Agree to disagree? More like surrender to the script



Wouldn’t you know it? It was bound to happen.

You’re chatting with a friend about this, that, and the other thing — carefully steering clear of politics, just like always.

You both know you don't see eye to eye when it comes to today’s contentious political landscape, so you do your best to keep things light. But then, out of nowhere, the forbidden topic appears. It sneaks into the conversation, innocently enough — until suddenly, it’s front and center.

I knew my friend Jeffrey didn’t like Trump, so I always tried to avoid politics when we talked. But somehow, I found myself on the phone with him getting a lecture on “how bad Trump is for democracy.”

What happened?

All I did was mention a film I thought we both appreciate: “Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin.”

With people in general justifying the absolute obvious craziness of the far left by being silent and looking the other way, we can announce a brand-new term: ‘political immaturity.’

I genuinely believed it was a safe topic. We’re both Christians, both admirers of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his courageous stand against Hitler and the Nazis. We also share respect for Eric Metaxas, whose book on Bonhoeffer many consider the definitive biography and which inspired the film adaptation.

Plus, Jeffrey knows I was Metaxas’ radio producer for many years. So really, I thought we were on solid, non-controversial ground.

But Jeffrey immediately jumped in to point out that Bonhoeffer’s descendants don’t support Eric Metaxas — because Metaxas supports Trump. That, in his view, proved just how awful Trump is and, dare I say it, how Hitler-like. From there, it was only a short leap to his inevitable conclusion: Trump is bad for democracy.

I calmly responded that descendants of historical figures, while entitled to their opinions, are just as influenced by the culture of their time as anyone else. Then I added what I considered the most glaring problem with his argument: the United States isn’t a democracy — we’re a constitutional republic.

I suggested that, in many ways, democracy can be a lousy form of government. After all, it allows 51% of the people to impose their will on the other 49%, forcing them to live under rules they didn’t choose and might not benefit from. In my quick tutorial on democracy versus the American system, I didn’t even get into the brilliance of the framers’ creation of the Electoral College — a safeguard that gives individual states real power and influence.

To my surprise, Jeffrey actually agreed with me on that point. But then he pivoted, arguing that Trump was just doing whatever he wanted — like sending back all the “asylum-seekers” who crossed the border during Joe Biden’s presidency.

I asked him how he knew all 15 million migrants (give or take) were asylum-seekers. Who vetted them? And I reminded him that Trump had nearly been blocked from deporting even the worst of the worst — violent criminals — by an unelected judge from ... well, somewhere.

Then I said, “It’s hard to imagine the words ‘Christian’ and ‘Democrat’ even appearing in the same sentence these days.”

That didn’t go over well.

I listed just a few of the issues Democrats continue to support. I left out the wide-open borders — which my friend seemed fine with, even after I brought up the rise in sex trafficking, fentanyl deaths, and inner-city crime — and focused on other examples. I mentioned sex-change procedures for children, drag queen story hours in public libraries, and men competing in women’s sports.

That’s when Jeffrey cut me off.

“Of course I don’t agree with those things,” he said.

And then came the words every far-left friend says when he's on the brink of losing an argument to inconvenient facts: “Let’s just agree to disagree.”

End of discussion.

Since Jeffrey is a friend, I let the conversation fizzle out. We exchanged a few more pleasantries and then said our goodbyes.

But not long after I hung up, I realized how disingenuous “agree to disagree” can be in a discussion or debate. That phrase shuts down dialogue. It signals that neither side will reconsider his position and, worse, that neither side is allowed to keep making his case or challenging the other’s facts.

What struck me even more was how casually Jeffrey used the phrase — not just with me, but seemingly with his own party. It was as if he could personally find things like child gender surgeries or men in women’s locker rooms repugnant — especially as a Christian — but still wave it all off because Democrats “stand up for the little guy.”

To avoid making waves, many Christians stepped onto the slippery slope of so-called “political correctness” years ago. The idea was simple: Being on the “right side” of politics meant standing up for marginalized people. And what Christian wouldn’t want to be seen doing that? After all, didn’t the Bible and the saints speak out for the disadvantaged?

But over time, political correctness evolved. Or rather, it escalated. “PC” gave way to “woke,” and suddenly we were all expected to embrace a new worldview — one in which anyone with a shred of sanity and compassion would naturally join the swelling ranks of the awakened. Christians, of course, were included in that expectation — if they knew what was good for them and wanted to belong to the era’s grand new “Awokening.”

So what’s next?

With people in general justifying the absolute obvious craziness of the far left by being silent and looking the other way, we can announce a brand-new term: “political immaturity.”

When you ignore common sense to do whatever you are told is “correct” and “woke,” you have not matured into rationally thinking for yourself. You might start with a wish to "go along to get along," and now you are being led around and told what to think and do like somebody's child.

The only hope for America over these next few critical years is a true Great Awakening to the truth within the church that can lead to a foundational restoration within this great country.

Optimistically speaking, if we take this route, future generations might look back and say with joy: “Wouldn’t you know it? It was bound to happen!”

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at American Thinker.

Progressives’ ‘democracy’ is just a cover for unaccountable power



Every country is governed by an organized elite, and every ruling class relies on a narrative that justifies its authority. Political theorist Gaetano Mosca called this a political formula — a framework that defines the legitimacy of a government. Without a radical shift in this formula, a nation's people assume their leaders must operate within the existing governmental structure.

Americans expect to be governed as a republic, with a mixed constitution that heavily favors the input of the common man. While aspects of the narrative justifying government power have remained intact, the ruling elite have fundamentally altered how the state functions.

When Democrats claim Trump threatens 'our democracy,' they really mean he threatens their administrative state.

Technocratic bureaucracy now dominates every branch of government, replacing the will of the people with the judgment of so-called experts. Donald Trump has declared war on this bureaucracy — what many call the deep state — acknowledging the extent to which the federal government has been transformed. His stance has deeply unsettled his opponents.

The entrenched elite believed their new governing model was permanently enshrined. Yet to their shock, the power of America’s foundational principles still holds enough force to challenge the system they assumed was complete. Republican presidents have come and gone, but for the first time in years, the ruling class is paralyzed by the prospect of real change.

The U.S. Constitution establishes essential ground rules, but the Founding Fathers designed it with significant flexibility. While power is divided among three branches with built-in checks and balances, the dominance of each branch has shifted throughout history. This adaptability has allowed the nation to respond to crises without requiring a formal revolution.

This flexibility ensures continuity of governance during emergencies, but it also makes it difficult for the public to recognize when a more insidious shift occurs within the state’s structure.

Some trace the origins of the administrative state to Chester A. Arthur or Woodrow Wilson, but few deny its full emergence under Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR’s New Deal created a vast bureaucracy of experts tasked with modernizing and centralizing economic and political power. The Great Depression and World War II provided the perfect justification for this transformation, and Americans — grateful for an end to both crises — barely noticed how radically their form of government had changed.

FDR’s managerial revolution still haunts the United States. Today, the country operates less like a republic and more like a web of insular, unaccountable bureaucratic agencies.

Progressives are eager to dismantle the constitutional restraints on democracy, such as the Electoral College and the Senate, while shifting power away from elected representatives and into the hands of the administrative state. The left has worked hard to dominate public opinion through institutional control and wants to maintain a direct and unobstructed link between its bureaucratic machinery and the people it seeks to govern. To the left, the checks and balances of a mixed republican constitution are archaic and inconvenient. When Democrats claim Donald Trump’s presidency threatens “our democracy,” they really mean he threatens their administrative state.

Average Americans may struggle to pinpoint exactly when or how their government changed, but they recognize that something feels fundamentally different from what they were promised. Even if most citizens today have never lived under a truly representative republic, the founding narrative remains powerful enough for Americans to see it as their rightful system of government — and to demand its return.

Democrats may cry “constitutional crisis” as Trump removes corrupt officials and empowers Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to slash bureaucracy. But voters understand that this decisive exercise of executive power aligns far more with the original mixed republican system than anything the administrative state has imposed. Trump’s executive orders may threaten their “democracy,” but bold action is essential to restore the republic’s promises.

The left obscured its quiet revolution by replacing the constitutional republic with an unaccountable administrative state. Believing this transformation to be permanent, progressives even exported the model as a blueprint for governance across the Western world. In countries like the United Kingdom and Germany, technocratic governments now arrest their own citizens for criticizing failed policies, all in the name of defending “democracy.”

But in the United States, the republic’s legacy remains too strong to erase. Despite being ground zero for the technocratic revolution, America is also poised to lead its rejection.

Trump campaigned on Making America Great Again, and the key to fulfilling that promise is dismantling the bureaucratic behemoth that has strangled American ingenuity, productivity, and liberty. The republic’s narrative still beats in the heart of the nation, and by pledging to restore it, Trump has rallied his supporters to the difficult but necessary task of reversing the left’s technocratic revolution.

Did Jan. 6 threaten ‘our democracy’? Or prove the republic still works?



Like Dec. 7, 1941, Jan. 6, 2021, has taken on a mythic stature that surpasses the actual events of that day. Trump’s opponents view it as an “insurrection” — a deliberate attack on the Constitution, carried out by his supporters at his command to illegally overturn the 2020 election by threatening members of Congress. Many of his supporters, though, see it as a protest that spiraled into chaos, ensnaring citizens who never intended harm but wanted to express their belief that the election had been unfairly conducted.

I do not consider the events of that day an insurrection, nor do I believe that all those arrested received fair treatment. Still, Jan. 6 was a dark day for the republic — an act of lawlessness that stains Donald Trump’s legacy.

As Lincoln stated, no matter how desirable our goals may be, 'there is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law …'

I do not believe he intended to overthrow the constitutional order. Instead, the events reflected the folly of taking politics to the streets, a tactic once favored by the left. More than anything, Jan. 6 exposed the dangers of unrestrained democracy — a threat America’s founders understood all too well.

The Great Seal of the United States proclaims that the American founding represents a novus ordo seclorum — a new order of the ages. The Constitution of 1787 was a remarkable achievement, establishing a commonwealth designed to protect the natural rights of all citizens. At the same time, understanding the founding requires looking to the past, particularly to the taxonomy of regime types identified by Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, the founders of political science.

What the Greeks knew

Greek political science differs from modern political science by focusing on fundamental questions. What is the best form of government? What system best ensures citizens’ excellence (areté) and happiness (eudaimonia)? What causes political communities to decline?

In contrast, today’s political science fixates on minutiae. Modern scholars, adopting a value-free perspective, struggle to explain why one form of government is superior to another beyond personal preference. As a result, they increasingly write more and more about less and less.

For the Greeks, political constitutions directly corresponded to the human soul (psyche). They divided the soul into three parts: nous, the intellective, reasoning part; thumos, the spirited part, concerned with honor and justice; and epithumeia, the appetitive part, which governs basic desires and is especially vulnerable to passions.

Each type of government, according to this framework, reflected a part of the soul. In this political taxonomy, the noetic part of the soul corresponded to rule by one; the thumetic part to rule by the few; and the appetitive part to rule by the many.

Each system had both good and bad versions. In a just system, rulers governed for the benefit of the entire polity. In a corrupt system, they ruled for their own benefit. The Greeks classified kingship as the good form of rule by one, while tyranny was its corrupted counterpart.

Aristocracy was the noble form of rule by the few, while oligarchy or plutocracy represented its decay. The good form of rule by the many was politeia, or a balanced constitution — a concept the Romans translated as res publica, best rendered in English as “commonwealth.” The corrupted version of rule by the many was democracy in its worst form: ochlocracy, or mob rule.

The founders feared unbridled passion and mob rule, which led them to reject democracy. They saw it as easily corrupted and unstable, prone to constant turmoil and disorder, and just as much a threat to citizens’ rights as tyranny or oligarchy. Democracies, they believed, were especially vulnerable to demagogues who could manipulate the masses.

To prevent this, the U.S. Constitution deliberately established a self-governing republic — the virtuous form of rule by the many.

Republic vs. democracy

No founder articulated the dangers of democracy — the perils of unchecked passions — better than Alexander Hamilton. Like most of his contemporaries, he viewed the American Revolution as an act of deliberate action, designed to secure the natural rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

However, Hamilton also recognized that revolution is inherently lawless. Before establishing a government that safeguards rights and liberty, men must first “dissolve the [existing] political bands.” But revolutionary fervor, he warned, is ill suited for maintaining a stable political society — even one dedicated to protecting individual rights.

Hamilton understood that a passion for liberty was necessary if the cause of American independence was to succeed, but that ultimately it had to be tempered by the rule of law. As he said during the New York Ratifying Convention in 1788,

In the commencement of a revolution … nothing was more natural than that the public mind should be influenced by an extreme spirit of jealousy … and to nourish this spirit, was the great object of all our public and private institutions. Zeal for liberty became predominant and excessive. In forming our confederation, this passion alone seemed to actuate us, and we appear to have had no other view than to secure ourselves from despotism. The object certainly was a valuable one. But Sir, there is another object, equally important, and which our enthusiasm rendered us little capable of regarding. I mean the principle of strength and stability in the organizing of our government, and of vigor in its operation.

Passions unleashed in the fight for rights can ultimately destroy those very rights. Individual freedoms survive only when society maintains a strong sense of law and order.

Hamilton was alarmed by calls for “permanent revolution,” a theme that dominated Thomas Jefferson’s rhetoric. He saw Jefferson’s dismissive and intellectualized response to Shays’ Rebellion and the French Revolution — expressed in statements like “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing” and “the Tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants” — as a dangerous philosophy. To Hamilton, this mindset invited chaos and guaranteed frequent upheaval rather than stable governance.

He believed that the solution was to instill respect for the Constitution, binding Americans to the rule of law. Though a creation of the people, the Constitution imposes necessary constraints that must be respected while it remains in force.

Hamilton argued that attaching people to the Constitution’s rule of law would preserve the new government as if it were an ancient institution. This stability would allow for the just administration of laws, without which the Revolution’s central aim — the protection of rights — could not be secured.

Through both words and actions, Hamilton worked to temper popular passions and connect citizens first to their state constitutions and then to the federal Constitution. He defended New York Loyalists after the Revolution, a position he reinforced through his "Phocion" letters. During the ratification debates in 1787 and 1788, he vigorously argued for the new Constitution, emphasizing its role in securing national stability.

As treasury secretary, he promoted fiscal responsibility, stressing the necessity of paying debts and honoring contracts. Within Washington’s administration, he sought to subordinate American gratitude to France and enthusiasm for the French Revolution to the dictates of international law.

Nothing better illustrates Hamilton’s commitment to moderating revolutionary fervor than a letter he wrote to John Jay around the same time he was crafting his own revolutionary pamphlets.

The same state of passions which fits the multitude … for opposition to tyranny and oppression, very naturally leads them to contempt and disregard of all authority. … When the minds of those are loosed from their attachments to ancient establishments and course, they seem to grow giddy and are apt more-or-less to turn into anarchy.

Lincoln: Passions vs. reason in politics

In his 1838 speech to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, “On the Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions,” Abraham Lincoln warned against the dangers of mob violence in pursuit of political goals. He saw it as a sign that unchecked passions were overtaking reason.

Lincoln identified the greatest threat to American freedom and prosperity not as a foreign enemy but as an internal danger. “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher,” he declared. “As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny. Accounts of outrages committed by mobs, form the every-day news of the times. They have pervaded the country …

Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocratic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed — I mean the attachment of the People …

… Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence. —Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws …

Lincoln allowed that there were bad laws, among which he included the laws supporting slavery.

When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made. —I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed. So also in unprovided cases. If such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay; but, till then, let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with.

But he maintained that “there is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law …”

The mobocratic spirit and Jan. 6

Political conservatives consistently denounced political violence, including the unrest that followed Trump’s 2016 election victory, the riots and destruction that erupted after George Floyd’s death in May 2020, and numerous other instances of domestic looting and property destruction carried out by left-wing groups in recent years.

Yet as former U.S. prosecutor Andrew McCarthy noted, the central charge against Trump regarding Jan. 6 — that he undermined the Constitution’s electoral process — is difficult to dispute. He gave the mob assembled that day the false impression that Vice President Mike Pence had the authority to overturn Joe Biden’s victory. More importantly, he failed to quickly and decisively use his influence to call off his supporters, denounce violence, and urge them to leave the Capitol grounds.

McCarthy contended that if Democrats had pursued an impartial investigation rather than overreacting for partisan purposes, they could have built a compelling case that Trump violated his constitutional duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution while faithfully executing the laws. A thorough congressional inquiry would have produced stronger articles of impeachment. Instead, Democrats omitted key allegations, allowing them to frame the riot as an “insurrection” for political advantage.

As McCarthy argued, the congressional January 6panel “was a blatantly partisan, monochromatically anti-Trump political exhibition that presented the country with a skewed picture, eschewing cross-examination and perspectives that deviated from its relentless theme: Trump’s incitement to insurrection had our democracy hanging by a thread.”

In the end, the riot of January 6 did not “prevent the peaceful transition of power.” Was the peace disturbed? Yes ...

... that’s why so many people have been prosecuted, some for serious offenses, and many others for trivial crimes that the Justice Department would normally decline to charge. But there was so little damage done to the Capitol that Congress was able to reconvene a few hours after order was restored. It promptly affirmed Biden’s victory, as it was always certain to do. No one tried to blow up the Capitol. No one tried to mass-kill the security forces. Our Constitution held firm, and there was never any reason to suspect it wouldn’t. Our democracy was not realistically imperiled, much less at the precipice of annihilation.

Ultimately, January 6 did not represent a threat to “our democracy” but instead illustrated why the Founders prudently established a republic rather than a democracy. They understood that democracies justify behavior such as occurred that day. Deliberation and the passage of laws by representative bodies are designed to permit prudence to curb the passions. As Lincoln stated, no matter how desirable our goals may be, “there is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law …”

The Constitution Vindicates Trump’s Firing Of 17 Inspectors General

Accountability requires the power to remove. Without it, the president cannot control who wields his own executive power and how.

Schumer and fellow Democrats ignore the facts when trying to pin American oligarchy on Republicans



President Joe Biden's farewell address Wednesday was replete with oddities and falsehoods. Evidently convinced that they could use it against their political foes and hurt President-elect Donald Trump's appeal with working-class voters, affluent Democrats and fellow travelers seized on one of Biden's statements in particular, namely his suggestion that "an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), for instance, tried to use the outgoing president's claim to concern-monger during his Thursday grilling of Scott Bessent, Trump's pick to run the Treasury Department, suggesting that the presence of billionaire Elon Musk in the Trump administration was troubling. Bessent responded by noting the hollowness of Biden's rhetoric, highlighting the president's decision to award billionaire and Democratic megadonor George Soros with the Presidential Medal of Freedom earlier this month.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) similarly embraced Biden's 11th-hour concern about American oligarchy, noting on X, "Every American should listen to the warning @POTUS left us with: An oligarchy is taking shape in America that could threaten the progress we've made. He's right."

"Instead of helping working families, the GOP is intent on rigging the system even further in favor of the ultra-rich," added Schumer, who has received donations from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and various other billionaires.

Tiffany Muller, president of the pro-Democrat activist group End Citizens United, apparently also got the memo on the new talking point, stating Thursday, "Donald Trump's inauguration next week is the beginning of an oligarchy that's been 15 years in the making."

'Most people who are paying attention know that most elites and billionaires have shoveled money into the coffers of one party in this country for a long time.'

While Biden, Schumer, and others are keen to credit their political rivals with the supposed growth of an American oligarchy — meaning rule by a small group of people, in contrast to plutocracy, which specifically refers to rule by the wealthiest — they are throwing rocks from an expensive glass house.

Bloomberg reported that Biden's time in office proved a golden age for the wealthiest of Americans. The wealth of the 100 richest individuals in the country increased by over $1.5 trillion over the past four years. According to Federal Reserve estimates through September, the top 0.1% gained over $6 trillion while Democrats controlled the White House and Senate.

It certainly didn't hurt that the Democratic-controlled 117th Congress approved Biden's so-called Build Back Better Act, which included enormous federal tax cuts for the ultra-rich, or that Biden championed unprecedented inflationary spending benefiting the wealthy.

Many of the nation's wealthiest individuals, in many cases beneficiaries of Democratic policies, have backed the campaigns of Democratic lawmakers and worked to keep them in power in recent years.

USA Today reported in November that 83 billionaires, including two with a net worth of over $100 billion each, supported Kamala Harris' doomed presidential campaign. Trump had 31 fewer billionaires back him and only one supporting centibillionaire, Elon Musk.

Those now clutching pearls about Musk serving in the incoming administration have not only glossed over this detail but previously proved unwilling to condemn billionaire Mark Zuckerberg for helping swing the 2020 election for Democrats.

"Most people who are paying attention know that most elites and billionaires have shoveled money into the coffers of one party in this country for a long time. Every wealthy bank, everyone in finance, everyone in every industry has basically — except for one or two — has funneled their money into the Democratic Party," said Blaze News editor in chief Matthew Peterson on the Thursday episode of "Blaze News Tonight."

— (@)

A 2023 paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Perspectives on Politics noted that up until 1992, affluent voters preferred Republican candidates. However, "it is increasingly the case that the income groups that most prefer Democratic candidates are the lowest and highest income categories — hence, a 'U-shape.' For example, in 2016 and 2020, [Cooperative Election Study] data shows that the top two income quintiles (i.e., 80%-100% and 60%-80%) preferred the Democrat (i.e., Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden) over the Republican (i.e., Donald Trump) more than the twentieth through sixtieth percentiles did."

Exit polls revealed that in the 2024 presidential election, the majority of voters whose total family income exceeded $200,000 voted for Harris.

Nina Turner, the national co-chair for Sanders' last presidential campaign, blasted Biden over his oligarchy comments, telling the Associated Press, "It's cowardly that after representing the oligarchs for 50 years in office, he calls out this threat to our nation with just days left in his presidency."

"[Biden] enabled, benefited from, and emboldened the system that threatens us all, while he will ride off into the sunset and won't feel the harms of what's been built," added Turner.

Before his ouster from the presidential race, Biden and groups supporting his re-election campaign received oodles of cash from a group of billionaires worth roughly $170 billion, including former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose net worth is around $104.7 billion.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Vote like your life and the republic depend on it



You hear it every four years: This election is the most consequential/important/momentous of our lifetime, to the point that it’s practically a cliché now. But this year it’s true, and everyone knows it.

With just days before the election, if you are on the fence or lukewarm about Donald Trump and JD Vance, if you are considering voting for a third-party candidate or you know somebody who is, and especially if you are thinking about not voting at all, please take a few moments to read this.

Do not be deterred by dirty tricks or misinformation. Do not believe the hype. Above all, do not despair.

It hardly seems possible that voters are undecided about Trump after nearly a decade. It’s more understandable that some Republican voters struggle to get past Trump’s brash and bombastic personality. Some conservatives look at Trump and say, No. I just can’t. He’s not a decent man. He’s not a godly man.

Let’s concede that Trump is far from perfect. Let’s even allow that his first term was marked by several missteps, unforced errors, and terrible decisions — culminating with the COVID-19 disaster in 2020.

Despite whatever he did that you didn’t like, Trump was arguably the most successful Republican president since Ronald Reagan: shepherding tax cuts that boosted economic growth, slashing illegal immigration, renegotiating trade deals to America’s advantage, and checking our foreign enemies.

Nobody can say for certain what a second Trump term would look like. What is certain is that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz will be a disaster for the country. No question about it. Not only would Harris and Walz continue the policies of the past four Biden-Harris years, they would make them worse. The only question is how much worse.

Harris and Walz guarantee the southern border will remain wide open to millions of unvetted illegal aliens from all around the world. Some are gangsters from Venezuela, known terrorists from Syria, Yemen, and Iran, and tens of thousands of military-age men from China traveling alone without ID. Harris and Walz will quickly pave a path to voting for millions of illegal aliens already in our country in an open attempt to create a one-party state in America.

Harris and Walz guarantee domestic economic stagnation and decline by pushing the Green New Deal and crippling regulations while sending hundreds of billions of dollars — much of it borrowed money — to prop up corrupt foreign regimes and wage wars that weaken America’s standing abroad.

Harris and Walz guarantee more lawfare against political opponents, more federal prosecutions of grandmothers praying in front of abortion clinics, and more censorship in the guise of combatting “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “hate speech.” They will continue the unprecedented efforts of the Biden-Harris administration to use the power of the federal government to censor and punish private media companies like Blaze Media that publish content they don’t like.

With Democratic House and Senate majorities, Harris and Walz guarantee an end to the filibuster, a packed Supreme Court, legislation to enshrine Roe v. Wade, the “right” of boys and men to encroach on girls’ and women’s sports and spaces, and more.

Don’t get cocky or complacent. Vote anyway. Make sure your friends and family do, too.

If you are a pro-life voter disappointed with Trump’s weakness on abortion, from rejecting a national ban to regulating the “morning-after pill,” Harris is clearly not your candidate.

Now is not the time for purity tests. Too much is at stake. Reagan often told his staff, “I’d rather get 80% of what I want than go over the cliff with my flags flying.”

Trump and Vance are better than 80% of what conservative and pro-life voters say they want. Harris and Walz are less than zero. Guaranteed.

We don’t vote to determine who’s a saint and who’s a sinner — that judgement is up to God. We vote for whoever is best for the job. So vote. Vote your conscience, but also vote your common sense. Vote your values, but remember you won’t necessarily get everything you want all at once or right away. But vote.

Do you live in a blue state where Kamala Harris is a lock to win? Vote anyway. Yes, the Electoral College decides the outcome, but the popular vote matters in the court of public opinion. California in 2016 provided Hillary Clinton’s margin of victory in the popular vote, as she and her sycophants never tire of reminding us. Don’t give them the satisfaction. Make your voice heard and your vote count.

Do you live in a red state where Donald Trump is likely going to run the table? Don’t get cocky or complacent. Vote anyway. Make sure your friends and family do too.

Do you live in a swing state? Absolutely vote like your life and your republic depend on it, because they do. And this time, in the next few days, you must get as many people as you can to do it too. Bug all your friends and family. Bug everyone in the book club or chat group. All the complaining and commentary and worry about politics are meaningless if you and everyone you know do not vote on Tuesday.

Do not be deterred by dirty tricks or misinformation. Do not hand your ballot over to a stranger with a badge. Do not be obstructed by long lines or foul weather. Do not take no for an answer.

Do not believe the hype. Yes, networks like CNN are projecting Harris as the likely winner — but a few months ago, CNN reported that Joe Biden was “sharp as a tack.”

Above all, do not despair. Democrats are going all out. Lawsuits. Ballot harvesting. Dirty tricks. Misinformation. They fight dirty, and they fight to win. We fight for our families and for our country.

A path to victory always exists — but you need to walk down it. The first step is your vote.

Tyler Cardon, CEO of Blaze Media
Matthew Peterson, Editor in Chief of Blaze Media
Ben Boychuk, Opinion Editor of Blaze News
Cortney Weil, Senior Editor of Blaze News
Dave Urbanski, Senior Editor of Blaze News
Peter Gietl, Managing Editor of Return
Matt Himes, Managing Editor of Align

Glenn Beck recaps the MOST INSANE month in US political history



It’s been a long, treacherous month — especially if you love your country.

To kick it off, President Joe Biden shocked half of the nation at the presidential debate by confirming what the other half — conservatives — have been saying all along. That of course is that his apparent mental decline.

“It was a frightening moment for many Americans. Not because ‘Oh my gosh he’s going to lose to Donald Trump’ but because that guy is the guy who’s running the country,” Glenn Beck says.

Shortly after, former President Donald Trump narrowly survived an assassination attempt at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

“So we don’t know who’s in charge, and then a week later the guy running against him is gunned down on live television, and we really don’t know what happened,” Glenn continues, noting that we then were faced with the realization that the Secret Service director was a DEI hire.

“The head of security of the Security Service, we all figured out and found out, was hired by the first lady. Not the president. The first lady was the one who pushed for her DEI hire at the Secret Service. And she was protecting PepsiCo and now the most important leaders of the world,” Glenn says in disbelief.

When the now-former Secret Service director — who just resigned — gave her testimony on what happened on July 13, her lack of ability to answer questions had Americans everywhere asking a new question.

“Wait a minute, was this a setup?” Glenn asks, recalling the testimony. “What are they covering up? If they’re not covering something up, why wouldn’t they just be honest and open and transparent?”

And of course, there’s Biden’s resignation from the 2024 presidential race.

“I think he should have resigned, not just from the candidacy but from the presidency of the United States,” Glenn says. “He’s not okay to run a campaign, but he’s okay to run the country?”

Then Vice President Kamala Harris stepped in to replace him as the Democratic candidate for 2024.

“The party elites picked her, and then they had a coup and picked her again,” Glenn says.

“I just want you to recognize why you might be on edge. Why you might be so tired right now. A lot has happened to your country that you love.”

“Your country has taken a beating over just the last three weeks,” he adds.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

WATCH: Glenn Beck unpacks Biden’s Oval Office speech — 'He is NOT fit to rule'



Last night, President Biden gave a speech from the Oval Office. It’s the first time he’s spoken since he announced his declination of the Democratic nomination in the 2024 election.

In his address confirming that he would “pass the torch,” Biden reiterated that “democracy is at stake” and that he would be “focused on doing [his] job as president” until the end of his term. He also chronicled all of his “accomplishments” over the course of his leadership — many of which were blatant lies (i.e., “securing our border”) — and promised to continue working hard to lower costs, protect our freedom, and fight extremism, among other endeavors. He then endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris and said, “The choice is up to you — the American people.”

If you’re reading this and scoffing, you’re not alone. Glenn Beck was appalled, although not necessarily surprised, by Biden’s speech.

"He is NOT Fit to Rule!" | Glenn Beck STRONG Reaction to Biden Speechwww.youtube.com

As for the president’s promises to “continue to lower costs for hardworking families,” “grow our economy,” “[defend] our personal freedoms and our civil rights — from the right to vote to the right to choose,” “[call] out hate and extremism,” “protect our kids from gun violence and our planet from climate crisis,” and “call for Supreme Court reform,” Glenn is most concerned about the last one — reforming the Supreme Court.

“This is anti-republic and anti-democratic,” he says, adding that “the Supreme Court is actually shrinking the size of the federal government and returning the power closer to you at the state level.”

“[Democrats] don't like that, and quite honestly, it's because they do believe that they know better than the average American,” he explains.

Biden also stated that “the great thing about America is here, kings and dictators do not rule; the people do,” making his intentions to reform the Supreme court “pretty ironic” — not to mention the fact that Kamala Harris has already been all but coronated by the Democratic party.

But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Biden’s speech was his feigned contentedness at dropping out of the race.

On July 20, while in supposedly isolated quarantine, Biden posted the following tweet:

“Less than 24 hours later, not even a full day, Joe Biden steps down, and he does it again by a tweet,” says Glenn, noting that the letter lacked an “official presidential letterhead” and featured “a signature uncommon from the way he usually signs.”

What happened?

“It was a coup. It was a threat,” says Glenn.

To hear more of his thoughts on how such an internal debacle came to pass, watch the clip above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Glenn RIPS CNN for absurd claim that America is not a republic: 'I guarantee your head will EXPLODE'



CNN has zero qualms when it comes to deception, but even Glenn Beck is shocked at its latest lie.

“We apparently are not a republic,” he says, referencing a recent claim made by the media outlet. “I guarantee your head will explode on this CNN clip.”

The footage documents CNN's Donie O'Sullivan asking Trump supporters about Biden being a “threat to democracy.” Many of those he interviewed had a similar message: “America is not a democracy; it’s a republic.”

Which, of course, is absolutely correct.

But not according to Mr. O’Sullivan.

“To hear Americans — people who would describe themselves as patriots — say that America is not a democracy, that stopped me in my tracks,” he told historian Anne Applebaum, who agreed.

“America is a democracy; it was founded as a democracy,” she said. “You are hearing people say America is not a democracy because there are people around Trump who want them to be saying that, who've been planting that narrative.”

To say Glenn is horrified would be an understatement.

“We are a republic and 'to the Republic for which it stands,'” he corrects.

So, where’s this confusion about democracy coming from?

“We are a democracy on voting day — one man one vote ... but what you're not doing is voting on every single law. You are voting for a representative, and that representative represents you in the republic,” Glenn clarifies, noting that “people don’t understand the difference.”

And for those who don’t understand why a republic is infinitely better than a traditional democracy, Glenn has an answer for that too.

“A democracy only country will fail every time because all you need is to whip enough people into a frenzy, schedule a vote, and they'll vote the way you want them to vote,” whereas “a republic understands that people can't understand every single issue and be voting on every single issue,” he explains, adding that a republic is designed to “slow the process down” and “give reason a chance.”

But unfortunately, the “faceless bureaucrats” in Washington, D.C., don’t like slowing down, using reason, or respecting the constitutional rights of the people.

“The EPA, the ATF, the housing people, the FED ... you never elected any of those people, and it's okay if they are hired to be in there to make the system work, but instead, they're making the rules, which become laws,” says Glenn. “Only Congress can make laws, but we don't do that anymore.”

“That's why we have to restore the republic.”

To hear more of Glenn’s analysis and watch CNN footage that’s bound to make your blood boil, watch the clip below.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Will A Single Democrat Stand Up To The Democrat Party’s Inauguration Of Third-World Politics?

Long before the first ballots are cast, Democrats have effectively rigged the contest by keeping the president from even campaigning.