THE DOCUMENTS for 'Civil War: The Left's Revolution Playbook EXPOSED'

September 23, 2020

Photo by Warren Wong on Unsplash

CEO/Founder

Last week I told you about the growing trend this month, a narrative that the Left is building about how President Trump will lose the election in November and refuse to leave office.

Democrats have been delusional about Trump from day one, so I guess this narrative isn't really surprising.

But the repeated references to this really make you sit up and take notice. Is someone passing out talking points? Because this is remarkably coordinated messaging. And this messaging has a familiar ring to it when you remember the Color Revolutions that happened in Eastern Europe during the Obama administration.

WATCH: Civil War: The Left's Revolution Playbook EXPOSED

Color Revolution might as well be the name of the Left's insurance policy for the U.S. presidential election. They seem to be following the same playbook they used in countries like Ukraine — because they ARE using the EXACT same playbook. On previous episodes, I explored everything the Obama administration did in Ukraine, in coordination with George Soros, through Civil Society 2.0, the “tech camps," etcetera, so I'm not going to revisit those specifics tonight. But if you're not already a BlazeTV subscriber, please join us so you can refresh your memory by watching those episodes on demand. Your support helps us bring you the vital information that no one else is digging up.

The Left is done with regular U.S. presidential elections. 2016 ruined it for them. The coronation for the first female American president was all set, the decorations were ready, the catering was ordered. But when this outsider crashed their party, the Left vowed with remarkable unity — never again.

Now, through the Color Revolutions that the State Department instigated around the world, especially in Eastern Europe, there are American experts in this field of “mostly peaceful" regime change. These Americans are specialists who have developed a systematic approach to Color Revolution. And now, in their desperate hour, they seem to be using this playbook on their own nation.

The Left and the mainstream media have waged a four-year war to delegitimize President Trump with a singular focus on November 3, 2020. In the Left's collective mind, losing this election is an impossibility. But there's still the annoying wild card of American voters. That's where their Color Revolution playbook comes in. Make no mistake – the goal just under six weeks from now is to set the system right, with the ruling class elites back in charge. Democracy is convenient and all when the people obediently elect this ruling class. But when the people wreck the system and put someone like Trump in office? The people have to be put back in their place.

Last week I told you about one of these Color Revolution specialists, Michael McFaul. He was the U.S. Ambassador to Russia under Obama. McFaul wrote an academic paper in 2005 about the “Seven Pillars" a country needs to have in place for a successful Color Revolution. I showed you those Seven Pillars on the chalkboard last week and I'm going to return to the first four a little later. Remember, a “Color Revolution" is not an old-school, banana republic-type military coup. It's a strategy the U.S. has used for regime change in foreign nations with a few main components: questioning the legitimacy of an election; mass street protests and civil disobedience; and relying on Media for positive coverage and promotion.

A year after his paper on the Seven Pillars, Michael McFaul wrote a book titled – Revolution in Orange: The Origins of Ukraine's Democratic Breakthrough. Who wrote the only endorsement featured on the book's back cover?

A guy you may have heard of with a vested interest in these kinds of revolutions: George Soros.

McFaul is just one of several Color Revolution specialists who were diplomats during the Obama Administration. One of the most influential of these specialists is the Obi Wan Kenobi to McFaul's Luke Skywalker, a guy named Norman Eisen. He is a longtime DC lawyer and former ambassador.

In 2003, Eisen co-founded a government watchdog organization called CREW — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Bookmark that one, because CREW will pop up again later.

When President Obama took office in 2009, he made Norman Eisen Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform, better known as the White House “Ethics Czar." I want you to pause for a moment to let it register that this guy was Obama's “Ethics Czar" — that's going to take on a lot of irony after you hear about all that he's currently involved with.

In 2011, Obama appointed Eisen Ambassador to the Czech Republic. So, like Michael McFaul and many other Color Revolution specialists in the State Department, Eisen honed his craft on the ground in Eastern Europe. This Color Revolutionary guard is a relatively close-knit group of people with strong connections to the Obama administration and the Left's top power players. And they all share the common goal of removing President Trump from office.

Norman Eisen actually wrote a 100-page report that is a playbook for the Color Revolution movement. He didn't even try to be subtle about it.

It's titled: “The Democracy Playbook: Preventing and Reversing Democratic Backsliding."

In this playbook, Eisen writes (p. 24):

Opposition leaders may also choose to pursue more extreme institutional measures available to them, such as IMPEACHMENT PROCESSES, votes of no confidence, and recall referenda. To raise the profile of their campaign against democratic erosion, opposition leaders can also utilize extra-institutional tools – engaging in or encouraging, for example, a protest, strike, or boycott, in conjunction with civil society.

Hmm, interesting. “Encouraging protests" sounds like precisely what Democrats have been doing for the past four months, refusing to condemn the violence in the process. It's also precisely what they're gearing up for after November third, broadcasting this idea that Trump will claim victory and refuse to leave office.

It's also no accident that Eisen's playbook mentions impeachment as a viable option.

If the name Norman Eisen rings a bell, you might remember him for another prominent role he played this year — Special Counsel for Adam Schiff's House impeachment committee.

Eisen literally wrote the book on impeachment in July, it's called: A Case for the American People: The United States v. Donald J. Trump.

The Left tried so hard to make it seem like Trump brought impeachment on himself.

But Eisen admits that he had already drafted ten articles of impeachment one month before Nancy Pelosi had even announced an official impeachment inquiry of Trump last year. In fact, as soon as Democrats retook the House in 2018, Jerry Nadler hired Eisen to get ready for impeachment. After all, impeachment is in Eisen's Color Revolution playbook.

Let that sink in for a moment — House Democrats hired one of the architects of Color Revolution to lead their impeachment effort. It was part of the plan from the very beginning. And I mean the VERY beginning.

The weekend of President Trump's inauguration in 2017, David Brock, head of Media Matters, put together a conference with over 100 liberal donors to map out how Democrats would “kick Donald Trump's ass." Media Matters, along with CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) produced another 50-page playbook for the conference. And remember who the co-founder and board chair of CREW is? Norman Eisen.

Full David Brock Confidenti... by Joe Schoffstall

Here's a quote from page two:

Trump will be defeated either through impeachment or at the ballot box in 2020.

The memo says CREW will be responsible for filing lawsuits against President Trump:

Trump will be afflicted by a steady flow of damaging information, new revelations, and an inability to avoid conflicts issues.

They have certainly fulfilled that pledge. CREW has dozens of pending lawsuits against President Trump and his administration.

What does all this mean? It means that Norman Eisen who wrote one of the Color Revolution playbooks — which includes impeachment as a strategy for regime change — and who was also Special Counsel to the Democrats' House impeachment committee, was planning President Trump's removal BEFORE Trump was ever sworn in.

Well, the Mueller report failed them. Impeachment failed them. The full Color Revolution treatment is all they've got left or everything they've worked for the last four years is a waste. Their whole plan hinges on the November third election. But they've been laying the groundwork since 2017, and their “Seven Pillars" to pull off a successful Color Revolution seem to be in place

Next, I want to take a closer look at the first four of these pillars...

They were already establishing that Donald Trump's legitimate election put the nation "under siege."

So now I've told you about Norman Eisen, one of the key architects of Color Revolution strategy.

He even wrote a Color Revolution playbook that he actually called “The Democracy Playbook." I mentioned how before Trump was even sworn-in as President, Eisen collaborated with David Brock, head of Media Matters, on a written strategy to remove Trump. Right at the top of their 50-page action plan, they write:

The progressive infrastructure groups we've built together were started long before Hillary Clinton ran for president. They were always intended to be the first line of defense — and offense — when we are under siege.

Did you catch that? They were already establishing that Donald Trump's legitimate election put the nation “under siege." It's also disturbing that their “first line of defense and offense" is not voters, not better ideas — it's their AGENDA through the “progressive infrastructure groups" they've built.

Again, quoting from the first page of their action plan:

We have the mandate. Together, we won the popular vote and Democrats picked up seats in the Senate and the House. TRUMP IS THE LEAST POPULAR INCOMING PRESIDENT IN MODERN HISTORY AND THE OUTGOING PRESIDENT AND POPULAR VOTE WINNER ARE AGAIN THE MOST ADMIRED MAN AND WOMAN IN THE NATION. THE COUNTRY DID NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP-STYLE CHANGE.

That clearly ties-in to the second pillar on Michael McFaul's list of the seven factors that need to be in place to pull off a successful Color Revolution. Number two:

“An unpopular incumbent."

That messaging began the day after Trump's election.

On Inauguration Day, remember how much the media crowed about the supposedly small crowd on the Washington Mall?

Trump's alleged unpopularity has been the standard operating message for four years.

According to the Left and their Media friends, Trump has NEVER been popular.

And of course, when you own the entertainment industry, it's easy to perpetuate the message that Trump is unpopular. Since at least 2008, the Left has elevated Saturday Night Live's election influence to mythic proportions.

So, right out of the gate, SNL went outside its own cast to get Alec Baldwin to play Trump as a nasty moron. Or what about Showtime's new James Comey glorification project? Watch this and see if you can figure out who the villain is...

The Left and the Media have also made a big deal this year out of a group called The Lincoln Project. The narrative here is that President Trump is so unpopular and dangerous, that this group of Republicans organically got together and organized to campaign for Joe Biden instead.

In reality, the Lincoln Project has raised over $20 million from Leftist donors to campaign against not just Donald Trump, but Republican Senators who are up for re-election.

According to its FEC filings, the Lincoln Project hired the Katz Watson Group for “fundraising consulting."

Fran Katz Watson who owns that consulting firm is a longtime Democratic operative who used to be the national finance director for the DNC. Her firm's other clients include the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The Lincoln Project has also paid consulting fees to a firm run by Adrienne Elrod — she was Spokesperson and director of strategic communications for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign.

As if that's not proof enough that the Lincoln Project is just a Democratic opposition campaign in Republican clothing, its communications director is Keith Edwards who was formerly on Mike Bloomberg's presidential campaign staff. The Lincoln Project is the very definition of “Republican in Name Only."

Pillar two is clearly in place — if you hammer home the idea every day for four years that President Trump is wildly unpopular, it helps you create the perception that he could not possibly win a legitimate election. Which helps you develop the fourth pillar on the list:

“An ability to quickly drive home the point that voting results were falsified."

Recently, Democrats spent a couple weeks flooding the airwaves with the conspiracy theory that President Trump is going to sabotage the U.S. Postal Service with cutbacks and closing facilities so they can't deliver all the mail-in ballots on time.

Any time Trump has been critical of mail-in-voting, the Left immediately frames it as “voter suppression." It all seems to be part of their groundwork to deny any positive election result for the President.

Now, just in the past week, we're also seeing blame placed on “right-wing" media — including me — that we're working to delegitimize a Biden victory. It's all part of the narrative that Biden winning the election is a foregone conclusion, and that Trump disputing that result will be fake news.

And of course, social media will jump in and do its part for the cause with their Fact Checks. Because what's a good Color Revolution these days without the aid of social media?

Facebook, for example, is very proud of their third-party fact-checking program. They use fact-checkers that are certified by IFCN – the International Fact-Checking Network. Sounds very official, but what exactly is the IFCN? It's a project of the Poynter Institute. Founded in 1975, Poynter bills itself as:

The world's leading instructor, innovator, convener and resource for anyone who aspires to engage and inform citizens.

One of the major funders of Poynter, of course, is George Soros' Open Society. Poynter also owns PolitiFact. PolitiFact's two largest financial supporters are the E.W. Scripps Company and... Facebook. PolitiFact is also one of the IFCN's certified fact-checkers, which means in essence that the IFCN certifies itself as a legitimate fact-checker. Not sure how that's supposed to fly. But it doesn't matter because it's a Left-wing operation, which means it's automatically trustworthy.

Next time you see a “fact check" from PolitiFact, take it with a tiny grain of salt, since it is largely funded by Facebook.

So, how does election polling play into this narrative that Trump is unpopular and will somehow falsify the voting results? How accurate are these polls that the Media and political class rely so heavily on? In 2016, nearly every poll predicted an easy victory for Hillary Clinton, which made Donald Trump's shock win that much more devastating to Democrats and Mainstream Media. Four years later it seems like déjà vu, because the polls once again indicate virtually no chance that President Trump gets re-elected. What's going on here? Can anyone put any real stock in polls anymore?

The Left MUST make the case that Trump's presidency is at least a semi-autocratic situation.

We're going over the first part of Michael McFaul's “Seven Pillars" list of essential factors that need to be in place for a successful Color Revolution. The first item on the checklist is:

“A semi-autocratic rather than fully autocratic regime."

Obviously the United States is not a fully autocratic regime, but the Left MUST make the case that Trump's presidency is at least a semi-autocratic situation. I'd say they've done a pretty good job staying on message.

They tried so hard pushing the Russian collusion hoax, which was supposed to make their case for them that Trump aspires to be just like Putin. Here is the author of the Color Revolution pillars himself, Michael McFaul, in a BBC radio interview LESS THAN A MONTH after Trump took office...

It's interesting that even now they still try to tie Trump to Russia — which is the one place where the State Department apparently could not get their Color Revolution done. That must be why Michael McFaul lasted just two years as U.S. ambassador to Russia.

Next, any autocratic president worth their salt will have some sort of thuggish force to help carry out their will. Enter Charlottesville.

The tiki-torch-carrying neo-nazis, and the armed white supremacists provided the Left with the perfect visuals they needed to paint this far-out fringe as Trump's wacko militia.

Now, anytime Antifa or BLM instigate some of their famous “mostly-peaceful" protests, we're told the real threat is from Trump's wacko right-wing militia.

The Left has tried building the case from day one that Trump is an aspiring dictator. But the Covid pandemic has exposed the inconsistency of their scheme.

Their constant attack against the President for six months is that he hasn't been autocratic ENOUGH in addressing the pandemic.

Why on earth, they wonder, won't the President declare a national mask mandate? I don't know, maybe because he doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do so? Isn't forcing every citizen to wear a mask EXACTLY what an autocratic ruler would do?

Trump has resisted the kind of heavy-handed responses to the pandemic that Democratic governors around the nation embraced without flinching.

Naturally, they get praised for it, while Trump is blamed for the deaths of 200,000 Americans. THAT is insane.

By the way, Joe Biden now says that if he's president, he'll have the authority to create a national mask mandate. Autocratic for me, but not for thee!

Speaking of that, Barack Obama's presidency proved that any degree of autocratic is not really a concern for the Left as long as it's THEIR guy in charge. It's so nonsensical.

Spying on the Associated Press and threatening reporters with jail on issues of identifying sources.
Using the IRS to target Tea Party members.
Attempting to force nuns to grant access to birth control.
Going around the Constitution's treaty provisions to make the disastrous Iran deal.

Who did all that? President Obama. And that's barely scratching the surface.

Next to FDR, no other president in our history attempted to reshape so much of American life by simple decree than Barack Obama. By Executive Order, he decreed the U.S. joining the Paris Climate Accord, DACA, the Clean Power Plan, and transgender restrooms. Through Obama's 276 Executive Orders, he instituted 560 major regulations — classified by the Congressional Budget Office as having “significant economic or social impacts."

Regardless what you think about President Trump's comments to the media, or his tweets, or any of his impulsive tendencies, those things are not what makes an autocratic ruler. Being autocratic is working to expand your power beyond the Constitutional limits. Obama clearly did that, A LOT. And Trump has not.

The end-result of the Color Revolutionaries trying to establish Trump as a scary authoritarian ruler is their conclusion that he will refuse to leave office when he loses the election. There is no actual proof that Trump would refuse to leave office. And even if he tried to refuse, they haven't really explained how he would pull off such a feat.

As for Pillar Number Three: “A united and organized opposition" — this is the Left's specialty.

They've been united and organized since before Day One of Trump's presidency. I've already mentioned the David Brock and Norman Eisen conference on Inauguration weekend that brought together 100 of the most powerful Leftist donors to map out a plan for removing Trump.

Then there is the Transition Integrity Project, headed by Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff John Podesta. Note how the “Transition" is basically assumed. A Biden win is their foregone conclusion. The TIP conference invited 100 current and former government officials, academics, and journalists to wargame various election outcome scenarios.

It was started by Rosa Brooks who is a Georgetown law professor. She served as special counsel to George Soros' Open Society Foundation where she is also on the Advisory Board. It's hilarious that every mention of the Transition Integrity Project in the media calls it “non-partisan." Look at this quote from a Washington Post article Rosa Brooks wrote weeks after the TIP war games:

A landslide for Joe Biden resulted in a relatively orderly transfer of power. Every other scenario we looked at involved street-level violence and political crisis.

Sure, it doesn't get much more bi-partisan than that. Does that not sound like a veiled threat to vote for Joe or face street-violence?

The conclusions of the TIP report make it clear that any effort by Trump to stop the street violence using the National Guard, or to have Attorney General Barr investigate voter fraud will automatically be seen as election interference by Trump. Which would then just reinforce Pillar Number One that Trump is a power-mad autocratic monster.

Self-fulfilled prophecies are the darnedest things.

The Color Revolutionary guard is so united and organized, that one election war gaming conference wasn't enough. A coalition of 50 Left-wing organizations held a Zoom conference earlier this month called the “Democracy Defense Nerve Center." One participant told the Daily Beast that they strategized about practical matters, like how to "occupy s--t, hold space, and shut things down, not just on Election Day but for weeks."

Classy.

Participants in the Democracy Defense Nerve Center say such a large number of groups has never coordinated so closely before. Really — who could've possibly seen that coming?

Rahna Epting — executive director of MoveOn was in the conference and said:

It is very obvious that Trump is laying the groundwork for claiming victory no matter what... we will fight to protect it [our democracy] from what we truly see as a president who has gone off the rails and taking this country down an authoritarian fascist path.

I don't know what kind of Disney version of authoritarian fascist leaders these people have studied, because if they knew anything about ACTUAL fascist governments, they would know that their Lefty Election Fight Club Meetings, their books, and tweets, and hundreds of millions of dollars in fundraising WOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED. They would all be canceled, thrown in prison, executed. That's what happens under normal dictatorships.

If Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist, then every one of these Color Revolutionary clowns should fall on their faces and THANK GOD ALMIGHTY that they would be so lucky to live under such oppression.

Top THREE reasons we NEED the Panama Canal

Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images

Is Trump seriously planning a military conquest of the Panama Canal?

In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, Donald Trump launched the Panama Canal into the national spotlight. The canal is one of the most important passages in the world, and its continued operation has been critical for both the U.S. military and economy since its construction.

Since America relinquished sovereignty of the canal, China has asserted its authority in the region. The Chinese Communist Party has been growing its influence in Panama and neighboring Latin American countries, convincing them to join their "Belt and Road Initiative," an effort to poise China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. Panama in particular is quickly becoming a Chinese puppet state. There are currently over 200,000 Chinese living in Panama, a Chinese company runs two of the canal's five major ports, and another Chinese company provides telecommunication service for a large portion of the canal. The government of Panama has even gone as far as cutting diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

It's clear that the Panama Canal is under serious threat of falling into Chinese hands, but President Trump doesn't intend to let them move in. Here are the top three reasons we need the Panama Canal:

1. The canal was built by the U.S.

Hulton Archive / Stringer | Getty Images

Without the United States, neither Panama nor the Panama Canal would exist. In 1903, after Colombia refused to allow the U.S. to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama, President Teddy Roosevelt devised a controversial plan. He supported a Panamanian independence movement, which swiftly overthrew the local Colombian government. Meanwhile, he stationed a U.S. warship off the coast, preventing Colombia from sending military forces to retake Panama.

The moment Panama declared its independence, the U.S. recognized it and struck a deal with the new government: the U.S. would control the Canal Zone, while Panama would receive $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000. Construction of the canal took over a decade, cost $375 million, and resulted in thousands of American casualties, making it the most expensive U.S. construction project of its time.

Fast forward to 1964 when tensions between the U.S. and Panama over the canal erupted into a riot. President Lyndon B. Johnson decided it was time to transfer control of the canal to Panama. However, this proved more complicated than expected. In 1968, General Omar Torrijos, a known ally of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, seized control of Panama in a coup. Negotiations over the Canal stalled, as many Americans opposed giving such an important asset to a controversial figure. It wasn’t until 1999, following the deployment of 27,000 U.S. troops to facilitate yet another change in power, that the Canal was officially handed over to Panama.

2. The canal is vital for the U.S. economy

IVAN PISARENKO / Contributor | Getty Images

The U.S. relies heavily on the Panama Canal for commercial shipping. Between 13 and 14 thousand ships use the Panama Canal every year, which is roughly 40 percent of the global cargo ship traffic. Additionally, 72 percent of ships traversing the canal are either heading toward or leaving a U.S. port.

The time ships save using the Panama Canal reduces shipping costs massively. For example, when the canal first opened in 1922, it was estimated that a ship’s journey from Oregon to the UK, was shortened by 42 percent, reducing costs by 31 percent. If the Panama Canal was blocked or destroyed, or if American merchant vessels were denied passage, the effects on the U.S. economy would be tremendous.

3. The canal is a key defense point for the U.S. military

Historical / Contributor | Getty Images

Similarly, the canal is key to the U.S. military and national security. The canal shaves off approximately 8,000 miles of the voyage between the Pacific and the Atlantic. If U.S. Navy ships were denied access in a time of crisis, the extra time required to bypass the canal would be disastrous. Conversely, if the U.S. can keep the Panama Canal from being used by foreign aggressors, it would provide a massive advantage in future conflicts.

A foreign enemy could easily exploit the canal's current vulnerability. This was proven in 2021 when a cargo ship accidentally blocked the Suez Canal for a week, paralyzing global trade. Imagine China intentionally sabotaging the Panama Canal, considering it controls ports on both ends, owns a bridge that spans the Canal, provides its telecom services, and has the second-largest fleet of ships using the route.

TOP 5 takeaways from JD Vance's 'Face the Nation' interview

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

After an eventful first week in office, JD Vance wrapped the week up with a bang of an interview on "Face the Nation."

Last weekend, Vice President Vance joined "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan, who drilled Vance on everything from the economy to immigration. Vance clapped back with polite yet cutting responses, and he defended Trump against some of her more accusatory queries.

If there was any lingering doubt that JD Vance wasn't vice presidential (or presidential) material, they have just been blown away. Here are the major takeaways from his electricinterview on Sunday:

1. J.D. Vance defends Trump's cabinet picks

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Brennan opened the interview with a barrage of questions that brought up concerns surrounding some of Trump's cabinet picks, specifically Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard.

Brennan began by questioning how effective Pete Hegseth could be as Secretary of Defence, given that he was confirmed with a tie in the Senate that VP Vance broke. Vance responded with a quick breakdown of all of the issues the military is currently facing. Vance argued that Hegseth's unpopularity in the Senate results from his being a disruptor.

Brennan also attacked Tulsi Gabbard, calling her unfit for the title of "Director of National Intelligence." Vance defended Gabbard, citing her formidable resume and strong character. Vance also discussed the corruption of our intelligence services, which out-of-control bureaucrats have weaponized against the interests of the American people. He expressed his belief that Gabbard would be the right person to reign in the corruption and return the National Intelligence Service to its intended purpose.

2. J.D. Vance explains how Trump's economic policies will lower consumer prices

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan pushed Vance on the economy, specifically questioning when prices for consumer goods would begin to fall. Vance explained that within the plethora of executive orders issued by Trump during his first week in office, many were aimed at bringing more jobs back into America, which will raise wages and lower prices. Other orders will boost energy production, which will reduce energy costs and decrease the costs of goods.

3. J.D. Vance sheds light on needed FEMA reforms

ROBYN BECK / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan drilled Vance on President Trump's proposed FEMA reforms, specifically regarding Trump's suggestion to send states a percentage of federal disaster relief funds so that they can quickly distribute aid rather than wait on federal action. While Brennen argued that FEMA has specialists and resources that states would not have access to, leaving people without aid, Vance argued that recent disasters, like Hurricane Helene, have proven that FEMA's current bureaucratic red tape deprived Americans of immediate aid when they needed it most.

4. J.D. Vance defends Trump's mass deportations

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

Vance defended Trump's decision to allow ICE to conduct raids into churches and schools against Brennen's criticisms, arguing that law enforcement should remove a dangerous criminal from a school or church, regardless of their immigration status. He also advocated for Trump's proposed changes to birthright citizenship to prevent illegal immigrants from abusing the constitutional amendment by having "anchor babies" on U.S. soil.

Vance also took a hard stance supporting Trump suspension of admitting Afghan refugees. Brennan argued that Afghan refugees were going through a thorough vetting process and were now being abandoned by the U.S. However, Vance cited the foiled terrorist attack in Oklahoma City during Trump's 2024 campaign that was orchestrated by an Afghan refugee, who was allegedly vetted by federal agents. The vetting process is clearly flawed, and it was a prudent decision to halt the admission of these refugees until further notice.

5. J.D. Vance insists that Trump will still reign in Big Tech

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

To wrap up the interview, Brennan questioned the Trump administration's stance on Big Tech given the attendance of the industry's biggest names at Trump's inauguration, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew. Vance assured Brennan that Trump is still resolved to curb the power and influence of Big Tech.

Top THREE reasons the U.S. NEEDS Greenland

EMIL STACH / Contributor | Getty Images

Are Trump's repeated promises to claim Greenland for the U.S. just belligerent imperialism or a deft move to secure the future of America?

During his patriotic inaugural address, President Trump reiterated his campaign promise to expand American territories, including securing U.S. control over Greenland. This is not a new idea despite what the mainstream media may claim.

The idea of buying Greenland was originally introduced by progressive hero Woodrow Wilson in 1917 as an attempt to secure the homeland as America was gearing up to enter the First World War. The second attempt came after World War II when President Truman tried to buy the island from Denmark in another attempt to shore up national security, this time against the Soviets. Since then, Trump floated the idea in 2019, which was met with much the same ridicule as now.

The truth is that the acquisition of Greenland represents far more than just an outlet for repressed imperialist desires. It would be one of America's best investments in a long time, which is why we've been eyeballing it for so long. Here are three reasons the U.S. needs Greenland:

Strategic Military Position

THOMAS TRAASDAHL / Contributor | Getty Images

For the majority of the 20th century, Europe was the region from which a foreign attack on American soil could be launched: the Germans for the first half of the century, and the Russians for the second half. On both occasions, Greenland stood between our foreign enemies and the United States.

After the World War II, America was the official military defender of Greenland, per an agreement with Denmark. Under this agreement, the U.S. built Pituffik Air Force Base, a remote base 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Due to its location, approximately halfway between D.C. and Moscow, the Pentagon still views Pituffik as a vital component of America's nuclear defense.

The U.S. also built a secret base within the ice cap known as Camp Century. Camp Century was part scientific outpost, part nuclear-tipped ballistic missile silo built in the ice to withstand a direct atomic strike. The nearly two miles of icy tunnels were powered by a nuclear reactor and were designed to survive a nuclear first strike, and return fire. Although abandoned in 1967, Camp Century still symbolizes the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. security.

Untapped Resources

OLIVIER MORIN / Contributor | Getty Images

While Greenland's population is a mere 56,000, the island has a total landmass nearly three times the size of Texas. According to a 2009 geological assessment, a whopping 30 percent of the Earth's undiscovered natural gas, and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil is locked away beneath Greenland's icy ground. There are also untapped deposits of valuable rare earth metals including copper, graphite, and lithium.

Neither Greenland nor Denmark have any real plans to tap into this immense wealth trapped beneath the ice, but it could prove crucial for ending the West's dependency on China. China has the global market cornered on rare earth minerals- including America. We acquire 72 percent of our rare earth mineral imports from China, making us entirely dependent on them for the manufacturing of many essential goods. Tapping Greenland's natural resources would help free America, and the West, from China's yolk.

Polar Silk Road

mark peterson / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2018 China launched an ambitious project that aimed to cut the travel time of cargo vessels between its ports and European markets in half. China, in collaboration with Russia, plans on developing new shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean. This bold new strategy, dubbed the "Polar Silk Road," has been made possible thanks to new tech, including a fleet of Russian, nuclear-powered icebreakers, the latest of which is capable of breaking through nearly 10 feet of ice.

With clear waterways from eastern China and Northern Europe, it won't be long before the first cargo ships brave the frigid sea and China looks to the next leg of the journey: the Northwest Passage. The Northwest Passage is the area of sea between Canada and the North Pole that would be an optimal shipping route between America's East Coast and Asia if it wasn't frozen over most of the year. But with new technology, we may be able to overcome the challenges of the ice and open the passage to commercial traffic, and Greenland is positioned directly on the passage's easternmost mouth.

Greenland would quickly become a key location along the Northwestern Passage, acting as a sentinel of the east, with the ability to control traffic through the trade route. If China or Russia were to take control of Greenland, they would dominate the Northwestern Passage, along with the rest of the new northern trade routes.

Is Romania squashing its own 'Trump' candidate?

DANIEL MIHAILESCU / Contributor | Getty Images

This week the streets of Bucharest, the capital of Romania, erupted in protest after the Constitutional Courts annulled the recent first round of the presidential election after the "far-right" candidate won.

The government is lying to you. If you have been listening to Glenn for a long time you already know that, and you also know that if you try to call attention to the lies you get labeled a conspiracy theorist or "far-right." This is not only true in America but across the world. Politicians cheat, steal, and grab power, then lie about all of it. This is the root of countless issues across every government on the planet, and recently Romania has become the latest example of this unfortunate phenomenon.

But what is really happening in Romania? Was this an actual attempt to stamp out someone who would shed light on lies and corruption? Or did the Romanian government put a stop to a genuine bad actor?

The Election

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

On December 6th, 2024, the Romanian Constitutional Court canceled the second round of the presidential election amid claims of Russian interference. The second round of the election would have seen right-wing candidate, Calin Georgescu face off against pro-European centrist Elena Lasconi.

The trouble surrounds Georgescu, who stands accused of using Russian aid to run an unprecedented social media campaign that helped him win an election pollsters claimed he stood no chance of winning. Georgescu's rapid rise in popularity on social media does raise some eyebrows, and to add to the suspicion he declared he had zero campaign spending. On the other hand, Georgescu's supporters claim that his quick rise to stardom and underdog victory is due to the growing resentment for the ever-out-of-touch political elite.

Georgescu's Platform

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

Georgescu rose to prominence on a platform many of his detractors have labeled "far-right," "pro-Russian," and "populist" (sound familiar?). His positions include supporting Romanian farmers, increasing Romanian self-reliance, and increasing local energy production. Georgescu has been lauded for his message of hope and vision for the future and his dedication to truth, freedom, and sovereignty.

Georgescu is also a vocal Christian and a supporter of the Romanian Orthodox Church. He has questioned the climate change and COVID-19 narrative as well as NATO and the war in Ukraine, which is how he earned his "Pro-Russian" monicker. Georgescu promised to respect and honor its obligations to the EU and NATO, but only to the extent that they respect Romania and its interests.

What Happens Next?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

After Georgescu's unexpected victory, the Romanian Constitutional Courts annulled the election's first round and scheduled it to restart on May 4th. As of now, it is unclear whether Georgescu will be allowed to participate in the new election. This act by the Constitutional Courts triggered mass protests in the capital, Bucharest, and has caused many Romainians to question the state of democracy within their country.

Many of the protesters are calling what happened a coup and are demanding the election be allowed to continue to the second round. They are also calling for the resignation of current President Klaus Iohannis, who has maintained power thanks to the incomplete elections. Georgescu has officially challenged the court's decision and even made a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, but it is unclear if his appeal will make any difference.