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

Will the Passing of Scalia Wake Up America?

February 16, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The Context

The unexpected and shocking news of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's passing was received with sadness and, frankly, fear. His departure leaves a massive void of true conservatism on the bench. Without his stalwart adherence to the Constitution, the court is now solidly moderate. Should Obama actually succeed in appointing a liberal replacement, the chance of winning any votes on conservative, constitutional principles is gone --- and along with it, our liberty.

Critical Mass

Rumors are swirling that Obama may be considering current Attorney General Loretta Lynch as a potential replacement for Justice Scalia. Additionally, there is speculation that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been waiting to retire so Obama can appoint her replacement. Filling in for Glenn Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program, Pat voiced his concern should even one justice be chosen by Obama.

"This is critical," Pat said. "If Obama appoints another person here, we're in real trouble."

Now more than ever, the Senate must play its role to impede the president and block any Obama nomination at all costs.

"They're there to specifically slow down the president or impede his progress if he starts to do things that are irrational," said Stu, also filling in Tuesday. "That's what they're there for."

Why Now, God?

"I don't know the bigger plan, you know, that the Lord has in mind," Pat said Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "But I couldn't help, but wonder, why? Why now? Why did you have to take Antonin now? Couldn't you have waited just until November? Couldn't you have waited just a little longer? Did he have to come home this soon?"

Evidently, Glenn had been wondering the same thing when he called in from Boston.

"Sitting here looking right now at the Old North Church in Boston," Glenn said. "You know, I was listening to you guys, and I just want to say, Pat, I think I have an answer for you on that."

What was Glenn's answer as to why God took Justice Scalia home at this time, just months before a critical presidential election?

Wake Up, America

"I just woke the American people up," Glenn said, speaking about his thoughts on God's plan. "I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, 'Look how close your liberty is to being lost.'

"You replace one guy, and you now have a 5-4 decision in the other direction," Glenn continued. "The Constitution is hanging by a thread. That thread has just been cut. And the only way that we survive now is if we have a true constitutionalist [as president]."

Glenn also relayed a recent conversation with historian David Barton, who explained the cycle we're in --- from slavery to enlightenment to freedom to abundance to apathy to slavery again. Barton believes we're in the second stage of apathy, on the brink of becoming enslaved by the government. He also believes Scalia's passing and the potential consequences to the Supreme Court could be the catalyst to wake up enough Americans and change our course.

"In Iowa, the exit polls showed that the church did wake up, and the church did come out," Barton told Glenn. "There's still a lot of Christians sitting at home, but Iowa shows that they did wake up. If they wake up in South Carolina, if they wake up in Nevada, if they wake up across the South, then we're not in apathy, and we don't go back in slavery."

Common Sense Bottom Line

Justice Antonin Scalia served his country with honor and dignity, abiding by the Constitution and refusing to legislate from the bench. Filling is larger-than-life position with anything but a stalwart constitutionalist spells the end of the Republic.

Glenn once asked presidential candidate and constitutionalist Ted Cruz how he would appoint justices to the Supreme Court. Here's the answer he gave:

"I will spend every dime [of my political capital]," Cruz said. "There's nothing more important than this. If we don't get the Supreme Court right, we lose the entire country."

Time to wake up, America.

Listen to this segment at mark 8:45 from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

STU: The idea that we would not expect our candidate to name a justice and try to get somebody through in this situation is ridiculous. Of course, we would. I would be furious with my president if he didn't name somebody and try to push this through. This is the way the court operates.

PAT: Conversely, you would also expect your party who has the majority in the Senate to block that nomination at all costs.

STU: Yes. Pat, you're the constitutional expert around here. My understanding is the Senate has responsibilities in the Constitution as well.

PAT: Pretty good understanding, Stu.

STU: That was what I heard at least at one time. It's funny, the Democrats now only the Constitution has to do with the president. The president can do whatever he wants, and the Senate has to go along with that.

PAT: No. It doesn't work that way.

STU: They're there to specifically slow down the president or impede his progress if he starts to do things that are irrational. That's what they're there for.

PAT: But they'll remember that when we have a Republican. That's when they'll remember that.

Oh, wait a minute. The president doesn't have all the power. Just because you nominated somebody doesn't mean we have to confirm them. That's what you'll hear in four years or whenever the next time this rolls around. And, you know, this would be really bad if the Senate doesn't find its courage to stop Obama in his tracks this time. They cannot allow Scalia to be replaced by yet another radical extremist.

STU: Even if you get a moderate --

PAT: Can't do it. Can't do it.

STU: Antonin Scalia was so good.

PAT: We have two reliable guys left on that bench: Thomas and Alito. That's it.

STU: Two.

PAT: That's it. Sometimes we can rely on John Roberts. And occasionally you can rely on Anthony Kennedy. That's it. We can maybe get to four. There's no way we win any close decision if Obama appoints somebody.

STU: Yeah. And if you want to look back and think of how important this stuff is, go back to -- back when the last -- I mean, not the last one, but one of the biggest examples of the really contentious nomination process was Robert Bork. Bork goes in there and he gets rejected, right? Then they name Kennedy. Reagan names Kennedy as his replacement. You go from a real conservative, you get a moderate. Okay? The next justice that comes up is Souter. So you go from two Republicans, you get a moderate and a liberal. If they had actually come up with two Scalias there and were able to get those two, the entire history of the country is changed.

PAT: Right.

STU: That's how important it is. So if you're one of those people thinking, "Oh, well, look, you vote and you let -- eh, they had Sotomayor and they had Kagan -- like Lindsey Graham voted for both of them, I believe both of them, and approved all of -- just go along with it. Oh well, they get a little leeway with their nominees. We should let this one through.

No. It's too important. It's too vital for the country.

PAT: No. This is critical. And this is critical. We're toast. If Obama appoints another person here, we're in real trouble. And there is speculation now that Ginsburg has been waiting until now to retire so that Obama can appoint somebody in her place too. So then you would have that one that we're also counting on for the future, you'll also have that one solidified with a younger radical, living, breathing constitutionalist. So it would just be a disaster. A disaster.

JEFFY: They're talking about Obama appointing someone so far left that there's no way they get appointed, and that that solidifies the presidential run.

STU: You're totally right, Jeffy. That's what they're going to do here. They know they won't get a crazy leftist through. But you know who they're talking about is Loretta Lynch. Loretta Lynch has already been out there. She's already been vetted in public. She's a black woman. So they'll use this as identity politics to try to make it look like Republicans are trying to stop all the progress. They'll make it into a political point, knowing they won't necessarily get their justice in there. But if Hillary Clinton gets elected, eventually they'll get somebody.

PAT: It's really bad. Yeah. I don't know the bigger plan, you know, that the Lord has in mind. But I couldn't help, but wonder, why? Why now? Why did you have to take Antonin now? Couldn't you have waited just until November? Couldn't you have waited just a little longer? Did he have to come home this soon?

STU: He's great. And I know you want to spend time with the guy. He's great. Could you have just held out a couple more months?

PAT: And, again, I don't know the full picture. He does. So the answer is no. But, man, I couldn't help, but wonder. 877-727-BECK. More of the Glenn Beck Program with Pat and Stu coming up.

(OUT AT 8:20AM)

PAT: 877-727-BECK. Pat and Stu in for Glenn. And also for Glenn is Glenn. Joining us from I guess South Carolina, on the road with Ted Cruz?

GLENN: No, I'm in Boston. I'm doing some research in some business. Sitting here looking right now at the Old Goth HEP Church in Boston. I'll be up here for a couple days and then back on the radio. You know, I was listening to you guys. And I just want to say, Pat, I have I think an answer for you on that. Because I did the same thing. I first thought, "Okay. God, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that."

PAT: Right?

GLENN: And then I said the same thing -- I remember it was exactly the same thing that I felt when Sandy hit. And I remember -- remember, we were trying to go up and help campaign --

PAT: And we thought the same thing then.

GLENN: For Mitt Romney. Remember that?

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: And Sandy hit. And we couldn't go up. We couldn't get any flights up. Then they were walking down the beach like two lovers. I thought, "Thank you. Thank you, Lord. I appreciate that. What is your plan?" So I don't want to assume that I know his plan, but I will tell you this, I thought when this happened, after I got past the thank you, I thought, you're welcome. I just woke the American people up. I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, "Look at what -- how close your liberty is to being lost. You now have lost your liberty. You replace one guy, and you now have a 5-4 decision in the other direction."

PAT: Every time.

GLENN: And just with one guy, you've lost your liberty. So you better elect somebody that is going to put somebody on. Because for the next 30 years, if you don't, the Constitution as you know it -- Pat, you and I have said this for a long time. The Constitution is hanging by a thread. That thread has just been cut.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: And the only way that we survive now is -- is if we have a true constitutionalist.

PAT: That's exactly right. And you're probably right. That might be -- I mean, we -- it's just up to us now to wake up. It's up to us to get that signal --

GLENN: You know, I was having a conversation with somebody over the week. It was David Barton. And I said, "David, have you ever seen, you know -- have you ever seen this in American history?" He said, "No. This is the cycle that we've always talked about." You know, you go from slavery to enlightenment to freedom to abundance to apathy to slavery again. And he said, "If we're -- if we're in apathy, we're over." He said, "I don't think we're there." He said, "All indications show that we're in apathy." He said, "But this could wake enough people up." He said, "The ones who are apathetic are the church." And he said, "In Iowa, the exit poll showed that the church did wake up, and the church did come out. Not as many as are, you know, claiming to be Christians. There's still a lot of Christians sitting at home, but Iowa shows that they did wake up. If they wake up in South Carolina, if they wake up in Nevada, if they wake up across the South, then we're not in apathy, and we don't go back in slavery." But if the country is lost, it will be lost because of the Christians. There will be no one else to blame. You can't blame the progressives. You can't blame the left. You can't blame Hillary Clinton. You can't blame anyone else but the Christians who are not living and voting their principles.

STU: And quick reminder here that we have been losing all of these Supreme Court cases, anyway, when Scalia was there.

PAT: Right.

STU: So without him, there's not even a remote chance --

PAT: Not even a chance.

STU: Unless people do as you say, Glenn, wake up and maybe choose somebody who knows the Supreme Court who has maybe argued in front of the Supreme Court, if I could be more specific.

GLENN: Well, here's the most important thing, and I don't want to bring this to Cruz, but we're obviously there now.

STU: You're welcome.

GLENN: But, you know, I asked Ted before Scalia died, I said, "Ted, what was the problem?" And he said, "We did Justice Roberts because Bush was not willing to spend the political capital." He said, "I have too many things going on. I can't spend the political capital." I said, "How about you?" He said, "I will spend every dime. There's nothing more important than this. If we don't get the Supreme Court right, we lose the entire country." So he not only knows it, he knows how to pick the guys. He knows who they are. And more importantly, he's not going to sit down. He's not going to say let's comprise. He's going to pick the ones that are right, and he'll spend every dime on that.

PAT: And, by the way, it wasn't supposed to be this way where the Supreme Court was this stinking important.

GLENN: Yes, I know.

PAT: They're supposed to be an equal branch. In fact, when our Founders built the buildings in D.C. they forgot about the judicial building. They forgot about the Supreme Court. They only built that later. They were like, oh, yeah, we forgot the Supreme Court.

GLENN: No, no, it's bad. The best part is, when they built the building, they did forget. And so where were they, Pat? They were in the basement.

PAT: Yeah, right.

GLENN: The court was in the basement.

PAT: Initially they were in the basement.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: So then they finally built them this amazingly beautiful building.

GLENN: Palace.

PAT: And took care of that. But look at what they've become since: They've become the be-all and end-all of our republic. And it's not supposed to be that way.

GLENN: When was that building built?

PAT: I don't remember the exact date.

GLENN: Look it up.

PAT: But we'll check on that.

GLENN: Look it up.

PAT: Yeah, we will.

GLENN: Okay. Boys.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: Carry on my wayward sons.

Featured Image: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia listens to remarks after participating in the swearing in of new Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne on the South Lawn of the White House June 7, 2006 in Washington, DC. Kempthorne succeeds Gale Norton, who stepped down in March. Kempthorne faces some opposition from Senate Democrats after saying he supports an expansion of oil and gas drilling in public lands and waters. He swore his oath of office on his great-grandfather's Bible. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

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.