Matt Kibbe on Meteors, Millennials and How the Election Is Really Rigged

Staunch libertarian and freedom-lover Matt Kibbe joined The Glenn Beck Program on Friday for a rousing discussion about the 2016 presidential election and the future of American politics. Formerly President of FreedomWorks, Kibbe is currently President and Chief Community Organizer for Free the People, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting libertarian ideals. According to Kibbe, disenchanted young people don't believe in our corrupt political system, so reaching them with a non-political, pop culture-oriented approach is critical. The ultimate goal of Free the People is to permanently shift power away from political insiders and Washington cronies and back to local communities.

RELATED: Death by Meteor Polls High With Millennial Voters

Kibbe, along with Glenn, is also featured in the new documentary Rigged, which takes a deep look into how the political system is intentionally set up to give citizens two false choices.

"The rigging of the system goes to the presidential commission alone, which is touched on in the film. This is a nonprofit controlled by the two-party cartel that shockingly decides that they don't want other parties involved in their debates," Kibbe said.

View the trailer for Rigged below. The full documentary can be seen for free until October 30 at Rigged2016.com or on TheBlaze TV November 2, 5 and 6.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these thought-provoking questions:

• Is Gary Johnson running the campaign Kibbe expected?

• Would Gary have won the millennial vote against a meteor strike?

• Do Hillary's pantsuits come from the Chairman Mao collection?

• What was Kibbe's Donald Trump moment?

• How did we miss the boat in 2016?

• Does Donald Trump own the word "rigged?"

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Welcome to our dope smoking hippie friend, Matt Kibbe, who is -- who is a Libertarian. And are you working for the campaign?

MATT: I run a Gary Johnson super PAC.

GLENN: Okay.

MATT: So we're not allowed to coordinate. As you know these rules, and it's very complicated.

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

so is he running the campaign you expected him to run?

MATT: Honestly, I didn't have any deeply held expectations about how he'd run a campaign. Libertarians are famously disorganized.

GLENN: That's a problem, when you're trying to win a presidency.

MATT: I think there's something going on there. But I think he's -- I love the fact that I'm supporting Gary Johnson right now because he's a sane alternative. I don't want to actually die by meteor, so I'm going with Gary Johnson's side.

GLENN: Really?

MATT: Yeah, those two choices --

GLENN: Yeah, I guess, I mean, if it was meteor or Gary Johnson, I probably would go for Gary Johnson.

STU: Yeah, to be fair to Gary Johnson, he was not included in that particular poll.

GLENN: Yeah, he wasn't.

STU: It was either just the two main parties and the meteor, which I think we'd all choose meteor.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: If it was those two and just a meteor, and those are your only choices --

GLENN: Well, is the meteor, is it going to drag out? Are we going to know about it? Are we going to see it coming? Are we going to have to panic? And then like, oh, which child do I have to, you know, say goodbye to, because I don't have time to say goodbye to all of them? Or it's a strike and it's over? Because if it's just a strike and it's over, I think I'm for the meteor.

MATT: I think Gary could have beat the meteor.

STU: I think so too.

MATT: This is just another example of media bias. They didn't include Gary against the meteor. The corruption --

(laughter)

GLENN: It actually is. This was for millennials. This was taken for millennials. Why they wouldn't include the Libertarian candidate is --

MATT: And, by the way, the most vicious attacks against Gary are coming from Hillary Clinton apparatchiks because Gary is drawing a significant portion of the millennial vote, and Hillary is just not -- the kids aren't cool with Hillary. They don't like here that much.

GLENN: No! I really liked that pantsuit that she was wearing the other day. That was nice.

STU: Shocking!

PAT: It's from the Chairman Mao collection.

GLENN: It really is.

PAT: It was adorable.

JEFFY: That was the excuse that they used bringing in Al Gore, right? To bring in some of the millennials.

JEFFY: Yeah. Which was like, he's --

GLENN: No, he's -- no, the kids love Al Gore. Kids love him.

JEFFY: Right.

MATT: But like Bernie can't get the kids to switch because he missed the point of his own revolution.

GLENN: Yes.

MATT: It wasn't about Bernie. It was about an authentic system of values outside of the political machine. And I think one of the things that Gary is doing is he's talking to young progressives. And it upsets you guys sometimes with some of his language, but I think --

GLENN: Yeah.

MATT: I think the new liberty coalition is going to be young progressives and young conservatives who don't want to shop in the two-party --

GLENN: So here's the thing -- here's the thing because I think that's great in theory, but a progressive by nature -- like, I have no problem with a liberal.

MATT: Right.

GLENN: I could live next to the grateful dead. I don't care. I don't care. I mean, as long as they're not doing it on the lawn when the kids are out.

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: But a progressive by nature believes in big government.

MATT: Right.

GLENN: So how does a Libertarian and a progressive get along?

MATT: Well, I think, you look at young Democratic socialists, and they don't -- they don't know what the word "progressive" means the way you and I think about it. It's a very authoritarian philosophy. It's very racist. We know that history, but they think it means progress. And they think socialism means people working together to solve problems.

PAT: Uh-huh.

MATT: And I'm thinking, "That's really what a Libertarian's about. We believe in voluntary cooperation and people coming together to do things that they can't do alone, and we believe in a robust community. We don't want the government involved in that stuff because it really corrupts really important institutions." And so I think -- I think if you get past the labels of progressive, liberal Democrat --

GLENN: Okay. So I'm totally -- Matt, I am totally willing to go down that road. Do you have any research that backs that up?

MATT: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. Good. Don't even have to tell me about it, I'm on board.

(chuckling)

Here's the problem though, with Gary is --

STU: That was a good fact-check there.

GLENN: No. I'm -- meteor. Okay?

STU: Yeah, okay.

MATT: It was my Donald Trump moment. Yes!

GLENN: Right.

STU: Believe me.

GLENN: Believe me.

(laughter)

It's the most beautiful research you've seen.

The problem we have with Gary is not that he's reaching out to people at all, it's the fact that he -- he doesn't seem to have any time to try to reach out to people like us.

PAT: Us. Yeah.

GLENN: And when Weld was in this week, I mean, we all walked away -- now, he said afterward, "That's not what I said." But we all heard him say, "I want to repeal and replace Obamacare and, you know, we're going to -- we're going to make it better." Well, no.

PAT: Yeah, he said -- they wanted to fix it. They wanted to fix Obamacare. His problem wasn't the big government program of Obamacare. His problem was that it's not working the way a big government program should.

Since when is that a Libertarian position? That's what we can't figure out.

GLENN: Now, is this a wink, wink kind of thing, that we're all supposed to know? Because it's not working for the conservative.

MATT: You're not going to make me defend Bill Weld, are you?

GLENN: Okay. Good. I'm in. I'm in again.

(laughter)

MATT: No, I think it's -- I have no idea what he said, and I don't want to defend that. The Libertarian position doesn't think that government-run health care is good for people and that it shouldn't be in the health care business. That's it. That's it.

GLENN: Right. Right.

MATT: Now, I do think that there's always interesting questions about -- and the reason we fought Obamacare so much is that we knew, once it was in place, it would be virtually impossible to dismantle a new entitlement --

GLENN: Look at it now. It's collapsing. They knew it would collapse.

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: Remember, we said, "This is designed to collapse. It is going to collapse. There's no way this math works for the next ten years."

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: And now it's collapsing. And everybody's talking about, "Oh, well, but we're going to fix it." Now that they got it in, now they're going to just soup it up.

MATT: Now, all the pollsters tell Republicans that you have to talk about fixing it. You can't talk about repealing it.

So maybe it's just political rhetoric. But I do think it's an interesting question for Libertarians and constitutional conservatives: How do you get out of this horrible entitlement state that is making poor people poorer, that's screwing young people? How do you do that in a way that's politically conceivable?

GLENN: Yes.

MATT: And I think somebody in politics needs to explain how to do that. But it's probably not what you would get from a typical Libertarian at a Libertarian convention, where they say, "If I had a button, I would abolish the entitlement state today." It doesn't mean anything. Right? Yeah.

GLENN: No, it's got to be reverse progressivism. Yeah, it's got to be reverse progressivism. You have to go slowly. Penn and I have talked about this at length. He said, "Glenn, 30 years down the road, when we're in a nursing home, that's when we'll be talking about, you know, the really big stuff that you and I aren't going to agree on."

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: But it's going to take you 30 years to get there, to slowly reverse this, and to do the common sense -- you know, the things that we agree on. That's the kind of stuff to me that we can make real progress on.

MATT: Yeah. And the answer to all this stuff is more choice, more freedom, particularly for young people. Not -- not creating a new big redesign of health care, but actually giving them the choice as to whether or not they want to be part of that system. And I think you will see new free market solutions that we can't even conceive of emerge in health care and retirement and everything else, if people are just given a choice.

GLENN: Well, I know -- we've been talking this week a lot about millennials. And how that -- that's the hero generation. That's the greatest American generation, the next one. The one to come now.

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: And it's people our age. I don't even know how old you are. How old are you?

MATT: Fifty-three.

GLENN: Ooh, old man. So it's people our age --

MATT: I just hope I never get as old as you.

GLENN: Fifty-one, buddy.

MATT: I know.

GLENN: Our job is to reach out to the -- the generation that went before us, this -- the older generation, the Trump generation, and say, "Okay. Stop. Stop. That doesn't work, and you need to let it go." And we have to now reach to the young generation and say, "You need to step up, and you need to know what did work, and don't throw the entire system out. Find out what did work, and pick it up and now design and move forward."

We're supposed to -- I think, we're supposed to be the ones -- we're the latchkey generation. We're always the one that didn't -- we were left at home, we were the ones that were forgotten. We were the middle kid. And we'll be the middle kid again. We're just -- the hippies are doing their thing now. And the millennials are coming up. We're the middle kid that is just going, "Can we make -- we got to make peace here. You got to take less up at the top. You got to stop doing all these things."

And the millennials, it's time for you to stand up and be who you are. Be the hero generation that you are.

MATT: Do you remember when George W. Bush was trying to reform Social Security, the Democrats critique -- he had this tiny little retirement account that would give people more choices.

GLENN: Yes.

MATT: I think there were three choices in that system. And the Democrats' response was, "You can't give people that many choices. They can't handle it."

GLENN: Three.

MATT: Three. And a young person --

GLENN: Because I know when it was television, ABC, NBC, CBS, it was too many choices.

MATT: Right. Yeah.

GLENN: It was like, I don't know what to watch. There's too many things to watch on those three networks.

MATT: And as it turns out, they're all the same anyway.

GLENN: Yes, exactly right.

MATT: It didn't matter. But, you know, young people, they carry everything, and they live in this wild Libertarian world where they choose their friends, they choose their music, and they're never overwhelmed by too many choices. They're only turned off when somebody dictates their choices for them. And I think that -- that has to be like the biggest opportunity we've ever had.

GLENN: I have to tell you, Matt, I watched the debate. I don't know if you felt the same way. But I watched the debate the other night, and it -- I was overwhelmed with, "This is the biggest lost opportunity in possibly our nation's history, political speaking, where someone that could actually explain to two boobs on television common sense and constitutional principles and simple economics would have rode into a brand-new dawn of America."

MATT: Yeah. Well, we saw the linked DNC memo where they talked about Pied Piper candidates like Donald Trump, people that would lead the party right over the cliff. And I was reminded -- they listed Rand Paul and Scott Walker and Marco Rubio as candidates that they were scared to death of.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

MATT: Because they knew that those candidates could beat Hillary Clinton. And so, yes, we missed it.

GLENN: I know.

So when we come back, I want to ask you about one missed opportunity that the Libertarians had and just get your thoughts on that. We'll do it here in a second. By the way, Rigged is a new movie about the third party candidate. Rigged2016.com. We're airing it on Wednesday, November 2nd, at 8:00 p.m. Then again, an encore presentation on Saturday and Sunday at 8:00 p.m.

It's Rigged 2016. I'm in it. A lot of other big Libertarians are in it. And it's worth seeing. Behind the scenes on the campaign trail as well. Rigged 2016. You can find out more information at Rigged2016.com.

[break]

GLENN: Matt Kibbe is with us. He runs a super PAC for Gary Johnson. He's also involved with the movie Rigged 2016. You can find that at Rigged2016.com.

Do you think that if Rand Paul would have let go of his Republican suit and said, "I want to run as a Libertarian," do you believe he would have won?

MATT: Yes, I do. And I wish he or someone like Justin Amash --

STU: Yes!

MATT: -- would have taken that leap.

PAT: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: Why didn't, why didn't either one of them?

MATT: I don't know. And as someone who was also involved in a Rand Paul super PAC, I wasn't allowed to encourage him to do that. There was a window there. And I think the potential was huge.

GLENN: Hmm. I think this was biggest missed opportunity.

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: You look at it and you think, "Nobody -- nobody likes -- I've never seen any election like this in my lifetime."

MATT: Yeah.

PAT: Well, that's for sure. And I know he's your guy, Matt. But he is terrible with conservatives. I mean, absolutely terrible. He's -- he has, it almost feels like contempt for conservatives.

GLENN: Well, for Christians.

When he was on with us -- it was interesting. It was almost as if he had more trust in the government than he did for Christians.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And it was bizarre. It was really bizarre.

PAT: Well, it was that whole thing, would you make a Nazi cake? And I think his answer was yes, right?

GLENN: Yes. And he said, "You have to do it."

PAT: Yeah. So the government --

GLENN: And Bill Weld came in --

PAT: -- is going to force a private business owner to do something against their faith. How is that Libertarian? I've never understood it. His policy on the border is really difficult to get your head around too. But I know Libertarians are not as border sensitive as --

GLENN: You know what, it's weird because Libertarians are all over the map.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: The point is -- that's what I was saying about the -- but not on the cake thing. And really, the border, as long as -- if he gives it to the states, then it's up to the states. But the Libertarian -- and this is the one thing that I like about it, is that you don't have to be in a cookie-cutter. You don't have to believe same thing as the party does, except on control.

PAT: Yeah.

MATT: Yep. You know, I think the question of the border and explaining a lot of Libertarian things is -- is something that we need to figure out how to do better. And Gary obviously is not the ultimate explainer of things.

PAT: No, he's not.

(laughter)

MATT: On anything.

PAT: Not the ultimate explainer on Aleppo and the Syrian situation either.

GLENN: No, he's had a bad run.

MATT: No. But he has a way of talking about things that sometimes you think you heard the opposite of what he was trying to say.

GLENN: He is the --

(laughter)

PAT: Which is problematic.

GLENN: That's a problem. That's a problem.

We were talking about we think he's one of the most painfully honest guys we've seen in politics, when it comes to critiquing himself.

MATT: Right.

PAT: Almost to a fault.

GLENN: You know, that Aleppo thing -- we were on the air going, "Stop apologizing, man. Stop it. Stop."

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: He was just so -- look, I should have known it. No, you should have. But, no, no, no. Shh.

MATT: No, he feels that way. And I think one of the most compelling things about him -- I mean, first of all, he is a successful business guy. He's a successful governor from a blue state. That alone makes him really attractive in this cycle to me.

GLENN: Yes.

MATT: But his honesty and his -- he's got this goofy honest persona.

PAT: He does.

MATT: And I don't think this guy would lie to you. And this election again is a really refreshing thing, given the binary choice that we have. If I could go back and re-create it, I would love for Rand Paul or Justin Amash to be up there. But that didn't happen. And they didn't take that leap.

GLENN: So why should somebody who doesn't necessarily think they agree with Gary Johnson but they don't want to vote for the other two, why should they vote for Gary Johnson? Because somebody said -- now, the music is starting, so we're going to have to come back for the answer. But Stu, I think, said yesterday that he wants to send a message to the Libertarians and make sure that they have a space. But I think it was Pat who said, "I don't want to send the message to the Libertarians that that's the kind of guy that we want."

PAT: That we're looking for.

GLENN: So will you answer that when we come back? Rigged2016.com. Movie. You should check it out. It's happening next Wednesday, 8:00 p.m.

[break]

GLENN: We're with Matt Kibbe. And he's with a super PAC that's with Johnson and Weld. Johnson and Weld.

Why should somebody who doesn't agree with Gary Johnson vote for him? Can you make a compelling case for that?

MATT: Yeah, so one of the challenges for the Libertarian Party, any third party, is that all the rules are stacked against -- there are barriers to entry that keep third parties out. If the Libertarian candidate breaks 5 percent in the polls, the Libertarian Party will be on a more equal footing, going into the next presidential cycle. The two-party duopoly keeps changing the rules for ballot access. It's harder to raise money, as an outsider. And it shouldn't be shocking to anybody that the two parties in charge make it impossible for anybody else to get in. But I think the only way to fix where we're at is competition.

GLENN: Yeah, it is.

MATT: Maybe it's the Libertarian Party, but there's so many barriers to entry to a fourth party. And, you know, let's call it the constitutional conservative party. I would rather they were both in there to be honest with you. I want people to see who they really are.

GLENN: Choices, yeah.

STU: Isn't this a -- a good sell for this too is that if you're in a state that's not competitive -- I mean, if you're in New York or you're in Connecticut voting, where the state is going to be a 30, 40-point margin for Hillary Clinton, you can vote for Donald Trump if you want. But, I mean, probably -- because this -- if I understand the rules correctly, it's a popular vote measure.

MATT: Yeah.

STU: So your vote, where you can't possibly win an electoral vote, necessarily, in that state, it goes towards that 5 percent. And that's a nationwide popular vote measure. Correct?

MATT: Yeah, yeah, very much so. But, again, I'm choosing Gary Johnson. I'm just fully in for Gary Johnson based on the other two choices I have, not on choices that I would like to have. And that's really what presidential politics is. You're stuck with these three choices. And Gary is the only person I believe running that actually represents a Constitution, who also happens to be on at 50 state ballots. There may be other candidates that are attractive on issues to you guys, but the reality is, there's only one candidate that's on all the ballots, who is actually polling quite well in some Western states, who actually believes the president is not a king.

And to me, that's pretty compelling.

GLENN: Tell me -- tell me why you made Rigged 2016.

MATT: So I didn't make Rigged 2016.

GLENN: It's part of your --

MATT: I got involved pretty late. And Patrick Byrne from overstock.com actually financed it. And the producer and the director really wanted to tap into that anxiety and frustration that people have with the two-party cartel.

GLENN: You've obviously seen it. You've seen the finished product.

MATT: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: It's really compelling. There's a story of a guy -- they tell many different stories of people that were in the system. They tell a story of a guy -- I don't even know what his job was. But he was -- he was like a campaign manager or something.

MATT: He was a political consultant. Yeah.

GLENN: Political consultant. And he -- a guy came to him and said, "Hey, I want to run for Congress or Senate or something." And he said, "Okay. Well, tell me about your family." And he's like, "I don't have any family." And he's like, "What do you mean? You have to have a family story and everything else." The guy came back to him and put down on the table a bunch of people. And he said, "Okay. Here's my family." And a bunch of pictures and stuff. And he said, "Oh, okay. I thought you said you didn't have any family." Well, these are from friends. Like this grandfather, this is not my grandfather. This is my friend's grandfather. This is my neighbor's, you know, cousin. Right?

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: It was crazy. And he said, "For some reason, I said, okay. I'll represent you." And he went and represented -- and the guy won. And he said, "I just realized, what am I doing?" And he was just in the system. And he's like, "It's so corrupt, and it's so full of lies." And he said, "His child was born, and that's what changed him. He had his first child, and his child was born. And looked at his child and was like, 'Oh, my gosh, your father is a very bad man, and I'm building really bad stuff in Washington.'" And got out.

I mean, it's -- it's compelling. The movie is really compelling.

STU: Are you concerned that -- my understanding is that Donald Trump owns the word "rigged." So he could sue you at any moment.

MATT: Well, he's corrupted the word "rigged" --

STU: He has.

MATT: Because he's actually a product of the rigged political system and was propped up by the media cartel. But the rigging of the system is far more fundamental than the fact that Donald Trump thinks he's losing at the moment.

The rigging of the system goes to the presidential commission alone, which is touched on in the film. This is a nonprofit controlled by the two-party cartel that shockingly decides that they don't want other parties involved in their debates.

STU: That's a really --

MATT: It's a perfect way to strangle third parties, but it's the clash between people are all these choices and all this power, when it comes to every aspect of their life, except when it comes to politics. And when you get to the political marketplace and particularly presidential, you feel like you're shopping in a mall in Caracas, right? There's nothing there. And that's the clash. It's a class between people that are more free and more educated and more able to decide things for themselves, versus this old backfilled room, two-party cartel that's propped up the most -- the two most unpopular candidates in the history of the universe.

GLENN: What do you think 2020 looks like? Because Hillary Clinton -- another four years of these -- this kind of corruption and lies, the millennials -- you know, that's a 30-year-old today.

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: So somebody 35 years old going in to vote next time and everybody underneath, they're not buying into this. Another four years of just the death rate of the Baby Boomers --

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: -- the demographics are shifting. And the Republicans don't have anything. The -- but they're in better shape -- well, they were until Donald Trump. The Democrats, you look at Hillary Clinton, and there's just -- there's no millennial I know that would relate to either one of the parties right now.

So what happens in four years?

MATT: Well, the upside of this train wreck is that it breaks something in a way that you're not going to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. And I think young people are the solution to this. Because they see it for the fraud that it is. The rest of us grew up in this system where we only had two choices. We might not recognize it that way. But that to me is the liberty opportunity. You know, can you find common language? Can you find a candidate that sort of represents those broader values? Someone like a Justin Amash be the entrepreneur and bet everything on that. Maybe there's somebody that we don't yet. But I think it needs to be somebody that can credibly say, "I've run a campaign." Somebody that can credibly say, "I've done something with my life."

And, you know, the problem with some of our young candidates is that they haven't sort of past that qualification threshold yet. And I don't know if that's going to be a Libertarian Party candidate. Is it going to be a fourth candidate? Remember that the Tea Party kept breaking all of the rules, right? There's no way that Mike Lee was going to win. It couldn't happen. And then it did. There's no way that Rand Paul could win. And then it did. And they were using the social media and technology to raise money outside the system to organize outside the system to break the rules of politics. Eventually, a presidential candidate can do that.

GLENN: Yeah.

MATT: And I think we could have done it this time, but it didn't come together. So...

GLENN: Me too. Who do you think wins?

MATT: I mean, I think Hillary is going to win. But I say that with great humility from being wrong so many times in this cycle.

GLENN: Donald Trump, yeah.

MATT: And also understanding that, you know, all of these races that we won for liberty Republicans, the experts told us we couldn't win. And then we did. So something was going on. So I think it's going to be closer than people think. And I think Trump could win. But my bet today is Hillary.

GLENN: What happens to Donald Trump's constituents?

MATT: We should talk to them. Because I think it's a mistake to lump some of the -- I can't stand Donald Trump. I disliked him even before you did, I think.

GLENN: I've not liked him for a long, long time.

(chuckling)

STU: Don't challenge us on this one.

JEFFY: We disliked him first, Matt.

MATT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: We were mocking him as he came down the escalator. Because we had not liked him for years before that.

MATT: Okay. You might have beat me then. Because I wasn't even paying attention at that point.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

MATT: But I would -- I view Donald Trump supporters the same way that I view Bernie Sanders supporters, and there's a lot of similarities there. There's economic anxiety.

GLENN: Yes.

MATT: There's belief that the system is screwing them. And I agree with them on those things. And I think we need -- I think we need to talk to people --

GLENN: I agree with you. There's maybe 10 percent -- and a lot of them are the -- and probably -- yeah, probably just 10 percent that were there at the beginning. And out of those who were there at the beginning, maybe 10 percent of those were there from the beginning because they were hearing what they perceived to be dog whistles of neo-Nazi kind of scary stuff.

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: You know what I mean? But that's 10 percent that have that authoritarian lean. I saw a poll of Donald Trump supporters. 48 percent, it said, believed that Putin is a friend of the United States. Does that number surprise you?

MATT: No. No. And there was a new poll by the Heritage Foundation, saying that -- that showed that a lot of young people didn't know who Mao Zedong was.

GLENN: Yeah. They thought Bush killed more people than Mao.

MATT: So I think people don't know a lot of history, and they don't spend a lot of time focusing on politics. And I wouldn't call that ignorance. I would call that normal life where your families and your jobs matter more than -- like, do you even know who Putin is?

GLENN: Yeah.

MATT: And I suspect that most Americans, until Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton started talking about him, didn't even know who he was.

GLENN: Well, I always thought war was just God's way of teaching us geography.

MATT: Right.

GLENN: Who knew where Vietnam was until we went to Vietnam? Who knew where Iraq really was until we invaded Iraq?

PAT: Grenada. Come on. We thought it was a car from Ford.

GLENN: That's right. Exactly.

MATT: And if we had a more humble Libertarian foreign policy, we wouldn't need to know where Aleppo is.

STU: That's a great answer.

GLENN: Very good. How can people get involved with you? Do you have anything to push or not?

MATT: My new organization is Free the People. And I want to talk to young people. And I'm trying to get out of politics and into popular culture. Check out freethepeople.org. And check out some of the videos we're doing on socialism. We're trying to --

GLENN: Your series on socialism is fantastic. It really is.

MATT: And it does well. Like the heavy stuff, the stuff that is really asking people to get into history and philosophy and economics.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

MATT: It does better than the click-bait of the day stuff.

GLENN: People are -- I think people are hungry. We saw it when we were at Fox. We see it now. When you have something to teach that they don't know, they're hungry for it. They really are. People treat people like morons. There are morons, Jeffy. But, you know, not everybody is a moron.

STU: Jeffy.

GLENN: And, by the way, you can check out Rigged 2016. Go to Rigged2016.com. You can watch the film there. All you have to do is just -- you know, just sign in. Or you can watch it on TheBlaze, Wednesday, November 2nd, at 8:00 p.m. Saturday the 5th, and Sunday the 6th at 8:00 p.m. only on TheBlaze TV.

Matt, thank you so much.

MATT: Good to be here.

GLENN: Good to see you.

Featured Image: Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton shakes hands with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump as Moderator Lester Holt looks on during the Presidential Debate at Hofstra University on September 26, 2016 in Hempstead, New York. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

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.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

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.