Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Bill O’Reilly Wants to Clear up the NY Times’ ‘Smear Piece’

October 23, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Bill O’Reilly was back in the hot seat on Monday’s show, answering Glenn and Stu’s questions about the latest New York Times piece on his record at Fox News. He clarified what the Times left out of the piece and exactly why he paid settlements after lawsuits he says made false allegations.

“No. 1: I want the story to go away because it’s brutalizing my family, and No. 2: I’m not going to run and hide because I didn’t do anything wrong,” he said.

Listen to O’Reilly in context and in his own words for his answers to these questions:

  • What were O’Reilly’s reasons for settling?

  • Exactly how many lawsuits did he need to resolve during his time at Fox News?

  • Why was the settlement $32 million if the allegations were false?

  • What is O’Reilly’s response to Megyn Kelly’s latest comments?

  • Would he make the same decisions if he could do it over?

So what do you think? Does Bill make a compelling argument?

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Friend of the program and friend of mine, Bill O'Reilly. Welcome, sir. How are you?

BILL: Taking a beating. But still standing.

GLENN: So, Bill, you and I spoke over the weekend.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: And I said to you that I wanted to ask you some honest questions. And just personal for me, because I -- you know, I don't know. And anybody can lie to anybody. But you would be -- I mean, you would be one of the greatest liars ever because of the consistency of your lies, if you were lying to me, and the consistency of your behavior around me and my staff, which we have toured together.

BILL: Sure.

GLENN: I have seen you on Friday nights. I have seen you in hotels. My staff has. And I have women that work for me. And we've never had any problem whatsoever, or an inkling that you might be one of those guys.

BILL: Yeah. Well, I was in the -- I've been in the broadcast business for 43 years. Twelve different companies. Never one time was there any complaint filed against me with human resources or anybody's legal team. Nothing. Zero.

GLENN: Megyn Kelly --

BILL: So I think the track record speaks for itself. And I think that people, when they look at the statement that we have posted on BillO'Reilly.com, when they look at the affidavit, and now the three letters that I sent you -- did you get the letters from Gretchen Carlson?

GLENN: I did. I wanted to know if I were -- was allowed to publish them.

BILL: Oh, yeah. Sure.

So what I'm trying to get across by coming on with you today, are two things: Number one, I want the story to go away. Because it's brutalizing my family. And number two, I'm not going to run and hide, because I didn't do anything wrong.

And I think that the evidence that we put forth is very strong. Very compelling. That the New York Times wants to take me out of the marketplace. This is the second time they've attacked me. And the article on Sunday regurgitated the first article. That was like 75 percent of it. They had to run it twice in case you didn't get it last April. And they know that I'm at a disadvantage, because I can't comment specifically on any case that has been resolved. That's one of the -- one of the --

GLENN: Stipulations.

BILL: -- legal -- legal compelling things, that when you resolve something, it is always done in a nobody says anything. And you know who knows that best? The New York Times. Because they settled a number of harassment complaints, in a confidential way. Yet in their article on page one today, screaming about, well, we shouldn't have this kind of provision, they don't mention that. And they don't mention a lot of things.

So I think -- go ahead.

GLENN: So, Bill, I want to ask you a couple of questions. The biggest question that is on everybody's mind is, okay. You can settle. But $32 million, coming out of your own pocket, nobody does that.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: So did you --

BILL: What do you want to say --

GLENN: So did you --

BILL: The only comment I could make on that issue, without getting the thing back into a legal arena, would be the first article that the New York Times wrote quoted figures and added them up. And it was wildly wrong.

But I can't confirm or deny anything, because once I do that, then it goes back into the legal arena, which you don't want. And they know that.

So they could say whatever they want to say. They know that. They know we're hamstrung, my attorneys and investigative team. We can't.

GLENN: Was this settlement by you alone, or was Fox involved?

BILL: I can't -- Beck, as I told you off the camera -- I know you have to ask some questions for your audience -- I can't comment on any specific case at all. If I could, I would. But I cannot.

GLENN: Can you tell me about the relationship that you had with Lis Wiehl?

BILL: No, I cannot -- what we had -- what we have posted is an affidavit from Ms. Wiehl. It's one affidavit. That's posted on BillO'Reilly.com. That's it. We could post. We did. There it is. And I can't speak to anything other than that.

I know it's frustrating.

GLENN: No, it's really frustrating.

BILL: It's very frustrating for me. You can imagine me, sitting here, all right? Being accused of everything under the sun. And the endgame, let's leave O'Reilly with Harvey Weinstein. Let's make him that. That's what we want to do. All right? So we take him out of the marketplace forever. He never gets to give his opinion on issues again. We take him out because we hate him.

And the New York Times obviously hates me. It's dishonest in the extreme. And it's frustrating for me. But unless I want another seven or eight years of constant litigation that puts my children in the kill zone, I have to maintain my discipline.

GLENN: Okay. So --

BILL: The only reason -- I can tell you this, Beck. In 20 years plus at the Fox News Channel -- how long did you work there, by the way?

GLENN: Four years, three years -- two years. Ten minutes. I don't remember.

BILL: All right. I was there twenty years and six months. I resolved three things. That's all I resolved in 20 years and six months. I resolved three things. And the only reason I did resolve them was to keep my children safe. So I can tell you that.

GLENN: Okay. So let me -- let me go one more place.

STU: We should point out, that's smaller than the reported number, Bill. Are you saying that the reported money is inaccurate.

BILL: All I'm telling you is the truth. Twenty years, six months, Fox News Channel, I resolved three things. That is the truth.

GLENN: Bill, on the -- on the Wiehl affidavit, the New York Times fails to recognize here that this is a legal document. And she is a member of the bar. And that if she signs something that was not true, she should be disbarred. She's not --

BILL: It's worse than that. And I'm not impugning or saying anything, I'm talking in a general sense now.

GLENN: She's not saying this. But the New York Times is just speaking for her. Go ahead.

BILL: Wait. Wait. If any American citizen signs an affidavit that's notarized, all right? It's under the perjury law. So you can be prosecuted, if what you're saying is not true. Which is why the affidavit becomes so vitally important.

And here's the kicker. We gave that to the New York Times. They had that. They did not print it.

Then their weasel reporter, the most dishonest man on the face of the earth, tweets out, "Oh, O'Reilly says we didn't mention the affidavit. And we did."

I didn't say you didn't mention it. I said you didn't print it. And you should have printed it up top, because that's the story. But they didn't want that to be out, because that wrecks their story. Which they had already written, no matter what I said or gave them. And we gave them an unbelievable amount of stuff, from day one of my tenure with Fox News. They know.

But they don't care. Because this was a hit job, to get me out of the marketplace. And then you'll have the left. Paranoid. Okay? You can back that up 50 different ways. Media Matters is involved. CNN is involved. I mean, it -- and it's beyond any doubt -- so, again, I will tell you everybody, we've got our statement posted on BillO'Reilly.com. Would he give you the affidavit posted. We've got letters from Gretchen Carlson and Megyn Kelly to me, posted. Everything is there.

You still want to think I'm a bad guy. Go ahead. The truth is the truth.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on. I have to take a break. And then I want to come back and talk about what Megyn talked about today. Because this is a separate issue. But I think you should address that as well. Coming up in a second.

GLENN: This is Megyn Kelly on today's broadcast.

MEGYN: Malicious smear, claiming that no woman in 20 years ever complained to human resources or legal about him. Maybe that is true. Fox News was not exactly a friendly environment for harassment victims who happened to report, in my experience.

However, O'Reilly's suggestion that no one ever complained about his behavior is false. I know, because I complained.

It was November of 2016, the day my memoir was released. In it, I included a chapter on Ailes and the sexual harassment scandal at Fox News, something the Murdochs knew I was doing, and to their credit, approved.

O'Reilly happened to be on CBS News that morning. They asked him about my book and about Ailes, who by this time had been forced out in disgrace. O'Reilly's response?

BILL: I'm not that interested in this.

MEGYN: No? In sexual harassment? You're not interested in sexual harassment?

BILL: I'm not interested in basically litigating something that is finished, that makes my network look bad. Okay? I'm not interested in making my network look bad, at all. That doesn't interest me one bit.

GLENN: So her complaint, Bill, that she filed was that you made it tough for people to come out against the network, because of statements like that.

BILL: Number one, she didn't file a complaint. Not that I know of. Never brought to our attention that Megyn Kelly did anything. All right? So I'd like to see it. Because I don't believe that's true at all.

Number two, what she did not say is that there's an anonymous hotline, and there had been for years at Fox News where anyone could have called up and say, "So-and-so is doing something to me, and you better stop it." All right? That's anonymous. Doesn't mention it.

Number three, I'd like you to read the notes that I gave you, Beck, to your audience from Megyn Kelly to me, the personal notes.

GLENN: Do you happen to have them in front of you? Because my i Pad just went down.

STU: Convenient.

GLENN: Hang on.

So Megyn Kelly wrote to you, "Dear Bill, what a class act you are. Something to my baby -- please come to my baby shower -- no, no, what a class act you are. Thank you for coming to my baby shower."

BILL: Coming to my baby shower. Right.

GLENN: "I was truly touched. I know how busy you are, especially that time of the day. It meant a lot to me and Dory. Thank you for the darling body suits and snugglies. It's kind -- no, it's hard to believe we'll soon have a human being in our lives to fit into those. You've become a dear friend, no matter what they say. And I am grateful to have you in my life, Megyn Kelly."

BILL: Yeah, that's letter number one. Letter number two.

GLENN: Letter number two: Thank you for the -- something on Dory's book --

BILL: Mention. Thank you for the mention on Doug's book. Doug is her husband.

GLENN: Oh, Doug's book. Okay.

I realize you didn't have to do that, especially after mentioning it already. I appreciate how supportive you have been to me over the years here at Fox News. You're a true friend and mentor.

And I want to give one more letter. This is the one -- and these are going to be published up at TheBlaze and GlennBeck.com. This one is from Gretchen Carlson.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: "Bill, thank you for being the calm in the sea. Thank you so much for supporting me. Thank you for being my friend. It means the world to me, G.C."

BILL: Yeah. So, look, I think that anybody -- any fair-minded person -- and I really appreciate you reading those to your listeners -- I think that they can now start to formulate a picture here.

Because the behavior that you pointed out at the beginning of the 11 o'clock hour, Eastern time is on the record. Forty-three years, no complaints. Twelve different companies. And then you, Glenn Beck known me for now, what? Ten years? Twelve years?

GLENN: Yeah, something like that.

BILL: You've been with me on the road. You know who I am. You know what I do. And now with the statement that we provided on BillO'Reilly.com, with the affidavit, this one affidavit, and with these three letters, two by Megyn Kelly and one by Gretchen Carlson -- a picture should start to emerge for any fair-minded person. And that's all I can hope for, that the American people will see that this is an attack on an American citizen, me, for political purposes. And you know what? It's done enormous damage to me and to my family. And it is a horror, and it should never happen in our country.

GLENN: Bill, what happens if companies settle lawsuits and then the affidavits and the nondisclosures don't mean anything?

BILL: Well, it's over now. Anybody who would be settling anything now is insane. Because --

GLENN: So is that --

BILL: In my case, all the confidentiality stuff was violated.

GLENN: You told -- you told me about a year ago, the biggest mistake you made was settling. So is this a good thing or not?

BILL: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.

No, if I had to do it all over again, I never would have done it. But you got to understand how much pain this brings children. And I thought I could spare my children that. I would do anything for my children, anything to protect them. I would give up my life for my children. And that's why I did it.

But we actually thought that people would uphold their oath. And what they agreed to. And they haven't.

But let me get back to Megyn Kelly for a moment. I never had any problem with Megyn Kelly. In fact, when she was getting hammered earlier this year, I wrote a column speaking up for her. You know, I don't know why Megyn Kelly is doing what she's doing. I don't know why. I've helped her dramatically in her career. I gave her the name of her show, The Kelly File. She actually did a charity even for me. I mean, it is just incomprehensible.

GLENN: Okay. Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com. We'll talk to you again, Bill. Try to have a better day. God bless.

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.

A break in trust: A NEW Watergate is brewing in plain sight

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

When institutions betray the public’s trust, the country splits, and the spiral is hard to stop.

Something drastic is happening in American life. Headlines that should leave us stunned barely register anymore. Stories that once would have united the country instead dissolve into silence or shrugs.

It is not apathy exactly. It is something deeper — a growing belief that the people in charge either cannot or will not fix what is broken.

When people feel ignored or betrayed, they will align with anyone who appears willing to fight on their behalf.

I call this response the Bubba effect. It describes what happens when institutions lose so much public trust that “Bubba,” the average American minding his own business, finally throws his hands up and says, “Fine. I will handle it myself.” Not because he wants to, but because the system that was supposed to protect him now feels indifferent, corrupt, or openly hostile.

The Bubba effect is not a political movement. It is a survival instinct.

What triggers the Bubba effect

We are watching the triggers unfold in real time. When members of Congress publicly encourage active duty troops to disregard orders from the commander in chief, that is not a political squabble. When a federal judge quietly rewrites the rules so one branch of government can secretly surveil another, that is not normal. That is how republics fall. Yet these stories glided across the news cycle without urgency, without consequence, without explanation.

When the American people see the leadership class shrug, they conclude — correctly — that no one is steering the ship.

This is how the Bubba effect spreads. It is not just individuals resisting authority. It is sheriffs refusing to enforce new policies, school boards ignoring state mandates, entire communities saying, “We do not believe you anymore.” It becomes institutional, cultural, national.

A country cracking from the inside

This effect can be seen in Dearborn, Michigan. In the rise of fringe voices like Nick Fuentes. In the Epstein scandal, where powerful people could not seem to locate a single accountable adult. These stories are different in content but identical in message: The system protects itself, not you.

When people feel ignored or betrayed, they will align with anyone who appears willing to fight on their behalf. That does not mean they suddenly agree with everything that person says. It means they feel abandoned by the institutions that were supposed to be trustworthy.

The Bubba effect is what fills that vacuum.

The dangers of a faithless system

A republic cannot survive without credibility. Congress cannot oversee intelligence agencies if it refuses to discipline its own members. The military cannot remain apolitical if its chain of command becomes optional. The judiciary cannot defend the Constitution while inventing loopholes that erase the separation of powers.

History shows that once a nation militarizes politics, normalizes constitutional shortcuts, or allows government agencies to operate without scrutiny, it does not return to equilibrium peacefully. Something will give.

The question is what — and when.

The responsibility now belongs to us

In a healthy country, this is where the media steps in. This is where universities, pastors, journalists, and cultural leaders pause the outrage machine and explain what is at stake. But today, too many see themselves not as guardians of the republic, but of ideology. Their first loyalty is to narrative, not truth.

The founders never trusted the press more than the public. They trusted citizens who understood their rights, lived their responsibilities, and demanded accountability. That is the antidote to the Bubba effect — not rage, but citizenship.

How to respond without breaking ourselves

Do not riot. Do not withdraw. Do not cheer on destruction just because you dislike the target. That is how nations lose themselves. Instead, demand transparency. Call your representatives. Insist on consequences. Refuse to normalize constitutional violations simply because “everyone does it.” If you expect nothing, you will get nothing.

Do not hand your voice to the loudest warrior simply because he is swinging a bat at the establishment. You do not beat corruption by joining a different version of it. You beat it by modeling the country you want to preserve: principled, accountable, rooted in truth.

Adam Gray / Stringer | Getty Images

Every republic reaches a moment when historians will later say, “That was the warning.” We are living in ours. But warnings are gifts if they are recognized. Institutions bend. People fail. The Constitution can recover — if enough Americans still know and cherish it.

It does not take a majority. Twenty percent of the country — awake, educated, and courageous — can reset the system. It has happened before. It can happen again.

Wake up. Stand up. Demand integrity — from leaders, from institutions, and from yourself. Because the Bubba effect will not end until Americans reclaim the duty that has always belonged to them: preserving the republic for the next generation.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Grim warning: Bad-faith Israel critics duck REAL questions

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Bad-faith attacks on Israel and AIPAC warp every debate. Real answers emerge only when people set aside scripts and ask what serves America’s long-term interests.

The search for truth has always required something very much in short supply these days: honesty. Not performative questions, not scripted outrage, not whatever happens to be trending on TikTok, but real curiosity.

Some issues, often focused on foreign aid, AIPAC, or Israel, have become hotbeds of debate and disagreement. Before we jump into those debates, however, we must return to a simpler, more important issue: honest questioning. Without it, nothing in these debates matters.

Ask questions because you want the truth, not because you want a target.

The phrase “just asking questions” has re-entered the zeitgeist, and that’s fine. We should always question power. But too many of those questions feel preloaded with someone else’s answer. If the goal is truth, then the questions should come from a sincere desire to understand, not from a hunt for a villain.

Honest desire for truth is the only foundation that can support a real conversation about these issues.

Truth-seeking is real work

Right now, plenty of people are not seeking the truth at all. They are repeating something they heard from a politician on cable news or from a stranger on TikTok who has never opened a history book. That is not a search for answers. That is simply outsourcing your own thought.

If you want the truth, you need to work for it. You cannot treat the world like a Marvel movie where the good guy appears in a cape and the villain hisses on command. Real life does not give you a neat script with the moral wrapped up in two hours.

But that is how people are approaching politics now. They want the oppressed and the oppressor, the heroic underdog and the cartoon villain. They embrace this fantastical framing because it is easier than wrestling with reality.

This framing took root in the 1960s when the left rebuilt its worldview around colonizers and the colonized. Overnight, Zionism was recast as imperialism. Suddenly, every conflict had to fit the same script. Today’s young activists are just recycling the same narrative with updated graphics. Everything becomes a morality play. No nuance, no context, just the comforting clarity of heroes and villains.

Bad-faith questions

This same mindset is fueling the sudden obsession with Israel, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in particular. You hear it from members of Congress and activists alike: AIPAC pulls the strings, AIPAC controls the government, AIPAC should register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The questions are dramatic, but are they being asked in good faith?

FARA is clear. The standard is whether an individual or group acts under the direction or control of a foreign government. AIPAC simply does not qualify.

Here is a detail conveniently left out of these arguments: Dozens of domestic organizations — Armenian, Cuban, Irish, Turkish — lobby Congress on behalf of other countries. None of them registers under FARA because — like AIPAC — they are independent, domestic organizations.

If someone has a sincere problem with the structure of foreign lobbying, fair enough. Let us have that conversation. But singling out AIPAC alone is not a search for truth. It is bias dressed up as bravery.

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

If someone wants to question foreign aid to Israel, fine. Let’s have that debate. But let’s ask the right questions. The issue is not the size of the package but whether the aid advances our interests. What does the United States gain? Does the investment strengthen our position in the region? How does it compare to what we give other nations? And do we examine those countries with the same intensity?

The real target

These questions reflect good-faith scrutiny. But narrowing the entire argument to one country or one dollar amount misses the larger problem. If someone objects to the way America handles foreign aid, the target is not Israel. The target is the system itself — an entrenched bureaucracy, poor transparency, and decades-old commitments that have never been re-examined. Those problems run through programs around the world.

If you want answers, you need to broaden the lens. You have to be willing to put aside the movie script and confront reality. You have to hold yourself to a simple rule: Ask questions because you want the truth, not because you want a target.

That is the only way this country ever gets clarity on foreign aid, influence, alliances, and our place in the world. Questioning is not just allowed. It is essential. But only if it is honest.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.