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

Rick Santorum says Paul Ryan's new tax plan "headed in the right direction" on radio

March 20, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Rick Santorum has had a busy couple of weeks, but managed to find the time to call into the radio show to discuss some of the top stories in the news today. What does he think of Paul Ryan's new tax plan?

"I talked to Paul last week. As you know my tax plan is 10 and 28% This one is 10% and 25%. But it very much models the two rate idea I've been putting out there, and he does a lot of simplification in his tax plan. Not as dramatic as the tax plan that I go through," Santorum said.

"It's headed in the right direction," he added.

"His changes in the entitled programs were consistent with what they did last year which I embraced. He has a little twist on the Medicare which is the widen Ryan plan now. But it's a strong plan. It waits a little bit to do some entitlement reform. Which is I think is a mistake. I think we need to move forward quicker, and I think we need to get that $5.4 trillion over five years to be more like five trillion over five years so we've got to accelerate this to get to a balanced budget. He doesn't get to a balanced budget until after the budget window. We need to shrink government faster than that."

Ultimately, though, Santorum does not have a lot of confidence it will pass.

"But you know this was in a sense it's a budget document. He knows that the Senate will never approve this. He's put forward a great blueprint for people to campaign upon and shows clearly progress dramatic progress in the direction of shrinking the size of government, and liberating the economy through lower taxes and less regulations"

You can read the full rush transcript below:

GLENN: Rick Santorum is here, and I don't want to waste any time with him because there's serious issues happening in the country. And we're not going to talk about contraception or anything else. I'm going to talk about some of the serious issue that are happening in our world today. First of all J.P. Morgan Chase is closing down the Vatican's account. It seems to be economic terrorism leveled at the Vatican. Comment from Rick Santorum. Hi, Rick.

SANTORUM: Good morning.

GLENN: I know it's a big day for you. Can you comment at all on J.P. Morgan Chase and the President listing the Vatican as a possible money laundering organization.

SANTORUM: That's sort of shocking to hear. I don't know the details of it so I have to tell you I mean I flew in late.

GLENN: J.P. Morgan Chase has closed down the Vatican's account after last week the President put them on the watch list for a money laundering organization, and now J.P. Morgan Chase has closed down their account.

SANTORUM: You're going to give me a pass on that. I've got to dig into that. I know there are certain things that of course there are laws that provide certain triggers for this. I'm not familiar with this. We'll ‑‑ the idea that somehow the Vatican would launder money is absurd to its face. I guess it's not absurd with the Obama Administration.

GLENN: Bloomberg is now banning food donations to the homeless. He says that the DHS commissioner says that the ban on food donations is consistent with the mayor Bloomberg's emphasis on improving nutrition for all New Yorkers. There's a new document that controls what can served at homeless facilities including serving size, as well as fat content, sodium consent plus fiber minimums, and condiment recommendations, and people who're dropping food off. Organizations that have dropped food off for 10 years now in New York are being banned. This is happening also in Philadelphia. It is happening in Houston, Texas where you're not allowed just to drop food to homeless shelter became it may not be the most healthy for homeless.

PAT: Well, can you imagine if starving people got too much saturated fat in their diet. I mean, that could really cause some issues.

GLENN: What is happening to us, Rick.

SANTORUM: It's the nanny state. Welcome to the nanny state, and it's also opens up the question as to these are ‑‑ these are folks who believe that they should control what people's intake, and of course these are folks as you know that believe in government programs, not private sector donations. Because if the government controls these things then they can of course have a closer relationship directly with the individual. The individual becomes more reliant on the government not on private sector donations or their neighbor. This is deeper than trying to control what food ‑‑ what calories intake, and how healthy your food is. This is also about the government knows best. And they need to get things directly from the government not from their neighbor. Because their neighbor isn't going to do what's right for them. The government is going to do what's right for them.

GLENN: It's not possible to slash the budget if you don't have ‑‑ if you don't have neighbors, local farms, other organizations.

SANTORUM: Glenn, what makes you think that they want to slash the budget.

GLENN: Oh no.

SANTORUM: They continually try to go out and grow the budget food stamp program. Try to grow the Medicaid program. They take pride in the fact that more and more people are covered by S chip and everything else. This is a source of accomplishment for them noting that should be reduced or changed.

GLENN: Paul Ryan has his budget out. It is slashing another $5.3 trillion. GOP tax plan is two tiers. It's 25% and 10% We are now at the end of the month we will now have the highest corporate tax rate on planet earth, and yet they're still talking about more. Are you for the Ryan tax plan. Where did you stand on this.

SANTORUM: Yeah, I talked to Paul last week. As you know my tax plan is 10 and 28% This one is 10% and 25%. But it very much models the two rate idea I've been putting out there, and he does a lot of simplification in his tax plan. Not as dramatic as the tax plan that I go through. It's headed in the right direction. His changes in the entitled programs were consistent with what they did last year which I embraced. He has a little twist on the Medicare which is the widen Ryan plan now. But it's a strong plan. It waits a little bit to do some entitlement reform. Which is I think is a mistake. I think we need to move forward quicker, and I think we need to get that $5.4 trillion over five years to be more like five trillion over five years so we've got to accelerate this to get to a balanced budget. He doesn't get to a balanced budget until after the budget window. We need to shrink government faster than that. But you know this was in a sense it's a budget document. He knows that the Senate will never approve this. He's put forward a great blueprint for people to campaign upon and shows clearly progress dramatic progress in the direction of shrinking the size of government, and liberating the economy through lower taxes and less regulations.

GLENN: You're in Illinois today because of the primary in Illinois. Play the audio of the police officer there. There's a real gang violence on the streets of Chicago. This is a police officer yesterday ‑‑ it was in Chicago talk about First Amendment rights that I want to hear a little bit of this, and I'll translate. Because it's a little hard to understand.

[Tape played]

PAT: He's telling news reporters to get across the street.

GLENN: News reporter.

PAT: I don't give an F about the news, and all telling them to go across the street.

VOICE: I'm going to kill you. I'm giving you a legal notice.

GLENN: That's all I'm going to say. So he then says your First Amendment rights can be terminated if you're making a scene or whatever. That's a quote.

CALLER: First Amendment aren't terminated when ‑‑ if they're causing a public disturbance or block agriculture street. I don't know what was going on. Certainly First Amendment like there's no absolute right. There is clearly is the right to exercise your First Amendment as long as you do so in a way that's not causing harm to anybody else the police have to recognize them and respect people's right to protest, and to get information. And this you know, again I don't know the details. I don't want to be critical of it. But there is a balancing act here, and we should balance in favor as I do in certainly in our campaign of letting the news media, and letting them cover what you want to cover.

STU: Senator, are you denying the making a scene clause in the constitution?

PAT: Which is of course right in the separation of church and state.

SANTORUM: Yeah that's in the fine print.

PAT: Senator, have you I know that you and Newt at least friendly before this started. I don't know how things are. Have you contacted him personally personally to get out. Get out.

SANTORUM: No. I have not.

PAT: Oh man.

SANTORUM: Look I didn't ask Newt to get in. I'm not going to ask him to get out. Obviously in Illinois it's a two person race. And Newt is picking up 12; 18% depending on the poll, and obviously we feel like a lot of those votes would be ‑‑ in fact last night the coordinator for Newt who put together his delegate announced that he and all of the delegates were going to vote for me. And we're encouraging Newt supporters throughout the state of Illinois to help us. And the same thing happened in Tennessee. So it's beginning to happen irrespective what Newt is doing. And hopefully that will be a little bump to us the day of the Illinois primary.

GLENN: Let me ask you one quick question before you go, and that is this is a question I would ask Mitt Romney if he would ever come to the show. But he doesn't return any of our phone calls. But it's important to me that the next President of the United States understands that we are dealing with radicals, revolutionaries, socialists, and communists anarchists. Tonight on GBTV we're showing video of all these literal communists gathering together to plot the overthrow of the United States and it's all part of Occupy Wall Street. Is there any doubt in your mind that there are forces that are ‑‑ that are almost cartoonish sounding. Communists, socialists, anarchists that are actively working to destroy our country inside.

SANTORUM: Well yes. I think that's been the case in this country for a long time. With the files being revealed from the old Soviet Union. We have verification of lots of people in this country who were working with the Soviets who were trying to overthrow, and cause chaos in this country, and it's because of the Soviet union failed doesn't mean all these people oh well, it failed, and therefore I must be wrong. No, I mean these people are committed. I think it's a relatively small group of people but that doesn't mean. ‑‑ they are very much engaged in the Occupy Wall Street movement. It's clear you see it with the protests in Washington D.C. with the anarchists coming out. I see them at my rallies. We had a couple of rallies yesterday, and you see some unsavory characters out there trying to disrupt things, and you know push their very radical agenda.

GLENN: Here's the Left Form 2012 Occupy the System. It's a conference where people gathered in New York City for the weekend. The speakers Pearl Granat. Jarvis Tyner of the communist party Gary Hicks Marxist library. Bill Wharton from the Socialist party. Peter Eichler Socialist Action. Larry Holmes Worker World Party. And Pearl Granat, vice president of SEIU. When SEIU, and Steven Lerner are actively engaged, is not SEIU a danger to our country.

SANTORUM: Well look. They're most labor unions are not as radical as SEIU. But SEIU is the one much the most radical left wing organizations. It's of course represents government workers, and these are folks that believe in huge and expansive government. It's good for their business and they'd like more ‑‑ the bigger the government is the more jobs they have, and more control folks like the person that runs the SEIU has in our country. So there's clearly a symbiosis between the radical left, and SEIU. You see the connection right before your eyes.

GLENN: I'm sorry. One more question.

SANTORUM: One more after one more.

GLENN: There was a big story that came out last night. It's being scrubbed from the Internet. It's about the President and I don't want to ask anything about the daughters. But the President allowed his two one young daughter 13‑year‑old to go down to Mexico which the State Department says is dangerous saying that the Americans shouldn't go. With 12, 13‑year‑old friends, 25 Secret Service agents. There's got to be adult supervision besides the Secret Service. Do you send your daughter as President of the United States to a place where the State Department your own State Department says don't go on spring break. It's a danger at 13?

SANTORUM: What I would say is that the President's actions should reflect what his administration is saying. If the administration is saying it's not safe to go down there just because you can send 25 Secret Service agents doesn't mean you should do it. You should set an example. I think this is what presidents do. You should set an example. And when the government is saying this is not safe, then you don't set the example by sending your kids down there. Again, I'm not at all being critical of what his daughter wanted to do. She obviously had friends going there. I think she wanted to go along. But I think you have a higher duty when you're President to set that example as to what ‑‑ you're not above the law. You're not someone who can say one thing to one group, and then do something else. I think that sets a very bad precedent.

GLENN: Rick, good luck today.

SANTORUM: Hey, thank you very much. I appreciate all of the folks in Illinois. Please get out there and help us out. We pulled out a big upset in Mississippi and Alabama when nobody thought we could win, and conservatives get out and vote.

GLENN: We cut him off. Rick, thanks a lot. All right.

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.

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.