Bill O’Reilly Slams ‘Corrupt’ Media Backlash Over Trump’s Call With a Gold Star Widow

The Trump administration came under fire this week after a congresswoman spoke to the press about a confidential phone call between President Donald Trump and the widow of a U.S. soldier who died in Niger.

What happened, and is this just another case of people being outraged over nothing again? Bill O’Reilly didn’t hold back in his analysis of the story on today’s show.

“They don’t know what happened,” he said of the media. “They couldn’t possibly know. Yet they use this once again to divide the country in a hateful way, and it’s on them.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: The one, the only, Mr. Bill O'Reilly joins us now. Bill, did you see -- did you see the speech from Kelly yesterday?

BILL: Beck. Yes, yes, yes, yes. You left one thing out though, which is really the crux of all the savagery -- and that's the word, "savagery" -- that's going on in this country right now. And that's the media.

What happened was that 24 hours before the president made the call to the widow of the slain soldier in Niger, the family knew the president was going to call, because you have to give them a heads-up and find out where they're going to be and all of that.

Then the family apparently alerts this Congresswoman Wilson. Why? Why?

Would you -- if it were your son, Beck, would you alert any politician?

GLENN: Never.

BILL: That you were going to get a call from the president.

GLENN: Never.

BILL: I would. So who would do that? What's the point of that? So then the call comes in. And they're in the call apparently, on a speakerphone, and the president was disregarding the advice of General Kelly as chief of staff. Because General Kelly said, "Listen, the family is grieving. No matter what you say, it's not going to make a difference. And it's a very difficult situation for any president to be in." But you said to his credit, and I agree with that, but Donald Trump said, "Look, I want to try. I want to try to give them words of sympathy." And it is an honor to get a call from the president of the United States.

GLENN: It is. And I will tell you this as a sidebar, we were all very, very upset -- at least I was -- Taya Kyle wasn't. But I was very upset. And I asked Taya Kyle for a year, has the president reached out at all? I mean, here's this great hero. Has the president reached out at all? Now, she didn't want the call.

But still, it is something that a president should do.

BILL: Well, you're talking about President Obama.

GLENN: Yes, I am.

BILL: Yeah. And he didn't. Because there is no protocol that is in stone. And I think there should be. And that's what I said on BillO'Reilly.com yesterday. There should a way to handle these kinds of things that always happens.

Now, I don't think that should require a phone call.

GLENN: No, I don't think so either.

BILL: But the president is the commander-in-chief. He has the option to do that.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: So, anyway, so the call comes into the limo. And they're all in the limo. And according to General Kelly, President Trump was trying to tell the widow that her husband was a hero because he voluntarily put his life at risk for his country. That was the theme of the call. He was a hero. He voluntarily. And I guess they used the word signed up. He knew the danger. But he did it anyway because he wanted to protect his country, which is a noble sentiment.

Okay. So then the call is over. Within, what? Ten minutes. This congresswoman is calling CNN. That can't happen spontaneously, Beck. That's got to be planned in advance. You can't just call up a major network and say, "I want to be on your air." They got to vet you. They got to know who you are. All of that.

So you can't tell me that this wasn't a setup. It was an absolute setup. That is a huge story.

The second huge story is, as they always do, the barbarians on cable news and broadcast news, believe every word Wilson says. Okay? Like they were there. Even though Wilson, incredibly, admits while I didn't hear the whole phone call.

How could you not possibly hear the whole phone call, if it's in a car on a speakerphone and you were sitting there?

So right away, her credibility is zero. So I'm watching the cable news, and I'm seeing these hit one after the other after the other. Of, oh, what a disgrace. This is horrible. He's insensitive. He's this, he's that. This is talking about Trump. They don't know what happened. They couldn't possibly know.

Yet they use this once again to divide the country in a hateful way. And it's on them. It's on them.

This media we have now is as corrupt as any time in our republic. This is off the chart, from the newspapers, to the television programs, to the internet. It is corrupt in the extreme, and it is harming the United States. No question.

GLENN: Okay. So I want to go back to that. You sound like you're speaking with some passion there.

BILL: I'm really keyed off, Beck.

GLENN: No, I know you are.

BILL: I got to deal with this personally. I got to deal with this kind of crap all the time. You do.

Anybody that doesn't toe the far left line is in danger now. I mean, it's so out of control. So out of control.

GLENN: Bill, I will tell you -- I will tell you, we have spoken off the air about my -- I had a -- I had a day in court in Boston on the Boston bombing.

And, you know, I had good government sources. And the government knew exactly what sources. And some day, some journalists -- well, no, they won't. No, they won't. Some day I'll just write a book, I guess, with this in it. But I have all of the documents. I have all of the transcripts from the trial. I have absolutely everything, including the ability to speak about the trial, because that was part of one of the conditions of the settlement.

But I will tell you, it's not just the media, it is the government that is corrupt. You cannot defend yourself if the government won't respond and abide by the constitutional constraints. And they don't.

You have no way to defend yourself.

BILL: The only -- and I sympathize because you were at Fox News Channel when you broke that story. And I am familiar with the story. And I know you didn't make it up. And I know you were going on people in the government telling you certain things. So that's absolutely true.

But I don't have any expectation the United States government would do anything for anybody at any time. Zero expectation on that.

But what we have here is, the -- the president of the United States is now in a position where the media, about 80 to 90 percent of it wants to destroy him.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: When has that ever happened? How can you run a democracy when the media doesn't care about the truth or any kind of accurate reportage? Their whole bent every single day is to destroy the leader of the country.

GLENN: Yeah. I don't know how you can run a democracy, let alone a republic like ours.

BILL: I mean, it is shameful and disgraceful. And the politicians on both sides, you know, they're scrambling for cover. They go, I don't want to be in this.

You know, I give Kelly a lot of credit. I said on BillO'Reilly.com yesterday, look, you expect the chief of staff to defend his boss, the president. You expect that. Okay?

So we have to listen to what Kelly has to say very closely, as you pointed out. But what he brought to the explanation was logic. Here's what was said and why it was said. And then his disgust with this congresswoman trying to -- who hates Trump. Trying to make it a political issue. But he didn't take it a step further. Is that the media immediately grabbed on to this corrupt congressman, congresswoman, and ran with it. They always do. And it's just sickening.

GLENN: So, Bill, here we are, we're looking at this corrupt media. Do you see a way out of this?

BILL: I don't. I don't. I mean, I've been in this business 43 years. And, you know, I try to run an honest program. As do you. I wouldn't be appearing here every Friday if I thought you weren't. I'm trying to run an honest enterprise at BillO'Reilly.com. And look at things and verify things and check things out. And if I can't get it, I don't say it.

But you put on these cables, and they don't -- I'm not going to use an obscenity, but you know what I'm talking about. They couldn't care less. It's, we're going to get Trump. Going to get him today. Here's how we're going to get him. Tomorrow, we'll get him this way, and we'll get O'Reilly, we'll get Beck, we'll get Limbaugh. We'll get Hannity. We'll get anybody we disagree with. We'll get them.

GLENN: So do you believe that the right is -- some people in the right are engaging in this same behavior? We'll get the left. We'll get the media. It doesn't matter who they are, or what they've done.

BILL: Certainly they're -- in the Hillary Clinton situation, there's an element of that. And I'm not sympathetic to Mrs. Clinton, okay? I'm not. I think she's an imperious woman -- word of the day "imperious" -- who lost the election because people flatout didn't like her. And I really -- I mean, if there's one person I would not want to dine with, it would be her. Okay? I just don't have any use for her at all. But there is an element on the right, that incorporates some of these scorched earth, I hate you tactics. But it's not nearly -- it's not even in the same universe as organized and funded as it is on the far left. It's individuals on the far right, okay?

So you can't make the comparison. Because they don't have the megaphone, number one. They don't have the organized cabal. And, you know, there are various websites like Breitbart and Daily Caller and some of them like that. They do their thing. But it's not nearly the way it is when you have Comcast, NBC, NBC. CNN. I mean, these are huge, huge conglomerates. So I don't think it's any comparison.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com, talking about General Kelly's speech yesterday. And, Bill, I want to hit one more thing here before we move on. And that is, his question, is there anything sacred anymore?

BILL: You know, I don't think that's a question that can be answered in a specific way. I mean, I think most Americans are decent people. And to them, there are things that are sacred.

But, you know, I hate to keep going back and being boring, but to the media, you know, no. There isn't. Politicians, again, it's a case-by-case basis. But there are good people, and there are people that understand that the world is not a place where trying to destroy people should be your main focus.

And I think folks are getting disgusted. I'm waiting for the backlash, Beck. I'm waiting for the backlash. I think it's going to come against the media.

GLENN: And how would that manifest itself?

BILL: Well, it will be ratings. You're seeing it in the NFL. The backlash against the NFL. You're seeing the ratings down, fairly significantly. And also, marketing and merchandising.

I think you're going to see a backlash against the media because people are disgusted with it.

GLENN: So what is the replacement? Because I'm afraid that the backlash comes and then you just don't believe anything or anyone, and so you just unplug. That's not good.

BILL: No, it's not. And, you know, I think people will, what they call look in. They'll look in on occasion. The newspaper industry is dead. Good. TIME Magazine, Newsweek, dead, good. Television is still there, but declining.

So they'll look in on their machines, on their devices, on the internet. They'll look in. But I really think that people have had it.

GLENN: Well, people in Media Matters are already in the halls of Facebook and Twitter and everyone else. Google.

BILL: Yeah, you're never going to get a square play on the net. It's just a convenience thing. I mean, I go -- just so people know, I go to CBSNews.com in the morning. Because they give me a headline service that's useful. Sometimes their articles are ridiculous. But I know immediately when I'm getting conned. I go to theHill.com to get the Washington stuff. I write for them. And they're fairly fair. They have both sides.

GLENN: Okay.

BILL: And that's about it.

GLENN: Okay.

BILL: That's about it for me.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com. More of the news of the week and his perspective without the spin. BillO'Reilly.com. Coming up, more in a minute.

(OUT AT 9:31AM)

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com is joining us.

Bill, let me give you something from the Wall Street Journal. Now, the Wall Street Journal is the most liberal paper in America. I mean, mainstream paper. When it comes to the news. However, its editorial section is not.

And in the editorial section -- I don't know if you saw this, Donald Trump may be following Palin's trajectory. And I'd like to get your thought on this.

BILL: I didn't see the piece yet. So just tell me what the theme was.

GLENN: Okay. So here it is: In this day, like Sarah Palin supporters, who saw her intellect polish as proof of her sincerity -- but in times, she lost a place through antic statements, intellectual thinness, and general strangeness. The same may happen or be happening with Donald Trump.

And what they're saying is, you know, what you liked about Sarah was she was just, you know, one of us. Saying it like it is. And then after a while, that started to wear really thin. And you're like, I don't think there's anything behind this. And then the -- the theatrics and everything else. And it just wore thin. And she's nowhere.

BILL: All right. I know both people pretty well, particularly Trump. I wouldn't say I know Sarah Palin very well. But I've been around her enough to be able to evaluate her.

GLENN: Yeah. I do too.

BILL: It's an unfair comparison. There's no similarity and intellect between Donald Trump and Sarah Palin. Trump has a much wider frame of reference than Ms. Palin. There is similarity in that they're both populists, and they both tailor their message to the folks, and they both can't stand the media. So they're similar.

But if the Palin thing was going to happen to Trump, it would have happened already. All right? Trump's problem is that his wording sometimes is imprecise. All right? It's not as exact as it has to be for a president. He just wanders too much.

Ms. Palin didn't really know that much as far as history is concerned or, you know, her country. And when Katie Couric asked her about what she read, she couldn't really articulate that.

So there's a big difference between Trump's life experience and what he's accomplished and what Sarah Palin has accomplished.

GLENN: Next story. Transgender Wyoming woman convicted Thursday of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl inside a bathroom.

Michelle Martinez, known -- formerly known as Miguel Martinez, before identifying as a female, found guilty first degree and second degree sexual abuse of a minor. Could face 70 years in prison.

Martinez, who was a family friend, invited the girl into the bathroom on March 23rd. Touched her. Penetrated her. The girl told her mother immediately.

Martinez, when questioned by police, became notably hostile and defensive. Said the girl was just talking crap before denying being a child molester. He is also calling accusations a publicity stunt. He has pleaded not guilty on both counts.

BILL: You know, what do you want me to say -- you know, this is a heinous thing. All Americans should want justice. So let it play out. There's really -- you know, I don't think you can take one or two situations and make any general points. What I will say is that the pressure from the politically correct precincts and the ACLU, to force public schools and public facilities to allow people who were born one gender to go into a locker room of another gender is insane.

And there is an easy solution, whereas you make a third facility for transgendered people to use. And you would think that they would want privacy anyway. So make a facility. It costs a little money. But in this PC world, that's the solution to the problem.

So I'm not big on generalizing from specific heinous situations. I don't think that's fair. And I want to be fair.

But I think that this movement for America to do things that are not in the best interest of children and are not based in common sense, common sense says you build a third facility. So that's my take.

GLENN: President Trump releases petition requesting support on standing during the national anthem.

I read this, this morning, and he came out yesterday and said, I want to know who is patriot enough to stand and pledge to stand during the national anthem. I want -- I've issued a petition.

And I thought it was a little strange. And then I saw where the URL leads, and it's to the GOP. This --

BILL: I'm going to comment on that. But I want you to answer the next question on Killing England, my number one book, because it plays into this. And I don't want your audience to think I'm crass in using the question about the anthem to promote my book, okay?

GLENN: All right. All right. Well, you're not the boss of me.

BILL: I want you to set it up.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

BILL: Rather than me be a doofus.

GLENN: This is probably -- if this is the way we're going to run this show, this is probably something you should have said before we went on the air. It's a little -- it's a little less crass.

BILL: No, but I want to be honest here. I want them to know the interaction is genuine.

GLENN: All right. All right. All right.

BILL: Okay. National anthem. No question Donald Trump is using it for political benefit. Everybody got that? Because he's already come out. He's already said he believes that everybody should respect the flag and the anthem. Most Americans concur. Word of the day "concur."

GLENN: No, the other was the word of the day.

BILL: And he won. He won it, okay? So he's on the side of apple pie and goodness and flag and anthem. Okay. Enough. Enough. You're the president. We need the tax cut. All right? You don't have to keep going back. We don't need a petition. We don't need to go trick-or-treating, dressed up like the flag, okay? We don't need it. We got it. You won. There's my take.

Now, Killing England. Go.

GLENN: You're not the boss of me.

The budget that they passed yesterday, only one G.O.P. person voted against it. Rand Paul.

BILL: Of course.

GLENN: There's no cuts. Real cuts to this. How do you feel about the Republicans?

BILL: Yeah. I'm not surprised. Because the Republican Party knows there's only one thing that's going to save it at this point, and that's the tax revision. And the working people getting the 4,000-dollar average into their pockets. So if they have to spend more money to get that -- which is what the trade is, okay? They're going to do it. So there's no surprise here.

GLENN: I don't think there's any trade.

BILL: Because it's all about tax cuts.

GLENN: Yeah, I don't think there's any trade.

Okay. Tell me about Killing England.

BILL: England. England. Okay. Number one book. Knocked off Hillary Clinton in the New York Times Best Seller list. Three weeks running, which is amazing because I don't have the platform I used to have to market the book.

GLENN: (clearing throat)

BILL: Well, your -- and you've been generous, Beck. You really have. I have to say.

GLENN: All right.

BILL: And there's no kickback. Although, I did send Beck a free book.

GLENN: I don't believe -- I don't believe you did.

BILL: No, I did. I sent you a free book.

GLENN: Did you sign it?

BILL: Yes, I signed it.

GLENN: You did not.

BILL: I think I just put one N in Glenn. No, I spelled your name correctly.

But, look, the reason I'm trying to get people's attention on this is because I obviously want the book to be successful, but I want you to compare George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, the three central characters in our revolution, to what we have now. To what we have now.

I mean, it's unbelievable, the difference in -- in every single way. Intellect. Character. Courage.

And right down the line. When you get through reading about these men who gave us this unbelievable freedom that we have, that's now being abused, by the way. But we have it. When you read about the suffering they went through -- the suffering, and what they actually did. And you compare it to these weasels that we've put into power -- I mean, across-the-board. There's some good people. But most of them are just -- are just ugh. Glenn.

GLENN: Also, the weasels that we have become. I mean, we don't really demand the highest standards from ourselves anymore, as a people.

BILL: Well, you're generalizing though. I'm going back to, there are people who do that. And it wasn't uniform back in 1775, '76.

GLENN: No, I know that.

BILL: Half of the colonists wanted to stay with the insane king.

GLENN: I know.

BILL: And they wanted to do it, most of them, for money reasons. Not because they believed in the monarchy. They were cowards.

So human nature is human nature. I always say that. But I think the majority of Americans do want high standards and are good people. I don't know if I differ from you or what on that.

GLENN: I'm not sure anymore. I would have said yes to that. But I'm not sure anymore. I'm not sure that we're much different than we were in the colonies, with the exception of that we are also -- we have -- you know, there was an overwhelming understanding back then of some morality. Some things were sacred, to a majority of people. And I don't know if that's true at all anymore.

BILL: Well, we're certainly more fragmented and scattered. And our focus is not on other people.

I mean, I did a thing last night for a Philadelphia radio station, where the subject of religion came up. Because religion is under fire in this country, as everybody knows. If you're a believer and you live in Los Angeles or New York, they think you're a kook. You know, if you go to church every Sunday, people look at you like, what's wrong with you?

Certainly, back then, that was not the case. And so there is a big difference. The secular progressives have power. They have power. And they're using it because the media sympathizes with them, and they get their message out. And it's easy for them to get their message out. So you're right in that sense, that there's been a big erosion in, you know, treating your neighbor as yourself, putting other people ahead of you. How often do we hear that these days?

GLENN: Yeah, not very often as well. Bill, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

BILL: All right, Beck. I did send you a free Killing England. So you find it in all of your stuff. You find that book.

GLENN: Right. Right. I'll find it after you send it.

BILL: Oh, man.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly -- Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com. Number one book, three weeks running in the country, is Killing England.

Bill O'Reilly, thanks for joining us.

The double standard behind the White House outrage

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.

A new Monroe Doctrine? Trump quietly redraws the Western map

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.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

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 root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

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?

One‑sided freedom

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.

Censored belief

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.

Faith on trial

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.

The real test

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.