Who is really dividing the U.S. based on race in the aftermath of the Zimmerman verdict?

The President of the United States rarely if ever now delivers remarks without the assistance of his teleprompter, and when his teleprompter malfunctions, as it did in Germany, things get ugly, and he starts to sweat, and it’s just…well, it’s lackluster at best.

You might remember this awkward encounter from last month when his teleprompters went down.

VIDEO

President Obama: I want to thank everybody who’s here. I think there’s only one problem, and that is that my remarks are not sitting here. People?

He turns to thank the people that are standing there, and he looks at the teleprompter and –

VIDEO

President Obama: I’m going to answer a question at the end of the remarks, but I want to make sure that we get the remarks up. People?

So smooth, nobody would’ve noticed that there was a problem. He’s slick, isn’t he? Now, that’s the way the president is without a teleprompter. We have talked to people who have met with him actually in the Cabinet Room where he had to have a teleprompter with eight people in the room.

But on the flipside of that, just hours last week after the Zimmerman not guilty verdict, the president made a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room and gave a controversial yet well-polished speech on race, and this time, he did it without the aid of his trusted teleprompter.

Now, why does this matter? Well, because out of all of the issues that you would want the President of the United States to be fluent in – economics, jobs, foreign policy, individual liberty, the Constitution, any of that, this president cannot speak off the cuff without any kind of teleprompter or notes in front of him. But when it comes to the police acting stupidly or anything to do with identity politics, this man is ready to roll for hours. It’s his lifelong passion.

The man who was supposed to unite the United States of America is an expert on the most divisive form of politics in existence today that pits people against other people, placing them in little boxes and then convincing those people that you’re only in that box because of those people over there. They’re the cause of all of your problems.

Now, the press, many even on the right, are calling this speech that he gave one of the most important in his presidency. They’re singing his praises. What’s new? Even though the Zimmerman trial had nothing to do with race, and that’s not me saying that; that’s both the prosecution and the defense. Both sides said this has nothing to do with race. Still, the president is using this opportunity to further divide us.

He said the outcome of the case could have been different if Martin were white.

VIDEO

President Obama: If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario that from top to bottom both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.

Okay, so is he saying that Zimmerman was guilty, and somehow or another the system broke down? Because I haven’t heard that. I haven’t heard that the system broke down with any kind of specifics. And once again, he places himself square in the middle of the story.

VIDEO

President Obama: You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me.

I just want you to know, that’s not another way of saying that could have been my son by saying it could have been me. Listen to this.

VIDEO

President Obama: There’s a lot of pain around what happened here. I think it’s important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.

Okay, got it. He said a couple of important things here. The African-American community is looking at this situation through the lens of history and experiences and pain. Okay, well that’s why justice is blind. That’s why we don’t have people involved making the decisions, because you might look at it differently, either with rose-colored glasses or a tainted view from something that went on with your own personal life. That’s why you’re not involved, to keep the verdict pure.

But then you also say that that pain just doesn’t go away. Mr. President, may I humbly suggest that you need the atoning power of Jesus Christ if that’s not going away. What’s happening in your life, Mr. President, where pain does not go away? And why is that pain not going away? Who’s perpetrating this myth that there is still the same amount of experiences for African-Americans today as there was in the 1960s?

And by the way, if the word “myth” sounds harsh, in the same speech, here’s the president:

VIDEO

President Obama: As difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better.

I don’t think he believes that, but he’s right. The reality is there are still problems, but believe it or not, even with all of the stuff that’s going on, race relations in America, they are getting better. But Al Sharpton doesn’t let you know that. Jesse Jackson doesn’t let you know that. Anybody on MSNBC or Harry Reid, they don’t let you know that, otherwise, they’d be out of a job.

They’d be out of a few more voters, you know, if they weren’t told to vote for a Republican, I mean, if you voted for a Republican, it’d be like returning to the Jim Crow days. That would put these people out of power. Jackson, Sharpton, and the president have all used their pulpits to make the Zimmerman trial about race.

Again, both sides say that it’s not about race. And they feign outrage. I know this guy. He feigns outrage. But where is the outrage at the dropout factories that are inner-city public schools? How about the churning out of generation after generation of doomed children, slaves? If you can’t read, you’re a slave.

Where is the outrage at the failure of massive government programs, progressive governments, like Detroit, that have left citizens begging for politicians just to give ’em a few more crumbs or begging for the police to show up? Where is the outrage at the Planned Parenthood abortion mills whose founder wanted to eliminate the undesirables of society which were the blacks?

Where is the outrage at the other American war zone, Chicago, where four more were gunned down just this weekend and nine others injured in yet another shootout? Where is the outrage? Where’s the outrage at the mind-boggling and tragic black-on-black crime rates? You don’t hear about it.

According to the Bureau of Justice, approximately 8,000 blacks are murdered annually, every single year, 8,000 killed. That accounts for 49% of all of the murders in America – 49%. Twelve percent of the population is 49% of all of the murders? About 93% of black homicide victims were murdered by someone in their own race, so 93%, black on black.

Now, here’s the most shocking statistic. The murder rate among blacks in America is an astonishing 19.5 per 100,000 people. So you have an idea of how astonishing that number is, that’s a tick under Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo. That’s a nation mired in constant civil war – again, a city so mired in murder that the murder rates among blacks is 19.5 per 100,000 people. That number is nearly 5 times higher than the murder rate in the Palestinian territories. That’s a real problem.

Now, why isn’t any politician standing up and saying that? Why isn’t anybody saying that? Well, because those are real problems. Those are real problems. They’re undisputed facts. And real problems are going to have to be solved, but to solve them, you need some answers and answers that empower people.

If you want to empower yourself, you’re going to have to manufacture some problems like the Zimmerman trial. It’s not about race, yet half of America thinks it is. Why? Because of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and the President of the United States just told them so. And then he has the gall to blame the racial tension in the aftermath of the verdict on that racist jury.

I’m sorry, but I’ve never seen a leader behave this way, ever. Leaders do not blame people. Leaders don’t lie for their own personal gain. Crooks, crooks do. Leaders tell you the truth, the hard truth, and then, just when you think you’re at your lowest, a leader doesn’t lean down to you and say “and you know what, you’ll never, ever make it without me.” They never do that.

They inspire you to reach higher than you ever thought you could. That’s what a leader does but not socialist leaders. Che is a big hero. Che is the leader, of course, you know, with the communist revolution, but who was Che really? Che championed that blacks weren’t doing enough for the revolution. He referred to them as lazy and unwilling to do anything to help.

He said about blacks, “The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; The European has a tradition of work and saving…” Well, that sounds racist to me, but you’ve never heard anybody on the left called Che a racist, have you? Every town in America now has a Cesar Chavez Boulevard. Well, what’s his story? Well, he was standing up for the little people. He was standing up for the workers. Was he? Was he?

Do you know that Cesar Chavez blamed the labor woes on immigrants? He was so upset that he said that there had to be a wet line on the border. The UFW, the United Farm Workers Union, they sent their thugs out, and they physically beat any illegal immigrant trying to cross the line. Now, that’s not a story that you hear today, is it? No, but these are the truths about the leftist icons, and they have a lot in common with the leftist icons of today.

Leftist icons generally inspire people to do what, to stand up on their own two feet, pull themselves up, or to riot, to fight, to burn, destroy, to hate, eventually kill people? Che didn’t free people; Che killed people. Martin Luther King, he freed people. He led people towards the promised land, and he did it without playing the blame game.

Quote, Martin Luther King, “A group of ten thousand marching in anger against a police station and cussing out the police chief will do very little to bring respect, dignity, and unbiased law enforcement.” He also said, “We are out to defeat injustice and not white persons who may be unjust.”

If Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and yes, Barack Obama, lifted people up instead of pointing fingers, perhaps we’d be closer to that promised land that MLK talked about and that we all know exists. It’s hard not to believe that the Sharptons of the world really don’t want to get to any kind of promised land. They’d rather remain in power, or in the president’s case, want to be your parent, because see, that’s what Progressives do.

They are your parent. They know better. That’s the whole theory behind Progressivism, somebody else knows better for the collective. Now, let’s just assume for a second that that is the right thing for them to do. So who do we have now as our parent in the Oval Office? Who do we have? Are they a good parent? Well, yes, he cares about – okay.

May I ask you, did your parent or any – if you had a good parent – or any good parent that you ever witnessed or you know, Bill Cosby, anybody, any good parent, any mom or dad, did they ever tell you to focus on the past? Did they ever encourage you to take from others because you didn’t get your fair share? Did your mom or dad ever tell you you’re not going to make it? Did they ever continually pick at old wounds and tell you that they’ll never heal?

Now, maybe I’m the only kid that wasn’t raised by Frank Marshall Davis or Bill Ayers, but my parents always told me that it doesn’t matter what others do; it’s what you do that counts. My parents always told me that life wasn’t fair and never would be fair and to get over it. But see, if you have a parent that does that, then they have to follow it with you stay focused on what you know to be true, who you are, where you came from, and that requires you to look at facts.

So let’s look at some more facts. There are racists in America, both black and white. Yep, that’s it, both left and right. Our job, I guess, is to figure out who’s who. Everybody calls each other racist now. Oh, you’re a racist because you – really? Okay, great. But there are racists. How do we tell? Well, somebody who’s trying to use race to gain power, I think, and will only tell the stories that are good for them.

For instance, why isn’t Al Sharpton talking about this story? Why isn’t the president talking about this 76-year-old man in Milwaukee? He shot and killed this little kid here, 13-year-old black kid. He comes out, and he’s got a gun. Now, look at the kid backing up. This is clearly, this is clearly not self defense.

Eventually, the mom comes out and says hey, hey, hey, what’s going on? And he says, you want to know what’s going on? You want me to stop your kid from stealing? I’ll teach your kid. Any points a gun right to the kid’s chest, shoots him. The kid starts running down the street. He shoots him again. He misses, but it’s already too late. The kid collapses and dies in the hospital a couple of hours later. Why is nobody talking about this?

This is a racist guy, right? How about the 29-year-old mentally disabled Hispanic in Arizona that was walking the dog in the parking lot at a Taco Bell? He was shot dead by a black man. Where were the calls for the justice for Daniel? Or in Chicago, Leslie Freeman, her 22-month-old son, Demonte, gunned down as she was sitting with her child in the lap in a van. She was sitting there with a van, a car full of people.

The child was shot. Just last year, Leslie lost her son, Deon, shot by a gang member. Where’s Sharpton on that one? Or the white baby that was shot in a stroller in Atlanta by two black teens? Why aren’t they talking about that one? I’ll tell you why. Nobody wants to talk about any of those because they know that both black and white agree, and whether it’s for power or for ratings, when everybody agrees, there’s just really nothing there.

They choose carefully the stories that they know divide America. It gives you ratings. It gives you power. That’s what it is. It makes you honestly into a bully. No one in the media is talking about the black guy that shot the white kid or the white guy who shot the black kid or the black teens that shot the baby, but that’s where we need to focus as Americans. We need to find the big issues that bring us together, because there’s a lot more of those stories than of Zimmerman stories.

But we’re just focusing on the Zimmerman story when the real story of all the murder and all the death is going by us at a high speed, and we just ignore that one. We can’t as a people – look, we’re not going to be able to convince everybody, and it doesn’t really matter, but here’s what we have to do. We have to find out the real facts, know what’s going on, and then without anger – and that’s the hard part, without anger – stand up to bullies.

We need to identify first who the bullies are and then stop giving them so much power over us. The Zimmerman trial should have never ever happened. The only reason why it did is because the President of the United States and his Justice Department and the wound pickers like Al Sharpton applied mob justice. I’ve never met a black man yet who actually thinks that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson actually speaks for them.

The Reverend Jackson is out there producing love children, and Reverend Al has literally made things up. I don’t know how he sleeps at night, but he does. He makes things up to promote his own career. Jackson rushed to defend the black stripper who made the rape allegations against the members of the Duke lacrosse team which was completely false. He said his Rainbow PUSH Coalition would pay for her college tuition. It turned out to be false, and he was wrong, but there was no outcry there.

Al Sharpton, he lied about Tawana Brawley. He didn’t care about the truth. He cares about himself. I can’t think of anything more damning than proclaiming to be a reverend, a preacher, and then to use that power and that platform for personal gain. I’ll never forget when I sat down at CNN, and I did an interview with Al Sharpton. And I said “nice watch, Al,” right before we went on the air – nice watch. It was a Rolex. He suddenly became very self conscious. I don’t even…somebody gave that to me as a gift, and he covered it.

Judgment Day…Judgment Day is already scary enough, but I think anybody who claims to speak with the power of the Lord’s words are going to receive kind of a stricter punishment. There are a lot of people that think I fall into this category, and maybe I do. I try, but maybe I do in the end.

I know there are many things that I have done and I’ve said over the years that I regret now, and I think there’s a lot of people out in America that think I shouldn’t be successful. Whatever, I mean, okay, I get it. I understand. Life isn’t fair. I get that, but rest assured, if you’re right about me, justice for me will be swift and severe in the afterlife. It will be; however, if I’m right, the same will be said for Sharpton and Jackson and Wallis and President Obama.

The president is going way out of his way to comment on a single trial, and in doing so, he is – what is that commandment – oh, bearing false witness, and he’s doing it by using race. This isn’t about race. It’s not my job or your job to judge a man’s heart, but it is our job to look at the tree and then look at the fruit of that tree. What is that tree producing? Is it producing good fruit or bad fruit?

This tree is producing lies and anger, division, unrest, violence, poverty, and suffering. When will Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or the president rise up at the injustice to blacks and women that has happened in progressive cities like Detroit or currently happening in Philadelphia? Or are they just going to continue to turn a blind eye to the truth in favor of their own political and personal agendas?

And if we continue to be quiet, if we continue just to take it because what am I going to do about it anyway, where do those personal agendas take us as a nation?

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

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

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

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

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

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

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

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

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

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

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.