Glenn: Syria a "sick opportunity" progressive revolutionaries to remold the world

August 28, 2013

Writer

I want to talk to a little bit about what we are about to do. The president is ready to go it alone now for the second time without congressional approval. Remember when the left hated this?

His first unauthorized kinetic military action was in Libya. The bombing of Syria is now also on the horizon, and the Russians are telling us it could start as early as tomorrow. Reports say the bombings will last two days at the most. I think his attempt here is laughable, especially considering “one U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity just muscular enough not to get mocked.”

Oh, is that our American threshold now? Let’s not go out there and win; let’s just go out there and do enough so people can’t make fun of us. Oh my gosh, lives are at stake. People will die, and we’re doing it just at the level to where we’re not mocked. Jay Carney all but assured – try this one – that Assad is of course going to remain in power.

VIDEO
Jay Carney: I want to make clear that the options that we are considering are not about regime change. They are about responding to a clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons.

Oh my gosh, so we are…we’re just gonna…we’re gonna…what? Here’s the real reason, somebody’s credibility is on the line, the president’s. That’s not a reason to kill somebody. There are many reasons to declare acts of war but never, never to save face. I honestly, I have looked at this problem over and over again, and I can’t find one good reason to do it.

You know why this map is behind me? Do you know why we originally put this map up? We put this map up because a few months ago I did a show where I said World War III is coming, and it’s going to happen in Syria. Well look, here we are. Now maybe World War III doesn’t happen. I know The New Yorker is finally coming to their senses, and they said in an article they published yesterday, they said, gee, it looks like 1914, doesn’t it? Yes, it does.

I can find a million reasons why we shouldn’t do this but not one why we should. Is it going to further destabilize Syria? Yep. Is it going to further destabilize the region? Yep. Will it, if this is our deal that we just want to do enough to not get mocked, what do you think the people in the Middle East are going to say about us then? Does it increase our credibility? Does it decrease your gas prices?

I don’t mean to boil it down to that, but that’s where most people are. They don’t give a flying crap about anything unless it affects their gas prices or their groceries, and most of ’em don’t even say anything unless the media is there to tell them oh you know… It’s going to make your gas prices go up. Oil is already at $110. Stock market’s had a rocky few days.

Hundreds of thousands have been murdered, hundreds of thousands, before the alleged chemical weapons killed a few hundred at most. I’m not saying that that’s not bad. It is, but may I just point out that they used machetes, they used machetes on 500,000 people in Rwanda, and we turned the other way. You’re appalled by a few hundred. You’re not appalled by tens of thousands that are dying.

And what caused this unrest in the Middle East? I’ll tell you what caused it. What caused the unrest in Syria was us jumping on the bandwagon and saying people need to stand up and overthrow their regimes, and so they did. And then they did in Libya, and then we helped them there. And then they did in Syria. It’s our fault, and apparently we only care when somebody has used gas on people, not machetes, not bullets, just gas.

Will we bomb after every violation of international law? Can I ask you something? Has the intelligence community, your trust in them, has it increased or decreased since the Iraq war? Because they’re telling us exactly what they said in the Iraq war. It looks like they got that one wrong, huh? What grounds are there to believe anything about the new claims of weapons of mass distraction, and even if they’re absolutely true, should we be involved?

Look, I want to make this very clear, I was for the war in Iraq. I have already said I regretted that, 2006, that fast. I talked about it, we’re not fighting this to win. We’re doing something else they’re not telling us about. The president can also only go to war with a congressional approval. That is the argument from the left. Nope, not now. President can do it around Congress if the U.S. is threatened. Are we being threatened?

What imminent threat does Syria pose to America? If I may quote the left, what has Assad ever done to you? Fighting Assad also means that we are now fighting alongside of Al Qaeda rebels. Remember the guy who cut the heart out of the Syrians and ate it? We’re on his side now. Well, how about this one, we don’t have the money for this. Do you know we have to borrow more money from China or print more money, and do you know that our interest rates just went up by a point?

And by the way, China is against this, so you think they’re going to lend us more money? By the way, it’s not just China. It’s China, Russia, and Iran. Boy, that sounds like a nasty axis power, doesn’t it? If China gives us an ultimatum, we have no leverage. We learned that under Bush. When Bush didn’t have the stones to send back their, you know, riddled with lead paint toys, when they were sending us literally poisonous dog food, and we’re like wait, I don’t know, you know, we love China. Remember that?

You think we have the stones to do this? They own us. Two days of bombing, well, we’re going to show them. What happens after two days of bombing? What happens after two days of bombing if he decides to gas somebody else? What happens if it escalates? What’s the plan? How about this one that I used to hear all the time, what’s the exit strategy?

What does this latest kinetic military action accomplish? I can’t see the upside of engaging America into a civil war in Syria. I can’t see the upside of putting America in such great risk. It’s high risk, low reward. Why would you do that? Well, the guesses have been, you know, the typical stuff – well, you know, Obama hates America. Okay. Well, he’s incompetent. I don’t think so.

He’s just egotistical to believe his own hype that all these things are working. That one’s a possibility. But may I ask you to think like a radical left, a Progressive, one who believes that the U.S. is just too dominant, and we need the UN. The UN should be the ultimate arbiter in global disputes, right? That’s Bill Clinton. That’s Jimmy Carter. That’s this president. It’s the entire left.

Rushing to bomb Syria is not about war. I contend we should consider that it is about peace, and here’s what I mean by that: This administration knows we are on the brink of World War III. The global economy is fragile. Global stability is weak. The West is on the edge. It’s only a matter of time before it crumbles. Iran will eventually lose any remaining restraint and go after Israel. Syria starts spilling across the border. I mean, you know this.

When it all falls apart, and the West is so weakened, who puts it all back together again? You see, war is…after a long period of just running things into the ground, war makes the people of the world forget what the world was like before the war. Beyond that, history shows us that war also just changes all the players. It changes borders. It changes everything.

This time, Russia, China, America, Europe – Europe and America. Is Europe strong? Is America strong? Is China strong? Is Russia strong? Is the UN strong? That’s them. Here’s us. Really? We gather at the UN because we have to stop an international crisis, and everything is teetering on the edge, and people will cry out stop the madness! And so we do the international way.

China has great leverage over us. I mean, why aren’t we listening to them now? I guarantee you we will listen to them at the bargaining table, and we will concede. For instance, if they say look, we’ll forgive your debts, just sign the UN arms treaty, just go under the banner of the UN. This is about destroying sovereignty. The United Nations will in the end broker a deal, making them the new global superpower and making us just one of the guys.

That’s what everybody wants, the United States just to be average like everybody else. That’s what this is about, and quite honestly, this is George Soros’s dream come true.

VIDEO
George Soros: So I think you need a new world order that China has to be part of the process of creating…

Hello, George, is that you? Yes. And when the U.S. dollar is no longer the reserve currency, guess who’s going to be even richer, George Soros, yes. He’s in bed with those who want to control the decline of America. He talks about it – we need a slow gradual decline, and are people going to get hurt? Yes, level out the playing field. He’s getting it, are you?

I would love to believe that cruise missiles are stuffed with magic Middle East peace fairy dust, but I don’t think so. I’d love to believe the Muslim Brotherhood will see the light and say you know what, we should live right next to people who believe in Jesus, but I don’t think so. You know what, not only are we going to leave the Jesus people alone, but we’re going to leave the Jews alone too. That ain’t happening, and two days of bombing in Syria is not changing that.

My father used to say to me before you do something, son, what you have to do is you have to make a list, and it’ll be very clear to you. And so I did make a list. I made a list of winners and losers, and I wanted to find out which was which. Because this is the loser board, right? It’s Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic extremists, UN globalists, revolutionaries around the world, anti-American/Western forces, China, Russia. Those are the people we want to lose, right?

And we want to win the Syrian people. We want the Egyptian people. We want the Jordanian people, America, you know, American pocketbooks. We want Israel. We want Europe. We want the West to win. But if you actually do this, and you say okay, how does Al Qaeda lose in Syria? How do the Syrian people win? You can’t, and you do it all the way down the list. The problem is this plan does that. There are your winners. There are your losers.

How in anyone in their right mind want to do any of this? The good guys lose. The bad guys win. Why in the world would we be doing this? Stupidity? Nope. There is some vested interest in assisting radical extremists? Yep. I believe a lot of things about the current administration. They’re not stupid. That is one thing I will never believe.

I believe they are vested deeply in the remolding of the world to their heart’s desire, but to remold it, you have to heat it up first. I don’t often agree with The New Yorker, but they have a great article that takes the form of the conversation for and against, and they mention 1914: “I think Russia isn’t going to let Assad go down. Neither is a Iran or Hezbollah. So they’ll escalate. This could be the thing that triggers an Israel-Iran war, and how do we stay out of that? My God, it feels like August 1914.” It is.

1914 is the year the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated. It was the Archduke Ferdinand moment, the moment I’ve been telling you for years I have been dreading and looking for. It is the moment that eventually led to World War I. This is what I said when I was at Fox January 2011.

VIDEO
Glenn: I believe that Tunisia may have been the Archduke Ferdinand moment that I have been warning about. And I’ve been talking about the perfect storm that was formulating, and I said at some point there is going to be an Archduke Ferdinand moment. And it will be something that the world dismisses and most likely you will dismiss at first, and then it will snowball.

That was the Tunisian guy that set himself on fire that the president said was Rosa Parks that encouraged the people in Egypt to stand up, that encouraged the people in Libya to stand up, that encouraged the people in Syria to stand up, and now the global powers are erased. But remember, I’m a conspiracy theorist, and I’m a nut you should dismiss.

Syria is not about teaching Assad a lesson. Two days of bombing probably won’t even seem out of place in Syria today unfortunately. Syria is not a response to the shock and horror of murder. Hundreds of thousands have died before in the latest attacks. The Coptic Christians, they’re not even saying anything about. Syria is this: It is a sick opportunity for the globalist, progressive revolutionaries in our own administration and all around the globe to remold the world closer to their heart’s desire.

Front page image courtesy of the AP

Glenn: The Left's January 6th narrative doesn't hold four years later

Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times | Getty Images

Four years ago yesterday, the events of January 6th, 2021 unfolded—an event that the Left repeatedly said was the darkest day in our country's history. Yet, as time passes, the narrative surrounding that day has started to unravel, revealing uncomfortable truths that demand both explanation and accountability.

For millions of Americans, January 6th marked a dividing line, a day that deepened the fractures within our society. Emotions ran high, and trust in the institutions that were sworn to protect us was shattered, a portion of which will only be restored by dramatic action. This trust continues to erode as new details emerge, revealing gaping holes in the Left's narrative about January 6th.

The lies that surrounded the events of that day were not mere "misinformation"—they were bombshells that forced us to confront a much darker reality about our government’s actions. And these revelations must become the message we take from January 6th: the true nature of our current government, its accountability, and the lengths to which it will go to protect its version of events—even when it is a lie.

Let’s begin with the pipe bombs. On January 6th, Americans were told that two pipe bombs had been found near the RNC and DNC headquarters and that they could have caused catastrophic harm. The pipe bomb was placed at the DNC headquarters the night before January 6th. Interestingly, the security sweep of the building the next morning did not find it. Then Kamala Harris was transported in the height of January 6th. Conveniently, all the records detailing the event were “accidentally” deleted by the Secret Service.

Surveillance footage was ignored, cameras were turned just hours before the bombs were planted, and we were told that critical cell phone data was somehow “corrupted.” But it wasn't. The only thing that was corrupted was our own government and FBI. According to the cell phone companies, the FBI simply never asked for the information. Leads were never pursued. Four years later, the identity of the bomber remains a mystery.

Why would federal agencies neglect this critical investigation into an event that allegedly was going to destroy the republic or kill the future vice president? Was the lack of action intentional, perhaps a convenient distraction to justify escalating security measures and cast a broader shadow over what they hoped would unfold that day? These are not wild conspiracy theories; these are questions every citizen must ask. Because now we know that our government lied to us.

We must also address the FBI’s role on that fateful day. We’ve learned that 26 FBI informants were present on the ground during the events at the Capitol. Let that sink in. What were they doing there? Were they infiltrating the crowd? Were they acting as provocateurs? The presence of these informants raises serious questions about how much of the chaos that day was organic and how much of it was orchestrated. If the FBI had informants on the ground, why wasn’t the situation under control before it escalated?

Four years ago, I called for the protesters to stop. I said that this isn't who we are, and these people should go to jail. I still stand by the belief that if you hurt anyone, broke any windows, or damaged property, you should be held accountable and serve a just punishment. But today, I’m deeply concerned that many of those who were not violent or engaged in damage are still languishing in jail, some facing sentences of up to 20 years. What’s more disturbing is the growing evidence that the chaos that unfolded was not an accident—it was part of a broader agenda.

Amid the chaos, the finger was pointed squarely at one man: Donald Trump. But new information paints a vastly different picture. Just days before January 6th, President Trump authorized the deployment of the National Guard, citing concerns over potential unrest. Yet, his request was ignored—rejected outright by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Capitol Police. Why? Who in the chain of command made the decision to disregard the president’s directive? Had the National Guard been allowed to deploy, it’s possible much of the mayhem that followed could have been prevented. But instead, that opportunity was squandered, and the media narrative was shaped to fit a political agenda—one that painted Trump as the instigator, when in fact, he sought to prevent the violence that ultimately occurred.

And then, there’s the tragic death of Ashley Babbitt. A decorated Air Force veteran, Babbitt was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer while attempting to climb through a broken window. Her death was quickly ruled justified, and the officer involved was shielded from scrutiny. But now, we learn that the officer violated multiple procedural rules and could face criminal charges. Why was her death dismissed so quickly by both the media and the government? In an era where police actions are scrutinized heavily, why was this officer not held accountable?

As we look back, it's clear that January 6th was chiefly about the perversion of justice by the very institutions that were supposed to protect us. Big-tech corporations and global entities like telecoms and airlines offered up location data on innocent Americans who were simply in Washington, D.C., on January 6th. No warrants. No due process. They handed over personal data without question, and the FBI used it without hesitation.

What the FBI did with that data, how Americans there on that day didn't stand a chance in D.C. courts, how our politicians and federal law enforcement knew what was going on yet did nothing to prevent it, the calling off of the National Guard—what does this tell you about our country? Our government, our justice system, and our institutions were complicit in undermining the very principles they were created to uphold.

They are trying to create a system that thrives on division and chaos, a system that uses fear as a tool to control the American people. If the federal agencies can lie, manipulate, and withhold the truth about January 6th, what else are they capable of? What are they willing to do to maintain their grip on power?

Four years later, on the anniversary of January 6th, we must demand the truth—not the sanitized, politically convenient version. We deserve the full, unvarnished truth. We must hold accountable those in power who orchestrated, covered up, or ignored the events of that day. We must never allow the lies and the unanswered questions of January 6th to fade into the political ether. We must ensure that the truth is told and that those who lied to us are held accountable.

The Deep State's NEW plan to backstab Trump

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move.

In 2016, Donald Trump shocked the world by defeating Hillary Clinton. Conservatives cheered, believing we’d taken back the reins of our country. But we missed the bigger battle. We failed to recognize the extent of the damage caused by eight years of Barack Obama and decades of progressive entrenchment. The real war isn’t won at the ballot box. It’s being waged against an insidious force embedded deep within our institutions: the administrative state, or the “deep state.”

This isn’t a new problem. America’s founders foresaw it, though they didn’t have a term for “deep state” back in the 1700s. James Madison, in Federalist 48, warned us that combining legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands is “the very definition of tyranny.” Yet today, that’s exactly where we stand. Unelected bureaucrats in agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Justice hold more power than the officials we vote for. They control the levers of government with impunity, dictating policies and stifling change.

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege.

We’ve felt the consequences of this growing tyranny firsthand. During COVID-19, so-called experts ran our lives, crushing civil liberties under the guise of public safety. Our intelligence agencies and justice system turned into weapons of political warfare, targeting a sitting president and his supporters. Meanwhile, actual criminals were given a pass, turning American cities into lawless war zones.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816 that “the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents.” Today, we see Jefferson’s prophecy fulfilled. The deep state exercises unchecked power over our freedoms, and information itself is controlled by the fourth branch of government: the legacy media.

Even when we win elections, the deep state doesn’t concede defeat. It switches to survival mode. Trump’s first term proved this. Despite a historic mandate to dismantle the bureaucracy, the deep state fought back with everything it had: leaks, investigations, court rulings, and obstruction at every turn. And now, with the possibility of Trump returning to office, the deep state is preparing to do it again.

Progressives are laying out their attack plan — and they’re not even hiding it.

U.S. Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.) recently boasted about forming a “shadow cabinet” to govern alongside the deep state, regardless of who’s in the White House. Nickel called it “democracy’s insurance policy.” Let’s be clear: This isn’t insurance. It’s sabotage.

They’ll employ a “top down, bottom up, inside out” strategy to overwhelm and collapse any effort to reform the system. From the top, federal judges and shadow officials will block Trump’s every move. Governors in blue states like California and New York are gearing up to resist federal authority. During Trump’s first term, California filed over 100 lawsuits against his administration. Expect more of the same starting January 20.

From the bottom, progressive groups like the American Civil Liberties Union will flood the streets with protesters, much as they did to oppose Trump’s first-term immigration reforms. They’ve refined their tactics since 2016 and are prepared to unleash a wave of civil unrest. These aren’t spontaneous movements; they’re coordinated assaults designed to destabilize the administration.

Finally, from the inside, the deep state will continue its mission of self-preservation. Agencies will drag their feet, leak sensitive information, and undermine policies from within. Their goal is to make everything a chaotic mess, so the heart of their power — the bureaucratic core — remains untouched and grows stronger.

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move. Progressives never see themselves as losing. When they’re out of power, they simply shift tactics, pumping more blood into their bureaucratic heart. We may win elections, but the war against the deep state will only intensify. As George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force; and force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege. The deep state has shown us its plan: to govern from the shadows, circumventing the will of the people. But now that the shadows have been exposed, we have a choice. Will we accept this silent tyranny, or will we demand accountability and reclaim our nation’s heart?

The battle is just beginning. We can’t afford to lose.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Drone mystery exposes GLARING government incompetence

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone issue is getting way out of hand.

Earlier this month, Glenn first reported on the mysterious drones stalking the night sky over New Jersey, but the situation is increasingly concerning as the sightings have escalated. Not only have drones been seen across the Northeast Coast, including over New York City, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, but recently, they have been spotted over the night skies of San Diego and other parts of Southern California.

It doesn't take an expert to identify the potential dangers and risks that dozens of undetectable, unidentified six-foot or larger drones pose to national security. Yet, our government's response has been one of unimaginable incompetence, leaving us to speculate on the origin and intention of these drones and wonder in astonishment at the government's ineptitude. Here are three examples of the government's lackluster response to the mystery drones:

Iranian Mothership and Missing Nuclear Warheads

- / Stringer | Getty Images

After several weeks of hubbub, New Jersey Representative, Jeff Van Drew gave an interview on Fox News where he claimed that the drones originated from an Iranian "mothership" off the East Coast of the United States. This theory has since been disproven by satellite images, which show that all Iranian drone carriers are far from U.S. shores. Another theory suggests that drones may be equipped with sensors capable of detecting nuclear material and that they are looking for a nuclear warhead that recently went missing! With these apocalyptic theories gaining traction in the absence of any real answer from our government, one can't help but question the motive behind the silence.

Pentagon's Limp Wristed Response

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

In a recent press conference, national security spokesman John Kirby responded to reporters demanding answers about the government's lack of transparency, which has caused increasing public anxiety. He insisted that the drones did not pose a threat and were not assets of a foreign power, such as from Iran or China--even though he is still uncertain about their identity and origin. He also claimed that many of the sightings were simply misidentifications of normal aircraft.

This lackluster answer has only further inflamed national anxieties and raised even more questions. If the government is unsure of the identity of the drones, how do they know if they are a threat or if they aren't foreign assets? If they aren't foreign, does that mean they are U.S. assets? If so, why not just say so?

The Pentagon has also stated that they are leaving it up to local law enforcement to spearhead the investigation after concluding that these drones pose no threat to any military installation. This has left many feeling like the federal government has turned a blind eye to a serious issue that many Americans are very concerned about.

Where's Pete Buttigieg?

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

We are in the closing weeks of the Biden administration, and with the finish line in sight, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg probably figured nothing else could go wrong on his watch—but boy was he wrong. As Secretary of Transportation, Buttigieg is in charge of the FAA, the agency responsible for managing all air traffic across the nation. One would think that mysterious, 6-foot-long, seemingly intractable drones are invisible on radar and flying above major cities would pose a serious threat to the myriad of legal aircraft that traverse our skies. Yet, Buttigieg has been silent on the issue, adding another failure to his resume which includes: malfunctioning airplanes, the train derailment in Ohio, and the Baltimore Key Bridge collapse, just to name a few.

Glenn: How Alvin Bragg turned hero Daniel Penny into a villain

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty.

America no longer has a single, shared understanding of justice. Two Americas now exist, each applying justice differently depending on who you are and where you live. One America, ruled by common sense and individual courage, praises heroes who stand up to protect others. The other, driven by political agendas and corrupted institutions, punishes those same heroes for daring to act.

This stark division couldn’t be clearer than in the case of Daniel Penny, the Marine whose trial in New York City this week drew strong reactions from both sides across the divided line of justice.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare.

Penny was on a subway train last year when Jordan Neely — a man suffering from severe mental illness and reportedly high on drugs — began threatening passengers, saying, “I’m going to kill you all.” The fear on that subway car was palpable, but nobody moved. Nobody, that is, until Penny did what needed to be done. He took action to protect innocent lives.

In the America many of us used to believe in, Penny’s response would be heralded as heroic. His actions mirrored the courage of Todd Beamer on Flight 93, who, on September 11, 2001, rallied others with the words, “Let’s roll,” to prevent further tragedy. But in New York, courage doesn’t seem to count anymore. There, the system turns heroes into villains.

Penny subdued Neely using a chokehold, intending only to restrain him, not kill him. Tragically, Neely died. Penny, filled with remorse, told the police he never meant to hurt anyone. Yet, instead of being recognized for protecting others from a clear and present threat, Penny stood trial for criminally negligent homicide.

In Alvin Bragg’s New York, justice bends to ideology. The Manhattan district attorney has made a career of weaponizing the law, selectively prosecuting those who don’t fit his narrative. He’s the same prosecutor who twisted legal precedent to go after Donald Trump on business charges no one had ever faced before. Then, he turned his sights on Daniel Penny.

A jury may have acquitted Penny, but what happened in New York City this week isn’t justice. When the rule of law changes depending on the defendant’s identity or the prosecutor's political motives, we’re no longer living in a free country. We’re living in a state where justice is a game, and ordinary Americans are the pawns.

The system failed Jordan Neely

It’s worth asking: Where were activists like Alvin Bragg when Neely was suffering on the streets? Jordan Neely was a tragic figure — a man with a long history of mental illness and over 40 arrests, including violent assaults. The system failed him long before he stepped onto that subway train. Yet rather than confront that uncomfortable truth, Bragg’s office decided to target the man who stepped in to prevent a tragedy.

This isn’t about justice. It’s about power. It’s about advancing a narrative where race and identity matter more than truth and common sense.

It’s time to demand change

The Daniel Penny case — and others like it — is a wake-up call. We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty. Americans must demand an end to politically driven prosecutions, hold DAs like Alvin Bragg accountable, and stand up for the principle that true justice is blind, consistent, and fair.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare. It’s time to choose which America we want to live in.