Scott Walker unveils plans to replace Obamacare

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker joined Glenn on radio today to discuss his own health care plan for the country to replace Obamacare. Speaking on behalf of many conservatives and small government constitutionalists, Glenn asked the presidential candidate why even introduce another replacement government plan - shouldn't the free market replace it?

"It follows that principle," Walker said. "It's really about putting patients and families back in charge. It allows them to use the market, to access the market out there in a way that lifts many of the restrictions that Obamacare and, for that matter, other laws of government have put on the free market in the past.

Listen to the full exchange or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors.

GLENN: Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin and presidential candidate, hello, Scott, how are you, sir?

SCOTT: Hey, Glenn. I'm doing well. Thanks for having me on. How are you?

GLENN: Very good. Very good.

You have called Trump's campaign a sideshow. I happen to believe this. And I think the guy is just not healthy for our -- for our country. How long does this sideshow last?

SCOTT: Well, I think the obligation is on those of us running is that we have to lay out specific ideas, specific reforms. You know, one of the things you can't ignore is that he's tapped into something very real. And not just him, but look at some of the other nonelected candidates who are rising in the polls, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Donald Trump. I think there's a correlation there that people are frustrated. Heck, I'm angry. I'm angry at the so-called leaders in Washington, particularly in the Republican Party who claimed they were going to repeal Obamacare if they got the Senate majority. Who claimed they would do something about immigration. We have yet to see that. There's a very real sentiment of frustration. The positive side of that is that people are is coming out, they're getting engaged. They're not just ignoring the problem. They're looking for someone who can do something about it. And I think in the end, the way someone like me, for example, ends up getting back up in the polls in states like Iowa and elsewhere is to lay out very real plans like we'll do tomorrow about how do we actually do more than say we're going to repeal Obamacare. How do we actually make it happen immediately in the next Congress? And then how do we put patients and families in charge of their health care?

GLENN: Okay. So you have a replacement for Obamacare. And for me, at least and I think many conservatives and small government constitutionalists, they say, why replace it? It should be replaced with the free market. What is your replacement plan? And why do we need government replacement?

SCOTT: Yeah. Without giving out all the details in advance of the announcement tomorrow, but it follows that principle. It's really about putting patients and families back in charge. It allows them to use the market, to access the market out there in a way that lifts many of the restrictions that Obamacare and, for that matter, other laws of government have put on the free market in the past. Part of the problem today is not just Obamacare. But if we went back to the way things were before Obamacare, there were still plenty of regulations and stipulations. There were still problems, for example, even with things like Medicaid that was sent to the state with all these strings attached. Those are the sorts of things we're going to talk about. Is not just going back to the way things were before Obamacare, but going in further to lift all the taxes, to lift the burdens, to put in place a system where patients can use the market to make good decisions for themselves and their families.

GLENN: I will tell you that I think what Donald Trump has tapped into and what Bernie Sanders has tapped into is this desire for Americans -- or by Americans to get out of the mushy middle and to actually -- if you're going to be -- I think what Bernie Sanders and the Democrats are saying is, you know what we're going to be over here, let's just be socialist. And I think on the other side, it is, let's just be common sense. Let's just not this special interest bullcrap out.

SCOTT: I would agree with you. And, again, this is where today I'll number Iowa. But I'll continue to make this case across the country. A lot of great candidates. A number of whom are tapping into that. I feel that sentiment as well. It's why I ran for governor in 2010 because I saw my state, much like I see my nation today, going down the wrong path. And I think if people are looking, not just for someone who shares that frustration, who shares that anger towards Washington, but who wants someone who can actually do something about it, I would say look at what we did in Wisconsin. We fought. We won. We got results. And we did it without compromising our common sense, conservative principles. Think about an issue out there. We didn't just take the unions on. We're not just right to work. We got rid of seniority and tenure. We have expanded school choice statewide. We cut taxes. In fact, by the end of this budget I'm in right now, taxes have been cut $4.7 billion in my state. We defunded Planned Parenthood more than four years ago, long before these videos. We did castle doctrine and concealed carry. We now require a photo ID to vote in the state of Wisconsin. This is a blue state. A state that hadn't gone Republican for president since 1984. If we can do all those kinds of common sense conservative reforms in a blue state like Wisconsin, I think people can know that when I say we'll do common sense conservative reforms for America, they can take that to the bank. We've done it even with 100,000 protesters breathing down our neck. We did it for Wisconsin. We can do it for America.

GLENN: Tell me because I'm not quite sure where you stand on immigration. You handled a guy who came out and said, why do you want to deport me and my family. You handled that really, really well while on the campaign stump.

But, you know, if you look at what Trump has released this weekend, it's very, very clear. I don't necessarily believe he'll do it. But it's very, very clear. What is yours? Where do you stand?

SCOTT: That's a great point. And you're right. He has tapped into this issue, as well as a bunch of others. He's tapped into a very real passion, a very real concern of folks out there. I mentioned -- in fact, it was one of the times I was on your show, and you weren't on. But guest hosts were filling in months and months ago. I walked through exactly where I'm at and how I got there.

For me, when I talk about securing the border, now having been to the border with Governor Abbott and talking about it with others out there, I see it as much greater than just immigration. We need to have a wall. We need to have the infrastructure.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Let me stop you here. We have heard -- who was it, Pat, from San Diego. Duncan Hunter went on when I was at CNN. He went on and on and on. And I love Duncan Hunter. But he went on and on and on about how he put -- the wall shall be built into the law. And if you know anything about the law, Glenn, if it says shall, they have to build this wall. We've been hearing about this wall forever. President Obama says it's 95 percent complete. How -- how are you finally going to get people in Washington to actually build the wall?

SCOTT: Well, I've been to the border and I can say it's far from 95 percent. That's for sure. I mean, I've seen the opening. The passings. I've seen the problems that are created out there. To me, in a way that's similar to how we'll repeal Obamacare and other things in the sense that when I came to Wisconsin, a blue state, everything was Democrat, went Republican. We didn't just take on the unions. We didn't just take on the Democrats. We took on particularly one of our legislative houses. The Republican establishment that didn't want to do anything. I remember a week after the election, I came in and talked to all the Republicans and said, it's put-up-or-shut-up time. They went from all Democrat to all Republican. I made the point that if we just did a little bit less bad things than the Democrats did, the voters have every right to throw us out. And so we said it was put-up-or-shut-up time. Then we went through with one of the most, if not the most aggressive common sense, conservative agendas in the country. And we did it -- we didn't just do where I got elected three times. We've actually added seats to the legislative majorities in 12 and 14. Why? Because for Republicans, but even for independents, what they want more than anything is not someone to move to the center, they want someone to govern, to lead, do what they said they were going to do. And in this case, I think it's a matter of pushing back the House and the Senate and say, we have to do this.

Israel, I was in Israel earlier this year. They just completed a 500-mile fence. By doing that and staffing it and having the technology to make sure it works effectively, they've seen something like over a 90 percent reduction in terrorist acts in that country that they attribute to having an effective fence. 500 miles. That's about a quarter the size of our southern border. But, heck, Israel is a much, much smaller country. If Israel can do it effectively, there's no reason why America can't. And it's not just because of immigration. It's much bigger than that. We have international criminal organizations penetrating our southern-based borders. If it was happening in our water ports --

GLENN: We have ISIS here.

SCOTT: -- we'd be sending in the Navy. We should do something on our borders.

GLENN: I wrote a piece online this weekend about Mike Lee. There was a -- there was an article in the New York Times about Mike Lee. And it -- it talked about how Mitch McConnell is telling Mike Lee, who is one of the most reasonable, sound thinkers in the Senate.

SCOTT: Yep.

GLENN: How he's got to decide, you know, between these Tea Party freaks and -- and his party. And Mitch McConnell is part of the problem. Will you go so far as saying that there are people in the G.O.P. that are part of the establishment like Mitch McConnell that are part of the problem?

SCOTT: Yes. I hear it all the time. And I share that sentiment. This was -- we were told if Republicans got the majority in the United States Senate, there would be a bill on the president's desk to repeal Obamacare. It is August. Where is that bill? Where was that vote? We were told they would do something about illegal immigration. If it hadn't been for me and 24 other governors out there, the president would be able to do what he claimed he couldn't do 22 times before last November and then went off and did it a couple weeks after the election. It's because I and Governor Abbott and 23 other governors went to court and stopped him. At least got a stay from doing that. It's not because the Congress, a Republican-led Congress, did anything to stop him from doing that. This is where the frustration is. This is why nonelected candidates are surging in the polls. It's because people are sending a very clear message to say, you may dismiss this candidate or that candidate, but people are saying loud and clear, do not dismiss my concerns. Do not dismiss the fact that you told us that Republicans stood for something, and it's not happening in Washington. Now more than ever, I think people are yearning. They're crying out. The good part of this is, while they're angry, they're not walking away. What I hear people tell me is do something about it. Do something about it, not just for me. Do something about it for my children and my grandchildren. I think people are still optimistic that there's enough time left to turn this country around. And that's what I want to be a part of.

GLENN: Well, let me ask you this. Because you say it's getting close. How close do you think it is? We're at the third longest bull market on record. The only other two that have been longer than this was 1929, right before the crash, and then right before the crash of the dot-com bubble. We have China in a massive slowdown. A commodity collapse. We have a credit crisis beyond anything probably -- probably 100 times worse than it was in 2008. And all of the signs are pointing towards this is a fantasy economy that we're living in. Do you agree with that? And how much does the fed play a role in this?

SCOTT: Oh, I think there are incredible, incredible concerns. Not just now, but on the horizon. As interest rates change, those debt and deficit problems only get worse out there. There's a lot of things that if things stay the way they are today. And arguably if Hillary Clinton is in, she makes it worse. As much as that's hard to imagine with this president. I think a Hillary Clinton presidency makes it worse. But having a Republican in the White House who is not committed to fundamental reform. Who is not committed to fundamentally change things. I think ultimately that creates a real problem as well because we've got to take dramatic action. We need somebody who will take forceful, immediate actions. I believe we can do it.

Again, parallel to what I did in my own state. We acted not just in the first 100 days. We acted on day one to join the federal lawsuit against Obamacare. We called a special session to get government out of the way to help lift our economy up on day one. We took actions within the first month, month and a half, to take on the big government unions and the other special interests in our state. And we got things done.

Now, it's much bigger, obviously at the federal level, but I have every confidence that if we have a leader in the White House, who is not just a Republican, but a reformer. A common sense conservative reformer, who demands that kind of reform, I mean, to me, that's things you have to do on day one. And you have to start pushing that Congress to be prepared to act on day one as well.

GLENN: Scott Walker, governor and presidential candidate, I have about a minute left here. I just want to ask you one last question. This is from my email over the weekend. It comes from -- it's in Arabic and translated. But it says: The day will come when we capture you cross-worshiping impure redneck polytheists of the United Snakes. Not only will we kill you, but we will take your women as slaves and all of your properties and blood will be lawful. Have patience because the hour will not be established until we have removed your falsehood pagan religion from the world and killed many of you. He quotes from the Koran. This is someone who is living here in the United States. Is this -- will the Walker administration go in and actually go into these mosques and call a spade a spade here in the United States, or will we co-exist and say that all of Islam as it is practiced is peaceful?

SCOTT: No, it's been clear. There's a war going on against Christians, against Jews, against people not only here, but around the world. And it's led by radical Islamic terrorists. And there are far too many people, not only in the Middle East, but around the world, including many places here, and we have to take this seriously. Anyone who doesn't think this is a serious issue is ignoring places like Chattanooga and plenty other places around the country that we've seen as of late. We have to treat this seriously. We have to have leadership in Washington who is going to make sure, increasingly, we take the fight to them overseas before they bring the fight to us. But we have to deal with the challenges we have here in America as well.

GLENN: Governor Scott Walker in Iowa today. Best of luck to you, Governor. Thank you for being on the program.

The double standard behind the White House outrage

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A new Monroe Doctrine? Trump quietly redraws the Western map

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.