Glenn: The senate confirmation hearings reek of hypocrisy and corruption

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

These old tricks don't work any more.

During the 2024 campaign, the left tirelessly decried Donald Trump as a “threat to democracy” and a danger to the “rule of law.” But as we watch the spectacle unfolding in these so-called confirmation hearings, it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore the glaring hypocrisy of those same voices. Where is the outrage now? Where are the cries about the erosion of democracy, the disregard for the rule of law, or the misuse of government institutions for political gain? The disgraceful behavior we've witnessed in these hearings is a betrayal of the very principles these lawmakers claim to champion.

The smears, the leaks, the media hit jobs, the fake outrage — they’ve played that hand too many times.

Bernie Sanders railed against … baby onesies

America is teetering on the edge of war, facing an economic free fall, and witnessing the weaponization of the very institutions politicians like Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — America’s favorite millionaire socialist — claim to protect. Yet in this critical moment in our country, Sanders railed against baby onesies.

Antivaxx. Baby. Onesies.

Do you take your job seriously if that’s how you conduct yourself when questioning the nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services? As a so-called champion of lowering health care costs and issues actually plaguing the American people?

However, when RFK Jr. had the unmitigated gall to point out that Sanders is the single largest recipient of pharmaceutical money in the Senate, Sanders didn’t deny it. Instead, he did what they all do:

  • He tried to silence him.
  • He attempted to dismiss him.
  • He worked to discredit him.

This is the same Bernie Sanders who has spent decades railing against corporate greed, but when the money flows his way, he suddenly has nothing to say.

The hypocrisy during Kash Patel’s hearing was nauseating

Then there's Kash Patel. He's been accused — without a shred of evidence — of planning to weaponize the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But by whom? By the very same senators who’ve spent the last 26 years doing exactly that. These are the same people who oversaw raids on journalists, spied on sitting presidents, suppressed political opponents, and imprisoned pro-life activists while violent rioters roamed free.

And yet these people have the audacity to act outraged about the politicization of law enforcement? The hypocrisy is so thick that it’s nearly suffocating.

Tulsi Gabbard was smeared as a ‘Russian asset’

When Tulsi Gabbard finally had the chance to speak, she laid it out plainly: Corruption within our intelligence community is not a theory — it's a fact. Yet instead of responding to her legitimate accusations, they smeared her as a Russian asset, a traitor, a spy for Syria. These people are so desperate to maintain their grip on power that they will destroy anyone who dares to expose them.

They asked her whether Edward Snowden was a traitor, but they weren’t interested in the answer. The truth is too dangerous for them: that Snowden should never have had to blow the whistle, because this very committee — these very senators — should have done their jobs and stopped unconstitutional surveillance programs before they even began.

These are the same people who oversaw the FBI’s lies to the American people about the Hunter Biden laptop — proof that the sitting president and his family took tens of millions of dollars from foreign adversaries, including China, the same government that now threatens Taiwan, buys up American farmland next to military bases, and floods our streets with fentanyl, while its partners in Mexico continue to butcher Americans at the border. Yet these senators continue to allow millions of unknown, undocumented people to flood into our country.

The Senate lost all credibility under the Biden administration

So let me ask you, Senators: Who is the traitor here? Is it the president? Is it his family? Is it the people under your oversight who knowingly spread false information to protect him? Or is it you? Are you complicit? Are you corrupt? Or are you simply incompetent? It’s one of the three: incompetence, corruption, or outright treason. Pick one. Because this country is waking up, and the American people deserve an answer.

We are looking for a lot of answers.

  • Who was actually executing the duties of the president of the United States?
  • Who was responsible for the coup ousting a sitting president?
  • Who ultimately selected Harris as the Democrats' candidate?
  • Why did the list of names for presidential pardons include so many of you and your colleagues? Did you have a hand in composing the list? We know that Joe Biden wasn’t competent enough to write it. Is this why you are so terrified of people simply seeking the truth?

Let’s be crystal clear about what this is: This is the deep state fighting for its survival — desperate people doing everything they can to stay out of jail. This is the ruling class — Democrats and Republicans alike — panicking because, for the first time in decades, their grip on power is slipping. At best, it's those who’ve been in bed with the intelligence and military-industrial complex, convinced that war and American intervention are the answers, doing everything they can to protect their secrets and sustain their policies.

But the old tricks don’t work any more. The smears, the leaks, the media hit jobs, the fake outrage — they’ve played that hand too many times. We now know the system is corrupt. We know the game is rigged. And we know there is no moral high ground left to stand on — not for these senators, these bureaucrats, or the intelligence agencies that lie to the American people with impunity. Not for the politicians who have lined their pockets while Americans suffer. They are all mired in the same swamp, desperately trying to keep the floodgates from bursting wide open.

What we’re witnessing right now isn’t strength or power. This is desperation. These are the death throes of a system that has been corrupt for decades — a system that has finally met an opponent it cannot buy, intimidate, or control.

We need to be rooting for Trump’s ‘disruptors’

That’s why every American should be rooting for these disruptors. They aren’t just trying to fix a few broken policies or reform a couple of agencies at the margins. They are going after the entire system. They see what we see: You don’t clean up a house by dusting the furniture; you tear out the rot from the foundation. Make no mistake, that’s exactly what it will take. This country doesn’t need another political band-aid, another round of empty hearings, or another worthless promise from the same people who have failed us for generations. It needs a shock to the system — a defibrillator to the chest of a dying republic. And these appointees, Trump’s team, are the only ones with the courage to deliver it.

Can you name a more dangerous job than going against 18 intelligence agencies, with all their tools, tricks, and decades of lying, setups, and even killings? Tulsi Gabbard isn’t a fool, and she’s not unafraid. She knows the stakes — this is bigger than her life. This is work that could get her killed or “suicided.” Imagine what they can make people believe with the tech we already have. Would you take that job? The least we can do is make our voices of support heard. These people are modern-day heroes of the republic.

Kash Patel is in the same boat. Yesterday, he spoke of releasing all the names in Jeffrey Epstein’s little black book. If anyone believes Epstein hung himself with paper sheets, they are delusional. What kind of danger is Patel in now?

Let’s not forget the dangers of challenging the most powerful industries — government contracts, graft, and a crime sheet from COVID that stretches ad infinitum. What could possibly happen to RFK Jr. in his quest for the truth about our pharmaceutical industry?

Now, it’s in our hands. It’s up to us to let these senators know that we are watching, that we are serious, and that we will no longer tolerate their cowardice and complicity. This is not a riot. This is not chaos. This is not insurrection. This is a lawful revolution at the ballot box, in our communities, and in our voices demanding real accountability.

We actually have to act, not just grumble

For my entire life, I’ve heard the American people say, “Throw the bums out.” But we never have. We’ve grumbled, we’ve complained, and we’ve shaken our fists at the TV, but we never followed through. For those who were part of the Tea Party and have never given up, this is the outcome we were all hoping for 20 years ago.

When Obama voters voted for hope and change, I believe this was the change they were hoping for — transparency, accountability, and an end to a ruling class that never had to pay a price — the end of special-interest rule, the end of endless wars, the end of corruption and cover-ups. Americans, left, right, and center, are waking up. We are tired of the hatred, name-calling, and corruption.

We are tired of being pawns on a chessboard. We are tired of politicians and the state-run media whipping us into a frenzy to distract us from the real issues and villains. The most dangerous villains to our republic don’t live on Main Street — they live on K Street, outside the Beltway, and in the District of Columbia. Time and time again, we speak out and then fail to hold those people responsible. This time, we will remember and act. This time, we must. Because the alternative is unthinkable.

So spare us the theatrics. Stop the kabuki theater of these hearings. Enough with the show trials, the false outrage, and the ridiculous accusations. Let Trump and his team go to work. Let them do exactly what the American people sent them to do: clean house.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

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.

Why do Americans feel so empty?

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The crisis beneath the headlines

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

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

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

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

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

The quiet return of meaning

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

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

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

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.