Save the NRA: The Solid Case Against Grover Norquist

April 25, 2016

Writer

Message From Glenn:

At the beginning of my speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), I mentioned Dr. Zuhdi Jasser was voted onto the Board of the American Conservative Union (ACU) which runs CPAC. This change will help ensure supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood are removed from the ACU. As you know, there is an effort underway at the National Rifle Association (NRA) to do the same thing. I have tremendous respect for Former Army Green Beret officer and Pastor Stu Weber for being man enough to take this on by submitting the original petition to remove Grover Norquist from the Board of the NRA. To change the world, it starts with one person. It's time to vote Grover Norquist off the board of the NRA. Not because I ask you to, but because you read the information below and decide it is the right thing to do. We must stand to defend our institutions. Support the NRA and support the brave men and women — like Stu Weber — who step forward to change the world.

DOWNLOAD THE BALLOT

Important Ballot in NRA Magazines

Current issues of NRA Magazines include two important ballots: one to elect board members and one to recall an association official. Don’t ignore either, but pay particular attention to the latter. Our long-term national security depends on your voting “YES” on this ballot and delivering it before May 1.

Recall of Association Official Ballot — Due Before May 1

Who is the “official” on this important recall ballot? His name is Grover Norquist, and he’s a 15-year Board Member of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Additionally, Mr. Norquist sits on the Board of the American Conservative Union, the nation’s oldest and largest conservative grassroots organization. Mr. Norquist is the founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform and co-founder of the Islamic Free Market Institute.

Why Recall Grover Norquist?

While Mr. Norquist’s efforts on trying to reduce taxes are admirable, his co-founding of the Islamic Free Market Institute and its connections to highly suspect individuals are puzzling at best, very dangerous at worst.

Mr. Norquist has well-documented associations with radical Islamists, including Abdurahman Alamoudi who is serving a 23-year prison term on terrorism charges. Mr. Norquist’s Islamic Institute received two $10,000 contributions in 1999 drawn from the personal bank account of Alamoudi. But that’s only scratching the surface of Mr. Norquist’s connections to radical Islam.

The Center for Security Policy laid out a 101-page document that explicitly details Mr. Norquist’s history with Islamists directly connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.

This document is signed by ten influential national security practitioners, including:

• Bush ’43 Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey

• Clinton Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey

• Former Congressman Allen West

• Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy

• Former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons

• Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Lieutenant General William G. Boykin

• Former Pentagon Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz

Additionally, former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons wrote an open letter published in March 2016 issues of NRA publications urging NRA members to give serious consideration to recalling Mr. Norquist’s Board position.

VOTE “YES” BEFORE MAY 1 TO RECALL GROVER NORQUIST

The Muslim Brotherhood: The Enemy Within

Why wage a bloody jihad on the greatest Western nation when you can slowly destroy it from within, using the shields of religious freedom and political correctness? It’s called “civilization jihad,” and it’s the secretly stated mission of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This form of warfare includes cultural subversion, the co-opting of senior leaders, influence operations and propaganda, and other means of insinuating Sharia Law into Western societies. Many Brotherhood leaders advocate patience in promoting their goals. Back in 1995, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, told the Toledo, Ohio Muslim Arab Youth Association convention, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through the sword, but through dawah (Islamic renewal and outreach).” The prime practitioners of this stealthy form of jihad are the ostensibly “non-violent” Muslim Brotherhood and their front groups and affiliates.

A strategic plan dated May 22, 1991, entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group [Muslim Brotherhood] in North America,” was discovered by the FBI in 2004. The “Memorandum” describes the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan [the Muslim Brotherhood in Arabic] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny...

Sounding the Alarm

For years, respected security and military officials within the U.S. have sounded the alarm regarding Grover Norquist's troubling ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Those warnings, for the most part, have fallen on deaf ears.

Since Paul Revere’s midnight ride, the precedent has been set for American patriots to sound the alarm at threats to our liberty and way of life. After learning of Mr. Norquist’s connections to Islamists and his participation on the NRA board — an organization of which Glenn is a lifetime member — Glenn began speaking out about it.

In March 2015, Glenn announced on air he would resign his membership in the NRA if Mr. Norquist remained a member of the Board, prompting hundreds of listeners to call the NRA. The organization subsequently opened an ethics investigation into Mr. Norquist. Later that same month, Mr. Norquist joined Glenn on air to defend himself against accusations that he is an agent of influence for radical Islamists. In the contentious interview, Glenn hammered Mr. Norquist on his connections to known terrorists.

VOTE “YES” BEFORE MAY 1 TO RECALL GROVER NORQUIST

Hearing No

Mr. Stuart Weber, an NRA member, sponsored the original petition to remove Mr. Norquist from the Board. A Hearing Committee appointed to review the petition ultimately voted against it, citing three reasons for voting “No” to removing Mr. Norquist (see below why these reasons are wholly unacceptable). Interestingly, Mr. Weber was unable to attend the hearing, as he was given very short notice. Based on NRA bylaws, Mr. Weber had no input on the hearing date.

The Solid Case Against Grover Norquist

Reason #1: The Truth Is Ageless

The Hearing Committee based its decision on “old charges” that have gone stale. Since when does the truth have an expiration date? Pursuing truth and exposing nefarious — or at the very least suspect — intentions should be a constant, never-ending effort. The Hearing Committee is not a court of law, and there should not be a statute of limitations. Further, when Mr. Weber filed the petition, the board never declared the ‘staleness’ rule — it was only after the fact.

The charges against Mr. Norquist do not fade away because of other people’s delay in recognizing their seriousness. Moreover, the stated tactic of the Muslim Brotherhood to patiently and slowly wage their “civilization jihad” indicates their willingness to spend years, even decades reaching their goal. Shouldn’t Americans commit an equal amount of time to exposing the truth and protecting liberty?

Reason #2: The Facts Are Overwhelming

The Hearing Committee based its decision on a “lack of factual support.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The Center for Security Policy prepared Agent of Influence, a 101-page document with 87 Statements of Fact signed by 10 influential security experts at the highest levels of government. The Statement of Facts establishes that:

• Islamist enemies of the United States, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, are engaged in a concerted effort to destroy this country and impose their supremacist doctrine of Sharia worldwide.

• Muslim Brotherhood front groups and operatives have targeted, among others, the Republican Party and conservative movement.

• Leaders of organizations identified by the federal government as Muslim Brotherhood fronts—and, in some cases, tied to terrorists—were involved in influence operations targeting the GOP and conservatives during the late 1990s and some or all of the decade that followed. Such leaders included, notably: Abdurahman Alamoudi, Sami al-Arian, Nihad Awad and Khaled Saffuri.

• Over the past fifteen years, Grover Norquist has had personal, professional and/or organizational associations with each of these Muslim Brotherhood operatives.

• Norquist’s connections, organizations and personal efforts have enabled the influence operations of Islamists, including those of Iran.

The Hearing Committee, which had full access to the dossier of information with 87 supporting facts, was unable to define who is right or wrong in its Process Overview. But it seems, based on its decision, the Committee was reviewing for a criminal prosecution which requires evidence beyond reasonable doubt, rather than the much less exacting preponderance of the evidence standard. Regardless of right or wrong, there is overwhelming evidence to call into question Mr. Norquist’s associations and the appropriateness of his position on the Board of the NRA.

Reason #3: Distractions

The Hearing Committee based its decision on the petition not rising to the level of being a “distraction to the NRA.” On the contrary, Mr. Weber’s original petition states the very presence of Mr. Norquist on the NRA board presents a distraction the NRA cannot tolerate, particularly during a heated and contested election season. All available NRA resources in time, staff and money must be invested to advance the candidates who hold similar principles.

Reason #4: Jury of Your Peers

The Hearing Committee was put into an unenviable position: Voting on the outing of a long-term board member, possibly a friend, and frankly, a powerful person within the GOP establishment. While members of the Hearing Committee did their best under the circumstances, those close affiliations — direct or indirect, implicit or explicit — undoubtedly impacted the outcome.

Power to the People

The Hearing Committee’s vote is nothing more than a recommendation. NRA members have the power to rise up and vote “YES” to remove Grover Norquist.

By using the recall ballot in current NRA magazines, NRA lifetime members — or yearly members in good standing for five consecutive years — are eligible to vote on this critical decision. Should eligible members need a copy of the ballot, they are encouraged to contact the NRA.

In the event members have already cast their vote, but feel moved to vote differently based on the information provided here, they can request the NRA void their original vote and issue them a new ballot.

The evidence gathered by The Center for Security Policy is overwhelming and can lead to only one conclusion: Grover Norquist has engaged in conduct on behalf of jihadists and their associates that is incompatible with service in a leadership role with the NRA or any other conservative organization.

VOTE “YES” BEFORE MAY 1 TO RECALL GROVER NORQUIST

Featured Image: Caption:WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 05: Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform, visits 'SiriusXM Patriot Forum with Grover Norquist' at SiriusXM Studio on March 5, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Leigh Vogel/Getty Images)

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.