Senator Marco Rubio joins Glenn to discuss 2016 presidential race

Glenn introduced Senator Marco Rubio on radio this morning to discuss several key issues concerning his presidential race. While making it clear he has some real disagreements with Rubio, he told his listeners Rubio is "somebody that you should seriously consider and seriously look at."

With the next GOP debate slated to focus on the economy, much of their conversation revolved around economic subjects, such as free enterprise, tax reform and the "sharing economy." Other topics included gun control, abortion, fellow candidates and Rubio's prediction about Russia's involvement in the Middle East.

Listen to the dialogue below.

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

GLENN: I want to introduce you to somebody I think you should get to know. And that is Senator Marco Rubio. He is a guy who I actually have real disagreements on a couple of things. And we'll get into that maybe a little bit here today. But I'd like to sit down with him and have a real conversation. Marco and I met, I don't even remember where it was or where it was. Sometime in the summer. Someplace. Marco, do you remember where that was?

MARCO: Las Vegas, I think.

GLENN: And so we met --

MARCO: Yep. Freedom Fest.

GLENN: Yeah, Freedom Fest, that's right. We spent about an hour together. And I didn't know what to think of Marco Rubio when I walked in. I really liked him and respected him and respected his intellect and his honesty when I left. And he's somebody that you should seriously consider and seriously look at. You may end up disagreeing. But he's somebody that you should take a serious look at.

Marco, welcome to the program. How are you, senator?

MARCO: Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: You bet. So you were talking about the sharing economy, which I think some people, especially, you know, as you get a little older, sharing -- communist! The sharing economy is something that is actually real and is the difference between my age and the millennials. You want to explain this a bit?

MARCO: Yeah, so I'll give you a perfect example, right? There's a new system out there, a company called Handy. And what Handy does is, let's say that your air conditioning unit breaks down at 11 o'clock at night and you need somebody to come in and fix it because it's just too hot. Handy has somewhere halfway across town there's an air-conditioning repair person who is available to work at 11 o'clock at night. It is an app that you go on your phone and connects you to a needy customer, somebody who needs help. It connects you with a person who is ready to do that service for you. So it's basically a platform where you're sharing, you know, a handyman, or in this case, an air-conditioning repairman to come work for you. You pay them on the app, so it's cashless. And then you rate their work so that future customers can look at it and see who is good and who is not. It's basically free enterprise --

GLENN: Extreme.

MARCO: -- broadened in the 20th century. And why it really works is now suddenly, as an air-conditioning repair person, you can go into business for yourself. You don't need to do advertising. You don't need to have a huge physical plant. You can be in business for yourself because this connects you to customers at a very low cost.

GLENN: And nobody is taking a cut of that. This is the thing that I don't think people understand. I just gave a speech here in Dallas with Allen West. And the question came up from the audience about the economy. And I said, "Most people don't understand. We're on the verge of not the Industrial Revolution, but the Renaissance." People are going to be freed up to do things and to be their own person in ways I don't think the average person can really understand. Is this where you get your hope for the economy and us not being swept away in the dustbin of history?

MARCO: I do. And what gives me concern is that, you know, outdated leaders and particularly believers of big government are the ones that will stand in the way of it. Because their argument is going to be, "Well, that air-conditioning repairman has to be treated as an employee of the company that connected you guys." That means you have to offer them benefits, and you have to pay them a certain wage. And you have to do this, that, or the other. And the thing that really happens, actually, is an established industry. Some big company that does air-conditioning repair. This is a bad example, but I'm just using it. It exists in other realms.

An established industry will hire a bunch of lobbyists to go to City Hall, the State Capitol, or Washington and say, "We need to pass a law to keep people from providing competition to us."

GLENN: Yes.

MARCO: And they'll have politicians that go along with them because they hired the right lobbyists and they raised a lot of money.

GLENN: When you and I were in Vegas, that weekend or whenever that was, I remember walking down the street with my wife, and they were -- they were reaching across her to hand me hooker cards where I could call for a hooker in case, you know, I got tired of my wife. And my wife just snapped. And she's like, "We're getting off this strip. Just, stop it. I can't take this anymore." And I said, "Hang on. I got to call for Uber." And somebody said to me, next to me, "You can't get Uber here." Las Vegas is not cool with Uber, but they are cool with hookers.

MARCO: Yeah. And, again, that's because the established taxicab industry has gone to the commission or the local government and said, "Don't allow these people to operate here." And that happens in industry after industry. It's why -- people don't understand. To be for free enterprise does not mean to be for big business. Big business and established industries are actually often an impediment to free enterprise because they want to keep their hold and they don't want to allow any competitor to enter the space.

GLENN: So you are the -- the next debate is really about the economy. What is your focus on the economy? What sets you apart?

MARCO: Well, again, I think most of us are talking about some of the same issues. I think the argument that I've used that others haven't is, there's no reason why America can't be better in the 21st century economically than it was in the 20th. We should be leading in all these things. But we have to be competitive in order to make that happen. That's why we need tax reform. That's why we need regulatory reform. That's why we need to balance our budget. And repeal and replace Obamacare and fully utilize our energy resources. If we can do those things, the private sector, the American innovator, the small business person out there starting their business, they'll take care of the rest. They'll create the great companies, the great ideas, and the great-paying jobs. We just need a government that gives them a chance to succeed in an increasingly competitive global economy.

GLENN: So you're a Catholic. The pope was just in the country. Do you think he missed the opportunity to shut down Planned Parenthood when he spoke in front of Congress by really not standing on that issue?

MARCO: Look, obviously if I had written the speech, it would have focused more on protecting life and a little bit less on some of the other issues. But, ultimately, he did mention the value of life at every stage, and I thought that was important. Maybe he chose not to get involved into our internal political debates in this country. And in fairness, he didn't do that the other way either. He talked about, you know, supporting and protecting the environment. He didn't say, "And, therefore, pass Cap and Trade." Or "Thank you, President Obama, for signing all these executive orders on coal and so forth." So I understand. He's a spiritual leader. He didn't want to get into the details of a political debate. But he did mention life.

But, yes, I mean, that's got to be -- for me, the issue of life is not a political issue. It is a human rights issue, and it's one that I think deserves the priority.

GLENN: So Hillary Clinton said just the other day, "How many more innocent -- how many more of our innocent children have to be slaughtered before we say enough is enough?" And she was talking, of course, about the slaughter of the children in Oregon, not in Planned Parenthood.

MARCO: Yeah. And, again, terrible tragedy of what happened in Oregon. But you're right. Every single year, unborn children in this country are killed legally through laws that allow that to happen. And, look, I recognize this is a tough issue. And I actually do believe that a woman has a right to choose with her body. The problem is that when there's a pregnancy, there's another life involved, and that life has a right to live. And so as policymakers, we have to choose between two competing rights. And I've chosen, as a matter of principle, to err and to choose the side of life in that debate. And she, on the other hand, she supports abortion on demand at any stage. For example, she voted against the ban on partial birth abortion, a particularly gruesome way of aborting a child. She voted against the ban. One of the few people did and actually justified it. Said it was a fundamental right. She has extreme positions on the issue of life. And I hope we'll have an opportunity to talk about those in this campaign.

GLENN: Let me talk about Oregon a bit because they are, again, doing everything they can to -- the president at least is getting close to being honest. He said last week that it's time to look at countries that have done something like Australia and England. And what Australia and England did was confiscation of all guns.

How do we stop this insanity? We're headed for a really bad place if this is really what the left is pushing for.

MARCO: Yeah. By pointing out that the things they're advocating would have done nothing to prevent these things. For example, they advocate for an assault weapons ban. Well, the last two instances that have been high-profile didn't use assault weapons. They talk about background checks. The last two instances we saw are people that would have passed background checks or did pass background checks. So the point -- the problem with gun laws is they're not very effective. Because criminals are the ones that commit crimes with guns. And criminals don't care what the law is. They don't follow the law because they are criminals. By definition, they ignore the law. So if you pass strict gun laws, law-abiding people adheres to those laws. And then they will be unable to protect their families.

GLENN: The father of the killer said, "Well, how could he have -- how could he have had these guns, you know, if they just weren't on the streets, if those guns were just not available, my son wouldn't have killed all those people."

MARCO: Yeah, look, again, I know the arguments that people are making. And the bottom line is, if someone intends to acquire a weapon, they're going to acquire a weapon. Whether it's legally or illegally, they're going to do it. And the only people that will be impacted by these gun laws are people that follow the law. And so what you'll have is a country where law-abiding people are unprotected, are unable to protect themselves, the property of their family. And people who are intent on committing a criminal act, accessing explosives, a gun, or whatever else they want to use to kill people.

GLENN: Marco, I want to ask you, I saw a clip at the Value Voters Summit of Donald Trump where he called you a clown. And he was -- he was booed for that. What do you think -- what do you think it says about America that we're -- that we're embracing this kind of nonsense?

MARCO: You know, I think there's a tremendous amount of frustration, rightfully so with the political class. It's a disconnect between Washington and the struggles of daily life that people are facing. And I think he's hit upon that to some extent. And we can't ignore it.

But, ultimately, this campaign has to be about the big issues confronting our country. Look, we're now at a point where we are either -- over the next four years, we'll have to decide, we're either going to leave our children as the most prosperous and freest Americans ever, or we'll be the first generation of Americans that leave our children worse off than ourselves. That's the only two ways forward. And if we don't make the right choice in this election, if we have another four years like the last eight, we are going to be the first Americans in our history to leave our children worse off than ourselves. This has to be a serious election about serious issues and real solutions. And I think increasingly, the campaign is becoming about that. I really do. And I'm glad that it is. Because our nation and our people deserve that. At least from my campaign's perspective, that's what we'll be about.

GLENN: We'd like to sit down with you and talk about some things we disagree with, the immigration and also disagree with the NSA. And you and I both had I think a very logical and heartfelt talk about those issues privately. And I'd like to have those publicly at some point down the road.

MARCO: Sure. Absolutely.

GLENN: But I would -- I guess I would just end with this.

You brought up -- you know, you're talking about Donald Trump. You said, "You know, people are very frustrated." And they are.

MARCO: They are.

GLENN: They're attracted to Donald Trump and they're attracted to Ben Carson because they're completely out of the system. And I say this, you know, with -- you know, I support Rand Paul, I support you, I support Ted Cruz. But you guys are all in the system. And I think that's playing against you. Why should anyone trust any of you guys who are already in the system?

MARCO: Well, first of all, the names you've just mentioned, we've been there about four years. In the case of Ted, a couple years less than that.

I ran for office against incredible odds five years ago against the sitting governor of Florida with the entire political establishment supporting him. And the reason why I ran is to change this stuff. And I realized -- one of my great frustrations about the US Senate is the lack of urgency about any of these issues. No one talks about the debt anymore, for example.

We still have a debt that's almost $19 trillion. And no one -- this wasn't even a topic at the three-hour CNN debate. And there's no sense of urgency about these things. And I just concluded -- you know, we really want to change the direction of the country, we don't just need a House and Senate, we need a president, and that's why I chose to run for president.

So the truth is that one of the reasons I'm running is because I share that frustration. It's the reason why I ran for the Senate four and a half years ago. And I've had a front row seat unfortunately to see some of this lack of action on some of these issues. And it's that frustration that leads me to seek the highest office in the land now because I know it's going to take a president to undo the damage done by this president.

GLENN: I will say, you should just take a quick victory lap here before I let you know on the prediction you made on the last debate where you said exactly what Putin would do. This president and our State Department has no idea what they're dealing with. And you called it. And it was an astounding prediction.

MARCO: And I think you'll continue to see more of those things. You know, his goal is to continue to drive us out of the Middle East and reposition himself as a geopolitical force, on par with the United States. And so you're already seeing more and more of that. And I think unfortunately we were right about that. And we'll be right about it in the future. Because this president is weak and he's seen that way by our adversaries.

GLENN: Yeah. Marco Rubio. MarcoRubio.com, if you want to support. MarcoRubio.com. Marco, we'll see you again. And thank you so much for being on the program.

MARCO: Yes. Thanks, Glenn. Thanks.

GLENN: Running for president, Senator Marco Rubio. MarcoRubio.com.

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.