Bill O'Reilly uncovers new details about Reagan's presidency in new 'Killing' book

It's always a good time when Glenn and his friend Bill O'Reilly get together. O'Reilly called into Glenn's radio program Monday morning to announce his newest book in his series, called Killing Reagan.

Glenn's first question was obviously about the title, since Reagan wasn't killed, was he?

"Here's the most interesting part of the book," O'Reilly said. "Ronald Reagan gets elected and shortly after is shot and is almost killed. He comes out in a robust way. We all remember. His little bathrobe, standing, making jokes, and everybody breathes a sigh of relief. The president is going to be okay. But he wasn't okay."

O'Reilly went on to explain the detrimental effects, both mental and physical, that the near-killing had on the rest of Reagan's presidency, and how at one point he came extremely close to being removed from office.

"We found out that he was within a whisper of being removed from the presidency and nobody knows that, and the story is so dramatic. And then after he passed the test that they gave him, he made a miraculous comeback mentally because of the Soviet Union," O'Reilly said. "I think is fascinating for anyone who cares about Ronald Reagan."

Glenn agreed.

"There's a lot of great stuff in the book. Including the fact - did you guys know that Ronald Reagan tried to join the Communist Party? He was rejected by the Communist Party," Glenn said.

SPOILER ALERT: "At the end of this one, he doesn't die," Glenn said.

Listen or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: It's always good to have our good friend on our program. Mr. Bill O'Reilly on the show with us. He has a brand-new book called Killing Reagan, which Reagan wasn't killed, but really why be picky on things like that?

PAT: That was a detail. What?

GLENN: Bill, welcome to the program, how are you? Bill, are you there? I'm not hearing Bill O'Reilly.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Oh, no.

PAT: You pissed him off.

GLENN: It's Donald Trump.

PAT: He's angry. Yeah.

GLENN: Guys, in New York, can you tell me what's happening with Bill O'Reilly?

PAT: Hmm. If he's on, we're not hearing him. So that's probably a problem.

GLENN: Okay. Well, tell us when you can get -- tell us when you can get Bill O'Reilly.

STU: I guess this means Reagan is alive.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Do you think that this was John Hinckley saying, "Bill, I don't appreciate it. I'm going to take you down too. I'm going to silence your voice."

STU: Because you say that Reagan wasn't killed, but he did die.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Yes. But he died of something else.

GLENN: Natural causes.

STU: It was a little later.

GLENN: It's actually a very fascinating book.

STU: I will say, this is the most interested I am in the entire series.

PAT: Oh, really?

STU: Yeah, that's fascinating to me.

GLENN: They've been good books.

PAT: Oh, they've all been really good.

STU: I didn't say that they weren't good.

GLENN: Yes, you did. That's what I heard. That's what Pat heard. That's what America heard.

PAT: I heard it.

STU: I can't deal with your incompetent hearing abilities. What I said was I thought --

PAT: You tell Bill he was incompetent.

GLENN: That's what I heard.

PAT: That's what I heard.

STU: I'm talking to America. You are here. Bill is not.

GLENN: Bill is always --

PAT: Wow. You said this is a problem interview.

STU: That's not what I said.

PAT: Holy cow.

GLENN: Holy cow. Bill, are you there? Okay. Well, we're going to have to reschedule. Phones are broken, apparently. We don't have phones that work.

PAT: Why would you have that?

GLENN: Don't worry. This is only a multi -- you know, tens of millions of dollar show. Why would we have a phone that works?

PAT: Why would you have that?

STU: I don't know. I can't answer that question. If I do, you'll just twist my answer, so I won't attempt it.

PAT: So you don't want to talk to Bill?

STU: No.

GLENN: I heard he wanted to twist the knife.

STU: I didn't say that word.

GLENN: It's amazing. It is absolutely amazing.

JEFFY: Write your own book, Killing O'Reilly. Okay.

STU: Wasn't there a left-winger who did say that actually?

PAT: Yeah, there was. I'm trying to think who it was and can't remember right now.

GLENN: Can we play the football player -- let's play the football player. The audio. Can we play the audio --

PAT: No.

GLENN: Can't play the audio. This is a story out of California that is just infuriating. There is a football player at a high school that is there at a high school, and he sees this other kid just wailing -- just wailing on this blind kid. Now, the blind kid can't even defend himself, he's blind. So he's not seeing the punches coming his way.

PAT: This is crazy.

GLENN: I mean, it's really crazy. It's really crazy. So everybody is standing around doing nothing.

PAT: Filming it.

GLENN: Yeah, doing nothing. And finally this high school football player comes up and he grabs the guy who is wailing on him.

PAT: I think he drilled him. I think he hit him in the head, which he deserved.

GLENN: Did he hit him in the head? I just saw him throw him down.

PAT: I think he did. I think he did.

GLENN: Either way, that's fine. He pulls him back, Pat says hits him on the head, and throws him down to the ground.

Well, he then goes right over to the blind kid and is like, "Are you okay? Are you all right? Here." And he helps him get out of there. Everyone runs around the bully and is helping the bully up.

PAT: Because he got blasted by the football player. And the football player is yelling, "What are you doing? That's a blind kid you're hitting. What are you doing?" In more colorful language than that.

GLENN: Now, who gets expelled?

PAT: The football player.

GLENN: The football player does. This is insane. Absolutely insane. What's wrong with us?

PAT: Well, Glenn, they have a zero tolerance --

GLENN: Yeah, I have a zero tolerance -- zero tolerance for common sense.

PAT: Yeah, that's what all of those policies --

GLENN: We'll get back into that here in a second. You have Bill back on?

STU: In theory, yes.

GLENN: Bill.

BILL: Beck.

GLENN: How are you doing, buddy?

BILL: Good. I'm glad you guys have telephones finally. Telegraphs.

GLENN: Well.

PAT: Thought we'd join the last century.

BILL: Working phones is really getting tough to do, but I'm glad you have a phone now.

GLENN: Yeah, I know. How are things, Bill?

BILL: Busy. Just like you, you know, trying to change the world.

GLENN: Yeah. So Bill, I have to ask you. We're going to get to your book in just a second. I have to ask you, just because it will be fun to hear the answer. I hear Donald Trump is beating your butt and is taking you out to the woodshed every night.

BILL: How exactly is he doing that, Beck?

GLENN: Well, because he has said that he's not going to do you show anymore. And then you immediately countered with, "Oh, no, no. I don't want you on the show."

BILL: No, I didn't say anything to anybody. And he got into kind of a fight with Fox News hierarchy. It didn't have anything to do with me.

GLENN: Well, that's not the story that we heard in the papers. They were saying that -- I want you to know I believe that you --

BILL: Whoa, whoa, in the papers?

GLENN: I believe that you were the one who said, "I'm not going to put up with this nonsense and have you on the show anymore." But there are a lot of people that believe that Donald Trump came out and said that he doesn't want to put up with your nonsense. Which was it?

BILL: Okay. Number one, you're believing the papers. Is that what you're telling me?

GLENN: I'm just saying, Bill. That's just what people are talking about.

BILL: Okay. Number one, I don't have any beef against Trump. Number two, I didn't say anything about Trump to anybody. Number three, he ran into a problem with the Fox News hierarchy because he was bashing people like Krauthammer and Hume and Will, and those -- he didn't like them because they didn't approve of him. So I think that's the genesis of it. But it didn't have anything to do with me directly?

GLENN: Do you know him, Bill, well?

BILL: Yes, I know Trump well.

GLENN: Is his temperament -- can he be president of the United States with that temperament?

BILL: You know, he doesn't like to be criticized. And if you're president, you're criticized every second on the second.

GLENN: Right. Right. I mean, I don't like being criticized. You don't like being criticized. But it comes with the gig.

BILL: Yeah. And I don't know if he's accepted that reality. And I think that's the problem with him. And I think that's why his numbers are going down. And his poll numbers are going down because, if you're going to run for president, you have to be able to overlook stupid stuff.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: Now, if he is attacked unfairly, then there's no -- I have no problem with him fighting back. But certainly on my program, he's gotten a fair shot. And we bring on people who like him and don't like him. That's what we do on The O'Reilly Factor. All sides are heard.

GLENN: Go ahead.

BILL: He doesn't like to hear people say that they don't approve of him, and that's the problem.

GLENN: Yeah, he doesn't like me too much. So I cried myself to sleep last night and I moved on.

BILL: Well, who does? Let's be honest. Who likes you? No one.

GLENN: I know. So my wife watched your show last week or the week before --

BILL: Not you. But your wife?

GLENN: No, it's more of a girl show.

BILL: Yeah, it's like The View.

GLENN: Yeah, it's like The View. And she said she had seen Carly Fiorina on and said that you were quite complimentary of her. Which makes me question her immediately. And said that she really held her ground with you. I'm doing a sitdown with her for today for a couple of hours. And interested to hear your -- your thoughts now after the interview with her. Is she the real deal?

BILL: Well, look, I hit her with some real haymakers about her tenure in the private sector --

GLENN: She handled it well.

BILL: -- at Hewlett-Packard. About how she reacted to various criticisms of her. Some policy situations. And she didn't -- she wasn't in a snit or anything like that. She answered the questions in a very logical manner.

GLENN: Like an adult?

BILL: And I complimented her on that.

GLENN: You don't have to tell me who, but do you see the next president yet?

BILL: You know, I don't see the next president yet. I think the Republican field is narrowing quickly. Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Bush, and Rubio look the -- look to be the only candidates right now that have a chance. Although, John Kasich is doing something very interesting. He's only doing New Hampshire. And if he does well there, he thinks he can break out fast into the other states.

GLENN: Yeah, he lives in a fantasy world.

BILL: He had a really good record in Ohio.

GLENN: I didn't know they legalized drugs in Ohio because he must be smoking some --

BILL: No, they haven't.

GLENN: -- if he thinks -- oh, really? Well, then we should have the state police stop by his house because --

BILL: Do you not like him?

GLENN: No, come on. Come on, Bill, for the leave of Pete, John Kasich?

PAT: Come on.

GLENN: No, no, I don't like him.

BILL: He didn't a great job in Ohio, boy.

GLENN: Oh, that is fantastic.

BILL: Did you look at what he did there? Turning that economy around.

GLENN: Love him. Love everything about his little -- bless his little progressive heart. I just love him.

BILL: No, come on. Look, just look at the state when he got there, and look at the state now. Economically, the guy did a great job. Go ahead.

GLENN: All right. I'm less interested in your book now.

(laughter)

BILL: I'll throw some Muslims in it.

GLENN: How come you don't have that? Killing ISIS, something like that.

BILL: Right. You know, if I had known you were writing that Muslim book, I would have put Muslims in the Reagan book.

(laughter)

GLENN: All right. So tell me the most interesting thing in the book. Because actually, I haven't read it. But I've thumbed through it.

BILL: Well, you should read it or have someone read it to you. You have a lot of servants.

GLENN: I would read it. If it was written by anyone else, I would have read it three times by now.

BILL: No, you wouldn't, Beck. No, you wouldn't. Here's the most interesting part of the book. Ronald Reagan gets elected and shortly after is shot and is almost killed. He comes out in a robust way. We all remember. His little bathrobe, standing, making jokes, and everybody breathes a sigh of relief. The president is going to be okay. But he wasn't okay. And the White House was able to keep that from the press and able to keep that from the people. He had his good days and his bad days. And we were taking our research from the people who loved Reagan, not from the snipers on the left. Okay? But the people who worked for him for a long time. People who admired him. On his bad days, he would even come down to the Oval Office and watch soap operas on TV. And on his good days, he was brilliant. But there came a point in the second term where his main advisers, Baker was the chief of staff, if you remember, was so concerned about him, that they had a meeting in the Oval Office. And he came into the meeting. And he didn't know that he was being watched, and if he had not performed well, they were going to try to remove him under the Constitution. And vice president Bush would have taken over the presidency.

PAT: But this had nothing to do with --

GLENN: This had nothing to do with the shooting?

BILL: No, it did. Because the shooting changed his physiology and his psychology. You're shot at that level and you almost die, you get that kind of trauma, you're never the same. Never the same. And because of his age, he -- his recovery time while it seemed on the surface was miraculous, it really wasn't. So that he would be in and he would be out. But I'll tell you why, when we were researching this and we found out that he was within a whisper of being removed from the presidency and nobody knows that, and the story is so dramatic, and then after he passed the test that they gave him, he made a miraculous comeback mentally because of the Soviet Union. And we go through that. And it's all weaved together. But the book I think is fascinating for anyone who cares about Ronald Reagan.

GLENN: I will tell you this, Bill, that I actually do find it fascinating. There's a lot of great stuff in the book. Including the fact -- did you guys know that Ronald Reagan tried to join the Communist Party? He was rejected by the Communist Party. They thought he was a lightweight. It's a fascinating read. Bill, before we go -- I'm sorry to cut this short because of the phone thing. But real quick, your thoughts on the pope. You're a Catholic.

BILL: Yes. I like the pope. I think I understand what he's trying to do. The churches are in trouble. He wants to get more people interested in the church so he takes a holistic point of view that, you know, "Look, we are accepting of sinners. Everyone is welcome. Everyone can come back." At the same time, his job on earth is to administer to the poor. And I don't really think he understands the best way to do that because he was raised in the Argentine economic system which is corrupt. However, overall, the pope is a good man. I think he did the Catholic church a lot of good. Christianity a lot of good.

GLENN: Were you at all disappointed that he did not take on the abortion cause in front of Congress or that he -- he lectured about American Catholic communists or the fact that on Saturday at the United Nations, we're talking about doing a gigantic global program that is a power grab? Are you disappointed in any of those things?

BILL: Well, I think the abortion thing he believes is polarizing, and that if he had gotten into it specifically, he would have lost some ears. Then he made a calculated decision. There's no doubt that the pope and the Catholic church are anti-abortion. And they always will be. And I think he made a calculation. Look, I'll avoid confrontation. And I'll be inclusive as I can. I think that I would have played it differently had I been him.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: Nobody is perfect.

GLENN: Hang on, that's news. Bill O'Reilly would have gone for the confrontation.

Bill, God bless you, thank you so much. Keep up the good work.

BILL: All right. Thanks for having me here.

GLENN: All right. Buh-bye. The name of the book is Killing Reagan. Bill O'Reilly. The next in the series. I'll give you a hint, at the end of this one, he doesn't die.

Featured Image: Host Bill O'Reilly appears on 'The O'Reilly Factor' on The FOX News Channel at FOX Studios on March 17, 2015 in New York City. (Photo by Rob Kim/Getty Images)

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

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Sharia arrives

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

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

The warning from those who have lived under it

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

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

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

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

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

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

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

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

Wake up before it is too late

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The crisis beneath the headlines

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

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

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

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

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

The quiet return of meaning

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

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

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

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A break in trust: A NEW Watergate is brewing in plain sight

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

What triggers the Bubba effect

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

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

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

A country cracking from the inside

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

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

The Bubba effect is what fills that vacuum.

The dangers of a faithless system

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

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

The question is what — and when.

The responsibility now belongs to us

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

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

How to respond without breaking ourselves

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

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

Adam Gray / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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.