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

Could Reddit Bombshell Deliver Another Impeached President Clinton?

September 20, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

In the wormhole that is the Hillary Clinton email scandal, the burrowing has deepened into an unknown space-time continuum. News broke yesterday that Paul Combetta, the Platte River Networks technician working for Hillary Clinton’s IT provider, was a fan of Reddit, a social news aggregation and discussion website. Combetta, also the technician who pleaded the Fifth about wiping Clinton's server clean, is now suspected of reaching out to the tech community on Reddit about covering the tracks of a certain VIP.

RELATED: Hillary’s IT Guy Paul Combetta Wouldn’t Chat With Congress, but Is This Suspicious Reddit Post Talking?

"I'm telling you right now, if Hillary Clinton is elected, she will either retire due to health, or she will be impeached her first term. This is all mounting. You know what this feels like? This feels like Watergate," Glenn said Tuesday on his radio program.

That would be an unfortunate similarity for Clinton, as Richard Nixon resigned the presidency following the Watergate scandal.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to this cornucopia of questions:

• Who had more pre-scandal popularity --- Hillary Clinton or Richard Nixon?

• If elected, will we see a second President Clinton impeached?

• Should I post on a public forum about covering my tracks?

• Is "stonetear" a clever name for a Reddit user, city street or Etsy account?

• Can you make money crocheting in a jail cell?

• How VIP is very VIP?

• Are there more emails that prove Hillary sold guns to ISIS?

• Does anyone in the media like Hillary?

• How does President Kaine sound?

Listen to this segment, beginning at mark 2:25, from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: I'm telling you right now, if Hillary Clinton is elected, she will either retire due to health, or she will be impeached her first term. This is all mounting. You know what this feels like? This feels like Watergate. The election right before the Watergate scandal. Remember, Pat? You are old enough to remember. Watergate felt just like this. Everyone knew he had done something wrong, but his own supporters were arguing, "There's no proof of this. There's no way he did that. Move on. You're just trying to -- whatever.

STU: Go out on a limb and say that she does not carry 49 states, however.

GLENN: Did he carry 49 states?

STU: Right. Wasn't it 49? Yeah. It was 49 states against McGovern, right? '72?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Yeah, he lost Massachusetts.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: And DC.

GLENN: Right. So she's not going to carry the 49 states. She won't be as popular as Nixon was.

STU: Actually, not -- not DC. Sorry. There was that one unfaithful elector that voted for the Libertarian in that election. But it was a blowout. Let's -- electoral count 520 to 17.

GLENN: Okay. Holy cow. Holy cow.

JEFFY: Wow.

STU: That's amazing.

PAT: Good thing he broke into the hotel to find out his campaign strategy.

GLENN: Yeah, couldn't beat that guy.

(laughter)

PAT: Wow. That was razor-thin.

STU: Yeah, Massachusetts and DC. That's it.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: And we even do have Russia hacking in to find her campaign strategy. This is 1972 all over again. And she's not going to make it. Look at the scandals that are coming out today. By the way, more on the IRS scandal too. Did you see this? Democratic documents now have been leaked, where Democratic senators were saying, "How can we not just go arrest these guys? We got to go arrest these Tea Party people." And it was a conversation between senators and the IRS. "Why can't you go out and get these guys?"

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: I mean, it's bad.

Okay. So let's see. Tell me how she survives. We'll put the DHS scandal off to the side here. Tell me how she survives just these two. Just these two. Because, remember, the press hates her.

Once you have Donald Trump out of the way -- this is the press' thinking -- once you have Donald Trump out of the way, they don't like her. They will -- she will be the bad guy. She will be the bad guy.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: She will not be able to get anything done. Nothing!

Listen to this: Hillary's IT guy wouldn't talk to Congress, but now Reddit has posts that they say are his. And it's circumstantial evidence, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty -- pretty amazing.

Let's see: We're in weird times. 2016. This is Reddit. It was only about a month ago before her collapse at a 9/11 event that asking about Hillary Clinton's health put one firmly in the deplorable conspiracy theorist basket, at least according to many in the mainstream media.

So it's best to tread lightly when approaching the news that Paul Combetta, a technician with Hillary's IT provider, Platte HEP River Networks, left behind a few incriminating crumbs on the internet, ironically when asking about how to cover someone else's tracks.

Have you heard this?

STU: One way not to cover your tracks is to post on a public forum about covering tracks.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Hey, can somebody help me out?

Let's just for now, that the US News HEP and World Report has taken an interest, as has Major HEP Garrett of CBS News. US News staff writer Steven Nelson notes the requests match neatly with publicly known dates related to Clinton's use of a private server while Secretary of State.

How soon before the cable and broadcast networks pick up the story? Never.

Reddit calls itself the front page of the internet, which might sound like an empty boast for those not familiar with the site. It's a huge discussion board, covering every topic in existence. It's ugly as sin, with none of the candy-colored buttons or graphical trappings of a HEP Web 2.0 or whatever web now we're on, which makes it a paradise for computer nerds and geeks of all stripes. Ask anything and someone will answer.

Some are claiming to have evidence that Combetta, who is reportedly the technician who, oops, obliterated Hillary Clinton's email archive using BleachBit HEP software and then pleaded the Fifth before the House Oversight Committee last week, popped onto a Reddit discussion board in 2014 to ask how to remove or replace -- this is quoting -- the to and from address on archived emails.

A lot of theory depends on attaching Combetta to the user name stonetear. Is it stonetier or tear? But it looks like internet detectives have now done just that. A good thing people captured screens while they could. It looked like stonetear's Reddit history has been wiped like with a cloth or something.

STU: And in realtime, as they were discovering this. So like people were like, "Wait a minute. Is this the guy?" And started talking about it. And as they were doing it, they would refresh the screen, and there would be less posts this guy had because he was deleting them as they were doing it. That's how -- and, you know, the circumstantial evidence is pretty interesting. This guy does have accounts on other websites with this name. You know, it's from a couple years ago.

GLENN: Yep.

STU: And he, I believe, has a house that is on that street.

GLENN: Right. And he is -- he went to a wedding with a friend. And what is it? Let's see here.

This image confirms stonetear user name, Hillary, Paul Combetta, he's granted immunity, blah, blah.

But he was at a -- he was at a party of some sort, and it's him with a friend. And they're like, "Look how tall stonetear is."

STU: Oops.

GLENN: Oops. You might want to be a little more clever with your names.

STU: He also has an Etsy page.

GLENN: Yes, that's right.

STU: So in case you want to order arts and crafts, you can apparently do that.

JEFFY: Crocheting in the cell?

GLENN: So what he did was --

PAT: Didn't he say something about I'm deleting for a very --

GLENN: Yes. I am --

PAT: I can't say anything, but whose husband used to be president.

(laughter)

GLENN: Of another -- of a company.

STU: Here's the quote: I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP, parentheses, very VIP -- in capitals -- email address from a bunch of archived email.

PAT: She's a Democrat, and it's rumored she may run for president.

(laughter)

So ridiculous.

GLENN: I mean, it is almost -- it is -- you could almost convince me this is a setup. Is this guy that stupid?

PAT: Maybe.

STU: I mean, I don't know enough about Reddit to know if you can back date posts. I would think the answer to that is no, or that that would have been pointed out in any of these articles. But that's the only thing that makes any sense.

GLENN: And it correlates. They ask for something. And that day, he goes on and posts on Reddit. I mean, all of the dates -- this is why US News, World Report, this is what they're doing. They notice all of the dates fit exactly with him.

STU: Right. And this is the guy who had the OS moment. Oh, crap moment. That has been described in the testimony. And so in March 2015, he had to implement a 60-day email retention policy. But he had -- he theoretically was supposed to do that earlier and forgot. So later on came to do it.

And the dates with his posts about a 60-day email retention policy line up with when he initially posted about it.

So like, it was initially supposed to happen in December. He posted about it in December, but then forgot to do it until March. But he posted about it at the time when they were discussing it. And, again, like, I don't know, could a hacker do this? Go back and --

GLENN: I don't know. I don't know.

STU: I don't know. Maybe. I just don't know the site well enough.

But, I mean, if these things exist, none of the media sources covering it are pointing it out. Like if you could backdate posts or if you could go in and somehow manipulate the boards --

GLENN: Right. Is there anybody who is, you know, expert enough on this to be able to tell us, can you back-date stuff? You would think that that would have been one of the first things people would have said.

STU: Right. I got to imagine that's not true. And, you know, it's amazing. Because this is the guy who used BleachBit to get rid of these --

GLENN: Right. And didn't he also do something on Reddit about BleachBit?

STU: I don't know -- I think that was his initial ask was about how to remove --

GLENN: BleachBit. I mean, this is crazy. So this is all coming undone.

Now, let me give you another one. Now he's announcing that Hillary Clinton and her State Department -- this is a political insider. WikiLeaks confirms that Hillary sold weapons to ISIS.

He's announcing now -- insider -- that Hillary Clinton and her State Department were actively arming Islamic jihadists, which includes the Islamic State in Syria.

Clinton has repeatedly denied these claims, including during multiple statements while under oath in front of the United States Senate. WikiLeaks is about to prove that Hillary deserves to be arrested.

In Obama's second term, the Secretary of State authorized the shipment of American made arms to Qatar, a country beholden to the Muslim Brotherhood, to the friendly Libyan rebels, in an effort to topple the Libyan Gadhafi government, and then ship those arms to Syria in order to fund al-Qaeda and topple Assad in Syria.

I just want you to know, this is exactly what we said they were doing four days after Benghazi. Do you remember?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: We said they were trying to get all of those American arms back out of the arms of the people that they gave them to. And that's why they were there. They were making deals with warlords to try to get those armaments back. And then they were shipping them over to Syria through Turkey.

Gee. Who was right?

Clinton took the lead role in organizing the so-called Friends of Syria to back the CIA-led insurgency for regime change in Syria.

That explains why they were protected by the CIA and nobody else.

Under oath, Hillary Clinton denied she knew about the Weapon's shipments. In an interview with Democracy Now, WikiLeaks' Julian Assange is now stating that 1700 emails contained in the Clinton cache directly connect Hillary to Libya, to Syria, and directly to al-Qaeda and ISIS.

Here's the transcript. Let's see here. Let me see if I can just get the Julian Assange.

WikiLeaks has become the rebel Library of Alexandria. It's the single most significant collection of information that doesn't exist elsewhere in searchable and accessible, citable form about how modern institutions actually behave. And it's going on to set people free from prison, where documents have been used in their court cases to hold the CIA accountable for rendering programs, feed into election cycles, which have resulted in the termination of some cases or contributed to the termination of governments. In some cases, taken the heads of intelligence agencies, ministers of defense, and so on. So you know, our civilizations can only be as good as the knowledge of what our civilization is. We can't possibly hope to reform what we don't understand.

So those Hillary Clinton emails, they connect together with the cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, creating a rich picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office. But more broadly, how the US Department of State operates. For example, the absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gadhafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS, of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS. That's there in the emails.

There's more than 1700 emails in Hillary Clinton's collections that we have released just about Libya alone.

How does she survive?

STU: Well, I mean, in normal circumstances, right? The Democrat just gets -- they lay down cover and they survive from the media.

GLENN: And they're going to lay down cover for the next 50 days.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Once that's over -- once the bogeyman is gone, she has no more cover. I'm telling you, if she wins, she's a one-term president that is either impeached or leaves because of health reasons. You're looking at President Kaine.

PAT: She won't be impeached, I don't think.

GLENN: I think it will mount and she will do exactly what Nixon did. She won't want to be -- both Clintons being impeached from office? No way.

PAT: Yeah, they wouldn't want that label.

GLENN: They would not want that. It's over. And that's not even counting the Clinton Global Initiative. That thing is so dirty. They haven't even started on that yet.

PAT: Do people care?

GLENN: Yes, they do.

PAT: You think they do?

GLENN: Yes, I do. I think not now. Not now. Because we're in the political fog of war.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But once -- once the --

PAT: Like if she wins, you think they will care?

GLENN: Yes, they will. Because they will like Kaine more than Hillary. They don't like Hillary. And they'll want her to pay a price. They're not going to let her get away with it.

JEFFY: Bill already explained the Foundation issue, right? I mean, people did give money. They probably expected to get some kind of influence. But, hey, the State Department -- he expected the State Department to do what was right.

(laughter)

PAT: Of course, he did.

GLENN: Right. And they were expecting him to do right.

Featured Image: Featured Image: Original cartoon created by Pat Cross Cartoons for glennbeck.com. Pat Cross loves drawing, America and the Big Man upstairs.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The founders warned us

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

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

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

Not-so-expert advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

A republic no more?

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

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

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Choosing death over care

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

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

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

They offered her MAID.

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

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

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

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

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

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Sharia arrives

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

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

The warning from those who have lived under it

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

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

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

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

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

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

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

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

Wake up before it is too late

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The crisis beneath the headlines

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

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

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

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

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

The quiet return of meaning

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

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

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

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.