GLENN: I just want to do a couple of minutes here on bitcoin because I find it interesting. Stu and I both have very little money in bitcoin. Just enough that you are like, okay. I can walk away from this and not worry about it. So we both have about $6.75 in it.
STU: That's too much for my blood. But I have some.
GLENN: Yeah. So Stu bought about $300 a coin. And it is now -- is it about to cross the 1800 mark?
STU: Yeah, it's right around there. 1800.
GLENN: 1800 per bitcoin.
STU: They're saying a lot of it goes to the --
GLENN: Instability.
STU: In China --
GLENN: Instability. Oh, yeah China.
STU: And instability. It's true. China though. Both of those are true: Instability, and the Chinese market has blown up. They're throwing money into this like crazy. And remember, we haven't even hit a point where there's an actual collapse of an economy. And a lot of people think that if this happens, where currency collapses in this environment, a country may switch to bitcoin as its actual currency.
GLENN: I know.
STU: I mean, if that were to happen, I mean -- God only knows what could happen to this. I have no idea.
GLENN: And at the same time, it could completely collapse and go nowhere.
STU: It could be zero tomorrow, without -- without any doubt at all.
GLENN: Yeah. This is one of those things that, you know -- that you're either going to look like a genius or a dummy.
If you put a lot of money into it, you have a better chance of looking like a dummy. But, you know, this is something that your family could talk about for generations. "Yeah, I know. My great grandfather, he bought bitcoin when it was $300 an ounce." When it was, what? For a coin.
STU: Yeah.
GLENN: When it was what?
But there are some changes going on with that. And I think, you know, when things go unstable, at least until they can get their arms around it. See, this is what happened to gold. Look at bitcoin. This makes no sense. Bitcoin now is more expensive than gold. That doesn't make sense.
STU: Right. No. Of course not.
GLENN: And that's because they do reverse treasuries and all of those games. They shut this down and they play all kinds of games with the manipulation of the price of gold because they know that people see gold as a signal of trouble. And so when they see gold start to fluctuate in big jumps, they freak out.
Gold should probably be closer to 2,000 to 2500. If it wasn't the artificial barriers, it would be at least -- I bet you it would be $2,000. But these artificial barriers keep them down.
STU: And that's what happens -- bitcoin is even more susceptible to that.
GLENN: Oh, yeah. It's not susceptible -- I don't know if anybody is trying to keep it down. But people don't know. And it's not stable. And it could go to zero. Gold will never go to zero. You know what I mean?
STU: Right.
GLENN: But it depends on what happens. Do they -- same with bitcoin. Do they seize it? Do they not seize it? Do they make it illegal for trading in it? I don't know.
STU: Right. That's my biggest concern. My biggest concern, as is, my biggest concern with everything is the government coming in and saying, "You know what, people are doing X, Y, and Z, that we don't like with this currency. Therefore, it will no longer exist."
And the people who love bitcoin say, "Well, they can never do that because it's digital and it goes around the government." And all that's true. Like, it is true -- it would be very difficult for the government outside of shutting the internet down completely to turn off bitcoin.
However, if you make it so that you -- you know, if the government creates a law and somehow it makes it possible that, you know what, you're not allowed to accept bitcoin. No one is allowed to have bitcoin, it's going to chase everybody like me out of it. Because I have no interest in being on the wrong side of the law. I'm not looking to make some weird, you know, currency point here. I just find it generally interesting. And at that point, while, yes, it will still exist in some world, it will no longer, I think have the -- the number of people involved in it that will create the increase in value.
GLENN: Unless it's China. Unless China says, that's our currency. Or that's how we're going. If China does it, then you still have all that money in bitcoin available to China. Your job is to get to China. You know, if you had $10 million in bitcoin --
STU: Right.
GLENN: -- because you bought it -- this is not crazy.
STU: No.
GLENN: Because you bought it today and currency went out and China said, "Oh, by the way, this is our currency." And a few markets were using that as currency, you could see that -- you could see $10 million in bitcoin. Now, get to it, you couldn't do it here in the United States. But if you could get to someplace where it was free, that's -- you know, that is one thing about -- you know, people in the 1930s had to try to smuggle everything out. They were eating diamonds and everything else, to try to smuggle it out. This is all up in your head.
That's different than gold or anything else. You don't have to move around with it. You just have to find a way to access it, which, you know, today is easy. But if you had real global, you know, authoritarianism, that changes. But that changes everything anyway.
STU: Yeah, exactly. At that point, you're beyond --
GLENN: Yeah, there's no -- there's no scenario -- oh, let's see. If Blade Runner comes true. There's no scenario for Blade Runner.
STU: Well, considering there's a sequel coming out very soon.
GLENN: Well, I forgot about that. Yes, I forgot that.
STU: Then I would say yes. Sequel to the documentary Blade Runner 2049.
GLENN: Right. Which looks really good. It looks really good.
STU: It looks kind of interesting.
But that's the thing with this, is the crazy scenario in which bitcoin goes to 10 million, the world is such a crazy place, you almost can't prepare for it.
JEFFY: Right.
STU: The situation in which, you know, let's say Chuck Schumer decides, you know what, people shouldn't be able to have the freedom with their currency, so we're going to ban it, that's not an unrealistic scenario at all to me. And even if the rest of the world continues to use it, if you're an American citizen, you don't want -- like I'm not interested in being on the wrong side of the law. I'm not Jeffy.
GLENN: No, nobody is. Nobody is.
STU: Nobody except Jeffy is interested in that. So the business --
GLENN: No, I meant nobody is like Jeffy.
STU: Nobody is like Jeffy, that's true. But the businesses will stop accepting it.
GLENN: Yeah.
STU: That won't happen anymore. And when that happens, it just becomes irrelevant to the average person in America.
GLENN: Well, same thing could be said for gold or silver and not --
STU: It's true. But gold or silver is so much more established, right? This is something where the average person knows nothing about.
GLENN: Yeah, yeah. The government -- I guarantee you, the government it -- at some point, if it crashes, the government will have to get control of -- of the currency. They're going to have to get control. And so they will say, the only way you can sell is with X, Y, or Z. Then you just have to have the courage to barter. You know, it's one thing to have gold buried in your backyard -- which I would never do --
STU: You just don't want to dig.
GLENN: What? I don't know what you're saying.
You know, it's one thing to have gold buried in your backyard. And then, you know, take it out slyly to your neighbor and say, hey, look. Bury this in your backyard. I need to buy, you know, a chicken. You know, or whatever.
STU: A chicken?
GLENN: Well, that's the only -- let's be honest, guys.
JEFFY: Right. That's right.
GLENN: If you're buying gold like I do -- I don't buy it for the investment. I didn't buy bitcoin for the investment.
I buy it for an insurance policy that the whole freaking world is burning down. So, yes, I will be in the market for a chicken so I can have an egg.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
