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

Muslim reformer articulates dangers of Islamism, which candidates 'get it'

September 29, 2015
Ted Tuttle

Editor

On radio Tuesday, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, joined Glenn to discuss what is being done to confront radical Islamism. As a Muslim himself, Jasser offered a very unique perspective on the situation.

"Muslims aren't making it clear that we're not Islamists. And we've been painfully silent," Jasser said, adding, "We need to have that room to differentiate between Muslims who are against theocracy and Muslims who are Islamists that are part of the problem.

When Glenn asked the most pressing question of how to tell the difference, Jasser left no room for confusion in his response.

The difference is: Those who have allegiance to the Islamic State (be it all 56 majority Islamic states that are identity, and with it comes jihad and a dedication to being a citizen of that Islamic State, to fight for it).

Or you believe in the secular state, the separation of mosque and state or church and state, as our establishment clause calls for and, ultimately, you are a warrior against theocracy, against Islamism and for liberty.

Later in the conversation, Glenn shifted to presidential politics, asking if there is a candidate that Jasser thinks "gets it." Here is what he said:

Well, I can tell you, we graded the candidates in the first two debates. And Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio were at the top of that. Ted Cruz was high up in there in being able to articulate that there's a problem with a faction of political movements of Islamists, and there's a position for America -- a role for America to play in the world. And we graded them very high compared to the other candidates.

Listen to the segment or read the full transcript below.

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

GLENN: Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Good friend of the program. Great American. I believe he was a captain in the Navy. Zuhdi, correct me if I'm wrong.

ZUHDI: No. Lieutenant commander.

GLENN: Lieutenant commander.

ZUHDI: Great to be with you, Glenn.

GLENN: Great to talk to you. Zuhdi, you're really, truly one of the good guys and a guy that I always look to as one of the first real heroes of my lifetime standing up and doing the dangerous things when it really counts. I mean, I think, after September 11th, the world changed. And people began -- regular people began to risk their lives. And you have done this now for 15 years. You were doing it before. But you were ringing the bell and trying to get, you know, the rest of the world to stand and up see the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist.

Zuhdi, I want to play some audio here and get your reaction as a Muslim.

There is this debate going on on whether a Muslim should be president of the United States. And I think Ben Carson is answering this inartfully, but I think if I understand him right, I think I agree with him. And I want to see -- I kind of want to do a bigot check here on me. Not on him. On me. And make sure that I'm seeing things the proper way. Here's what he said to Jake Tapper.

JAKE: I think one of the things, you are a member of a church that there's a lot of misinformation about, the Seventh Day Adventist church. You're an African-American. You know what it's like for people to make false assumptions about you, and you seem to be doing the same thing with Muslims.

BEN: In which way am I making a false assumption about them?

JAKE: You're assuming that Muslim Americans put their religion ahead of the country.

BEN: I'm assuming that if you accept all the tenets of Islam, that you'll have a very difficult time abiding under the Constitution of the United States.

VOICE: This interview is over.

GLENN: Okay. Stop there.

So here's the thing, Zuhdi, and I don't know whether this -- whether Sharia law would be classified as a tenet of Islam. I know it's a tenet of Islamists. Would you agree with him there or not?

ZUHDI: Well, I certainly -- you know, listen, as you said, the reason I'm doing all this work is our community has been so silent that, you know, it's no wonder most Americans that are doubly as fearful of Islam today as they were after 9/11. Because Muslims aren't making it clear that we're not Islamists. And we've been painfully silent.

Now, having said that, if you want Muslims to be in that time in history that Christianity was -- as our Founding Fathers were, where they were not Christianists, they were devout Christians that rejected theocracy. If we're going to make that stand, which I think is the most important stand in the world today, is this battle within the house of Islam. Then we need to have that room to differentiate between Muslims who are against theocracy and Muslims who are Islamists that are part of the problem.

And, by the way, it's not just about being president. It's about security clearances. It's about every position in government, whether you take that oath as the president, or oath as a military office, or oath in Homeland Security. If you're an Islamist, you should not be getting those clearances. But if you're a Muslim, who is anti-theocratic, you are not only an essential patriot, you're probably one of the most important ideologues on the planet today in order to defeat this threat.

GLENN: So here's the problem, Zuhdi. And we're seeing this overseas. We're seeing this with the people who are coming out of the Middle East, the, quote, refugees out of the Middle East. You don't know how to tell the difference between an Islamist who is lying to you and just saying that they're a Muslim and a Muslim, who is actually -- because a Muslim, as I define a Muslim, compared to an Islamist -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Zuhdi, but I write about it in my book, that a Muslim by definition in today's world is a reformer of Islam and an Islamist is somebody who believes in all of the tenets of the Koran and the Hadith with Sharia law as it's understood in the Middle East. So how do you know what the difference is?

ZUHDI: Well, the difference is, those who have allegiance to the Islamic State, be it all 56 majority Islamic states that are identity. And with it comes jihad and a dedication to being a citizen of that Islamic State, to fight for it. Or you believe in the secular state, the separation of mosque and state or church and state, as our establishment clause calls for and, ultimately, you are a warrior against theocracy, against Islamism and for liberty.

So those people coming here, they're coming here because they're part of a jihad. They're our enemy. If they're coming here seeking freedom like my family did, then they're not only allies -- and that's why we have to be careful. There's ISIS already in all 50 states. But yet the refugees coming here for the most part and see that narrative that the West stands for their only solace against the two evils of political Islam or Islamism and secular HEP atocracy of Assad and other dictators of the Middle East -- so we can't change who we are, what our Statue of Liberty stands for. Yes, we should vet the refugees. But if we say we're not going to take anyone, remember, most of the jihadists that attacked us, are -- might be kids of immigrants. But they certainly aren't new refugees for the most part. I'm not saying there aren't any threats there, but we can't change who we are, because otherwise we become the Russias and the Saudi Arabias of the world and take nobody.

GLENN: But here's the thing. I have gone off -- and I know this is a controversial stance. But I don't know -- I'm not qualified myself to do this. And we're having the United Nations do all of our vetting for the refugees, which I think is a tremendous mistake. But I look at the refugee status and say, "Look, Saudi Arabia and everybody else, they have plenty of room for refugees who are Muslim, and they're more qualified to figure out which one is which. Good guys and bad guys. We're not. We won't even admit that there are bad guys in that mix." So we've got to take care of the Christians who cannot be taken care of in the Middle East. They're not going to find a friendly home -- you know, you're not going to bring your Bible into Saudi Arabia. They have to get out of there.

Meanwhile, all of the Islamic nations in the Middle East are not taking refugees. They're expecting -- they're expecting the West to take all of them. How, Zuhdi, would we possibly know -- what's a litmus test that you would think would even work on who the good guys and the bad guys are?

ZUHDI: Well, remember, our country has fought so many wars. In the Vietnam War, World War II, we took in refugees, and we had ways to tell who were the Vietnamese that were with us and who were fighting against us. And yet we didn't say, "Well, no refugees because there may be some communists in those that we take in." Yes, there is a problem, yes, with an administration that won't even say the word "Islamist" as the president caters to the blasphemy laws of all Islamic states and doesn't even identify Islamism as a threat. We'll have major difficulties. But in the Cold War, we were mastering the fact that Soviet War Theory, Communist war Theory was our enemy.

GLENN: Yeah, but we admitted it at that point.

I mean, Zuhdi, honestly, if I'm president of the United States, I go and I find people like you and say, "Okay. Help us weed the good guys from the bad guys." But that's not what our administration is doing. That's not what the last administration was doing. They refused to even look at it as if Islamists even exist.

ZUHDI: That's why we have to thread this needle, where if we have leaders -- I'm getting whiplash where now we've had six and a half years of an administration that caters to the Islamist. And now we're finally having courageous candidates that are identifying that there's a problem in the house of Islam, but we need to thread the needle and say, "You know, it's not a battle between Islam and Christians or Islam and Christianity or the West. It's a battle between liberty versus the theocrats. And we have to bond with those Muslims." We have a coalition of reformers that you know many of. Including Kad Ahmed and Assir Nomani and Zani BelHEP. And so many who could help our administration vet the jihadist versus the non-jihadist. And yet we can't even set foot in the White House because he wants to have a coalition to fight al-Qaeda. It's like having a coalition against drug violence and inviting the meth distributors into the White House to help you fight drug violence. It just doesn't make any sense.

GLENN: You're exactly right. So yesterday at the United Nations, the president spoke. And then Rouhani spoke. And then Putin spoke. I don't know. Did you see any of the speeches?

ZUHDI: I did. Yes.

GLENN: Did any of those make sense to you?

ZUHDI: They make sense if you have a new unraveling of the world order, where the Islamists are filling in a vacuum where you had an opportunity in Arab wakening that could have seen the ushering in of a change where Islam is going through that time in history, that the West went through between the 15th and 18th century. But now what makes sense is, we've aggregated that to the Russias and the Irans of the world. We're handing Iran $150 billion to help Assad.

I don't know what's happening with the meeting between Putin and Obama. But the bottom line is, a genocide against the Sunnis in Syria is turning against genocide against minorities. And we're seeing ISIS fill that vacuum. And now Iran is going to homogenize the Middle East. The world order is unraveling. The refugees are one symptom of it. And if we don't take sides within the house of Islam and get candidates that can articulate that Islamism is the problem and we're going to take the side of liberty and not alienate a core of the world's population, but yet realize that we have friends within this revolution happening.

GLENN: Have you had any candidate on either side reach out to you and talk to you about the Islamic world?

ZUHDI: We have had a few candidate conversations. And I think you can tell some of them that are able to be articulate on this issue and those that aren't. But I -- I want to be careful.

GLENN: Have you seen anyone -- yeah. I don't want to put you -- you feel free to say no. Because I don't want to put you in a spot because you need all the allies you can get.

ZUHDI: Yes.

GLENN: Is there a candidate that you see that you say, this guy gets it. Even if he doesn't get anything else, he gets this -- or she.

ZUHDI: Well, I can tell you, we graded the candidates in the first two debates. And Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio were at the top of that. Ted Cruz was high up in there in being able to articulate that there's a problem with a faction of political movements of Islamists, and there's a position for America -- a role for America to play in the world. And we graded them very high compared to the other candidates.

GLENN: Zuhdi, what can we do to help you? I'm starting to just be much more action-oriented. I'm tired of just talking about things. And I'm looking to support the people that are out on the front lines. What can somebody do that is listening to you and is like, I want to help. I want to be part of the solution. What can people do? How can they help you?

ZUHDI: When we have these conversations, to realize a think tank like the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and our coalition, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition, should be playing an active role publicly in media, in government, in universities.

Yale just had a center bought by another Wahhabi petro-dollar HEP Saudi who spent $10 million for a center on Sharia. Georgetown has one. Harvard does. I mean, if you wonder where the moderate voices of Islam are, we're being drowned out by the petro HEP Islamists that are spending millions to make sure that we don't have a voice. And, you know, we need to be at the table. And then you'll realize that there's a diversity within the house of Islam, and we're not all -- and this is why candidates are confused. Because the moderate voices are shut out by the institutions that are making us less and less relevant. And your listeners and Americans can make sure we have a seat at the table. No different than the Founding Fathers did in that battle against against theocracy.

GLENN: Zuhdi, always good to talk to you, my friend. Stay safe. God bless you.

ZUHDI: Thank you. God bless.

GLENN: You can find Zuhdi. His website is AIFdemocracy.org. That's AIFdemocracy.org. Truly one of the good guys. And a guy who risks his life every day to stand up against Islamists as a Muslim himself.

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.

The Bubba Effect erupts as America’s power brokers go rogue

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.

Warning: Stop letting TikTok activists think for you

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.