Gilmore Girls Revival: Last Four Words Were About the Writer, Not the Fans

December 05, 2016

WRITER

Let's make one thing perfectly clear. Glenn Beck does not watch the Gilmore Girls.

"I don't know a thing about the Gilmore Girls, other than my girls are huge fans and watched every episode, and it became a ritual in the Beck household," Glenn said Monday on his radio program.

The premise of the show surrounds a mother and daughter relationship. The mother --- Lorelai --- had her daughter Rory at 16 years of age. The original show celebrates the success of her teen pregnancy. The much-anticipated Netflix revival ended with four words the show's creator, Amy Sherman-Palladino, planned years ago: Mom? Yeah? I'm pregnant.

But it's Sherman-Palladino's comments in recent interviews that have fans scratching their heads. Sherman-Palladino said that abortion could be an option for Rory. That news made Glenn's daughters go ballistic: Rory would never do that!

"If it comes full circle by aborting the baby, you're invalidating your mother's choice," Glenn noted. "And you won't be able to pass that lesson on to your children because you would have killed them. I just want to point that out."

Glenn's daughter Hannah also nailed the problem with the ending.

"I thought this was so good. She said, The entire four episodes were about the fans. The four words were about the writer, Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Okay. I don't know a thing about The Gilmore Girls, other than that my girls are huge fans and watched every episode, and it became a ritual in the Beck household. As they were growing up, they would watch The Gilmore Girls with their mother every Tuesday night, and they would go over to their aunt's house -- and even on reruns, every Tuesday night, they would watch The Gilmore Girls. And so it was a big deal around my house when The Gilmore Girls decided to reunite and do, what? Four episodes on Netflix. I am proud to say that I have never watched an episode of The Gilmore Girls.

PAT: Yeah, me too. By the way, weren't they paid the most of any actors on television to do those four episodes?

JEFFY: Yeah, like 750,000 for each in an episode.

PAT: Per episode. Yeah. The highest --

GLENN: Were any of them working? I don't even know the cast.

PAT: I don't know. But it was a lot.

GLENN: Were any of them like, "Yeah, I used to be on The Gilmore Girls, but now I'm working at T.J. Maxx." Or are they actors?

STU: I have legitimately no clue.

JEFFY: I have no clue.

GLENN: I have no idea either. So obviously this is not going to be a conversation about The Gilmore Girls, but rather culture and the left. Listen to this. So I'm not going to give you a spoiler alert, because I doubt there's anyone in this audience that is waiting to see The Gilmore Girls.

STU: But if you happen to be that person, this is the time to turn it off.

GLENN: That one. Turn it off for a second. Apparently -- and I don't know the story line at all, except, do you know what the premise is?

PAT: No.

STU: Two girls. That's about where I would go with it.

JEFFY: Two girls.

PAT: The mom and the daughter.

GLENN: The mom and the daughter. Okay. Rory, I think is the daughter -- oh, no, the mom's name --

PAT: Yes.

JEFFY: I thought they were sisters.

GLENN: Mom was -- no, they're like sisters.

PAT: Gertrude is the mother. Gertrude.

GLENN: They're like sisters because mom had Rory when she was 16 years old.

PAT: Oh, my.

GLENN: And so --

PAT: So they're good friends. They're just good friends.

GLENN: They're good friends. Stop mocking for a second. Let me get through it. Then you can do all the mocking you want. And I'm not going to stop you on the mocking. It's just to get through it.

So the idea is that this girl's life was so tough because she made the mistake of having sex, she had a baby, they've made it through, and that's what the whole thing is.

STU: She was punished with a baby.

GLENN: No. No. Yes, that's what you could -- stop with the mocking for a second.

STU: That wasn't mocking.

PAT: This is on the new --

GLENN: No, this is the whole premise of the --

PAT: Oh, the whole thing -- of the whole -- oh.

GLENN: -- is they were able to make it. They were alone in the world, and they were able to make it. She was 16. She decided to keep the baby. She was, you know, strong all the way through.

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: She raised Rory to be a good girl.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: And they're really close. Okay? It's a success story of a teen pregnancy. That's what this is.

Everybody understand that? That's the only premise you need to know.

PAT: Yeah. Right.

GLENN: Success story of teen pregnancy.

Two stories now: One, the reason why people who were big fans of the show were unsatisfied with it -- they liked the four episodes. They didn't like the last four words of the final episode.

Now, apparently -- and I know nothing about this. I don't know why I've just lost my audio. But apparently, the thing that they didn't like is the last four words because the last four words were written a decade ago. And the writer did not -- the original writer and the original person that started the show did not write the last like three seasons back when it was on television. I don't know why. But she was jettisoned.

And she always said she wanted the episode to end -- or, the series to end when Rory was like 21 or 23 years old. And she was going to say the last four words, "Mom, I'm pregnant."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Okay? And that would have been a big deal because she was --

PAT: You used the contraction. That was only three words.

JEFFY: Yeah, but it would have been --

PAT: Still...

STU: I am pregnant?

GLENN: Mom, I am pregnant.

STU: Okay. Got it.

GLENN: Mom, I am pregnant.

PAT: I'm just making sure because we'll hear nothing but that, and then they'll lose the point of the story.

GLENN: Thank you. Thank you, Pat.

PAT: Glenn Beck said, "Mom, I'm pregnant" is four words. That's all we'll hear.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you, Pat. I appreciate that.

Mom, I am pregnant.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: And that would have been appropriate when she was 23 years old and young and unmarried and she's just getting out of college and she's got her whole world in front of her. Okay? Because it's not 16. But in our society, that's still young to be pregnant and unmarried. Okay?

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Well, now, she's not 23. She's 33.

PAT: Rory is?

GLENN: Rory.

PAT: Thirty-three now?

GLENN: Yeah. Because she was -- yeah.

PAT: Wow, has it been that long? Jeez.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. So it's ten years later. When she was 23, they ended it. She's 33 now.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: And so now, she's had her life. She's -- you know, she's still unmarried. She's started her career. Et cetera. Et cetera. And 33 is not young to have a baby. Right?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But it changes apparently -- and I don't know, and I'm not going to get into it. It changes the entire story line. It would have been a great ending ten years ago. Everybody is upset because it's like, "That's a bad ending now. That's not -- it changes -- now, that's a setup for a new season. It's not a cap." Okay?

Now -- now, that you understand that, that's the controversy.

But here's the real controversy: I read something -- because Gilmore Girls' fans generally are not listening to programs like this, they may not be getting the political news.

So there was a story on -- that I read -- I don't remember, New York Times or someplace, about the writer and what she said after, on those four words.

She said, "Well, Rory is smart enough to at least consider an abortion."

(chuckling)

GLENN: So I tell my daughters this. My daughters are -- they go -- they go ballistic. They go ballistic. And they start in, like, "Rory's a real person. Rory would never do that!"

(laughter)

STU: That's their complaint?

GLENN: Right. All right.

JEFFY: It's not the character. It's not the life.

GLENN: But, listen, here's how out of touch this writer is. Okay? What is the story?

JEFFY: Yeah. Right.

GLENN: The story is, at 16, a girl made a decision, and it's been the best decision of her life, and she's produced Rory.

PAT: It seems to be a pro-life show, in that eventuality.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Show. If she would have had an abortion, Rory wouldn't exist.

STU: Yeah, real dull series.

PAT: Right. It would just be Gilmore Girl, and it wouldn't be the same.

GLENN: And she wouldn't exist. So it makes the entire story line meaningless.

STU: Right. The premise, as you describe it, these circumstances that are sometimes difficult create these wonderful things.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: Right? Like that is exactly --

GLENN: So now imagine being someone who at 16 -- your mom was 16. She gave birth to you. And you two made it. And now you're 33 with all these great memories, and you're pregnant and capable and wealthy enough to be able to have a baby, even by yourself. "I don't know, Mom. I'm thinking about cutting this one out."

JEFFY: Yeah, no way.

PAT: Crazy.

GLENN: Crazy.

PAT: Crazy.

It shows their agenda supersedes all.

GLENN: Everything.

PAT: Absolutely everything.

GLENN: My daughter Hannah said -- and I thought this was so good.

She said, "The four words -- she said, "The entire four episodes were about the fans." And she said, "The four words were about the writer. She had her thing she wanted to do, and it didn't matter if it wrecked it for all of the fans, she was going to be self-centered enough to do those four words because that's what she had planned." And she said, "She announced it ten years ago, those were the four words."

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Everybody knew.

PAT: It doesn't even work.

GLENN: And it doesn't even work. So she said, "It became an ego project." And then on top of it, the abortion --

JEFFY: The abortion.

GLENN: I'm going to get my political message in here, which goes against everything in the show.

PAT: It sucks.

You know, J.K. Rowling kind of did the same thing, didn't she? After the fact of Harry Potter, she started throwing in all her little agenda items.

Oh, by the way --

GLENN: What? I don't know this.

PAT: -- Dumbledore was really gay. Oh, by the way --

GLENN: You've got to be kidding me.

PAT: -- Hermione was supposed to be black. Oh, by the way -- what? Well, then why didn't you do it that way, if that's what it was supposed to be. What are you talking about? Yeah --

GLENN: Where is the tip-off that Dumbledore was gay?

PAT: I don't -- if you go back and look at the movies -- I don't buy into it. I just think it's political correctness on her part now. I just think she didn't have a diverse enough cast and diverse enough story, and so now she's trying to make it diverse. It's pathetic. It's pathetic.

GLENN: I can't take it. I can't take it. I can't take -- look, I know, you know, people who make different lifestyle choices exist. I got it. I got it.

PAT: Yes. And I think we all know that.

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: And I don't have a problem. Fine. Whatever.

PAT: I know.

GLENN: Don't force me to marry people in my church, and I won't force you to not marry. Can we just have some perspective and get along and live together?

PAT: It would be great, but no.

GLENN: It would be great. But television is non-stop gay relationships. I mean, it's like -- it just -- it seems like 90 percent of the population is gay and 10 percent are straight and getting married.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Well, this is why the Gaines situation stood out to so many people. Because I guess they didn't -- I don't watch the show.

GLENN: Oh, I do.

STU: I guess they don't have a lot of gay couples on or something.

PAT: Wouldn't that be sort of the balance to the rest of HGTV, which does feature them prominently.

STU: All the time. Just fine.

JEFFY: And they're in Waco, Texas.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: And they're in Waco.

GLENN: And Waco, Texas. Yeah. It's not like we're in San Francisco. We're in Waco, Texas.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And the shows they have in California can feature a lot of gay couples.

JEFFY: And they do. They do.

PAT: They do.

GLENN: Did you hear how Chip Gaines responded?

STU: Gracefully.

GLENN: Really -- I'll give it to you here in just a second.

[break]

GLENN: I -- I know I'm getting yelled at. I can feel the anger from my two daughters as they're yelling at me from home, if they happen to be listening to the show. The mother's name is Lorelai.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Long-term listeners of the show know the importance of that because it is my granddaughter's name.

(laughter)

PAT: Not coincidentally, by the way.

GLENN: Not coincidentally. Not coincidentally.

PAT: They are definitely connected.

PAT: Huge Gilmore Girl fans. Huge Gilmore Girl fans.

I'm going to get to Chip Gaines here in a second. Let me go to Ashley in Georgia. Hello, Ashley.

CALLER: Hey, Glenn. I need to correct you real quick.

GLENN: All right. Yeah.

CALLER: Okay? The last four words actually are, Rory says, "Mom." Lorelai says, "Yeah." And then Rory says, "I'm pregnant." Fade to black. Yeah.

GLENN: Ah. Got it. How did you feel about the ending?

CALLER: I hated it.

GLENN: Okay. And for the same reasons that I described?

CALLER: Yeah, I mean, it wasn't right. Yeah, it wasn't right. Yeah. So, yeah -- I --

GLENN: Did you know -- did you know about what the creator and the writer said about Rory and abortion?

CALLER: I read the article. Yes.

GLENN: You read the article.

Well, you listen to this show, and you're a fan of The Gilmore Girls.

CALLER: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: How did that make you feel?

CALLER: It pissed me off. You know, but then I got ticked off. And then I was like, you know what, I'm not surprised because these are -- it's a liberal -- if you watch it and follow it, it's -- you know, it's (inaudible) for crying out loud. I mean, it's a liberal show. They live in Connecticut. So, I mean, I wasn't surprised. But I was ticked. And then I was kind of disappointed. That that -- she kind of alluded to, like, if the show had gone on, Rory probably would have an abortion because that would be like the smart thing to do for her.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

CALLER: I don't know. It just was like, are you kidding me?

GLENN: I mean, have you missed the entire point of everything that you've written?

CALLER: Right. And that's my whole thing. I'm like -- and they talk about, "It comes full circle." And I'm like --

GLENN: If you -- if you -- if it comes full circle by aborting the baby, you're invalidating your mother's choice.

CALLER: Exactly.

STU: Doesn't it also break the circle? I mean, that's the whole point. The circle is over.

CALLER: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, it's crazy. Ashley, thank you so much. And you won't be able to pass that lesson on to your children because you would have killed them. I just want to point that out.

Featured Image: The WB Television Network

The great switch: Gates trades climate control for digital dominion

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new currency of power

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

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

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

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

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

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

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

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

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

The forgotten way

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

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

Both are traps.

The only way

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A restoration, not a renovation

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

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

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

The selective guardians of history

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

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

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

The real desecration

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

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

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond Venezuela

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

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

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Gilmore Girls Revival: Last Four Words Were About the Writer, Not the Fans

The great switch: Gates trades climate control for digital dominion

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

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

The new currency of power

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

The forgotten way

The only way

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

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.

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

A restoration, not a renovation

The selective guardians of history

The real desecration

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

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.

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.

Beyond Venezuela

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

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

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.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

A history of violence

Dismember the dragon