Here’s the Cognitive Assessment Test That Trump Took – What’s Your Score?

It’s customary for the sitting president to undergo a physical exam each year, but President Donald Trump decided to add another test to the mix: one that checks your cognitive abilities.

The White House medical team selected the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a 30-point test that screens for memory loss and dementia. The unusual decision may have been influenced by critics’ accusations that Trump is not mentally fit to be president.

On today’s show, Glenn and Stu looked at the test, and Glenn had “Dr. Stu” check out his mental health. Can Glenn identify a lion, draw a cube and remember five words? Listen to the full clip (above) to find out, and then check out the test for yourself.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So the president had a -- had some -- a series of tests done on him yesterday. And his doctor said he is as strong as an ox. Now, this is not the crazy -- remember the doctor he had on that was like our movie doctor. You're like Dr. What's-his-face from Back to the Future. I would like a real doctor, please.

STU: Oh, yeah. This was during the campaign, you mean? And they were like, yeah, and he's super mega healthy.

Wait. Mega. Did you use the word mega as a physician? It was that type of thing.

GLENN: Yeah. I know you were from Columbia. But he just looked crazy.

STU: And they talked to him. And he didn't really examine him. And he was using strange words. He was using Trump words. It looked like Trump gave him the script to write. And no one, I don't think, really believed he wasn't healthy. But there was speculation in the media for sure --

GLENN: Yeah. I wanted the doctor questioned. Not because I didn't think Trump was healthy. Just because I thought he was nuts.

STU: Right.

GLENN: So yesterday, the president's results -- his test results were released to the press. And first, let's talk about his physical health. Here's what his doctor said.

VOICE: How a guy who eats McDonald's and fried chicken and all those Diet Cokes and never exercises is in as good a shape as you say he's in.

VOICE: It's called genetics. I don't know. Some people have just, you know, great genes.

I told the president that if he had a healthier diet over the last 20 years, he might live to be 200 years old. I don't know.

He has incredible -- he has incredible genes, I just assume, you know. If I -- if I didn't watch what I ate, I wouldn't have the cardiac and overall health that he has.

GLENN: So he is in good, physical health. And you got to believe Donald Trump loves the gene talk.

STU: Oh, yeah. He's big on that.

GLENN: Yeah, he's big on the racehorse theory. Hey, we breed racehorses. Kind of a 1910 progressive eugenics kind of thing. He is all in, and so is the whole family.

STU: I love the, how can a guy eat McDonald's and be healthy? You can actually -- you know what, almost everyone in America eats McDonald's at times. You can be healthy.

It's funny, seeing people that are like, well, yes, I put butter in my coffee, but how can this man eat McDonald's? Well, of course nine stacks of avocado toast are completely fine, along with coconut butter. But how dare he have a piece of chicken.

GLENN: And who doesn't understand the genetics thing, that there are people who can smoke, drink, and eat sticks of butter, and live to 120?

STU: Yeah. Is it a good idea? Does it hurt your percentage chance to live longer? Yes. That does not mean that eating these things -- especially if you eat them without a ridiculous amount, that doesn't mean you're going to be unhealthy at all.

And then they have to throw the, how can he have all these Diet Cokes? I don't know. Maybe him eating zero-calorie beverages is the reason he can have McDonald's. Is that possible?

Brainiac. I hate that stuff. But he did pass the test and did pretty well. I think you could look at him and say, wow, he --

GLENN: I would hope --

STU: You're impressed by --

GLENN: I would hope that I would be as healthy as he is when I'm his age.

STU: Or now.

GLENN: Or now. I would take it five years ago.

(laughter)

STU: Retroactively trying to match a 73-year-old's health. That's good.

GLENN: Yep. I don't have the genetic predisposition to long life.

(laughter)

STU: That's not good.

GLENN: No.

STU: The other thing was -- by the way, we also found out today, apparently Sanjay Gupta, who is -- you know, you might think of him as a TV doctor. But they wanted him to be a high role, I can't remember was it? Attorney general?

GLENN: No, I think it was surgeon general.

STU: Yeah. For the Obama administration. He was their first choice. And he wound up turning that down. Apparently was saying, if you look at the numbers, that guy has heart disease.

Wait a minute. His doctor didn't say he had heart disease. But Sanjay, looking at the numbers, has been able to take the code and suck out heart disease from these numbers, apparently.

So we'll get more on that as that develops.

GLENN: Well, how old is he? Seventy-two? Seventy-three?

STU: Seventy-three, something like that, yeah.

GLENN: I mean, if you're 73 and you're living like Donald Trump, you know, I think you kind of -- you're kind of like, "A little heart disease isn't bad for me."

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Seventy-three, 75 years old, I'm thinking, oh, I only have a little heart disease. Good.

STU: Exactly. You think the guy has been able to do whatever he wants for how many years. He owns a lot of the best restaurants in America.

GLENN: He never exercises.

STU: Doesn't exercise.

GLENN: He's my hero. He never exercises.

He eats whatever he wants. And he's 4 pounds heavier than he was a year ago?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: God bless him.

STU: Especially going into that job, I mean, I would put on 60 in a week.

GLENN: We would have to have soup makers on constant standby.

STU: At some point, you just start building them with release flaps, where you can just expand --

GLENN: Oh, yeah. Just staple. Staple the sides together because you'll need the extra material later.

STU: Yeah, make it for someone who weighs 600, and I'll grow into it. I promise.

GLENN: That's right. That's right.

STU: But the other big thing about this was people wanted him to take a cognitive test.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And to test his brain. Because everybody thinks in the media, apparently, that he is just mentally unfit to be president. Now, mentally unfit to be president is completely different than I don't like his policies, I don't like his character, I don't like his demeanor. Like those are all things that the media obviously doesn't like. But it's completely different than whether he is mentally capable of thinking -- you know, thinking in a normal, human way.

GLENN: I think there are times that he is mentally lazy. Intentionally. He just hasn't thought things through. Just hasn't -- you know, I think he has changed from the personality that if you go back and look at the videotapes in the 1980s and '90s, but I don't think that's a decline in his mental health. I think that's just a -- you know, I haven't thought about it in a while. I'm 73 years old. I'm a little lazy on that.

STU: Right. But none of that stuff you would be able to detect in a mental test. So he took a mental test for the first time ever, apparently. No president has ever had to take one of these tests before. And it wasn't because the doctor was like, well, I'm unsure of this guy. Apparently Trump wanted it done so he could prove that he was okay.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, when you have people around you going, I don't know. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment, we could get him out of here. I'm taking a mental test.

STU: Yeah, why not? Let's prove that -- and that's obviously a ridiculous media narrative, right? You know, the idea that he is incapable of thinking like a normal human being is completely absurd.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: We do have the test, an example of the test.

GLENN: Yeah. So we thought -- because, you know, when you're given a mental test, I don't know, the president passed it. Could you pass it? We'll give you the mental test they gave the president in a minute.

GLENN: So the president passed his mental agility test. And, you know, they can't use the 25th Amendment against him because he's passed a -- you know, a sanity test, or a mental agility test. I will tell you, I have had these tests before. I've had it at Columbia, and I've had it at the Mayo Clinic. Because for a while, I was testing like I had severe concussions. And they couldn't figure out what was going on. And we were afraid that maybe I was going into early Alzheimer's or something. And so I had these tests.

And they're kind of spooky in a way. I mean, they're -- they're tough. And, you know, Stu won't let me see the paper now, so I'm a little nervous now.

STU: Call me doctor, please.

GLENN: Well, no, I'm the doctor.

STU: Call me Dr. Stu for today.

GLENN: Okay. Okay. Dr. Stu.

STU: Because you're right, I won't let you see it in advance. That will not give us the results we're looking for. I will say this, looking at this test, it is not a test of let's do a deep dive and search to see if there's anything wrong with your thought process.

It's more of a test that you would give someone if you highly suspect they have dementia or they just had a stroke and you want to be able to check whether they're able to complete basic human thought. Right?

It's not a -- it's not a type of test that you're going to read into and be like, oh, my gosh.

You know, it doesn't say --

GLENN: Do you have the whole test? Because the whole test, at least the one I took, took at least an hour.

STU: Yeah. This is one page. We can do it quickly.

GLENN: Oh. Okay. Okay.

STU: It's a basic test though. Your uncle has a stroke. They're at the hospital. Is there major problems with his brain? Here's a cognitive test. You go through it quickly. This shows you can do basic processes. Do you have a pen? We'll do it here?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: The first part is, there's three visual tests that won't work particularly well on radio. But we'll explain them. There's a bunch of numbers and letters for the first test and it gives you the beginning of the path. For example, the number one, there's a line drawn to A. Then there's a line drawn to two. You have to complete the pattern.

GLENN: Then a line drawn to B.

STU: That's a good. Yeah, why don't I just give you the answers?

So going down to B. Then B would go to three.

GLENN: Then that would go to C. Then it would go to 4. Then it would go to D. And then it would go to 5, and that would go to E. This is not a real --

STU: Let me see -- the next one. It is. This is the test. It's the Montreal Cognitive Test. Now, there's another one that says for Glenn to draw -- copy a box.

GLENN: I'm sorry. But this is a -- this is not -- this is not an invasive test.

STU: What it is, is the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and don't -- I mean, you can rush through all you want. I don't know if you're trying to prove something here.

GLENN: No, it's just easy.

STU: Okay. So it's easy for Glenn. So there's three tests here. We'll be posting the results here online. How much time do we have, Sarah? Should we go through the next questions?

GLENN: Did I get those right, Doctor?

STU: I will grade you at the end. Thank you for calling me doctor.

GLENN: All right. I will tell you, I just -- I didn't even read the directions, they're so easy. If I have any wrong, it's because I didn't read the directions.

STU: Wow, President Trump was able to read the directions and get them right.

GLENN: Okay. I'll read the directions.

STU: I'll show you a picture. I'd like you to tell me what that picture is. What is that?

GLENN: That's a lion.

STU: A lion is the answer. Get that to my physician's assistant. The first answer was lion. Next one, I'm showing you a picture. What is this picture?

GLENN: That is a rhino. Rhino.

STU: A rhino. And finally I'm showing you this picture, what is this picture?

GLENN: That is an ostrich, a zebra -- a camel. Trust me, this is not --

STU: Lion, just writing down your answers. Rhino.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And a camel.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: Next up. Are you ready?

GLENN: I'm ready.

STU: I am going to read a list of words.

GLENN: Oh, boy.

STU: You must repeat them. Okay?

GLENN: Do I have to wait for a while and then repeat them or just repeat the word you just said?

STU: I'm going to read all five words, you're going to repeat them in that order. Are you ready?

GLENN: All right. Okay. Yes.

STU: Face, velvet, church, daisy, red.

GLENN: Faith, velvet. Daisy, church -- I'm bad at these.

STU: Okay. We're going to try it one more time.

Here is the five words. Repeat them in this order. Face, velvet, church, daisy, red.

GLENN: Face, velvet, daisy -- church, daisy. I can't remember.

STU: Okay. Premiere, we're going need to a new host.

GLENN: Going need to a new host.

STU: We're going to need a new host.

GLENN: I've gone through more difficult tests than these. I have a difficult time with some of them. I have a difficult time with them.

STU: We are learning things -- so far, we've learned many things. In my studies of your test so far, I've learned many things --

GLENN: When you see the lion is actually a chicken, we're -- you'll see how troubled -- how troubled we really are. Back in just a second.

GLENN: Now, I'm under -- I'm under a great deal of stress now.

STU: Welcome to the Dr. Stu Program. 1-800-DR-STU.

GLENN: That's not enough numbers.

STU: We're giving Glenn the cognitive test that the president passed with flying colors yesterday. And we're learning some interesting things as we go through this.

GLENN: Well, now he's telling me that there's certain grades for how well the clock is drawn and stuff. I made a clock face quickly. And just...

STU: Okay. That's --

GLENN: Okay. Here's a picture of a more detailed clock. Here's a grandfather clock. Does that help?

STU: There's an interesting section in the instructions about people who make excuses for their incorrect answers, that we can get into a little bit later.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Okay.

STU: We're now in the next section.

GLENN: Yes, next section.

STU: And here is --

GLENN: By the way, the president passed this with flying colors. I'm still in jeopardy here.

STU: I'm going to read you a list of digits. You need to repeat them in four-word order.

GLENN: Digits. Wait. What do you mean in four-word order?

STU: Normal order. The way I'm going to give them. All right. Two --

GLENN: Two --

STU: No. When I'm done with all five of them, you will then repeat the five.

GLENN: All right. Okay. Okay. All right.

STU: Yeah, two --

GLENN: Somebody write them down.

STU: No, you can't write them down. Just saying. Two.

GLENN: Two. All right. I'm sorry. Go ahead -- I got the first --

STU: I'm about to subtract some points. Listen to the five numbers. Two, one, eight, five, four.

GLENN: Two, one, eight, five, four.

But I would like to say, that it is five, two, one, eight, five, four. Because you said five several times before.

STU: I said two many times because you kept interrupting me.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. And two, two, two. Five, five, five -- it's actually five, two, five, two, five, two.

STU: Sir, we can remove you from office.

GLENN: All right. Go ahead.

STU: There's a silliness clause in this test.

GLENN: All right.

STU: I would like you to repeat these numbers in backward order. Put your pen down, sir.

GLENN: In backward order. I'm just finishing clock face.

STU: Put your pen down. You've already failed the clock test. Well, we'll see how you did on the clock. Repeat these in backward order. Seven --

GLENN: Backward order. Sorry.

STU: Seven, four, two. There are three numbers I just gave you.

GLENN: Two, four, seven.

STU: That is correct. You'll be getting the full test results here in just a moment.

GLENN: See, this is not like a real test. Is this really the one they gave the president?

STU: This is the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and, yes, this is the test.

GLENN: Because I will tell you, I've had these before, and here's how they usually go, I'm going to give you five numbers. Okay. Let me give them to you here, Stu. Let me see if I can do this with you.

STU: He is stalling to get out of it. I'm getting that from my physician's assistant here in the other room.

GLENN: No. Seven, 14, 21, eight, three. Say them.

STU: Wait. You didn't tell me what we were doing.

GLENN: I'm saying. I'm giving you five numbers, you repeat them back. Seven, 14, 21, eight, three.

STU: Seven, 14, 21, eight, three. So you're saying the test designer has a problem?

GLENN: Yeah, he's a little insane.

STU: Is that the issue here? Are you trying to delay so we don't get to the end of the test?

GLENN: No, no, no.

Five numbers. Ready?

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Five, three, 17, 40, nine.

STU: Five, three, 17, 40, nine.

GLENN: Give me the first five numbers that I gave you.

STU: Seven, 14, 21, eight, one, three.

GLENN: Okay. So the real tests, they keep doing this. They just keep adding five numbers. And they'll give you five numbers. Five numbers. Five numbers. What were the first five numbers?

STU: That would be impossible. And, again, that's an interesting distinction between the tests. The one you're talking about is, let's do an incredibly deep dive to see if we can find any hint of anything that's at the very beginning stages.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: What this is, you just had a massive stroke. Can you do the basics? That's what the president passed.

GLENN: In this test, they had the president draw a three-dimensional box. In the test that I've seen, they'll show you something like this.

STU: Where you're seeing like a rectangle, circle, square --

GLENN: Like a little antenna thing coming off the end. And then it comes out and it juts out. And they don't make any sense. And they show it to you for like are five or ten seconds. Say, remember this. They put it away. Now, draw it.

STU: Right. Much more challenging.

GLENN: And you have to draw it. Because it's very intricate. And there's no rhyme or reason to why it's built that way.

STU: And, Sarah, you would say this is a delay to not get to the answers in the test.

SARAH: Absolutely.

STU: Okay. Thank you. Okay. There you go. I would like you to clap your hands. Okay. Thank you. Here you go --

GLENN: You didn't say stop clapping.

STU: Please stop clapping your hand. Okay. Now, every time I say the letter A, I would like you to clap. Okay. That's it.

GLENN: That had A in it.

STU: When I say the letter A, you should clap. Ready?

GLENN: Got it.

STU: F, B, A, C, M --

GLENN: Go ahead.

STU: -- N, A.

GLENN: A. A.

STU: J.

STU: K. L, B, F --

GLENN: Now, is this the letter -- because they sound --

STU: F, A, K, D, E, A --

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

STU: A, A, J, A, M -- this is harder than I thought.

GLENN: Well, because the K and the J, if it's not in the letter, it does have J-A-Y. So it has an A in it. I'm just saying.

STU: Now, the next question, you specifically warned me not to give you any math questions, which is not something you could ask the doctor. You can't say anything, but blood tests. You can't do that.

GLENN: Yeah, I didn't ask the doctor to not --

STU: I'm going to give you a number. I would like you to subtract seven from that number.

GLENN: Seven.

STU: Okay?

GLENN: Fourteen.

STU: I haven't started yet.

GLENN: All right.

STU: The number is --

GLENN: Twenty-one.

STU: I haven't started yet, so you can't --

GLENN: Seven. Six, five, four, three, two, one.

STU: I think we lock you up after this. Okay. One hundred. Subtract seven.

GLENN: Ninety-three.

STU: Subtract seven from that.

GLENN: It would be 93. Ninety-two, 91 --

STU: You can use your fingers. It doesn't say you can't.

GLENN: Oh. Ninety-three, 92, 91, 90, 98 -- no, that the be right. Eighty-nine, 88, 87, which would be wrong.

STU: See, in the test materials, there's no point, where it recommends the doctor harass the patient to try to pressure him into correct answers, but that is what I'm too good.

GLENN: Okay. Seventy-one.

STU: All right. We're going to move on. Repeat the sentence.

GLENN: Twelve.

STU: I only know that John is the one to help today.

GLENN: I only know that John is the one to help today. But the trick is repeat this sentence, because that's what you just said. So it's a trick question.

STU: Okay. Here's another one I'm going to give you, and I would like you to repeat it. Here it goes: The cat always hid under the couch when dogs were in the room.

GLENN: Here it goes: The cat always hid under the couch when dogs were in the room.

STU: Okay.

Let's see.

GLENN: Twenty-nine.

STU: I don't even understand that question. Okay. Let me ask you this one. We're looking for similarity here. For example, a banana and an orange. The similarity would be they are both --

GLENN: Round.

STU: Fruit. Okay.

GLENN: Colorful.

STU: Similarities between trains and bicycles.

GLENN: Both have wheels.

STU: Okay. Of course, obviously not true.

GLENN: Yeah, but trains have wheels, bikes have wheels.

STU: I'm not here to judge you, sir, except for --

GLENN: Both are made out of metal.

STU: Okay. A watch and a ruler.

GLENN: A watch and a ruler.

STU: What's the similarity there?

GLENN: I'm trying to think of something that just doesn't work. They both have numbers. They're both measurement.

STU: Don't try to justify --

GLENN: They're both round.

STU: Okay. Now, I earlier on gave you five words --

GLENN: Oh, you --

STU: If you get one of these --

GLENN: It is that.

STU: That is in here.

GLENN: Yeah, it was. Face, velvet -- all I can think of cake -- so I think automatically cake.

Face, velvet. I don't remember.

STU: Okay. And -- all right. And then what -- well, I'm not going to give you the date, month, year, all that stuff. You know where you are. Date.

GLENN: Do not ask me that. I really don't know the date.

STU: I don't know it either.

GLENN: I don't know the date. The 18th?

VOICE: It's Wednesday, January 17th.

STU: Thank you. We have it at the beginning of every show.

GLENN: It's Wednesday, January 17th.

STU: What year?

GLENN: 2018.

STU: What's today?

GLENN: Wouldn't it be great if it was -- if one of the real legitimate questions, who is president? You would be like, me.

GLENN: Me.

STU: What place are you in?

GLENN: A chair. Studio.

STU: What city?

GLENN: Las Colinas. Earth.

STU: City, you got that.

VOICE: You're listening to the Glenn Beck Program.

GLENN: Okay. Got it.

STU: We'll take a break. And I will go through and grade this for you.

GLENN: Could you kick me off the show? Is there the 25th Amendment that you could just kick me right off --

STU: This has been a giant ruse to make you take this test and see if you're mentally fit to do this program.

GLENN: Wow. I will tell you, that is -- with the exception of one of the last questions of, oh, and what was those five words? That was not --

STU: Not hard, right?

GLENN: Yeah, not hard. You know --

STU: You could easily screw one of them up. You could easily have a problem here or there. Now, Trump did very well on it. But, again, he also knew, if he got anything wrong, it would be a major news story. So he maybe focused a little bit more than you. However, we could make it a major news story too.

GLENN: No, I don't think so. I think somebody questioning your mental agility, if you're taking it seriously, that's a lot of pressure.

STU: Okay. We'll hold you to the same standards then. I was going to give you a break, but we'll be happy to hold you to the same standard as the president. I think that's fair.

GLENN: That's not what --

STU: I'll go through a little grading here. And you do the commercial, if you can get through it.

GLENN: Face, velvet, cake. Orange. Trapdoor.

STU: Is this the commercial? Or are you --

GLENN: Just trying to remember what those words were.

STU: Got it.

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

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Sharia arrives

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

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

The warning from those who have lived under it

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

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

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

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

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

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

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

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

Wake up before it is too late

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The crisis beneath the headlines

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

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

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

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

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

The quiet return of meaning

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

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

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

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

What triggers the Bubba effect

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

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

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

A country cracking from the inside

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

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

The Bubba effect is what fills that vacuum.

The dangers of a faithless system

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

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

The question is what — and when.

The responsibility now belongs to us

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

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

How to respond without breaking ourselves

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

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

Adam Gray / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Grim warning: Bad-faith Israel critics duck REAL questions

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truth-seeking is real work

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

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

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

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

Bad-faith questions

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

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

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

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

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

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

The real target

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.