Bill O’Reilly Slams ‘Corrupt’ Media Backlash Over Trump’s Call With a Gold Star Widow

The Trump administration came under fire this week after a congresswoman spoke to the press about a confidential phone call between President Donald Trump and the widow of a U.S. soldier who died in Niger.

What happened, and is this just another case of people being outraged over nothing again? Bill O’Reilly didn’t hold back in his analysis of the story on today’s show.

“They don’t know what happened,” he said of the media. “They couldn’t possibly know. Yet they use this once again to divide the country in a hateful way, and it’s on them.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: The one, the only, Mr. Bill O'Reilly joins us now. Bill, did you see -- did you see the speech from Kelly yesterday?

BILL: Beck. Yes, yes, yes, yes. You left one thing out though, which is really the crux of all the savagery -- and that's the word, "savagery" -- that's going on in this country right now. And that's the media.

What happened was that 24 hours before the president made the call to the widow of the slain soldier in Niger, the family knew the president was going to call, because you have to give them a heads-up and find out where they're going to be and all of that.

Then the family apparently alerts this Congresswoman Wilson. Why? Why?

Would you -- if it were your son, Beck, would you alert any politician?

GLENN: Never.

BILL: That you were going to get a call from the president.

GLENN: Never.

BILL: I would. So who would do that? What's the point of that? So then the call comes in. And they're in the call apparently, on a speakerphone, and the president was disregarding the advice of General Kelly as chief of staff. Because General Kelly said, "Listen, the family is grieving. No matter what you say, it's not going to make a difference. And it's a very difficult situation for any president to be in." But you said to his credit, and I agree with that, but Donald Trump said, "Look, I want to try. I want to try to give them words of sympathy." And it is an honor to get a call from the president of the United States.

GLENN: It is. And I will tell you this as a sidebar, we were all very, very upset -- at least I was -- Taya Kyle wasn't. But I was very upset. And I asked Taya Kyle for a year, has the president reached out at all? I mean, here's this great hero. Has the president reached out at all? Now, she didn't want the call.

But still, it is something that a president should do.

BILL: Well, you're talking about President Obama.

GLENN: Yes, I am.

BILL: Yeah. And he didn't. Because there is no protocol that is in stone. And I think there should be. And that's what I said on BillO'Reilly.com yesterday. There should a way to handle these kinds of things that always happens.

Now, I don't think that should require a phone call.

GLENN: No, I don't think so either.

BILL: But the president is the commander-in-chief. He has the option to do that.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: So, anyway, so the call comes into the limo. And they're all in the limo. And according to General Kelly, President Trump was trying to tell the widow that her husband was a hero because he voluntarily put his life at risk for his country. That was the theme of the call. He was a hero. He voluntarily. And I guess they used the word signed up. He knew the danger. But he did it anyway because he wanted to protect his country, which is a noble sentiment.

Okay. So then the call is over. Within, what? Ten minutes. This congresswoman is calling CNN. That can't happen spontaneously, Beck. That's got to be planned in advance. You can't just call up a major network and say, "I want to be on your air." They got to vet you. They got to know who you are. All of that.

So you can't tell me that this wasn't a setup. It was an absolute setup. That is a huge story.

The second huge story is, as they always do, the barbarians on cable news and broadcast news, believe every word Wilson says. Okay? Like they were there. Even though Wilson, incredibly, admits while I didn't hear the whole phone call.

How could you not possibly hear the whole phone call, if it's in a car on a speakerphone and you were sitting there?

So right away, her credibility is zero. So I'm watching the cable news, and I'm seeing these hit one after the other after the other. Of, oh, what a disgrace. This is horrible. He's insensitive. He's this, he's that. This is talking about Trump. They don't know what happened. They couldn't possibly know.

Yet they use this once again to divide the country in a hateful way. And it's on them. It's on them.

This media we have now is as corrupt as any time in our republic. This is off the chart, from the newspapers, to the television programs, to the internet. It is corrupt in the extreme, and it is harming the United States. No question.

GLENN: Okay. So I want to go back to that. You sound like you're speaking with some passion there.

BILL: I'm really keyed off, Beck.

GLENN: No, I know you are.

BILL: I got to deal with this personally. I got to deal with this kind of crap all the time. You do.

Anybody that doesn't toe the far left line is in danger now. I mean, it's so out of control. So out of control.

GLENN: Bill, I will tell you -- I will tell you, we have spoken off the air about my -- I had a -- I had a day in court in Boston on the Boston bombing.

And, you know, I had good government sources. And the government knew exactly what sources. And some day, some journalists -- well, no, they won't. No, they won't. Some day I'll just write a book, I guess, with this in it. But I have all of the documents. I have all of the transcripts from the trial. I have absolutely everything, including the ability to speak about the trial, because that was part of one of the conditions of the settlement.

But I will tell you, it's not just the media, it is the government that is corrupt. You cannot defend yourself if the government won't respond and abide by the constitutional constraints. And they don't.

You have no way to defend yourself.

BILL: The only -- and I sympathize because you were at Fox News Channel when you broke that story. And I am familiar with the story. And I know you didn't make it up. And I know you were going on people in the government telling you certain things. So that's absolutely true.

But I don't have any expectation the United States government would do anything for anybody at any time. Zero expectation on that.

But what we have here is, the -- the president of the United States is now in a position where the media, about 80 to 90 percent of it wants to destroy him.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: When has that ever happened? How can you run a democracy when the media doesn't care about the truth or any kind of accurate reportage? Their whole bent every single day is to destroy the leader of the country.

GLENN: Yeah. I don't know how you can run a democracy, let alone a republic like ours.

BILL: I mean, it is shameful and disgraceful. And the politicians on both sides, you know, they're scrambling for cover. They go, I don't want to be in this.

You know, I give Kelly a lot of credit. I said on BillO'Reilly.com yesterday, look, you expect the chief of staff to defend his boss, the president. You expect that. Okay?

So we have to listen to what Kelly has to say very closely, as you pointed out. But what he brought to the explanation was logic. Here's what was said and why it was said. And then his disgust with this congresswoman trying to -- who hates Trump. Trying to make it a political issue. But he didn't take it a step further. Is that the media immediately grabbed on to this corrupt congressman, congresswoman, and ran with it. They always do. And it's just sickening.

GLENN: So, Bill, here we are, we're looking at this corrupt media. Do you see a way out of this?

BILL: I don't. I don't. I mean, I've been in this business 43 years. And, you know, I try to run an honest program. As do you. I wouldn't be appearing here every Friday if I thought you weren't. I'm trying to run an honest enterprise at BillO'Reilly.com. And look at things and verify things and check things out. And if I can't get it, I don't say it.

But you put on these cables, and they don't -- I'm not going to use an obscenity, but you know what I'm talking about. They couldn't care less. It's, we're going to get Trump. Going to get him today. Here's how we're going to get him. Tomorrow, we'll get him this way, and we'll get O'Reilly, we'll get Beck, we'll get Limbaugh. We'll get Hannity. We'll get anybody we disagree with. We'll get them.

GLENN: So do you believe that the right is -- some people in the right are engaging in this same behavior? We'll get the left. We'll get the media. It doesn't matter who they are, or what they've done.

BILL: Certainly they're -- in the Hillary Clinton situation, there's an element of that. And I'm not sympathetic to Mrs. Clinton, okay? I'm not. I think she's an imperious woman -- word of the day "imperious" -- who lost the election because people flatout didn't like her. And I really -- I mean, if there's one person I would not want to dine with, it would be her. Okay? I just don't have any use for her at all. But there is an element on the right, that incorporates some of these scorched earth, I hate you tactics. But it's not nearly -- it's not even in the same universe as organized and funded as it is on the far left. It's individuals on the far right, okay?

So you can't make the comparison. Because they don't have the megaphone, number one. They don't have the organized cabal. And, you know, there are various websites like Breitbart and Daily Caller and some of them like that. They do their thing. But it's not nearly the way it is when you have Comcast, NBC, NBC. CNN. I mean, these are huge, huge conglomerates. So I don't think it's any comparison.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com, talking about General Kelly's speech yesterday. And, Bill, I want to hit one more thing here before we move on. And that is, his question, is there anything sacred anymore?

BILL: You know, I don't think that's a question that can be answered in a specific way. I mean, I think most Americans are decent people. And to them, there are things that are sacred.

But, you know, I hate to keep going back and being boring, but to the media, you know, no. There isn't. Politicians, again, it's a case-by-case basis. But there are good people, and there are people that understand that the world is not a place where trying to destroy people should be your main focus.

And I think folks are getting disgusted. I'm waiting for the backlash, Beck. I'm waiting for the backlash. I think it's going to come against the media.

GLENN: And how would that manifest itself?

BILL: Well, it will be ratings. You're seeing it in the NFL. The backlash against the NFL. You're seeing the ratings down, fairly significantly. And also, marketing and merchandising.

I think you're going to see a backlash against the media because people are disgusted with it.

GLENN: So what is the replacement? Because I'm afraid that the backlash comes and then you just don't believe anything or anyone, and so you just unplug. That's not good.

BILL: No, it's not. And, you know, I think people will, what they call look in. They'll look in on occasion. The newspaper industry is dead. Good. TIME Magazine, Newsweek, dead, good. Television is still there, but declining.

So they'll look in on their machines, on their devices, on the internet. They'll look in. But I really think that people have had it.

GLENN: Well, people in Media Matters are already in the halls of Facebook and Twitter and everyone else. Google.

BILL: Yeah, you're never going to get a square play on the net. It's just a convenience thing. I mean, I go -- just so people know, I go to CBSNews.com in the morning. Because they give me a headline service that's useful. Sometimes their articles are ridiculous. But I know immediately when I'm getting conned. I go to theHill.com to get the Washington stuff. I write for them. And they're fairly fair. They have both sides.

GLENN: Okay.

BILL: And that's about it.

GLENN: Okay.

BILL: That's about it for me.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com. More of the news of the week and his perspective without the spin. BillO'Reilly.com. Coming up, more in a minute.

(OUT AT 9:31AM)

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com is joining us.

Bill, let me give you something from the Wall Street Journal. Now, the Wall Street Journal is the most liberal paper in America. I mean, mainstream paper. When it comes to the news. However, its editorial section is not.

And in the editorial section -- I don't know if you saw this, Donald Trump may be following Palin's trajectory. And I'd like to get your thought on this.

BILL: I didn't see the piece yet. So just tell me what the theme was.

GLENN: Okay. So here it is: In this day, like Sarah Palin supporters, who saw her intellect polish as proof of her sincerity -- but in times, she lost a place through antic statements, intellectual thinness, and general strangeness. The same may happen or be happening with Donald Trump.

And what they're saying is, you know, what you liked about Sarah was she was just, you know, one of us. Saying it like it is. And then after a while, that started to wear really thin. And you're like, I don't think there's anything behind this. And then the -- the theatrics and everything else. And it just wore thin. And she's nowhere.

BILL: All right. I know both people pretty well, particularly Trump. I wouldn't say I know Sarah Palin very well. But I've been around her enough to be able to evaluate her.

GLENN: Yeah. I do too.

BILL: It's an unfair comparison. There's no similarity and intellect between Donald Trump and Sarah Palin. Trump has a much wider frame of reference than Ms. Palin. There is similarity in that they're both populists, and they both tailor their message to the folks, and they both can't stand the media. So they're similar.

But if the Palin thing was going to happen to Trump, it would have happened already. All right? Trump's problem is that his wording sometimes is imprecise. All right? It's not as exact as it has to be for a president. He just wanders too much.

Ms. Palin didn't really know that much as far as history is concerned or, you know, her country. And when Katie Couric asked her about what she read, she couldn't really articulate that.

So there's a big difference between Trump's life experience and what he's accomplished and what Sarah Palin has accomplished.

GLENN: Next story. Transgender Wyoming woman convicted Thursday of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl inside a bathroom.

Michelle Martinez, known -- formerly known as Miguel Martinez, before identifying as a female, found guilty first degree and second degree sexual abuse of a minor. Could face 70 years in prison.

Martinez, who was a family friend, invited the girl into the bathroom on March 23rd. Touched her. Penetrated her. The girl told her mother immediately.

Martinez, when questioned by police, became notably hostile and defensive. Said the girl was just talking crap before denying being a child molester. He is also calling accusations a publicity stunt. He has pleaded not guilty on both counts.

BILL: You know, what do you want me to say -- you know, this is a heinous thing. All Americans should want justice. So let it play out. There's really -- you know, I don't think you can take one or two situations and make any general points. What I will say is that the pressure from the politically correct precincts and the ACLU, to force public schools and public facilities to allow people who were born one gender to go into a locker room of another gender is insane.

And there is an easy solution, whereas you make a third facility for transgendered people to use. And you would think that they would want privacy anyway. So make a facility. It costs a little money. But in this PC world, that's the solution to the problem.

So I'm not big on generalizing from specific heinous situations. I don't think that's fair. And I want to be fair.

But I think that this movement for America to do things that are not in the best interest of children and are not based in common sense, common sense says you build a third facility. So that's my take.

GLENN: President Trump releases petition requesting support on standing during the national anthem.

I read this, this morning, and he came out yesterday and said, I want to know who is patriot enough to stand and pledge to stand during the national anthem. I want -- I've issued a petition.

And I thought it was a little strange. And then I saw where the URL leads, and it's to the GOP. This --

BILL: I'm going to comment on that. But I want you to answer the next question on Killing England, my number one book, because it plays into this. And I don't want your audience to think I'm crass in using the question about the anthem to promote my book, okay?

GLENN: All right. All right. Well, you're not the boss of me.

BILL: I want you to set it up.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

BILL: Rather than me be a doofus.

GLENN: This is probably -- if this is the way we're going to run this show, this is probably something you should have said before we went on the air. It's a little -- it's a little less crass.

BILL: No, but I want to be honest here. I want them to know the interaction is genuine.

GLENN: All right. All right. All right.

BILL: Okay. National anthem. No question Donald Trump is using it for political benefit. Everybody got that? Because he's already come out. He's already said he believes that everybody should respect the flag and the anthem. Most Americans concur. Word of the day "concur."

GLENN: No, the other was the word of the day.

BILL: And he won. He won it, okay? So he's on the side of apple pie and goodness and flag and anthem. Okay. Enough. Enough. You're the president. We need the tax cut. All right? You don't have to keep going back. We don't need a petition. We don't need to go trick-or-treating, dressed up like the flag, okay? We don't need it. We got it. You won. There's my take.

Now, Killing England. Go.

GLENN: You're not the boss of me.

The budget that they passed yesterday, only one G.O.P. person voted against it. Rand Paul.

BILL: Of course.

GLENN: There's no cuts. Real cuts to this. How do you feel about the Republicans?

BILL: Yeah. I'm not surprised. Because the Republican Party knows there's only one thing that's going to save it at this point, and that's the tax revision. And the working people getting the 4,000-dollar average into their pockets. So if they have to spend more money to get that -- which is what the trade is, okay? They're going to do it. So there's no surprise here.

GLENN: I don't think there's any trade.

BILL: Because it's all about tax cuts.

GLENN: Yeah, I don't think there's any trade.

Okay. Tell me about Killing England.

BILL: England. England. Okay. Number one book. Knocked off Hillary Clinton in the New York Times Best Seller list. Three weeks running, which is amazing because I don't have the platform I used to have to market the book.

GLENN: (clearing throat)

BILL: Well, your -- and you've been generous, Beck. You really have. I have to say.

GLENN: All right.

BILL: And there's no kickback. Although, I did send Beck a free book.

GLENN: I don't believe -- I don't believe you did.

BILL: No, I did. I sent you a free book.

GLENN: Did you sign it?

BILL: Yes, I signed it.

GLENN: You did not.

BILL: I think I just put one N in Glenn. No, I spelled your name correctly.

But, look, the reason I'm trying to get people's attention on this is because I obviously want the book to be successful, but I want you to compare George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, the three central characters in our revolution, to what we have now. To what we have now.

I mean, it's unbelievable, the difference in -- in every single way. Intellect. Character. Courage.

And right down the line. When you get through reading about these men who gave us this unbelievable freedom that we have, that's now being abused, by the way. But we have it. When you read about the suffering they went through -- the suffering, and what they actually did. And you compare it to these weasels that we've put into power -- I mean, across-the-board. There's some good people. But most of them are just -- are just ugh. Glenn.

GLENN: Also, the weasels that we have become. I mean, we don't really demand the highest standards from ourselves anymore, as a people.

BILL: Well, you're generalizing though. I'm going back to, there are people who do that. And it wasn't uniform back in 1775, '76.

GLENN: No, I know that.

BILL: Half of the colonists wanted to stay with the insane king.

GLENN: I know.

BILL: And they wanted to do it, most of them, for money reasons. Not because they believed in the monarchy. They were cowards.

So human nature is human nature. I always say that. But I think the majority of Americans do want high standards and are good people. I don't know if I differ from you or what on that.

GLENN: I'm not sure anymore. I would have said yes to that. But I'm not sure anymore. I'm not sure that we're much different than we were in the colonies, with the exception of that we are also -- we have -- you know, there was an overwhelming understanding back then of some morality. Some things were sacred, to a majority of people. And I don't know if that's true at all anymore.

BILL: Well, we're certainly more fragmented and scattered. And our focus is not on other people.

I mean, I did a thing last night for a Philadelphia radio station, where the subject of religion came up. Because religion is under fire in this country, as everybody knows. If you're a believer and you live in Los Angeles or New York, they think you're a kook. You know, if you go to church every Sunday, people look at you like, what's wrong with you?

Certainly, back then, that was not the case. And so there is a big difference. The secular progressives have power. They have power. And they're using it because the media sympathizes with them, and they get their message out. And it's easy for them to get their message out. So you're right in that sense, that there's been a big erosion in, you know, treating your neighbor as yourself, putting other people ahead of you. How often do we hear that these days?

GLENN: Yeah, not very often as well. Bill, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

BILL: All right, Beck. I did send you a free Killing England. So you find it in all of your stuff. You find that book.

GLENN: Right. Right. I'll find it after you send it.

BILL: Oh, man.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly -- Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com. Number one book, three weeks running in the country, is Killing England.

Bill O'Reilly, thanks for joining us.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The founders warned us

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

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

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

Not-so-expert advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

A republic no more?

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

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

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Choosing death over care

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

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

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

They offered her MAID.

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

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

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

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

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

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Sharia arrives

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

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

The warning from those who have lived under it

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

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

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

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

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

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

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

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

Wake up before it is too late

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The crisis beneath the headlines

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

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

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

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

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

The quiet return of meaning

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

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

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

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.