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

Son of Hamas founder claims Islam wants to control the whole word

March 30, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Mosab Hassan Yousef is the son of the founding leader of Hamas, the terror organization that bombards Israel with rockets hidden in the schools and homes of Gaza. Despite being raised in the heart of Islamic extremism, Mosab turned away from the teachings of his father and now sounds the alarm against the untold evils of radical Islam. He shared his incredible with Glenn and TheBlaze audience on Monday's 'Glenn Beck Program'.

Glenn: Like it or not, the Middle East is changing. If we don’t decide now who our real friends, or as the case may be, friend, is and become a nation of principle, things are going to get much worse. Joining me now is Mosab Hassan Yousef. He is the son of Shiekh Hassan Yousef. He is the founding leader of Hamas. Mosab is also New York Times best-selling author of this book called Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices

, has an absolutely amazing story. How are you?

Mosab: I’m good. Thank you.

Glenn: Good. Tell me your story. You’re raised by a guy in Hamas, leading Hamas, and you’re captured by the Israelis. They flip you to the good side, but it’s my understanding because you knew what your dad was doing was wrong.

Mosab: Well, I didn’t know at that time. You know, I was brought up in a state of delusion, you know, believing the Islamic theory that once we control the globe and build an Islamic state we can bring humanity, justice, and happiness and solve the human condition. So, this is what I used to believe.

Glenn: Hang on just a second. Nobody in our country is talking about that. They will say that that’s not what we’re fighting, because they’ll say, you know, Muslims are just like us, the Muslims in the Middle East. They mocked me for saying they wanted a caliphate. Now, you’re saying they want to control the whole world.

Mosab: Right. Well, they have been mocking me for the last seven years also, so, you know, when you face humanity with a truth, people prefer to stay in their comfort zone chasing after their short-term interest, and they don’t see the higher interest of humanity and the evolvement of the human consciousness. Islam is a very dark theory, you know, and we need to face this reality.

Glenn: You were Muslim.

Mosab: I was born a Muslim.

Glenn: You’re raised Muslim. You practiced Islam.

Mosab: Yes.

Glenn: Okay, and you’re telling me—are we at war with Islam?

Mosab: No, absolutely not. I believe that Islam is at war with everything that is not Muslim. Islam has been in a war against the West and its foundations for the last 1,400 years. This is a fact. The Islamic phenomena that we see in ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Taliban, this is not just a new phenomenon. It has been out there for the last 1,400 years, and I think this is the time for humanity to have the courage and to say no to the Islamic theory.

Glenn: Do you think people can in the Middle East be woken up like you were woken up?

Mosab: Yes, I believe every human being is capable of awakening if they are willing.

Glenn: Correct. If there was a group of people that wanted to wake people up, would you be willing to help them?

Mosab: You know, I’ve been trying as much as I can.

Glenn: Right, I know.

Mosab: You know, writing the book was at the expense of losing my identity, my family, everything, and that was the reason, to help people see a different reality.

Glenn: Have you ever been contacted by Grover Norquist?

Mosab: No.

Glenn: No, okay, I just wondered because that’s his stated goal. I would think that he would reach out to somebody like you instead of the Muslim Brotherhood. Okay, so you did write this. How difficult is your life? I mean, when you said I want to tell the truth, and I’m going to put my face on it and you live here in the United States, how scary is that?

Mosab: You know, it was not an easy decision, most importantly not to disappoint people you love, which, you know, they don’t see your reality. You see theirs, but they are not capable of seeing beyond theirs. It meant losing your friends, your family, identity, and heading towards the unknown.

Glenn: Have you talked to your father? Is your father alive?

Mosab: He is alive. He’s in an Israeli prison today.

Glenn: Have you talked to him?

Mosab: Since publishing the book, he publicly disowned me and has not spoken to me since then.

Glenn: When you were taken with the Israelis or by the Israelis, what was it that opened your eyes? What changed you?

Mosab: Well, you know, many events happened that helped me evolve consciously. One of them was the important thing to see the Israeli Constitution, the Israeli law, and the Israeli democratic model versus our society where, you know, we still live in the dark ages of Islam. When I start to see the Israeli model, I came to realize that our problem is within, and we need to change our way that we see life.

Glenn: Living here in the United States, you think you guys are living right on top of each other. You’re living right there. How do you not see that when you’re over there?

Mosab: You know, because people believe in lies, not in the truth. It’s easier for them to listen to the leader who’s blaming all the social problems and many other problems on Israel and the United States of America.

Glenn: Boy, this sounds familiar.

Mosab: For example, I was brought up believing in the conspiracy theory that the United States of America and the West, including Israel, is plotting day and night to destroy Islam and destroy the Muslim world, which is, you know, a lie. This is how, you know, terrorist organizations kept pushing the average person to fight on their behalf and against the United States of America and against Israel. While I believe, you know, Israel as a Democratic model in the region is a solution for that region.

Glenn: It is.

Mosab: It is not the problem, but I think today Middle Easterners see that the enemy is within. They see ISIS, they see their brutality. Even the Palestinians in Gaza, they see the brutality of Hamas and their absolute control over their lives. This is for the first time they come to realize that this is the Islamic theory in action. This is the Islamic theory manifestation.

[break]

Glenn: You are fascinating. I hope we get a chance to spend some more time with you. What is it we need to know? First of all, ISIS, what should we say? The president says they’re not Islam, that’s not Islamic. Is it?

Mosab: Well, you know—

Glenn: Does it matter?

Mosab: No, it really matters, you know? When the president of the free world mislead public, this is a big, big problem, I believe. ISIS is the real face of Islam. ISIS is the real manifestation of the Islamic ideology, of the Islamic theory.

Glenn: Have you ever heard of Zuhdi Jasser?

Mosab: Yes.

Glenn: Okay, do you respect him? Kind of? Not really? He’s a reformer of Islam. Do you believe it could be reformed?

Mosab: Islam cannot be reformed.

Glenn: Why?

Mosab: Because it’s the mentality of the seventh century. Islam is based on a tribal conflict. What’s happening right now in Yemen, in Libya, in Syria between Iran and the Sunni world is the same tribal conflict that Muhammad was doing in the seventh century.

Glenn: ISIS is using exactly the tactics that were used by Muhammad.

Mosab: Muhammad burned people. Muhammad slaughtered people. Muhammad launched military campaigns against people who did not fight against him. Muhammad killed many innocent people. How can we blame ISIS for this responsibility? The highest model of Islam led this chaos for the last 1,400 years.

Glenn: What happens if we continue down this road? Right now, the president is over negotiating, and one of the Iranian reporters who is now no longer welcome back in Iran said it’s like he is negotiating from the Iranian point of view. We’ve really lost our way.

Mosab: You know, this happens, and it happened in the past, but always we can find our sight again, I believe. In the meantime, the Middle East is a very dangerous region, and we have to be very careful how we deal with it.

Glenn: Was this caused by us going into Iraq and everything? Is this a George Bush problem? Is this a Barack Obama problem? Is it a both problem?

Mosab: I would say that this is a problem of not understanding the region very well. There is lack of intelligence, I believe, and the intention of both presidents, I believe, was pure for the higher interest of humanity, not only of the United States of America, but it’s a muddy and dangerous region. If we don’t understand the internal conflict between Shia and Sunni and between the other Muslim denominations, we will always lead ourselves from a mistake to a bigger mistake.

Glenn: When you see the Muslim Brotherhood in our government, in our White House, what do you think?

Mosab: Well, the Muslim Brotherhood is the biggest terrorist exporter in the world. The Muslim Brotherhood is the mother movement of all those movements. All the terrorist organizations that we see today are inspired by Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and by Sayyid Qutb, so basically the Muslim Brotherhood, even though they don’t get involved directly in our days in terrorist attacks, they created Hamas.

Glenn: So, when you see Benjamin Netanyahu rejected by the White House, but you see the Muslim Brotherhood invited into the Oval Office, what do you think?

Mosab: Well, I think that this is really disappointing to see. The Muslim Brotherhood is a very dangerous organization. Israel…I’m not talking now about Bibi or talking about who is Prime Minister of Israel.

Glenn: Right, no politics.

Mosab: Israel is an ally of the United States of America. United States of America can rely on Israel as the only friend in the region, not because of friendship with the Prime Minister’s office, because the values that in common between the United States of America and the state of Israel.

Glenn: Have you ever thought about running for office?

Mosab: I don’t like politics.

Glenn: Yes, that’s probably why you should run for office. I want you to read this book. It’s called Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices

, New York Times bestseller. I would love to have you back and really spend some more time with you and really kind of talk about your childhood and everything else. You’re fascinating and a great help. Thank you for speaking out.

Mosab: Thank you for having me.

Glenn: God bless you and protect you. Thank you so much.

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.