Bombshell Russian Email: It's ‘Worse Than I Thought’

July 11, 2017

WRITER

An alarming report in The New York Times Monday seems to have been proven true: Donald Trump, Jr. confirmed in email screenshots Tuesday that he met with a Russian attorney in 2016 to gain information that would assist the Trump presidential campaign.

Tuesday on radio, Glenn walked through the whirlwind timeline of the breaking story, analyzing the emails which were tweeted from Donald Trump, Jr.’s verified Twitter account.

“This is, I believe, worse than what I thought,” Glenn said.

In the email, publicist Rob Goldstone promised to connect the Trumps with a Russian attorney, specifically because the Russian government wanted to influence the 2016 election, saying, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

Glenn expressed shock that concrete evidence seems to point to collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Russian hackers infiltrated emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta in efforts to swing the election toward Trump.

“I think a lot of things about the Trumps --- no way were they involved in collusion,” Glenn said incredulously.

He pointed out that the timing was right for the meeting with Russia to take place in June 2016, just a few weeks before Wikileaks released leaked emails from the DNC servers and from Podesta’s email account.

“This is still three weeks before Wikileaks breaks, and Donald Trump acts surprised,” Glenn noted. “We all knew at the time: Wikileaks got their information from the Kremlin.”

Whether the president was aware of this meeting is unclear.

"Let's not implicate anybody else," Glenn said. "All we know is that Donald Trump Jr. knew that there was collusion. He was part of the collusion."

To see more from Glenn, visit his channel on TheBlaze and watch “The Glenn Beck Radio Program” live weekdays 9 a.m.–noon ET or anytime on-demand at TheBlaze TV.

GLENN: So let me go through this with you. This morning, two hours ago, we were talking about a hypothetical, something that the New York Times and CNN said that they had seen. And we added the caveat, if it says that, you know, they are -- they have information and he knows that it's from the Russian government, then there's a problem.

PAT: But we didn't trust the New York Times or CNN.

GLENN: We didn't trust them. This is, I believe, worse than what I thought.

Here is the first email from Rob Goldstone: Good morning, Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting. Now, so you know, Emin is a very good friend of Donald Trump Sr. and is, you know, very, very close with -- with Vladimir Putin.

STU: Worked with him on the Miss Universe thing.

PAT: In Russia.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. He's a Russian citizen. An oligarch. A bad one. Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting. The crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father, Aras, this morning.

And, actually, Aras is the oligarch. Emin is the son.

The crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father, Aras, this morning, and in their meeting, offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information, but it is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump. I never thought -- no way -- you -- you couldn't have --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I think a lot of things about the Trumps. No way were they involved in collusion. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information. But this is part of Russia and its government support of Mr. Trump helped along by Aras and Emin. What do you think the best way to handle this information would be? Will you be able to speak to Emin about it directly? I also can send this information to your father via Rona. But it is ultra sensitive so I wanted to send it to you first.

Thanks, Rob. I appreciate it. I'm on the road for a moment. I could just speak to Emin first. Seems like we have some time. And if it's what you say, I love it, especially late in the summer.

Meaning, coordination.

Could we do a call first thing next week when I'm back?

Yes. Don, let me know when you're free to talk with Emin by phone about this Hillary information. You had mentioned earlier this week, so I tried to schedule time and best day to you and your family. Rob.

Holy cow. That is -- there's your smoking gun. It's not just -- isn't it?

STU: I mean, first of all, again, like the -- you have to say that the New York Times report was accurate. I mean, this is exactly what they said was in it.

GLENN: This was released by Donald Trump Jr.

STU: Yes. So we know 100 percent it comes from Trump. So we know that that's accurate. I mean, you know, look, I think you can still make the argument that, hey, he got the tip from some guy he knows. Didn't think about it from a foreign -- you know, it says right in there. Was excited to get information to beat up his opponent.

GLENN: No, no. But he was coordinating -- listen -- listen, there's no way -- I mean, Stu, help me. Please, convince me. Convince me.

STU: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Crown prosecutor of Russia. So that's not the girl he's going to meet with. He's saying the crown prosecutor of Russia.

STU: I thought that is the -- I thought that is who they're referring to when they say --

PAT: The female lawyer? I don't know. Because they refer to the lawyer as him in that email, right?

GLENN: Yes. Yeah. So I don't think it's the same.

PAT: So it can't be the same person. It's not the same person.

GLENN: What he's saying here is the crown prosecutor of Russia. So that's like the attorney general of Russia.

STU: Right, okay.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: The attorney general of Russia --

STU: Met with his father.

GLENN: Met with Emin's father, the good friend of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

STU: Right.

GLENN: They met this morning about whatever we don't know. And in the meeting, he offered to provide the Trump campaign -- so now, here is the attorney general going to an oligarch, saying, "Hey, you're friends with Donald Trump, right?"

Yeah.

"I want you to pass on to them that we have information at a very high level that we want to pass to them." We have official documents and information that will incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia. It will be very useful for them.

So then the father asks Emin to call Goldstone, who knows Donald Trump Jr., and say, "Hey, can we get this? By the way, Aras is going to fax this through Rhonda, just to get it to your dad. But it's very high level, and I wanted to talk to somebody and let them know that it was coming."

He then says: It's very high level. Sensitive information. But it is part -- it is part of Russia and its government support for Mr. Trump, helped along by Aras and Emin.

So, in other words, somebody -- I don't even want to jump there.

We know that a good friend, an oligarch of Donald Trump has been helping the government along to support Donald Trump.

I'll send this information to your father. I will send this information to your father via Rona.

PAT: I mean --

GLENN: I mean, this is --

PAT: It's going to be a nightmare.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: The Democrats are going to --

GLENN: It's over.

PAT: They're going --

GLENN: How do you not go with this?

STU: Well, look, I think you can make an argument that it's not as bad as it feels. However, I would say -- well, because, I mean, like, look, Donald Trump Jr., he's not even --

GLENN: I will send information to your father via Rona.

STU: But he didn't, right? As far as we know at least this point. (chuckling) It went to him instead. But, of course, he's going to tell his dad about it. Right? Although he said he didn't --

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: No, no. He already said he didn't tell his dad. His dad didn't know. So don't even worry about that.

STU: I guess my point would be you -- you can argue that it wasn't -- it wasn't -- I don't know. Like, to me, I would never take a meeting with a government official, even if it was trying to sink an opponent. I -- so I can't -- I don't understand why you would do that.

But, you know what, look, remember, this is not only people who have dealt in these circles for a while and do anything to win, as they say, as they pointed out a million times. They were also, at the time, pretty desperate, if you remember right. So maybe did they bend this line and take this meeting? I think the answer to that is yes.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Yes, they did. Wait. Wait.

STU: However --

GLENN: Let's look at this. This is still three weeks before WikiLeaks breaks.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And Donald Trump acts surprised. We all knew at the time WikiLeaks got their information from the Kremlin.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: This is Russia feeding this and leaking this. So we know now that Russia was hacking in to the DNC servers. Was gathering sensitive information. And then -- this is treason. We've got a guy on the other side, in Russia, that released information, and we say it's treason. If he comes back, he'll be tried for treason. What's-his-face?

PAT: Yeah, Snowden.

GLENN: Snowden. That's treason when he's done that to us.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: So here's Russia doing to it (sic). Now, they can't be treasonous because they're not Americans. That -- they released -- they hacked, they got in, they stole the information, and then released it to the world. And Donald Trump was acting like it was a surprise and like, oh, please, Russia. Go ahead. Release the rest.

PAT: Glenn, when you put it like that, sure it sounds bad.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: I mean, do you have to put it like that? No, you don't. You could put it some other way.

STU: You could put it another way.

GLENN: I can guarantee you -- I can guarantee you everyone else will be -- no.

PAT: All the Democrats are going to put it a lot worse than that. A lot worse than that.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, no. But the Republicans are also going to -- we are witnessing, Pat, what you and I remember in the 1970s with our dads.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I remember my dad defending Nixon --

PAT: Turning into a crook and how --

GLENN: Yeah. And it was only at the very end --

PAT: Yeah. Supported him nonstop until all the evidence came out.

GLENN: Supported him -- right. Until -- right.

PAT: And then they hated him.

JEFFY: Yep.

GLENN: Tell me how you get -- tell me how you have a family that doesn't tell the president that, "Yes, Dad, the Russians were colluding with us."

PAT: There's almost no way he doesn't know. There's almost no way.

GLENN: Right.

STU: And I think you could still make an argument, look, you're trying to find information against your -- you know, to help your dad. And you take a meeting that maybe you shouldn't have taken. And -- but, you know, nothing really came of it. So you kind of blew it off in your head. You can make that argument. It's a stretch at some level, I grant you. And I don't necessarily believe it. But I think you can make that case.

It's very difficult to understand how after you've won the presidency and you're in the middle of an investigation on this topic, how this could not have been disclosed until last week.

GLENN: Right. And beyond that, how this could be disclosed last -- in the last couple of weeks, that this even happened. And before that -- and even after that, your father, the president of the United States is saying, there was no collusion.

I mean, you know, honestly, let's say that Hillary Clinton really didn't know that her husband was fooling around. We all think that she did.

But once she found out, don't you say, you son of a bitch, you did this to me?

Let's just put yourself in this situation. You're the president of the United States. Your son is exchanging emails like this. And then he leaves with your son-in-law and your campaign manager, and they start to write speeches about this kind of information.

You start tweeting stuff. And you really don't know. And then you win. Okay.

Then it starts to be investigated and you have me go out in front of everybody going, there is no collusion. I'm telling you, there's no collusion. We never did that. We didn't talk to anybody from Russia. There was never any coordination of anything.

In fact, I believe them so much, I'm telling you, our CIA and our NSA is wrong. And they'll never find anything because there wasn't anything there. And they didn't not only collude with us, they're not even trying to hack into our systems and try to affect our elections. And that's why I'm suggesting we partner up with Russia and we share cyber security together.

Then you read today and you really are innocent, you had nothing to do with it -- you're president of the United States. Do you not go in and say, "Son, excuse me, but you son of a bitch. What the hell were you thinking? You let me spend the last nine months, eight months telling the American people -- I just met with Putin, and you knew that he was colluding with you. And I suggested cyber security partnership, when they were the ones that hacked into the DNC. And you knew it."

Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: This -- this is very, very close to treason.

PAT: Well...

STU: You could look at it from the Trump perspective -- from the Donald Trump Sr. perspective, if you want to look at this as we know it right now, we don't have evidence that Donald even knew about this meeting, right? We know that Kushner -- but Kushner left two minutes into it, reportedly. And Manafort didn't say anything in the meeting.

GLENN: We do know -- we do know -- Rob Goldstone said, I can send this information to your father via Rona.

STU: We don't know that that happened. He just suggested it as a possibility.

GLENN: We don't know if that happened, but...

STU: But, again, like, for example, Kellyanne Conway was out on the air a few weeks ago or maybe a few months ago saying no meetings happened from anyone in the campaign with anyone from Russia. That is absolutely false. It never happened. You guys just keep saying fake news and saying it happened.

GLENN: When did she say this?

STU: It was on --

GLENN: Was this the weekend?

STU: So, no, they brought her back on this weekend and said, "Hey, wait a minute. Actually, there were meetings, weren't there?" And she said, "Well, it looks like those disclosure forms have been updated." So, yes --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: But imagine taking -- sending your own people out, knowing that information.

GLENN: Yeah, no. Very bad.

STU: And telling them to deny it.

PAT: It's unbelievable. It's unbelievable.

GLENN: Donald Trump Jr., by himself -- let's not implicate anybody else. All we know is that Donald Trump Jr. knew that there was collusion. He was part of the collusion. Very bad. Very bad. And should go to jail.

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.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

Bombshell Russian Email: It's ‘Worse Than I Thought’

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

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

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

One‑sided freedom

Censored belief

Faith on trial

The real test

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

What our response to Israel reveals about us

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

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.

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

But that’s not what we hear.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

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

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.

Moral erosion

The buck stops with us