Brad Thor Announces Candidacy for President as Third Party Option

June 23, 2016

Editor

New York Times best-selling author Brad Thor dropped a major bomb-shell on Glenn's radio program Thursday, saying he's committed to running for president of the United States.

Glenn introduced his friend by reminding listeners about the author's courage in the face of controversy.

"I believe Brad is one of the most courageous people out there. Because --- he is in business. You're selling a book. And what you said --- I shouldn't say what you said --- because what you said was not controversial," Glenn said.

Some may recall the flak Glenn received following Thor's fiery remarks about Donald Trump in his previous interview on The Glenn Beck Program.

This time, Thor took his challenge to the next level.

"I announced to Reince Priebus on Twitter, I said, 'If it takes announcing my candidacy to get onto the stage to debate Donald Trump, I said I would do it.' So I announced," Thor said.

Here's the Tweet:

If it takes formally declaring my candidacy to get on stage to shred Trump, consider this my declaration. #Thor2016
— Brad Thor (@BradThor) August 28, 2015

Co-host Stu Burguiere pointed out Thor might just get the debate he asked for.

"You've got Trump and Clinton against Brad Thor," Stu said. "Imagine Brad Thor going up against Trump and Clinton on the same stage."

#Thor2016

Listen to Thor's full interview with Glenn or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: Do you think the government gets to a point where they do try to take our guns or start to limit people's rights by saying, "Okay. All these people are on the No Fly List. All these people now, including soldiers are on the mentally disabled list?"

BRAD: PTSD. They want to take guns away from Marines. That's insane. I think they continue to nudge. I don't know that they make a huge step over the line. I really don't think -- they tried with Sandy Hook. You know, this is why it's so important that even if you are not a Trump supporter, don't -- don't vote for Trump. If you hate Hillary and you hate Trump, you still need to get out and vote down the ticket. Because the Republicans right now are holding the line for the most part against Democrats trying to institute more gun control.

STU: Yeah. I will say there's a million problems -- yeah. There's a million problems that we can point out here, of course. However, they did -- they have held the line generally speaking on the gun issue.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: They have.

STU: But they did also propose two gun control amendments that Democrats voted against out of that four. But, still, generally speaking, they have done a pretty good job on this issue. It's just, you know, you never know when they're going to fold. But, I mean, when you have Sandy Hook and you have Orlando and you have some of these tragedies, the emotion of the moment pushes most of these guys over the --

BRAD: And that's the -- that's the problem with the left. Their answer is: We have to do something.

GLENN: Japanese internment camps. Japanese internment camps. They wanted the -- the government tried to do it the year before. They tried to put the internment camps in the year before. Nobody wanted to hear it. Pearl Harbor happens. Done.

STU: Well, that's getting into the war too, right?

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

STU: People didn't want to get into the war.

BRAD: Let's be clear, Americans have to stand up. They can't expect their leaders to read their minds. You need to be vocal because they will roll over. I mean, I was reading something this morning about Hillary's emails and how they had to deactivate at the State Department, a bunch of protections against phishing scams so she could use the private server. Nobody at the State Department stood up to her and said, "Mrs. Clinton, Secretary Clinton, you cannot use a private server."

They rolled over. This is my consistent fear with DC, that here's Hillary Clinton, a powerful woman. They exposed the State Department to all sorts of stuff because it was Hillary Clinton. Nobody will take a principled stand in Washington. Very few people will. So if we won't as citizens -- these people work for us. We are stewards of this republic. We must hand a freer, more successful, more prosperous, safer nation to the next generation. That is our number one duty as Americans. We need to stand up.

STU: Hmm. That was an impressive little -- I wouldn't call it a speech. I guess I would call it a --

GLENN: It could be a speech. It could always be a campaign speech.

STU: Because I know --

GLENN: Like a stump speech.

STU: Yes, yes. I know there's been people who are talking about a viable third party candidate who maybe knows a lot about the issues --

GLENN: But, Stu, you need somebody who is articulate. You need somebody who has television and radio experience.

PAT: But you also need somebody who is known.

STU: Yeah, who has notoriety already.

GLENN: Who is really intelligent. You'd need him to be able to appeal to a lot of people.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, have a big fan base.

PAT: Hardly anybody like that.

JEFFY: Comfortable with --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. What about Brad Thor?

STU: What?

PAT: What?

GLENN: What about Brad Thor?

STU: Not to mention, President Thor. We are the biggest badasses ever.

GLENN: I'm in love with it.

BRAD: I can hear my wife hitting the radio with a hammer in Nashville right now. Bringing a sledgehammer --

GLENN: You live in Nashville?

BRAD: Thor's hammer. Wow, I walked right into that one.

GLENN: Yeah, my gosh.

BRAD: I walked right into that one.

GLENN: Yeah, she's trying to, but she can't pick it up.

BRAD: And instead of the olive branch, the eagle could hold a hammer in one hand -- in one claw and the arrow is in the other.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. So what do you think?

STU: What do you think? We are David Frenching it.

BRAD: You are David Frenching it.

JEFFY: You're the man of the house, Brad.

BRAD: Well, I'll tell you, I'm just sitting back with a bag of popcorn, watching it burn. I'm looking forward to Kanye 2020. You know, and the Democrat primary with George Clooney going against Kanye West. I think that's going to be an exciting, exciting thing.

STU: I don't even want to ask who the Republican is there.

JEFFY: Yeah, no kidding.

STU: Because at that point, that might be the most conservative we have, is George Clooney.

BRAD: It could be the way we're going.

STU: You already challenged Donald Trump to a debate.

BRAD: I did actually months ago in the primary process. And I was originally --

GLENN: No, I don't care about any of this. That's the past. 2020. Or even 2016.

PAT: 2016.

STU: Because this is how you get the debate you've asked for. All you have to do is get to 15 percent in the polls, and then --

JEFFY: We can do that.

BRAD: With the radio show, you can get me to 15 percent? If you can get me to 15 percent, I'll run.

STU: We got Cruz to like 20 percent.

JEFFY: Wait.

GLENN: Right. You could get to 15 percent easy. You could.

BRAD: Just to get on the debate stage.

STU: Because then you've got Trump and Clinton against Brad Thor. Imagine Brad Thor going up against Trump and Clinton on the same stage.

GLENN: What do you think? What do you think? I'm being serious. I'm being serious.

STU: I'm being serious. There has to be somebody that does this. And why not you? Why not you?

BRAD: Why not me?

GLENN: If not you, then who?

PAT: If not now, when?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

JEFFY: That can be your slogan.

BRAD: You need a really catchy slogan. You know, Thor, something. Who would my running mate be?

GLENN: Thor will bring the hammer down. Right?

STU: You need somebody with a last name "Hammer" is what we need. Thor/Hammer 2016.

BRAD: M.K. Hammer. Mary Katharine. Mary Katharine Ham.

STU: Yes, bring her in.

GLENN: Okay. So I'm serious. What about you doing this?

BRAD: I'm somebody who believes you actually should have some experience to run for this --

GLENN: Oh. Oh.

JEFFY: Oh.

GLENN: Well, we're not. So what about you?

(laughter)

BRAD: I announced to Reince Priebus on Twitter, I said, "If it takes announcing my candidacy to get onto the stage to debate Donald Trump, I said I would do it." So I announced.

STU: Look, Trump didn't think -- he wasn't getting in this to win. You can start it with that. And then when you get to 20, 30 percent and dominate them in the debates, then you can be like, "Wait a minute. I could really be president." And then you roll with it.

BRAD: And then I roll with it. Then I roll with it. Well, I definitely -- can I take the weekend to think about it?

GLENN: No. How about you, right now.

BRAD: Jeez.

GLENN: Okay. So let me tell you this -- let me ask you this.

BRAD: Yes.

GLENN: What happens at the Republican convention?

BRAD: That's the big question right now. We actually have extremely concerned Republican delegates that don't want Donald Trump, that see this guy as the -- what is it? The cyanide capsule that spies used to carry behind a tooth. And that we're going to pop that, and that's going to be the end of the Republican Party.

GLENN: Which I would celebrate, by the way.

BRAD: So would I.

GLENN: Not the death of the conservative movement.

BRAD: No, we definitely need a new party. And I think the Republicans are going to go the way of the Whigs.

GLENN: I do too.

BRAD: People say, this never happened before. Well, look at Zachary Taylor. I mean, this was a guy that hadn't voted in four years. Politico did a great article on it. Look it up. About that election with Zachary Taylor. But I really hope something is done. Donald Trump will not be a good leader. He lacks the temperament. He lacks the skills for the most important --

PAT: He lacks the knowledge --

GLENN: Got it. Got it. Got it. What I'm asking you is, what is going to happen at the convention just before you announce? What is going to happen at the convention?

BRAD: Well, I think I'm going to huddle with delegates.

GLENN: Do you think they're going to -- are they going to walk out, or are they going to give him the 1237?

BRAD: Boy, that's -- I actually think you're going to see some sort of a protest. I think you will see people walk out. I do think you'll see that. I think there are men and women with principles who are delegates. The party matters to them. The country matters to them. This is not going to be everybody folds for Donald Trump. I think we're sick of this being a reality show. There are actually serious, intelligent, well informed delegates that don't want Trump. And I agree with them. I don't want Trump. I don't want Hillary. And that's this country's last hope.

PAT: He still gets there, though, right? In the end --

GLENN: In the end, he's the nominee.

PAT: It's still Trump.

STU: I think he is.

GLENN: I think he is too. You don't think so, Brad?

BRAD: I don't know. What I think and what I want to have happen.

GLENN: If not him, then whom do they pick?

BRAD: Well, you've got to pick somebody. Anything can happen. I mean, this has happened in contested conventions before, but he's walking in with the 1237. But if they get enough people to change the Rules Committee -- get enough members of the Rules Committee that they can change things if they go with the -- I don't know. It's just -- and they are talking themselves into the fact that it's going to freak out the entire party. It's not going to. Trump has a plurality. He does not even have close to a majority of the Republican Party. This is not the will of the people. Sixty percent of the Republican primary voters voted for somebody other than Trump.

JEFFY: He's got the microphone though.

BRAD: Yeah, he's got a big mouth. He's got a lot of money. What has he done for America and liberty up to this point? There's a guy that could have been a huge force for liberty, and I don't think he has been. This is a guy who is a lifelong progressive, whose answer to every single problem has always been more government. This is not the kind of guy we need in the Oval Office.

GLENN: Hang on. Hang on.

JEFFY: That's the kind of talk that's going to get you elected.

BRAD: It's that kind of talk?

GLENN: Hang on. Hang on. I want Pat to go the audio vault. I'm going to do a quick commercial. We're going to come back. And I'm going to play the person that is running against him, and have you heard her lately? Did you hear her speech yesterday? Oh, my gosh. It isn't America that she's even discussing. We'll go to that here in just a second.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

GLENN: This is big. He has just committed he's in.

BRAD: Absolutely.

GLENN: He wanted to know -- we came up with a slogan. Drop the hammer of Thor.

PAT: Of Thor.

GLENN: Drop the hammer of Thor.

BRAD: Hashtag.

STU: I will also point out, Brad, as you're doing this other job that you do, Dreams From My Father came out in the mid-'90s and sold no copies. All of a sudden, Barack Obama starts running for president, making big presidential speeches, millions and millions sold. Foreign Agent will be one of the biggest books of all time.

GLENN: Foreign Agent will be huge.

STU: You're already starting at the top of the New York Times, by the way.

GLENN: Hey, hey, Dreams of My Father: Foreign Agent. All right?

STU: Now we can really --

GLENN: By the way, #Thor2016. #Thor2016.

STU: We're accepting Thor 2016 campaign art @worldofStu on Twitter.

GLENN: Right. Yes.

BRAD: @worldofStu. Now, what you're suggesting, and this is interesting because I do not think it's been done in American political history, is that I embark on this as a way to improve my brand. As a way to kind of make it more valuable.

GLENN: That's never been done before. That's crazy.

BRAD: So crazy, it just might work.

GLENN: It just might work. It just might work. You go in and you just say crazy things.

BRAD: Wow. This is an idea factory, this race.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

#Thor2016.

Okay. Play a little bit of what Hillary said yesterday.

BRAD: I'm going to be up against her, so I want to hear it.

GLENN: Yeah. This is remarkable.

HILLARY: I believe the federal government should adopt five ambitious goals.

PAT: Okay.

HILLARY: First, let's break through the dysfunction in Washington.

GLENN: Yeah. With a hammer. With Thor's hammer.

HILLARY: To make the biggest investment in new good-paying jobs since World War II.

GLENN: We already did that. Yes.

HILLARY: Second, let's make college debt free for all.

PAT: Free for everybody. Yay!

GLENN: Yay! Dropping the hammer. Dropping that Thor hammer.

PAT: Yay!

(applauding)

HILLARY: And transform the way we prepare Americans for the jobs of the future.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: That's right.

HILLARY: Third, let's rewrite the rules so more companies share profits with their employees and fewer ship profits and jobs overseas.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. I don't have time -- I've only got about five seconds. But if that isn't Marxism, I don't know what is.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And what does this call for? Thor's hammer.

BRAD: Thor's hammer. Let's hit it with a hammer.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why do Americans feel so empty?

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

Brad Thor Announces Candidacy for President as Third Party Option

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

Not-so-expert advice

A republic no more?

The path forward

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

Choosing death over care

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

The logical end of a broken system

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

How Sharia arrives

The warning from those who have lived under it

America is vulnerable

Wake up before it is too late

Why do Americans feel so empty?

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

The crisis beneath the headlines

The quiet return of meaning

Where renewal begins