Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn’s interview with David Barton

October 04, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Today on radio Glenn talked a little about the debate with David but also about what David calls his ‘most important’ project yet: The Founders Bible. David calls it the Bible that built America - check out the conversation in the clip above.

Full Transcript of story below:

GLENN: Let's go to David Barton. David, where were you? Where were you? Really, it was a night we'll all remember where we were when we saw Obama questioned and taken down for the first time. Where are you last night?

DAVID BARTON: Well, actually excuse me. Last night I was actually flying in from Columbus, Ohio at the time. So I got the replays. I didn't get the live.

GLENN: It was it was amazing. Romney was such a man of honor and clarity.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: There was just no I mean, it was remarkable, I thought.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah. And everything I saw after I landed was exactly that. It was the calmness and it was the competency and the proficiency and, you know, I'm sorry. What you just did with Gore in Denver is great. I've got to say if that were true from a scientific standpoint, the Broncos would be undefeated, the Rockies would be undefeated, and the Nuggets would be undefeated because every team comes into town to play those guys and that would mean none of them could win. So that may be the most ridiculous story I've ever heard, ever.

GLENN: You're a historian, I'm not, but I think you should check on that before you make that bold claim.

DAVID BARTON: I'm sure Patrick Henry had something to say on that because he talked about a lot of stuff but I tell you that's one of the best concessions of defeat I've heard in a long time. That's amazing.

GLENN: David, what do you think, for somebody because there's a lot of Americans that are not on the Romney bandwagon.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: And I think a lot of Americans were like, we've got to lose a candidate or we have this and we have that and, you know, he's not going to be able to fight in the debate. This is the debate that everyone was afraid of.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: This was the RomneyCare debate and I mean, look. He just stomped.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: What do you think is going to happen now with people on our side? Do you think this energizes them and all of a sudden they find themselves going, "I am I am anxious to vote for this guy?"

DAVID BARTON: I think that there's going to be some energy added to the fire, but I think a whole lot of energy is created by Obama himself and by really the crisis in which he's placed on the nation. I don't think there's anyone that doesn't know all the different areas that he is so screwed up, religious liberties are at stake and, you know, that was one of the things that was hit last night was life and religious liberties. I don't think there's many people don't understand that and don't understand the economic side. I think this is going to give some people some more comfort in going forward and say, "Hey, this may be a whole lot better option than what I thought." But the energy level is still high.

GLENN: Anything, anything that you saw that stuck out at you?

DAVID BARTON: Yeah. You know, what I saw was the calmness and the not being shook. The competency. He really acted like a chief executive. He handled all the stuff. He really made a contrast. And there was times when you could see the president visibly shaken.

GLENN: Yeah.

DAVID BARTON: Just, his confidence was gone. And I think that that's the image you want. I mean, I go back to what Ann Romney did. I think one of the most significant parts of what she did at the convention actually was giggling. And I say that because we've always thought of the Romneys as ivory tower, way up there hifalutin New England people and she suddenly became just like a cheerleader, just like the girl next door and it was a really cool effect. I think that's the same kind of psychological effect that it had last night. People are really comfortable with his confidence and, wow, you know, he didn't struggle. He really made the president struggle. And I think that that's part of the takeaway is that they get a confidence, a feel of confidence in what he did last night.

GLENN: I don't know if any I don't know if they've posted it yet up on TheBlaze but I tweeted a picture out today of the Romneys making peanut butter/jelly sandwiches backstage.

DAVID BARTON: I love it. Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, they're real people.

DAVID BARTON: They are. And see, that's not the image that's come through.

GLENN: Oh, I know.

DAVID BARTON: And so all the benevolence he's done and all the stories we're finding out about him, that just changes the whole image of what we've all thought about him for the last four years.

GLENN: So David, let me switch gears. I tweeted last night after it was all said and done to remember to fall down on your knees in thanksgiving.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, I prayed yesterday like never before that the scales would fall from people's eyes, that you'd be able to see who he was.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: And who Obama was. And I mean, I you know, I think this was just, you know I believe in divine providence and divine protection.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: And I think we saw that last night, and we have to give thanks.

Let me let me switch gears here a little bit and talk about your Founders Bible. Because you said to me last week when we spoke off air about the Founders Bible. You said this is probably the most important thing you've ever done.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah. No question in my mind. I think the best way I've heard it described is if you go back historically, the Geneva Bible is the Bible that built America, shaped a generation because it took the Bible but it made it very practical through commentaries.

GLENN: Explain. Explain what the Geneva Bible is. That's the Bible that our founders used. It wasn't the King James Version. They used the Geneva Bible. What was the difference?

DAVID BARTON: The Geneva Bible is what came out of the reformation and it was people saying, wait a minute, I know we've done it this way for 1400 years but look what the scripture says. This is wrong. We're not supposed to be electing kings. We're supposed to be electing leaders ourselves. So that's where we get Republican government. That's why we found out that we should be buying land from the Indians rather than taking it from the Indians.

GLENN: And it was it was the commentary on the side.

DAVID BARTON: It was the commentaries that did it and that's what drove King James crazy. That's why he came out with the King James Bible. It was essentially the same language but he would not allow commentaries in the Bible. And so the commentaries is what was used to build our judicial system, our legal system, our government system, our education system, our economic system. And so the same commentaries the founders made 250 years ago, that's what we've taken to the Founders Bible.

GLENN: Okay. Now, explain this a bit when you say you've taken it from the commentaries. Because you and I have had this conversation that the language of our founders is so riddled with biblical verse that most people don't even know. If you don't know the Bible inside and out, you don't know that that's a quote from the Bible.

DAVID BARTON: That's exactly right.

GLENN: And so you took their writings.

DAVID BARTON: We took the writings. For 25 years we've been collecting their documents and writings. We have 100,000 of their writings. And what we found is they are loaded up with Bible references and Bible verses. And we've been collecting that. And then last year a Bible publisher came and said, "Hey, let's do a commentary on the Bible." And I thought, hey, this is a great time to let the Founders comment on the Bible. And for example, three times John Adams cites Jeremiah 17:9 as why they did separation of powers in the Constitution. Now, I don't think anybody today would choose that verse that they were doing separation of powers, but there's a reason they did that. The same with economic system.

GLENN: Wait, wait. Let's pretend that John Jeremiah, the one you quoted.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah, Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is desperately wicked. Who can know it." And from that they get, you know, that's the depravity of man. Man's going to do the wrong time every time he gets a chance unless there's some type of divine intervention to change his heart and so if that's the case, we better figure on government doing the wrong thing every time. So we need to divide the powers up so that maybe one branch will be righteous while the other two are wicked and maybe there's a way for one to check the others. And so they go into extensive, extensive presentation of why that verse is what drives their idea of separating the powers. And George Washington jumps on that, as does Alexander Hamilton and James Madison and others. So that becomes a very significant verse in shaping their thinking on why do separation of powers.

GLENN: What is the what is the thing as you were putting this together? What is the one place or one area or topic that you think, "Oh, my gosh, if people just knew this today"?

DAVID BARTON: You know, I don't know that there was one. The one area that got me was how applicable all the stuff is to today. When they started talking about types of taxes that are good and types of taxes that are bad, man, I saw our tax code and said we've really screwed this thing up. When I saw what they said about how to help the poor and social programs, I looked and said, man, we've really goofed this thing up. And what was profound most to me was how relevant all of that stuff 250 years ago was to exactly the stuff we're facing today. And quite frankly I may have been most shocked over all the things they had to say about abortion. Because I just didn't realize it was an issue back then. And all of the biblical references on why abortion is wrong, and I

GLENN: How did they wait. How was there abortion? I didn't know that, either.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah, I actually have an 1808 book on abortions in America. Jefferson and the other guys, and their legal codes made abortion illegal because they said it's a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's god. There's nothing in nature that kills its young while still in the womb. And as it turns out abortion was a big issue back then. But the difference was they said it's illegal as opposed to Roe V. Wade saying it's legal. So that's the kind of stuff that shocked me

GLENN: I've never

DAVID BARTON: was how applicable it was to what's going on today.

GLENN: Wow, had absolutely no idea.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: David, the you came under an awful lot attack, huge attack like I've never seen before. I talked to a preacher the other day and I said, have you read David's Bible yet? And he said, I just got a copy of it. And I said, you know, I just thumbed through it and just, you know, start reading some of the stuff in it. It's remarkable.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: He said, I think this Bible is the reason David came under attack. He said, I think that you know, I think this is so important that that's why people tried to discredit you. Not saying that they knew that. But that's why you are you've been just ravaged in the last year.

DAVID BARTON: Well, I really think that this is a new Geneva Bible. This is what will shape this generation or can shape this generation's thinking, and this will last for generations to come because it's timeless truth, of guys that did it 250 years ago. And I do think that that's probably why all of the attacks came is to try to minimize this and discredit this and bring this down before it even happened. And I didn't realize that at the time and I don't think the guys making the attacks realized that at the time, but I think, you know, in a way that both God and Satan had debates back over Job, I think that's probably what was going on at the time was, hey, this is coming out; I've got to do something to knock this down before people start reading it. And I really, I think he's right. I think

GLENN: You and I have been you and I have been ridiculed in the last couple of days because we've talked about divine providence and that, you know, the Lord's will will be done.

DAVID BARTON: Yeah.

GLENN: If we stand, if we stand at guard.

DAVID BARTON: Yep.

GLENN: I thank you for standing guard for so long and thank you for your work. If you want to get this, you can get it at WallBuilders.com. It's the Founders Bible, the original dream of freedom, the Founders Bible. Get it at WallBuilders.com. Do it now. Every American should own a copy of this. David, we'll talk again. Thanks so much.

DAVID BARTON: Thanks, Glenn. Bless you, bro.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Exposed: The radical Left's bloody rampage against America

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

For years, the media warned of right-wing terror. But the bullets, bombs, and body bags are piling up on the left — with support from Democrat leaders and voters.

For decades, the media and federal agencies have warned Americans that the greatest threat to our homeland is the political right — gun-owning veterans, conservative Christians, anyone who ever voted for President Donald Trump. President Joe Biden once declared that white supremacy is “the single most dangerous terrorist threat” in the nation.

Since Trump’s re-election, the rhetoric has only escalated. Outlets like the Washington Post and the Guardian warned that his second term would trigger a wave of far-right violence.

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing.

They were wrong.

The real domestic threat isn’t coming from MAGA grandmas or rifle-toting red-staters. It’s coming from the radical left — the anarchists, the Marxists, the pro-Palestinian militants, and the anti-American agitators who have declared war on law enforcement, elected officials, and civil society.

Willful blindness

On July 4, a group of black-clad terrorists ambushed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Alvarado, Texas. They hurled fireworks at the building, spray-painted graffiti, and then opened fire on responding law enforcement, shooting a local officer in the neck. Journalist Andy Ngo has linked the attackers to an Antifa cell in the Dallas area.

Authorities have so far charged 14 people in the plot and recovered AR-style rifles, body armor, Kevlar vests, helmets, tactical gloves, and radios. According to the Department of Justice, this was a “planned ambush with intent to kill.”

And it wasn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a growing pattern of continuous violent left-wing incidents since December last year.

Monthly attacks

Most notably, in December 2024, 26-year-old Luigi Mangione allegedly gunned down UnitedHealth Group CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan. Mangione reportedly left a manifesto raging against the American health care system and was glorified by some on social media as a kind of modern Robin Hood.

One Emerson College poll found that 41% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 said the murder was “acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.”

The next month, a man carrying Molotov cocktails was arrested near the U.S. Capitol. He allegedly planned to assassinate Trump-appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In February, the “Tesla Takedown” attacks on Tesla vehicles and dealerships started picking up traction.

In March, a self-described “queer scientist” was arrested after allegedly firebombing the Republican Party headquarters in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Graffiti on the burned building read “ICE = KKK.”

In April, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s (D-Pa.) official residence was firebombed on Passover night. The suspect allegedly set the governor’s mansion on fire because of what Shapiro, who is Jewish, “wants to do to the Palestinian people.”

In May, two young Israeli embassy staffers were shot and killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Witnesses said the shooter shouted “Free Palestine” as he was being arrested. The suspect told police he acted “for Gaza” and was reportedly linked to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

In June, an Egyptian national who had entered the U.S. illegally allegedly threw a firebomb at a peaceful pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado. Eight people were hospitalized, and an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor later died from her injuries.

That same month, a pro-Palestinian rioter in New York was arrested for allegedly setting fire to 11 police vehicles. In Los Angeles, anti-ICE rioters smashed cars, set fires, and hurled rocks at law enforcement. House Democrats refused to condemn the violence.

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

In Portland, Oregon, rioters tried to burn down another ICE facility and assaulted police officers before being dispersed with tear gas. Graffiti left behind read: “Kill your masters.”

On July 7, a Michigan man opened fire on a Customs and Border Protection facility in McAllen, Texas, wounding two police officers and an agent. Border agents returned fire, killing the suspect.

Days later in California, ICE officers conducting a raid on an illegal cannabis farm in Ventura County were attacked by left-wing activists. One protester appeared to fire at federal agents.

This is not a series of isolated incidents. It’s a timeline of escalation. Political assassinations, firebombings, arson, ambushes — all carried out in the name of radical leftist ideology.

Democrats are radicalizing

This isn’t just the work of fringe agitators. It’s being enabled — and in many cases encouraged — by elected Democrats.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz routinely calls ICE “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass attempted to block an ICE operation in her city. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu compared ICE agents to a neo-Nazi group. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson referred to them as “secret police terrorizing our communities.”

Apparently, other Democratic lawmakers, according to Axios, are privately troubled by their own base. One unnamed House Democrat admitted that supporters were urging members to escalate further: “Some of them have suggested what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.” Others were demanding blood in the streets to get the media’s attention.

A study from Rutgers University and the National Contagion Research Institute found that 55% of Americans who identify as “left of center” believe that murdering Donald Trump would be at least “somewhat justified.”

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing. They don’t want the chaos to stop. They want to harness it, normalize it, and weaponize it.

The truth is, this isn’t just about ICE. It’s not even about Trump. It’s about whether a republic can survive when one major party decides that our institutions no longer apply.

Truth still matters. Law and order still matter. And if the left refuses to defend them, then we must be the ones who do.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

America's comeback: Trump is crushing crime in the Capitol

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Trump’s DC crackdown is about more than controlling crime — it’s about restoring America’s strength and credibility on the world stage.

Donald Trump on Monday invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control and deploying the National Guard to restore law and order. This move is long overdue.

D.C.’s crime problem has been spiraling for years as local authorities and Democratic leadership have abandoned the nation’s capital to the consequences of their own failed policies. The city’s murder rate is about three times higher than that of Islamabad, Pakistan, and 18 times higher than that of communist-led Havana, Cuba.

When DC is in chaos, it sends a message to the world that America is weak.

Theft, assaults, and carjackings have transformed many of its streets into war zones. D.C. saw a 32% increase in homicides from 2022 to 2023, marking the highest number in two decades and surpassing both New York and Los Angeles. Even if crime rates dropped to 2019 levels, that wouldn’t be good enough.

Local leaders have downplayed the crisis, manipulating crime stats to preserve their image. Felony assault, for example, is no longer considered a “violent crime” in their crime stats. Same with carjacking. But the reality on the streets is different. People in D.C. are living in constant fear.

Trump isn’t waiting for the crime rate to improve on its own. He’s taking action.

Broken windows theory in action

Trump’s takeover of D.C. puts the “broken windows theory” into action — the idea that ignoring minor crimes invites bigger ones. When authorities look the other way on turnstile-jumping or graffiti, they signal that lawbreaking carries no real consequence.

Rudy Giuliani used this approach in the 1990s to clean up New York, cracking down on small offenses before they escalated. Trump is doing the same in the capital, drawing a hard line and declaring enough is enough. Letting crime fester in Washington tells the world that the seat of American power tolerates lawlessness.

What Trump is doing for D.C. isn’t just about law enforcement — it’s about national identity. When D.C. is in chaos, it sends a message to the world that America is weak. The capital city represents the soul of the country. If we can’t even keep our own capital safe, how can we expect anyone to take us seriously?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Reversing the decline

Anyone who has visited D.C. regularly over the past several years has witnessed its rapid decline. Homeless people bathe in the fountains outside Union Station. People are tripping out in Dupont Circle. The left’s negligence is a disgrace, enabling drug use and homelessness to explode on our capital’s streets while depriving these individuals of desperately needed care and help.

Restoring law and order to D.C. is not about politics or scoring points. It’s about doing what’s right for the people. It’s about protecting communities, taking the vulnerable off the streets, and sending the message to both law-abiding and law-breaking citizens alike that the rule of law matters.

D.C. should be a lesson to the rest of America. If we want to take our cities back, we need leadership willing to take bold action. Trump is showing how to do it.

Now, it’s time for other cities to step up and follow his lead. We can restore law and order. We can make our cities something to be proud of again.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.