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

Chris Stewart doubles down, returns to radio after "buzzsaw" interview

January 07, 2015
Wilson

Writer

Glenn and Chris Stewart have been friends for a while, so when Glenn got home last night after a contentious interview with the congressman he called him to clear the air. To Chris's credit, he agreed to come back onto the show today and talk through the issues again and defend the job being done by the Republicans in Congress. Glenn's never had a guest come back after walking into a buzzsaw of an interview like that, so regardless of Chris's views, he gets big points for guts.

GLENN: Well, it feels a little bit "Groundhog Day," the movie, because at this time yesterday that a friend of ours, Chris Stewart, called in and received -- was on the receiving end of a pretty bad battering. I felt fine while we were doing it because I know our intent. We love Chris Stewart. He is a good friend. And a long-time friend and a guy I've wanted to work with for a long, long time. Tried to hire him here. But we have felt that we were -- we were concerned about the direction he was going, as along with people that we really respect in Congress.

PAT: Brenner went that way, Jim Jordan. Trey Gowdy said he wouldn't vote for Boehner.

GLENN: And we don't understand it. Last night I got home and watched the interview because Chris is my friend and I watched the interview and I felt it's not my best performance. That's not the way I want to -- that's not the way I want to be. But I still had good intent while trying doing it. So I called Chris last night. We haven't spoken. I left a message on the phone last night apologizing. Telling him that you know, I think he walked into a buzzsaw yesterday. However, I don't apologize for the intent and I don't apologize for having my opinions. And I don't apologize for believing he is absolutely dead wrong on John Boehner. And wrong that we have the facts wrong. We double-checked them yesterday. We're correct. With that being said, Chris Stewart is here because I would like to change the tone. Hello, Chris. How are you?

STEWART: I've got on my body armor, I've got on my combat gear. You can start slaying away again.

GLENN: I will tell you, you deserve a lot of extra points for having the balls to come on yesterday and then again today.

PAT: Again, yeah. No one else would have done that, credit is.

GLENN: No one else.

PAT: I don't think anyone else has ever done that.

GLENN: No, no.

PAT: Newt Gingrich --

GLENN: Newt Gingrich did it once.

STEWART: It's probably against my better judgment, but Glenn, here I am again. I'm actually glad to be with you.

GLENN: So Chris, here's the thing. We want you to prove us wrong in -- let's say by June. We'd like to have you back on where we can say, you know what, Chris? You were right.

PAT: Great agenda.

GLENN: Great agenda. You guys did it. Because I don't understand. There's nothing you can say. We double-checked all the facts on John Boehner and what he's been for and against. And I'm sorry, you're drinking too much Kool-Aid. I'm sorry. We have the facts right. You can't convince me that John Boehner is a good guy, because a good guy yesterday doesn't do what John Boehner does and get up and start punishing the people who ran against him.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: That's breaks.

STEWART: I appreciate the invitation to come back in June. I look forward to that.

I'd love to come back in February and March and do a month-end recap of what we do. Because I think we may not be perfect, and you may not be entirely satisfied, but I think you and listeners by and large are going to see things begin to move you on. And I told someone the other night, the worst-case scenario over the next two years is far better than anything that we've lived through in the last two years. Because we've had Harry Reid who had jammed every piece of legislation that we've tried to do. And we're going to get past that now. We've got friends in the Senate. And the second thing is to your point about John and retribution, I agree with that. I said to the speaker, and I would say this to others, we're better United than we are when we attack each other. Can I just say quickly, the former military guy, it's in my D.N.A. that you stand by your brothers. You may -- you may not like them. They may be different. You may have different opinions. We're in a war, we're in a fight for the heart and soul of our country. And I don't think --

GLENN: That's --

STEWART: Speaker to divide or to --

(overlapping speakers).

STEWART: Attributing retribution against hem. I certainly don't agree with that.

GLENN: That's the biggest point, Chris, I think people like you may be missing because you're inside the beltway. You don't see the frustration outside the beltway. You know, when Elizabeth Warren who's one of the most rad cam people on the planet runs in the Democratic Party, they celebrate. They want her to run for president. But if you stand by the Constitution, you're a radical that's trying to destroy America. And I can get that from CNN. I can get that from MSNBC. I can get that from Barack Obama. I don't need that from the leadership of the GOP.

STEWART: Glenn, listen, you know my family. And I go home every single weekend. I spend every moment that I can out of D.C.

I'm anything but an inside the beltway guy. But believe me, when you say that I don't see that or I don't hear that, I mean, believe me, Glenn, I do. I hear it. I see it from my own wife, I hear from it my children, I hear from it my brothers, my sisters, and I hear it from every person that I meet back in the district. I hear it all the time. And I agree with it all the time.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me what the plan is, because I don't understand this vote. So what is -- what is it that they said yesterday that made everybody fall in behind John Boehner? What is the great change that has coming that John Boehner --

STEWART: It was nothing that was said yesterday. This this is a battle that's been going on for months. It's an ongoing battle. Just like every two years I know I'm going to be challenged. I know this seat is not a guaranteed to me. I'm going to be challenged and expect to be challenged every two years. I think the speaker expects to be challenged and they should be challenged. I support that.

GLENN: No, he doesn't expect to be challenged. Otherwise, he wouldn't be punishing people. But let's not focus on that STEWART: I think any speaker would. They know there's some people that are going to be unhappy with the way regardless of who they are and there were some viable alternative candidates. But none of them stepped forward. Trey Gowdy, for example, he's one of those who nominated speaker in November. And I tried to make this point yesterday. Louie Gohmert is a friend of mine. And I have tremendous respect for him. He's one of the most clever and one of the most articulate members of the House, but he is not the person to unite the House. And I think we saw that in the vote yesterday. He only got two votes and --

(overlapping speakers).

GLENN: That's fine. That's fine. You could have voted for a cat. Let's please -- let's not concentrate on this. Let's concentrate, please, on what is the plan now?

STEWART: And I'm glad you asked that, because that is the primary thing that I think we should be talking about. And that's what are we going to do moving forward. I could talk to you -- I'm developing -- we're in the process of merging with other people. We call it 12 and 12 plan. 12 weeks, 12 major pieces of legislation. We start with Keystone, which is very important in energy independence and also job creation. But we can't go to our summit or move anywhere else beyond next week without coming back to border security and looking at what we did with defunding amnesty, what the president did is clearly unconstitutional. That's not a partisan opinion. It's clearly unconstitutional what he did with amnesty. We have to find a way to defund that and we have to do it early. Can't wait wait till February or even -- even late January. I want to move that legislation --

GLENN: But you -- you left on the table the defunding of Homeland Security and you gave him everything else. Do you really think that president doesn't want to have that fight? Doesn't want to get on television say, they defunded Homeland Security.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: You immediately lose. Because the American people see the threat of terror and -- and he will spin it. You've taken away all other tools except for Homeland Security.

STEWART: Well, he will spin it. There's no question and the press will back him up on that. And our intention isn't to defund all of Homeland Security. Our intention is to defund every part that deals with his executive amnesty and to fund every other part of Homeland Security, including attaching to that the border security bill that I helped right that is for the first time in a generation truly committed to securing borders. But I don't think the question is not defunding the entire program or Homeland Security. Clearly we want to fund those parts that are important as you said, Glenn. People understand that terrorism is a real threat. But we have to in my opinion defund the amnesty part to that.

GLENN: Can you just sequester that money?

STEWART: Yes.

GLENN: You can just do it, just taking away this line.

STEWART: It's part of the appropriation process. Now that we have united House and Senate, for the first time in Barack Obama's presidency, we have an appropriation process that will work where you can specifically identify pieces of legislation for funding and not fund both.

GLENN: All right. Now, let me ask you this. John Boehner is, you know, best buddies, tongue down each other's throat with Jeb Bush kind of people and Jeb Bush does not -- will not agree on the amnesty thing. He just started the, you know, reach for the stars no matter where you're from, hey, everybody can be equal here in America kind of crap yesterday. Do you really think the progressive Republicans are going to be on board for actual border security?

STEWART: Yes, I do. I do. And by the way, Jeb Bush is not our nominee, thankfully.

GLENN: Yet.

STEWART: And I think his stand on immigration and Corpus Christi and other things will probably preclude him from ever being our nominee, thankfully, because I disagree with him on those issues. But he's not the leader of the party and there are others who have a strong voice in this that you know and that I know. But yes, I think we can have some progress on that. And it's not -- it's not up to the speaker. It's not up to leadership. It's up to the Conservatives in Congress and there are enough of us that we can push that legislation.

STU: Isn't the issue that you have a lot of conservatives who are really about border security. You obviously have another portion of the Republican party that is not so aligned with your views on that. And when you have a person like Boehner as you kind of described, his job is to unite the party and that's what frustrate people like us because you see people -- you want a strong border bill and then the effort is to unite the party with the people who don't want a strong border bill and then what you get is crap.

GLENN: Ted Cruz said it best. It's always next time. Well, next time is now.

STEWART: Yeah. I agree with that, Glenn. And I've been saying that for months now. I've been saying next time is now, since before the election. That is the reason we needed the election, to make it now. And coming back to the border security, because I really think that's an important point you're making, and that is, things have fundamentally changed on the border security bill over the last two years, in the two years I've been in Congress. And part of it was what we saw with unaccompanied minors last summer. The tragedy that happened and the atrocity where because of Obama's policies that encourage this idea, that if you're an unaccompanied minor, many of who were not truly minors anyway, but you would get across the border and find sanctuary. And there are other elements of that where the opinion of the Congress has significantly shifted to the right on border security.

GLENN: I believe it when I see it, okay, so that's one of your 12 points. Okay, so Chris, give me just -- I've only got about a minute left. Give me the 12 topics that you want to -- that you say you're putting together with a group of people that you're going to be able to get through in 12 weeks or you hope to get through in 12 weeks. Give he the 12 points.

STEWART: Let me go through them quickly. Keystone Pipeline, border security, Reins Act, which is to pull back the regulatory agencies and who have become the most powerful force in Washington. Tax reform. I want to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS, Lois Lerner and others -

GLENN: Boehner was against it.

STEWART: We'll continue to work to repeal ObamaCare and also have a replacement for that expecting and hoping the Supreme Court actually finds the exchanges are unconstitutional, that they're not within the language of the law. Unborn Child Act which is prohibits abortion for those children unborn children who actually can feel pain. And we know now scientifically that they do. Audit the Fed. Some reforms in the EPA. And finally, the Antiquities Act which deals with federal land out here in the west and the president's ability to use a law that have nothing to do with that in order to claim for federal land.

GLENN: So you -- if you get all that done, I will throw a parade for you.

STEWART: Will all right, gets let some confetti.

GLENN: Yeah. You'll get more than confetti. You get all that done and -- are you working on the Senate with that, too?

STEWART: Yeah. And we have this historic opportunity and I wish I could just help people understand that. And it really is historic --

GLENN: No --

(overlapping speakers).

GLENN: Chris, Chris.

PAT: People understand that. They just don't believe it because they've seen it before.

GLENN: We saw it under Bush.

(overlapping speakers).

GLENN: And we saw it with the same people, the same promises, the same bull crap. We're done.

STEWART: I agree. We did see it under Bush. I agree. I understand that. But what I was saying is that there's this opportunity with the House and the Senate we're having a summit next week for the first time, I don't know that we've ever done that, where we have the House and the Senate together for two days to do one thing and that's to define this agenda. How do we move this legislation in the first 12 weeks, maybe four months, of our term in power and I'm so confident that when we've done this and the American people see what we're trying to do and what we're able to do, it's going to eliminate some of the frustration of so many --

GLENN: I will promise you that as you get these done, we will check them off and 12 weeks -- we'll check them off week by week or however -- you tell us what it is. But you give us the date, we'll check them off and we will make sure that everybody knows, at least in our audience, that these things are being done. I have to tell you, between John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, I think you are in some sort of an acid trip that you think you can get this done. But I want to be wrong. I want to be wrong.

STEWART: Well, Glenn, we're going to try. We're going to try and I think we're going to have success. I really do, maybe not a all of it, but we're going to try and get as much done as we can and I want to go for all 12.

GLENN: Chris, thanks a lot. God bless you. Thank you, bye-bye. He's a good guy.

Featured image courtesy of the AP.

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.

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.