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.

PHOTOS: Glenn’s rare tour reveals White House history

Image courtesy of the White House

In honor of Trump's 100th day in office, Glenn was invited to the White House for an exclusive interview with the President.

Naturally, Glenn's visit wasn't solely confined to the interview, and before long, Glenn and Trump were strolling through the majestic halls of the White House, trading interesting historical anecdotes while touring the iconic home. Glenn was blown away by the renovations that Trump and his team have made to the presidential residence and enthralled by the history that practically oozed out of the gleaming walls.

Want to join Glenn on this magical tour? Fortunately, Trump's gracious White House staff was kind enough to provide Glenn with photos of his journey through the historic residence so that he might share the experience with you.

So join Glenn for a stroll through 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the photo gallery below:

The Oval Office

Image courtesy of the White House

The Roosevelt Room

Image courtesy of the White House

The White House

Image courtesy of the White House

Trump branded a tyrant, but did Obama outdo him on deportations?

Genaro Molina / Contributor | Getty Images

MSNBC and CNN want you to think the president is a new Hitler launching another Holocaust. But the actual deportation numbers are nowhere near what they claim.

Former MSNBC host Chris Matthews, in an interview with CNN’s Jim Acosta, compared Trump’s immigration policies to Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust. He claimed that Hitler didn’t bother with German law — he just hauled people off to death camps in Poland and Hungary. Apparently, that’s what Trump is doing now by deporting MS-13 gang members to El Salvador.

Symone Sanders took it a step further. The MSNBC host suggested that deporting gang-affiliated noncitizens is simply the first step toward deporting black Americans. I’ll wait while you try to do that math.

The debate is about control — weaponizing the courts, twisting language, and using moral panic to silence dissent.

Media mouthpieces like Sanders and Matthews are just the latest examples of the left’s Pavlovian tribalism when it comes to Trump and immigration. Just say the word “Trump,” and people froth at the mouth before they even hear the sentence. While the media cries “Hitler,” the numbers say otherwise. And numbers don’t lie — the narrative does.

Numbers don’t lie

The real “deporter in chief” isn’t Trump. It was President Bill Clinton, who sent back 12.3 million people during his presidency — 11.4 million returns and nearly 900,000 formal removals. President George W. Bush, likewise, presided over 10.3 million deportations — 8.3 million returns and two million removals. Even President Barack Obama, the progressive darling, oversaw 5.5 million deportations, including more than three million formal removals.

So how does Donald Trump stack up? Between 2017 and 2021, Trump deported somewhere between 1.5 million and two million people — dramatically fewer than Obama, Bush, or Clinton. In his current term so far, Trump has deported between 100,000 and 138,000 people. Yes, that’s assertive for a first term — but it's still fewer than Biden was deporting toward the end of his presidency.

The numbers simply don’t support the hysteria.

Who's the “dictator” here? Trump is deporting fewer people, with more legal oversight, and still being compared to history’s most reviled tyrant. Apparently, sending MS-13 gang members — violent criminals — back to their country of origin is now equivalent to genocide.

It’s not about immigration

This debate stopped being about immigration a long time ago. It’s now about control — about weaponizing the courts, twisting language, and using moral panic to silence dissent. It’s about turning Donald Trump into the villain of every story, facts be damned.

If the numbers mattered, we’d be having a very different national conversation. We’d be asking why Bill Clinton deported six times as many people as Trump and never got labeled a fascist. We’d be questioning why Barack Obama’s record-setting removals didn’t spark cries of ethnic cleansing. And we’d be wondering why Trump, whose enforcement was relatively modest by comparison, triggered lawsuits, media hysteria, and endless Nazi analogies.

But facts don’t drive this narrative. The villain does. And in this script, Trump plays the villain — even when he does far less than the so-called heroes who came before him.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Can Trump stop the blackouts that threaten America's future?

Allan Tannenbaum / Contributor | Getty Images

If America wants to remain a global leader in the coming decades, we need more energy fast.

It's no secret that Glenn is an advocate for the safe and ethical use of AI, not because he wants it, but because he knows it’s coming whether we like it or not. Our only option is to shape AI on our terms, not those of our adversaries. America has to win the AI Race if we want to maintain our stability and security, and to do that, we need more energy.

AI demands dozens—if not hundreds—of new server farms, each requiring vast amounts of electricity. The problem is, America lacks the power plants to generate the required electricity, nor do we have a power grid capable of handling the added load. We must overcome these hurdles quickly to outpace China and other foreign competitors.

Outdated Power Grid

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Our power grid is ancient, slowly buckling under the stress of our modern machines. AAI’s energy demands could collapse it without a major upgrade. The last significant overhaul occurred under FDR nearly a century ago, when he connected rural America to electricity. Since then, we’ve patched the system piecemeal, but it’s still the same grid from the 1930s. Over 70 percent of the powerlines are 30 years old or older, and circuit breakers and other vital components are in similar condition. Most people wouldn't trust a dishwasher that was 30 years old, and yet much of our grid relies on technology from the era of VHS tapes.

Upgrading the grid would prevent cascading failures, rolling blackouts, and even EMP attacks. It would also enable new AI server farms while ensuring reliable power for all.

A Need for Energy

JONATHAN NACKSTRAND / Stringer | Getty Images

Earlier this month, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt appeared before Congress as part of an AI panel and claimed that by 2030, the U.S. will need to add 96 gigawatts to our national power production to meet AI-driven demand. While some experts question this figure, the message is clear: We must rapidly expand power production. But where will this energy come from?

As much as eco nuts would love to power the world with sunshine and rainbows, we need a much more reliable and significantly more efficient power source if we want to meet our electricity goals. Nuclear power—efficient, powerful, and clean—is the answer. It’s time to shed outdated fears of atomic energy and embrace the superior electricity source. Building and maintaining new nuclear plants, along with upgraded infrastructure, would create thousands of high-paying American jobs. Nuclear energy will fuel AI, boost the economy, and modernize America’s decaying infrastructure.

A Bold Step into the Future

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

This is President Trump’s chance to leave a historic mark on America, restoring our role as global leaders and innovators. Just as FDR’s power grid and plants made America the dominant force of the 20th century, Trump could upgrade our infrastructure to secure dominance in the 21st century. Visionary leadership must cut red tape and spark excitement in the industry. This is how Trump can make America great again.

POLL: Is K2-18b proof of alien LIFE in the cosmos?

Print Collector / Contributor | Getty Images

Are we alone in the universe?

It's no secret that Glenn keeps one eye on the cosmos, searching for any signs of ET. Late last week, a team of astronomers at the University of Cambridge made an exciting discovery that could change how we view the universe. The astronomers were monitoring a distant planet, K2-18b, when the James Webb Space Telescope detected dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide, two atmospheric gases believed only to be generated by living organisms. The planet, which is just over two and a half times larger than Earth, orbits within the "habitable zone" of its star, meaning the presence of liquid water on its surface is possible, further supporting the possibility that life exists on this distant world.

Unfortunately, humans won't be able to visit K2-18b to see for ourselves anytime soon, as the planet is about 124 light-years from Earth. This means that even if we had rockets that could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 124 years to reach the potentially verdant planet. Even if humans made the long trek to K2-18b, they would be faced with an even more intense challenge upon arrival: Gravity. Assuming K2-18b has a similar density to Earth, its increased size would also mean it would have increased gravity, two and a half times as much gravity, to be exact. This would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for humans to live or explore the surface without serious technological support. But who knows, give Elon Musk and SpaceX a few years, and we might be ready to seek out new life (and maybe even new civilizations).

But Glenn wants to know what you think. Could K2-18b harbor life on its distant surface? Could alien astronomers be peering back at us from across the cosmos? Would you be willing to boldly go where no man has gone before? Let us know in the poll below:

Could there be life on K2-18b?

Could there be an alien civilization thriving on K2-18b?

Will humans develop the technology to one day explore distant worlds?

Would you sign up for a trip to an alien world?

Is K2-18b just another cold rock in space?