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

Gilmore Girls Revival: Last Four Words Were About the Writer, Not the Fans

December 05, 2016
Staff

WRITER

Let's make one thing perfectly clear. Glenn Beck does not watch the Gilmore Girls.

"I don't know a thing about the Gilmore Girls, other than my girls are huge fans and watched every episode, and it became a ritual in the Beck household," Glenn said Monday on his radio program.

The premise of the show surrounds a mother and daughter relationship. The mother --- Lorelai --- had her daughter Rory at 16 years of age. The original show celebrates the success of her teen pregnancy. The much-anticipated Netflix revival ended with four words the show's creator, Amy Sherman-Palladino, planned years ago: Mom? Yeah? I'm pregnant.

But it's Sherman-Palladino's comments in recent interviews that have fans scratching their heads. Sherman-Palladino said that abortion could be an option for Rory. That news made Glenn's daughters go ballistic: Rory would never do that!

"If it comes full circle by aborting the baby, you're invalidating your mother's choice," Glenn noted. "And you won't be able to pass that lesson on to your children because you would have killed them. I just want to point that out."

Glenn's daughter Hannah also nailed the problem with the ending.

"I thought this was so good. She said, The entire four episodes were about the fans. The four words were about the writer, Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Okay. I don't know a thing about The Gilmore Girls, other than that my girls are huge fans and watched every episode, and it became a ritual in the Beck household. As they were growing up, they would watch The Gilmore Girls with their mother every Tuesday night, and they would go over to their aunt's house -- and even on reruns, every Tuesday night, they would watch The Gilmore Girls. And so it was a big deal around my house when The Gilmore Girls decided to reunite and do, what? Four episodes on Netflix. I am proud to say that I have never watched an episode of The Gilmore Girls.

PAT: Yeah, me too. By the way, weren't they paid the most of any actors on television to do those four episodes?

JEFFY: Yeah, like 750,000 for each in an episode.

PAT: Per episode. Yeah. The highest --

GLENN: Were any of them working? I don't even know the cast.

PAT: I don't know. But it was a lot.

GLENN: Were any of them like, "Yeah, I used to be on The Gilmore Girls, but now I'm working at T.J. Maxx." Or are they actors?

STU: I have legitimately no clue.

JEFFY: I have no clue.

GLENN: I have no idea either. So obviously this is not going to be a conversation about The Gilmore Girls, but rather culture and the left. Listen to this. So I'm not going to give you a spoiler alert, because I doubt there's anyone in this audience that is waiting to see The Gilmore Girls.

STU: But if you happen to be that person, this is the time to turn it off.

GLENN: That one. Turn it off for a second. Apparently -- and I don't know the story line at all, except, do you know what the premise is?

PAT: No.

STU: Two girls. That's about where I would go with it.

JEFFY: Two girls.

PAT: The mom and the daughter.

GLENN: The mom and the daughter. Okay. Rory, I think is the daughter -- oh, no, the mom's name --

PAT: Yes.

JEFFY: I thought they were sisters.

GLENN: Mom was -- no, they're like sisters.

PAT: Gertrude is the mother. Gertrude.

GLENN: They're like sisters because mom had Rory when she was 16 years old.

PAT: Oh, my.

GLENN: And so --

PAT: So they're good friends. They're just good friends.

GLENN: They're good friends. Stop mocking for a second. Let me get through it. Then you can do all the mocking you want. And I'm not going to stop you on the mocking. It's just to get through it.

So the idea is that this girl's life was so tough because she made the mistake of having sex, she had a baby, they've made it through, and that's what the whole thing is.

STU: She was punished with a baby.

GLENN: No. No. Yes, that's what you could -- stop with the mocking for a second.

STU: That wasn't mocking.

PAT: This is on the new --

GLENN: No, this is the whole premise of the --

PAT: Oh, the whole thing -- of the whole -- oh.

GLENN: -- is they were able to make it. They were alone in the world, and they were able to make it. She was 16. She decided to keep the baby. She was, you know, strong all the way through.

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: She raised Rory to be a good girl.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: And they're really close. Okay? It's a success story of a teen pregnancy. That's what this is.

Everybody understand that? That's the only premise you need to know.

PAT: Yeah. Right.

GLENN: Success story of teen pregnancy.

Two stories now: One, the reason why people who were big fans of the show were unsatisfied with it -- they liked the four episodes. They didn't like the last four words of the final episode.

Now, apparently -- and I know nothing about this. I don't know why I've just lost my audio. But apparently, the thing that they didn't like is the last four words because the last four words were written a decade ago. And the writer did not -- the original writer and the original person that started the show did not write the last like three seasons back when it was on television. I don't know why. But she was jettisoned.

And she always said she wanted the episode to end -- or, the series to end when Rory was like 21 or 23 years old. And she was going to say the last four words, "Mom, I'm pregnant."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Okay? And that would have been a big deal because she was --

PAT: You used the contraction. That was only three words.

JEFFY: Yeah, but it would have been --

PAT: Still...

STU: I am pregnant?

GLENN: Mom, I am pregnant.

STU: Okay. Got it.

GLENN: Mom, I am pregnant.

PAT: I'm just making sure because we'll hear nothing but that, and then they'll lose the point of the story.

GLENN: Thank you. Thank you, Pat.

PAT: Glenn Beck said, "Mom, I'm pregnant" is four words. That's all we'll hear.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you, Pat. I appreciate that.

Mom, I am pregnant.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: And that would have been appropriate when she was 23 years old and young and unmarried and she's just getting out of college and she's got her whole world in front of her. Okay? Because it's not 16. But in our society, that's still young to be pregnant and unmarried. Okay?

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Well, now, she's not 23. She's 33.

PAT: Rory is?

GLENN: Rory.

PAT: Thirty-three now?

GLENN: Yeah. Because she was -- yeah.

PAT: Wow, has it been that long? Jeez.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. So it's ten years later. When she was 23, they ended it. She's 33 now.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: And so now, she's had her life. She's -- you know, she's still unmarried. She's started her career. Et cetera. Et cetera. And 33 is not young to have a baby. Right?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But it changes apparently -- and I don't know, and I'm not going to get into it. It changes the entire story line. It would have been a great ending ten years ago. Everybody is upset because it's like, "That's a bad ending now. That's not -- it changes -- now, that's a setup for a new season. It's not a cap." Okay?

Now -- now, that you understand that, that's the controversy.

But here's the real controversy: I read something -- because Gilmore Girls' fans generally are not listening to programs like this, they may not be getting the political news.

So there was a story on -- that I read -- I don't remember, New York Times or someplace, about the writer and what she said after, on those four words.

She said, "Well, Rory is smart enough to at least consider an abortion."

(chuckling)

GLENN: So I tell my daughters this. My daughters are -- they go -- they go ballistic. They go ballistic. And they start in, like, "Rory's a real person. Rory would never do that!"

(laughter)

STU: That's their complaint?

GLENN: Right. All right.

JEFFY: It's not the character. It's not the life.

GLENN: But, listen, here's how out of touch this writer is. Okay? What is the story?

JEFFY: Yeah. Right.

GLENN: The story is, at 16, a girl made a decision, and it's been the best decision of her life, and she's produced Rory.

PAT: It seems to be a pro-life show, in that eventuality.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Show. If she would have had an abortion, Rory wouldn't exist.

STU: Yeah, real dull series.

PAT: Right. It would just be Gilmore Girl, and it wouldn't be the same.

GLENN: And she wouldn't exist. So it makes the entire story line meaningless.

STU: Right. The premise, as you describe it, these circumstances that are sometimes difficult create these wonderful things.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: Right? Like that is exactly --

GLENN: So now imagine being someone who at 16 -- your mom was 16. She gave birth to you. And you two made it. And now you're 33 with all these great memories, and you're pregnant and capable and wealthy enough to be able to have a baby, even by yourself. "I don't know, Mom. I'm thinking about cutting this one out."

JEFFY: Yeah, no way.

PAT: Crazy.

GLENN: Crazy.

PAT: Crazy.

It shows their agenda supersedes all.

GLENN: Everything.

PAT: Absolutely everything.

GLENN: My daughter Hannah said -- and I thought this was so good.

She said, "The four words -- she said, "The entire four episodes were about the fans." And she said, "The four words were about the writer. She had her thing she wanted to do, and it didn't matter if it wrecked it for all of the fans, she was going to be self-centered enough to do those four words because that's what she had planned." And she said, "She announced it ten years ago, those were the four words."

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Everybody knew.

PAT: It doesn't even work.

GLENN: And it doesn't even work. So she said, "It became an ego project." And then on top of it, the abortion --

JEFFY: The abortion.

GLENN: I'm going to get my political message in here, which goes against everything in the show.

PAT: It sucks.

You know, J.K. Rowling kind of did the same thing, didn't she? After the fact of Harry Potter, she started throwing in all her little agenda items.

Oh, by the way --

GLENN: What? I don't know this.

PAT: -- Dumbledore was really gay. Oh, by the way --

GLENN: You've got to be kidding me.

PAT: -- Hermione was supposed to be black. Oh, by the way -- what? Well, then why didn't you do it that way, if that's what it was supposed to be. What are you talking about? Yeah --

GLENN: Where is the tip-off that Dumbledore was gay?

PAT: I don't -- if you go back and look at the movies -- I don't buy into it. I just think it's political correctness on her part now. I just think she didn't have a diverse enough cast and diverse enough story, and so now she's trying to make it diverse. It's pathetic. It's pathetic.

GLENN: I can't take it. I can't take it. I can't take -- look, I know, you know, people who make different lifestyle choices exist. I got it. I got it.

PAT: Yes. And I think we all know that.

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: And I don't have a problem. Fine. Whatever.

PAT: I know.

GLENN: Don't force me to marry people in my church, and I won't force you to not marry. Can we just have some perspective and get along and live together?

PAT: It would be great, but no.

GLENN: It would be great. But television is non-stop gay relationships. I mean, it's like -- it just -- it seems like 90 percent of the population is gay and 10 percent are straight and getting married.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Well, this is why the Gaines situation stood out to so many people. Because I guess they didn't -- I don't watch the show.

GLENN: Oh, I do.

STU: I guess they don't have a lot of gay couples on or something.

PAT: Wouldn't that be sort of the balance to the rest of HGTV, which does feature them prominently.

STU: All the time. Just fine.

JEFFY: And they're in Waco, Texas.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: And they're in Waco.

GLENN: And Waco, Texas. Yeah. It's not like we're in San Francisco. We're in Waco, Texas.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And the shows they have in California can feature a lot of gay couples.

JEFFY: And they do. They do.

PAT: They do.

GLENN: Did you hear how Chip Gaines responded?

STU: Gracefully.

GLENN: Really -- I'll give it to you here in just a second.

[break]

GLENN: I -- I know I'm getting yelled at. I can feel the anger from my two daughters as they're yelling at me from home, if they happen to be listening to the show. The mother's name is Lorelai.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Long-term listeners of the show know the importance of that because it is my granddaughter's name.

(laughter)

PAT: Not coincidentally, by the way.

GLENN: Not coincidentally. Not coincidentally.

PAT: They are definitely connected.

PAT: Huge Gilmore Girl fans. Huge Gilmore Girl fans.

I'm going to get to Chip Gaines here in a second. Let me go to Ashley in Georgia. Hello, Ashley.

CALLER: Hey, Glenn. I need to correct you real quick.

GLENN: All right. Yeah.

CALLER: Okay? The last four words actually are, Rory says, "Mom." Lorelai says, "Yeah." And then Rory says, "I'm pregnant." Fade to black. Yeah.

GLENN: Ah. Got it. How did you feel about the ending?

CALLER: I hated it.

GLENN: Okay. And for the same reasons that I described?

CALLER: Yeah, I mean, it wasn't right. Yeah, it wasn't right. Yeah. So, yeah -- I --

GLENN: Did you know -- did you know about what the creator and the writer said about Rory and abortion?

CALLER: I read the article. Yes.

GLENN: You read the article.

Well, you listen to this show, and you're a fan of The Gilmore Girls.

CALLER: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: How did that make you feel?

CALLER: It pissed me off. You know, but then I got ticked off. And then I was like, you know what, I'm not surprised because these are -- it's a liberal -- if you watch it and follow it, it's -- you know, it's (inaudible) for crying out loud. I mean, it's a liberal show. They live in Connecticut. So, I mean, I wasn't surprised. But I was ticked. And then I was kind of disappointed. That that -- she kind of alluded to, like, if the show had gone on, Rory probably would have an abortion because that would be like the smart thing to do for her.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

CALLER: I don't know. It just was like, are you kidding me?

GLENN: I mean, have you missed the entire point of everything that you've written?

CALLER: Right. And that's my whole thing. I'm like -- and they talk about, "It comes full circle." And I'm like --

GLENN: If you -- if you -- if it comes full circle by aborting the baby, you're invalidating your mother's choice.

CALLER: Exactly.

STU: Doesn't it also break the circle? I mean, that's the whole point. The circle is over.

CALLER: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, it's crazy. Ashley, thank you so much. And you won't be able to pass that lesson on to your children because you would have killed them. I just want to point that out.

Featured Image: The WB Television Network

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.

The Bubba Effect erupts as America’s power brokers go rogue

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

What triggers the Bubba effect

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

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

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

A country cracking from the inside

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

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

The Bubba effect is what fills that vacuum.

The dangers of a faithless system

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

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

The question is what — and when.

The responsibility now belongs to us

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

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

How to respond without breaking ourselves

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

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

Adam Gray / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Grim warning: Bad-faith Israel critics duck REAL questions

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truth-seeking is real work

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

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

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

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

Bad-faith questions

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

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

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

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

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

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

The real target

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.