Why is government doing everything it can to destroy individual sovereignty?

If there is one thing that we have learned through the course of all of human history is sticking our big, fat nose in other people’s business always works.  And number two, best path to peace, strongly worded letter or like the UN or something like that or maybe a meaningful walk and chat on the beach, a.k.a. diplomacy.

That’s why the president was in San Francisco yesterday, the home of peace, to tout his diplomatic efforts in the Middle East.  Here he is:

VIDEO

President Obama:  We’re testing diplomacy.  We’re not resorting immediately to military conflict.

He looks almost like Patton there, doesn’t he, with the big flag?  We’re testing?  There’s no reason to test diplomacy.  The history of peace through diplomacy speaks for itself.  Adolf Hitler when he called off his plans for world domination after a pleasant phone conversation with Neville Chamberlain worked out really well, or the Iranian Revolution being averted when a sweet-talking Jimmy Carter formed an unlikely friendship with the Shah of Iran.

And of course we all saw the movie with William Wallace.  He gave a great speech about Scotland’s freedom on the battlefield, and that I think was what softened King Edward’s heart, and instead of a bloody battle, our history books celebrate the great piece picnics at Stirling Bridge and Falkirk that secured Scotland’s freedom, I think.

So don’t believe all of those peace through strength nut jobs.  It’s all about diplomacy.  The New York Times I read today, and I about had an aneurysm.  They’re very excited about the president’s new strategy.  They say in The New York Times, watch this, “It also reflects a broader scaling back of the use of American muscle…,” remember that, “…not least in the Middle East…,” remember that, “…as well as a willingness…,” you’re going to love this one, “…to deal with foreign governments as they are rather than push for new leaders the better embody American values.”

I wish any of that were true, any of that.  None of that is true.  A willingness to deal with other governments as they are?  We should ask some of those governments.  I tell you what, Tiffany, can you get Muammar Gaddafi on the phone?  Oh, crap, that’s right, Muammar Gaddafi, what was it Hillary said?

VIDEO

Hillary Clinton:  We saw, he died.

That’s right, can’t ask him, we killed him.  That’s right, I remember.  So maybe we’ll just go – Tiffany, get somebody from Assad’s regime on the phone in Syria.  Oh no, Assad, currently the president is trying to drum up support to go and bomb the snot out of him, and we’re giving aid and weapons to jihadis to overthrow him.

Well, maybe we could get Mubarak on the phone.  I mean, no, he’s on trial.  Well, maybe he has a phone in the jail, because after all, the Obama administration helped incite a violent revolution against him.  Boy, that sounds kind of more muscle-ish than scaling back to me, which is weird, because it also doesn’t sound like we get along with anybody either.

Let me make it really, really clear.  I think scaling back our military in the Middle East is probably a really good idea, not the worst one I’ve heard.  In fact, I would say that the whole progressive idea that started with Teddy Roosevelt to spread democracy around the world is one of the worst ideas ever.  I may have been sluggish enough to go, “Yeah, well everybody loves us,” 15 years ago.  Hello?  Have we not spent enough treasure and blood around the world?  Has the last decade not taught us anything?

We have to be a strong, non-isolationist, noninterventionist kind of country, strong.  Here’s what I mean by that: You come over, you fly some planes into our buildings, we bomb the bat snot out of you and go home.  We kill the bad guys who did it and go home.  What are we still doing in Afghanistan?  I believe, I for one, maybe not you, it is well past time to announce that this progressive idea, be it from John McCain or George Bush, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, that we need to nation build and be the world’s policeman is dead and possibly the worst idea America has ever had.

But let me take you back to sugarplum fairy pop land of The New York Times.  They go from the front page into this.  Let me take you to Saudi Arabia, because for a guy, a president who’s hooked on diplomacy, doesn’t it seem like our president is converting all of our friends into enemies?  Not that I was ever a big fan of George W. Bush taking the long strolls at his Crawford ranch holding hands with the Saudi princes.  Boy, I don’t miss those days.  That was creepy.

But you also have to be a realist, and before you start cutting off your friends and making them enemies, you might want to look at your own situation here.  For instance, energy prices are up 42 percent in a decade.  Okay, well maybe we should start exploring for our own, because getting into bed with these guys isn’t good.  And now that it’s up 42 percent, it doesn’t seem wise to really disconnect from the cheapest source of oil in the world, unless you have something to replace it with.  It’s also our second highest source of foreign oil.

So does this make sense to you?  It doesn’t me, but it does to The New York Times, because here’s their rationale, and I love it:  “At the same time, new sources of oil have made the Saudis less essential.”  Same time, new sources of oil made the Saudis…what new sources of oil?  I mean, serious question, anybody on the set, anybody know of a new source of oil that we’ve had?

It’s not Canada.  Keystone pipeline went up.  President blocked that one.  More drilling permits in the gulf?  No, huh uh.  Alaska?  No, huh uh.  Where is this magical fount of oil that has sprouted up?  Have little oil rigs just started to grow in the west lawn in place of the first lady’s veggie garden?  I’m not really sure.

America, I want us to break up with the Saudis.  I want Israel to take care of itself.  I want to be out of the business of everybody else.  But not standing with the only person that understands capitalism in the entire region while pissing off the Saudis really doesn’t seem like good news, you know?  Breaking up with Israel, not so much.  Our overseas policies matter, especially when your policies here don’t match.

You want to break up with the rest of the world, fine, but you have to be self-sufficient.  We’re cutting ourselves off from energy suppliers while at the same time diminishing our own access to affordable allergy.  Hello?  Hello?  Hello?  Oh yeah, but we’re going to go green.  Stop with the green nonsense.  Maybe someday, not today.  Another green company that the president invested your money in just went bankrupt, cost you $139 million.  Why are we doing this?  If green energy is so needed, the free market will figure it out.

Okay, so we have no money left.  We’re really whittling down our friends.  We have no oil.  We have no sufficient source of energy to fill in the gap because we’re closing the coal plants.  We won’t drill for oil, and we won’t build a pipeline.  That sounds like energy shortage.  When that comes, oh, and it will, remember this day.

And so what does that mean for you?  Well, when you are not self-sufficient, you are a slave to whomever holds the bag of food or the bag of black gold.  Our sovereignty as a nation will be put aside in order to survive.  Why do you think we take the lead painted toys from China, and we don’t say anything?  Because our hands are tied.  We need their money.

But here’s the good news, national sovereignty begins with personal sovereignty.  This is the secret of America, the more independent you are, the stronger the nation becomes.  If we as people can self-sustain during an energy shortage, a cash shortage, a food shortage, a health care shortage, then you really can tell people like China and Saudi Arabia to go take their oil and shove it.

But that’s another policy that doesn’t matter because this administration is not encouraging people to be self-sufficient.  We are not helping people go into business.  We don’t advise people to store food, save money, protect yourself, get a gun.  No, those people get mocked.  Instead, Progressives have been campaigning to take all of those responsibilities away from you.

Now wait a minute, if our national sovereignty begins with personal sovereignty, I think you just figure something out.  The secret lies with each individual.  I don’t know what your idea is.  It might stink, but it might be the one that saves us.  I don’t know what your solution is.  I don’t even know the problem you’re working on trying to solve, but you’ll figure it out.

Governments make it worse.  I contend that our government knows where the real source of power comes from.  I mean, how do you miss it?  It’s in big huge block letters in our founding documents, “We the people.”  That’s where the power comes from, the individual American, and that’s why they’re doing everything they can to hobble you.  Look at the attacks on individual sovereignty in our nation.

Last night, we told you about how hospitals are taking custody of your children because the doctors say they know better than you.  So you lose your child, and they can just do that and then issue a gag order so you can’t say anything?  Los Angeles is now considering a ban on feeding the homeless.  Let’s figure this one out.  This is great, from the land of equality.

Listen to this: “If you give out free food on the street with no other services to deal with the collateral damage, you get hundreds of people beginning to squat…,” I love this.  Remember, this is California.  They’re the bighearted people.  “…They’re living in my bushes, and they’re living in my next door neighbor’s crawlspaces.  We have a neighborhood which now seems like a mental ward.”  I just don’t want these people around me.  Well, I’m blown away by your compassion.

This is bogus compassion.  It always is.  Government compassion and progressive compassion is bogus.  The argument sure sounds familiar.  It’s a familiar argument, don’t feed the animals.  Ooh, are animals in cages?  Well, people are animals too, you know?  How about school choice, are we moving towards freedom with the government?  As that thing is collapsing, are they encouraging you?  No, in fact, just the opposite.

They’ve got Common Core, and then off to the side, a really important story that nobody’s paying attention to is the president, his silence on the German family who we’ve had on this program who were granted access to the United States and then denied asylum after they fled Germany because they weren’t allowed to teach their kids in their own home.

Here is an update on that story.  The Supreme Court now has ordered today the administration to respond to the family’s appeal, but I can guarantee you what they’re going to say.  They’re going to say no, send them back.  We’ll give asylum to anyone but not these people.  Why?  Because then the government will be on record saying you have an inherent God-given right to raise your children and teach them the way you see fit.  Government can’t have that.

You now have to purchase a product in order to be considered law-abiding.  Catholic and other religious health care institutions are forced to violate their own beliefs and provide birth control and abortions.  An update on this one too, Supreme Court’s going to take another look at that issue.

From the level that you set your thermostat at to the gas mileage on your cars to the fat content in foods, not being allowed to fish in order to eat unless you have a permit, individual sovereignty is all but dead.  And people are becoming more dependent, and many people like it that way.  We are going the way of Greece, and I have to tell you, we did, and you can find it if you’re a member of TheBlaze.  You can go find it and watch this episode.  I think it was like 40 minutes.  It was six hours on the ground in Greece.

I flew out in the middle of the night, and I just talked to the cab drivers, and I talked to the people on the street.  I watched what was happening.  Things in Greece are getting so bad now that they’re actually inflicting themselves with HIV in order to receive government benefits.  Here’s what it was like about 24 months ago in Greece.

VIDEO

Glenn:  And what does this say?

Male:  It says that we don’t have to live like slaves.  Communism is the revolutionary movement of the ongoing period.  Revolution now.  Let’s produce life and not those things that strangle life.  Let’s not produce those things that strangle life.

Glenn:  Communism is the answer?

Male:  Yes.  It’s the revolutionary movement of the ongoing period.

Glenn:  And the people that are on the street are not drunk.  They’re high, bad heroin highs that we’re seeing on the streets.

Look, it’s a disease in the West, and it kills the human spirit, being a slave to someone else, waiting for the handout, waiting for the government.  It reduces you to a compliant robot unable to think or choose for yourself.  If you have not read this, I just reread this a couple weeks ago.  It’s Anthem by Ayn Rand.  You know, she asked Walt Disney to make this into a movie, and I want to make this into one.

She wanted it to be made into a cartoon, and I want to make it into a cartoon because it’s right.  It’s right.  This is the collective takes over.  You become a robot.  You forget about yourself entirely.  This is why they want to regulate your guns, because they can’t have you stand up.  They can’t.

You know, we put out a book this week, this book.  I don’t care if you go to the bookstore and read this one chapter on Athens, Georgia.  In fact, let me find which chapter it is.  I’m sorry, Athens, Tennessee, I keep saying that.  Battle of Athens is chapter 10, and the Battle of Athens, tomorrow…I’ve sent everybody home from the studios.  So many people are traveling that I’m just going to come in and do the show myself tomorrow.  And I might read this chapter to you.

And I’ve got some things I want to share with you tomorrow on the radio.  It will be a very different radio show.  But the Battle of Athens is happening again.  What happened in Tennessee is happening all over our country, and this gives you the antidote.  It shows you when you rise up and say enough, enough, you do everything right, everything, but they have to make you dependent.

See, the people that tried to take over Athens, Tennessee, the fascists there, they were criminals.  They made everybody dependent, but they forgot one thing, soldiers were returning home from war.  You can’t be dependent on anything or anyone.  To the best of your ability, if you’re not independent now, you’ve got to strive for it.  If you have it, empower someone else so they can achieve it.

This is the era that the American revolutionaries dreamt of.  I’m convinced of it.  They weren’t pining for 1776.  They envisioned a day when man could live a self-reliant life free from all tyranny.  This is it.  The Internet gives us that.  With technology, you don’t have to be chained to your own town.  You don’t have to be chained to somebody else to be a buyer or a distributor.  You don’t even have to go to work and be stuck at one location or a desk or bound by a schedule.

The sky is the limit now for the first time in human history, unless we allow others to put us in a box and close the lid.  There is one uniting principle, and I think George Washington and Thomas Paine shared it.  Now, those who are atheists will say that George Washington was a deist.  I don’t believe that.  I’ve read too much of his words and his letters.

And Christians will say that Thomas Paine wasn’t really an atheist.  They’re wrong.  I’ve read too much of his stuff.  The guy was an early precursor to a Marxist.  But they came together.  If it wasn’t for the two of them, revolution wouldn’t have happened.  They came and found something in common, sovereignty for the individual, maximum personal responsibility, maximum liberty.  When you strip everything else down, I think that’s where most people are, I hope, at least 30% of this country.

And so when you find the religious people that will not oppress and force conformity, will not say my way or the highway or not just playing some game because they believe in the church ruling everybody’s life, and when you find Libertarians who are not anarchists who believe in some government just to be able to protect and defend property and won’t oppress and say none of that religion stuff, when you can get together where common sense and freedom live, where people believe in maximum freedom and maximum personal responsibility, games over.  It’s over.

When you can get to a point where a guy like me, really very religious, and a guy like Penn Jillette, really not religious, can live in the same space, we could be neighbors, and we could be happy neighbors, how do you beat that?  How could Penn Jillette be somebody who hates all people with religion and has a secret plan to put everybody in religion out of business, when I’m one of his good friends?  How could I be a fascist when my good friend is a self-described narco-capitalist?  Something doesn’t compute.

That’s the box that everybody wants to put you in.  Don’t.  Break those molds.  When religious people and nonreligious people can get along, when Ayn Rand and small government Christians can get along, we find the balance, and we understand that the secret is self-regulation.  When we can work together with people we disagree with on some pretty big principles but still have enough points in common to tether ourselves to those principles, and those principles free mankind, it is game over.

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.

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.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.