: He lost the momentum.

GLENN: I think what happened with him is he shot himself in the foot by making that deal with Mitch McConnell.

DANA: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: As soon as he made that deal with -- he was -- for instance, Ted Cruz, with an exception of that one thing that he flip-flopped on, what was it?

PAT: It was TPT -- TPP or TPA.

GLENN: Right. He flipped on that. Everything else, he's been, nope, this is where I'm at. It doesn't matter. And I'm not playing ball with anybody. And that I think goes a long way with people. Rand Paul, I think the mistake he made is he shot himself in the foot by cozying up to Mitch McConnell.

DANA: Yeah, that was the start of it.

GLENN: Yeah, the minute he did that, you're like, "I don't know if I can trust him."

DANA: Right. And I understand why he did it. Everybody wants to have that backup. Everyone wants to have their little caucus, but there's a cost.

GLENN: Yeah. So Dana, you can listen to Dana on her radio program. And, of course, she follows my program on TheBlaze TV at 6 o'clock, Eastern time. You don't want to miss it. Thanks, Dana. Appreciate it. Stay safe.

How America’s elites fell for the same lie that fueled Auschwitz

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone footage out of Gaza isn’t just war propaganda — it’s a glimpse of the same darkness that once convinced men they were righteous for killing innocents.

Evil introduces itself subtly. It doesn’t announce, “Hi, I’m here to destroy you.” It whispers. It flatters. It borrows the language of justice, empathy, and freedom, twisting them until hatred sounds righteous and violence sounds brave.

We are watching that same deception unfold again — in the streets, on college campuses, and in the rhetoric of people who should know better. It’s the oldest story in the world, retold with new slogans.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

A drone video surfaced this week showing Hamas terrorists staging the “discovery” of a hostage’s body. They pushed a corpse out of a window, dragged it into a hole, buried it, and then called in aid workers to “find” what they themselves had planted. It was theater — evil, disguised as victimhood. And it was caught entirely on camera.

That’s how evil operates. It never comes in through the front door. It sneaks in, often through manipulative pity. The same spirit animates the moral rot spreading through our institutions — from the halls of universities to the chambers of government.

Take Zohran Mamdani, a New York assemblyman who has praised jihadists and defended pro-Hamas agitators. His father, a Columbia University professor, wrote that America and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent — that suicide bombings shouldn’t be viewed as barbaric. Imagine thinking that way after watching 3,000 Americans die on 9/11. That’s not intellectualism. That’s indoctrination.

Often, that indoctrination comes from hostile foreign actors, peddled by complicit pawns on our own soil. The pro-Hamas protests that erupted across campuses last year, for example, were funded by Iran — a regime that murders its own citizens for speaking freely.

Ancient evil, new clothes

But the deeper danger isn’t foreign money. It’s the spiritual blindness that lets good people believe resentment is justice and envy is discernment. Scripture talks about the spirit of Amalek — the eternal enemy of God’s people, who attacks the weak from behind while the strong look away. Amalek never dies; it just changes its vocabulary and form with the times.

Today, Amalek tweets. He speaks through professors who defend terrorism as “anti-colonial resistance.” He preaches from pulpits that call violence “solidarity.” And he recruits through algorithms, whispering that the Jews control everything, that America had it coming, that chaos is freedom. Those are ancient lies wearing new clothes.

When nations embrace those lies, it’s not the Jews who perish first. It’s the nations themselves. The soul dies long before the body. The ovens of Auschwitz didn’t start with smoke; they started with silence and slogans.

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

So what do we do? We speak truth — calmly, firmly, without venom. Because hatred can’t kill hatred; it only feeds it. Truth, compassion, and courage starve it to death.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage. That’s how Amalek survives — by making you fight him with his own weapons. The only victory that lasts is moral clarity without malice, courage without cruelty.

The war we’re fighting isn’t new. It’s the same battle between remembrance and amnesia, covenant and chaos, humility and pride. The same spirit that whispered to Pharaoh, to Hitler, and to every mob that thought hatred could heal the world is whispering again now — on your screens, in your classrooms, in your churches.

Will you join it, or will you stand against it?

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The great switch: Gates trades climate control for digital dominion

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new currency of power

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

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

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

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

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

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

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

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

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

The forgotten way

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

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

Both are traps.

The only way

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A restoration, not a renovation

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

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

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

The selective guardians of history

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

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

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

The real desecration

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

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

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond Venezuela

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

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

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.