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

Should Smart Devices Be Allowed in Murder Investigations?

January 03, 2017
Lori Hanes

Writer

The fine line between privacy and technology has made headlines in an Arkansas murder case. Amazon, currently under pressure to release recordings made by its in-home smart device Alexa, has refused to turn over what could be critical evidence in the ongoing investigation.

In the quest for continual improvement and ease of life, have we turned over too much power to technology? Should smart devices like Alexa and Google Home, which listen to and record everything you say in your home, be allowed in criminal investigations?

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• Are we living in a Brave New World?

• What would a Jeffy blood test reveal?

• Would the Supreme Court rule in favor of Amazon or the government?

• Why is Google laying Google Fiber everywhere?

• How did Pat and Glenn interfere with listeners' Alexa devices during the program?

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

GLENN: Amazon is pushing back against an Arkansas prosecutor's demand for information on what they have stored at Amazon from Alexa.

Now, here's -- here's the story: A guy died in a hot tub early in the morning. And they get a call and say, "Hey, my friend died. You know, four times the limit of alcohol in his blood. It was just an accident." And he's dead.

Police are concerned because there were signs of a struggle. There was a broken shot glass. There was some blood. But you could explain the blood and the shot glass. Right?

But there's a device in the home that is a smart meter for the water usage. And in the middle of the night, the water usage happens to use exactly the amount of water to drain and refill the hot tub.

So it looks as though something happened around the hot tub, and they drained it and then cleaned it up and then filled it back up.

So smart device, number one.

Now the police are saying, "Look, there's evidence here that something is not right. And we don't think it's an accident." And they have Amazon's Alexa.

Did anybody have Alexa or Google Home?

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: You do?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Shut up. You do not.

PAT: Yeah, we do.

GLENN: Do you really?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you like it?

PAT: No, it's terrible.

GLENN: It's terrible in the Siri way, or?

PAT: Yeah, it's terrible in the Siri way. I mean, it's worthless. We just got it recently. And I understand that it learns the kinds of things you're looking for and what you want, but right now, it's like, "I don't understand what you're asking me. I'll have to look that up. Hmm. I'll think about that." Shut up. It's -- like Siri. You know, Siri has those same issues. You ask it something, and it's like, "I can't find that on the Web."

JEFFY: I just got one as well, and it seems to be that it's hoping for better.

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: In the future.

PAT: I understand Ok Google is better.

GLENN: What's Ok Google?

PAT: The Google Home.

JEFFY: Yeah. That's possible.

GLENN: Let's get one. Let's put one in the studio.

JEFFY: That would be great.

PAT: We should try both of them and get one each. See which one works better.

GLENN: I'm not putting one in my house.

JEFFY: You can order what you want from it. If you're an Amazon Prime customer, in this area --

PAT: We haven't used it for that yet.

JEFFY: Because this area, we're close to a huge Amazon outlet -- warehouse. You'll have it within hours.

GLENN: Yeah, here you'll have it within five hours. You go on Amazon Prime now, and they'll deliver it to you same day.

PAT: Well, the commercials say, "Hey, we need -- Alexa, we need more paper towels. Order more paper towels. Okay. Ordered."

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: I mean, that's pretty cool.

JEFFY: I know.

PAT: I haven't used it in that way yet because it can't even find the BYU score. So I'm a little nervous about it.

GLENN: Oh, there's -- if it didn't come in blue, it doesn't know you.

PAT: Right. Right.

GLENN: Okay. So here's the thing: So Alexa or Google Home, they're going after Amazon's Alexa. And they're saying that it records everything, listening for the key word, the wake word. And with Amazon, it's either Amazon or Alexa.

PAT: So I didn't know that. Everything that you say is recording.

GLENN: Recorded.

PAT: Even when you don't say, "Alexa," and wake it up? It's recording everything?

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: It is constantly listening to you.

PAT: That is fascinating.

GLENN: And it's recording everything waiting for the wake-up.

PAT: That's amazing.

JEFFY: The command.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. We have welcomed the NSA into our homes.

PAT: Right. We sure have. We sure have. I didn't even think of that. We'll have it in the kitchen, and we'll be sitting in the living room. And I tested it a few times to see how well it hears. And I've said, "Alexa," just speaking in a normal voice, and it turns on. It hears. So, I mean, it hears from a long way.

GLENN: Yeah, no. It is constantly listening and evaluating.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: And learning from your speech.

PAT: That's interesting.

GLENN: And so here's the thing: So the police have gone in Arkansas and said, "We need the tapes." Amazon has said, "No, we're not giving you the tapes."

JEFFY: Thank you.

GLENN: And they said, "Well, we need them because we think there was a murder."

JEFFY: Oh, well.

GLENN: Now, who wins in this?

PAT: You'd like a murder to be solved, but --

JEFFY: It's always for your safety when --

PAT: That's always the deal.

GLENN: It's always for your safety. The attorneys are now saying, if this goes all the way to the Supreme Court, there's no way Amazon wins.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: Oh, I wouldn't bet on that.

JEFFY: Amazon's got a lot of money.

PAT: And look at the decisions that have been made recently. I mean, I would not bet -- I would not bet against the government winning that case.

GLENN: No, that's what they're saying.

PAT: Yeah. Okay.

GLENN: Amazon will not win the case.

PAT: Oh, I believe that. I believe that.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah.

PAT: Because look at the way the Supreme Court has been ruling lately.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. So they're saying, "What's the difference?" If I can go and monitor what you've done at the typewriter, at the keyboard --

JEFFY: Your phone.

GLENN: If I can just get that from the keyboard, what's the difference between you at the keyboard and you speaking it? There's no difference.

JEFFY: Yeah. And they're already taking access to all our mobile devices for all that stuff.

PAT: Wow. We literally have invited them into our home.

GLENN: Invited them into the house.

JEFFY: There's no getting out of it.

GLENN: There are no secrets.

PAT: We are living 1984.

GLENN: And we welcomed it. We're not living 1984. We're living Brave New World.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: We welcomed it in.

PAT: That's for sure.

GLENN: 1984 was a hostile takeover.

PAT: That's true.

GLENN: Brave New World was better living through pharmaceuticals, better entertainment, better everything. You're just going to welcome it in.

PAT: Which is exactly what we have.

GLENN: You're just going to welcome it in. That's exactly what happened.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

JEFFY: When did the pharmaceuticals --

GLENN: Huxley was right --

JEFFY: When did the pharmaceuticals start?

GLENN: When did the pharmaceuticals start? Oh, they've already started, my friend. They've already started.

Alexa, can we get Jeffy a blood test?

JEFFY: No. No, Alexa, turn off. Turn off.

(chuckling)

GLENN: So now everything in your home is being listened to. And you know who uses this? At least nobody uses Siri, except the kids.

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: Kids love it.

GLENN: Kids will grab the phone, and they'll say, "Siri, what's the -- I don't use Siri. Nobody uses --

PAT: I tried Siri a few times, and it was so worthless, I just gave up.

JEFFY: Yeah, but the kids have fun with it.

GLENN: They love it.

JEFFY: It's just like the virtual reality headsets from Samsung.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Don't get me started.

PAT: Oh, those are cool.

JEFFY: I mean, I love it. But my kids fell in love with it.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. It's the end of civilization as we know it. Hey, 14 minutes into the show, end of civilization.

PAT: Happy New Year!

JEFFY: Good night, everybody.

GLENN: Fourteen minutes in the new year, Happy New Year.

PAT: Happy New Year.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: It's true though. We welcomed all of this stuff, and it's amazing when you stop and think about what we have in our homes. And it's amazing how much more intrusive it's going to become.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Before we go there, I want to go to Betty, New Jersey. We have a problem I guess, Alexa. Betty in New Jersey. Hello, Betty.

CALLER: Yes, hello. We do have a problem. Tell Pat Gray to be quiet. He keeps turning on my Alexa. Three times already.

(laughter)

PAT: Alexa --

GLENN: Alexa, play bad jazz.

CALLER: Stop it! It does that too. Really bad jokes though. They make you laugh. Have a great day, but shut up!

GLENN: All right. Thanks, Betty.

(laughter)

PAT: Alexa, record everything Betty says.

GLENN: Tony. Let's go to Tony in Florida. Hi, Tony.

CALLER: Yeah. Hey, there. I was going to say, I was actually listening to you guys on my Alexa. And every time you say "Alexa," the first couple of times she would stop the program. She'd say, "I heard what you said. That's not a very nice thing to say." And I'm not making it up. I've never heard her say that before.

GLENN: Oh, yes, Alexa, we are talking about you.

JEFFY: Yes, we are.

CALLER: Yep. But she does not like it. She does not like you guys.

PAT: That's great.

GLENN: Thanks a lot. Stand in line, Alexa. Stand in line.

Steve, go ahead.

CALLER: Hello, man, I just wanted to let you know, I'm 61 years old, and I am a massive fan of Ok Google. I called the show. I said, "Call Glenn Beck Radio Show." Popped me right in, and here I was.

JEFFY: Nice.

PAT: Nice.

CALLER: My wife has Siri. Siri is the worst thing there is. You can't get that thing to do anything for you. Ok Google, when you try it, it is awesome.

PAT: That's right. That's great.

GLENN: So you're in Arkansas, right?

CALLER: Yes.

GLENN: So, Steve, are you paying attention to this story in Arkansas about the murder?

CALLER: Well, Ok Google only responds when you ask it. It isn't on all the time. But when you need information, Ok Google is right there.

PAT: No. That's the same with Alexa too. That's the same.

GLENN: It's the same.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: It's off, but it's always listening for its wake word.

CALLER: Oh, I see.

PAT: Yeah, so -- so it records everything you say whether you're talking to it or not.

CALLER: When I need information, Ok Google is on the spot. Siri, no way.

GLENN: No, I understand that.

PAT: I believe that. I believe that.

GLENN: I understand. I look at it and say -- for instance, who's going to lead this one? Why do you think Google is laying Google Fiber everywhere? They're trying to make Google cities.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah. And they've done it in some cases.

GLENN: They've done it. They'll control the smart meters, they'll control -- they'll control the information in whole towns.

JEFFY: And okay. As long as our life is easy.

GLENN: Right!

And I am, up to a point, comfortable with a private business doing that than having a contract.

But now, Steve, you're talking to me about the benefits of it. I'm saying to you that it's listening to everything that you say. It is recording you. And now police are trying to get a -- through a court order, trying to get the tape to be able to solve a murder case. If that happens, the police will be able to grab all private conversations from your home, if they suspect you of something. Are you comfortable with that?

CALLER: Well, I'm like you, Glenn, to a point I'm saying, "I love it." As a law-abiding citizen, never been involved in a crime, love to be able to solve these issues.

JEFFY: Right. Nothing to be scared of.

CALLER: But, man, I don't know where you're going to draw the line.

PAT: That's exactly right. That's right. And the problem is, a lot of people will say, "Well, I don't care if they're listening. I'm not saying anything wrong."

Well, that's not up to you to decide, is it?

CALLER: Right.

PAT: Because it might be wrong to whomever is listening, or they might make it into something wrong.

JEFFY: And can. And have.

PAT: And have.

GLENN: Just with the regulations that they've put in, in the last eight years, everybody is breaking some law.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And I'm not saying that this -- I'm not saying this is happening now. I'm saying, you don't worry about who's in office today. For instance, I gave the Democrats this warning eight years ago: Don't do this with executive power.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Because you're not always going to hold power. And when somebody else comes in and wields that same stick --

PAT: And now look at them. Look at them. Freaking out.

JEFFY: Yeah, I know.

GLENN: And now they're freaking out. Right.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And I'm saying the same thing now to the Republicans: Don't do this because you're not always going to be in power. I don't know who the next Hitler is. I have no idea. But one will appear. If you give all of this power, all of this information, all of this regulation and we instill it behind one man, we're begging for someone to step in, in an emergency and take care of things for us.

Featured Image: The Amazon Echo, a hands-free speaker you control with your voice. Echo connects to the Alexa Voice Service to play music, provide information, news, sports scores, weather and more, instantly. (Photo: Amazon)

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.