Samantha Bee Staffer Claims to Hate Woodrow Wilson More Than Glenn (LOL)

December 08, 2016

Writer

This is no laughing matter. There couldn't possibly be anyone on planet earth who despises Woodrow Wilson, our esteemed 28th president, more than Glenn Beck. He's made his case for hating the progressive, racist the past 10 years. Yet such a claim was made immediately following his interview with Samantha Bee, host of Full Frontal with Samantha Bee on TBS.

"I walked to the edge of the stage and her --- I think her show runner or her line producer --- came up to me and said, I want you to know, I think I hate Woodrow Wilson more than you do. And I said, What?!" Glenn described Thursday, the day following the interview. "She said, Oh, my gosh, he was the most evil SOB ever."

And get this, she wasn't alone. Another staffer came up and echoed those sentiments.

"Another guy comes up, and he says, It's so great to meet you. I'm in your club with Woodrow Wilson." Glenn said.

If this doesn't provide a glimmer of hope for finding common ground, nothing will.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• Why did Glenn stop his second interview with Samantha?

• What's the real reason Samantha wanted to become an American?

• What's the X-factor that makes America special?

• How are Glenn and Samantha similar?

• Could Samantha be a closet conservative?

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

GLENN: You guys have not asked me a thing about Samantha Bee.

STU: Yeah. She was on the show yesterday.

GLENN: I was with her all day. She was here all day. You guys were peeking in the windows.

STU: Oh, I was hiding in my office. I didn't peek out at all.

PAT: We were actually doing a shoot yesterday. But I think you have to know a little something about person in order to be that curious about her. I don't know very much about her.

STU: She's on The Daily Show, right?

GLENN: She's on The Daily Show. She was the main reporter on The Daily Show with Stephen Colbert. With Jon Stewart -- but Stephen Colbert, at the time that he was also a reporter.

PAT: We do know that she's very liberal.

GLENN: She's Canada. She's from Canada.

PAT: Yeah. But how did it go? Was the interview --

GLENN: I'll tell you, it was -- so you remember -- on yesterday's episode here, we didn't really say anything. I was more willing to say things because she was in my space.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And so I was willing to ask her questions, and she was like, "You know, yeah. Okay." Because she just didn't know if there was going to be a setup. Or, you know, she didn't know what she was walking into.

STU: I mean, that's how she should be, walking into those moments.

GLENN: She's smart.

And then when the show was over, I walked to the edge of the stage and her -- I think her show runner or her line producer --

JEFFY: Yeah, the show runner.

GLENN: -- came up to me and said, "I want you to know, I think I hate Woodrow Wilson more than you do." And I said, "What?"

JEFFY: No, you don't. That's not possible.

GLENN: And I said, "That's impossible in the first place. But you hate Woodrow Wilson?" She said, "Oh, my gosh, he was the most evil SOB ever." And I said, "I can't -- you're with the show?"

PAT: Did she only hate him because of his racism?

GLENN: No, no. All of it. All of it.

PAT: Really?

GLENN: She knew all of it.

PAT: Is she conservative?

GLENN: No. I don't think so. I didn't talk politics yesterday. We did talk Woodrow Wilson.

She said, "Hey, I'm not alone. Come here." Another guy comes up. And he says, "It's so great to meet you." He said, "I am in your club with Woodrow Wilson."

And I thought at first, "This is a setup. Nobody -- I mean, I said to him, "I can't get conservatives to hate Woodrow Wilson. How do you guys just higgledy-piggledy stumble in and you hate Woodrow Wilson?" And they said, "Oh, no. Worst guy ever." Turns out her show runner was an American historian in school. And she up and down, back and forth, she knows American history.

So we hit it really well. In the interview with Samantha Bee, she hates Woodrow Wilson.

Now, I don't -- I didn't go in-depth because we were on the interview. So I didn't go in-depth, but she hates him because he was a real racist. I don't know if she knows anymore about him.

But, anyway, so I went and I was starting to do her show. And we got about 20 minutes into it. And I just stopped. And I said, "This isn't going well." And she said, "Why?"

And I said, "Because you have show face on." I said, "We were talking beforehand, and the minute the cameras were rolling -- because she was facing all the camera people and all of the producers -- and the minute the cameras were rolling, I could tell when they were rolling because your face changed." She said, "I don't have show face." And I said, "You absolutely have show face. I'm not stupid. I do television. I know what show face is." And I said -- and she said, "Well, what does that mean?"

JEFFY: It's for show.

GLENN: And I said, "It's your show. And I know your style." And you are like, "So -- well, what does that mean, exactly?"

I know exactly what you're doing. You're editing it, and so you have the funny line, and I'm the butt of the joke. And this isn't what we agreed to.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: And it's not what I -- this is not helpful to me. Because what you're going to do is you're going to, A, piss off the audience of mine that like me. And then they'll be mad at your audience because they're laughing at me. And so there's more division.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And on top of it, you will also have my audience say, "What the hell, we could have told you that was happening, dummy. Why are you even talking to her?"

PAT: Yeah. And her audience hates you anyway. So...

GLENN: Right. And I said that to her. I said, "Your audience already hates me. Why don't you do something new?"

PAT: Right.

GLENN: And so she said, "I really thought this was going well." And I said, "Well, I didn't." She said, "So where do we go?"

And so we just had a conversation. And it lasted from that point about an hour. I was four hours behind schedule yesterday because of -- because of the time we had together.

And it changed when I asked her, "Why are you an American?" Because she's Canadian. And this was the first election she could vote in. And I said, "Why are you American? Why did you choose America? What's wrong with Canada? It's like the 51st state." She said, "I love my country of Canada."

STU: Didn't she also say I didn't necessarily want to say this -- so I just want to classify as you're about to say it on the air --

JEFFY: Thank you.

GLENN: Now I can't say anything because I was going to leave out the things that she didn't want aired. But it was nothing bad. It just -- I was going to leave some of that out. But now I can't say anything -- now I'm in an awkward situation. Now what do I --

STU: I'm trying to save you from another awkward situation that you've been in many, many times.

GLENN: I know. I know.

She understands -- I sent this to her last night in my Facebook post about her love for the country. What she -- how she loves America -- and this is nothing about her country.

STU: No, no.

GLENN: She loves Canada.

PAT: Well, it's the curling capital of the world.

GLENN: Shut up.

She said, "There's something about the American spirit that you don't find anywhere else."

STU: Yeah, we've heard that from Daniel Hannan. Who loves England.

GLENN: Yes. Loves England. Everybody -- it's not a slam on their country.

STU: Right. Of course. Of course.

PAT: Right. Right.

JEFFY: Clearly we like Canada, we have one of their sports celebrities on the broadcast.

STU: Thank you, Jeffy.

PAT: That's right.

GLENN: So she said, "Americans -- there's this flame about America that you -- you help each other, and it's just -- it's different." She said, "America is -- or, she said, "Canada, I could have lived there my whole life and could have been happy, and it's great. But there's something -- an X factor in America." And when she's talking about that, I'm like, "Yes. Yes. Yes." Now, we didn't get to this part in our conversation, but hopefully we will. That's called a lack of socialism.

(laughter)

GLENN: That is called personal responsibility.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: That X factor is created -- and, again, don't tell her -- let me break it to her slowly, that X factor is the personal responsibility of people saying, "I've got to do something for my neighbor."

PAT: When the government doesn't do everything, the responsibility falls to us, right? It's our responsibility to begin with.

GLENN: Now, I assume -- we didn't talk about politics -- I assume she likes all the big government socialism stuff of Canada. I'm assuming she likes all of that.

PAT: Probably.

GLENN: But what she said about America -- I said to her, "You realize you're describing de Tocqueville." I said, "What makes America great? What is it that makes America great?" Assuming she knew the phrase, well, America is good. She didn't. She's Canadian. She didn't know. She didn't know who de Tocqueville was.

And I said, "Why is America great?" Because she said, "How do we fix this problem?" And I said, "It's really simply. What made America great?" And she said, "I -- I have to say it's that the people here are really kind. And no matter where you go and no matter what they believe, they want to help each other, and they -- they hold on to each other. And nobody sits back. They see somebody in need, and they go." And I said, "In other words, America is great because America is good?"

Yeah.

Yes, Samantha Bee -- and I told her, I broke it to her, I said, "I hate to break it to you, but you're sounding like me."

And she said, "Oh, no, don't say that to me."

And I said, "Let me ask you a few questions: You know how to fix it, make America good."

Yes, that's me.

Are you suddenly afraid that maybe the president of the United could become a dictator?

Yes.

Hmm. That sounded like me. Are you suddenly worried that maybe a president could do something that could affect the economy and we could have a huge global economic crash?

Yes.

Oh, that sounds like me.

PAT: Huh.

GLENN: It's amazing how liberals have suddenly found these things, but want to stake out, "Well, you thought them about Barack Obama." Yeah, I did. And now you think about them about Donald Trump.

PAT: And, by the way, they were true about Barack Obama. It's not like he's been exonerated from all the things we were worried about. He was as bad as we feared. I mean, he did --

GLENN: No, he's not as bad as I feared. Come on --

PAT: We survived him.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: We really didn't --

GLENN: Right. And we didn't believe that there would be prison camps, but some people believed --

PAT: However, he fundamentally did transform the United States of America in a bad way.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, he did. In our opinion, in a very bad way. In their opinion, in a very good way. And that's why they're so freaked out about Donald Trump. Because they think he'll reverse all of that and transform it just as much in the other direction.

STU: And before we go too far in all this talk about survival, the guy is still in office. We should remember that.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. I know. Well, I've heard -- I've read at USAToday.com.co.ca.au.

PAT: There will be no inauguration.

GLENN: There will be no inauguration.

STU: What! Oh, my gosh. And I believe it immediately.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. He's going to declare marshal law before January 1st.

Anyway, so...

PAT: I've already checked that through Snopes, by the way, and the FBI confirmed it.

GLENN: So Snopes.com.ca.eu.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So, anyway, we had a really good time not talking about politics, but finding things that we agree on that were big principles. Like -- we went through the Bill of Rights. She didn't -- I didn't specifically call out the Second Amendment. But I said, "Do you agree with the Bill of Rights?" And she said, "Yes."

And I gave her -- I said, "I'm going to give you the Second Amendment. I'm going to give you the Second Amendment, that maybe you don't agree on that one. And we can argue about that one. How about the other nine? They're all good, right?"

I was actually for the Patriot Act, and then I woke up and I'm like, "Good Lord, how stupid was I, during the Bush administration." And then I was against it. And I was against with George Bush and against it under Barack Obama.

The left was only against it under George Bush. Barack Obama expanded it. And this president -- and it would have been any president, I think, unless it were a strong constitutionalist, they're going to expand it again. Why don't we stand on that one?

She couldn't -- she -- I think she came in with a whole different attitude and left with a different one. And I have great hope that we will maybe never agree on policies or vote the same way, but we can demonstrate that America can be good doing it together with people who strongly disagree with each other. I like her.

STU: That's cool. And she's on -- that's the 19th that airs.

GLENN: December 19th.

Featured Image: Samantha Bee, host of 'Full Frontal with Samantha Bee' on TBS on 'The Glenn Beck Program', December 8, 2016.

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.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Samantha Bee Staffer Claims to Hate Woodrow Wilson More Than Glenn (LOL)

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

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

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

One‑sided freedom

Censored belief

Faith on trial

The real test

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

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

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.

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

But that’s not what we hear.

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

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

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.

Moral erosion

The buck stops with us