‘TERMINATED’: Trump Ends Trade Talks With Canada Over ‘Fake’ Ronald Reagan Ad Against Tariffs
'TRADE NEGOTIATIONS ARE HEREBY TERMINATED'
Mark Levin invokes Reagan’s 1964 warning as a rallying cry against today’s looming crisis
On October 27, 1964, Ronald Reagan, a rising conservative voice at the time, delivered his historic speech “A Time for Choosing.”
It’s one of "the greatest speeches in American history,” says Mark Levin.
The 29-minute nationally televised address articulated the future president’s conservative vision, emphasizing limited government, individual liberty, and a strong anti-communist stance. He criticized the growth of federal bureaucracy and warned of encroaching socialism, framing the election between Republican nominee Barry Goldwater and incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson as a critical choice between freedom and government overreach.
Reagan saw the internal erosion of liberty through excessive federal power and socialist-leaning policies as a threat equally perilous as the external danger of communism.
But Reagan didn’t view these internal and external threats as mutually exclusive. They were deeply connected.
“There is an enemy within, and the enemy within is growing because the enemy without is funding the enemy within and populating the enemy within, and they are fusing and joining and colluding with homegrown Marxists and people of that ilk,” Levin says, summarizing Reagan’s argument.
Even though this speech took place nearly 62 years ago, it is still relevant today, he says.
On this episode of “LevinTV,” Levin, who is constantly warning of America’s internal threat of Marxist ideologies and government overreach, played an inspiring clip from Reagan’s speech to remind us of what has been true since the 1960s: Marxism and unchecked government power threaten America’s core freedoms.
To hear the clip of Reagan’s speech, watch the clip below.
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.
Meet The Pivotal Figure Who Helped Resurrect The American Right
Is Frank S. Meyer's vision of 'fusionism' still the best path forward for the American right?The Department of War would remind America what’s really at stake
President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.
At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.
A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.
The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.
From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’
Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.
Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.
Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.
And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.
Peace through strength
When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.
Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.
The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.
Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.
That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.
Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.
Names matter
When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.
RELATED: Trump makes a bold push for global competitors to abandon nukes: 'The power is too great'
Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.
So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
Michael E. Hammond Made Washington And The World A Better Place
Mike Hammond’s life was proof that one person’s conviction and intellect can change the course of history.No country for angry young men
When one of Donald Trump’s strongest voting blocs starts to fall off after just six months of a largely successful second term, it’s time for some soul-searching.
Not just because the midterms loom or because 2028 is already on the horizon. The demographic in question — young men — will shape, defend, and lead this country well beyond the next election. If they’ve grown too cynical to bother, the rest of us may be left holding the bag.
When the past and present betray a generation, expect that generation to reshape the future.
Trump’s 2024 performance with 18- to 29-year-old men marked the best Republican showing since George W. Bush won that demographic in 2004 — the last time the GOP won the popular vote. Young men backed Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, then defected to Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Bush 43 pulled them back temporarily, but by the time Obama, Hillary, and Biden came along, Democrats had captured their hearts — and their votes.
Yikes. That’s no way to live. Yet today’s young men are angrier, more cynical, more disruptive — and more serious. They don’t want to “save” Social Security. They want to be saved from it. They aren’t starting out wide-eyed like the Boomers. They didn’t get the luxury of being idealists first and realists later. They started with realism, forged by debt, disillusionment, and betrayal.
These young men want a way of life back. They want accountability for the people who stole it from them.
The average 25-year-old white male is already more “based” than his Reagan-voting grandfather ever was or ever could be. And he’s not finding any comfort in Fox News. So the question is: Will anyone offer him a white pill before he plants the flag of “I just don’t care any more” at the 50-yard line of American life?
This generation won’t follow unless they’re given a mission worth sacrificing for. Trump’s brand won’t carry them forever. They can’t afford homes. They can’t find wives who aren’t steeped in feminist dogma. They can’t compete in a DEI-rigged job market. And now they’re expected to watch the people who ruined their future skate by without consequences?
That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.
Young men like my son don’t want slogans. They want justice. They want our leaders to treat domestic traitors at least as ruthlessly as we’ve treated our allies in trade negotiations. They’ve seen enough memes. If the memes don’t end in prison time, they’ll see them as mockery. They want consequences — and they want them handed out with severe prejudice.
That’s the instinct of men who’ve been cornered for too long. Dread it, run from it — it’s coming. Unless we offer them something better, they’ll start making something worse.
Don’t count on them to keep voting Republican just because the Democrats are just that bad. That’s a losing bet. These young men reject the old paradigms — left, right, Reagan, Bush. Whatever. They’ve even begun questioning the biblical dispensationalism that guided American foreign policy for decades.
When the past and present betray a generation, expect that generation to reshape the future.
Our shot at shaping that future is now. If we fail to hold the deep state accountable yet again, then we’d better produce an economic boom big enough to distract from the urge to burn everything down.
We’ve convinced ourselves that soft, passive men define the modern male. But history — and nature — doesn’t work that way. Sooner or later, the animal comes roaring back — and a new generation rises, looking to settle scores.
Better get ready.
America Is Not A ‘Nation Of Immigrants’
This insidious slogan is once again being used by Republicans to justify another amnesty bill.New GOP-Backed Amnesty Bill Is A Gift To Dems And A Middle Finger To Republican Voters
The release — or lack thereof — of the Epstein Files has consumed most of MAGA’s attention in recent days. But there’s something far more dangerous that deserves the full force of MAGA’s attention: a cadre of so-called Republicans is working to foist a mass amnesty program on the American people. Florida Republican Rep. María […]Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com