Thomas Jefferson on Healthcare, Big Government, Marriage and Christianity

Several years ago, author and historian David Barton published a book about Thomas Jefferson. For four weeks it remained on the New York Times bestseller list before being pulled by the publisher. Why? Progressive liberals who didn't want the truth revealed about Thomas Jefferson complained heartily, scaring the publisher into thinking the book was full of nonsense.

Encouraged by Glenn to address every issue raised by those skeptics, David Barton has returned with The Jefferson Lies, an historically accurate account supported by original documents. This compelling and fact-based new book gives an account of Jefferson's beliefs on a variety of issues---including healthcare, big government, marriage and Christianity.

"I went through and listed 15 specific things Democrats are doing right now that Jefferson would go through the roof over," David Barton said Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "Not the least of which Jefferson had very clear opinions on healthcare and who should and shouldn't do healthcare. And the federal government was not to do it. It was to be in the states."

Jefferson's stance on the separation of church and state is also widely misused by liberals to undermine faith in public schools. Some even use it to mischaracterize Jefferson as an atheist. But his views on faith were clear:

No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion, nor can it be. The Christian religion is the best religion that's been given to man, and I, as chief magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.

Glenn praised Barton's new book, calling it a must-read for every American.

"The book is about Thomas Jefferson. And the book is called The Jefferson Lies. Everything the left has said about Thomas Jefferson that is an out-and-out distortion and lie, backed up with the facts," Glenn said.

David Barton will discuss The Jefferson Lies with Glenn tonight on TheBlaze TV at 5:00 ET.

Listen to a complimentary segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: I want to tell you a story about how truth in America gets squashed. And somebody who comes up off the rope and says, "Oh, really?" There was a book that came out about, three years ago. And some -- some liberal wannabe geniuses got together and decided that they had a way to get this book off the New York Times list and to get the book pulled off the shelves in America.

Believe it or not, pulled -- a New York Times best-seller, pulled from the shelves. Why? Because these liberal professors got together and scared the publisher and said, "This is -- these are all -- this just isn't even true." And they scared enough people to where it was pulled off the shelves.

I happen to know the author. And I happen to know the research the author does. And I called the author while this was going on, and I said, "What the hell is happening?" And he explained it to me.

And I said, "But I know you well enough to know and I know you have the actual documents to prove this and back this up."

He said, "Yes."

I said, "You know what you should do? You should take all of their concerns, all the things they said and you should add them to this book. And you should use the original documents that shut them down and then republish."

That's exactly what this author has done, and it is even stronger than it was before. And the reason why they wanted it pulled in the first place is not because the facts aren't right, is because this gentleman that he's talking about in this book is revolutionary. This book is about, if you don't take this guy down, you can't destroy America.

The book is about Thomas Jefferson. And the book is called The Jefferson Lies. Everything the left has said about Thomas Jefferson that is an out-and-out distortion and lie, backed up with the facts. The author is David Barton. And he's with us now. Hi, David.

DAVID: Hey, Glenn.

GLENN: I can't tell you how happy I am that you've published and put this out. Do you want to get into at all what happened before and what --

DAVID: I'll go where you want to. But I want to pile on what you said. Because people have to get rid of Jefferson on the left if this is going to work. And they've done such a good job that we've been hearing recently the calls for Jefferson to be taken off Mount Rushmore, for him to be taken off the nickel, for them to tear down the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC. The Democrats are saying, "No more Jefferson/Jackson HEP dinners. Jefferson has nothing to do with who we are."

GLENN: Andrew Jackson does.

DAVID: Andrew Jackson, that's a good guy to get rid of.

GLENN: Yeah, he's a good guy -- yeah, I would be for getting rid of Jackson.

DAVID: Absolutely.

GLENN: They will stand around and love Jackson, who was a horrible guy. But you got to torch Jefferson.

DAVID: Yep. You got to torch Jefferson. And, man, his ideas are so opposite to where they are today and where most folks in government are.

GLENN: When I was growing up. It was the Jefferson dinner. The Jefferson/Jackson dinner for the Democrats. And the Lincoln dinner. And they have now -- we still embrace Lincoln. But they are divorcing themselves from Jefferson. Let's go through some of the policies that you say are exactly the opposite, based on facts.

DAVID: Well, I went through and listed 15 specific things Democrats are doing right now that Jefferson would go through the roof over. Not the least of which Jefferson had very clear opinions on health care and who should and shouldn't do health care. And the federal government was not to do it. It was to be in the states. He has very clear --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Give me some examples on that, David.

DAVID: Let me read you a quote from Jefferson.

GLENN: Because you don't think of health care as something they even debated back then, but they debated abortion back then.

DAVID: That's right. All of these issues. Nothing new. Jefferson says -- here's what he said between the role of federal and state governments on health care. He said, the federal government is to certify with exact truth for every vessel sailing from a foreign port the state of health which prevails at the place from which she sails.

So if you're coming from overseas, you have to be healthy to come to America. But the state authorities are charged with the care of the public health. So health goes to the state level. It's not a federal thing. It's not one of the 15 enumerated powers. It goes to the states. So there's a role for the feds, only with the borders. Once it's inside the borders, everything inside the borders for health care belongs the states.

GLENN: Okay. Give me the next.

DAVID: Let's take -- debt. How about debt? That's a real easy one.

You know, it's -- so many things here to deal with. But let me take debt. Or even federal growth. Listen to this. Federal growth.

I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary. There are too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. The multiplication of government offices, the increase of expense beyond income, the growth of the public debt, these are all indications that we need a pruning knife in government. Small government.

GLENN: You say that he also is dead-set against what the Democrats are doing with the LGBT.

DAVID: Right. LGBT, he came out very clearly, and he said, the law of nature. Creator. Bible. And by the way, he actually introduced a bill that said that laws should be those that are recognized by the Bible. Marriage should be based on biblical recognition. So he said marriage has to be defined by what the Bible defines it as. That's the law that he introduced.

He also said that sexual relations were designed for procreation, not for entertainment. And, therefore, in that basis, that's how you define marriage, is procreation. So sexual relations was designed by the creator, throughout a law of nature for procreation. Anything that violates that, violates the laws of nature.

And he came up also on the issue of marriage and he said, "Taking from the states the moral rule of their citizens and interrogate to the federal government would break up the foundations of the union." You love it at the states, not the feds.

GLENN: Let's go to gun control.

DAVID: Gun control. He has that going tonight in the State of the Union.

GLENN: State of the Union.

DAVID: So let me just take the gun control. Here's what he told youth, young people. See if we get this from a Democrat.

A strong body makes a strong mind. As to the best species of exercise, I advise the gun. It gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.

GLENN: Holy cow.

(laughter)

DAVID: That's for young people.

PAT: I think Barack Obama said that, what, three times last night.

DAVID: Yeah.

GLENN: So this is not necessarily what the book is about. The book is about the lies. Let's start with -- chapter number one is about Sally Hemings.

DAVID: Right.

PAT: That's the agonizing one.

GLENN: The number one thing people use to discredit, well, he had children with a slave.

PAT: Yeah.

DAVID: Back in November of 1998, that came out in the middle of the Clinton impeachments. And I was talking to a group of law students the other day at a law school. I said, how many of you have heard that Sally Hemings -- HEP that Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings? 98 percent of them raised their hands.

And I thought, that's interesting because here we are now 20-some-odd years later still saying this thing. Why would we say it now? Why does it matter, except to trash Jefferson?

Here's the problem with that. 221 news outlets ran with that story when it came. Six weeks later, the story was retracted. Only 11 news outlets carried the retraction. Now, why would they retract the story?

We actually called and talked to the DNA researcher who did it, Dr. Eugene Foster, talked to him twice. And he said, "Actually that's not what I showed them in my research. That's not what my research said." But the guy who did it, Joseph Ellis, was a defender of Clinton. Had just helped run a full-page ad in the New York Times defending Clinton from impeachment and said, this would really help him. Because if we can say Jefferson had a sexual tryst, then we can say what's the big deal with Clinton. So he comes out and he says --

GLENN: Unbelievable.

DAVID: You know, you would think that if -- if you want to check DNA, you would want to check Jefferson's DNA. They never checked Thomas Jefferson's DNA. They checked his uncle's DNA. Field Jefferson. There were 26 Jefferson males living at the time. They never checked Thomas Jefferson's. And that's why the researcher said, I told them it wasn't Thomas Jefferson's.

GLENN: No. Told them that it wasn't for sure Thomas Jefferson's, right? It's one in like --

PAT: One in 26.

DAVID: One in 26. What they can do -- to test DNA generations later, you have to test the white chromosome which remains the same in male descendants. So you have to have a male descendant. Thomas Jefferson had a son who died when he was one. He has no male descendents. There's no way of testing his DNA. They say, "Well, the Jefferson family, all the Jeffersons in the United States maybe." So they take an uncle of Jefferson, Field Jefferson is his name, they tested him and it was all based on the first child of Sally Hemings. I actually have the newspaper over there. 200 years ago, a guy named James D. Calendar wrote an article that said, Jefferson fathered Tom through Sally Hemings. And she called him Tom because his father was Thomas Jefferson.

And so for 200 years, that's what everybody said. Tom. Well, they tested the descendents of Thomas Woodson, and there's no Jefferson genes at all. Not any at all. Not Thomas'. Not Fields'. Not any of the 26. None.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. So the guy that they said was his son --

DAVID: And they've said it for 200 years.

GLENN: And the reason why they checked the DNA.

DAVID: Is because of this guy, Thomas.

GLENN: And they've checked his DNA, his descendants --

DAVID: His descendants. And there's zero.

PAT: So he's not even one of 26.

GLENN: So where did we get the one in 26?

DAVID: Well, Sally had five children, and the fourth child is shown to have some Jefferson genes. So it could be one of the 26.

Now, historically they have always said it was Thomas Jefferson's brother Randall HEP because he lived there at HEP Monte Chello. That's what everybody still says, is there was none in what was believed to be Thomas', but Randall HEP was believed to have an affair with Sally Hemings. And there is some Jefferson DNA in that fourth child, Eston HEP Hemings. So there's absolutely nothing that points to Jefferson.

By the way, after this was done and all this scandal broke and they recalled it and nobody talked about the recall, you know, they pulled the story, they got a whole bunch of research together. All these Ph.D. guys from Harvard and Kentucky University and Indiana. And they were guys that got together and said, we think Jefferson did it. And they looked at all the historical research and unanimously came back and said, we don't think Jefferson did it. Once you look at all the history, Jefferson didn't do it. That didn't make the news either. So it really has not helped the political agenda to exonerate Jefferson from 200-year-old charges that have been out there. But that's what the evidence has been. That's a lie about Jefferson.

GLENN: What was the case when the book was pulled that they said, "Well, you didn't address this -- how did you strengthen this case even more, David?

DAVID: Well, what we did -- it's interesting that when this thing was done. Thomas Nelson had the book, and they never even talked to me about it. They just pulled the book and never even told me they pulled it. I told them ahead of time, here are the professors that are going to come after you. Because these guys on the left have been doing this for a while. Here's two cases of research documents to show you everything that I say is documented historically. And when they come after you, you'll know it. Well, they never did anything. Came after them, they pulled the book.

GLENN: Cowards.

DAVID: So in this particular book, we never had to do anything to that particular lie because the academics didn't even touch it. They left it alone. They went after all the other things we said. So the seven lies we pulled out, even the academics were scared to touch that one because it's too well-documented. They'd much rather have people think that Jefferson is morally impugned than to have him exonerated. So they never even went after that lie.

GLENN: So let's take separation of church and state. Because this is so well-documented.

DAVID: Yeah.

GLENN: So well-documented. And we always go to, name the document.

DAVID: Yeah.

GLENN: But beyond that, in his letters and the things that you outline in the book, it is crystal clear, crystal clear that's not what -- it's not what he meant the way they're using it today.

DAVID: Well, see, they use it today as saying Jefferson is a secularist. A lot of writers say he's an atheist. And so they derive that because he wanted separation of church and state. Well, let's define it the way he did. And let's also look at his actions. So when you looked at the way he defined it, he did not want a state-established government church that was telling you what denomination to belong to. And that's what he made really clear. This is a denominational issue. We don't want what we had in England. Because in his state of Virginia, the Anglican church was the state-established church, and they literally persecuted the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Methodists. Threw them in jail. Killed them. Fined them. Whatever. He didn't like that. Was he a secularist? No. Not by a long shot.

The thing I love to point to is that when he gets -- he helps build the US capitol -- as Secretary of State under Jefferson -- under George Washington. 1795 is their building. They start having church services on the grounds of the US capitol every Sunday.

Then when he becomes vice president under John Adams, as vice president, they vote and they say, we want the largest building in the capitol, the brand-new building to be a church building. So Jefferson not only helps to enact that. He starts going to church there every Sunday. And as president for eight years, he goes to church there every Sunday. And I love the quote, let me just read you a quote that -- because somebody said, "Why do you go to the church at the capitol? Why is it that you're so faithful there?" And even his political opponents that were in the other party, talked about how that he never missed a church service at the capitol, even if it was raining, sleeting, snowing, whatever. He jumped on his horse and made it there. And asking him, "Why is it that you do this?" Here's his response.

I want to read the exact quote. Sorry here, guys.

GLENN: It's all right.

DAVID: Here's what he says. This is what he told the guy.

They were walking to the capitol church together. He says, no nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion, nor can it be. The Christian religion is the best religion that's been given to man, and I, as chief magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.

There's no way I'm going to miss church. I have an example to show to the nation, and I'm going to make sure we have church here at the capitol. He starts church in the War Department and the Treasury Department every Sunday. So if you want to go to church in D.C., you can take the Capitol Building or the War Department or the Treasury Department.

GLENN: Jeez.

DAVID: While he's president of the United States, he sets aside on three occasions property so that it can be used to propagate the Gospel among Indians. Federal property. He approves -- I have it over here in the folder. The actual treaty with the Gascasi HEP Indians where he sends money so they can have priests, and he builds them a church in which they can worship. He directs the Secretary of War to give federal money to a religious school in Tennessee. He told a Christian school in Louisiana that it would enjoy the patronage of the government. I'm just going through the list of stuff he did.

GLENN: Jeez. At 5 o'clock today on the TV show, David is going to join me. He has all the documents.

DAVID: I have the documents.

GLENN: So he will show you. It's always great to watch David. He has the documents. How do you argue --

PAT: You can't.

GLENN: And he'll just take out the documents tonight, and he'll show them all to you. And you don't want to miss it. That's tonight, 5 o'clock. Only on TheBlaze TV. Back in just a second.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

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.