HILLARY: Despite all the challenges that we face, I remain convinced that, yes, the future is female. Just look at the amazing energy we saw last month as women organized a March that galvanized millions of people all over our country and across the world.
GLENN: So which is it? Is there a war on women? Or is the future female? And what exactly does the future as female mean?
Hillary Clinton and others have expended a lot of time and energy selling the war on women. So this new phrase would seem a little out of step with that effort. But it's important to note that this new phrase and effort comes complete with another attempt to pass the E.R.A. the equal rights amendment. The initial effort to get the E.R.A. added to the U.S. constitution never happened. But there are many that would say it wasn't necessary in the first place.
>> If the equal rights amendment passes, we would have no choice. Women would be drafted and forced into combat.
>> And the president is staunchly against it. The club begins a new era. That's era not E.R.A. E.R.A. supporters have a tough time keeping the debate focused on what they see as E.R.A.'s main goal. Economic equality for women who in 1982 earn 59 cents to every man's dollar.
>> As a registered nurse, Carol makes less than men who fix cars, drive buses, or trim trees. That's why Carol wants the equal rights amendment ratified.
GLENN: There were several factors that wound up dooming the movement. First of all, there were already laws on the books that guaranteed women equal rights. In certain circumstances, such as when marriages break up, a case could be made that women's rights were and are superior to men's. Yet the perception on many is that there's an ongoing war on women and women are faring poorly on it.
>> What I would say to women who say there's already equality in our country, is look at our lives. Pregnancy discrimination.
GLENN: By all, please, let's truly open our eyes and look at each of those issues. The never-ending claim of those who are supposedly fighting for women's rights is that women make anywhere from 78 to 87 cents for every dollar a man makes. In fact, the 1982 news report claimed it was just 59 cents on every dollar. If we indeed are going to open our eyes to this issue, then we will find that even the liberal Washington Post has debunked this faulty claim every year since 2012, calling it false.
Study after study has found that when comparing similar experience, education, skill level, and commitment to job length of women and men, there is virtually no gender disparity in pay. None. In fact, in 147 America's largest 150 cities, young women make 8 percent more than men. All right. What about violence against women? Huge increase of rape in America. We're told now that things have gotten so bad that one out of every five women will be raped on a American College campus. If accurate, that would be a higher perjury of rape than what occurred during the Rwandian genocide.
The good news is it's not accurate. It's an outrageous falsehood. Sexual assaults in the United States have actually plummeted since the mid-1990s, falling by nearly 60 percent. Domestic violence is down 63 percent and partner violence has dropped by a whopping 72 percent. As for pregnancy discrimination, I'm not even sure what that is, quite frankly. In general, reproductive rights and pregnancy discrimination are nothing more than euphemisms for abortion on demand. It was about these reproductive rights that a law student Sandra Fluke testified a few years ago.
>> Contraception as you know can cost a woman $3,000 during law school.
GLENN: $3,000? Condoms are like 20 cents a piece. That is -- I mean, if you want to do the math, about 15,000 sexual encounters. Law school generally takes three schools to complete. To pull off 5,000 encounters a year, a woman would have to average almost 14 sexual encounters every day. So let's say 15 on a good day and maybe just 13 on a slow hookup day. Even on the days where you can't fulfill your normal allotment of hookups on tinder, that doesn't leave you a lot of time to study case law.
Now, for those who like to scream about the war on women, nothing gets them more angry than standing in the way of a woman's right to choose to abort her baby. The fact is nothing fits the description of war on women better than the actual killing of female babies. If pro-life advocates had their way, there would be 52 million more people on earth today than there are. Slightly over half of these would be women living, breathing, life experiencing women. Take a moment and hear them roar.
If pregnancy discrimination is really about benefits available for female employees, current U.S. law dictates that a parent, nearly always the mother, can take 12 weeks of leave from her job. Some employers offered paid leave. For others, it's unpaid. But almost exclusively it is women that take advantage of that benefit. Still, it's often claimed that the U.S. has the worst pregnancy benefit of any industrialized country on earth.
However, in a nation built on liberty and person responsibility, it's ludicrous to believe that the government would or should force employers to pay women who leave their jobs for three months, regardless of the reason. It's even more full hearty to expect that in a nation built on liberty that the government would or should impose maternity leave taxes on others. On the childless, on the single adults, on the elderly, on anyone other than those who have chosen to start their family to provide the benefits to the mothers leaving their jobs.
In the 1950s, only 19 percent of mothers with young children worked outside of the home. 81 percent of mothers stayed at home with their kids. The 1960s brought about a sexual and social revolution to the United States and to the American family. Discontented women like Betty began telling moms that they couldn't be fulfilled by raising a family that, in fact, something was wrong with them if that's all they did. Women, stay at homes suddenly under siege for not wanting to be more. They could have it all. But not by raising their family. They had to leave their family and enter the corporate world.
It's truly ironic to note that even as women were being encouraged to leave their homes and enter the world of corporate America, the same feminist movement as with so many other movements at the time quickly became mixed with the need for other women to do something outside the home, the anticorporate message of Marxism was also added to this mixture.
>> How did you account for women subordination? What was your opinion why women were suppressed?
>> We thought it was a mixture of men in capitalism. It seemed to me if you were going to change women's position, you needed to change the society.
GLENN: So somehow doing more than changing diapers became intermingled with Marxism.
>> I was in those small consciousness raising groups. But first with my characteristic arrogance I thought I was in them because I was suppressed. But because they needed real politics. They needed an economic analysis. And thank the goddess they got to me before I got to them.
>> I was in a group which was rather swaty group, actually, because we wanted to read about anthropology, and I had the idea that somehow anthropology provided some mystery key. Anyway, we all sat down and read angles. So we read things and discussed them, and then we would have these heart-rendering sessions about saying we're not a proper consciousness-group like the Americans. We need to talk more personally.
GLENN: So as with many movements in the 1960s and '70s, Marxism and radicalism poisoned the direction that this movement would take. What may have started out as a way for women to discover new talents that they never knew they had, and to spread their wings to fly a little, morphed into yet another way for radicals to infiltrate American society.
For those radicals, this movement had the added benefit of striking at the very foundation of American life. The American family. Whereas in the 1950s, 81 percent of mothers stayed home with children. By 2000, that number had dwindled to 23 percent. And in the meantime with no one, no mother or father in the home full-time, nearly every aspect of American life has suffered as a result.
But there is a silver lining in the story. In the recent years, the downward trend of mothers choosing to work inside the home has been reverse. As of the latest year that statistics are available, 29 percent of American mothers with children have chosen to stay at home and raise their young families. It just may be that a significant number of American parents are realizing that there is a war being waged in this country. And it is a war on children. And that someone needs to fight the battle in the home.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.
The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.
The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.
Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?
Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.
Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.
Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?
If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.
I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.
I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.
I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.
And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.
Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.
In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.
That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.
No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.
Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?
If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.
The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.
This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.
