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

Fundamental Transformation: Obama trying to change the definition of “individualism”

June 11, 2015
Wilson

Writer

Ladies and gentlemen, here we go again. Barack Obama promised his presidency would fundamentally transform the United States of America, and it sounds like he won’t stop until they are literally rewriting the dictionary. In a recent speech, President Obama redefined the American concept of “rugged individualism” - and it no longer involves “rugged” or “individualism”.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

GLENN: So the president has come out with a fascinating new definition -- because that's really what we're into now, new definitions. We've redefined brave. We've redefined hate. We've redefined love. Let's we define -- because we have to change our words and our meanings. Let's redefine rugged individualism.

OBAMA: The rugged individualism --

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Before we go on, I just have to ask everybody here. Rugged individualism. How would you define that Jeff Fisher?

JEFFY: Strong by yourself.

PAT: The ability to take care of oneself, right? Come what may, you're independent. I'm going to make my own way. I'm going to make sure that whatever happens to me and mine, I'm going to take care of it.

JEFFY: And I don't need you.

PAT: I don't need you.

STU: This is the definition of individualism. The habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant. Now, rugged to me in this particular context would indicate that it's not always going to be easy. It might be bumpy. It might be hard. It might be tough to get through it. But you do it anyway because you believe in self-reliance so much.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: You're tough. You're tough. Nothing will stop you from being self-reliant.

PAT: It certainly doesn't mean I'm depending on the government.

STU: No.

GLENN: Well, who would say that?

STU: Let me give you definition number two before you figure that out: A social theory -- this is for individualism -- a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control. That is the actual definition of the word.

GLENN: Okay. All right. So we got it. Rugged. Come hell or high water. Individualism, I am going to fend for myself and I'm going to make it. Rugged individualism. Here's the president's definition.

OBAMA: The rugged individualism that defines America has always been bound by a shared set of values.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop. I just want to say -- it's defined by a shared set of values. So we're already into the collective. It's defined by a shared --

PAT: Yeah, you're sharing it with everybody. My individualism is shared with everybody. My individualism is so collective that we all have it.

[laughter]

GLENN: I'm so independent that I'm tied to you in the same definition.

PAT: Yes.

OBAMA: That we're in this together.

PAT: We're in it together. Forget individualism. We're in it together.

GLENN: My individualism is a shared definition that we're all in it together.

[laughter]

OBAMA: That America is not a place where we simply turn away from the sick.

GLENN: Stop. Now, notice what he's done.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: We're all in it together. Our rugged -- I'm going to redefine some words and some theories here for you, kiddoes. I'm going to take and I'm going to turn it upside down. But then once I do that, before you can say that doesn't make any sense, I'm going to throw in something that we all do share, we don't let people starve. We don't let people die on the street.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And if you want to define rugged individualism any other way, that means you'll let them die on the street.

PAT: That's what this guy does.

GLENN: That's what he's doing.

PAT: That's what he does all the time.

GLENN: That's how he makes you into someone who must be hated because he's redefining words. We all know that -- Webster, not the little black guy, the dictionary says -- Webster says rugged individualism is a determination to be able to make it on your own. Come hell or high water, you will make it on your own.

STU: Without anyone's help.

GLENN: Without anybody's help. That's the definition of that. He's changing the definition. And to be able to call you a bigot or a hater that just wants to have people die, he has to redefine the words "rugged individualism."

So when you say, wait a minute. No, I'm a Libertarian and I believe we can all make it. He then can go, well, see we -- we once had this shared idea that we don't let people starve in the street. Wait a minute. Hang on just a second. We were talking about what it means to be a rugged individual. It didn't mean I didn't help the person on the street who was dying, who maybe got their hand cut off by, oh, I don't know one of the new Islamic, you know, terrorists that you have working at the Department of Homeland Security. I don't know. Maybe that's what happened.

PAT: Rugged individualism has nothing to do with anybody starve to death. It has nothing to do with being poor. It has nothing to do --

GLENN: With the collective.

PAT: Any of this crap he's talking about.

GLENN: Right. It has nothing to do with the collective. It's who you are and how you make it. It doesn't mean that you make it at anybody else's expense. You're making it because you won't take a handout from anybody else. You don't need it. You will make it. It will make you stronger. You see somebody along the way that needs help. My Christianity, which I know he doesn't like, my Christianity tells me I have to help. My rugged individualism says, I don't need help. I'm going to do it. And I'm going to make it. And don't spend your time worrying about me. You worry about you.

Then when I get to somebody on the side of the street, my Christianity says, I got to help that person.

PAT: Yeah. It doesn't say I have to pay more taxes so the government can help that person. It says I have to.

STU: Individually.

PAT: Again, individually. So it's not conflicting with your rugged individualism.

GLENN: Correct.

PAT: Everything he's saying conflicts with the definition he's supposedly defining.

GLENN: I --

PAT: I mean, this is madness. This is --

GLENN: I'd like to raise my hand. I'd like to raise my hand. Enough is enough. Enough is enough. I just can't go there anymore. I raise my hand to say enough of the insanity.

PAT: How is it that somebody in this audience doesn't raise their hand and say, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. You don't have any clothes on right now. You have no clothes.

GLENN: He wasn't wearing clothes?

PAT: No, he wasn't. He was completely naked.

GLENN: Wow. For a minute I thought you were referring to that fairytale, the emperor has no clothes, but he's --

PAT: No, I was really -- it wasn't a metaphor. He was actually naked. He was actually naked.

GLENN: He was actually naked. Wow. Okay.

PAT: It was weird. I don't know why he did that.

GLENN: But there's more.

OBAMA: Turn our backs on the tired. The poor. The huddled masses.

It is a place sustained by the idea, I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper. That we have an obligation to put --

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop. That's not what sustains us. That's not what sustains us. I am my brother's keeper? All we would be is a hospital. That's all we would be.

PAT: And a broke one.

GLENN: And a broke one. No. It requires people to go out and create something.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: That's what sustains us. What lifts us up and makes us a great nation is we also help people and love people. My gosh this guy doesn't get it. He's -- honestly, he has a third grade understanding of the United States of America.

PAT: I don't give him that much credit.

GLENN: In today's world. Today's third grade.

OBAMA: And see each other's common humanity.

GLENN: Still defining rugged individualism.

OBAMA: After decades of trying, after a year of sustained debate, we finally made health care reform a reality here in America.

PAT: All about health care. Rugged individualism is about socialized health care.

STU: Again, I give you a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control. It's actually in the --

GLENN: It's actually the exact opposite of the dictionary definition.

STU: Uh-huh. And there we are. As Jeffy said so many times, whatever they say, you should believe the opposite.

JEFFY: Because the opposite is true.

STU: And here it is.

GLENN: That is absolutely unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

PAT: I don't -- I really -- I mean, I know he does this all the time. How does he get away with it? There's nobody that's curious about --

GLENN: Okay. All right. So when you -- there's two things that have happened to our country. One, you teach people to -- you can't make a difference. Don't say anything. Don't cause a hassle. Just -- just leave it alone. It will pass. Okay? So there's the first reason why we don't say anything. Just don't -- we're not -- we're not those people. We never have been. We just all want to get along. Okay? So we have backed up and backed up and backed up. And we have been taught to back up. Then comes the second lesson. You better shut up or we'll destroy you. Now, there is a third lesson to this. And that is, I'm going to beat you nearly to death and the fourth lesson is, I'm going to beat you to death. But the first two lessons are, you don't make a difference. It's better just to leave it alone. Just be quiet. That one has been taught my whole life. The second lesson has just started in the last ten years. And that is, shut up, or I'll destroy you. The third lesson is coming soon. Shut up or I will beat you within an inch of your life. And all you have to do is beat a few people. So we don't say anything because we're like -- have you ever been around a dog that has been abused? You are around a dog who's been abused, you reach out to pet that dog, and they turn away. They put their head down. They see that hand coming, and they think they're going to get hit. We're close to being that dog. We're not there yet. But we're close to being that dog.

Many Americans are that dog. We've never been hit. Think we're cowards now? We've never been hit. You have people now who are being put in jail because they were a baker who wouldn't make -- in jail! Not a fine. Jail. You do that, and enough people will say, you know what, I don't want this hassle. I'm just going to go on with my life. I just want to be left alone. We cannot be those people. We cannot be those people. You know, Martin Luther King, by the time he got to -- the entire black population was like that dog who had been abused. They had been abused for 300 years. So every time they saw a white person come, and they, still, many places they still flinch, you're white, they flinch. That's how deep the abuse went. You can't claim anything close to that abuse.

We're just getting to the point to where we're being told, you don't make a difference, and shut up and sit down or I'll destroy you. But look at what happened. When Martin Luther King taught them, no, no, no. Stop arguing. Stop fighting with each other. Start standing together. Start being who you really are. You're good, decent, honorable people that just want a fair shake. You're not trying to hurt anybody else. You're not trying to put the whites out of business. You're not trying to kill them. You're trying to just be a neighbor. That's all you're trying to be, is just be a neighbor. Hey, neighbor. Hey, neighbor. That's it. How unreasonable is that? Stand together and don't flinch. If they hit you, don't hit back. And look what he changed.

We don't have that ground to make up. Only a few people have been imprisoned or thrown in jail, like the baker. We have not had -- we don't have most of our society being thrown in jail. We have not received 300 years of abuses.

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.