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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Rand Paul Schools Whoopi on Automatic Weapons

January 07, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Senator Rand Paul was a featured guest Wednesday on the ultra-liberal daytime talk show The View. When the topic of gun control came up, the senator held his ground, informing one co-host about the difference between automatic and semiautomatic weapons.

"I just don't understand why anyone objects to getting rid of automatic weapons," Whoopi Goldberg, a handgun owner, exclaimed.

Goldberg’s belief that automatic weapons are available to the public exposes her ignorance on the issue. Like most liberals, her ignorance doesn’t preclude outrage or advocating for the regulation of guns.

Senator Paul kindly explained that automatic weapons are actually banned, and what the The View co-host must have meant was "semiautomatic" weapons.

Glenn and his co-hosts on The Glenn Beck Program had a bit of fun discussing the exchange.

"I would love to know from Whoopi Goldberg, I would love to know what kind of gun she has," Glenn posed. "Because unless it's a revolver, she owns a semiautomatic weapon."

Watch the exchange between Senator Paul and Whoopi Goldberg beginning around 4:28.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Rand Paul and Whoopi Goldberg had a fascinating conversation about guns that we have to get to. In fact, we're going to start there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Let's start with some good news on Rand Paul who is -- you know, is in my top three guys of who I could vote for. I could vote for -- and actually if Rand Paul was doing better in polls, I would say he's my number two guy. But as far as I am, full disclosure, policy-wise, it's Cruz, Rubio -- sorry -- Cruz, Paul, and then policy-wise, a distant third is Rubio. And the rest of them I don't think I could consider.

If I think of electability and policy be, it would be Cruz, Rubio, Paul. And I would have put Paul up there earlier if he hadn't just kind of fizzled out. I mean, he has -- unfortunately, he's nowhere to be seen. And I think this is a real tragedy.

But he is good. He is really good when he sits down for an interview and is going -- and you're arguing with him. Listen to him with Whoopi Goldberg on The View.

WHOOPI: I don't understand why anyone objects to getting rid of automatic weapons. Automatic weapons, they're not for hunting. They do nothing. They're not --

PAT: As if the Second Amendment was made for hunting.

GLENN: Right.

STU: It's a hunting clause. They call it the hunting --

GLENN: Sports and hunting. There wasn't bowling as we know it, at the time. Otherwise, that would have been the Third Amendment. Your right to bowl and go to bowling allies on Tuesday nights for our league shall not be infringed.

(laughter)

PAT: It's a pretty historically famous story, when James Madison, Gouverneur Morris, and Thomas Jefferson were sitting around. I think it was Gouverneur's pad one night.

GLENN: Pad?

PAT: And Tom said, "Jim, I don't know. We need something for hunters." And Gouv said, "Well, what about -- what if we let them have a gun so they can go out and shoot some deer from time to time?"

GLENN: You know what, let's make that the First Amendment. And that's when Jefferson knocked on the door and said, "No, you got to make it the second one. I have something about speech or something that I really want to do --

STU: It the right to pornography. We got to get that as the first one.

GLENN: That's right. There's going to be a guy in a golden wheelchair at some point that wants to show, you know, mama's jugs, and we got to get that in first place.

JEFFY: Amen.

(laughter)

PAT: And we call that the Jeffy Amendment.

JEFFY: Thank you.

GLENN: So hang on. Before we go back. Whoopi is now talking about automatic weapons.

PAT: Automatic weapons.

GLENN: And we already have a ban on automatic weapons.

WHOOPI: -- are only there to kill. And you notice that a lot of things that happen, happen with automatic weapons.

GLENN: Can you stop for a second? She's so stupid.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Okay. So, first of all --

PAT: I just can't.

GLENN: -- the dumbest sentence of her mouth is not what you're thinking. I think the dumbest sentence of her mouth was, "Automatic weapons are only there to kill."

PAT: AR-15s, of course, the semiautomatic weapons are there to heal and as planters --

GLENN: Right.

STU: And handguns are known as the massage weapon.

(laughter)

GLENN: I mean, that's what a gun is for, to kill.

PAT: They're only there to kill. Stupid.

WHOOPI: -- why don't we say, "You know, who really needs to have one, other than people who are at war?"

(applause)

PAT: And then the lemming audience, every time, this drives me out of my mind. Oh, jeez.

JEFFY: Oh.

GLENN: You have to understand, I've been on that set. I was on -- I'm on that set. They have applause signs, and they have people to get the audience to applaud.

PAT: Jeez.

STU: Right.

GLENN: So they're trained to be lemmings.

STU: But even if they were lemmings completely and they just had no thought and were clapping, you could be excused maybe for not knowing the difference between automatic and semiautomatic weapons or whatever.

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: But when you're a commentator making a point on the air about how smart you are about guns and how dumb the other argument is, shouldn't you be mildly aware that what you're saying is completely wrong?

PAT: Yes, mildly.

JEFFY: And she always makes a big point of being a gun owner.

PAT: She does.

GLENN: And I'd like to know what kind of gun she has. Does she have a revolver? Does she have a revolver, or does she have a Glock? Because if she has a Glock or a Sig, she owns a semiautomatic weapon. Unless she has a revolver or a flintlock, I'll give her Cap 'N Ball as well, she owns a semiautomatic.

PAT: Wow. And nobody needs that. That's the other thing. Progressives always do something you don't need. Nobody needs this. Nobody needs more money. Nobody needs certain things.

Well, who are you to tell me what I need and what I don't need?

GLENN: I would love to know from Whoopi Goldberg -- I would love to know what kind of gun she has. Because unless it's a revolver, she owns a semiautomatic weapon.

PAT: Yeah.

RAND: Truly automatic weapons, we don't have. You know, we banned truly automatic weapons I think in 193- --

WHOOPI: Yeah, but we still got a lot of them, Rand.

RAND: Well, what we have are not automatic weapons. We have semiautomatics --

GLENN: Hold on just a second. Stop. How many automatic weapons do we -- how many fully automatic weapons, just ballpark it, Stu. You had this number for me a couple days ago.

STU: Yes. I actually have the same article up. Give me a second, and I can find it.

GLENN: Truly automatic weapons.

STU: Something like 160,000.

PAT: 160,000 or something like that.

GLENN: I was amazed at the number. I own two fully automatic weapons. And I was amazed at the number -- how small the number is. 160,000 fully automatic weapons.

STU: We should point out none of the attacks --

PAT: None. Since 1934. There hasn't been one since 1934.

GLENN: You're kidding me.

PAT: There's been no automatic weapon fire killing Americans in America since about -- well, since 1933. Then they banned them in '34.

STU: Right. There are some. There is 160,000 that still exits.

PAT: They still exist. They're just not killing anybody.

STU: They were banned in 1986.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Do you know why? Do you know why? Because to buy them, first of all, the government has inflated their price so to buy a used -- a gun that costs you $3,000 can cost you anywhere from ten to $30,000, depending on how much everybody is freaked out by Barack Obama. Okay. So they've inflated the price, and they've made it almost impossible for you to buy or to use. You have to -- the reason why you could have 160,000 of these weapons out is because the people who have them are really, really responsible. You're going into a store, you're not going in and buying a -- I mean, even if you're a drug dealer and you have $10,000 to lay down on this weapon, you're not buying it.

STU: And you're going through so many background -- it's so ridiculous to try -- one of the first things they did with this was you had to have the head of your local police force sign a document saying it was okay for you to have an automatic weapon.

GLENN: I'm -- I'm not sure --

STU: I'm not sure if that still applies, but that's one of the first --

GLENN: I'm not sure, but I think at least in Connecticut, maybe in Texas too, I think -- something makes me remember that I think I had to let the police department know that I had an automatic weapon.

STU: Oh, yeah. And there's all sorts of requirements like that. Drug dealers are not going in and getting legal automatic weapons. That's absolutely implausible.

GLENN: No.

JEFFY: And they're not letting the local police chief know they have it either.

STU: No.

GLENN: Right. And I will tell you this. I think your stat -- you should check with the border. I think with all the drug cartels. Because they're carrying now automatic weapons on our side of the border with the drug cartels.

PAT: Yeah, the drug cartels rarely kill people in America though. They kidnap them and take them to Mexico. But rarely do they kill their potential customers. It usually doesn't happen.

GLENN: Okay. Good one.

RAND: In a fairly fast sequence, but you can't pull the trigger and then come like a machine gun. Those are -- those are no longer out there.

WHOOPI: Okay. But you know what I'm saying.

RAND: Yeah. This is --

GLENN: No, I don't.

STU: Yes, we do know what you're saying. What you're saying is you don't know anything about the issue you're talking about.

PAT: What you're saying is stupid. Yeah.

STU: You're announcing it to everyone who does know something about the issue you're talking about.

PAT: And thank you for doing that.

GLENN: I wish he would have asked her, what kind of handgun do you have? Because that would have sealed it that she has no idea. Whoopi, what kind of handgun do you have? I don't know. It's a --

STU: It's a little black one.

GLENN: Does it have a revolver? Do you spin the chamber out, and do you put the six little bullets in and put it back in?

No, I put it in with the clip. I put the clip in the bottom of it. Okay. All right. Then you have a semiautomatic. I thought no one needed one of those.

STU: Guaranteed that's what she has.

GLENN: Guarantee it.

PAT: Oh, that would have shut it down completely.

GLENN: Shut it down completely.

RAND: People do hunt with them. And do shooting. And sport shooting and target shooting with these guns. And come to Kentucky, I'll introduce you to -- there are a lot of people who like and enjoy this as a sport. But the other problem is if we're going to take away ownership of specific types of guns, you really have to modify -- something that big has to either be legislation or even possibly a constitutional amendment. We can't allow one individual to do it, and I'll give you an example why.

Let's say we had a terrible president that you didn't like from another party, and that president said, "The View, oh, you should hear the things they're saying on The View. We should limit their speech. We should register the journalists, and then we should have an approval board." And, you know, that's silly. We would all be opposed to that. But that's the danger of letting a president make the rules.

PAT: Undeterred, here's how Whoopi finishes.

WHOOPI: Sorry, man. There's no reason anybody needs to have an automatic weapon. I'm sorry. I get everything else --

(applause)

PAT: She's just told they've been banned.

GLENN: She doesn't have any idea.

PAT: No idea.

GLENN: These people are so stupid. So stupid.

STU: And it's not just Whoopi Goldberg, by the way. Michael Bloomberg, the guy who is donating tens of millions of dollars to organizations to stop you having a gun has made the same mistake on television.

GLENN: No, he has.

STU: And several journalists have done it as well.

GLENN: And I'd like to ask Michael Bloomberg what kind of gun he carries because he has a carry permit. What kind of gun does Michael Bloomberg carry? Does he carry a six shooter?

PAT: No way. You know he doesn't.

STU: He has one with a bayonet on it.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. I've got to open up the powder tray and put some powder into it. Nobody needs more than one shot.

STU: You don't have to know every detail about guns. But if you're telling people that they have to restrict certain types of guns, you need to know what types they are. You need to understand whether they're already banned and have been since the 1930s. That's kind of a major issue. And you need to have a basic handle on that before you start running your mouth.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The View

The great switch: Gates trades climate control for digital dominion

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.