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

Susan Rice Scandal: Proof the Media Is in on the Game

April 06, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Susan Rice, former National Security Advisor under the Obama administration who denied leaking the names of Trump officials, proved one thing on her recent media tour: The media is utterly biased and void of intellectual integrity.

Rice's statements on the unmasking scandal made it clear that in the normal process of the national security business, she asked the National Security Association for the names of certain Americans involved with President Trump's team. However, her claim that she didn't "leak" names was merely a game of semantics --- and the media knew it.

"Her claim is she didn't leak those names. Well, you don't have to when you unmask them. It goes out to the mass. Everybody who is on the list, everyone in government who got that gets the update with the unmasked names," Glenn said Wednesday on radio.

RELATED: A Chalkboard Lesson in Grammar: ‘I Leaked Nothing to Nobody’

Rice also said she didn't seek the names for "political purposes." Again, a game of semantics the media let slide.

"Media, you wonder why Donald Trump became president of the United States? This is your example," Glenn said. "You're doing it again. For anybody who thought possibly that you would have a backbone, that you have learned something, that you have become enlightened, you're doing it again! You are taking a story and you are picking the winner. You are picking the one you choose to believe."

Rice's previous lies to the American public should have left her with zero credibility, and yet the media gave her a platform to lie more without being challenged.

"It's your job to dissect this story and to show where the truth is and how it's all being lumped together to make it appear as though she's telling the truth," Glenn said. "This is the problem."

He continued.

"With so much dishonesty in the government, the credibility of those we've elected to serve us is completely shot. And so what do we do? We elect somebody like Donald Trump --- not because of the credibility of the people in the government, but because he told us the truth. And this is the truth: You can't believe the media. They are in on the game, and this Susan Rice story is proof positive," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Hello, America. Welcome to The Glenn Beck Program. I want to start with Susan Rice. Here's what Susan said.

SUSAN: I leaked nothing to nobody.

(laughter)

GLENN: Now, aside from the double negative, former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice employs they're leaking nothing to nobody. Obviously, that means that you leaked something to everybody.

(chuckling)

But I digress.

Susan Rice who once claimed that the deserter Bowe Bergdahl served with honor and distinction is now vehemently denying any wrongdoing in the scandal of unmasking and leaking the names of Trump officials, which we will get back to here in a second. There is the unmasking, and then there is the, quote, what the media is calling leaking the names. It is a red herring because the media is lazy again.

Respected columnist Eli Lake citing anonymous US officials familiar with the matter, end quote, reported Monday that the national security adviser requested the identities of US persons in the raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign.

Now, she went on a media tour yesterday, to where she could be surrounded by friends who would let her go on the record without pushing her on any tough questions. Here she is with Andrea Mitchell.

SUSAN: First of all, Andrea, to talk about the contents of a classified report, to talk about the individuals on the foreign side who were the targets of the -- the report itself or any Americans who may have been collected upon incidentally, is to disclose classified information. I'm not going to do that. And those people who are putting these stories out are doing just that.

GLENN: Okay. So let's boil this down. It's pretty clear the implication from her various statements on this scandal that she has given is that in the normal process of the national security business, she indeed did ask the NSA for the names of certain Americans that were involved with President Trump.

But her claim is, she didn't leak those names. Well, you don't have to, when you unmask them.

It goes out to the mass. Everybody who is on the list -- everyone in government who got that gets the update with the unmasked names. She also says she didn't seek them for political purposes. Listen carefully.

VOICE: Within that process and within the context of the Trump campaign, the Trump transition, did you seek the names of people involved in -- to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump transition, the Trump campaign, people surrounding the president-elect, in order to spy on them?

SUSAN: Let me begin -- absolutely --

VOICE: In order to expose them?

SUSAN: Absolutely not for any political purposes, to spy, expose, anything. But let me --

VOICE: Did you leak the name of Mike Flynn?

SUSAN: I leaked nothing to nobody.

GLENN: I leaked nothing to nobody.

Again, we'll come back to that with Grammar Pat.

Now, maybe -- maybe some can be forgiven for doubting the veracity of a woman who looked us in the eye and flatout lied to us as the ambassador to the UN in 2012.

SUSAN: But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is of the present is, in fact, it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy, sparked by this hateful video.

GLENN: Okay. So here's the problem: She knew she was lying then. Obama knew she was lying then. Hillary Clinton knew she was lying then. I contend the president knew she was lying then.

Media, you wonder why Donald Trump became president of the United States, this is your example. You're doing it again. For anybody who thought possibly that you would have a backbone, that you have learned something, that you have become enlightened, you're doing it again! You are taking a story and you are picking the winner. You are picking the one you choose to believe.

She has no credibility. Was she following orders last time? Perhaps. Is she following orders this time? Perhaps.

It's your job to dissect this story and to show where the truth is and how it's all being lumped together to make it appear as though she's telling the truth. This is the problem. With so much dishonesty in the government, the credibility of those we've elected to serve us is completely shot.

And so what do we do? We elect somebody like Donald Trump -- not because of the credibility of the people in the government, but because he told us the truth. And this is the truth: You can't believe the media. They are in on the game. And this Susan Rice story is proof positive.

Now, let's go to -- let's go to Pat, who is going to take us to the chalkboard.

PAT: And diagram this a little bit.

GLENN: Yeah. I leaked nothing to nobody. Just show me how I leaked nothing to nobody works here, Pat.

PAT: All right. Well, first of all, this is obviously a negation, right?

GLENN: Pat at the chalkboard teaching.

PAT: Negation. Although, she used a double negative.

(chuckling)

GLENN: Okay.

PAT: Which, of course, leads to a positive statement. As you know, two negative numbers multiplied together makes it a positive. So if you leak nothing to nobody, that does mean that you leaked something to everybody. Now --

STU: You're saying it was a true statement?

PAT: It was a true statement. She obviously leaked something to everybody.

Now, if she was trying to say she didn't leak anything, then you have to use the negative auxillary, I didn't leak anything. The pronoun "anything." Or you could perhaps use the negative article, I have not leaked anything.

(chuckling)

GLENN: To nobody?

PAT: To anyone. To the --

STU: Can you say "I have not leaked nothing to nobody?" If it was a triple negative, she would be okay, right?

GLENN: If you say, I have not leaked anything to anyone, why isn't that a double positive, which would lead it to a double negative?

PAT: Because you've used the negative particle "not," which obviously means you haven't.

STU: And also, if you multiply two positives together, you don't get a negative. You get a positive.

PAT: Right. Correct.

GLENN: How do we know math is right? Have you checked with Common Core lately?

STU: Well, fake math, fake news. It's all real.

GLENN: Thank you, Pat. We appreciate that, for clearing that up.

PAT: Thank you.

JEFFY: Thank you.

PAT: Happy to do that.

GLENN: For anybody who wanted to know exactly -- by the way, anybody who is making fun of Donald Trump in the media and how he speaks --

PAT: Right.

GLENN: -- is anybody going over this? Is anybody saying, "Hey, Susan Rice, I didn't leak nothing to nobody is probably not something at a cabinet level."

STU: I didn't leak nothing to nobody would have been okay because it's a triple negative. However, she said I leaked nothing to nobody, making it a double negative and making it incorrect.

GLENN: You're right. You're right. I'm sorry --

STU: Or actually correct. Because she actually did leak it.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. But she didn't leak it. And here's how they're getting away with it: May I erase your work on the chalkboard here?

PAT: Yes, you may.

GLENN: Okay. So can anybody tell me what FISA means?

STU: Foreign Intelligence Security Act?

GLENN: Foreign Intelligence Security -- it's not act, is it? Is it act?

STU: Yes.

GLENN: And so what does it do?

STU: Yeah, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance. Sorry. Surveillance.

GLENN: Surveillance. Anybody know what it does?

STU: Well, there's foreign intelligence that has surveilled with this act.

GLENN: That's all you need to know. That's all you need to know. They are surveilling foreign intelligence.

Now, why are names masked in FISA? So everything we're talking about here goes to a FISA court.

PAT: They're masked because if Americans are caught up in it, they don't want to suck Americans into something that they're --

GLENN: Great.

PAT: -- not guilty of.

GLENN: So let's go back a bit.

How does the FISA court work? What is the FISA court? How is it supposed to work?

FISA court was developed because we found out in the '70s that the CIA was starting to spy on things. And we wanted to make sure that the CIA and the FBI and everybody was in their proper roles.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But we -- we saw that the CIA was starting to use surveillance in foreign countries. And we were afraid we were going to use them here in America.

And so they put this wall up. And this is the point of the FISA court. We built a wall so no one -- no CIA, no NSA could ever cross back into the United States.

And so what the CIA said --

PAT: And it's illegal for the CIA to spy on Americans.

GLENN: Correct. This all comes from the Nixon era, and all this stuff was -- and you were starting to spy on Americans. So the FISA court was designed. And the FISA court, you as the CIA, you have to come to a FISA court and say, "Hey, we have a foreign intelligence that needs to be surveilled. We need to listen to their phone calls." Great. Listen to their phone calls.

And we're listening to their phone calls, as they're coming into the United States. They are here in the United States. And we need to listen to them.

Well, wait a minute. If they're here in the United States, they're going to be talking to Americans.

Yes, but what we'll do is when we issue the report, we will black out their name, and we will put US citizen number one.

And so when the FISA -- when the FISA report came to Susan Rice's desk, it said, "Here's the -- you know, the Russian operative Igor Mullowski (phonetic) -- whatever his name is, spoke to US citizen number one." Now, how do you unmask that?

PAT: You go to the NSA or the CIA and you say, "I need -- can I know -- I need to know who this US citizen is."

GLENN: So how do you know who to go to? CIA, NSA, how do you know who to go to?

PAT: I don't know.

STU: Are you teaching us or asking us?

GLENN: I'm asking -- I'm teaching you too. Do you know?

PAT: No. Whoever filed the report I would --

GLENN: So you go to whoever issued this report.

STU: Okay.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: The only people that have the key to unmask are the people that issued the report. So you go to the -- let's say the NSA. And you say, "Guys, I see US citizen number one. I think I know who this is, and there is something else going on that you're not privy to." Because everything is compartmentalized. I need to see US number one. And unmask US citizen number one so I know their name. Because I think they're connected in this other thing that we have going on over here. We have to make sure it's the same person.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Now, when they unmask it, who gets the unmasked report?

PAT: Person who asked for it.

GLENN: That's what I would think. Nope.

So when they're saying, did you leak anything? She didn't have to. Those reports go out to all of -- like 20 people. Those reports go out every day. And they have unmask.

If they are -- if they are unmasked -- they go out masked. Then if somebody asks for them to be unmasked, they're reissued, and they go out to everyone with the unmasking. So she didn't to have leak it. She gave it to 20, to 100 different people.

STU: And someone there leaked it.

GLENN: Someone there leaked it.

STU: She started the process.

GLENN: Right. So the questions they should be asking --

PAT: She puts the blame though, on the NSA, because they're the ones who decide whether they'll unmask or not.

GLENN: Right. Right. So let's play this out, Pat. She's exactly right. They do. You play Susan Rice, I play the NSA. Hello, NSA.

PAT: I'd like to know who citizen number one is.

STU: Why is your voice so low?

PAT: She's got a cold.

STU: Oh, okay.

GLENN: Wow, I hope you feel better, Susan. You sound really bad. You sound like that guy on the radio. What's his name? Oh, man.

PAT: Yeah, I don't feel good right now. So -- nobody knows. Nobody knows his name. It hasn't been unmasked yet.

GLENN: So, Susan, I can't just give you the name of the person.

PAT: No, I've got another investigation going on.

GLENN: You have another investigation going on? Can you tell me a little bit about -- I don't need to know about the investigation, but can you give me a reason why you think this name is important?

PAT: Well, it involves a Trump campaign.

GLENN: And are you doing something on the Trump campaign and the Russians?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Okay. So you have something else going on?

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. So you do need it?

PAT: I do it need.

GLENN: Good. You don't just call them and say, "Hey, I need a name unmasked." Those are masked as a wall. It is incumbent upon the -- the agency that issued the report --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- to then say, "Why do you need it?"

Now, as national security adviser, as the head of the president's national security, she has more clout than anyone else. But it is her case. She cannot blame anyone else for saying, "Well, they just released it." No.

They released it to you because you are the president's national security adviser. You are the top of the pyramid.

PAT: And you made the case.

GLENN: If you say, I have another case that you're not aware of, they will unmask it. Because you're the top of the pyramid. The only one higher is the president.

PAT: And based on her interviews, she -- she kind of walks this line --

JEFFY: Yes, she does.

GLENN: Yes, she does.

PAT: -- that, yeah, I did unmask something, but it wasn't for political purposes and I wasn't going after the Trump campaign.

GLENN: So the question should be, then what were you working on to ask for it to be unmasked?

PAT: Which she would say national security. Classified.

JEFFY: Classified.

GLENN: Correct. Correct, she will.

So then the next question is: So was that name the name connected with something else? National security. Well, you have an American -- you have an American's life at stake here.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Their whole --

PAT: Yeah, it's bad.

GLENN: The reason for the FISA wall, you've just destroyed their life. I think you have a responsibility to repair it and speak frankly.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The founders warned us

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

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

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

Not-so-expert advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

A republic no more?

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

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

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Choosing death over care

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

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

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

They offered her MAID.

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

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

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

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

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

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Sharia arrives

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

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

The warning from those who have lived under it

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

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

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

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

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

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

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

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

Wake up before it is too late

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why do Americans feel so empty?

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The crisis beneath the headlines

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

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

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

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

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

The quiet return of meaning

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

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

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

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.