Clinton labor secretary panics after Trump asks the archangel Michael for help fighting evil



President Donald Trump posted a prayer to social media on Sunday, asking Saint Michael for help battling "the wickedness and snares of the Devil" — just days ahead of his return to Butler, Pennsylvania, where in July a Democratic donor shot him and killed the heroic patriarch of the Comperatore family.

The prayer and accompanying image of Saint Michael vanquishing Satan, reposted by the Trump campaign, were largely well received. Michael is recognized as an archangel in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and the prayer simply asks for help routing evil.

However, a number of leftists reflexively expressed shock and horror, in some cases showcasing cultural and historical ignorance — just as Ana Navarro of "The View" did when responding to Trump's happy birthday wishes to the Virgin Mary on the feast of her nativity earlier this month.

Former Clinton Labor Secretary and Harris booster Robert Reich led the pack in ignoring or at the very least overlooking the fact that the post coincided with Michaelmas, the feast day of the archangels Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael, which is celebrated by Catholics — of which there are nearly 1.4 billion worldwide and at least 52 million stateside, including Trump's wife, Melania — as well as by Lutherans and Anglicans.

'By the power of God, cast into hell Satan.'

"Trump increasingly suggests that he is God's chosen instrument of wrath and that his opponents are 'evil spirits' to be 'cast into hell,'" tweeted Reich, whose fellow Democrats helped set the stage for two known assassination attempts with incendiary rhetoric. "If you don't find this terrifying, you're not paying attention."

Reich, now a public policy professor at the University of California, Berkeley, apparently found this prayer terrifying:

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

The prayer was written by Pope Leo XIII following an Oct. 13, 1884, vision of demonic attacks on the church from within — and of the archangel tossing the offending demons back into the abyss.

It was long recited after Mass, though that obligation ended in 1965.

However, when discussing preparations for spiritual battle 13 years after he was wounded in an assassination attempt, Pope John Paul II said, "Even though today this prayer is no longer recited at the end of the Eucharistic celebration, I invite everyone not to forget it, but to recite it to obtain help in the battle against the forces of darkness and against the spirit of this world."

According to the Diocese of Gary, Indiana, Pope Pius XI ordered the recitation of the prayer in 1929 for the conversion of Russia.

'But the sword / Of Michael from the Armorie of God / Was giv'n him temperd so, that neither keen / Nor solid might resist that edge.'

Saint Michael is one of the three angels mentioned by name in the scriptures and is regarded by multiple Christian denominations as the patron saint of the police, firemen, and members of the military. Michael is also the patron saint of numerous countries and cities, including Kyiv, Ukraine.

EWTN indicated that Michael is referred to in two chapters of the Old Testament (in Daniel 10:13, 21 and 12:1) and in at least two books of the New Testament (Jude 1:9 and Revelation 12:7).

Revelation 12:7-9 states:

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

The prayer Reich found terrifying not only has religious significance but engages a key character in the Western literary canon.

In Book Six of John Milton's "Paradise Lost," Saint Michael introduces the proud and rebellious Lucifer to something called pain:

But the sword
Of Michael from the Armorie of God
Was giv'n him temperd so, that neither keen
Nor solid might resist that edge: it met
The sword of Satan with steep force to smite
Descending, and in half cut sheere, nor staid,
But with swift wheele reverse, deep entring shar'd
All his right side; then Satan first knew pain.

Robert Reich's concern-mongering post was not only slapped with a community note on X, highlighting some of this context, but ridiculed.

'You're totally delusional Robert.'

Auron MacIntyre, podcast host and columnist at Blaze Media, responded, "Any public expression of Christianity is now interpreted as a threat to our ruling order."

Conservative commentator Michael Knowles noted, "Today is Michaelmas, which Christians have celebrated for ~1,500 years. This specific prayer, composed by Pope Leo XIII, was recited after every Low Mass in the world for 86 years. Religious and historical ignorance among our 'elite' is reaching record highs."

Seamus Coughlin of FreedomToons wrote, "Leo XIII: I will compose a prayer to scare the devil away[.] Marxist Professor: This prayer is terrifying."

"This is one of the most popular prayers in the Catholic faith and in no way suggests that Trump is saying he's God's 'chosen instrument of wrath,'" tweeted conservative filmmaker Robby Starbuck. "You're totally delusional Robert."

Reich admitted in March that the lead-up to the election would test the "individual and collective capacities." In the months since, he appears to have found his limits on his blog, where he blamed Trump for the two apparent Democratic assassination attempts against him.

'We will FEAR NOT.'

Reich was not alone in expressing displeasure about Trump's prayer post.

New Atheist author James Lindsay wrote that it's "a damn shame Trump has been pulled into this, probably on bad advice."

Claiming he grew up Catholic but had virtually no experience with Michaelmas, Lindsay suggested, "The Left will use it to characterize Trump as a religious warlord type, fitting the worst of the Operation Christian Nationalism motifs. Because of the Left/Right dialectic in play in the op, we'll all be forced to take a side or dip out into irrelevance."

Lindsay was similarly met with some notes indicating, again, projection might be at play.

While the posting of the prayer may have factored into a broader strategy to appeal to those American Catholics now cluing into Kamala Harris' antagonism for their faith and beliefs, Trump appears to have adopted a more prayerful outlook since his brush with death on July 13.

"It was God alone who prevented the unthinkable from happening. We will FEAR NOT, but instead remain resilient in our Faith and Defiant in the face of Wickedness," he wrote on July 14.

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

Globalists push to have Elon Musk arrested as global assault on free speech kicks into overdrive



Over the past month, the left-wing Guardian newspaper in England has run no fewer than three op-eds calling for Elon Musk's arrest: one from in-house columnist Jonathan Freedland, one from former Twitter VP Bruce Daisley, and most recently one from former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich — for simply operating his publishing platform, X, in accordance with American law.

It bears mentioning that X is not the first open-access publishing platform that follows American content moderation rules, not foreign ones. And it will not be the last.

Those who are paranoid about the 'rise of the far right' in Europe counterintuitively suggest that the answer to this bogeyman is to grant the state sweeping censorship powers.

American regulations on publishing platforms follow two rules: first and foremost, the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which creates a near-absolute American right to nonviolently express any opinion on practically any matter of public importance or operate a publishing platform that hosts those opinions. Second, there is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which codifies at the federal level a judge-made First Amendment jurisprudential principle that you cannot impute liability to a publisher for a statement of which the publisher does not know the content in advance of its publication.

Although Musk is a controversial figure, one thing we can all agree on is that he is an American. This means that unlike, say, Pavel Durov, Musk has the choice to remain in the United States and use his effectively infinite wealth to project free speech abroad and take refuge behind the impervious shield of the American Constitution. No state powers on Earth combined — not Brazil, the European Union, or the United Kingdom — have the power to stop America or, by extension, if Musk avails himself of his American civil rights, to stop him.

In a world where the most powerful country with the largest nuclear arsenal guarantees its citizens the right to host, impart, or receive whatever political ideas they want, even from abroad, the rest of the world needs to get used to the idea that Americans will always create spaces for free speech online and that no legislative or judicial intervention by any foreign power will prevent them from doing so. If Elon and X were not, some other company would, and indeed, numerous other, smaller companies already do). What European commentators want is for tech companies to all band together and eliminate American-style free speech online once and for all. As long as America exists and there is market demand for free speech, this will never happen; as long as Americans exist, they will disobey.

Once the rest of the world gets the memo, civil servants outside the United States will have three choices: (a) punish their own people for engaging in free speech; (b) legislate partially effective domestic blocks to try to deny their own people access to free speech; or (c) collectively punish or pressure innocent parties subject to their jurisdiction who have nothing to do with the speech in question, such as is the case when countries threaten to imprison "local representatives" — hostages — whom many nations, including Brazil and Germany, demand that American social media companies employ in their jurisdictions.

In its recent enforcement actions against X, Brazil has tried to do all three. When X refused to name a local representative for Brazil to arrest, in addition to ordering X’s blocking at the ISP level, Brazil's supreme court ordered the app’s removal from the Google and Apple app stores, threatened Brazilians with daily fines of approximately $8,000 U.S. dollars for using the app, and briefly even considered banning VPN apps in the country (a move that it later rescinded). Chillingly, the court also ordered the seizure of Starlink’s bank accounts in-country; seeing, however, that Starlink and X are different companies, without common ownership structures, any coherent legal system possessing even a basic notion of fairness and due process would refuse to impute liability for the torts or crimes of one company — or one person — to another company, or other people, who have no relationship to the alleged criminal acts in question. The only thing these two companies have in common is that they are partially owned — in Starlink's case, not even majority-owned — by one man.

Despite many attempts to do so in the last 230-odd years, Europe has proven unable to stop Americans from being American. The question is how far Europe is willing to go, what punishments it is willing to inflict, what privacy tools it is willing to take away, and how much power it is willing to give the state to prevent disfavored political thought from circulating within its own borders. Historically, Europe has been willing to go “all the way” to punish political dissenters — by which I mean it murders them.

The United States’ laws on free speech were informed by this history, which includes such examples as the case of William Anderton in 1693, a printer who was convicted of treason and executed for daring to refer to the then-king of England as the “Prince of Orange” — a true statement of fact — in a written pamphlet. Censorship-motivated crimes against humanity such as this are why the First Amendment exists, and it is why Elon Musk cannot and will not be arrested in the United States for running his platform as he pleases.

Those who are paranoid about the "rise of the far right" in Europe counterintuitively suggest that the answer to this bogeyman is to grant the state sweeping censorship powers. Crushing dissent (a) won't silence American servers and (b) is not a surefire way to win a political fight, having failed, in catastrophic fashion from the perspective of the ruling regimes, under the ancien régime, in apartheid South Africa, in the Weimar Republic, and in the former Soviet Union.

If European moderates are truly afraid that the far right will start winning elections, the sensible thing to do is to create institutions and rules that will act as a bulwark against state power, not to expand it. In Europe and the U.K.'s cases, this would involve scrapping the comparatively weak human rights protections of European Convention, repealing existing censorship law, and replacing the current rules with hardened, American-style inviolable civil liberties as quickly as possible.

Ultimately, the worst-case scenario for incumbent parties and ideologies in the weaker democracies is not what happens if the far right expresses itself nonviolently on foreign servers; it is what it will do with powerful censorship laws, once wielded in anger against it, when it wins.

Georgia Achieves Major Election Integrity Wins In Recently Wrapped Legislative Session

A proposal that would have given the State Election Board the power to investigate Georgia’s secretary of state died a painful death, however.

Watch: Mark Levin educates Marxist Democrats on basic economics



The left desperately needs a lesson in economics, and Mark Levin is here to supply it — because Marxists like Robert Reich are failing to do the job.

Reich claims that the “crises” Republicans are concerned about are “totally made up” in order to “distract from the real crises facing Americans” like “growing concentration of wealth” and the “worsening climate crisis.”

“I’m tired of this Marxist claptrap with class warfare,” Levin says, before destroying Reich’s argument.

“According to the Marxists,” he begins, “there’s only one pie. And the more somebody takes out of that pie, the less pie you have to eat. That’s not how market capitalism works.”

“Under capitalism,” he continues, “the pie gets bigger and bigger and bigger except when these masterminds Bernie Sanders, Biden, Reich jump in. And they try and decide who will and who will not succeed.”

This is precisely why the attack on entire industries like automobiles — by “Democratic socialists” like Biden — is going to hurt the economy more than help it.

“The more the government rules over the economy, the harder it is for the economy to grow. And sometimes it begins to shrink,” Levin explains.

Leftists also seem to operate under the belief that there is no middle class in this country.

“We have a massive middle class in this country. Why? Because the government dictated it? No. Because the Industrial Revolution,” Levin says, noting that the Industrial Revolution “was the greatest period of economic growth mankind has ever experienced.”

“Ever since, the Marxists, the Democrats, have done everything they can to it. They hate capitalism,” he adds.


Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

These are the Democrat policies that are throttling America's future



If you haven’t noticed, there’s a trend occurring among Marxists. And that is that they’re all a part of the Democrat Party.

“Every single Marxist is a Democrat,” Mark Levin, an avid critic of the Democrat Party and author of the upcoming book “The Democrat Party Hates America,” confirms.

“Reich is one of them, Bernie Sanders is another, AOC and the mob, that whole group. They worked within the Democrat Party, because the Democrat Party is perfectly comfortable with them,” he adds.

Robert Reich specifically has praised Joe Biden for revitalizing what he calls “democratic capitalism,” which is just another phrase for what Bernie Sanders calls “democratic socialism.”

“When they use these hyphenated things like democratic capitalism, what they’re trying to do is put a favorable and persuasive patina on top of economic socialism and cultural Marxism,” Levin explains, adding that what Democratic capitalism really means is “that the government controls the economy.”

This is the antithesis of what capitalism really is, which is “about you making your own decisions.”

“It’s about individualism, it’s about freedom and opportunity and all the rest of that stuff,” Levin adds.

George Orwell, the author of the dystopian novel “1984,” discussed the use of words like “democracy” at length.

Levin suggests Orwell knew that “the word democracy means nothing.”

“Communists use it. Fascists use it. Everybody uses it, so it has whatever meaning they want to apply to it.”


Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Former Clinton Labor Secretary Says States ‘Must Refuse To Place’ Trump’s Name On 2024 Ballot

'Trump tried these tactics once'

Mark Levin says 'mental midget' Robert Reich is wrong about the role of state legislatures



Robert Reich is an American professor, author, lawyer, and political commentator. who worked under multiple administrations.

Mark Levin is known for his expertise on all things Constitution. Robert Reich? According to Mark, eh, not so much. Mark was appalled by a video that featured Reich indirectly discussing circumventing U.S. election laws to consolidate their power over the electoral process. As a crucial voting rights case heads to the Supreme Court, Mark believes he knows what Reich and the Democrats are up to, and he aimed to expose their tactics in this clip.

Reich asserted several claims about the U.S. voting process and the constitutionality of state legislatures making the rules for how each state will conduct the voting process in their respective state. While Reich makes the case that Republicans are maliciously trying to use state legislatures as a tool in future elections, Mark pointed to Article 2 Section 1, where the founders left the power to select electors fell to the state legislatures.

Reich claims that a case headed to the Supreme Court to examine the use of state legislatures to set the rules for elections aims to put Republican-led states in a better position to select the president.

"These people are tyrannical," Mark said. Watch Mark explain why Reich is a poor choice and "mental midget" on constitutional matters.


Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Robert Reich: Constitutional Commissar

Robert Reich: Constitutional Commissar

Democrats weaponizing the IRS against political opponents is nothing new



Weaponized bureaucrats are nothing new in politics. There is a history of Democrats using the IRS for political gain. Franklin Roosevelt used the IRS against Andrew Mellon, who'd been the treasury secretary under Coolidge and was a public servant. There was nothing on Mellon. Roosevelt tried for 10 years to put Mellon in jail, and even ordered his Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau to go after Mellon. At the end of the trial, the federal judge said, "you don't have anything [on] him." John Kennedy used the IRS to go after conservative groups. Lyndon B. Johnson used the IRS to go after his political opponents, and he used the FBI to tap the phones of civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King. LBJ sent the FBI into the democratic convention in Atlantic City to monitor King and other civil rights leaders.

According to the Washington Post, the richest 1% are hiding more than 20% of their income from the IRS. "If they are hiding it," Mark Levin asked, "then how does the IRS know about it?" Why doesn't it tax the hidden funds? Watch the clip for more from "LevinTV" on BlazeTV.


Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Beware the Attack of Dem Bureaucrats

Beware the Attack of Dem Bureaucrats