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

The Constitution Stops Globalism Dead in Its Tracks

December 08, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The real problem facing America has nothing to do with globalization or globalists. It has nothing to do with nationalism or internationalism. Our real problem is ideas in direct conflict with the Constitution: socialism, communism and progressivism. These misleading labels basically mean the same thing --- total and complete government control.

Many people are asking the wrong questions to resolve our problem.

"I contend we are having the argument that Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were having 100 years ago. Is the national socialist better or the international socialist better? The question has to be: Is the Constitution the answer?" Glenn said Thursday on radio.

The Constitution is the framework that outlines and defines what our government can and cannot do.

"The Constitution will stop you from doing all kinds of things, like meddling in people's lives, like telling them who they can and cannot marry, or how they can and cannot run their business, unless it's dangerous. The Constitution stops the meddling in international affairs and stops globalism dead in its tracks," Glenn explained.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these equally insightful questions:

• How do we get beyond personalities and talk about the issues?

• Why did Lenin coin the term 'democratic socialist'?

• How is the Constitution like a combustion engine?

• What does 'Nature's Law' mean?

• Is the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution?

• How did the words in the Declaration of Independence help free slaves?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: I want to talk to you a little bit about -- we had a guy call us a few minutes ago. And he wanted to give me a lesson on the reason why the Republicans are great -- or I think he may have said Donald Trump. But we weren't talking about Donald Trump. We were talking about the left and right. Let's get beyond people. And he said, "Because they are now nationalists." And the real problem is globalization and globalists. No, that's not the real problem.

And there are a lot of people right now that are being convinced that the argument is between nationalism and internationalism or globalism.

And you can look at it that way. Two people that did look at it that way were Stalin and Hitler. He was a nationalist, and Stalin was an internationalist. They both believed in giant government state control. One said, "We're going to do this through the international community, and we're going to lead the international community and anybody who gets in our way, we're going to kill." And Hitler and Mussolini thought, "We're going to do this for the good of our own nation because our nation is so great. And we'll just do that. And it will spread to other nations. And we'll bring it to those other nations, whether they like it or not."

Nationalism and internationalism is not our problem. Our problem is socialism, communism, or progressivism. That is the idea that is in direct conflict with the other idea of the Constitution.

A lot of people who were progressives don't like the idea that -- that they would be labeled, along with socialists -- not so much anymore -- or communists. But socialism, if you know your history, your was only -- I'm sorry. Progressivism was only labeled that because they didn't agree with the one thing of -- of -- of communists. And that is, revolution.

Socialism is the step between capitalism and communism. And it lead to it.

If you don't believe me, read the words of Lenin before he got into office and they had the bloody revolution. He knew people were afraid of communists. And so he is the man, Lenin, that coined the term "democratic socialist." We're not communists. We're democratic socialists. The people will vote. And they'll vote for socialism. And they did.

And then they're free to say they're communists. Now, this is, again, all earlier 20th century. But you have to know the roots of it. And Theodore Roosevelt was a nationalist and a socialist. Believed in big government progressivism. Woodrow Wilson was even more. And he was an internationalist. League of Nations. United Nations.

I contend we are having the argument that Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were having 100 years ago. Is the national socialist better or the international socialist better?

The question has to be: Is the Constitution the answer? Because the Constitution will stop you from doing all kinds of things, like meddling in people's lives, like telling them who they can and cannot marry or how they can and cannot run their business, unless it's dangerous.

The Constitution stops the meddling in international affairs and stops globalism dead in its tracks. The Constitution is the reason we didn't have a set flag. We didn't -- listen to me, we didn't have a set flag, I believe until Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt. It may have even been Wilson. You could arrange the stars any way you want. Why?

Because we won't so damn jingoistic. We believed in the concept of the flag, and it meant more than the flag itself. And it was Wilson, I believe, that went in and said, "No, we have to nationalize everything and federalize. And now here's exactly how you treat the flag." It was Wilson that gave us that, who gave us the -- the Star-Spangled Banner. FDR. We are defending these things as if they came from the Founders, when the Founders themselves didn't establish a national anything.

They respected everyone to rule themselves under the Constitution. Now, progressives will always say, "Well, the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with the Constitution." You need to understand that the Declaration of Independence has everything to do with the Constitution.

Without the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution can be anything anyone wants.

For instance, let me give you an example because I know progressives hate the Declaration of Independence. They hate it. It has nothing to do with it.

It is something for that time and that time only. Why would they be against that? Why would they be against that?

Because the Declaration of Independence is what freed the slaves, not the Constitution. The Constitution gave the ability to free the slaves. But it was the Declaration of Independence that did free the slaves. Because the argument was -- in our own documents, it says, "All men are created equal."

That was the argument. So let me show you.

I want you to think about the Constitution. Because everybody says, "God's not in the Constitution. It's nowhere in the Constitution." Of course, it's not.

The Constitution is nothing more than an engine. You know our Constitution is the most reused Constitution in the world. Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution has been used by more countries than any other document to establish governance in the history of the world.

But wait a minute. All the countries are not like America. How come?

Because the Constitution is the combustion engine. That's all it is. But I can make a truck, using that engine, and I can make a sports car using that engine.

What do you want the engine to do? Do you want it to just run some belts, to run a turbine, to put some lights on? Do you want to use it for an aircraft? Do you want to use it for a race car? Do you want to use it for a crane to help build buildings?

It is the framework. It is the principles, the framework that helps you do whatever it is you want to do.

The Bill of Rights, that's something separate. The Bill of Rights is something entirely different from the Constitution. What rights are in the Constitution? Well, actually none. They're found in the Bill of Rights, which is just as separate, came years -- in fact, I think it was Connecticut, wasn't it, or one of the states that wasn't until 1939 that they ratified the Bill of Rights.

It came years later. Separate, yet part of it. And without the Bill of Rights, the Constitution doesn't work.

Well, it works. It will create all kinds of stuff. But it won't create things with rights.

So let me take you back to the first document. Because the first document tells you what we're building. The Constitution tells you how to build it. The Declaration of Independence tells you what we're building.

There's seven things in just the opening two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence that tell you everything you need to know about America.

One: The opening -- can you read the opening line, when in the course of human events, Pat. It becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands that have tied themselves to another people.

PAT: That have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them.

GLENN: Okay. What does that mean? Separate, but equal station? They're going to assume -- what they're saying is, there comes a time -- if we're going to disband ourselves from a government, a king, somebody else that's ruling over us, we -- it's -- the only right thing to do is to state why. Why are we doing this?

We need to tell the world, and we need to really remind ourselves why we're doing this. And assume the separate, but equal stations.

So they're saying, "We're not better than the king of England." But he's not better than we are. It immediately establishes humility for our nation. We're not better than everyone else. Our Declaration of Independence says the separate, but equal station. Nobody is the boss of us. And we're not the boss of you.

But there's a more important thing that I haven't addressed in that line. And that is this: The separate, but equal station, which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them. We'll come back to that.

Then the next paragraph is -- this is why -- this is why we're breaking away from the king. Okay? Because -- listen. We think that things are pretty clear. Let me state it this way: We hold these truths to be self-evident. We think everybody knows this. But nobody has ever said it before, let alone write it down.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. And that among these are life, liberty, and I'm going to use the original word, property. Why would I use that? Because pursuit of happiness -- replace the word property -- because they felt if they put property in there, then the left -- or, I'm sorry -- then the South would say, "Well, it's in the Declaration of Independence. We have a right to property, and slaves are our property."

And then we would have had the argument, are they property, or are they men? And that would have slowed everything down. So don't give them the tool of saying that they're property.

So they changed it to something enigmatic: The pursuit of happiness. Meaning, your right to go and be your own businessperson and do what you feel and follow your spirit and go paint a cloud.

Life, liberty, and property. Here's another important part: That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. The government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. And that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to those ends -- which ends? Destructive of which ends?

It is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Now, let me go back.

They have certain unalienable rights, meaning God gave them these rights, and nobody can change them. Unalienable or inalienable. Whichever word you choose to use is -- it means you cannot change them. No one can change them. They are universal. They are -- they are the laws of nature and nature's God.

What does nature and nature's God mean?

Let's use the Second Amendment. That's not a law of God. Where in the Bible does it say you have a right to have guns, you have a right to protect yourself?

I guess you could read it through that, but it's really clear in the laws of nature.

In fact, you could use the laws of God to say, "Well, maybe you don't because he says thou shall not murder, and you can use a gun to murder." So they want to be very specific.

The laws of nature. That's the first one. Can you find that right in nature? Yeah. Nobody is going to say to me, but they'll say it about humans all the time.

Nobody is going to say, if I walk into a cave with a bear and I just want to go hug the little baby bear and the bear mom kills me, nowhere -- nowhere in the press are they going to say, "Oh, my gosh, we should destroy that bear. That bear is evil. We should declaw all bears."

They'll say, "That stupid guy went into a cave, and the bear -- the mama bear thought he was threatening the children. Of course, she tore him apart." That's the Second Amendment. Nature's law gives you the right to self-protect and to protect your family and your home.

Featured Image: The exterior of the National Constitution Center displays the opening words of the United States Constitution. (Photo Credit: Jeffrey M. Vinocur)

Warning: Stop letting TikTok activists think for you

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Bad-faith attacks on Israel and AIPAC warp every debate. Real answers emerge only when people set aside scripts and ask what serves America’s long-term interests.

The search for truth has always required something very much in short supply these days: honesty. Not performative questions, not scripted outrage, not whatever happens to be trending on TikTok, but real curiosity.

Some issues, often focused on foreign aid, AIPAC, or Israel, have become hotbeds of debate and disagreement. Before we jump into those debates, however, we must return to a simpler, more important issue: honest questioning. Without it, nothing in these debates matters.

Ask questions because you want the truth, not because you want a target.

The phrase “just asking questions” has re-entered the zeitgeist, and that’s fine. We should always question power. But too many of those questions feel preloaded with someone else’s answer. If the goal is truth, then the questions should come from a sincere desire to understand, not from a hunt for a villain.

Honest desire for truth is the only foundation that can support a real conversation about these issues.

Truth-seeking is real work

Right now, plenty of people are not seeking the truth at all. They are repeating something they heard from a politician on cable news or from a stranger on TikTok who has never opened a history book. That is not a search for answers. That is simply outsourcing your own thought.

If you want the truth, you need to work for it. You cannot treat the world like a Marvel movie where the good guy appears in a cape and the villain hisses on command. Real life does not give you a neat script with the moral wrapped up in two hours.

But that is how people are approaching politics now. They want the oppressed and the oppressor, the heroic underdog and the cartoon villain. They embrace this fantastical framing because it is easier than wrestling with reality.

This framing took root in the 1960s when the left rebuilt its worldview around colonizers and the colonized. Overnight, Zionism was recast as imperialism. Suddenly, every conflict had to fit the same script. Today’s young activists are just recycling the same narrative with updated graphics. Everything becomes a morality play. No nuance, no context, just the comforting clarity of heroes and villains.

Bad-faith questions

This same mindset is fueling the sudden obsession with Israel, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in particular. You hear it from members of Congress and activists alike: AIPAC pulls the strings, AIPAC controls the government, AIPAC should register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The questions are dramatic, but are they being asked in good faith?

FARA is clear. The standard is whether an individual or group acts under the direction or control of a foreign government. AIPAC simply does not qualify.

Here is a detail conveniently left out of these arguments: Dozens of domestic organizations — Armenian, Cuban, Irish, Turkish — lobby Congress on behalf of other countries. None of them registers under FARA because — like AIPAC — they are independent, domestic organizations.

If someone has a sincere problem with the structure of foreign lobbying, fair enough. Let us have that conversation. But singling out AIPAC alone is not a search for truth. It is bias dressed up as bravery.

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

If someone wants to question foreign aid to Israel, fine. Let’s have that debate. But let’s ask the right questions. The issue is not the size of the package but whether the aid advances our interests. What does the United States gain? Does the investment strengthen our position in the region? How does it compare to what we give other nations? And do we examine those countries with the same intensity?

The real target

These questions reflect good-faith scrutiny. But narrowing the entire argument to one country or one dollar amount misses the larger problem. If someone objects to the way America handles foreign aid, the target is not Israel. The target is the system itself — an entrenched bureaucracy, poor transparency, and decades-old commitments that have never been re-examined. Those problems run through programs around the world.

If you want answers, you need to broaden the lens. You have to be willing to put aside the movie script and confront reality. You have to hold yourself to a simple rule: Ask questions because you want the truth, not because you want a target.

That is the only way this country ever gets clarity on foreign aid, influence, alliances, and our place in the world. Questioning is not just allowed. It is essential. But only if it is honest.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A nation unravels when its shared culture is the first thing to go

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Texas now hosts Quran-first academies, Sharia-compliant housing schemes, and rapidly multiplying mosques — all part of a movement building a self-contained society apart from the country around it.

It is time to talk honestly about what is happening inside America’s rapidly growing Muslim communities. In city after city, large pockets of newcomers are choosing to build insulated enclaves rather than enter the broader American culture.

That trend is accelerating, and the longer we ignore it, the harder it becomes to address.

As Texas goes, so goes America. And as America goes, so goes the free world.

America has always welcomed people of every faith and people from every corner of the world, but the deal has never changed: You come here and you join the American family. You are free to honor your traditions, keep your faith, but you must embrace the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. You melt into the shared culture that allows all of us to live side by side.

Across the country, this bargain is being rejected by Islamist communities that insist on building a parallel society with its own rules, its own boundaries, and its own vision for how life should be lived.

Texas illustrates the trend. The state now has roughly 330 mosques. At least 48 of them were built in just the last 24 months. The Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex alone has around 200 Islamic centers. Houston has another hundred or so. Many of these communities have no interest in blending into American life.

This is not the same as past waves of immigration. Irish, Italian, Korean, Mexican, and every other group arrived with pride in their heritage. Still, they also raised American flags and wanted their children to be part of the country’s future. They became doctors, small-business owners, teachers, and soldiers. They wanted to be Americans.

What we are watching now is not the melting pot. It is isolation by design.

Parallel societies do not end well

More than 300 fundamentalist Islamic schools now operate full-time across the country. Many use Quran-first curricula that require students to spend hours memorizing religious texts before they ever reach math or science. In Dallas, Brighter Horizons Academy enrolls more than 1,700 students and draws federal support while operating on a social model that keeps children culturally isolated.

Then there is the Epic City project in Collin and Hunt counties — 402 acres originally designated only for Muslim buyers, with Sharia-compliant financing and a mega-mosque at the center. After public outcry and state investigations, the developers renamed it “The Meadows,” but a new sign does not erase the original intent. It is not a neighborhood. It is a parallel society.

Americans should not hesitate to say that parallel societies are dangerous. Europe tried this experiment, and the results could not be clearer. In Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, entire neighborhoods now operate under their own cultural rules, some openly hostile to Western norms. When citizens speak up, they are branded bigots for asserting a basic right: the ability to live safely in their own communities.

A crisis of confidence

While this separation widens, another crisis is unfolding at home. A recent Gallup survey shows that about 40% of American women ages 18 to 39 would leave the country permanently if given the chance. Nearly half of a rising generation — daughters, sisters, soon-to-be mothers — no longer believe this nation is worth building a future in.

And who shapes the worldview of young boys? Their mothers. If a mother no longer believes America is home, why would her child grow up ready to defend it?

As Texas goes, so goes America. And as America goes, so goes the free world. If we lose confidence in our own national identity at the same time that we allow separatist enclaves to spread unchecked, the outcome is predictable. Europe is already showing us what comes next: cultural fracture, political radicalization, and the slow death of national unity.

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Stand up and tell the truth

America welcomes Muslims. America defends their right to worship freely. A Muslim who loves the Constitution, respects the rule of law, and wants to raise a family in peace is more than welcome in America.

But an Islamist movement that rejects assimilation, builds enclaves governed by its own religious framework, and treats American law as optional is not simply another participant in our melting pot. It is a direct challenge to it. If we refuse to call this problem out out of fear of being called names, we will bear the consequences.

Europe is already feeling those consequences — rising conflict and a political class too paralyzed to admit the obvious. When people feel their culture, safety, and freedoms slipping away, they will follow anyone who promises to defend them. History has shown that over and over again.

Stand up. Speak plainly. Be unafraid. You can practice any faith in this country, but the supremacy of the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian moral framework that shaped it is non-negotiable. It is what guarantees your freedom in the first place.

If you come here and honor that foundation, welcome. If you come here to undermine it, you do not belong here.

Wake up to what is unfolding before the consequences arrive. Because when a nation refuses to say what is true, the truth eventually forces its way in — and by then, it is always too late.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Shocking: AI-written country song tops charts, sparks soul debate

VCG / Contributor | Getty Images

A machine can imitate heartbreak well enough to top the charts, but it cannot carry grief, choose courage, or hear the whisper that calls human beings to something higher.

The No. 1 country song in America right now was not written in Nashville or Texas or even L.A. It came from code. “Walk My Walk,” the AI-generated single by the AI artist Breaking Rust, hit the top spot on Billboard’s Country Digital Song Sales chart, and if you listen to it without knowing that fact, you would swear a real singer lived the pain he is describing.

Except there is no “he.” There is no lived experience. There is no soul behind the voice dominating the country music charts.

If a machine can imitate the soul, then what is the soul?

I will admit it: I enjoy some AI music. Some of it is very good. And that leaves us with a question that is no longer science fiction. If a machine can fake being human this well, what does it mean to be human?

A new world of artificial experience

This is not just about one song. We are walking straight into a technological moment that will reshape everyday life.

Elon Musk said recently that we may not even have phones in five years. Instead, we will carry a small device that listens, anticipates, and creates — a personal AI agent that knows what we want to hear before we ask. It will make the music, the news, the podcasts, the stories. We already live in digital bubbles. Soon, those bubbles might become our own private worlds.

If an algorithm can write a hit country song about hardship and perseverance without a shred of actual experience, then the deeper question becomes unavoidable: If a machine can imitate the soul, then what is the soul?

What machines can never do

A machine can produce, and soon it may produce better than we can. It can calculate faster than any human mind. It can rearrange the notes and words of a thousand human songs into something that sounds real enough to fool millions.

But it cannot care. It cannot love. It cannot choose right and wrong. It cannot forgive because it cannot be hurt. It cannot stand between a child and danger. It cannot walk through sorrow.

A machine can imitate the sound of suffering. It cannot suffer.

The difference is the soul. The divine spark. The thing God breathed into man that no code will ever have. Only humans can take pain and let it grow into compassion. Only humans can take fear and turn it into courage. Only humans can rebuild their lives after losing everything. Only humans hear the whisper inside, the divine voice that says, “Live for something greater.”

We are building artificial minds. We are not building artificial life.

Questions that define us

And as these artificial minds grow sharper, as their tools become more convincing, the right response is not panic. It is to ask the oldest and most important questions.

Who am I? Why am I here? What is the meaning of freedom? What is worth defending? What is worth sacrificing for?

That answer is not found in a lab or a server rack. It is found in that mysterious place inside each of us where reason meets faith, where suffering becomes wisdom, where God reminds us we are more than flesh and more than thought. We are not accidents. We are not circuits. We are not replaceable.

Europa Press News / Contributor | Getty Images

The miracle machines can never copy

Being human is not about what we can produce. Machines will outproduce us. That is not the question. Being human is about what we can choose. We can choose to love even when it costs us something. We can choose to sacrifice when it is not easy. We can choose to tell the truth when the world rewards lies. We can choose to stand when everyone else bows. We can create because something inside us will not rest until we do.

An AI content generator can borrow our melodies, echo our stories, and dress itself up like a human soul, but it cannot carry grief across a lifetime. It cannot forgive an enemy. It cannot experience wonder. It cannot look at a broken world and say, “I am going to build again.”

The age of machines is rising. And if we do not know who we are, we will shrink. But if we use this moment to remember what makes us human, it will help us to become better, because the one thing no algorithm will ever recreate is the miracle that we exist at all — the miracle of the human soul.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Is Socialism seducing a lost generation?

Jeremy Weine / Stringer | Getty Images

A generation that’s lost faith in capitalism is turning to the oldest lie on earth: equality through control.

Something is breaking in America’s young people. You can feel it in every headline, every grocery bill, every young voice quietly asking if the American dream still means anything at all.

For many, the promise of America — work hard, build something that lasts, and give the next generation a better start — feels like it no longer exists. Home ownership and stability have become luxuries for a fortunate few.

Capitalism is not a perfect system. It is flawed because people are flawed, but it remains the only system that rewards creativity and effort rather than punishing them.

In that vacuum of hope, a new promise has begun to rise — one that sounds compassionate, equal, and fair. The promise of socialism.

The appeal of a broken dream

When the American dream becomes a checklist of things few can afford — a home, a car, two children, even a little peace — disappointment quickly turns to resentment. The average first-time homebuyer is now 40 years old. Debt lasts longer than marriages. The cost of living rises faster than opportunity.

For a generation that has never seen the system truly work, capitalism feels like a rigged game built to protect those already at the top.

That is where socialism finds its audience. It presents itself as fairness for the forgotten and justice for the disillusioned. It speaks softly at first, offering equality, compassion, and control disguised as care.

We are seeing that illusion play out now in New York City, where Zohran Mamdani — an open socialist — has won a major political victory. The same ideology that once hid behind euphemisms now campaigns openly throughout America’s once-great cities. And for many who feel left behind, it sounds like salvation.

But what socialism calls fairness is submission dressed as virtue. What it calls order is obedience. Once the system begins to replace personal responsibility with collective dependence, the erosion of liberty is only a matter of time.

The bridge that never ends

Socialism is not a destination; it is a bridge. Karl Marx described it as the necessary transition to communism — the scaffolding that builds the total state. Under socialism, people are taught to obey. Under communism, they forget that any other options exist.

History tells the story clearly. Russia, China, Cambodia, Cuba — each promised equality and delivered misery. One hundred million lives were lost, not because socialism failed, but because it succeeded at what it was designed to do: make the state supreme and the individual expendable.

Today’s advocates insist their version will be different — democratic, modern, and kind. They often cite Sweden as an example, but Sweden’s prosperity was never born of socialism. It grew out of capitalism, self-reliance, and a shared moral culture. Now that system is cracking under the weight of bureaucracy and division.

ANGELA WEISS / Contributor | Getty Images

The real issue is not economic but moral. Socialism begins with a lie about human nature — that people exist for the collective and that the collective knows better than the individual.

This lie is contrary to the truths on which America was founded — that rights come not from government’s authority, but from God’s. Once government replaces that authority, compassion becomes control, and freedom becomes permission.

What young America deserves

Young Americans have many reasons to be frustrated. They were told to study, work hard, and follow the rules — and many did, only to find the goalposts moved again and again. But tearing down the entire house does not make it fairer; it only leaves everyone standing in the rubble.

Capitalism is not a perfect system. It is flawed because people are flawed, but it remains the only system that rewards creativity and effort rather than punishing them. The answer is not revolution but renewal — moral, cultural, and spiritual.

It means restoring honesty to markets, integrity to government, and faith to the heart of our nation. A people who forsake God will always turn to government for salvation, and that road always ends in dependency and decay.

Freedom demands something of us. It requires faith, discipline, and courage. It expects citizens to govern themselves before others govern them. That is the truth this generation deserves to hear again — that liberty is not a gift from the state but a calling from God.

Socialism always begins with promises and ends with permission. It tells you what to drive, what to say, what to believe, all in the name of fairness. But real fairness is not everyone sharing the same chains — it is everyone having the same chance.

The American dream was never about guarantees. It was about the right to try, to fail, and try again. That freedom built the most prosperous nation in history, and it can do so again if we remember that liberty is not a handout but a duty.

Socialism does not offer salvation. It requires subservience.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.