Will the Passing of Scalia Wake Up America?

February 16, 2016

Writer

The Context

The unexpected and shocking news of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's passing was received with sadness and, frankly, fear. His departure leaves a massive void of true conservatism on the bench. Without his stalwart adherence to the Constitution, the court is now solidly moderate. Should Obama actually succeed in appointing a liberal replacement, the chance of winning any votes on conservative, constitutional principles is gone --- and along with it, our liberty.

Critical Mass

Rumors are swirling that Obama may be considering current Attorney General Loretta Lynch as a potential replacement for Justice Scalia. Additionally, there is speculation that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been waiting to retire so Obama can appoint her replacement. Filling in for Glenn Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program, Pat voiced his concern should even one justice be chosen by Obama.

"This is critical," Pat said. "If Obama appoints another person here, we're in real trouble."

Now more than ever, the Senate must play its role to impede the president and block any Obama nomination at all costs.

"They're there to specifically slow down the president or impede his progress if he starts to do things that are irrational," said Stu, also filling in Tuesday. "That's what they're there for."

Why Now, God?

"I don't know the bigger plan, you know, that the Lord has in mind," Pat said Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "But I couldn't help, but wonder, why? Why now? Why did you have to take Antonin now? Couldn't you have waited just until November? Couldn't you have waited just a little longer? Did he have to come home this soon?"

Evidently, Glenn had been wondering the same thing when he called in from Boston.

"Sitting here looking right now at the Old North Church in Boston," Glenn said. "You know, I was listening to you guys, and I just want to say, Pat, I think I have an answer for you on that."

What was Glenn's answer as to why God took Justice Scalia home at this time, just months before a critical presidential election?

Wake Up, America

"I just woke the American people up," Glenn said, speaking about his thoughts on God's plan. "I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, 'Look how close your liberty is to being lost.'

"You replace one guy, and you now have a 5-4 decision in the other direction," Glenn continued. "The Constitution is hanging by a thread. That thread has just been cut. And the only way that we survive now is if we have a true constitutionalist [as president]."

Glenn also relayed a recent conversation with historian David Barton, who explained the cycle we're in --- from slavery to enlightenment to freedom to abundance to apathy to slavery again. Barton believes we're in the second stage of apathy, on the brink of becoming enslaved by the government. He also believes Scalia's passing and the potential consequences to the Supreme Court could be the catalyst to wake up enough Americans and change our course.

"In Iowa, the exit polls showed that the church did wake up, and the church did come out," Barton told Glenn. "There's still a lot of Christians sitting at home, but Iowa shows that they did wake up. If they wake up in South Carolina, if they wake up in Nevada, if they wake up across the South, then we're not in apathy, and we don't go back in slavery."

Common Sense Bottom Line

Justice Antonin Scalia served his country with honor and dignity, abiding by the Constitution and refusing to legislate from the bench. Filling is larger-than-life position with anything but a stalwart constitutionalist spells the end of the Republic.

Glenn once asked presidential candidate and constitutionalist Ted Cruz how he would appoint justices to the Supreme Court. Here's the answer he gave:

"I will spend every dime [of my political capital]," Cruz said. "There's nothing more important than this. If we don't get the Supreme Court right, we lose the entire country."

Time to wake up, America.

Listen to this segment at mark 8:45 from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

STU: The idea that we would not expect our candidate to name a justice and try to get somebody through in this situation is ridiculous. Of course, we would. I would be furious with my president if he didn't name somebody and try to push this through. This is the way the court operates.

PAT: Conversely, you would also expect your party who has the majority in the Senate to block that nomination at all costs.

STU: Yes. Pat, you're the constitutional expert around here. My understanding is the Senate has responsibilities in the Constitution as well.

PAT: Pretty good understanding, Stu.

STU: That was what I heard at least at one time. It's funny, the Democrats now only the Constitution has to do with the president. The president can do whatever he wants, and the Senate has to go along with that.

PAT: No. It doesn't work that way.

STU: They're there to specifically slow down the president or impede his progress if he starts to do things that are irrational. That's what they're there for.

PAT: But they'll remember that when we have a Republican. That's when they'll remember that.

Oh, wait a minute. The president doesn't have all the power. Just because you nominated somebody doesn't mean we have to confirm them. That's what you'll hear in four years or whenever the next time this rolls around. And, you know, this would be really bad if the Senate doesn't find its courage to stop Obama in his tracks this time. They cannot allow Scalia to be replaced by yet another radical extremist.

STU: Even if you get a moderate --

PAT: Can't do it. Can't do it.

STU: Antonin Scalia was so good.

PAT: We have two reliable guys left on that bench: Thomas and Alito. That's it.

STU: Two.

PAT: That's it. Sometimes we can rely on John Roberts. And occasionally you can rely on Anthony Kennedy. That's it. We can maybe get to four. There's no way we win any close decision if Obama appoints somebody.

STU: Yeah. And if you want to look back and think of how important this stuff is, go back to -- back when the last -- I mean, not the last one, but one of the biggest examples of the really contentious nomination process was Robert Bork. Bork goes in there and he gets rejected, right? Then they name Kennedy. Reagan names Kennedy as his replacement. You go from a real conservative, you get a moderate. Okay? The next justice that comes up is Souter. So you go from two Republicans, you get a moderate and a liberal. If they had actually come up with two Scalias there and were able to get those two, the entire history of the country is changed.

PAT: Right.

STU: That's how important it is. So if you're one of those people thinking, "Oh, well, look, you vote and you let -- eh, they had Sotomayor and they had Kagan -- like Lindsey Graham voted for both of them, I believe both of them, and approved all of -- just go along with it. Oh well, they get a little leeway with their nominees. We should let this one through.

No. It's too important. It's too vital for the country.

PAT: No. This is critical. And this is critical. We're toast. If Obama appoints another person here, we're in real trouble. And there is speculation now that Ginsburg has been waiting until now to retire so that Obama can appoint somebody in her place too. So then you would have that one that we're also counting on for the future, you'll also have that one solidified with a younger radical, living, breathing constitutionalist. So it would just be a disaster. A disaster.

JEFFY: They're talking about Obama appointing someone so far left that there's no way they get appointed, and that that solidifies the presidential run.

STU: You're totally right, Jeffy. That's what they're going to do here. They know they won't get a crazy leftist through. But you know who they're talking about is Loretta Lynch. Loretta Lynch has already been out there. She's already been vetted in public. She's a black woman. So they'll use this as identity politics to try to make it look like Republicans are trying to stop all the progress. They'll make it into a political point, knowing they won't necessarily get their justice in there. But if Hillary Clinton gets elected, eventually they'll get somebody.

PAT: It's really bad. Yeah. I don't know the bigger plan, you know, that the Lord has in mind. But I couldn't help, but wonder, why? Why now? Why did you have to take Antonin now? Couldn't you have waited just until November? Couldn't you have waited just a little longer? Did he have to come home this soon?

STU: He's great. And I know you want to spend time with the guy. He's great. Could you have just held out a couple more months?

PAT: And, again, I don't know the full picture. He does. So the answer is no. But, man, I couldn't help, but wonder. 877-727-BECK. More of the Glenn Beck Program with Pat and Stu coming up.

(OUT AT 8:20AM)

PAT: 877-727-BECK. Pat and Stu in for Glenn. And also for Glenn is Glenn. Joining us from I guess South Carolina, on the road with Ted Cruz?

GLENN: No, I'm in Boston. I'm doing some research in some business. Sitting here looking right now at the Old Goth HEP Church in Boston. I'll be up here for a couple days and then back on the radio. You know, I was listening to you guys. And I just want to say, Pat, I have I think an answer for you on that. Because I did the same thing. I first thought, "Okay. God, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that."

PAT: Right?

GLENN: And then I said the same thing -- I remember it was exactly the same thing that I felt when Sandy hit. And I remember -- remember, we were trying to go up and help campaign --

PAT: And we thought the same thing then.

GLENN: For Mitt Romney. Remember that?

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: And Sandy hit. And we couldn't go up. We couldn't get any flights up. Then they were walking down the beach like two lovers. I thought, "Thank you. Thank you, Lord. I appreciate that. What is your plan?" So I don't want to assume that I know his plan, but I will tell you this, I thought when this happened, after I got past the thank you, I thought, you're welcome. I just woke the American people up. I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, "Look at what -- how close your liberty is to being lost. You now have lost your liberty. You replace one guy, and you now have a 5-4 decision in the other direction."

PAT: Every time.

GLENN: And just with one guy, you've lost your liberty. So you better elect somebody that is going to put somebody on. Because for the next 30 years, if you don't, the Constitution as you know it -- Pat, you and I have said this for a long time. The Constitution is hanging by a thread. That thread has just been cut.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: And the only way that we survive now is -- is if we have a true constitutionalist.

PAT: That's exactly right. And you're probably right. That might be -- I mean, we -- it's just up to us now to wake up. It's up to us to get that signal --

GLENN: You know, I was having a conversation with somebody over the week. It was David Barton. And I said, "David, have you ever seen, you know -- have you ever seen this in American history?" He said, "No. This is the cycle that we've always talked about." You know, you go from slavery to enlightenment to freedom to abundance to apathy to slavery again. And he said, "If we're -- if we're in apathy, we're over." He said, "I don't think we're there." He said, "All indications show that we're in apathy." He said, "But this could wake enough people up." He said, "The ones who are apathetic are the church." And he said, "In Iowa, the exit poll showed that the church did wake up, and the church did come out. Not as many as are, you know, claiming to be Christians. There's still a lot of Christians sitting at home, but Iowa shows that they did wake up. If they wake up in South Carolina, if they wake up in Nevada, if they wake up across the South, then we're not in apathy, and we don't go back in slavery." But if the country is lost, it will be lost because of the Christians. There will be no one else to blame. You can't blame the progressives. You can't blame the left. You can't blame Hillary Clinton. You can't blame anyone else but the Christians who are not living and voting their principles.

STU: And quick reminder here that we have been losing all of these Supreme Court cases, anyway, when Scalia was there.

PAT: Right.

STU: So without him, there's not even a remote chance --

PAT: Not even a chance.

STU: Unless people do as you say, Glenn, wake up and maybe choose somebody who knows the Supreme Court who has maybe argued in front of the Supreme Court, if I could be more specific.

GLENN: Well, here's the most important thing, and I don't want to bring this to Cruz, but we're obviously there now.

STU: You're welcome.

GLENN: But, you know, I asked Ted before Scalia died, I said, "Ted, what was the problem?" And he said, "We did Justice Roberts because Bush was not willing to spend the political capital." He said, "I have too many things going on. I can't spend the political capital." I said, "How about you?" He said, "I will spend every dime. There's nothing more important than this. If we don't get the Supreme Court right, we lose the entire country." So he not only knows it, he knows how to pick the guys. He knows who they are. And more importantly, he's not going to sit down. He's not going to say let's comprise. He's going to pick the ones that are right, and he'll spend every dime on that.

PAT: And, by the way, it wasn't supposed to be this way where the Supreme Court was this stinking important.

GLENN: Yes, I know.

PAT: They're supposed to be an equal branch. In fact, when our Founders built the buildings in D.C. they forgot about the judicial building. They forgot about the Supreme Court. They only built that later. They were like, oh, yeah, we forgot the Supreme Court.

GLENN: No, no, it's bad. The best part is, when they built the building, they did forget. And so where were they, Pat? They were in the basement.

PAT: Yeah, right.

GLENN: The court was in the basement.

PAT: Initially they were in the basement.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: So then they finally built them this amazingly beautiful building.

GLENN: Palace.

PAT: And took care of that. But look at what they've become since: They've become the be-all and end-all of our republic. And it's not supposed to be that way.

GLENN: When was that building built?

PAT: I don't remember the exact date.

GLENN: Look it up.

PAT: But we'll check on that.

GLENN: Look it up.

PAT: Yeah, we will.

GLENN: Okay. Boys.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: Carry on my wayward sons.

Featured Image: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia listens to remarks after participating in the swearing in of new Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne on the South Lawn of the White House June 7, 2006 in Washington, DC. Kempthorne succeeds Gale Norton, who stepped down in March. Kempthorne faces some opposition from Senate Democrats after saying he supports an expansion of oil and gas drilling in public lands and waters. He swore his oath of office on his great-grandfather's Bible. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

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.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.