EXCLUSIVE: GOP Rep Unveils Bill To Prevent ‘Left-Wing Lunatics’ From Holding US Highways Hostage

'They belong in jail, not on our highways'

Unfit for duty: Chubster cops weigh down American policing



America’s police forces are in a dire state. Not just in terms of recruitment but in terms of quality.

The crisis transcends numbers; it strikes at the heart of the institution’s ability to keep Americans safe. Joe Rogan recently hosted John McPhee, the “Sheriff of Baghdad,” on his podcast.

One of my closest friends, a member of the NYPD, has shared with me the unbelievable nonsense that has unfolded in the post-George Floyd years — stories that reveal just how dire the situation has become.

The retired special ops soldier delivered a sobering indictment of U.S. law enforcement.

McPhee, who now focuses on training police and civilians, highlighted systemic failures, from fitness to training, that jeopardize both officers and the public. Although he was contacted for comment prior to the publication of this article, he did not respond.

That said, one doesn’t need to be a grizzled, gun-slinging guru to see the elephant in the room.

The thickening blue line

A staggering 40% of American police officers are obese. Not just overweight — obese. It’s a sobering reality for those entrusted with the duty to protect and serve. When officers cannot pursue a suspect, subdue an attacker, or endure the physical demands of their work, it fundamentally undermines the notion of public safety.

Obese police officers not only heighten the risk of injuries but also increase the likelihood of relying on excessive force. When stamina or strength is lacking, officers may feel compelled to resort to extreme measures, such as prematurely using deadly force.

An example is the case of Parker v. District of Columbia, as part of which an officer’s poor physical fitness directly led to a serious incident. Officer Hayes, unable to pursue a fleeing suspect effectively, resorted to using his firearm, causing severe injuries to the suspect. The court determined that the officer’s physical condition, exacerbated by insufficient fitness training, left him with no viable non-lethal options.

Contrary to the delusional beliefs of the fat positivity movement, there’s nothing “positive” about lugging around bucketloads of fat. Santa Claus aside, the idea of the jolly fat man is pure fiction. And Saint Nick is only cheerful because he punches in one day a year.

Obesity doesn’t just weigh down the body; it crushes the mind too. It’s a breeding ground for depression, anxiety, and chronic stress, all of which wreak havoc on judgment and decision-making. Studies reveal that obesity dulls executive function and fuels impulsivity, turning high-pressure moments into fertile ground for bad decisions.

Obese officers often report simmering anger and frustration, a cocktail mixed from their physical struggles and society’s not-so-subtle disdain.

No respect

Moreover, respect plays a crucial role in the profession of policing. Officers rely on public cooperation, trust, and authority to perform their duties effectively, whether it’s calming a tense situation, issuing commands, or establishing credibility in court. However, societal biases often complicate this dynamic, especially when it comes to physical appearance — and obesity is a significant factor.

Studies consistently show that obese individuals face widespread discrimination, both overt and subtle. They are often perceived as less competent, less disciplined, and even less authoritative. These perceptions stem from deeply ingrained stereotypes associating weight with laziness or a lack of self-control — traits that directly conflict with the image of a disciplined, reliable police officer.

Consciously or unconsciously, people think, "How can this officer protect me and my loved ones when they can’t even resist the magnetic pull of a McDonald’s drive-thru?"

While we can debate the fairness of such biases, they are deeply rooted in human psychology and social conditioning. In other words, they exist — and they’re not going anywhere anytime soon. An obese officer might struggle to convey that same sense of preparedness or capability in the eyes of the public, regardless of their actual skills or expertise.

Tough love

To be clear, this isn’t an attack on officers themselves. They perform an invaluable service, often risking their lives to maintain the delicate balance of order and security in our communities. Without their dedication, society would descend into chaos.

But in a profession where lives hang in the balance, anything less than the highest standard is a dangerous compromise. Officers, like everyone else, must take responsibility for their own physical fitness — a point so basic it shouldn’t even be controversial.

I sympathize with officers, who are often victims of systemic failures that leave them woefully unprepared for the intense demands of their roles. Law enforcement professionals operate under immense pressure, but the lack of meaningful support for their physical and mental health only deepens the challenges they face every day.

One of my closest friends, a member of the NYPD, has shared with me the unbelievable nonsense that has unfolded in the post-George Floyd years — stories that reveal just how dire the situation has become. Officers are drowning in pointless training sessions and mountains of paperwork, distractions that keep them from doing the job they were hired to do: protecting the people of America.

99 problems

The police force problem begins with woefully inadequate training systems. As McPhee observed, police academies often obsess over bureaucratic trivialities while neglecting essential real-world preparation.

Officers step into the field ill-equipped to handle life-or-death situations with the nuance and skill required. Training in critical areas such as de-escalation, hand-to-hand combat, and tactical decision-making is often minimal, leaving officers to navigate high-stakes encounters without the necessary tools.

Compounding the issue is the rigid structure of police departments. Unlike the military, which assigns roles based on individual strengths, law enforcement clings to a one-size-fits-all model. Officers with widely varying abilities are tasked with the same duties, whether patrolling neighborhoods or responding to active threats.

Why not assign the fitter, stronger, sharper officers to patrol the streets while those less mobile focus on desk work where they can still contribute effectively?

McPhee believes that, with proper training, the need for specialized SWAT teams could be eliminated entirely.

He told Rogan that, if trained correctly, every officer would possess the fitness, tactical precision, and decision-making skills typically reserved for elite units.

Today’s reliance on SWAT teams is a symptom of broader systemic failure. Regular officers are so poorly prepared that specialists are required for situations that should fall within the scope of standard policing. Proper training would empower officers to handle everything from high-stakes emergencies to routine calls with the same level of professionalism.

A need for change

Reform isn’t just possible; it’s already being implemented successfully in other countries. Finland and Norway set the gold standard with rigorous training programs that span years and emphasize legal knowledge, physical fitness, and de-escalation techniques. These nations produce officers who are not only better equipped but also earn greater trust from their communities. Even Australia has embraced reform, focusing on fitness, tactical readiness, and ongoing professional development.

Yes, some may argue, “America is not Australia, and it’s certainly not Finland.” True enough.

But like Australia and Finland, America’s police force is made up of humans — individuals entrusted with the critical duty of protecting and serving the public. The path to a better, faster, sharper, stronger police force isn’t rocket science. It’s about prioritizing smart training, embracing reform, and holding the system — not just the individuals within it — to a higher standard. Anything less is an abdication of responsibility to both the officers and the communities they serve.

It’s time to MAGA — "Make Authority Great Again."

As Americans’ Tolerance For Wokeness Dies, The Left’s Appetite For Violence Only Grows

Americans in general want a return to law and order, but the left wants the blood of its enemies.

Daniel Penny was a hero — Alvin Bragg turned him into a villain



America no longer has a single, shared understanding of justice. Two Americas now exist, each applying justice differently depending on who you are and where you live. One America, ruled by common sense and individual courage, praises heroes who stand up to protect others. The other, driven by political agendas and corrupted institutions, punishes those same heroes for daring to act.

This stark division couldn’t be clearer than in the case of Daniel Penny, the Marine whose trial in New York City this week drew strong reactions from both sides across the divided line of justice.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare.

Penny was on a subway train last year when Jordan Neely — a man suffering from severe mental illness and reportedly high on drugs — began threatening passengers, saying, “I’m going to kill you all.” The fear on that subway car was palpable, but nobody moved. Nobody, that is, until Penny did what needed to be done. He took action to protect innocent lives.

In the America many of us used to believe in, Penny’s response would be heralded as heroic. His actions mirrored the courage of Todd Beamer on Flight 93, who, on September 11, 2001, rallied others with the words, “Let’s roll,” to prevent further tragedy. But in New York, courage doesn’t seem to count anymore. There, the system turns heroes into villains.

Penny subdued Neely using a chokehold, intending only to restrain him, not kill him. Tragically, Neely died. Penny, filled with remorse, told the police he never meant to hurt anyone. Yet, instead of being recognized for protecting others from a clear and present threat, Penny stood trial for criminally negligent homicide.

In Alvin Bragg’s New York, justice bends to ideology. The Manhattan district attorney has made a career of weaponizing the law, selectively prosecuting those who don’t fit his narrative. He’s the same prosecutor who twisted legal precedent to go after Donald Trump on business charges no one had ever faced before. Then, he turned his sights on Daniel Penny.

A jury may have acquitted Penny, but what happened in New York City this week isn’t justice. When the rule of law changes depending on the defendant’s identity or the prosecutor's political motives, we’re no longer living in a free country. We’re living in a state where justice is a game, and ordinary Americans are the pawns.

The system failed Jordan Neely

It’s worth asking: Where were activists like Alvin Bragg when Neely was suffering on the streets? Jordan Neely was a tragic figure — a man with a long history of mental illness and over 40 arrests, including violent assaults. The system failed him long before he stepped onto that subway train. Yet rather than confront that uncomfortable truth, Bragg’s office decided to target the man who stepped in to prevent a tragedy.

This isn’t about justice. It’s about power. It’s about advancing a narrative where race and identity matter more than truth and common sense.

It’s time to demand change

The Daniel Penny case — and others like it — is a wake-up call. We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty. Americans must demand an end to politically driven prosecutions, hold DAs like Alvin Bragg accountable, and stand up for the principle that true justice is blind, consistent, and fair.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare. It’s time to choose which America we want to live in.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Daniel Penny is the right’s George Floyd



Daniel Penny, a 26-year-old Marine Corps veteran, was found not guilty Monday of criminally negligent homicide by a jury in the 2023 death of Jordan Neely. While millions of people were invested in the outcome of Penny’s trial, the primary driver of public interest was only partially about the jury’s eventual verdict.

Verdicts in the court of law are influenced by facts, evidence, and legal arguments. Unlike legal proceedings, however, the court of public opinion is driven by narratives that often elevate people from individuals to political symbols who represent something far more important in the cultural zeitgeist. I reached a verdict I didn’t expect after reading the conservative commentary surrounding this case.

It is possible to act nobly and bravely and still be held liable by the legal system.

Daniel Penny is the conservative right’s George Floyd.

This comparison is not about personal biography. The two men couldn’t be farther apart in that regard. They do, however, share a great deal as symbols of injustice and racial persecution to their most passionate defenders.

To the left, Floyd was the living embodiment of the historical oppression black men have faced in America at the hands of racist police. They saw his death as a modern-day lynching, a dynamic that cast Officer Derek Chauvin as the callous, indifferent hangman.

Progressives weren’t interested in any discussion about the impact of drugs on Floyd’s health or how his behavior influenced the response from law enforcement. George Floyd represented everything they believed about the racism baked into the criminal justice system. To them, his life and death embodied the struggles of an oppressed minority.

Daniel Penny has been hailed as a hero by conservatives for stepping in to keep Jordan Neely from harming passengers on their train. To them, Penny is the embodiment of the currentpersecution of white males in American society. While commentary about anti-white bias is typically confined to stories about human resources managers rejecting white applicants and racial preference schemes at selective universities, many of Penny’s supporters see him as a victim of the systemic racism being practiced today by overzealous progressive prosecutors. To them, his arrest and prosecution by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg embodied the plight of an oppressed majority.

While it is tempting to view both men through color-coded lenses, the narratives constructed around them have been built with the tools of politics and race — in that order. Blue and black on one side. Red and white on the other. Politics lights the fire. Race fans the flames.

The tribal nature of American society also makes both sides resistant to anything that challenges the preferred narrative. The idea that there could never be a “white George Floyd” was blown up once people learned about the death of Tony Timpa.

Likewise, the people quickest to invoke race as the driving force in Penny’s arrest likely don’t know self-defense claims didn’t keep Jordan Williams — a black man — from being arrested and charged with manslaughter after the fatal stabbing of Devictor Ouedraogo on a New York City subway train in June 2023. Williams had charges against him dropped after witnesses claimed Ouedraogo physically assaulted passengers, including Williams' girlfriend.

No one should be surprised by either side’s blind spots. Politics and race influence not only media attention but also the intensity of reaction to stories.

Some progressives tried to paint Penny as a white supremacist vigilante even though no evidence suggested racial animus motivated his actions. But the narrative that emerged on the right that Penny was only charged because of systemic racism against white men is evidence that conservatives are just as susceptible to confirmation bias as their liberal counterparts.

Addressing the depths of the human condition is never easy, especially in a city of over 8 million people. New York City subways serve as informal homeless camps and mental health facilities for far too many people. Many of the trains reek of human waste. I’m sure many New Yorkers of every color appreciate men like Daniel Penny willing to defend other people from danger.

That doesn’t change the fact that part of the government’s job is to determine the circumstances under which one person can take the life of another. Murder is a different charge with different penalties from homicide. Self-defense protects people who take a life because their own is in danger. The notion that you can choke a loud, belligerent person — even one who’s mentally ill — from behind and not face any legal consequence is influenced far more by politics than a careful reading of the law.

I don’t view Daniel Penny as a hero. Neither do I see him as a villain. I look at Penny as a man who believed he was acting with good intentions in trying to defend a train full of people from a mentally ill man. But it is possible to act nobly and bravely and still be held liable by the legal system.

The left blames “anti-black racism” when black men die at the hands of a white person. The right blames “anti-white racism” when white men face trial during fatal interracial encounters. Both sides resist anything that challenges their narratives because being an aggrieved victim today comes with social, cultural, and political benefits.

The biggest loser in this cultural tug-of-war is the American people. Police misconduct, political prosecutions, homelessness, and mental illness are all serious matters that deserve rational, objective policy responses. Unfortunately, political tribalism continues to make it difficult to address any of these problems on a bipartisan basis.

BLM and mob threats couldn’t overturn the truth in the Daniel Penny case



The acquittal of Daniel Penny on Monday in the subway death of Jordan Neely highlights that justice, grounded in facts and fairness, can withstand media distortion and mob outrage. This case was not merely about one man’s actions but about affirming the right to self-defense and preserving the integrity of the justice system.

Penny, a former Marine, intervened to protect subway passengers when Neely, described by witnesses as erratic and threatening, caused fear among those present. Penny’s intent was to de-escalate the situation, though tragically, Neely died. Rather than focusing on the evidence, activists and the media rushed to demonize Penny, casting him as an aggressor without supporting facts. However, the jury adhered to the facts. Witnesses testified that Neely’s behavior posed a threat and Penny’s actions were those of a responsible citizen seeking to protect others.

The verdict delivers a powerful message: Americans retain the right to defend themselves and others when lives are at risk.

This trial extended beyond Penny — it highlighted deeper societal tensions. Increasingly, high-profile cases are politicized, diverting justice to serve narratives rather than truth. Activists immediately labeled Penny’s actions as racially motivated despite the absence of supporting evidence. Prosecutors pursued charges many saw as driven by mob pressure instead of justice. Such cases undermine trust in the legal system, where evidence — not public sentiment — should determine guilt or innocence.

Beyond the courtroom, this case exposes a broader urban crisis in cities like New York. Major urban centers increasingly face disorder fueled by lenient crime policies and weak enforcement. Citizens are often compelled to intervene because authorities fail to ensure safety and order. Penny’s case underscores this grim reality: a private citizen acting to protect others when the system falls short. Should we penalize those who step up to ensure public safety in the absence of effective law enforcement?

The mob justice surrounding this case highlights how activists and media narratives can distort public perception. Groups like Black Lives Matter framed this incident as a racial issue and even resorted to threats of violence to pressure the courts. These tactics erode the principles of due process, fostering an environment where guilt is presumed before the facts are examined. Justice must remain impartial regardless of public outcry.

While Neely’s death is undeniably tragic, it underscores systemic failures that shaped his circumstances. A repeat offender with a long history of mental illness and homelessness, Neely was abandoned by the very systems meant to protect him. His family, absent during his struggles, now fuels a narrative of racial injustice rather than addressing the deeper issues behind his decline. This approach exploits tragedy for opportunism rather than seeking real solutions.

For Penny, the trial’s end brings relief — but at tremendous personal cost. Cast into the national spotlight, he became a symbol of the right to self-defense — a fundamental right that should never be in question. His hard-won acquittal represents a victory for those who prioritize fairness and evidence over mob-driven narratives.

This case serves as a wake-up call for policymakers to confront the root causes of such tragedies: the mental health crisis, homelessness, and the erosion of public safety. Cities like New York must enforce laws consistently and provide meaningful resources to those in need. Leaders have a responsibility to rebuild trust in institutions and ensure that citizens are not forced to shoulder the burden of public safety alone.

The verdict delivers a powerful message: Americans retain the right to defend themselves and others when lives are at risk. This principle transcends political divides and underscores the importance of justice rooted in facts, not ideology. Properly executed, justice upholds fundamental rights and offers hope for fairness in a polarized society.

Daniel Penny’s acquittal represents more than just his personal vindication. It stands as a victory for all Americans who value the rule of law, the right to self-defense, and the integrity of due process. Despite the challenges, Penny’s case reaffirms that the courtroom remains a place where truth and evidence prevail. At a time when the justice system is under scrutiny, that’s something worth celebrating.

Without consequences, the rule of law dies



The series of absurdities that have unfolded this week to undermine the rule of law are so convoluted that it would be hilarious if the topic were not so grave.

The Biden administration has demonstrated consistent corruption, bringing outrageous charges against political opponents, intimidating concerned parents, and targeting professing Christians. Progressives have gone to extreme lengths — including attempted assassination — to stop Donald Trump from returning to the White House, fearing the consequences of their actions. Now, President Joe Biden has issued a sweeping pardon for his son Hunter and is reportedly considering additional “pre-emptive” pardons to shield his allies.

A standard that applies only to one side is not a principle at all — it is a weapon.

President Trump must reject calls for surrender from both the establishment left and right while ensuring Democrats are held accountable for their abuse of power. If he fails to act, the left will likely resume its legal campaigns the moment Democrats regain power.

In the past week, both National Review and Politico published pieces urging Trump to avoid retaliatory actions if he returns to office. While National Review acknowledged corruption within the Biden Justice Department and Politico largely downplayed it, both concluded that Trump should refrain from using his power to hold those responsible for legal overreach accountable.

The word "retaliation" is itself a manipulative attempt to poison the well. The correct word is "justice," and without justice, not only will those wronged go without satisfaction, but the incentives will encourage Democrats to resume their incredibly corrupt practices the minute they regain power.

The think pieces urging restraint from Trump were already absurd. Joe Biden, however, drove the point home days later by issuing a sweeping pardon for his son Hunter. The pardon not only covers the specific weapons charges for which Hunter was convicted but also shields him from all potential crimes dating back to 2014.

While using presidential power to protect a son from a specific, life-altering mistake might be understandable, this blanket pardon reeks of corruption. Its scope — reaching back to when Hunter allegedly acted as a bagman for his dad — suggests self-interest played a larger role than fatherly affection in this brazen act.

If the Hunter Biden pardon wasn’t enough to mock the rule of law, Politico now reports that the administration is considering blanket pardons for other Democratic allies. Figures such as Anthony Fauci, Liz Cheney, and Adam Schiff — all potential targets for accountability under Trump — may receive pre-emptive pardons.

Should the Biden administration take this step, it will destroy any remaining illusion of a functioning justice system. Americans watching this blatant corruption can no longer believe progressives will honor calls for civility or restraint. The left is torching its last shreds of credibility, along with the evidence, as it scrambles to evade accountability.

Americans like to believe they live under the rule of law, not the rule of men. Ultimately, however, all laws must be administered by someone. A society’s norms and beliefs can be enshrined in its legal system, but if those in power fail to enforce and respect those standards, they become meaningless.

President Joe Biden has repeatedly declared, “No one is above the law,” in reference to Donald Trump. Yet, when it comes to his son Hunter or figures like Anthony Fauci, Biden has shown no interest in upholding that principle. A standard that applies only to one side is not a principle at all — it is a weapon.

Conservatives, by nature, gravitate toward restoring order and sanity. Most Republican voters want a justice system that punishes criminals, protects citizens, and remains apolitical. But order cannot be restored unless Democrats face consequences for violating those norms. Losing an election is not enough.

Trump must take substantive action to impose accountability and deter progressive politicians and bureaucrats from abusing power again when given the opportunity. Every schoolchild learns that the pendulum swing of democracy and competing ambitions keeps government power in check. Yet, this system cannot function if one side makes power abuse its principle while the other side refuses to wield power at all.

President Trump should start by pardoning the January 6 defendants and other enemies of the Democratic Party, like Douglass Mackey, who have faced politically motivated prosecution under Biden’s Department of Justice. The Trump administration should consider dismantling the FBI entirely or at least closing its Washington headquarters. This effort should include firing as many agents as possible and relocating the remaining staff to various field offices across the country.

Charges should be filed against officials who committed crimes while implementing the Biden administration’s corrupt agenda. Those who were complicit but did not commit criminal acts should be removed from their positions. Accountability must come first.

Healing and unity — and a true restoration of the rule of law — can only happen after the left’s entrenched influence in the American system is rooted out. Those advising retreat or restraint without ensuring Democrats face consequences are either naïve or deliberately protecting the entrenched establishment.

Trump must take bold action and disregard disingenuous calls for civility designed to enable future progressive abuses. For ambition to truly check ambition, the pendulum must swing — and it must swing hard.

‘Municipal conservatism’ offers hope to crime-ridden blue cities



As the results of the 2024 election are scrutinized, the left and its media allies are shocked by the number of urban voters who had been loyal Democrats but suddenly shifted to Donald Trump. This shift helped propel Trump to victory in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan and significantly reduced the Democrats’ margin even in blue states they won.

These “Trump Democrats” are also frontline victims of the ills that elected Democrats have caused in recent years.

The old libertarian, anti-government Republican clichés won’t solve the crime and dysfunction besetting our cities.

For better or worse, Republicans have largely abandoned the cities, leaving them to deal with the consequences of their own votes. This approach is understandable. But if the widespread defection of black and Jewish voters to Trump is seen as a cry for help, perhaps now is the time for conservatives to offer a better alternative: “municipal conservatism.”

A few days after the election, liberal journalist Josh Barro published an insightful essay in the Atlantic that gained wide circulation, even in conservative circles. Barro boldly criticized Democrats’ poor governance, which drove many traditional Democratic voters to Trump. Declaring that “Democrats deserved to lose,” Barro highlighted issues like the breakdown of order in public transit, lack of policing, open shoplifting, merchandise locked in cases, expensive but failing schools, hotels filled with migrants, released criminals, and defunding of police.

Despite his excellent analysis, Barro missed the mark by clinging to the outdated 20th-century assumption that Democrats aim to provide government services to improve their constituents’ lives. “The gap between Democrats’ promise of better living through better government and their failure to actually deliver better government has been a national political problem,” he wrote.

“Better living through better government,” or simply “good government,” may have been the guiding philosophy during the days of Richard Daley in Chicago and Ed Koch in New York City — mayors who genuinely sought prosperity and order for their cities. Today, however, even the pretense of good government is gone. Many cities are now run by self-proclaimed revolutionaries who identify as Democrats but aim to dismantle the old order.

These “Pol Pot mayors” speak of a new utopian vision, but in reality, they are destroying their cities, much as Pol Pot did when he depopulated Phnom Penh in his quest to reorganize Cambodian society. Crime, civil disorder, and anarcho-tyranny are not viewed as problems in these struggling blue cities. They are tools.

These cities urgently need municipal conservatives in the mold of Rudy Giuliani — strong leaders who will restore order, even if they are not small-government purists aligned with Edmund Burke and Ludwig von Mises. Giuliani’s work cleaning up New York was remarkable, yet many conservatives initially dismissed him as too liberal because he didn’t focus on lowering taxes and limiting government. But New Yorkers weren’t looking for that. They wanted effective governance and a return to civil order. Rudy delivered.

This isn’t to suggest that 20th-century Democratic urban governance is an ideal to emulate or repeat. I’m pointing out that Democrats have abandoned any commitment to safe, orderly cities, creating an opportunity for Republicans to offer viable solutions.

There was nothing conservative about Democrat-run cities in the 20th century, with their focus on patronage, jobs programs, and generous pay and benefits for municipal employees. But with civil order and reliable policing, citizens tolerated the taxes and corruption and continued voting for Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans talked about privatizing city services and cutting city payrolls — and consistently lost at the polls.

Many of us conservatives who left blue cities mock city-dwellers for not voting Republican, but perhaps they haven’t heard the right message about making cities livable again. Or maybe now is finally the time they’ll listen to that message.

The old libertarian, anti-government Republican clichés won’t solve the crime and dysfunction besetting our cities. In fact, the left’s demand to abolish the police could itself be seen as a libertarian, anti-government stance.

Republicans need to offer our struggling cities an agenda focused on delivering excellent city services, including effective policing, cleanliness, anti-vagrancy measures, public safety, reliable utilities, and family-friendly parks. This agenda should promote a political climate that supports small businesses, primary education, churches, families, and patriotism. Democrat-run cities have grown hostile to these foundational elements of urban civilization, creating an enormous opportunity for Republicans.

Donald Trump has shown that even the most loyal Democratic constituencies are willing to vote Republican if it promises relief from the problems created by Democratic policies. A municipal conservatism that can restore civil order in our cities is exactly what voters need right now. Now, Republicans need to recruit modern-day Giulianis to make that pitch.

Blaze News original: 9 popular TV shows with conservative messages



Television used to be the great equalizer — a place where Americans of all colors, creeds, and political persuasions could gather to turn off their brains for a while and zone out.

We may have had fewer choices — in both what we watched and when we watched it — but at least every bit of content (we called them "shows" back then) had more or less the same objective: to entertain us.

That generally meant avoiding the same topics you avoid at the neighborhood barbershop — politics and religion.

So much for that simple pleasure.

Now even the most lowbrow dating show must pass muster with the commissars of woke. Now TV producers fall all over themselves to shoehorn leftist messages about inclusion and choose-your-own-gender ideology into their sitcoms and procedurals and single-camera prestige "dramedies."

It's enough to make a man pick up reading.

But wait — don't touch that Dostoevsky! There are still some TV shows out there for conservatives — i.e., anyone who doesn't run from the room screaming at the slightest hint of traditional beliefs such as the importance of family and the value of personal responsibility.

We've compiled a guide — and it's got everything from heartland dramas and wholesome family-friendly sitcoms to crime thrillers, animated comedies, and programs celebrating small-town America.

'Yellowstone'

Set in rural Montana, "Yellowstone" follows the lives of an influential ranching family.

The show often features a rural-versus-urban bent, as the Dutton family must battle against deep-pocketed coastal elites attempting to take over their precious ranch land. "Yellowstone" highlights the dangers of government overreach, crony capitalism, and corporate interests seeking to acquire or develop land.

The show has conservative themes such as a pro-gun perspective, depicting traditional masculinity and gender roles, preaching self-reliance, valorizing work ethic, land conservation, the importance of individual rights, and preservation of heritage.

Kevin Costner portrays John Dutton, the patriarch of the Dutton family. Despite being an antihero with questionable morals, Dutton wants to preserve his family's legacy, traditions, and way of life.

The show has a prominent trope that progress isn't always progress.

'Last Man Standing'

The main character of "Last Man Standing" is Mike Baxter – an outspoken and unapologetic conservative who isn't afraid to air out his right-leaning views on various issues.

Baxter displays a strong work ethic at his job at Outdoor Man — a chain of sporting goods stores.

Baxter is the patriarch of a household with three daughters, and the show advocates for conventional family roles and values. However, Baxter holds traditional values that often put him at odds with the more liberal women in his household — and his son-in-law. Despite political differences, Mike is a family man who comically puts aside his differences and will do anything for his loved ones.

Baxter is played by actor Tim Allen, who is a conservative in real life, which gives his character and the show authenticity.

"Last Man Standing" delves into political issues, including immigration, culture war topics, government regulations, free-market capitalism, voter participation, political campaigns, gun rights, environmental policies, and education.

Though it was the second-most-watched ABC sitcom during the 2016-17 season, ABC canceled "Last Man Standing." Following the cancellation, nearly 440,000 people signed a petition to save the show.

"'Last Man Standing' is one of the only shows on broadcast television, and the only sitcom, that is not constantly shoving liberal ideals down the throats of the viewers. And sadly, that is likely the real reason the show has been canceled," the petition read.

ABC entertainment president Channing Dungey contended that "Last Man Standing" was canceled for "business and scheduling reasons."

"Last Man Standing" was picked up by Fox in 2018 and ran on the network until 2021.

'The Ranch'

"The Ranch" is a Netflix comedy-drama series that may appeal to conservatives for numerous reasons.

The show is based on the Bennett family, who live on the fictional Iron River Ranch in Garrison, Colorado. The TV show has a coming-home plot of a failed semi-pro football player returning to his hometown to help run the family ranch.

"The Ranch" touches on the economic hardships facing small ranchers and other serious issues facing rural America in general.

The show notes the importance of community, self-reliance, work ethic, gun ownership, patriotism, the beauty of tight-knit small-town life, lessons of redemption, family traditions, and skepticism of liberal policies and political correctness.

'King of the Hill'

"King of the Hill" highlights traditional values while providing laughs to the viewer.

The animated TV series is based in the small fictional town of Arlen, Texas. The show centers around Hank Hill, a middle-class propane salesman with conservative values. Hank is a devoted family man who believes in hard work, personal responsibility, and the importance of community.

He has traditional viewpoints, such as patriotism, loyalty, work ethic, personal responsibility, limited government, traditional gender roles, fiscal conservatism, respect for tradition, community involvement, blue-collar pride, civic duty, and skepticism toward government intervention.

Hill often struggles to understand modern societal trends, which opens up comedic situations where Hank is completely perplexed. Hill often blasts political correctness.

"King of the Hill" was created by Mike Judge, who was also behind "Beavis and Butt-Head" and "Idiocracy."

'Blue Bloods'

"Blue Bloods" is a police procedural drama series that spotlights law enforcement and family values.

"Blue Bloods" revolves around the Reagan family — a multi-generational clan of Irish-Catholic law enforcement officers dedicated to serving and protecting New York City.

Frank Reagan is the family's patriarch and the New York City police commissioner. Reagan, played by Tom Selleck, is a wise and respected leader who upholds justice and integrity and often embodies strong conservative ideals.

Frank's eldest son, Danny, is a seasoned detective, family man, and Iraq War veteran. Frank's daughter, Erin, is an assistant district attorney. Frank's youngest son, Jamie, is a Harvard Law School graduate and the family's "golden boy" who becomes a sergeant. Frank's father, Henry, is a retired NYC police commissioner.

"Blue Bloods" stresses tight family unity, intergenerational wisdom, loyalty, faith, law and order, justice, ethics, public service, personal responsibility, critique of the media, and respect for law enforcement.

'Kevin Can Wait'

Many consider "Kevin Can Wait" to be family-friendly entertainment that is geared toward conservatives.

The sitcom stars comedic actor Kevin James as Kevin Gable, a retired police officer and father living in a suburban Long Island with his wife, Donna, and their three children. The show highlights the challenges of balancing blue-collar work and the importance of family life.

The TV show hits on conservative topics such as working-class concerns, being family-centric, traditional gender roles, hard work ethos, pro-law-enforcement, a sense of community, individual responsibility, patriotism, integrity, loyalty, protectiveness, and commitment.

While not overtly political, there have been episodes of "Kevin Can Wait" that have addressed topics such as gun rights, community values, and patriotism.

'South Park'

"South Park" is definitely not a conservative television show. However, "South Park" creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone are equal-opportunity satirists who have never shied away from roasting sacred cows on the left, right, and anything in between.

"South Park" has featured some of the most cutting comedic criticisms of liberals since it debuted in 1997 and regularly challenges progressive orthodoxies. "South Park" has taken on the white savior complex often associated with liberals, satirized woke culture, exposed the dangers of censorship, poked fun at Al Gore's obsession with climate change, lambasted liberal celebrities for their political activism, and highlighted the hypocrisy of Disney's support of liberal politics.

P.C. Principal is the principal at South Park Elementary who is dead set on bringing an extreme politically correct agenda to the school. P.C. Principal was first introduced in the premiere episode of the 19th season, titled "Stunning and Brave": P.C. Principal ironically lampoons liberals regarding language-policing.

"South Park" also hilariously shamed progressives for supporting transgender men playing in women's sports in Season 23's episode titled: "Go Strong Woman, Go."

The show often takes a libertarian stance, emphasizing individual freedom with a healthy skepticism toward authority and government intervention.

'Heartland'

"Heartland" is a long-running Canadian series that follows multiple generations of families on their Alberta ranch.

The television series "Heartland" appeals to conservatives due to its focus on depictions of rural lifestyles, close-knit families, overcoming personal challenges, and embracing long-standing traditions.

Throughout the series, family unity and support are reoccurring themes, with storylines often revolving around overcoming personal challenges and maintaining familial relationships.

"Heartland" celebrates rural life and conservative values associated with it, such as hard work, resilience, and self-reliance. The characters have a deep connection to the land and their commitment to preserving their way of life.

Woven into the show are themes of accountability, integrity, loyalty, honesty, and perseverance. There are messages of healing, personal growth, and the importance of a loving home.

The show reinforces conventional family dynamics, and the characters portray traditional gender roles and responsibilities.

"Heartland" is rated for children age 10 and up, according to Common Sense, an independent source that evaluates entertainment for families and schools.

'Home Improvement'

Before Mike Baxter, there was Tim Taylor. Tim Allen's debut sitcom, "Home Improvement" resonates with conservative viewers who appreciate its depiction of typical middle-class suburban American homes, the conventional nuclear family structure, and stereotypical gender dynamics.

As in "Last Man Standing," Allen's character embodies a traditional masculine archetype: He has a passion for tools, cars, sports, and activities typically associated with conventional masculinity. In fact, he hosts a home improvement show called "Tool Time."

Jill is a supportive wife as well as an assertive homemaker and mother. Tim and Jill have three sons: Brad, Randy, and Mark.

The show frequently offers lessons about family, communication, and solving familial disputes.

The Taylor family has a Christian faith. There is also a sense of community, as Tim often seeks advice from his neighbor, Wilson.

"Home Improvement" stresses attributes such as hard work, personal accountability, patriotism, the significance of maintaining a strong moral compass, and the importance of family unity and values. The show celebrates skilled trades, small business ownership, ingenuity, and masculinity.

Allen is a staunch Republican and supporter of former President Donald Trump.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republican Weakness Taught Democrats Power Works Better Than Persuasion

Leftist mobs' demonstrations depend upon the acquiescence of those in official positions of authority.