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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

'Heaping scoop of incompetence' - Pat and Stu lament 'terrible' Democratic debate

October 15, 2015
Ted Tuttle

Editor

Pat and Stu filled in for Glenn on radio Wednesday, sharing their reactions to the gaffe-ridden Democratic presidential debate hosted by CNN Tuesday night.

"I seriously couldn't take it," Pat said. "It's probably the worst field ever gathered to run for a party's nomination, I would think."

Stu shared Pat's sentiments, comparing one of the candidates, Lincoln Chafee, to the eagle from The Muppets.

Later, the conversation turned toward Hillary Clinton's statement about "big government" Republicans trying to cut funding for Planned Parenthood.

"That remark by Hillary Clinton was the dumbest thing ever uttered by a human being. To say that a cut of $500 million is evidence of big government is quite possibly the worst point ever made by a politician," Stu said.

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

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

PAT: I couldn't -- I seriously couldn't take it. I couldn't take it -- it started at what, 7:30, by maybe 25 after 8:00, I'm like, okay, I can't. I just can't do it.

JEFFY: I was praying for the first commercial break.

PAT: I know. The lies. The deceit. The attacks. The deception. The communism.

(laughter)

STU: And also, let's add on a giant heaping scoop of incompetence.

PAT: Oh, man.

STU: That's a terrible field in comparison.

PAT: Wow. Oh, it's a terrible field. It's probably the worst field ever gathered to run for a party's nomination, I would think.

STU: By a major party, I think you could seriously make that argument.

PAT: If it was the Green Party or the --

STU: Or even the Libertarian Policy. I'm not talking about policy here. I'm just talking about how bad the candidates are. If you had like -- there's a party called the Peace and Freedom Party or something, that's basically a socialist party, like that's a field of candidates I could see them putting out there.

PAT: And policy-wise, they all fit in.

STU: They could all fit in and all get that nomination. It was embarrassing.

PAT: Jeez. Oh, my gosh. Lincoln Chafee is just -- I mean, what is he doing on the stage? What are you doing running for president?

STU: Well, first of all, he looks like the muppet eagle, I don't know if you noticed that.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: If you see them side by side, they're almost identical.

PAT: We have to see them side by side.

STU: I posted actually on my Facebook page. I came up with a campaign poster for them, which is Eagle Chafee 2016. And they look -- Sam the eagle and Lincoln Chafee are almost identical. That's number one.

But perhaps slightly more importantly, the man -- I've never seen anything like it. His answer as to one of his first votes.

PAT: Yeah, we have that. Let's check that out.

ANDERSON: Governor Chafee, you've attacked Secretary Clinton for being too close to Wall Street banks. In 1999, you voted for the very bill that made banks bigger.

LINCOLN: Glass-Steagall was my very first vote. I just arrived. My dad had died in office. I was appointed to the office. It was my very first vote.

ANDERSON: Are you saying you didn't know what you were voting for?

LINCOLN: I just arrived in the Senate. I think we get some takeovers, and that was one of my very first vote. And it was 95 -- 9 to 5 was the record.

ANDERSON: With all due respect, sir, what does that say about, that you were passing a vote for something you weren't really sure about?

LINCOLN: I think you're being a little rough. I just arrived at the United States Senate. I had been mayor of my city. My dad had died as I was appointed by the governor. It was the first vote. And it was 90 to 5.

JEFFY: Thank you.

PAT: I had hay fever that day. I put on brown and yellow. I didn't look very good.

JEFFY: I didn't even know where I was.

PAT: I think it might have even been beyond hay fever. It might have been a sinus infection.

STU: I was eating a hash brown, and some of the oil got on my shirt and it made it like clear. I was very nervous. I was self-conscious.

PAT: But there was a stain.

STU: Yeah, there was a stain there.

PAT: So I was looking at that more than I was the bill.

STU: I think you're being a little rough here, Anderson, considering that it was one of my first days. I mean, when you go in and you have a job for the first day, you walk around, you shake hands with a couple people, you have some doughnuts in the office. I wasn't expecting to vote. I just pressed a button. I didn't even know what happened.

PAT: I didn't even know there was voting going on in Congress. When did this start? Well, good follow-up would have been, well, what's going to happen on your first day of president?

STU: Look, I happened to bomb Idaho. It was my first day in office.

PAT: My wife was sick. I was worried about her. So, yeah, I sent some P52s over Idaho.

JEFFY: I think you're being a little rough.

STU: Is that one of the more unbelievable moments you've ever seen from a candidate?

PAT: Oh, it is.

STU: He was saying because it was his first day, he had no idea what he was voting for. And that was his excuse for supporting this particular bill. I mean, that's an unbelievable moment. Now, he is an absolute zero in every way, including the polls. So it's not -- he's not the guy with all the attention on him. But that field -- because it's one thing to say, okay, Hillary Clinton is a bad candidate. And she is a bad candidate. She's supporting policies -- some of the stuff she said and we'll get into it in that debate. In every other election say pre-2008 would be a complete disqualifying as a run for president -- to have any chance to win the presidency. It was that bad. But on that stage, there is no chance anyone on that stage can beat her.

They're terrible.

PAT: Although, they loved him.

STU: Bernie Sanders was laughable. They loved him in that room.

PAT: He won the debate on Drudge. And they loved him in the room.

STU: The Drudge poll is an internet poll.

PAT: And most people are saying Hillary won.

STU: Because Hillary does not have to win those debates. She just has to not be terrible.

PAT: Although she was. She was terrible.

STU: I think she was for a general election. I think she certainly was for anyone that has ever seen or heard --

PAT: She might be great for the new Democrat Party.

STU: Right.

PAT: She might be great. I mean, you've got a stage filled with people who are seriously qualified to run for the socialist or Communist Party.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: They absolutely could be running for that nomination. And the only one there who probably couldn't is Webb. And he has no place anymore. Jim Webb has no place in the Democrat Party. He's an actual Democrat like you knew them 40 years ago. Jim Webb seems to be, for the most part, a fairly reasonable Democrat. A moderate guy.

STU: Yeah, I think it was National Review who said he would have had a good chance of winning the nomination in 1948.

PAT: Exactly, yeah. Now, there's no way. He's not nearly communist enough. Not nearly. And they keep throwing out the Republicans like they're so extreme. Like they're so wild-eyed. Are you crazy? You guys are all communists. And you've got a guy who is very reasonable. He has no place in your party anymore. No place in your stinking party.

STU: Yeah. No place in your party. I mean, you have a guy here who is saying he's a socialist. And the mainstream candidate is doing everything she can to get to his left. Everything she can to get to his left.

PAT: Right. It's working out pretty well too. I mean, listen to this.

STU: Yeah, she just keeps going that way.

HILLARY: We've got to do more about the lives of these children. That's why I started off by saying, we need to be committed to making it possible for every child to live up to his or her God-given potential. That is really hard to do if you don't have early childhood education, if you don't have schools that are able to meet the needs of the people or good housing. There's a long list. We need a new New Deal for communities.

PAT: Okay. So if that doesn't send a chill down your spine. We need a new New Deal.

STU: Yeah, now, is that a newer New Deal than the new New Deal that they proposed in 1935?

PAT: Yes. We already had that new deal.

STU: Well, there was a New Deal. Then there was a new New Deal. This would be the new new New Deal?

PAT: This would be the super mega doppler New Deal.

STU: Wow.

JEFFY: And she's really concerned about childhood education. Really? How about that Planned Parenthood? At what age does child education start?

STU: She actually had, and I use this intentionally, the balls to say that she cared about the lives of children.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: Is that a serious point? You don't get to make that on the Democratic debate stage.

PAT: Not if you're as pro-abortion as she is.

STU: No.

PAT: Not if you love Planned Parenthood as much as she does. And she does.

HILLARY: It's always the Republicans or their sympathizers who say, you can't have paid leave, you can't provide health care. They don't mind having big government to interfere with a woman's right to choose and to try to take down Planned Parenthood.

PAT: Okay. Let's attack that now. They're not taking down Planned Parenthood. The government -- the big government we fight against is currently funding Planned Parenthood to the tune of $500 million a year. And they want to stop doing that.

STU: Yep.

PAT: They want the big government to stop being so big that they're funding that organization. And if they then survive, so be it. If they fail, so be it. Let them get their own private -- my guess is they get plenty of funds anyway. Because last year, what did they have? 2 billion, wasn't it?

STU: I think it was 1.5.

PAT: Yeah, it was definitely -- somewhere over one and $2 billion.

STU: Yeah. And I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but that remark by Hillary Clinton was the dumbest thing ever uttered by a human being. To say that a cut of $500 million is -- is evidence of big government is quite possibly the worst point ever -- ever made by a politician.

PAT: Stupid. And she doesn't get challenged on it.

STU: No. In fact, I was listening to CNN earlier today, and it was, this was her big moment. Where she came out and she said, the -- the Republicans love big government when it comes to defunding Planned Parenthood. Are you listening to yourself speak? Defunding. You're talking about taking government money away from an organization is big government.

PAT: Right.

STU: Every time they come out and they say, they want to cut childhood education funding. They want to cut health care spending. Is that all big government too? When they want to cut those things?

PAT: It doesn't seem like it to me. No.

STU: You're shrinking the size of government in theory. Again, the proposal doesn't even do these things. It doesn't even cut the money going to women's health organizations. It just redirects it from one that's under criminal investigation or at least very well may be soon.

But you have an issue where cutting money to an organization -- a government gives free money to somebody. That's big government. That is what conservatives fight against.

PAT: Right.

STU: Big government giving money to their friends. To other -- private organizations. That is what we fight against. When we say that we don't want that. She identifies that as big government.

PAT: Big government. Yeah. Well, she also ties in. That's where they want to tell women what to do with their body. Yeah, well, we also want government to tell people what to do with other human beings that we don't want them to kill. We do allow certain things. We allow access to the government to do certain things like prevent murder. That is a function of the government.

STU: Yes.

PAT: It's not that we want bigger government. We just want the government to do what it's supposed to do. And that's protect life.

STU: And of course, this comes from a party that is telling you the size of sodas you're allowed to ingest. They don't care about the government being involved with your body. They want the government involved with every aspect of what you do.

PAT: Yeah, it's unbelievable. And she had more.

HILLARY: They're fine with big government. I'm sick of it.

You know, we've been doing these things -- we should not be paralyzed. We should not be paralyzed by the Republicans and their constant refrain, big government this, big government that, except for what they want to impose on the American people. I know we can afford it because we're going to make the wealthy pay for it.

PAT: Oh.

STU: Of course. Of course. The wealthy.

PAT: Oh.

STU: They can pay for everything.

JEFFY: She almost did it there. She almost did it where she almost went to the Hillary screech. And she pulled it back. I know.

PAT: Very close.

STU: She got close though.

PAT: Very close.

STU: She is not good with big crowds like that. Luckily, she doesn't have to worry about that at her rallies because no one has been showing up, but she is not good.

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

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narrative engineering from the top

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

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

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

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

Institutional and media coordination

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

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

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

Surveillance and suppression

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

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

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

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace requires concessions

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

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

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

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

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

Peace or bloodshed?

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

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

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

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

Outsourcing presence

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

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

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

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

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

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

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

Reclaiming our humanity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Exposed: The radical Left's bloody rampage against America

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

They were wrong.

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

Willful blindness

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

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

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

Monthly attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

Democrats are radicalizing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.