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

What Really Bothers Glenn About the FBI's Latest Move

October 31, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

It just doesn't make sense. Why would the FBI announce 11 days before an election that additional emails had been discovered --- with no idea about what's in them? What's really going on?

"11 days before the election is suicide . . . I mean, you just don't do that. And let me just say this: Democrats never do that," Glenn said Monday on his radio program.

While Democrats may drop an October surprise on a Republican candidate, it's unheard of to attack one of their own.

RELATED: Hell Hath Frozen Over: Liberals Taking a Stand Against Hillary Clinton

"Comey had to know that . . . because that's wildly reckless," Glenn said.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these incriminating questions:

• What theory does Glenn believe about Comey's actions?

• Who put national archive documents in their underpants?

• Who is Andrew McCabe and why is he the most important name to know?

• Why did it take three weeks to subpoena emails on Weiner's laptop?

• Whose wife received a $500K campaign donation for a local senate race?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: We're going to get into the Clinton emails. But the thing that has bothered me is this doesn't make any sense to me. Something else is going on.

And here's why: To come out and say, "We have emails, and we have no idea what's in them," 11 days before the election is suicide. And it puts the country -- I mean, you just don't do that.

And let me just say this: And the Democrats never do that. I mean, we've seen -- we've seen similar things with -- with George W. Bush. But we've never seen anything like this. It is unprecedented in American history.

Comey had to know that. How did this happen. I am -- I've the bottom a whole stack of emails -- I don't even have a warrant for them yet. But, hey, I just want to let you know.

How did that happen? Because that's wildly reckless. And I just want to point out -- now, I agree -- I'm going to give you the theory on why I think he did it here in a second. And it makes the case against her even worse -- or, better, whichever you're looking at. But it bothered me, because of this.

Imagine if the FBI would have said, we were going through that Trump case and we found out that Trump University is even worse than we thought it was.

Now, we don't have any evidence. I mean, we can't -- we don't even have a warrant yet to look. But we've heard -- there would be riots in the streets. If this would have happened to us in any other election, we would have gone crazy.

So how are you doing it to the most powerful woman on the planet, one that can get you out of putting national archive documents into your underpants, shredding them, and then hiding underneath a truck across the street and you don't go to jail. How does this happen?

Let me give you a theory: This is from John Podhoretz. He said: The key to Comey's behavior may be contained in Devlin Barrett's Sunday afternoon story in the Wall Street Journal, which he lays out a surprising time line.

According to Barrett, the trouble began in early October when New York-based FBI officials notified Andrew McCabe, the Bureau's second in command, that while investigating Anthony Weiner for possibly sending sexually charged messages to a minor, they had recovered a laptop with 650,000 emails. Many, they say, were from accounts of Ms. Abedin. This is according to people familiar with the matter. Those emails stretch back years, these people said.

Okay. So now, this is all we have. All we have is that there is a laptop that has some Abedin emails. There's 650,000 on this laptop. And they were notified in early October. Three, four weeks ago.

The FBI stumbled on the metadata, the information surrounding an email, the digital version of an envelope with a canceled stamp, looking for child pornography on the laptop of Hillary Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, her ex-husband.

Child porn was all they were allowed by terms of their search warrant to look for. To discover whether any of the emails in the huge cache of Abedin's stuff was pertinent to the question of whether Mrs. Clinton had mishandled classified information, a new warrant would be needed.

Later in the story, Barrett reports that a meeting early last week of senior Justice Department and FBI officials, a member of the department's senior national security staff asked for an update on the Weiner laptop. Officials realized then that no one had acted on obtaining a warrant.

Wait. What?

You have a laptop of Hillary Clinton's aide, chief aide, with 650 emails on it -- 650,000 emails on it, three weeks ago. You bring this up in a meeting. You know that this was a talked about on, okay. Well, let's find out what's in those emails. Three weeks later, no warrant has been obtained.

Listen to this, now recall from three paragraphs ago that the FBI official in New York informed about the email cache was Andrew McCabe. Note that the Justice Department, largely under McCabe's direction, somehow neglected to secure a warrant to look at Abedin's emails for three weeks.

Last week, in a separate story, we learned that Virginia governor and Clinton intimate, Terry McAuliffe had steered an astonishingly amount of money into the campaign coffers of Mr. McCabe's wife in a local race in Virginia late last year.

McCabe was the third person at the Justice Department. He is also now number two.

The amount that was steered into her coffers was staggering. Nearly $500,000 for a state Senate seat, she apparently had no chance of winning. Since she got the money and then lost, that immediately raised red flags.

Was a senior Justice Department official getting special favors for his wife from a Clinton guy, while Mrs. Clinton, under active investigation by his department, including investigations in which he was materially involved.

The theory is simple: Comey was indeed covering his butt. But in this case, he was doing so because if anything came out of the Weiner investigation, he would fry. When called upon to explain himself, he would have to acknowledge that he knew the Obama Justice Department dragged its feet and did nothing about it, while the husband of someone who owned -- who owed a Clinton intimate a huge debt of gratitude was running things and behaving in a manner that can be best described as astonishingly cavalier.

This, I believe, is why this happened Friday. There may not -- I think there are -- but there may not be anything incriminating on this laptop. But because the Clintons are so incapable of doing things without corruption, this letter that came out from Comey on Friday is Clinton's fault. Because they're clearly doing something with McCabe behind the scenes. And whether it's quid pro quo or just, "Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. I didn't even know you were -- well, I'd be disappointed if you ever tried to take this generous donation and -- and would look at us any different way or help Mrs. Clinton. That would be disappointing because that would be against the law, you know." I doubt there's quid pro quo. They're too shrewd for that. It's just a quiet understanding.

He was number three, now he's number two. His wife gets 500 grand. Half a million dollars for a local election where she's number three, she can't win. Come on.

STU: So basically Comey is doing his investigation, as he should be. He's getting stonewalled by Clinton insiders, and so this comes out as a way to say, "Look, I still have the right to get this information."

GLENN: If I don't act now and get -- I read it two ways: One, I don't want to be accused of not doing my job, because then I'll get fried, then I'll get in trouble, I'll be impeached. So I -- uh-uh. I've been fair. I've been balanced. People on the right didn't think I was. People on the left loved me. But I said I was going to play it straight down the line.

They've had three weeks to get this. Something fishy is going on. I am not going to take the fall for this one, guys. And on top of it, if she wins in 11 days, at the time, if she wins in 11 days, will I ever get a warrant? I want the warrant.

That's why Clinton is saying, "You produce them." But she knows, he can't produce them. They didn't have a warrant. Well, that's ridiculous. Why didn't you get a warrant? Well, I guess we would have to ask you and maybe Mr. McAuliffe, why we couldn't get a warrant. The name that everyone should know is "Andrew McCabe." That's the name that everybody should be looking at. Not Comey. And what can you trust anyway?

You know what kills me is how fast people change. Everybody on Trump's side now is saying, "Comey is the best thing ever." I'm not convinced of that. I'm not convinced he's not involved in something nefarious. I haven't changed my viewpoint from when he closed the Clinton campaign because of intent with.

If I went to a bank and I robbed a bank, but my intent was to only take my money out, would they not prosecute me for bank robbery? Since when does intent or ignorance get away? It doesn't.

But everybody on the left loved him. Everybody on the right hated him. Now things have completely flipped. Everybody now on the right loves Comey and says he's very credible. And did you hear what people on the left were saying? Because the people on the left, all of the big names were throwing him under the bus. But what's so funny this time is, just four weeks ago, they were saying something entirely different.

VOICE: There was an extensive, as you know, Brad, investigation by the FBI, under the direction of a wonderful and tough career public servant, Jim Comey.

VOICE: This is a great man. We are very privileged in our country to have him be the director of the FBI.

VOICE: No one can question the integrity, the competence.

VOICE: And he's somebody with the highest standards of integrity.

OBAMA: I'm going to continue to be scrupulous about not commenting on it, just because I think Director Comey could not have been more exhaustive.

VOICE: Amazingly.

JEFFY: I'm going to comment.

VOICE: Some Republicans who were praising you just days ago --

GLENN: Amazing.

VOICE: -- for your independence, for your integrity --

GLENN: Yes.

Right.

VOICE: Despite your impeccable reputation and integrity --

VOICE: And your honesty instantly turned against you because your recommendation conflicted with the predetermined outcome they wanted.

GLENN: Oh. Oh, my.

VOICE: Republicans have turned on you with a vengeance.

VOICE: If you indict Comey's integrity, then you are making a big mistake.

VOICE: Director Comey, whose reputation for independence and integrity, is unquestioned.

GLENN: Unquestioned. Until now. Until now.

STU: Right. I mean, these are -- these are amazing. Of course, both sides are doing it right now.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And maybe the idea is that Comey is actually just doing his job well.

GLENN: Maybe.

STU: Maybe that's it. Who knows?

But the Reid one is particularly interesting in that he's now not only saying --

GLENN: I think he said he should go to jail.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: He's saying he's a criminal. He may have violated the Hatch Act and is involved in criminal activity.

GLENN: And can you find for me, Pat, do you remember Harry Reid came out and said, right towards the end of the campaign, Mitt Romney never paid any taxes. And then if you remember, he did an interview afterwards where he was proud of that, where he said, "Hey, he didn't win, did he?"

Do you remember that?

PAT: Uh-huh, yep.

GLENN: He's doing it again. I mean, bearing false witness, again.

Featured Image: ary Committee September 28, 2016 in Washington, DC. Comey testified on a variety of subjects including the investigation into former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email server. (Photo by Win McNamee/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.

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.