Incumbent New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte secured the Republican nomination for a second two-year term on Tuesday, beating two outsider candidates and teeing up a November battle against Democrat nominee Cinde Warmington.

With about 84% of expected votes counted, Ayotte won 91.6% of the Republican vote, trouncing Shaun Fife’s 4.1% and Bob Wayne McClory’s 3.5%, according to NBC News. Warmington advanced to the general election automatically as the only Democrat on the ballot.

‘No income tax, no sales tax. Not now, not EVER!’

Ayotte previously served as U.S. senator from 2011 to 2017, losing her re-election bid to former Gov. Maggie Hassan in 2016 by about 1,000 votes. Ayotte defeated former Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig in 2024 to become governor.

Ayotte didn’t run as a culture warrior in 2024. New Hampshire went for then-Vice President Kamala Harris by three points but has kept a Republican trifecta in its state government since 2021. Republicans also control the state’s Executive Council, a unique governing body that shares executive power with the governor.

University of New Hampshire polling conducted in August put Ayotte’s approval rating at 49%, with 42% disapproval.

The incumbent’s campaign has focused on kitchen table issues, emphasizing public safety policy and low taxes. New Hampshire is one of the few states without its own income or sales tax, and Ayotte plans to keep it that way.

RELATED: Deadlines are fast approaching on Trump’s mail-in ballot initiatives as election season begins

CJ Gunther/Getty Images

“I’ve said it before, and I will say it again,” Ayotte said in a March X post. “No income tax, no sales tax. Not now, not EVER!”

She also promised to address rising housing costs through regulatory changes and collaboration with the Republican-controlled legislature.

Those cost-of-living concerns are a top issue for Granite State voters, according to August UNH polling, as are housing affordability and property taxes.

Ayotte has also touted her controversial keystone Education Freedom Accounts, which let parents spend the state’s per-pupil aid on homeschooling or private education rather than public school.

Ayotte’s Republican opponents didn’t mount serious campaigns. Gilmanton farmer Shaun Fife, who took just 0.6% of the vote in the 2024 gubernatorial primary, refused donations and promoted alternative currencies and monetary systems.

Bob Wayne McClory also finished with 0.6% of the vote in the 2024 primary. McClory did not fundraise or make public comments during the 2026 primary.

Democrats, by contrast, closed ranks early.

Though Warmington ran unopposed this cycle, she unsuccessfully ran for the Democratic nomination in 2024. Warmington is a health care attorney and served as an executive councilor from 2021 to 2025.

Warmington is campaigning against Ayotte’s Education Freedom Accounts, blaming them for driving up property taxes. She has also slammed ICE and promised to fight Donald Trump, though she notably agrees with Ayotte that New Hampshire should not enact a state income or sales tax.

The health care attorney has drawn fire from both sides of the aisle for working with Purdue Pharma as an opioid lobbyist from 2001 to 2002.

“What I did not know at the time was that Purdue Pharma was engaged in this massive criminal fraud, something that would be exposed only over years of litigation, that they convinced doctors that it was safer to prescribe Oxycontin under circumstances when it was not,” Warmington said in an August video.

Warmington is supported by Planned Parenthood NH Action, Democratic Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, and Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas, who is now running for Senate.

Ayotte has been endorsed by the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire and Turning Point Action.

Multiple general-election polls conducted in August showed Ayotte leading Warmington roughly 49-39.

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

​Income tax, Property taxes, Sales tax, Politics, New hampshire, Kelly ayotte 

The political establishment has carried the day in the Senate primary elections in New Hampshire.

U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) won the Democratic nomination on Tuesday to succeed three-term Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, while former Sen. John Sununu captured the Republican nomination, setting up an open-seat general election critical to both parties’ hopes of running the Senate.

‘I’m New Hampshire.’

With nearly 88% of the expected vote counted, establishment favorite Pappas crushed socialist Karishma Manzur 65% to 33%, with the remaining Democrat vote split among David Jarvis, Maxwell Saal, and John Vail.

Sununu faced a challenge from former Massachusetts senator and Trump administration alum Scott Brown, but ultimately beat him 68.5% to 26.7%. Several other Republicans finished in the distant single digits.

New Hampshire has not elected a Republican senator since 2010, but August University of New Hampshire polling shows Sununu leading Pappas 45% to 43%.

“We’re taking nothing for granted, this is a purple state,” Pappas told MS NOW. “We’ve got a path to victory. But it’s going to be a tough race.”

Former Vice President Kamala Harris carried the Granite State by just three points in 2024, with all 10 counties shifting right since 2020.

RELATED: Is the DSA about to scalp another establishment Democrat?

Mel Musto/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Pappas has represented New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District since 2019 and served on the state’s Executive Council from 2013 to 2019. He is co-owner of his family’s Puritan Backroom restaurant. Pappas received endorsements from Sens. Shaheen and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) and Kamala Harris.

Pappas raised over $15 million during the primary campaign, dwarfing Manzur’s $415,081. Manzur tacked far to Pappas’ left, repeatedly accusing him of being a pro-Israel stooge and corporate cut-out.

“Chris Pappas’ hypocrisy is evident. He talks about getting big money out of politics, then turns around and takes bribes from special interests,” a Manzur campaign spokesperson previously told Blaze News. “He talks about standing up to Netanyahu, yet he has voted to send billions of our tax dollars to support Netanyahu’s war.”

On the Republican side, Sununu served in the House from 1997 to 2003 and the Senate from 2003 to 2009. His father and brother were both governors of New Hampshire.

“I’m New Hampshire. I said in my campaign announcement that I’ll have one job: standing up for New Hampshire every single day,” Sununu told the Dartmouth when asked about his primary challenger Scott Brown. “I’m not focused on another office or currying favor with anyone outside this state.

Brown previously served as senator from 2010 to 2013 after winning the special election prompted by the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). Brown supported Trump in 2016, netting him an ambassadorship to New Zealand and Samoa.

Sununu received President Donald Trump’s endorsement despite authoring a 2024 op-ed titled “Donald Trump is a loser” in support of Nikki Haley’s 2024 presidential campaign. Sununu later walked back the barb by saying the publication Union Leader chose the headline.

A UNH poll headed into Primary Election Day showed Sununu leading Brown 60% to 20%.

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

​Donald trump, Netanyahu, New hampshire, Senate race, Special interests, Politics 

A new bombshell report has revealed shocking new details about Kentucky Republican Senator Mitch McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao.

Chao, 73, who married Sen. McConnell in 1993, may have closer ties to the Chinese Communist Party than previously believed.

‘Such a suggestion disregards her nearly five decades of faithful service to the United States and is both unfounded and deeply insulting, hurtful, and racist.’

On Tuesday, the Daily Caller News Foundation published an exclusive report on Chao’s alleged ties to the CCP, citing Chinese government and state media reports translated by the DCNF.

Elaine Chao, whose Chinese name is reportedly Zhao Xiaolan, has worked in high-level positions in the United States government under two Republican administrations, most notably serving as President George W. Bush’s secretary of labor and the Department of Transportation secretary during President Trump’s first term in office.

However, the DCNF claims Chao has also received at least four Chinese government positions since 2008, including within an influence and intelligence agency called the United Front Work Department.

The extent to which she ever worked in these alleged roles is unclear. The DCNF claimed that the Chinese government and state media reports “describe Chao’s appointments in various ways, with some stating she had been ‘hired’ or had ‘accepted an appointment letter,’ while others simply note that she was then among those ‘holding’ a given title.”

According to a report published by the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, the UFWD is used to “gain access to advanced foreign technology” and is “one of the CCP’s ways of building and wielding political power at home and abroad.”

RELATED: McConnell’s latest health update raises new questions instead of settling them

John Lamparski/Getty Images

The DCNF, citing Chinese government and state media reports, also reported that Chao’s late sister, Angela Chao, and her father, James S.C. Chao, the founder of a large shipping firm called Foremost Group, also received positions in the Chinese government and UFWD positions.

During the late 1980s, Elaine Chao served as the chair and commissioner of the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission, whose mission statement is to “ensure a competitive and reliable international ocean transportation supply system that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.”

A spokesman for Chao and Foremost Group, Patrick O’Connor, denied these reports concerning Chao, her father, and her sister.

“She has never held a position with a foreign government or acted on behalf of one. We are not aware she has met with representatives from UFWD entities,” O’Connor said after being sent what the Caller claimed were “Chinese government and state media photos published between 2010 and 2026 showing Chao meeting with officials from the CCP and/or UFWD.”

“Such a suggestion disregards her nearly five decades of faithful service to the United States and is both unfounded and deeply insulting, hurtful and racist.”

The DCNF pressed the spokesperson on how it is “racist” to investigate Chao’s alleged ties to the Chinese government.

“No one seems to care when most American business or political leaders hold meetings in China, so it’s suspicious when the Daily Caller makes insinuations about a former two-time cabinet secretary of Asian descent, especially based on photos, some of which are decades old,” O’Connor responded. “The secretary is a proud American who has devoted most of her professional life to serving the American people. To question her patriotism is a double standard, at best — racist, at worst.”

Chao was born in Taiwan and obtained U.S. citizenship at the age of 19.

The DCNF revealed that in February 2005, during her time as President George W. Bush’s secretary of labor, Chao reportedly sent a handwritten reply and signed photo to the Jiading District Federation of Returned Overseas Chinese after receiving a Christmas card from the organization. These returned overseas Chinese organizations are guided by the UFWD.

Questions about Elaine Chao have resurfaced after her husband, Sen. Mitch McConnell, had a health scare in June 2026. Questions have continued to swirl regarding his health and whereabouts, as he is expected to return to the Senate any day.

Blaze News reached out to McConnell’s office but did not immediately receive a response. McConnell’s office declined a request for comment from the DCNF.

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

​Chinese communist party, Elaine chao, Mitch mcconnell, Daily caller, Donald trump, Politics 

In 2010, Lady Gaga arrived at the MTV Video Music Awards draped in 50 pounds of flank steak. The world gasped, and the vegans wept. The rest of us assumed we had hit peak absurdity. We were wrong.

Sixteen years later, her tech-billionaire fiancé, Michael Polansky, decided the singer’s meat-centric aesthetic lacked a vital component: actual human tissue.

Their explicit goal is to fundamentally redesign the human condition.

Outer Bio, which Polansky co-founded, uses foreskins and discarded post-surgical skin to train machine-learning algorithms and develop new cosmetic ingredients. When the internet caught wind of this rather odd model, the backlash was immediate. Discontented Redditors raged, focusing heavily on Polansky’s connection to Lightspeed Venture Partners, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm that opened its first international office in Tel Aviv, to embed deeply within Israel’s booming and sophisticated cybersecurity and intelligence industry. One particularly outraged comment has since been removed; the outrage one imagines still lingers.

But financial backing misses the true horror. What matters more than profit is the philosophy driving the San Francisco startup. Silicon Valley exhausted its supply of digital text, public images, and behavioral metadata. The tech industry now craves fresh meat.

This trajectory relies on a culture paralyzed by the prospect of aging. The anti-aging market is now worth more than $77 billion. By 2035, it will be worth almost twice that amount. Some 60% of Americans now regularly purchase anti-aging products.

RELATED: This scandal-rocked tech company wants your attention on its product upgrades

Getty Images

The cultural pipeline moves with frightening momentum. A 30-something patient starts with Botox to freeze a forehead furrow. That gateway drug leads directly to synthetic facial fillers. Then comes the heroin-chic look of Ozempic face, followed by invasive surgical facelifts, daily regimens of questionable supplements, expensive longevity clinics, and finally, skin creams designed by AI. Outer Bio plans to license these algorithmic discoveries directly to beauty conglomerates and pharmaceutical giants, effectively turning the pursuit of youth into a high-margin supply chain.

We built the digital world to make human labor easier. The engineering class shifted the goalposts somewhere along the line. Technologists no longer limit themselves to writing software that calculates tax returns or routes delivery trucks. Their explicit goal is to fundamentally redesign the human condition.

Artificial intelligence operates far beyond the simple automation of workplace tasks. Silicon Valley sells a future where computational power extends life spans, modifies genetic code, replaces natural organ functions, and engineers customized medicines. Polansky’s company presents itself as a benign skin-care startup, but the underlying mechanics represent an opening salvo for transhumanism.

Productizing human flesh

The process at work is a closed feedback loop. An algorithm predicts how specific chemical compounds will interact with skin tissue. Lab technicians test those predictions on discarded human cells grown in dishes. The biological results feed straight back into the computational model, refining the next run of predictions. The machine learns by experimenting on actual human material rather than lab rats.

Medical research has historically relied on animal models to test chemicals and treatments. The scientific establishment increasingly seeks to replace mice with human-derived biological material. This is troubling. A culture that views the human body as just another biological input loses the ability to define why human life holds unique value.

Consider the life cycle of a discarded surgical flap. A patient leaves a hospital operating room after a routine procedure, unaware that the facility owns his excised tissue. A biotech firm collects the discarded skin. An AI system parses the cellular data. The startup develops a patented cosmetic molecule. A multinational beauty corporation buys the license and sells a $500 jar of face cream back to the aging public.

The patient whose body provided the initial cellular material receives nothing. Corporate entities claim absolute ownership over the biological information extracted from us. The human body becomes raw material, refined by machines and packaged for the very people who supplied the biomass in the first place.

It sounds absurd, largely because it is. Yet this is the future that awaits us.

A devil’s bargain?

To be fair, there are potential benefits. Research using human cells could lead to better drugs and new treatments and therapies for diseases that remain difficult or impossible to treat. If technology can create something that improves or even saves a life, it is hardly a development worth rejecting outright.

But my concern lies elsewhere, specifically in treating the body as a leasehold property rather than a sacred vessel. Technologists view natural biological decline as an engineering flaw to be corrected in the next software update. They see the body as a collection of components to be optimized, with nonstop AI tuning and synthetic “upgrades.”

We are watching the line between the organic and the artificial disappear. Silicon Valley built an empire by converting human attention into digital ad revenue. The next phase of commercial growth converts physical biology into proprietary intellectual property. The human body becomes just another cog in the corporate machine. In 2010, the vegans wept. Today, perhaps, we should all shed a tear.

​Artificial intelligence, Tech 

California police are searching for a man in his 20s who allegedly beat an elderly woman with an aluminum baseball bat.

The woman’s family says that the 71-year-old had offered to let the young man stay at her home in Crestline in San Bernardino County.

‘If it weren’t for the neighbors calling the police, my mother would have bled to death alone in her home.’

Therese Garcia had met the man while she sat on her front porch, her daughter said to KNBC-TV.

The 26-year-old man told Garcia that all of his belongings had been stolen while he was camping, and she offered him space at her home. After two weeks, the man started to take over her home, leading Garcia to ask him to leave.

That’s when the man got violent, according to Garcia’s daughter.

“When she went to sleep that night, she just woke up to him beating her with a metal bat, and that went on for hours,” said Abbie Garcia.

“She would lose consciousness and wake up a little bit,” she added. “Every time she would wake up a little bit, he would come back and beat her again to the point where she finally lost consciousness fully.”

The man stole the woman’s keys, phone, and e-bike before fleeing.

Her daughter said that Garcia was found after the neighbors called for a wellness check from police.

“If it weren’t for the neighbors calling the police, my mother would have bled to death alone in her home,” she said.

RELATED: Shocking police footage shows man brutally beating victim with a baseball bat

The victim suffered injuries that included broken bones, deep lacerations, and a traumatic brain injury, according to her daughter.

The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Office later identified the suspect as Erik Eduardo Navarro of Orange County.

“My mom didn’t deserve this,” Abbie Garcia added. “She was simply trying to help someone she believed was in need, something she has always done throughout her life. This time, her kindness was met with unimaginable violence.”

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

​California, Violence, Brutal beating, Crime 

The Trump administration recently revealed it is drafting a proposal, championed by Vice President JD Vance, to change how the government distributes money already earmarked for child care. The plan would tap the roughly $12 billion Child Care and Development Fund and make some of that money available to married couples with a stay-at-home parent. No new appropriation is involved.

After months of conservative outrage over fraud and abuse in child care programs, you might expect the right to welcome a proposal that gives families another option. Instead, establishment conservatives attacked Vance with the usual charge: socialism.

The deeper fight is political. Many of the people attacking the proposal are fighting over what kind of Republican Party comes after Trump and whether Vance should lead it.

The episode reminds us that nearly every policy fight on the right now includes a second argument about the future of the Republican Party. It also shows how quickly ideological slogans replace political judgment.

The Child Care and Development Fund was created in the 1990s to help low-income parents pay for care while they work or attend school. As currently structured, it subsidizes commercial child care but not a married parent who stays home to raise children. The administration’s draft proposal would not increase the fund. It would broaden who can receive money from the existing pool.

That distinction did little to calm critics. Meghan McCain and Dana Loesch blasted the idea as big-government conservatism. Their objection rests on a familiar premise: Conservatives should abolish subsidies, not redirect them.

Fine. Abolish them.

But Congress won’t do that.

For most of history, becoming a widow or single mother was an economic catastrophe. Women depended heavily on husbands, fathers, brothers, and extended families for material support and physical protection. Industrialization, modern medicine, and mass employment changed some of those realities. Progressive feminism then used the state to change many more.

The United States built a vast network of welfare programs, employment rules, education preferences, and subsidies designed in part to reduce women’s dependence on men. Whatever the original justification, these policies altered incentives. The state increasingly assumed functions once performed by husbands and families.

It would be better to dismantle much of that system. But in a democracy where Congress can barely pass basic legislation, there is no serious prospect of stripping low-income mothers of child care benefits. The relevant question is therefore not whether the program should exist. It should not. The question is what conservatives do with a program that political reality will not allow them to eliminate.

RELATED: We need lawfare for white men

Blaze Media Illustration

This is where the outrage over Vance’s proposal becomes revealing.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the United States has committed well over $100 billion in military and nonmilitary support. Washington also provides Israel with about $3.8 billion in military aid each year, apart from extraordinary spending connected to recent wars in the Middle East. Yet redirecting already appropriated child care money toward married parents who raise their own children somehow triggers cries of socialism.

Why?

Florida offers a useful analogy. Lawmakers there expanded school-choice programs so public education dollars can follow families into private schools and other approved alternatives. Conservatives could argue that education taxes should simply be abolished. Politically, that is not happening. So lawmakers took money the state was already collecting and made it available to parents who rejected the government’s default institution.

The principle is simple: Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

The political mistake is confusing accepting a program’s existence with endorsing the philosophy that created it. Conservatives do this constantly. They inherit institutions designed by progressives, refuse to use them because doing so feels ideologically impure, and then act surprised when those institutions continue producing progressive outcomes. Power left unused does not disappear. It remains in the hands of people who are perfectly willing to use it against you.

The conservative reaction to Vance suggests that much of the movement still prefers ideological purity to attainable victories. McCain warns about government spending, although her father famously cast the decisive vote against the Republican Obamacare repeal effort while supporting an interventionist foreign policy. Loesch argues that Congress should simply eliminate the child care program and cut the taxes that fund it.

That would be wonderful. It also won’t happen.

A Republican Congress that struggles to pass even broadly popular priorities is not about to abolish a federal benefit for low-income working mothers. Pretending otherwise is not principled conservatism. It is political cosplay.

Worse, the existing subsidy contains its own ideological bias. It rewards mothers for entering the paid workforce and purchasing child care while offering nothing to a mother who stays home and provides that care herself. Full-time mothers generate enormous social capital, but because their work does not produce a paycheck, it barely registers in the economic statistics that dominate policy debates.

RELATED: This is what existential politics looks like

Blaze Media Illustration

The most basic lesson of economics is that you get more of what you subsidize. If government subsidizes commercial child care only when mothers leave home for paid employment, it creates an incentive to do so. Expanding eligibility to stay-at-home parents reduces that distortion.

You can oppose the entire program and still recognize that.

The Vance proposal does not allocate an additional dollar for child care. It uses executive discretion to change how it distributes existing funds. Critics can reasonably argue about whether the administration has statutory authority to make the change, how eligibility should work, or whether the fund should exist at all. Those are real arguments.

Screaming “socialism” is not.

The deeper fight is political. Many of the people attacking the proposal are fighting over what kind of Republican Party comes after Trump and whether Vance should lead it.

That’s why a modest change to an existing subsidy produces such hysterics. The old conservative movement would rather preserve ideological purity than use available power to produce a better outcome. Vance’s proposal exposes that instinct in miniature — and shows why the GOP still has a loser mentality.

​Child care fund, Jd vance, Loser mentality, Stay at home moms, Welfare programs, Child care distribution, Daycare, Feminism, Trump administration, Congress, Florida, School choice, Commercial child care, Low income, Young families, Opinion & analysis 

Football is back. The first harbinger of fall is just around the corner, bringing game-day tailgates, late-night bonfires, and hope that this just might be your team’s year to win it all.

Fueling this hope is a fresh round of hype videos getting folks excited for the season. For NFL and college football fans alike, these edits of last season’s highlights are just the thing to paper over last year’s disappointment and turn over a new leaf for the season ahead.

The real strength of the conservative movement is not in the ivory tower or stone colonnade.

One hype video broke out of the college football echo chamber with over 4.5 million views online. What about this video is so resonant? The message — and conservatives should take notice.

The video opens in the Auburn Tigers’ locker room, where coach Hugh Freeze is giving a pep talk. “Life is more about others than it is yourself,” he begins. “What buys long-lasting purpose is you understanding selflessness and it being about something bigger than yourself.”

Hopefully every coach and every political movement understands teamwork relies on humility to achieve a larger goal.

He continues, “Tonight, I submit to you that there’s some family that drove from I don’t know where, parked five miles away from this stadium, and they saved all … year long, just to buy a ticket, to climb to the top of that stadium and watch your tail play!”

As the music builds to a crescendo, Freeze screams the most potent line of the video: “YOU OWE THEM SOMETHING!”

In sports, as in politics, conservatives must recommit to playing for the fans in the cheap seats.

This does not mean rallying around the lowest common denominator or dumbing down conservative messaging. It means remembering why so many conservative advocates got into the trenches to begin with.

How many of those players in the Auburn locker room started as kids in the cheap seats?

How many conservative politicos began as local activists knocking doors, eating cold pizza, and making calls for something they really believed in? Conservatives need to recapture some of that grassroots energy and turn it into tangible victories for the people who put them in office.

We owe them something.

For those working in the professional conservative movement in D.C., that means less time on niche debates and more time delivering for average Americans who share conservative values and need a voice in the nation’s capital.

In 2024, voters elected President Trump and a Republican Congress on clear promises to improve the country. They expect results, just like the family saving all year for one game expects the team to leave it all on the field.

With the announcement that the House is canceling the final two weeks of session this month, it’s now or never. The House will have four days left to crystallize the case they’ll take home ahead of the November elections.

There is no shortage of opportunities to create contrast.

RELATED: Congress gets a clean vote on gender sanity

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call Inc./Getty Images

The Chloe Cole Act from Rep. Bob Onder (R-Mo.) or the Title IX Clarification Act from Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) would undermine the gender industrial complex in medicine and women’s sports.

The southern border is secure in part because of President Trump’s executive orders; Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy’s Permanent Trump Secure Border Act would codify the administrative changes necessary to preserve national sovereignty if another open-borders Democrat came into office.

House Republicans could take a major step forward toward a longtime conservative priority to close the Department of Education by passing the Less Bureaucracy, Better Education Package, codifying transfers of authority of duplicative education programs.

Passing any of these measures would be a good step to demonstrate that conservatives in Washington are moving the ball down the field for those cheering fans.

No one wants to cheer for a team calling it quits while there is still time on the clock.

Those in D.C. tend to bristle at giving credit beyond their elite circles, but it is time to acknowledge the real strength of the conservative movement is not in the ivory tower or stone colonnade.

It lies in every hardworking American chasing the American dream who still believes in the principles that have made America exceptional and votes to keep it that way.

We owe them our best. Let’s give them a reason to show up.

​American dream, Bureaucracy, Chloe cole act, College football, Congress, Conservatives, Department of education, Fall, Football, Grassroots, Nfl, Southern border, Title ix, Womens sports, Opinion & analysis 

Canada’s descent into madness just got worse.

On September 2, a Canadian reporter from the state-subsidized Global News outlet asked U.S. Admiral Samuel Paparo at a military conference in Victoria, B.C., whether he would obey an order from President Trump to attack Canada.

“I find that scenario to be absolutely and utterly preposterous,” Paparo retorted. “I follow the orders of the commander in chief, but that is a needlessly emotional question.”

Even though he explicitly called Canada a “close ally” of the U.S., the reporter pressed him again, accusing Paparo of not answering the question.

“I said I follow the orders of the president,” Paparo reiterated, comparing the reporter’s question to inquiring about “attack plans … for the Martians.”

Glenn Beck agrees with Paparo that such a loaded question is utterly “preposterous.”

“He has to answer, ‘I follow the instructions of the commander of the United States.’ … He’s in uniform. That’s what he does,” he exclaims.

“Now, a separate question: If the president called you up today and said, ‘Hey, I need you to launch missiles against Mark Carney,’ I would bet any admiral, every admiral, would go, ‘Mr. President, can I get your code again, please? That doesn’t make any sense,”’ Glenn continues.

But he knows such an order is utterly ludicrous and thus virtually impossible.

“Those would be the orders of an absolute lunatic,” he says. “We’re not at war. Mark Carney is the one who said we’re at war. … [President Trump] has sent person after person after person to talk to the Canadians and say, ‘We’re not in a war.”’

If Global News’ attempt to bait a U.S. admiral into a Canada-invasion sound bite wasn’t bad enough, another state-subsidized news outlet then took the brief and awkward exchange and framed it as though Paparo had refused to answer the inquiry and would unquestionably follow any order from Trump.

Glenn calls out the “Ottawa Citizen” for publishing a deceptive article titled “U.S. admiral dodges questions about attacking Canada but acknowledges he would follow Trump’s orders.”

“That’s not dodging. That’s a stupid question. We are allies,” he says.

The Global News reporter who targeted Paparo, Glenn says, “[needs] a medical checkup.”

“And the good thing is there’s room for you to see the doctor probably in June of 2028,” he jokes.

Canada, Glenn explains, is so tied in knots about an imaginary war with Trump that it is ignoring a very real and ominous problem: It’s “cozying up” to anti-Western powers that might eventually put Canada at odds with the U.S.

“You keep cozying up to China, you keep bringing China in. … [The U.S.] can’t trade with you because China is a threat to the United States,” says Glenn, “and the closer you get to them, the more we have to build a wall, either literally or figuratively, between us.”

He continues, “The more you get in bed with radicalized Islam to the point where you have 2,000 Canadian Jews going, ‘I’ve got to get out of here’ … the more we have to distance ourselves.”

“You keep going down this road for 10 years, and you know what? There might be a battle plan on the table,” he warns.

But Canada, says Glenn, is likely to become an “enemy of God” before it becomes an enemy of the U.S.

“If you become more communist, more Marxist, more collectivist, you keep killing your people [via the Medical Assistance in Dying program] at the clip you’re killing them at, in the name of ‘compassion,’ you’re not an enemy of the United States; you’re an enemy of mankind — you’re an enemy of God,” he warns.

“He’s going to solve that problem long before the U.S. military will. You’re going to collapse.”

To hear more, watch the video 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.

​Canada, Donald trump, Glenn beck, Mark carney, Us military, Blazetv show