General 'Rudely' Fired by Obama Makes Trump's Short List for Secretary of Defense

John Schindler, formerly with the NSA and currently a national security columnist for the New York Observer, joined Buck Sexton on The Glenn Beck Program to talk about administrative posts currently under review by the Trump transition team. On the topic of national defense, Schindler had glowing comments to make about retired United States Marine Corps General James Mattis.

"Mattis is the real thing. We have a lot of general officers in the military who sort of pose as tough as nails but able to think big thoughts at the same time, and Mattis actually is that. I can vouch for that personally. And he has a fabulous reputation as our boss of Central Command, our Middle Eastern command. He legendarily commanded the first Marine division into Iraq, in 2003," Schindler said.

Gen. Mattis was unceremoniously fired by the Obama administration as the Central Command boss over the issue of Iran. According to Schindler, Gen. Mattis strenuously objected the Iran deal and felt empowering the mullahs in Tehran was a huge mistake. The general has never spoken publicly about the firing.

John Schindler is the author of Fall of the Double Eagle: The Battle for Galicia and the Demise of Austria-Hungary.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

BUCK: Buck Sexton here in for Glenn Beck today on the Glenn Beck Program. Thank you so much for joining. 877-727-BECK, on those phone lines.

Got our friend John Schindler joining us now as our guest. He is the national security columnist for the New York Observer. You can read his latest at observer.com.

Also, you can follow him at Twitter @20committee.

Mr. Schindler, good to have you, sir.

JOHN: It is a pleasure as always, Buck.

BUCK: All right. So let's talk about it. This cabinet is coming together.

JOHN: Yeah.

BUCK: Some very -- certainly very interesting and dynamic picks.

Jim Mattis, General Mattis, he is possibly the next Secretary of Defense. You are formerly of the NSA. I'm formerly of the CIA. And we have Mike Flynn, perhaps as the next NSA. We'll talk about that in a second.

JOHN: Yeah.

BUCK: But let's talk about Mattis first. What do you think about this pick, assuming it goes through?

JOHN: Assuming it goes through, and Mr. Trump, our president-elect -- General Mattis -- has him on a short list for Secretary of State. If that goes through, this is the best news we could possibly get from a national security perspective.

Mattis is a -- notice, mad dog -- is a revered figure in national security circles. He's arguably the best general of his generation, a career marine.

I know Mattis slightly personally. And I think the world of him. I think he's a rare mix of a real warrior and a real scholar at the time. He's never married. He's made a little bit of jokes about being a monk. Not literally a monk. But he's devoted himself to his military profession his whole life. And he's a deep thinker. He's a genuinely deep thinker.

And DOD, Pentagon is a bureaucratic mess. It needs to be shaken hard and fixed particularly on the budgeting side and strategy side. And if Jim Mattis can't do it, no one -- no human being can't.

BUCK: He also is attributed with a quote so cool that I think anybody wishes that they had come up with it: Be polite. Be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

JOHN: Right.

BUCK: That leaves -- yeah.

JOHN: That's Mattis. Mattis is the real thing. We have a lot of general officers in the military who sort of pose as tough as nails but able to think big thoughts at the same time -- and Mattis actually is that. I can vouch for that personally. And he has a fabulous reputation as our boss of Central Command, our Middle Eastern command. He legendarily commanded the first Marine division into Iraq, in 2003.

And also, he was fired, quite unceremoniously by the Obama administration a couple years back as the Central Command boss over the issue of Iran. And the really revealing thing about Jim Mattis, Jim Mattis has never spoken about this. He's a class act. He doesn't -- unlike Mike Flynn who makes up stories about why he was fired, Mattis was fired over principle. Mattis strenuously objected to the deal with Iran and felt that empowering the mullahs in Tehran was a huge mistake. And he got fired for that. He was fired very unceremoniously, rudely by the White House, and he's never out of the White House for that.

Him coming back to set some of this right would be a great thing for us and our allies.

BUCK: Now, John, you're a veteran. From friends of yours who are either still inside in the Armed Services or who have served, I've never heard from people I know in the Intel community, my side of things, anything but good things about Mattis. The support from inside the military, from the rank-and-file, all the way up to the top, my understanding is pretty strong. Pretty strong to very strong.

JOHN: Honestly, I can't believe I can say this: I don't know that I've ever heard somebody criticize Mattis in a serious way, on a really substantive issue. No -- no general officer makes all correct decisions, but he's a generally, you know, widely universally admired guy who knows how to make the trains run on time.

And as I said, the Pentagon needs someone who can break some China at this point. The budgeting process, the acquisition process, as evidenced by disasters like the F-35, the drone strike fighter, is really seriously broken. And we need someone who understands this, to go in, grab it with both hands, and effect some real change.

BUCK: All right. Now, before we get on to the issue of Flynn, of Mike Flynn as possible national security adviser, let's just -- Romney, meeting with Trump over the weekend. People are saying Secretary of State. Seems like a political move. But on the merits, what do you think of a Romney SecState?

JOHN: I think he would be great. I was never a big fan of Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate, but he has a lot of the skill set you need to be Secretary of State, someone who understands how the world actually works. As we know, to the embarrassment of President Obama, Mitt Romney's instincts on Russia in 2012 were exactly right, and the president was wrong.

I think a Romney appointment would be greeted in DC among professional bureaucrats as a really good thing, because he's a balanced guy. He's a smart guy. And he's not particularly ideological, and he will focus on getting American diplomacy back into earth's orbit and focused on reality. No more James Taylor concerts. No more John Kerry. No more Hillary pay-for-play. We know Romney, whatever his negatives are, he's not corrupt, and he understands how the world actually works. I think he would be a great Secretary of State.

BUCK: Yeah, very honest guy. Very capable guy.

JOHN: Absolutely.

BUCK: And also, I feel like with the Democrats, among their main criticisms of him from the election, including that he would give people cancer -- but we'll put that aside because that was just unfair and insane -- but that he was sort of a vulture capitalist. Maybe it would be a good thing for America to have a guy who understands how to use leverage and squeeze as much as possible.

JOHN: Oh, that's crazy talk. Stop it.

(chuckling)

BUCK: I think he would bring some pretty interesting things to the table, in that regard. He would do it with a smile and a firm handshake. But if you want somebody negotiating for your side in international trade deal, I think Mitt Romney would do a darn good job.

JOHN: Yeah. I don't think any of his negatives as presidential candidate remotely apply, you know, including that he causes cancer, right? Remotely have anything to do with how he would be Secretary of State. And I would welcome his appointment, as would a lot of people in DC, and not just the Republican Party.

BUCK: Speaking to John Schindler. He's the national security columnist for the New York Observer. Observer.com is where you'll find his pieces. I highly recommend you check him out. He's former NSA.

John, now let's talk about -- former NSA John Schindler, let's talk about the possible NSA Mike Flynn.

JOHN: Yeah.

BUCK: You do not hold back on this one. I want you to tell me and everybody else listening -- make the case, please, why is General Flynn, in your estimation, not the guy for this job?

JOHN: Well, let's leave aside his strange ties to Russia, the very pro-Kremlin things he says, that he's taken money from Russia Today, which is the state propaganda network. Let's leave that aside.

The problem is Mike Flynn is a smart guy who is -- doesn't play well with others. He rose to be a three-star general in the army. Was fired as director of the defense administration agency by Obama.

And as a strong critic of Obama and foreign policy, let me say that Obama was absolutely right to fire Mike Flynn as the director of DIA. Mike Flynn wanted to reform DIA, which is all well and good. It's a really stodgy intelligence community bureaucracy. But he did it in a way that was, frankly, you know, abusive of the workforce, and he was quickly hated by the workforce. And you don't change an administration by making everyone hate you.

As a Democrat just found out, you know, in the election, the white working class is not going to vote for you if you hate them. By the same token, the DIA workforce is not going to help you reform, if you make clear they're all fools and idiots and lazy.

Mike Flynn turfed out. And my fear is he will bring that same management style, which is aggressive, where it doesn't need to be, into the National Security Council.

BUCK: Now, let me ask you -- to be fair to the other side of this, which I don't pretend to be on. But I'm assuming that if we had a Trump spokesperson or somebody attached to the transition team here, they would say -- or they could say -- and I wanted to pose this to you, John, but he's going to be in an adviser role to the president, so it's really more about his knowledge, background, and understanding of issues, like dealing with jihadism. Radical Islamic terrorism. And not -- all the things you talked about may well be true. And I've heard similar things.

And my understanding is that bureaucratically there was an ineptitude on display at the top of DIA, in terms of how he handled that.

JOHN: Oh, yeah.

BUCK: Which is also a very difficult job, to manage these enormous Intel bureaucracies.

JOHN: Oh, yeah.

BUCK: But that wouldn't be his role. His role would be to be there, close to Donald Trump, and advising him, as national security adviser. What about on that side of things? When it comes to his judgment, knowledge, and understanding of the threats we face?

JOHN: I think the problem you have there is Trump is a very impulsive, high-strung individual. You want a national security adviser who can moderate that. And Flynn is exactly the same kind of shoot-from-the-hip, say hard things without thinking about them. And when you're in that job, that's going to have real consequences.

And you want someone there who can think big picture about strategy. And Mike Flynn is right about some of the things he says about jihadism. But he also thinks it's the biggest threat we face. And I don't.

I think it's top three. But the reality is -- you know, Russia and China both have several thousand nuclear weapons that can wipe us off the face of the planet. The jihadists, thank God, don't.

And that means, they're a huge threat to our national security. I disagree with Mike Flynn that this is the preeminent threat we face. We face a lot of threats. And jihadism terrorism is one of them.

He also has a way of alienating the entire Muslim world, which given that we're utterly dependent on Muslim allies to fight jihadism, that's not really a good thing.

BUCK: What do you make of this report, by the way, switching gears to the Obama administration for a second -- everyone is talking so much about the Trump transition that I feel like it gets lost sometimes that there's still a White House that's making decisions, they're trying to bolster the Iran deal, as we speak. So they're saying not to make it harder to unravel for Trump. But it seems like, to hit the accelerator at the very end here on that.

JOHN: Of course. Of course.

BUCK: Yeah, had some consequences.

JOHN: They want to make this irreversible, down to the last minute they're in the White House. And, you know -- because this is their signature thing, right? This is Obama's claim to fame. He got this great deal with Iran, which is not really a great deal. And Trump wants to tear it down. I think actually tearing it down will be harder than Trump and his people realize.

But the Iranians are going to have a much harder -- harder team in Washington now than they've had, where Obama and company have accommodated everything they've wanted and let them get away with crazy stuff.

Back to Jim Mattis. Jim Mattis raised holy hell with the White House several years ago when the Iranian Intelligence Service tried to blow up the Saudi ambassador in the United States in a public restaurant in downtown Washington, DC. This was an unambiguous act of war, and Mattis wanted us to seriously diplomatically retaliate.

You know what the White House did? Hardly anything.

And they told Mattis to calm down. Mattis was right. And this kind of appeasement of the mullahs in Tehran has gotten us worse and worse Iranian behavior. And if that stops, I'll be very pleased.

BUCK: There's also this report that -- that Clapper and Carter have told Obama to fire the head of your former base, the NSA.

JOHN: Yeah.

BUCK: What do you think about that? What's that all coming from?

JOHN: It pains me to say -- I think that would be a wise move. And it is, in fact, overdue. Admiral Mike Rogers, a Navy four-star admiral, you know, came to the NSA with a great reputation. Unfortunately, he's sullied that reputation through some pretty bad mistakes.

He's run through a reorganization in a way that really upset the workforce with cause. He's been distant. He hasn't communicated well with the workforce. He's upset some of our close intelligence allies around the world. And most importantly, we've had more security disasters.

He was brought up to clear up the epic mess left behind by the Snowden theft and defection to Russia. And now he's had another case, another -- the Martin case, very similar to -- in the sense that the NSA affiliate, a contractor who stole huge amounts of classified data and brought it home with them -- this has happened again.

NSA security and counterintelligence have not been reformed as I and others have urged for years, as Congress was told was happening. It has not happened. And Mike Rogers is the captain of the ship here, and he has to go down. Unfortunately, I think relieving him of duty is the only choice the Pentagon and the intelligence community has.

BUCK: Right before you go, John, how would you -- if you had to give a grade to Trump's national security picks and considerations because I know there's a lot that's still up in the air, where would you -- what would you grade it right now?

JOHN: Well, if we're going with Mattis, I'd say it's an A-plus. You know, Flynn -- Flynn brings that down a fair amount. But, honestly, I'm encouraged so far. We don't know a lot so far. It's mostly rumor.

But I think we're going to have -- it's going to break out two ways: A lot of the cabinet appointees and senior appointees in the departments like State, Defense, other, you know, Homeland Security, are going to be really solid people who know what they're doing and are not particularly ideological. They're not Trumpers. They're Republicans, but they were not part of the Trump movement.

The folks inside the White House are going to be clearly Trump loyalists, who perhaps their loyalty matters to the president-elect than their knowledge of, say, national security affairs. That means, you're going to, from day one, have some tension from professionals, you know, career generals, diplomats, whatever, successful business people, who are running cabinet appointments and the folks in the White House who maybe don't understand how all that wonderful stew gets made over there across the river in northern Virginia. So I think there could be some tension right out of the starting date.

BUCK: All right. John Schindler is the author of Fall of the Double Eagle. He is also the columnist at the New York Observer for national security. Go to observer.com. John, great to have you, sir. Talk to you soon.

JOHN: Great to be here.

BUCK: 877-727-BECK. Buck in for Glenn. We'll be right back.

Featured Image: (L to R) President-elect Donald Trump welcomes retired United States Marine Corps general James Mattis as they pose for a photo before their meeting at Trump International Golf Club, November 19, 2016 in Bedminster Township, New Jersey. Trump and his transition team are in the process of filling cabinet and other high level positions for the new administration. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The founders warned us

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

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

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

Not-so-expert advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

A republic no more?

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

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

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Choosing death over care

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

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

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

They offered her MAID.

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

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

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

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

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

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Sharia arrives

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

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

The warning from those who have lived under it

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

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

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

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

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

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

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

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

Wake up before it is too late

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The crisis beneath the headlines

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

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

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

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

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

The quiet return of meaning

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

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

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

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.