GLENN: Hello, America. So Bill Maher is on CNN, and he's talking to Jake Tapper. And he says -- you know, they're talking about Hillary Clinton coming out again and whining about why she lost and not having any self-awareness at all. I suck. I suck. Nobody likes me. They like me because of Bill. But if Bill wasn't around, I would have never been a politician or anything that had gone possibly a mayor.
PAT: That would be woke Hillary.
GLENN: That would be woke Hillary.
PAT: But she's not.
GLENN: But she's not woke.
PAT: No.
GLENN: Nobody around her has enough courage to say, "Hillary, you need to let this go, baby, because you played a role in this. Nobody likes you, and you've just overstayed your welcome." And if -- I mean, honestly, we've said this from the beginning, my shoe could have beaten Hillary Clinton. And I think that was proven out with Donald Trump. Somebody that even most people on the right will say, "I mean, I found it really hard to vote for the guy, but I can't go for Hillary." I mean, that's basically saying, "I've got a shoe. And, well, my shoe isn't Hillary."
A lot of what happened here was you had two of the most flawed candidates in American history running against each other. And it was a Sophie's choice in the negative. You wanted to put them both on the train, but you had to select one that stayed with you. And that's what it was.
I want this one to go away, and I don't want to see them again. And that's the way everybody on the left felt about Donald Trump. I'd like to put him on the train, and I never want to think about him again.
So she's not self-aware enough to see, it's just time to go away, Hillary. It's time to go away. You had your chance. You blew it.
And until people can be honest and say, "Look, she was a really flawed candidate," they won't be able to move forward.
Now, listen to what Bill Maher says. This is fascinating.
VOICE: When Bill Maher was asked at the event if misogyny played a role in her loss, she said yes. Do you agree?
BILL: Of course. Absolutely. I think we learned a lot about this country, and we're learning more about it as we watch what goes on with Fox News every day.
VOICE: That is a pretty remarkable turn of event. But you think that's about a misogynistic problem in American corporate culture and not just a few bad apples, I'm guessing.
BILL: Not just corporate culture. You know, I think race is more on the surface, and people talk about it. And there's movements like Black Lives Matter. And I'm glad there are. But I think -- I think we thought we were further along on the woman issue than we are. And I don't think we are.
GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second. I just -- I want to point this out that, okay. Maybe we aren't as far as I thought we were with women because we're not as far along as I thought we were on things like the Constitution. You know, we're not as far along as I thought we were on our principles that bring us together. We're not as far along as I thought we were on -- on anger issues and identity politics. I thought that was one side, but it is also the other side. It's our side too.
So maybe he's right. But I don't -- about some of that. That, you know, maybe we're not as far along as I think we are.
However, to condemn America as this blind country, this jingoistic blind race-hating, Muslim-hating country, you have a guy who grew up in -- outside of America. Has the name -- chosen name of Barack Hussein Obama, while we're fighting a guy named Hussein.
STU: And Osama.
GLENN: And Osama. Who is black.
Now, when, you know -- has -- has the prime minister of England been black? Has the prime minister of Italy, Germany, France -- let's use some of their countries. Cuba, Russia, China, have they've had black guys? No.
PAT: Uh-uh.
GLENN: Okay. So here's a country that not only elected a black man and even his most vocal foes, me, when he was elected, the very next day, I got on and said, "Let's just take a minute here and just celebrate the fact that we're not who everybody says we are." I am thrilled that that barrier is now gone. I'd be thrilled for the barrier -- for a woman to be present.
Who thinks that way? Who thinks that way?
STU: Your chosen candidate, the vice president of that ticket was Carly Fiorina.
GLENN: Yes. Yes.
STU: I mean, that was the one you were rooting for.
GLENN: Yes. I mean, you just don't think this -- you don't think this way. I don't think the vast majority. Now, some do. Okay? But there's always a group of people in any size group that have weird beliefs or wrong beliefs on something. But now listen to what he says. Do you have the rest?
BILL: I mean, there's something like 80 countries who have had a woman leader. Pakistan has had a woman leader. But not the United States of us. Somehow we lag behind that. And I know a lot of people say, "Yes. I'd vote for a woman. I just didn't want to vote for that one."
GLENN: Stop. Hold on just a second. Have they had a Christian leader? Have they had a Jewish leader? Has Pakistan had a white leader? Have they had an Indian leader?
I mean, I just want to throw out.
PAT: A Jewish leader.
GLENN: A Jewish leader. This is our world. That's their world. Well, they've had a woman leader. Okay. They've had a woman leader.
STU: We've never had a Pakistani leader. But Pakistan has. Yeah, so?
GLENN: You're not comparing -- it's culture to culture, dude. Culture to culture.
STU: Ridiculous.
GLENN: Now, listen. There's more.
BILL: Well, let's see next time when there's another woman put up for president, and I don't know how -- I don't know when that's going to happen. It doesn't look any time soon.
GLENN: Carly Fiorina.
VOICE: Well, it might be Elizabeth Warren, we don't know.
GLENN: Carly Fiorina. Now, stop, stop. Instead of Carly Fiorina, it might be Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren, another person that even people not on the hard left, but on the Democratic side, say is too hard-core left.
STU: Uh-huh. Bernie Sanders. But, you know --
GLENN: Bernie Sanders, who is a woman, and younger. There's a lot of people who think Bernie Sanders is too far. Go ahead.
VOICE: 2020 possibilities, any Democrats that you like that you hope get into the race?
GLENN: Listen to the sexist.
BILL: I still like Bernie Sanders.
GLENN: Okay. Stop. What an unbelievable sexist.
PAT: Everyone else is a misogynist, but he still wants Bernie Sanders. He didn't name a woman.
GLENN: Now, if there was a race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton --
PAT: Oh, man.
GLENN: Oh, wait a minute. There was. Who was he pushing for?
PAT: What a misogynist.
GLENN: Was he pushing for the old white guy?
STU: So great.
GLENN: Or was he pushing for Hillary Clinton because he's not a misogynist.
STU: That's awesome.
PAT: No, he is a misogynist. He pushed for the old white guy.
GLENN: I mean, it is amazing. Completely amazing.
PAT: Complete unawareness too. They are so self-unaware. It's --
STU: By the way, Bernie is only eight years older than Elizabeth Warren. So I think you would have a very similar profile.
GLENN: No, I'm just saying the old white guy.
STU: It's -- yeah.
GLENN: I mean, I'm tired of the old white guy.
STU: I'm just saying the age isn't too much of a factor.
GLENN: Right?
Oh, my gosh. Stu, why do you hate --
STU: You said younger. I guess technically. Yeah, eight years.
GLENN: Eight years.
And why are you always defending the old white guys? You just want a culture full of old white guys, started by old white guys.
PAT: He's a misogynist.
STU: Well, what candidate would you like if you had a choice of any candidate?
GLENN: I would like -- I don't know if you have met Rodgey Hussein Mao.
(chuckling)
STU: Uh-huh. I haven't.
GLENN: But it is a wonderful unit. I don't want to say person.
STU: Sure, of course not.
GLENN: And I'm going to assign gender. But that's my -- that's the one that I think if America wants to prove itself.
PAT: Uh-huh.
GLENN: And redeem itself, it will vote for that.
STU: Okay. Good. Okay.
GLENN: Okay. So there you go.
Now, there's more because what I want to show you is they're overplaying their hand. While they're overplaying their hand, they are saying they're overplaying their hand. Do you have the other piece from Bill Maher? Now, listen to this.
PAT: Yeah.
VOICE: So what should Democrats do to win over Trump voters?
BILL: Well, I was just going to say, a bit of it is ease up on the identity politics.
GLENN: Okay. Now, he just played identity politics.
PAT: Identity politics.
GLENN: And then he's saying we should ease up on it. Now, when we come back, I'm going to show you culturally, comedy, television shows, art, that always leads the way. It always -- when you start to see art going a certain way -- and I use art to cover a lot of things -- you see culture start to move. Culture is always ahead of politics. And I want to show you a couple of things that show, again, the culture is being moved away from the identity politics, all of the political correctness, all of the things that you could be woken up in the middle of the night and ask a question and went, "What? What are you talking about? Go back to sleep. You're not making any sense." You in a dead sleep could be able to say, "You who are supposedly awake aren't making any sense. Go to sleep." They're overplaying their hand. And the culture is starting to change. We'll give you that here in a second.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
