Philly's Soda Tax is Progressivism at Its Worst

January 12, 2017

WRITER

It's for the children. It's for the children and their well-being. Because no one loves children and is more concerned about their well-being than progressives. That's why Philadelphia's mayor has signed into law a tax on sickeningly sugary drinks, nearly doubling the cost of beverages deemed "bad" by the city's government.

"There's three groups affected by this policy: The consumer, totally screwed. The business owner, totally screwed. The government, helped. How often is this the direction and goal of policy in this freaking country?" Co-host Stu Burguiere asked Thursday on The Glenn Beck Program.

The new tax is creating a hailstorm of backfire from consumers.

"Progressives overplay their hand every single time," Glenn added.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: The city of Philadelphia is in outrage. Why? Because the soda tax. It is in effect and people realize, "Wait a minute. I voted for, what?" And it's causing a hailstorm. But there's a fake news story that the media fails to call fake news because the media, I would imagine, would be for the soda tax. And that is the mayor of Philadelphia blaming the high price of soda not on the tax, instead on price gouging. Uh-huh. We'll give you the facts. Fake news. Philadelphia. Not here. Beginning, right now.

(music)

GLENN: If you ever want to know anything about global warming or soda tax or really bizarre fascist dictators that you've never heard of in countries you didn't even know existed, Pat -- or, Stu is your guy. Stu is absolutely the guy.

Favorite dictator, Stu?

STU: Well, Turkmenboshi, I would say had to be number one.

GLENN: His reign?

STU: Well, he died -- he was, of course, replaced by Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

STU: In Turkmenistan.

PAT: Don't insult our intelligence like we must know that.

STU: Which was actually his dentist. Was Turkmenboshi's dentist, who they put as the new dictator.

GLENN: Really? Really?

STU: So in case you want to read up on that. We can always talk about that.

GLENN: Okay. We can talk about that some other time. I just want to get your bona fides out there, that I don't just say that higgledy-piggledy. When it comes to weird dictators you've never heard of, anything on global warming, or soda tax, Stu is the guy to go to.

STU: Stunningly, not a good combination to pick up the ladies throughout the life.

GLENN: No. Stunningly not really a collection of anything that does you any good at all.

STU: It really didn't work well. No. Except for right now, while Philadelphia is putting together --

GLENN: Shine, baby. It's your moment.

STU: -- the most ridiculous soda tax of all time. And they're applying it to all sorts of different things.

If you remember, a lot of cities have tried to pass these things, which were supposedly designed not for them to get money, of course, but for -- to protect us from ourselves and our bad choices.

GLENN: Of course.

STU: We're all getting too fat. And I realize that this show is not the one to --

GLENN: We're not the one to point that out.

STU: We got it. We are too fat. However, we're fat by own decision-making.

GLENN: Right. We go in eyes wide open.

STU: Absolutely. And mouth wide open, to be perfectly honest about it.

GLENN: Right.

STU: So they decided to try to pass this in Philadelphia by saying, "Well, you know, sure, it will have some health benefits. But really what we need is new money for Pre-K and all sorts of programs that everyone wants."

GLENN: Sure. This is going to be good for you. Help the children.

STU: It's going to be good for you. So it got through. They were successful to push it through. Started this month, for the first time.

The tax is 1.5 cents per ounce. So, you know, obviously a 20-ounce bottle of soda is going to add 30 cents. He might say, "Eh, it's not that big -- if you're paying two bucks, now it's 2.30. It might not necessarily hit you that hard." However, it gets worse, of course.

For example, Carbonator Rental Services in Philadelphia sells the syrup for sodas.

GLENN: So this is when you go into -- you know, if you're lucky to have a fountain in your house or you go into a restaurant and they're just pulling it out, there's nothing better than direct out of the fountain.

STU: Right.

GLENN: McDonald's makes the best Cokes on the planet.

STU: Their straws are great too.

GLENN: Yeah, just wanted to throw that out.

STU: But -- so that's -- so normally they sell a 5-gallon box of syrup. You want to get into the straw talk, Jeffy? He seems interested.

Five-gallon box of syrup, usually 60 bucks. Sixty bucks.

GLENN: So this is the -- they come with the fizz and the syrup. And they mix it together.

STU: Right.

GLENN: So you can have a glass of carbonated water, or they can add this syrup. A little bit of that syrup. So how much is the syrup?

STU: Normally it costs $60.

GLENN: Sixty dollars for the syrup.

STU: In December, $60 for the -- it's a lot of soda for $60.

GLENN: Sure.

STU: The new city tax applies to this beverage because it's sugary and it's a beverage.

GLENN: Sure.

STU: It applies $57.60 of additional cost.

GLENN: Wait. The syrup is $60.

STU: Sixty dollars for the syrup.

JEFFY: Right. Okay.

PAT: $57 for the tax.

STU: It's 60 cents for the tax.

PAT: That's price gouging right there. That's price gouging.

STU: Because, again, we're going from $60 to up 117.60 for the same product.

PAT: So in order to service their customers, they need to lower the price of that syrup to $3.

GLENN: Well, no, no, no. No, no, no.

PAT: Right? So it's $60. Right?

GLENN: So if they could stop price gouging, they might be able to, you know, pay the $15 of a working wage that they should be paying for those minimum jobs of making that syrup.

PAT: Well, yes, that too.

STU: I know. I know. Because they're supposed to do both of those things.

PAT: It's gone up to $117.60 for the same syrup.

STU: Reason has a story on this. In the real world, sandwich shops in grocery stores, of course, are adjusting --

PAT: That's essentially doubled the price.

STU: Yes. Because they were trying to make the case, it's not going to be that big of a deal.

In the real world, sandwich shops, grocery stores, of course, are adjusting the retail price of sugary drinks to make up for the added cost imposed by the tax.

And, by the way, the tax -- you know when you go to a store and you buy something and then you get the receipt and there's like a sales tax at the bottom -- right? That's how everything -- the way they structured this tax is that it hit before the retail side.

GLENN: Oh, my God.

STU: So they put it in there, so it's not separately listed on any of the receipts. It's just all the prices are jacked up through the ceiling.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: You know what, everybody should have on their menus and on receipts: Soda is this price because of this price of tax.

PAT: Absolutely.

STU: And that's starting to happen around the city. They're saying, this is why this happening.

PAT: You'd have to.

STU: The mayor who passed the tax says, the efforts of alerting people why their soda costs so much are wrong and misleading. And suggested that it could be an extension of the expensive fight put up by soda companies.

Big soda is at fault here.

GLENN: This is so crazy.

STU: It is so crazy.

GLENN: When now Coca-Cola is sending in the mob to break some legs and get every dime out of their -- that's crazy.

PAT: Every country over 200 employees is evil now. And they only act in their own best interest. And they don't care what they destroy in their wake.

GLENN: The cities don't. The cities don't. The city council. The mayor. They don't. They're always acting in your best interest, even though the bills that they pass, the regulations that they put in, on cities, drive the jobs out, make your cities less safe, make your cities more expensive, drive businesses to other cities or other states, and they're just fine. There's nothing bad about them.

If a -- if a company decides to leave the state, the state will say, "Look at the evil company." But nobody -- who is on the bandwagon saying, "Wait. It's the state's income tax that is killing us right now."

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: It's their regulations on my business that makes it unaffordable for me to go here.

STU: Right. And in Philly, what they did was do everything they could to hide it from people. And then deny the reality that that's the reason why the prices are going up.

PAT: And sadly it works.

STU: It does.

PAT: It works.

GLENN: But will it work here?

PAT: In this article, they're interviewing the owner of a really small convenience store, who was doing really well before this tax.

Now he says he can count on one finger in the last week the number of people who have come in and bought soda, tea, or energy drinks, in any quantity bigger than a can.

Because you think about that. A 12-ounce can of soda is going to cost you, what? Sixty cents? Seventy-five? I hardly ever buy soda. So more than that? A dollar?

STU: Yeah. Yeah. More.

PAT: So then -- a dollar would be 1.18, if let's say it's a dollar. But when you're talking about the bigger quantities, like you mentioned, it can double the price.

STU: I hold in my hand Diet Arizona Blueberry Green Tea, which is for some reason I purchased. I bought two of these. These are gallon containers for $6, which I thought was a really good value.

Two gallons for $6. I thought that was solid, okay? If I was in Philly buying it, it would not be $6. It would be over, with all the taxes, over $10. Now, you talk about trying to do this with a family, to get -- when you're buying in large quantities --

GLENN: No. No. No.

STU: You are absolutely bilking the family that buys in bulk.

GLENN: No. No, you're not.

STU: You're not?

GLENN: Families should not be buying high sugary drinks.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And that's the point, this isn't even a sugary beverage. There is no sugar whatsoever in it.

GLENN: It's green tea, and it's not even green. There's something wrong with that.

STU: It's blueberry, so it's blue.

JEFFY: So if there's no sugar in it, why are you getting taxed?

STU: I know. Isn't that interesting? Well, they've applied the tax to non-sugary drinks. Because, remember, this isn't about health. This is about getting more money.

GLENN: The children.

PAT: It's for the children.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: For the children.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: Again, $6 for iced tea --

GLENN: It's your moment to shine, Pat.

STU: I thought it was my moment to shine on taxes.

GLENN: It was his. Look, very few times you can talk about sugary taxes, and even fewer times you can talk about Michael Jackson.

PAT: That's right.

GLENN: So this is his moment to shine.

STU: Okay.

PAT: Did I stole your moment? Steal it?

STU: No. These are good moments. Soda and Michael Jackson. So $6 turns into $10. That's a 67 percent tax.

PAT: That's madness. That's madness!

STU: Think about that. That's incredible, that they expect people to swallow this.

GLENN: They're going to.

STU: It's insane.

PAT: They literally need a tea party revolt in Philadelphia. Literal tea.

STU: I think they may have even in Philadelphia, overreached so badly --

JEFFY: This has been coming for years.

STU: I mean, a lot of these cities have tried to do this with small taxes and saying it's about health.

They've tried so hard, and they've gone so overboard, that perhaps, maybe we have a chance here to push back against this movement and say this is insane. Because people rally are pissed off about this, even in Philadelphia.

PAT: Well, they have to be.

STU: You have to be. It's killing you.

PAT: One and a half cents an ounce!

STU: An ounce.

GLENN: If I were Pepsi or Coke, I would be buying massive, massive ads on anything that anybody in Philadelphia is watching.

I would be buying massive ads and saying, "Look, here's what your mayor said. We want you to know, Coca-Cola is the same price." Go to New Jersey.

STU: Buy it in New Jersey.

GLENN: You'll buy it for the price you bought it last week.

PAT: Well, in this case, it's even easier than that. Go to Bala Cynwyd. You know, that's all you have to do.

GLENN: Go across the city line.

PAT: Across the line and go to their suburb, and you'll pay a lot less.

GLENN: Right. The only ones who are being hurt by this are the ones who are trapped in their food deserts, having to go buy their -- because they can't afford to go to Bala Cynwyd and drive out of the city. Anybody who uses a bus, anybody who walks to the supermarket, anybody who does that, you're the one being hurt.

STU: Think about that.

PAT: It's so easy to do too. Because you have Wawa in the city limits, right? Then you'd have Wawa just outside the city limits. And you can just show them the price. Here's the price in Philadelphia. Here's the price in Bala Cynwyd.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: No-brainer.

STU: Think about this. There's three groups affected by this policy: The consumer, totally screwed. The business owner, totally screwed. The government, helped.

How often is this the direction and goal of policy in this freaking country?

PAT: Almost always is.

JEFFY: Really, and the government hasn't really helped because they're selling less product.

STU: Yeah, but they're getting a huge income stream from people like me who would still go and buy it because I'm an idiot.

But if you need to fight this stuff, this needs to be overturned.

JEFFY: I agree.

STU: And I think like -- you look at this, and like, they get money, for whatever stupid policy, they say they're achieving, which of course, will wind up in ten years realizing they didn't achieve it and they'll ask for more money and more taxes.

GLENN: Well, what they'll do is they'll -- if this hangs on long enough, they'll say, "Well, we have to replace this money," and they'll just find a group that they can pin that on, that they can make everybody hate.

STU: Need to kill it fast, right?

GLENN: Yes. Because if it holds on, then they'll have the money and they'll say, "We need to raise this much money because we have to replace it." And they'll just find a group that is in a minority or can be sold to let people. Gas companies. Oil companies. Big business. Whoever. And they'll drive the jobs out even more.

PAT: It's for the children. And we love the children.

(chuckling)

GLENN: You won't let him have that moment. You won't let him have that moment. Yeah.

STU: When you talk about the overreach, you know, you can talk -- you can get people to pay an extra little bit here and there.

To go from $60 to 117 is completely ridiculous. But, I mean, look at the guy -- this is the guy who owns the company whose product is now from $60 to 117.60.

He says, "We're not talking about a couple of bucks on a 60-dollar item." If it was, probably people wouldn't be bitching and there wouldn't be an opportunity to overturn this and push back against this. That's bad.

GLENN: Progressives overplay their hand every single time.

STU: Which is weird, because progressive, it's designed not to overplay your hand.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Progressivism is, let's take the very little bit that we can and keep --

GLENN: They always think they're at the finish line. And only once did the Americans choose a nonprogressive to reverse it all, and that's in the 1920s. Usually they just -- they grab somebody who is offering those progressive ideas, just in a different package. Richard Nixon is a good example.

STU: '80s, I would say they did not choose progressive.

GLENN: But I don't consider him a progressive, as much just a flatout bad Marxist. Jimmy Carter.

PAT: Who?

STU: In the '80s. Ronald Reagan. Do you know the guy I'm referring to?

GLENN: He wasn't a progressive.

STU: Right. You said only one time have they chosen -- I think -- oh, you're saying --

GLENN: I would say, you know, the big progressives --

STU: Right. Okay. I see what you're saying.

GLENN: Woodrow Wilson.

STU: Not an ideological, necessarily progressive, that was reversed by conservatism -- that's only happened --

GLENN: Correct.

PAT: They're tired of waiting. And they've gotten so close lately. I think they're just tired of waiting, and now they're trying to push it the rest of the way. Don't you think?

They've gotten a little impatient lately because Obama brought them so far. And they're like, "We're right there. Let's just push it the rest of the way."

GLENN: Because they know what I have been saying is true.

PAT: The pendulum. Pendulum.

GLENN: Yes. And this doesn't last.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: It doesn't last long. It's on the verge of collapse.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: The question is, who is going to be the one holding the reigns when it collapses? Is it going to be the left or is it going to be the right?

PAT: I don't know. But it's horrifying.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

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.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

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.