Binary Choices Lead to Walls, Condemnation and Destruction

The binary choice offers two options --- one good, one bad. Whatever side you agree with, you become an enemy of the other side. Take Black Lives Matter, for instance.

"Right now, we're being told there's a binary choice. The binary choice is, they're good or they're bad. That's it. They can't be anything else," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program.

So what do you do, when you've made the binary choice?

"You say, Well, I've got to build a wall against all those bad people, and I've got to condemn anybody who is for them, listens to them, wants to march with them, because they're all bad," Glenn said.

main-image-binary-choice Screen shot from The Glenn Beck Program, October 6, 2016.

And the other side does the same thing.

"So a binary choice leads to walls, condemnation, destruction and separation of two camps that only becomes balkanized. It only becomes the Palestinians and the Israelis --- and there is no coming back from that," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these singular questions:

• Are the two political parties exactly alike now?

• How did Democrats convince 97% of a population to vote one way?

• What term did communists invent that is killing us now?

• Is a sit down or powwow after the election literal or metaphorical?

• Does Pat have herpes and will a cream help?

• Can we please get out of the binary box?

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

GLENN: Let me take you to this frustrating binary choice thing we're in right now.

I'm not even going to tell you the personalities involved because it doesn't matter because it's not about the personalities.

One personality yesterday said, "Hey, why won't Donald Trump do X?" And the other personality tweeted out immediately, "Well, you should be mad at Hillary Clinton. Why don't you -- you know, you must -- it's just because you're for Hillary Clinton."

STU: Clearly support Hillary Clinton.

PAT: Oh, good gosh.

GLENN: Right? Okay. So everything that you do is a binary choice.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You either do it --

STU: And we should also point out, a binary choice always defined by someone other than you. Everyone else gets to define what your binary choice is.

GLENN: Yes. Correct.

STU: Which is such a wonderful place to live. It's never our choice. It's never our responsibility to come up with our own decisions. Someone gets to define what the binary choice is, and we must abide by their decision.

GLENN: Right. And if you don't, they destroy you. That is the new binary choice.

PAT: Or at least they're trying.

GLENN: Yeah, well, here's the thing -- let's just put it this way. The two parties are now exactly alike, except constitutionalists are now the black population for the Democrats.

If you step out of line and you're a Democrat and you say, "No, I think that guy is bad. I think Hillary Clinton is not going to be good for us." I don't think Barack Obama -- what happens? You're an Uncle Tom, and they'll do everything they can to destroy you.

PAT: You're not even black.

GLENN: And we sit here -- we sit here, and we look at that and we say, "Black people, you got to -- wake up. Wake up." They're looking at us and saying, "Wake up? We have woken up. And every time we wake up and try to stand up, we're shoved down into the ground."

I contend Bill Cosby would have gotten away with everything that he did his whole life, had he not rocked the boat at the end and started talking about his own community and saying, "Hey, we've got to look at our own community." Basically, what is he saying? The same thing the Democrats don't want to say about the family. The same thing they don't want to say about Detroit. That the things that we've been doing and are being told to ignore are the problems.

So you can't have anybody think. You got to shout them down. That's what's happening with the Democrats, with the black community. And it works.

That's how you can get 97 percent of a population to vote one way. Shut them up. It worked for Saddam Hussein. It's been working for the Democrats for how long? Did Glenn Beck just call him?

So now we're doing it. Now, unless you go with the party, you are politically incorrect in the way that the communists who invented that term, really meant it. You are not correct with the political party. And you will be shut down, shut up, made uncomfortable, and in the case of the communist, you're going to be shipped off. You're going to go into a camp.

And if not, you're just going to be disappeared. You'll go to Siberia, or you'll go into the ground. That's the real term "politically correct." That's the heritage of "politically correct."

Now if you are politically incorrect, you're an enemy. You're a traitor. And everything is a binary choice.

Now, let me show what happens to binary choices. Let's take Black Lives Matter. Right now, we're being told there's a binary choice. The binary choice is, they're good or they're bad. That's it. They can't be anything else. They are good or they're bad. Let's say you say they're good. Or, let's say you say they're bad. Because that's what most people on our side say, they're bad.

Okay. So what do you do, when you've made the binary choice? You say, "Well, I got to build a wall against all those bad people. And I've got to -- I've got to condemn anybody who is for them, listens to them, wants to march with them, because they're all bad." If you're for Black Lives -- if you excuse anything -- because these people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Get over it. Right?

And if you don't agree with that, you're an enemy. You're with Black Lives Matter. So what do you do? You build a wall around them, make them the enemy. You condemn them. That's what that wall is all about. Then you try to convince others that they're bad. And if you can't convince them, that person you're trying to convince, they become bad.

And the other side does the same thing. So a binary choice leads to walls, condemnation, destruction, and separation of two camps that only becomes balkanized. It only becomes the Palestinians and the Israelis. And there is no coming back from that.

It's my side or the highway. Balkanization. My way or the highway -- thank you -- thank you for just the look.

Let me give you another choice, not a binary choice, one that doesn't lead to Balkanization of the United States of America, or we could just say, "I'm not getting back together with anybody. You were against, and so I will always be against you. And you will be my enemy because you voted differently. And I will never stand with you."

PAT: I'm not coming out to do some kind of sitdown powwow with you after the election.

GLENN: I'm not asking.

PAT: I'm not coming out to some powwow where we sit around and talk about things after the election. I'm not doing that.

GLENN: I'm not talking -- I'm not asking you to --

PAT: Well, that's what I'm not going to do, so stop asking.

GLENN: I'm not asking.

PAT: You're always saying, you want to sit down and do some powwow, some get-together after the election.

GLENN: No, I'm saying that we're all Americans after the election. And we're all going to metaphorically come together --

PAT: Why do you keep saying we need to come together and do a powwow after the election?

[break]

GLENN: Okay. So if you have a binary choice. If everything in our society -- and it is -- everything in our society is -- you're either for us or you're against us. You either love this or you hate this. Okay?

It's -- it's a binary choice. And a binary choice leads to the same thing over and over again. For instance, Black Lives Matter. Good. Okay. Well, then the people who oppose it are bad. And you got to stop them. Or it's bad. And the people who oppose that idea that it's bad, you have to stop them, because they're bad too. And you build a wall and you don't move any further. Or you could say there's more than a binary choice. There's good and bad, which builds the wall, and some will do. Or there is -- let's just take one -- they're bad, but some of the people can be saved. Or they're good, but they -- a lot of the people in there have been co-opted by bad leaders who don't understand what they're following. They've never gone to the Black Lives Matter website. I can guarantee you, Kaepernick does not know what the leadership wants and where they stand just on Israel. It's like a whole page on anti-Israel stuff. And they don't know where they stand on capitalism.

STU: And he's certainly not making that salary under their proposals.

GLENN: Correct. So you can make another choice. And I want to show you how one builds a wall and the other keeps the walls down and keeps us moving forward, when we come back.

[break]

Talking about binary choices and how dangerous binary choices become. And take the election out of it.

I know this is hard to do because everybody is making everything about the election. But in, what, 30 days, 33 days, the election is over. And we have to come together.

And for those who don't understand, I don't mean literally come together. I mean we're going to need each other. And we're going to need to come together metaphorically. I didn't think I needed to express this, this way. But I do.

PAT: No, but apparently, some people are so stupid, you do have to --

GLENN: Yeah -- stop it. Stop it. Stop it. You are the one who caused the last flare-up of herpes. Stop it. I'm trying to put some cream on this.

PAT: Me too.

(laughter)

GLENN: Yeah.

JEFFY: I got to tell you, sometimes the cream doesn't work. I just want to let you know.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, this cream will never work.

Anyway, I don't mean come together. What I mean is, metaphorically, we need to be Americans again. Because no matter who is going to be our president -- Trump or Hillary -- trouble is coming. And depending on who you're voting for, you'll think that the other one is going to have more trouble. And you may end up being right.

But we'll never know. Will we? Because she's want going to go to a parallel universe and run another country so we'll have a double-blind -- we won't know. We'll just know, we need to stand together so we can weather any storm that might come our way, from the outside or the inside.

And I'm using Black Lives Matter as a -- and please, do not use this as politics. These are principles.

Black Lives Matter to show you the binary choice. One, the binary choice: Good, bad. Leads you to a wall, you don't go past that. You become a balkanized country that sees things one way or the other, black or white, and you go nowhere, because you have nothing in common because you stopped talking to each other a long time ago.

Black Lives Matter, let's just say, you decide they're bad. They're bad. The leadership is bad. What they're doing is bad. But not all the people are bad.

Well, now that's not a binary choice. No, no, you got to make -- they're good or bad. We have to condemn them all or not. No, no. It's like -- and I know this isn't popular currently again, but this audience understood currently when we did it because it took a lot of explaining because we are trained to think binary -- we all want immigrants to be legal. We -- at least in this room, we all want legal immigration. We all want really tough border security

PAT: And I will say, nobody has fought harder than illegal immigration than we have. No one has fought harder.

GLENN: Yeah, you have been -- you're crazy on it.

PAT: Yeah, and nobody has opposed more consistently comprehensive immigration reform than we have. When others were flip-flopping on it because the nominee in 2012 was for it --

GLENN: No, no, when others were flip-flopping because George Bush was the president for the G.O.P. --

PAT: And that too. We were rock solid on that.

GLENN: We were hardcore. So anyway, we have been there -- thank you, Pat for another flare-up.

PAT: Yes, you're welcome. No, I'm just clarifying.

GLENN: I know.

So, anyway, we have been -- we have been solid on this. We went down to the border because I said, "I am for legal immigration, not illegal immigration." We want border security. We want this -- we need this to be solved. And if you come across the border, you need to go home. But we must soften our hearts and see the plight of people. We need to see that there are bad guys. We need to see that there are drug runners. We need to see that there are Syrians and Iraqis and really bad ISIS and al-Qaeda guys coming across our border. But we also need to see the children. And when it comes to the children, we don't just box them up and put them in storehouses, and then do what with them?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: We need to love the children and love people, unless you've proven yourself to be a bad guy. And then you have credibility to say, "I love you. Now it's time for you to go home." And we need to make sure our hearts don't harden and harden into a place where we can't see people anymore.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Black Lives Matter, good, bad, build a wall, you don't see people anymore. Or bad, but some of these guys are good. They're just misguided. They're being led by people and they don't even know who they're being led by. Because they've had something happen in their life or they've been brainwashed, quite honestly, by an educational system and a culture that just tells them, "You can't make it. These guys are bad. And there's no escape." And as our mothers used to say, "Show me your friends, I'll show you your future."

How many of us have gone down the wrong road because we have surrounded -- don't answer this, Pat, because I don't want to hear this answer. We've gone down the wrong roads because we've made friends with people who were strong personalities that weren't necessarily on the straight and narrow. And you changed your behavior and you changed courses. How many of us have been sold a load of goods that now in retrospect, we were like, "Oh, crap. I can't believe I was so stupid, I believed that."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: But if you had a bunch of people standing around you --

PAT: How many times had we said that about the Bush administration? How misled we were about the Patriot Act and going into Iraq --

GLENN: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Right. All of it. All of it. And if you were surrounded by people, as we were by the Michael Moores --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- who were extremists themselves, who said, "All these people are just bad people." And we're like, "No, we're not bad people. We really believe this. We don't think he's a bad guy."

PAT: Right.

GLENN: If somebody would have reached out to us, honest, not trying to -- not a Susan Sarandon -- honest. And sat down with us and really talked to us and loved us and proved they loved us -- they were our friends -- and look, we can disagree. Glenn, you and I can disagree. You might in the end really say war is right. But they would have sat down with us, and they would have listened to us. And then they would have said, "Wow, you've got some good points here. And I didn't know that. I'm going to go look that up. I did not know that. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. But you look up that. I'm going to look up what you showed me, and you look up what I just showed you. And let's come back together."

Not the intention of winning.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But the intention of reconciliation. The intention of, "Let's just come back together on the facts."

PAT: It would have been better. But I don't know that it would have swayed us because now we have ten, 12 years of evidence. You know, we've got -- we've got 12 --

GLENN: I contend nobody tried.

PAT: That's for sure. That's true.

GLENN: And look what happened, now no one tried and now we're in these camps of enemies where nobody even listens to the other side.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: No one -- let's take another example. The New York Times, and CBS, ABC, NBC, they have deemed people like us bad for so long, that they could come out and say the truth about something that we believe in and have the documentation. And you still wouldn't believe it. Because you would look at it and say, "Well, it's NBC. It's the New York Times. Of course, they're going to say that." Well, but wait. Here's the video. They --

JEFFY: We did use disclaimers, right? We would do stories or do reports and say, "Well, but it's NBC, so."

GLENN: Yes. But now it's gotten to the point where I said to Stu back in the '90s, there's going to come a point where you won't even believe your eyes. We now watch videos and we still dismiss it.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Because that's just the media out to get X, Y, or Z.

It's on video!

So we've set ourselves up for absolute failure and the balkanization -- which, by the way, just want to let you know, is one of the goals of the Weather Underground, of the communists, of everybody, to balkanize the United States. E pluribus unum is bad. Because e pluribus unum means, from many one, and you can never defeat them when they're one. You have to break them up.

Black Lives Matter, you could love them first. Be honest and find a way to see the common humanity, which is almost impossible now. You're not a human anymore. You're a member of the media, or you're a conservative, or you're a liberal, our you're a Clinton supporter. Or you're a Trump supporter. And there's nothing in between, okay?

There's no humanity. I keep saying, "Am I not more than who I voted for?" Is this the only thing -- you'll see it on Facebook. Somebody will say, "Hey, this is a great pie recipe. Oh, notice it's apple pie. Apple pie. All you conservatives want apple pie, like everything is going to be fine if your beloved Donald Trump gets in." You're like, "What the hell -- I'm just giving a pie recipe." Okay. It's happening in everything. Everything.

We could love. We could listen. We could learn. Then we could either say, "I was wrong." They could say they were wrong. Or we could say, "I was a little bit wrong, and they were a little bit wrong." And we could stand united on those principles and those facts that we now agree on, together. Or we can continue to take one step.

Hmm. Bad. Build wall. Don't talk. Demonize. Put into camps.

We could do that. But that leads to our total downfall.

Or we could not do the same thing and expect a different result. We are doing the same thing -- George Washington warned us against this: Don't do the two-party system. Because the two-party system, they're going to start demonizing each other. And it's going to get worse and worse and worse, until you will divide into two camps. And then, somebody who is unscrupulous will come outside and say, "It's these two party people, and I will make everyone who disagrees with us pay."

And he won't be doing it for any other reason -- and I'm not saying this is Trump -- I'm telling you what Donald -- I'm telling you what George Washington said would happen. And that will be the end of the republic because everyone will just want vengeance because everyone will feel that they have been wronged by the other party who is now their enemy.

What do you say we try something different? And even if we vote differently, at least after the election, we try to take a deep breath and realize we're going to need each other.

PAT: I'm not coming to a powwow. Sit down and discuss things after the election.

GLENN: Oh, is that herpes? Yes, it is. Thank you.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program

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.