The horror at Beslan should be an eternal reminder of the evil power of corrupted minds

KAZBEK BASAYEV/AFP/Getty Images

It was Sept. 1st, the "Day of Knowledge", a national holiday, at School Number One in Beslan, Russia. It was a moderately cloudy day, with the darker parts hanging low over the town.

A town of just over 36,000, and there were nearly 900 students in the school, 1st through 11th grades.

Parents had gathered to accompany their children for the first day of school. The children carried elaborate bouquets of roses as they walked along in a procession. The festivity was charming, uplifting, joyful. The children were dressed in fanciful outfits. The girls wore red scarves and black-and-white dresses. The parents waved tiny flags and sang traditional songs.

RELATED: MEDIA MALPRACTICE: Key details about New Mexico terrorist camp omitted across the board

Meanwhile, 30 men and two women hid in the woods outside Beslan, 30 miles from Chechnya. Islamic militants, mostly Chechen. They had murder in them, and something darker, an unbridled malevolence.

At 9:20 AM, as the parents finished the celebratory songs and entered the building, the terrorists guided a large truck, full of guns and grenades and bombs, toward the school.

One group of terrorists herded shrieking children and parents into the front entrance, and killed two school security guards, the first victims of the attack. The first of many victims. A second group of terrorists flanked the backside of the school and rounded up parents and children, shoving them through the wooden plank doors and along a recently-cleaned hallway. The terrorist fired their guns in all directions, a red madness to their eyes, a deathly insanity, like drugged tyrants enamored of their power.

"We came here to die," they told the children, "and you will die with us."

Most of the older children had escaped when the terrorists arrived, so the hostages were mostly parents and young children, unable to run away. Imagine the children who had never been to school in their lives before that day. They must've wondered: Is this what school is? Why would we celebrate something as awful as this? And where are they taking us? And what will happen next? Are we going to die? Are we going to die?

The male terrorists wore green camouflage balaclavas, the women wore black hijabs, holes for their eyes, the searing black emptiness of their eyes, flared with something red, something deep and unhinged. Their faces were covered, but their cowardice was apparent.

Terrorist snipers took position in the school, and, as word spread through the town and armed citizens and police plotted storming the building, they fired at anyone who approached.

The terrorist swung their AK-47s at people to herd the parents and children into the gymnasium, where everyone crowded together, climbing over one another. It was unbearably hot, and within hours many of the children grew dizzy. The terrorists wired a grid of makeshift bombs around the gymnasium. Improvised explosives dangled above the huddled hostages, makeshift bombs slung together from basketball hoops like string lights. The explosives were rigged to a pedal on the floor, which one of the terrorists clamped down with his foot. The message was clear: If he lifted his foot, the bombs would explode, and people would die.

As a crowd formed outside, the terrorists began fortifying the school. They pulled all of the men from the gymnasium, and as one man tried to reassure everyone, the terrorists shot him in the back of the head. They yanked the man down along the hallway, and staged one man in front of every window, like decoys, like mannequins, like targets.

And each man was told to rip the doors from their hinges and shove them against the windows as barricades, shields. The terrorists warned that, if any of the barricades broke, the man who built it would be shot. The terrorists shot a few of the men anyway, after they'd built the barricades, of course.

The terrorists released a demand: "If anyone of us is killed, we'll shoot 50 people. If anyone of us is wounded, we'll kill 20 people. If 5 of us are killed, we'll blow up everything. If the light or communications are cut off for a minute, we'll shoot 10 people."

The two female terrorists were unaware that the target would be a school. They were uncomfortable with holding children as hostages. Both had suicide vests strapped to their waists. One day in, the belts exploded. It's unclear if the women had had enough and killed themselves, or if their male counterparts had grown sick of the women's dissent and murdered them. Parts of the women's bodies liquified throughout the gym. One of their heads rolled around next to a group of screaming children.

Starved and thirsty, cramped into the airless gym, the children ate the flowers they'd brought as part of the holiday, sharing so that everyone had something to eat. The terrorists wouldn't allow them to leave to use the bathroom.

Over the course of three days in September the 1,110 hostages remained cramped in the building.

Over the course of three days in September the 1,110 hostages remained cramped in the building.

At 1:06 PM on the third day, an explosion shook the ground. The townspeople gathered outside recoiled in fear, many broke into tears. An eerie pause hung over them. Some of the hostages had escaped, sobbing and blood-soaked and delirious.

Inside the gymnasium, the explosion had scattered the hostages against the walls, flung them onto bodies. Most of the survivors described the blast as subsuming them with enormous heat which overtook the air, an endlessly gasping heat. A gun battle erupted between the terrorists and the Russian special forces who were moving in on the building. Some of the townspeople had joined the military, firing their machine guns in shorts and flip-flops.

It was difficult for parents or family to tell who was who. In the smoke and ash, dehydrated and gaunt, stripped to their underwear because of the unbearable heat of the gymnasium, all the children looked the same.

The terrorists herded the survivors who hadn't escaped into the cafeteria, and used the women and children as human shields, firing at Russian troops from behind them, as the women and children screamed, "Don't shoot me, don't shoot me."

Another explosion in the gymnasium. A fire ravaged through the building. The firefight lasted 10 hours.

People drove wounded children in their cars because there weren't enough ambulances. Bodies lined the grass outside, only some covered by blankets. Tiny faces disfigured yet peaceful. In total, 330 people died. 18 Russian soldiers. 186 children. 200 had burns, 100 of them were burned alive.

Today, the building is a ghost of a building, derelict and gutted. A reminder that corrupted minds and poisonous ideas can lash into the real world in the worst imaginable ways.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison) 

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Kamala Harris' first interview as nominee: Three SHOCKING policy flips

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Thursday, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since Joe Biden stepped down from the race, and it quickly becameclear why she waited so long.

Harris struggled to keep her story straight as CNN's Dana Bash questioned her about recent comments she had made that contradicted her previous policy statements. She kept on repeating that her "values haven't changed," but it is difficult to see how that can be true alongside her radical shift in policy. Either her values have changed or she is lying about her change in policy to win votes. You decide which seems more likely.

During the interview, Harris doubled down on her policy flip on fracking, the border, and even her use of the race card. Here are her top three flip-flops from the interview:

Fracking

Citizens of the Planet / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, during the 2020 presidential election, Harris pledged her full support behind a federal ban on fracking during a town hall event. But, during the DNC and again in this recent interview, Harris insisted that she is now opposed to the idea. The idea of banning fracking has been floated for a while now due to environmental concerns surrounding the controversial oil drilling method. Bans on fracking are opposed by many conservatives as it would greatly limit the production of oil in America, thus driving up gas prices across the nation. It seems Harris took this stance to win over moderates and to keep gas prices down, but who knows how she will behave once in office?

Border

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

In her 2020 presidential bid, Harris was all for decriminalizing the border, but now she is singing a different tune. Harris claimed she is determined to secure the border—as if like she had always been a stalwart defender of the southern states. Despite this policy reversal, Harris claimed her values have not changed, which is hard to reconcile. The interviewer even offered Kamala a graceful out by suggesting she had learned more about the situation during her VP tenure, but Kamala insisted she had not changed.

Race

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

When asked to respond to Trump's comments regarding the sudden emergence of Kamala's black ancestry Kamala simply answered "Same old tired playbook, next question" instead of jumping on the opportunity to play the race card as one might expect. While skipping the critical race theory lecture was refreshing, it came as a shock coming from the candidate representing the "everything is racist" party. Was this just a way to deflect the question back on Trump, or have the Democrats decided the race card isn't working anymore?

The REAL questions that CNN should ask Kamala tonight

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Democrats don't want the American people to know who they are voting for. It has been well over a month since Biden dropped out of the presidential race and Kamala was hastily installed in his place. During that time, Kamala has not given a single interview.

The Democrats' intention is clear: they have spent the last month gaslighting the American left into believing that Kamala is their new "super-candidate." Now that they've taken the bait, they can allow Kamala to take a softball interview to combat accusations from the Right.

Kamala's first interview will be hosted by Dana Bash on CNN and is scheduled for 9:00 p.m. ET tonight. Kamala will be joined by her running mate, Tim Walz, for an unusual interview. Between the tag-team approach and the more-than-sympathetic interviewer, it's almost certain that this will not be a particularly substantial interview full of easy, soft-ball, questions.

The American people deserve to know who is on the ballot, and that means that they should be able to see how their candidates stand up against tough questions. Here are five questions that CNN should ask Kamala tonight:

Will she build a border wall?

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

After years of bashing Trump for his proposed border wall, Kamala has suddenly changed her mind. During the DNC, Kamala pledged to support a bill that included money for a border wall and other border security measures. This change seems like a knee-jerk response to recent criticisms made about her abysmal performance as the "border czar." The question is: how genuine is it?

What is her stance on the Israel-Hamas war?

BASHAR TALEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Kamala has been mushy on the issue of the Israel-Hamas war so far. She said that she would support Israel while simultaneously expressing sympathy for the Palestinians in Gaza. With mounting pro-Hamas support within the American left, just how far is Kamala willing to go?

How does she explain defending Biden against allegations that he was too old for office now that those allegations have proven true?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

For the last four years, Kamala and the entire mainstream media have vehemently defended President Biden's mental fitness, despite countless incidents that indicated otherwise. After Biden's senile performance at the June presidential debate, the truth couldn't be hidden any longer, and Kamala was quickly swapped into his place. Now that the cat's out of the bag, how does Kamala justify her lies to protect the incompetent president?

How does she plan on fixing the economy, and why hasn't she already done it?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Kamala has claimed that she could lower consumer prices starting on the first day of her administration, accompanied by other promises to fix the economy. So why the wait? If she knows how to fix the economy that is causing so many Americans to suffer, can't she do something right now as the Vice President? Why has the economy only gotten worse within her three-year tenure in the White House?

Why does she keep flipping on her policies? Where does it stop?

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

As mentioned above, Kamala has already changed her stance on a border wall, but it doesn't end there. During her 2019 presidential campaign, Kamala vowed to end fracking, a controversial method of drilling for oil, in the name of climate change. But now it seems her position has softened, with no mention of a fracking ban. Why does she keep changing her stance on these major policies? What other policies has she changed without any indication? Why has she so far failed to produce a clear campaign platform?