Atheist Gamer Attacked for Tweet Defends Faith, Free Speech and the Constitution

Colin Moriarty, gamer and cofounder of KindaFunny.com, recently found himself in hot water with gaming industry colleagues over a tweet he meant as a joke.

Apparently, no one has a sense of humor anymore --- on the left or right (just ask Sam B).

RELATED: Maybe We Should Just Lay off the Nazi Jokes for the Time Being? (Except for Mel Brooks)

A longtime fan of Glenn's, Moriarty joined The Glenn Beck Program on Monday to talk about the brouhaha and why his political viewpoints confuse people.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Colin Moriarty joins us now. He's the cofounder of kindafunny.com. And he's a gamer. And welcome to the program, Colin. How are you, sir?

COLIN: I'm well. Thank you so much for having me. It's very surreal. I appreciate you taking the time.

GLENN: Why do you say it's very surreal?

COLIN: Well, my father and I -- well, I grew up with my father listening to talk radio and kind of listening to all sorts of people. And when I told him I was going to be on with you, he said he got chills actually because we used to listen to you and watch together.

GLENN: Oh, that's wild. That's wild.

Well, I am so glad that you have joined us. I saw you on Dave Reuben's show. And was fascinated by you, because you say you're a Libertarian, but you're also a proud conservative. And if this was visual, you're all tatted up. You live in San Francisco. And I can't imagine -- it's one thing to say Libertarian, it's another thing to say conservative in San Francisco. How is that going for you?

(chuckling)

COLIN: Not very well, as you can see.

GLENN: Yeah.

COLIN: Yeah. But, no, I kind of take -- you know, I think the good parts of both sides. And I think even the good parts of liberalism to come up with some amalgamation that makes sense to me. So I think -- socially, I think I'm very Libertarian. In fact, I think I'm more Libertarian than many progressive liberals.

But at the same time, I believe in the Constitution. I believe in deference to the Founders. I believe in a small government that stays out of your business. The thing is that I marked those altogether. So a government that stays out of your business, to tell you you can have a gun, for instance, is the same government that I think should stay out of your business if a man wants to marry another man. And I think that's where my Libertarianism comes into play.

GLENN: Yes. Colin, it's why I was in this strange position ten, 15 years ago of saying, look, you know, morally my religion teaches one thing. But my constitutionalism tells me I have no place to tell anybody who can marry and who can't. The government should be out of this entirely. Don't affect my church. And I won't affect your marriage. Just leave each other alone. And that creates some really strange bedfellows that we're currently trying to chase out of the public square. And that's the answer.

COLIN: I agree with you. You know, this is where -- I think people have a hard time identifying people like me, Glenn. Because I'm actually an atheist. But I grew up in a Catholic household, a very devoutly Catholic household. And people of faith have a very great ally in me because I believe that faith is a good thing. I believe it's good for polity. I think it's good for people to have faith in something, in a higher being. I just don't. But I would always protect to the very last a person's right, for instance, to believe.

Just because I don't believe doesn't mean, as you said, you can't believe. And so I also respect -- you know, I'm pro-choice, but I respect the pro-life argument. I think it's a very principled argument. I think it's good that there are people out there that are challenging my beliefs. And so this is the kind of the confusing thing, this kind of -- this kind of thought policing that's happening. This very -- you know, I'm considered an enemy to liberalism, even though I share many of their values, because I believe the government should stay out of your business. So I'm the enemy.

GLENN: Isn't it strange to see how people have flipped on almost every point just because their guy is not in office? Now liberals are concerned --

COLIN: Yes.

GLENN: -- they're concerned about, you know, executive orders. But they weren't under Obama. And now the people who were concerned about executive orders under Obama are fine with it now. It's crazy.

COLIN: To me, I agree with you. It's insane. You know, people that listen to me and know me -- I go off on politics often. And, you know, I was disgusted with the Republican Party. I was a registered Republican. And, you know, I'm not a Trump fan at all. I was sickened by how people took what I thought Republicanism was and, you know, morphed into something that it wasn't, simply to win. And to me, that's not -- that's not principled. And I'd rather lose and retain my principles. So when it was clear Trump was going to win, here in California -- we vote very late, as you know -- I voted for Kasich as a protest vote. And then I disavowed the party completely.

That doesn't mean I'm a conservative -- or, I'm sorry, that doesn't mean that I'm not a conservative. It means that I think the conservative principles and the free principles that we stand upon were actually kind of taken away by people that don't really share our values. And it seems like it's all in the name of winning. It's all in the name of being better than the other side. There is no one talking to each other. There's no gray area. It's just all orthodoxy. And it really makes me sick.

GLENN: So help me out what conservative -- I know what Republicanism means right now. It means the same exact thing as being a Democrat. It means I'll do whatever it takes and whatever it has to, to win. But conservatives, what does it mean to be a conservative? I mean, you're 32 years old. You're out in San Francisco. You're a gamer. You do -- you know, you do a gaming kind of blog.

So who are -- the people you relate to, what does that word even mean to them and to you?

COLIN: Well, I think -- you know, as you said, things are changing. I think we're at an inflection point. And, to me, conservatism simply means -- in my mind, and everyone might have a different opinion on this, I'm sure they do -- you know, a deference to the Constitution. If the government can get out of something, it should get out of something. If the state or local government can take care of something over the federal government, I think that's ideal. To me, it's personal freedom, responsibility, the right to succeed, and the right to fail. And the right to express yourself freely, without having to worry about being called a bigot or being called a sexist, as I was for making a silly joke. And I'm glad you brought that up specifically because there are so many people that play video games, there are so many people that enjoy entertainment that don't have anyone speaking for them.

GLENN: Yes.

COLIN: The video game industry in the United States is out of San Francisco. The media, which I come from -- I used to be the senior editor of the biggest video game website in the world. And two years ago, I quit to do my own thing with my friends.

But it is exclusively liberal. I am the only real conservative voice out there in what I would call mainstream media. Obviously there are people on YouTube that do that as well in the gaming space. And you would be shocked about how many people talk to me every day, and they're like, you are the only person I can relate to. I am a gun owner, for instance. You know, I'm not. But they're saying, I'm a gun owner, for instance, and I would be ridiculed and labeled by these other people. But you support me. Or I'm a man of faith. Or I'm Christian. Or I'm Jewish. Whatever it might be. And you don't judge me for that. So I think that there's a conservative bent to gaming and a conservative bent -- or an independent bent -- or a Libertarian bent to those things that people support.

GLENN: But what I'm asking you is, does the word conservative -- the word itself. Because what you're saying -- to me, conservative has been so bastardized that it doesn't mean anything that we almost -- and this is not the right word because it's so misunderstood, but almost classic liberalism. Because I think -- you know, everything -- I hope. And maybe this is wishful thinking. You will be able to tell me. Is anybody in San Francisco waking up to the point of, "Hey, safe spaces is a restriction on speech. And we're really starting to go down on the roads of fascism, and it's really kind of the progressive side that's pushing hard?"

COLIN: Yes. There are some people. And I want to keep it in the scope of reality. You know, there are people here that are waking up. That said, only 10 percent -- and I'm not saying a vote for Trump is a good thing. But just as an illustration, only 10 percent of San Francisco voted for Trump. So you're dealing with a very hyper liberal society here in San Francisco.

GLENN: Right. Right.

COLIN: That supports those things more than anything. But there are people, even in the gaming industry that are waking up to this and think this stuff is so silly.

And, Glenn, I've expressed it in the past. I went to Northeastern in Boston, and I studied American history. And I couldn't imagine -- you know, I graduated in 2007, and I couldn't imagine being in college now where people are restricted. I took a bunch of classes on Nazi Germany, for instance, or the Civil War, the bloodiest conflict, as I'm sure you know, as you're very learned, in American history. And I couldn't imagine how they might teach those things now to kind of placate people or to make sure that they're coddled.

So, yeah, there are people waking up. But what's disappointing to me is I'm one of the only ones speaking outwardly, and I'm the proxy for a lot of people that are afraid to talk. They talk to me. People at gaming companies, all the way up to CEOs of gaming companies, down to the lowest trenches, as I told Dave, will talk to me and tell me, I believe what you say. But, man, I'm afraid to say it. Because they're going to get ridiculed in the public population.

GLENN: So then what makes you -- what do you say to people like that? What makes you heroic and them not willing to do something that is now considered heroic?

COLIN: I think, you know -- I try not to judge anyone for that. I think that there's a real fear for people's jobs. These people have families. They don't want to be basically blacklisted from the industry, as people have -- you know, de facto kind of tried to do to me over the years. And as you see with this joke, people came down on me -- nobody is offended by that joke, Glenn.

GLENN: Oh, I know. I agree. Nobody is offended by that.

COLIN: They see an opportunity. They see an opportunity to take down someone that speaks a different language than them.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

COLIN: So to me -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.

GLENN: So to you --

COLIN: I was going to say, so to me, it's just, I understand people's fear, but I'm also kind of getting exhausted by being their proxy because I know they're out there. And, you know, I was so happy that a few people came to my defense in such a way. And people that are not even conservative.

A buddy of mine, David Jaffe, who is a well-known game developer. He makes the game -- he was responsible for the games Twisted Metal and God of War. These are very big games. Came out and said -- basically, I'm just paraphrasing. But, what is everyone's problem here?

So there are even people on the left. He's a very liberal person. That are concerned about that as well. But San Francisco, specifically, is as cartoonish, if not more so, than people think it is.

GLENN: Hey, I would be -- it would be wrong of me to have you on because a lot of people that listen to you don't like me because I have said, quoting, colonel -- I'm trying to remember his name. He wrote On Killing. And he is one of -- he is the leading expert on killing and has developed all these programs for the Pentagon to be able to get people to have a positive shooting experience. How do we get guys to shoot when they first get off the back of an airplane? Et cetera, et cetera.

And he has said -- and his research shows that video games help break down a mental wall that -- they don't make you into a killer. But they break down a mental wall where it makes it easier for you to kill.

And that is somehow very controversial for me to even say. I don't believe video games make you into a killer. I think you have something inside of you or don't have something inside of you. But it does break down a wall.

Do you want to tell me off for that? I want to give your fans an opportunity to say, "Yeah, all right. You told him."

COLIN: I mean, I have no interest in telling anyone offering a differing opinion or whatever like that. But to me, I'm not an expert, and I haven't read the work you're talking about.

GLENN: Yes.

COLIN: What I will say is that, it doesn't -- it doesn't I believe -- for me to say that if a person plays Grand Theft Auto 5 and he might already have some preexisting mental condition or some preexisting propensity, as you said, to do something already that, running around in a car, murdering people with it, might set that person off, is that possible? I'm sure that it probably is.

But I try keep the numbers in balance. This is actually a similar argument to what I use with the right to own a gun, which is to say Grand Theft Auto 5, which is a very violent, very provocative game, had sold 70 million units around the world, one of the best-selling games of all time. If there are five people that play Grand Theft Auto 5 and go on to kill someone because they're inspired by that, I know it sounds kind of strange, but that's a really almost mathematically insignificant number of people, if that makes any sense.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

COLIN: Similarly to a person that has access to a gun. Should none of us have access to a gun because a mentally unstable person has access to a gun and kills himself? I always defer -- you know, it's like an old Benjamin Franklin quote, you defer to liberty over kind of security, in that regard. And so I take a similar stance there. Can something like that set someone off? Of course. I'm sure that's possible.

GLENN: Colin. Colin, I would love to talk to you again. Colin Moriarty. He is the cofounder of kindafunny.com.

It's great meeting you. Really great meeting you. Thanks, Colin, I appreciate it.

COLIN: Thank you so much, Glenn. I appreciate it.

Bill Gates ends climate fear campaign, declares AI the future ruler

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.