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

Why Won't Hillary State the Difference Between a Socialist and a Democrat?

January 06, 2016
Ted Tuttle

Editor

Hillary Clinton refused to explain the difference between a socialist and a Democrat to Chris Matthews in an interview on MSNBC Tuesday.

Clinton, who called herself a "progressive Democrat," sidestepped the question at first, saying this was really a better question for Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist.

When pressed, Clinton simply replied "I'm not one" before talking about how much she wants to get people to work together.

Glenn shared his reaction on radio Wednesday, saying it fascinated him that she couldn't answer the question---even though it was set up as a "softball question."

"She won't answer that at least for political reasons because the left falls apart," Glenn said.

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: CNN asked me if there were any questions that I would ask the Democratic candidates during their first debate. And I said, "Yes. What's the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?" I think that's really important to know. What's the difference? Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist. Hillary Clinton says she's a progressive Democrat. What's the difference between a progressive Democrat and a socialist?

A fascinating piece of audio. I mean, this is really, truly fascinating. Chris Matthews asked this of Hillary Clinton, and he is asking her in a way to help her. He's not coming to her and saying, "You're a socialist." He's actually trying to get her to say what the difference is. In his mind, there is a real difference between a socialist and a Democrat. I'd love to hear him answer this question.

But he sets Hillary Clinton up with what he believes is a softball question, and she cannot answer it. Listen.

CHRIS: What's the difference between a socialist and a Democrat? Is that a question you want to answer, or would you rather not?

PAT: And how about that too -- how about that qualifier, is that a question you would like to answer, or would you rather not? Because I can let that go if that's too hard.

GLENN: There was a real setup when he was talking about -- you know, before he got to that.

PAT: Yeah. Because he said, I want to help you out.

GLENN: That were his words. I want to help you out. Okay? Then, what is the difference? Do you want to answer that or not?

HILLARY: You know, you would have to ask --

CHRIS: Well, see, I'm asking you. You're a Democrat. He's a socialist. Would you like somebody to call you a socialist? I wouldn't like somebody calling me a socialist.

HILLARY: No, but I'm not one. I'm not one.

CHRIS: Okay. What's the difference between a socialist and a Democrat? That's the question.

HILLARY: Well, I can tell you what I am. I'm a progressive Democrat.

CHRIS: How is that different than a socialist?

HILLARY: Who likes to get things done. And who believes that we're better off in this country when we're trying to solve problems together. Getting people to work together. There will always be strong feelings, and I respect that, you know, from the far right, the far left, Libertarians. But whoever it might be, we need to get people working together. We got to get the economy fixed. We've got to get --

PAT: What a crap answer.

STU: There will always be strong feelings.

CHRIS: I think the difference is -- and Debbie Wasserman Schultz wouldn't answer the question either. I asked her. Because I know politically you have to keep together -- the center left and the left has to work together. I know all that.

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Do you hear that?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I know you don't want to answer this because you have to keep all of you together. But he started with, "I wouldn't want to be called a socialist." So here's what's happening here, in this, he's talking about -- he is saying, "I wouldn't want to be called that. I would want to be called a socialist. What's the difference between the two?"

PAT: She can't.

GLENN: Then he realizes she can't answer that or she won't answer that at least for political reasons because the left falls apart. They're trying to tell us that we shouldn't listen to people like Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz, he is crazy! He's crazy. And they've got to get Ted Cruz out of that party.

However, the leading candidate and one of the leading voices on the left from MSNBC, they're having a discussion that you probably don't even want to say that because you have to keep all of the crazies together. Isn't that interesting? They admit it!

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: While they are telling us we have to separate ourselves from each other.

PAT: Yeah. And her bogus, BS, totally garbage answer on what a progressive Democrat answer is. It's not about people getting together and working together. That's about the government doing things for people. If it -- it's conservatives who are about people doing things together. That's conservatism. We all help one another. We keep the government out of it. And we want them at arm's length. Her deal is she wants the government to do it.

STU: She said that she understands that people have strong feelings, though.

GLENN: She could be saying, bringing people together in groups. For instance, we want the labor unions -- I'm being sincere. We want the labor unions and the Department of Labor to work together.

PAT: Or it could be, we like to bring people to groups and put them behind barbed wire, like they did in World War II. You know, it could be that.

GLENN: Right. Right. The progressives did that. She continues to say, she's an early 20th century American progressive. But really from the roots of the progressive -- they were all socialists. All of them were socialists. The only reason why they weren't communists is because the progressives, those socialists didn't believe in a violent overthrow of the United States government. They thought, "We'll just do it slowly. We'll progress into socialism." So there is no difference between a progressive and a socialist. Anybody who tells you differently is lying to you.

PAT: Communist with patience.

GLENN: Communists with patience. That's all they are.

STU: Yeah. And it's speed of delivery, right?

GLENN: Yes. It's why Barack Obama signed in a -- in gun control yesterday in his executive order because he knows, if Hillary Clinton gets in, she'll leave that in and build on top of it even more gun control. It's progressive. Little, teeny steps to get you where you want to go.

STU: Uh-huh. What is the endgame of Chris Matthews in this clip? What's he doing? Is he trying to say -- well, it's obvious there's a difference between socialists and Democrats. But you can't say it because you have a little political group to keep together. Is there any more to that clip where he explains what the difference is? Does he even say it?

PAT: No. No.

STU: Because I can't detect it anymore. There was a time where I guess you could.

GLENN: Let me say this. Here's good news from the Democratic front. And I can't remember the numbers exactly, but I think 54 percent -- let me just -- let me be crazy wrong in the other direction.

30 percent -- I believe it's 54 percent, but 30 percent of the Trump supporters are Reagan Democrats. So they're Democrats.

That tells me that there are Democrats out there that want an FDR-style Democrat in office. Now, I don't want an FDR-style. That's a progressive. And I don't want an FDR. But there are those Democrats that want an FDR-style president. And they don't buy into this Marxism that is so blatantly obvious with Barack Obama. And they don't like Hillary Clinton.

So a very bad number is 30 percent of the support coming for Donald Trump is -- is from a Democrat. So maybe there's a difference there.

STU: I don't know. I mean, it's funny because you see this --

GLENN: It's an America first -- the difference I think is --

STU: Big government control.

GLENN: Big government control, but America first.

STU: Right. Which is kind of like that old-school union. What the unions used to be back in the day.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. More of a, I hate to say it, national socialist.

STU: Hmm. The question about whether socialists and Democrats are the same is being answered by the market, right?

GLENN: Yes, they are the same.

STU: Right now, Bernie Sanders who is an admitted socialist has 35 percent of the vote. Which you might recognize is about roughly what Donald Trump has out of Republicans. Now, that's about the same percentage. He's sitting here running -- he's in second place in the primary. And he's saying he's a socialist.

Now, she has almost identical policies to him up and down the line, which is why she can't make the distinction. She just doesn't want the branding. But the Democrats themselves are accepting the branding. They don't mind it. They're coming out and saying, "You know what -- and this is a prediction you made long ago, that people would come out and just start saying it. Well, is there a clear example of people coming out and saying it when you're saying -- a guy who has admitted he's a socialist, has a third of the vote from the Democratic Party. So you could say, "Well, there might be a slight difference here or there." But the vast -- the general vibe of the party is we accept these values.

GLENN: And here's the other thing, if you don't think America is a progressive nation, you have to look at 35 percent is going for socialist. Then what is it? 35 percent is going for -- or 40 percent is going for Hillary Clinton. What is her number?

STU: No, she's higher than that. She's in the 50s.

GLENN: She's in the 50s. Okay. So that's one side. 30 percent of the other side is going for Donald Trump. He is a progressive. He is a national progressive. And that's -- that's who he is. So, you know, you've got, what? 50 percent of this country saying, I'm cool with that. I am cool with at least an FDR-style presidency.

PAT: Except I don't think Trump supporters don't think that's what Trump is. At least the Republicans ones.

STU: Right.

PAT: They don't believe that he's the progressive that he is. They don't understand it. They don't get it. They don't care.

GLENN: How? How? How?

PAT: All they care about is his brashness. That's all they care about.

JEFFY: Well, and his management.

GLENN: No, come on. Don't be sarcastic on this. I'm really trying to understand --

JEFFY: They are.

GLENN: I don't think there's a way if you're intelligent at all, that if you're honest at all, if you look at his record of what he's done and said in the past and see him as anything, but a progressive. He said in the Republican debate, nationalized health care works.

JEFFY: Right. Right.

PAT: So you said it in your disclaimer. If you're intelligent at all --

GLENN: Or honest.

PAT: Or honest.

GLENN: I think there's a lot of intelligent people who are hoping that he is what they want him to be.

JEFFY: Right. The guy that will get things done. The management.

GLENN: Right. It's the same thing -- you know, reasonable people who voted for Barack Obama because he was about hope and change. And you talk to them, "No, listen. What is he saying about Jeremiah Wright?" That doesn't matter. He wants to change things this way. And they refuse to listen to it. So that's not intelligence. That's intellectual honesty.

Featured Image: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks to guests gathered for a town hall meeting at the Orpheum Theater on January 5, 2016 in Sioux City, Iowa. Clinton, who is leading the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in Iowa, had three campaign stops scheduled in Iowa today. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

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.

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.