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

New BFFs: Rolling Stone, Sean Penn and El Chapo

January 11, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Talk about strange bedfellows. In what can only be described as an epic PR failure, Rolling Stone magazine and actor/activist Sean Penn teamed up for an exclusive interview with El Chapo, the convicted drug lord who is on the lamb after breaking out of a maximum security Mexican prison. Cue the Mariachi band.

First things first, a little background on El Chapo. He's filthy rich due to his criminal drug empire. So rich that his minions reportedly spent about one million dollars digging a mile-long tunnel so he could walk out of prison---no crawling for this kingpin.

Typically, when one comes across an escaped criminal responsible for murdering thousands of people, one would notify the authorities. Unless, of course, one is a liberal activist that keeps company with unsavory types like Fidel Castro. Enter Sean Penn.

Penn recently spent "weeks of clandestine planning" in order to interview and write an article about El Chapo for Rolling Stone. The communist sympathizer asked hard-hitting questions like, "How was your childhood?" and "Do you have any dreams?" and "If you could change the world, would you?" (By the way, things are hunky-dory for El Chapo, and he wouldn't change a thing: "For me, the way things are, I'm happy.")

As if that weren't enough, Rolling Stone provided the pièce de résistance: complete editorial control to El Chapo.

On the heels of publishing a bogus rape story, Rolling Stone now runs a story in which all control was surrendered to a vicious drug lord on the run from authorities.

In the article, Penn tried to spin an excuse for his secret interview:

I take no pride in keeping secrets that may be perceived as protecting criminals, nor do I have any gloating arrogance at posing for selfies with unknowing security men. But I'm in my rhythm. Everything I say to everyone must be true. As true as it is compartmentalized. The trust that El Chapo had extended to us was not to be f**ked with. This will be the first interview El Chapo had ever granted outside an interrogation room, leaving me no precedent by which to measure the hazards.

However, Penn's twisted sense of loyalty may not pay off this time. Matt Gutman with ABC News tweeted Monday that Mexican authorities are investigating both Sean Penn and Mexican actress Kate del Castillo, who brokered the get together, for meeting with El Chapo.

Enjoy this complimentary segment from The Glenn Beck Program

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

GLENN: El Chapo is in the news. Who is El Chapo? One of the most notorious drug dealers in the world. And, by the way, if El Chapo's people happen to be listening, we love El Chapo. I use his lip balm. He's fantastic.

STU: If he existed, he would be fantastic.

GLENN: If he existed, he would be fantastic. Being here in Texas, we're all for El Chapo.

Anyway, this weekend, Rolling Stone came out, and they said, "Big news, Sean Penn has landed a rare interview with El Chapo." Now, El Chapo is a guy who had escaped from a prison, a maximum security Mexican prison through a tunnel that took a million dollars to dig. So he's in -- he goes and takes a shower, and he opens up the floor of the shower and he drops down into this tunnel, where his people had been digging. How long was this tunnel?

PAT: A mile.

STU: A mile.

GLENN: A mile long they had been digging this mile-long tunnel. And as Stu was explaining it off the air, he didn't crawl through the tunnel. He walked through the tunnel.

STU: Yeah, it was a million dollars to make this tunnel, they think.

GLENN: In Mexico.

STU: Right. The tunnel cost in Mexico is lower than you're thinking.

(laughter)

GLENN: Well, the regulations alone on tunnel collapse by prison, it's crazy.

But, anyway, so Sean Penn has this interview with him. And there's a couple of things. First of all, Sean Penn in the interview, he asks a notorious drug lord, "Do you have any dreams?"

"Do you have any dreams?"

(laughter)

"If you could change the world, would you?" You've got to be kidding me.

JEFFY: Everybody has dreams, Glenn.

GLENN: El Chapo has dreams.

PAT: Even a guy responsible for thousands, if not tens of thousands of murders, he's got big dreams. Yeah, I'd like to kill 100,000. I mean, is that your dream?

GLENN: It's incredible.

PAT: I'd like to enslave the entire United States of America on drugs.

JEFFY: He doesn't want to kill everyone.

PAT: No, he doesn't want to kill his customers. Keep the customers alive.

JEFFY: Just agree with him and everything is fine.

GLENN: So Sean Penn does this interview with this guy. Now, I think that's the bad part of the story. No. It gets worse.

The Rolling Stone magazine actually gave final edit approval to El Chapo.

STU: Yeah. El Chapo said, "I want to approve this article before you print it." Rolling Stone, first of all, agreed to it and then delivered to El Chapo an article in which El Chapo had no changes.

GLENN: So there's levels here. Sean Penn does an interview. Rolling Stone magazine decides to print the interview. Then they decide, "We're going to give the editorial reigns to the guy we're interviewing, the notorious drug lord." That's bad enough. But what they delivered to him, he doesn't make any changes. He's like, "Holy cow, you're kidding me. That's really good. Wow, they said this?"

STU: Seriously, you're going to print this, for me? Is it my birthday?

GLENN: My gosh. You guys know I'm a notorious drug lord, right?

(laughter)

STU: He's actually trying to talk them out of it for their own reputation.

GLENN: So now on Friday, he was recaptured in Mexico. And it had something to do with this interview. Somehow or another, something that happened during this interview tipped the authorities off. Do we know what that was? What happened that tipped the authorities off?

So something happened that tipped the authorities off. And my question is, and I don't believe this for a second. Was Sean Penn working with the government to capture El Chapo?

STU: No, I don't think that's the accusation at all. I've seen some speculation that -- you know, we can figure this out. But some speculation that he, because of the process going on, they somehow were able -- that actually helped them. But it was not intentional help from Sean Penn. Like, they were able to -- because of the details able to track him down.

PAT: No, Penn and the Rolling Stone did not cooperate with authorities on this at all.

GLENN: No, but that's what they would have to say or they'd be dead.

PAT: Yeah, but I'm sure they didn't. I mean, for Rolling Stone to have more credibility than Weekly World News, it's -- it would be despicable. They don't. This is as bad as it can get for a supposed journalistic publication.

GLENN: Well, this is the publication that didn't check the facts on the rape story.

PAT: On the rape story. And now this thing.

GLENN: And they let the drug lord edit facts for the Rolling Stone story.

PAT: How do they survive? How do they have an ounce of credibility?

GLENN: Because there are a lot of people like Sean Penn.

STU: This is weird though. Because this is not typical left-wing lines. My impression of Democrats in this country is not that they want poor people addicted to drugs and murdered in third world countries. Is that part of the platform? I've never heard that.

GLENN: No, no, but I think Rolling Stone appeals to the -- it's like The Nation.

PAT: The renegades.

GLENN: It's the renegade. It's the revolutionary.

PAT: And that's kind of what Sean Penn seems to be, is a revolutionary. Isn't it? He hangs out with revolutionaries. He loves Castro. He loved, what's-his-face from Venezuela?

STU: Chavez.

PAT: Chavez. He apparently likes this guy enough to shake hands with him and have a photograph with him.

GLENN: By the way, is that photograph weird and uncomfortable?

PAT: Yes.

STU: Very weird.

JEFFY: But that's what happens when you get yourself photographed with the Robin Hood-like figure that El Chapo is.

GLENN: That's according to Sean Penn. The Robin Hood-type figure.

PAT: By the way, can we mention here that Robin Hood did not get people addicted to drugs and he did not steal from the rich. He stole from the government who took the money from the poor. He stole from the government and gave it back to the people he stole from.

STU: Because he was frustrated over policies like high taxes.

PAT: Could we for the love of heaven get the Robin Hood story right for a change. I mean, if you want to call this douche bag a Robin Hood-type, he's nothing like that. He's nothing like that.

GLENN: First of all, Robin Hood wasn't addicting people to drugs. And Robin Hood wasn't rich! He wasn't the guy flying around in his private helicopter in his HEP Leer jet.

PAT: El Chapo makes a billion dollars a month.

GLENN: I'm sorry, what?

PAT: A billion dollars a month.

JEFFY: And that's probably low.

PAT: Yeah, that's probably a conservative estimate.

I mean, that's -- that's a pretty good enterprise.

(laughter)

GLENN: If I'm El Chapo and I make a billion dollars a month, I am pissed that the tunnel wasn't carpeted.

PAT: And air-conditioned.

GLENN: If I spent a million dollars to get me out, you realize that last year I made $12 billion.

STU: That's a top line number though. That wasn't all profit.

JEFFY: Yeah. There's a lot of cost.

PAT: Well, I'm sure he'll pay his taxes. He'll declare all that. Right?

GLENN: What do you think his bottom line number is?

STU: Well, I mean, if he's doing -- maybe he's making 20 -- probably drugs, you're probably 50/60 percent profit margin at least.

JEFFY: And then you have to provide food, roads, and medical relief for the people in the mountains that are keeping you safe.

STU: Right. Because that's one of the thing. When you say the Robin Hood-like figure, he's making the Osama bin Laden argument. That al-Qaeda is building schools so a lot of people really like them locally. And the same thing with El Chapo. He's done a lot of things that people in that area love.

He gives away money. I mean, this is what happens with every criminal enterprise. I mean, go back to the wonderful documentary, New Jack City, that described the cocaine, crack in New York City, I think pretty well. They did a good job with it. And at times, he was giving away -- Nino Brown -- as you know, Nino Brown, the drug dealer, was giving away turkeys and everything on Thanksgiving. And the local people loved him. He was also killing a lot of --

GLENN: I would like to challenge your documentary with another documentary. Probably a little closer to this. The documentary about El HEP Guapo.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Where he was found by the singing bush, shortly before they killed the killing bush. And this he was not liked by the local townspeople.

STU: Wow. Look, not every documentary tells the same story.

GLENN: So I think I go with the one that's closer to El Chapo than the documentary El Guapo.

STU: Yeah, but this is how you buy -- it's like what Jeffy was talking about. The people who are in the community surrounding these wonderful palaces don't have any incentive to tell anybody where these palaces are because --

JEFFY: Well, they most definitely have an incentive not to say anything. I mean, when asked if you're in that town. Hey, do you like --

GLENN: Do you like him? I love him.

JEFFY: Yes, I do.

STU: 100 percent approval rating. And he buys people off too. So there's things they get. They think, "Look, he's helping us out, and I don't want to get myself killed, so I'm not saying anything."

GLENN: Imagine, imagine what that's like.

PAT: So congratulations to Sean Penn and Rolling Stone, two Americans -- and an American publication who should know better. They should know better than that.

GLENN: We should know better than that.

PAT: And, of course, they don't.

GLENN: We as a society buy the stupid magazine.

PAT: When was the last time you purchased a Rolling Stone --

PAT: Do we?

PAT: Using the we in that context.

GLENN: As a society, we're obviously keeping them --

PAT: They're in business.

GLENN: Newsweek magazine is not in business anymore.

PAT: Well, except online.

GLENN: As the Daily Beast.

PAT: But, you know, Rolling Stone still actually shows up in grocery stores, doesn't it?

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Pretty amazing.

GLENN: It's still making money. I mean, it's not their fault. It's our fault.

PAT: And after these two, the bogus rape story and this one, if you're still buying that magazine, something is wrong with you.

GLENN: What the hell is wrong with you? What are you, high?

PAT: Probably.

Featured Image: Host Sean Penn speaks onstage during the 5th Annual Sean Penn & Friends HELP HAITI HOME Gala Benefiting J/P Haitian Relief Organization at Montage Hotel on January 9, 2016 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Jonathan Leibson/Getty Images for J/P HRO)

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.