Yes, CNN, we ARE a republic

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

CNN had some major breaking news this week. Apparently, we’re not a republic. President Biden is billing his re-election campaign as a fight to preserve democracy,” host Anderson Cooper told his audience. “If you ask some Trump supporters, the former president is not a threat to democracy, because the United States is not a democracy.”

Correspondent Donnie O’Sullivan roamed among Trump supporters at a recent rally, asking them about their perceived threats to democracy. “Obviously, there's a lot of criticisms of Trump — that he is bad for democracy, that he's bad for American democracy,” O’Sullivan told one couple, who quickly cut the reporter off. “We are a republic. We are not a democracy. We’re not a democracy. We’re a republic,” they told him.

O’Sullivan, who is Irish, couldn’t quite believe what he was hearing. “I’ve heard a lot of conspiracy theories,” he told Cooper later in the segment. “I hear a lot of things out on the road. But to hear Americans, people who describe themselves as patriots, say that America is not a democracy — that stopped me in my tracks.”

You need understand that democracy is a very important part of our republic, but democracy alone is not what we are. We are a democratic republic.

Anne Applebaum, a historian and writer for the Atlantic who often frets about the grave threats to democracy here and abroad, assured O’Sullivan and Cooper that this republic talking point is just more misinformation. “You were hearing people say America is not a democracy because there are people around Trump who want them to be saying that, who have planted that narrative,” she said.

Let me set the record straight: We are a republic. That’s why in the Pledge of Allegiance we say, “and to the republic” for which our flag stands.

Here’s the problem: People — and not just the likes of Cooper, O’Sullivan, and Applebaum — don’t understand the difference between a democracy and a republic. We are a democracy on Election Day. The democratic principle is “one man, one vote,” and we use that principle to elect people to their positions democratically. But we’re not voting on every single law. We’re voting for a representative, who represents you in the republic.

In a republic, it’s generally understood that people can't be expected to understand and vote on every single issue. A republic also understands that a pure democracy is bad. A “democracy-only” country will fail every time because all you need is a crisis to influence people to vote the way you want them to. You would just need to whip enough people into a frenzy, schedule a vote, and they'll vote based on the passion of the moment. It will get you dangerous laws like the Patriot Act. When something bad happens, people will react, and they won’t always react wisely.

A purely democratic system exploits people's momentary reactions. A republic slows the process down and gives reason a chance.

Can you imagine the people in this country voting on every single issue when they don't even know the difference between a republic and a democracy? When you have media that is going to so-called experts and telling us that we're not a republic?

America’s Founders spent a lot of time trying to find the best system, and they ruled out democracy because democracies alone always fail. Instead, they took the democratic principle of “one man, one vote” to select representatives. That's why we are a representative republic.

We need to explain this to people. You need to understand that democracy is a very important part of our republic, but democracy alone is not what we are. We are a democratic republic. We vote for the people to represent us.

The Founders were careful to take human nature into account. Human nature is naturally swayed by feelings and emotion. That’s why the Constitution is written to restrain the government so those in power can't make every decision for you by exploiting the masses’ emotions — like they’re trying to.

In the system our Founders intended, we elect the representatives who answer to us. This is why they're the ones who hold the power of the purse and the only ones who can initiate pending. But these people who claim they're for democracy are just spending it in any way.

Why are our representatives up for election every two years? Because we need to be able to tell them, "No! That isn’t what we want!" Our elections are how we hold our representatives accountable. That's why every spending bill needs to start with Congress — because Congress answers to us.

Democracy is happening unhinged from the republic because the “republic” part of our democratic republic is broken.

But what happened to Congress? Why isn't Congress doing anything? CNN’s "experts" would say it's because of gridlock between Republicans and the Democrats, but that isn’t why. It's because no one in Washington wants it to work that way. They don’t want Congress to answer to you. They want to be the ones pulling the strings.

They do this through executive orders, which are part of the American republic, but they were never meant to replace acts of the legislature. Joe Biden uses his executive orders to usurp the responsibility of Congress.

We were never meant to be ruled by faceless, unelected bureaucrats. The EPA, the ATF, the Fed — we never elected any of those people. It's OK if they are hired to make the system work, but instead, they’re making the rules, which have now become laws. Only Congress can make laws, but they don’t do that anymore.

That's why we must restore the republic. Democracy is happening unhinged from the republic because the “republic” part of our democratic republic is broken.

These "experts" on CNN who claim America is a democracy rather than a republic don't know what a republic really is. If we can't explain what a republic is, how do you think our kids are going to explain it? How do you think we can possibly defend the United States of America? If we don't know what our rights are, if we don't know why they were established, how can we hope to secure them and pass them on to the next generation?

The buck stops with us. We must restore the republic.

The DARK truth behind the Macrons' absurd lawsuit

WPA Pool / Pool | Getty Images

While the media obsesses over elite scandals, Glenn is having a field day exposing the Macron lawsuit farce—and the twisted truth it tries to bury.

The era of unchecked narratives is coming to an end. We're reclaiming reality, one scandal at a time.

On his show, Glenn couldn't hide his glee over French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte suing Candace Owens for claiming she's really a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux. Glenn called Brigitte the "Jeffrey Epstein of France" for grooming a 15-year-old Emmanuel when she was his 40-year-old teacher, and speculated that she is pressuring her husband to silence the rumors. Glenn also mocked the blatant overkill, which included childhood photos, birth announcements, and a desperate proclamation that Brigitte is "a woman."

But it goes deeper: The liberal elites have long proclaimed that transitioning is "wonderful," so why sue over the insinuation? It's hypocrisy—elites demanding silence on grooming while forcing conformity. This isn't about truth; it's control, proving no one's above scrutiny.

Want to see the absurd lawsuit firsthand? Download the Macron v. Owens lawsuit PDF here and see the evidence for yourself.

Download the PDF here.

BREAKING: Top-secret 2020 House Intel report on Brennan's ICA revealed

Brooks Kraft / Contributor | Getty Images

The following oversight report from the House Intelligence Committee examines the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) rushed out by the Obama administration before leaving office in January 2017.

This report has never been released to the public. Until now.

The House Intelligence Committee’s review began in 2017, shortly after the ICA’s release, and continued through 2020, paralleling a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election, which concluded in fall 2020.

Before its declassification by President Trump and public release by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, this report was among the U.S. government’s most highly classified documents. Its sensitive level of compartmentation prohibited storage on top-secret computer networks. Only five physical copies existed, all secured in safes under strict protocols. This extreme classification suggests the Obama administration sought to prevent the public from learning the extent of its alleged deception.

Download the PDF here. 

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

  Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

  

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.