Handicapping the 2016 GOP candidates

On radio this morning, Adam Brandon from FreedomWorks joined the show to run through the candidates. Who does he like? Who has the worst record?

Get the expert political analysis in its entirety below, and scroll past the audio for the transcript of this segment.

Rush transcript of this segment is below:

GLENN: Well, welcome to the program. Last night on television, I had Adam Brandon, the executive vice president, the CEO of Freedom Works on with us. And we were talking during the break about how excited both of us were. And I think for different reasons. Maybe for the same reason. But we were both excited about the future. For the first time, talking politics. I mean, we were together. Adam is here. We were together on Election Day.

ADAM: That's right.

GLENN: With Mitt Romney.

PAT: Oh, man. What a bloodbath that was.

GLENN: And that was a kick in the head over and over again. And then I think we were there together -- or, at least we talked to each other during the last election where, you know, some of our guys were getting their heads kicked in again. And honestly I think most Americans who are of our political bent were thinking, okay, well, I'm going to stop doing that now.

And then you come to me. Yesterday we had Scott Walker on. We felt really good about him. We feel good about Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. We feel like there's something happening here.

ADAM: That's right. In between when we spoke last time and here today, I've been reading up, and I found two headlines that really speak to me about what's happening. The first one comes from CNBC which says the millennial generation's savings patterns closely reflect their grandparents, like there's a fundamental shift in the youngest people in America today in how they view money and savings.

GLENN: Fourth turning.

ADAM: Then the next thing I saw was yet another study showing that more and more Americans are viewing themselves as independent of both political parties. These trends continue. To me, that shows me that the young folks are changing. And our society is changing in how it views politics. These are huge opportunities.

I want to go back to one more meeting we had a few years ago. And I remember, you put up on the chalkboard this long, progressive history and how they took over the parties and their influence. And you said it was a 100-year conflict. And I walked out of that meeting. I never forgot that because I was almost paralyzed by fear. Like, one hundred years? How do you combat something that's been going for 100 years?

GLENN: This is in the days when I depressed everybody and I said, we need a 100-year plan. And everybody was like, I don't think I even want to think about a 100-year plan.

ADAM: But you were right when you were talking yesterday and going over these presidential candidates. We at Freedom Works have been looking at what works and what wasn't work. The different types of organizations you need and the different type of candidates you need. And I would say right now today, heading into 2016, yes, it may take a few generations to turn everything back, but in the next few election cycles, I think we can make a significant advance at turning back the time.

GLENN: I think we have, quite honestly. If you look at the candidates I mentioned. You can add Marco Rubio to that. Those candidates would not exist had the Tea Party not popped up.

ADAM: One thing that the Tea Party is doing to change politics is it used to be enough. We all love Ronald Reagan and stuff. At best, those guys kind of paused the growth of government. It even kind of grew, but it just slowed it down. And those candidates that you mentioned and I think what the Tea Party is demanding, is in this next presidential cycle, not just pausing, but actually reducing government. And a few years ago, I would never have thought that's possible. But with people in the House and Senate and one of those folks in the White House, I think it could actually happen.

GLENN: So who do you think has the best shot?

ADAM: It's not a cop-out. I do believe it's too early to say that.

GLENN: Tell me the strengths of each candidate. For instance, Cruz, show me the strength of Ted Cruz.

ADAM: The strength of Ted Cruz is that he's absolutely fearless. From when he first ran for Senate and got to Washington, possibly the most disliked person in Washington, DC.

GLENN: Does that hurt him?

ADAM: I think it helps him out in real America. In D.C. what it shows, he's not scared of going into a Senate cloakroom and having almost every senator outside of Rand Paul and Ted Cruz --

GLENN: And likely --

ADAM: Giving him just the evil eye. He will fight for what he believes. That will be his strength.

STU: That feels good to us.

GLENN: Can't get anything done.

STU: When it comes down to him getting support to put together a winning campaign --

GLENN: One of the least liked people in Washington, DC, right now is Barack Obama. They're only afraid of his machinery. But he's not getting anything done.

ADAM: No. But would that help or hurt Cruz? That's why you'll see pretty quickly in the campaign cycle how that plays nationally. Rand Paul, once again, there's a guy who stood up against the NSA on the Senate floor. That's a forward looking thing. Of all these candidates, Rand Paul might reflect the future of the G.O.P. the most. The question is, is he too far ahead? He'll also have to answer, and this will be his opportunity, to talk about things like ISIS and foreign policy and show how he's different from his father.

Then just keep going down to the list. Marco Rubio. Great personal story. Fantastic story about beating Crist when he was running in Florida. The question for him: Is this kind of that Rubio who kind of came in and jumped on immigration in the wrong way, or is this someone who is a little different? Each one we mentioned, there's going to be a strength and there's going to be a weakness.

GLENN: The Marco Rubio thing, I don't think Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, or -- well, I guess in some ways Governor Walker has, but not as much that has got something as fundamental as immigration reform wrong. You know what I mean?

ADAM: Right.

GLENN: You can wake me up in the middle of the night, ask me one of the three big topics, immigration will be one of them. For him to get that one wrong and to say, well, I wasn't really -- hello. It shows me that your gut is somehow askew.

ADAM: Right. But that being said, comparing this to the field from previous years, more excited about this field.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Let's go deeper. Carly Fiorina.

ADAM: I'm not really sure what that's all about right now.

PAT: Yeah, we're not either. And we interviewed her last week or the week before. Liked her, but we didn't really get into policy.

GLENN: No. We were talking California policy, and she was right on the money on California. Very, very sharp.

PAT: And the economy she seemed pretty good on. But, you know, we didn't dig into the fundamentals like immigration.

GLENN: How about Ben Carson?

ADAM: Well, Ben Carson has just an incredible personal story.

GLENN: We really like him. We just don't think he's ready to be president.

ADAM: As I was mentioning earlier, one thing I've noticed about him, he's built a good connection with grassroots activists. He'll be a stronger player just because of the network he's been able to build.

GLENN: Mike Huckabee?

ADAM: I look at his record as governor and I'm just moving on. That's old news.

PAT: Thank you. Thank you. Good answer.

GLENN: The guy is a giant progressive.

ADAM: Absolutely.

STU: He will run. You have him. You have Jeb Bush.

GLENN: Hang on a second. Who does Mike Huckabee coming into the race, who does he hurt?

ADAM: Because -- the question for me: Is he going to try to stake out for the social conservatives? Is that the main group he'll reach out to?

GLENN: Yes.

ADAM: If you like some of these other people we mentioned, Ben Carson is there. Rick Santorum. Even Ted Cruz might be there.

GLENN: Ted Cruz. Yeah.

ADAM: When I look at how this horse race might play out --

GLENN: I have a conspiracy theory that I'm never going to share, but I have a conspiracy on Mike Huckabee on being put in this race by some -- by some establishment to really hurt Ted Cruz.

ADAM: That, I could actually buy that conspiracy theory.

GLENN: You probably know the conspiracy theory.

ADAM: Some people run for president not with the end goal of winning.

GLENN: Yes, Lindsey Graham.

ADAM: Run for president, run for vice president to sell books. John Bolton, I think, talks about running for president for, you know, I'm just not sure why. But it's a way for him to inject whatever issue he's most excited about into the race.

GLENN: What are the odds that you suppose that we get to a literal Hillary and Jeb ticket? Not the same ticket, although that would make more sense to me. Hillary versus Jeb Bush.

ADAM: I have a theory that if it's Clinton versus Bush, a third party candidate will win.

GLENN: I have the same feeling.

STU: Wow. It's tough.

GLENN: I have the same feeling. And especially if it's somebody like Rand Paul who seemingly is so different outside the system. You know what I mean? I really think -- I think that Rand Paul could win on a third-party ticket, if it's those two.

ADAM: You look at someone like Ross Perot, who came up because there was dissatisfaction. And then something else that I've never forgotten was when Mayor Michael Bloomberg dumped $100 million into his own race. That just shows, it can be done. There is someone who can write a check large enough to jump-start a campaign. Or you could just have -- like you were mentioning Rand. Just people so sick of this. I mean, I would have a hard time voting in a Clinton versus Bush election.

GLENN: I wouldn't. I will vote for third party. I don't care who it is.

ADAM: There you go. That would be such a disservice to our democracy if those are the two names on the ticket.

GLENN: It would. $2.5 billion for Hillary Clinton. What can that money buy? One thing it can't buy. When she launched this campaign. There was a new look to this campaign. One of the issues to the big look, they're not going to do big rallies. Why? Because no one would show up?

GLENN: We talked about that.

STU: Obama had a decent amount of success with big rallies. It's not like, hey, 50,000 people showed up for me thing.

GLENN: Right. That's the one thing you don't have to go to get rid of when you're running for president. The lies. The teleprompter, we've had enough of that. Big, huge problems is not a huge problem.

PAT: It's Journey saying, we don't want to play cowboys stadium anymore.

STU: We're looking for something intimate.

GLENN: It might be that Journey's time has passed or you have the wrong members.

ADAM: This is a shocking revelation about to make. But I do this to check to see what the other side is up to.

GLENN: We're talking to Adam Brandon from Freedom Works.

ADAM: And there's a bunch of progressive groups I donate the absolute minimum to, just to be on their email lists to see what they're thinking and what they're up to.

What amazes me about moveon.org is every email you get from them is run, Elizabeth, run. Run, Elizabeth Warren, run. And this should be Hillary Clinton's base. And they have no interest it seems in supporting her. You have to drag them --

GLENN: I just think that $2.5 million better be spent on buses going to nursing homes and picking them up to vote and then digging people up in cemeteries and just voter fraud. Because there's just no excitement there at all.

ADAM: No.

GLENN: At all. And that's why I think Hillary really wants Jeb Bush, because there's the same amount of excitement.

ADAM: Right.

GLENN: I think that if it's Jeb Bush, you're going to have -- he'll have the hardest time rallying people together and say, hey, will you go door to door? Will you make phone calls for me?

ADAM: I can't imagine any of our activists doing that.

GLENN: I don't know anybody in our audience who would do that.

PAT: You'll have 50 people voting that day judge it would be the lowest voter turnout in American history.

GLENN: It would. And the highest voter turnout. Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, one of those guys, versus someone like Elizabeth Warren.

ADAM: That would be so healthy for our democracy.

GLENN: Oh, it would be so great. And if Elizabeth Warren would just say -- the moderator is like, look, I know you're not a communist, but let's admit it, you like Swedish socialized government. Okay? And if she would have the balls to say, yeah, I do.

STU: You know who has the balls to say that? Bernie Sanders.

GLENN: Just really say, look, the Swedish system works. And here's why. And then having someone like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz saying, no, this is why I believe this system works if it's done right. And really have an open honest debate of those two choices. That's what we're really doing. We're just not admitting it.

ADAM: It would be TV I would watch every debate. It would be so exciting.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. The whole world would watch that. Back in just a second. I do want to give you some time to talk a little about your Freedom Works PAC. This is something that is actually really going to help the election and people want to know, what can I do to get involved? How can I help? You feel like $2.5 billion, it's not big money. It's smart money. And it's 5-dollar donations, not 100 million-dollar donations. We'll tell you about that coming up in just a second.

Our sponsor this half-hour is Zip Recruiter. Zip Recruiter is for anybody like me who runs a business and you have a hard time finding the right candidates. And when you're looking to hire people, you can post on 100-plus job sites. With Zip Recruiter, you can post with one click on 100-plus job sites. Instantly matched to that perfect candidate from over 4 million resumes. You post once. And within 24 hours, you can watch the candidates roll into Zip Recruiter's easy-to-use interface. We just hired a guy because of Zip Recruiter. And it was the easiest way to find somebody. Literally, I've told this story before. The night before, what are we going to do? Where will we find anybody? Post it on Zip Recruiter. My response, what the hell is Zip Recruiter? Something new. We're trying it. Next day, we had eight candidates that people were excited to interview, and we just hired somebody. Zip Recruiter, try it for free today. Go to ZipRecruiter.com/Beck. ZipRecruiter.com/Beck. Try it for free today.

(OUT AT 8:23AM)

GLENN: Talking to Adam Brandon, the CEO of Freedom Works. And he has started a new PAC. FreedomWorksPAC.org. They're not looking for millionaires. They'll take millionaires. But they're looking for 5-dollar donations. I wanted him to be on the air to explain specifically what this PAC is and why it's important.

ADAM: Thank you very much. It's actually FreedomWorksPAC.com. But when we looked at what worked and what didn't work in previous election cycles, there was a couple of elections we left on the table. Clint Didier out in Washington State lost by 2,000 votes. McDaniel won his race before he lost it. But one thing we missed was that final push. That ability to inject money into these campaigns that desperately needed it at that time. Yes, you're right, it's about the size of the community. Rounding up as many five, 50, 100-dollar checks as possible to really help these candidates that will make a difference.

GLENN: So what you're doing with this PAC is you're coming out with all the research on why you like these guys. Right?

ADAM: Going forward, we'll put up on a website. It will be all these different races. You pick and choose the ones you want. But we'll make sure that everyone who is listening right now will have fantastic research on the positions that matter to our community.

GLENN: So I think this is really important. Because you know when you write a check to the G.O.P., you don't know where your money is going. You write a check for the G.O.P., and it could very well be going to John Boehner.

ADAM: That's right.

GLENN: And I don't want that. So what you're doing, you can give it a general fund. But you can also say, no, I want it to go to this specific guy.

ADAM: Right now, you just have to give to Freedom Works PAC. There are not that many candidates in the race. But we'll also be incentivizing people like Matt Salmon to jump in against John McCain. We'll try to incentivize people like Congressman DeSantis to jump in in Florida to take over for Rubio's place. Rather than waiting and hoping for the right candidate, we want to put some resources together to get them in the race.

GLENN: Tell me about Salmon.

ADAM: Salmon has a 100 percent voting record with Freedom Works. 100 percent. He's one of those people you want to see in the race. When you look at a candidate, number one, they have to be right on principle. Number two, they have to run a competent campaign. And number three, if they do those other things, there has to be a path to victory. So every candidate we endorse, they'll be solid on principle, they'll be able to win, and they're going to have a path to victory.

GLENN: With a Freedom Works PAC, we could have gotten Lindsey Graham out.

ADAM: Well, that was one of the races I looked at. How did we not have a candidate in that race? There was like five candidates --

GLENN: If we can take out John McCain in 2016, that's a huge takeout.

ADAM: I think it would send a message to everyone.

GLENN: If this PAC could have existed, do you think we could have won Kentucky?

ADAM: We could have gotten closer. We could win Mississippi. I could go through three or four House races, we would have won. Legally, we didn't have the ability to put money and resources to come on and say, in 72 hours, these are the three people who desperately need this help.

STU: What I like about this idea, it's not giving money to a person or party. It's giving money to an idea. You'll find the people with the ideas, and they'll have the fuel to go through that campaign.

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.

Warning: Stop letting TikTok activists think for you

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.

A nation unravels when its shared culture is the first thing to go

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Texas now hosts Quran-first academies, Sharia-compliant housing schemes, and rapidly multiplying mosques — all part of a movement building a self-contained society apart from the country around it.

It is time to talk honestly about what is happening inside America’s rapidly growing Muslim communities. In city after city, large pockets of newcomers are choosing to build insulated enclaves rather than enter the broader American culture.

That trend is accelerating, and the longer we ignore it, the harder it becomes to address.

As Texas goes, so goes America. And as America goes, so goes the free world.

America has always welcomed people of every faith and people from every corner of the world, but the deal has never changed: You come here and you join the American family. You are free to honor your traditions, keep your faith, but you must embrace the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. You melt into the shared culture that allows all of us to live side by side.

Across the country, this bargain is being rejected by Islamist communities that insist on building a parallel society with its own rules, its own boundaries, and its own vision for how life should be lived.

Texas illustrates the trend. The state now has roughly 330 mosques. At least 48 of them were built in just the last 24 months. The Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex alone has around 200 Islamic centers. Houston has another hundred or so. Many of these communities have no interest in blending into American life.

This is not the same as past waves of immigration. Irish, Italian, Korean, Mexican, and every other group arrived with pride in their heritage. Still, they also raised American flags and wanted their children to be part of the country’s future. They became doctors, small-business owners, teachers, and soldiers. They wanted to be Americans.

What we are watching now is not the melting pot. It is isolation by design.

Parallel societies do not end well

More than 300 fundamentalist Islamic schools now operate full-time across the country. Many use Quran-first curricula that require students to spend hours memorizing religious texts before they ever reach math or science. In Dallas, Brighter Horizons Academy enrolls more than 1,700 students and draws federal support while operating on a social model that keeps children culturally isolated.

Then there is the Epic City project in Collin and Hunt counties — 402 acres originally designated only for Muslim buyers, with Sharia-compliant financing and a mega-mosque at the center. After public outcry and state investigations, the developers renamed it “The Meadows,” but a new sign does not erase the original intent. It is not a neighborhood. It is a parallel society.

Americans should not hesitate to say that parallel societies are dangerous. Europe tried this experiment, and the results could not be clearer. In Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, entire neighborhoods now operate under their own cultural rules, some openly hostile to Western norms. When citizens speak up, they are branded bigots for asserting a basic right: the ability to live safely in their own communities.

A crisis of confidence

While this separation widens, another crisis is unfolding at home. A recent Gallup survey shows that about 40% of American women ages 18 to 39 would leave the country permanently if given the chance. Nearly half of a rising generation — daughters, sisters, soon-to-be mothers — no longer believe this nation is worth building a future in.

And who shapes the worldview of young boys? Their mothers. If a mother no longer believes America is home, why would her child grow up ready to defend it?

As Texas goes, so goes America. And as America goes, so goes the free world. If we lose confidence in our own national identity at the same time that we allow separatist enclaves to spread unchecked, the outcome is predictable. Europe is already showing us what comes next: cultural fracture, political radicalization, and the slow death of national unity.

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Stand up and tell the truth

America welcomes Muslims. America defends their right to worship freely. A Muslim who loves the Constitution, respects the rule of law, and wants to raise a family in peace is more than welcome in America.

But an Islamist movement that rejects assimilation, builds enclaves governed by its own religious framework, and treats American law as optional is not simply another participant in our melting pot. It is a direct challenge to it. If we refuse to call this problem out out of fear of being called names, we will bear the consequences.

Europe is already feeling those consequences — rising conflict and a political class too paralyzed to admit the obvious. When people feel their culture, safety, and freedoms slipping away, they will follow anyone who promises to defend them. History has shown that over and over again.

Stand up. Speak plainly. Be unafraid. You can practice any faith in this country, but the supremacy of the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian moral framework that shaped it is non-negotiable. It is what guarantees your freedom in the first place.

If you come here and honor that foundation, welcome. If you come here to undermine it, you do not belong here.

Wake up to what is unfolding before the consequences arrive. Because when a nation refuses to say what is true, the truth eventually forces its way in — and by then, it is always too late.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.