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

Matt Walsh Slams the UK Over the Case of Charlie Gard, 'Every Life Is of Infinite Value'

July 06, 2017
Staff

WRITER

The story of Charlie Gard is a heartwrenching and tragic tale of what socialzed medicince has to offer. Matt Walsh is a Blaze contributor and author of the article that shed light on this story in America on an issue that has divided England for months and he joined Glenn on radio Thursday to dig a little deeper on the issues.

"Slate has written an article, 'the right is turning the Charlie Gard tragedy into a case against single-payer health care. It's just the opposite.' That's their headline. First of all, is this not a case against single-payer health care?" Glenn asked.

This should be a simple and easy case to resolve but this is the huge pitfall of single payer healthcare.

"This is a very basic, no-brainer case, that the parents should be able to go get treatment for the child, period. There's no other way of looking at it. There's no other way that a sane person can look at it. But, second, that's the whole point. This is what we're trying to avoid, this idea of weighing the one against the many. It's health care, it's not supposed to be that way. We don't look at Charlie Gard and say, 'Well, let's weigh him against 1,000 people,'" Walsh said.

"He is one individual. Every life is of infinite value. And that's how all those lives -- all of them should be treated when they're in the hospital. Certainly, parents should have the right to treat their own children's lives that way."

GLENN: Matt Walsh. One of the clearest thinkers available today. And that's saying something because there are not a lot of clear thinkers out there. They're hard to find.

Matt Walsh, you'll find at TheBlaze.com. He's got a book out, The Unholy Trinity: Blocking the Left's Assault on Life, Marriage, and Gender. Make sure you pick it up if you're a fan of Matt Walsh. Make sure you grab the book. And also, you can find him at TheBlaze.com.

Matt, welcome to the program.

MATT: Hey, Glenn, thanks for having me.

GLENN: So you were the one who has really brought this story to the attention of -- of America, the Charlie Gard story, the story of this 11-month-old child who has been fighting for his life against the socialized medicine situation in England for months. I -- I can tell you why they're not covering it here in America. How are they covering it over in England?

MATT: Over there, it's been, as you said, for months, it's been -- it's been -- you know, the story has been all over the place. The parents have been all over their, you know, kind of prime time shows. And it's been sort of like what the Schiavo case was here, in terms of just the intensity of coverage.

GLENN: Are they as divided as we were with Schiavo?

MATT: Yeah. From my reading of the situation, they're just as divided. And it kind of cuts down the same lines. Although, I think in Europe you may have fewer who are sort of on the pro-life side than you do here, although we don't have that many here anymore too.

GLENN: Well, I don't remember if you remember this, Matt. But, Pat, play the audio clip. This is from a few years ago on like their breakfast show on the BBC. This is a guest, and they're talking about socialized medicine and what to do with undesirable children. Listen to this.

VOICE: This may strike your listeners as way out --

GLENN: No, this is not it.

VOICE: And I think if I were a mother of a suffering child, I would be the first to want -- I mean, a deeply suffering child, I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face.

PAT: Good golly.

VOICE: And I think the difference is that my feeling of horror, suffering, is much greater than my feeling of getting rid of a couple of cells, because suffering can go on for years.

GLENN: Whoa.

VOICE: I'm sorry. We're just about to introduce another guest there, but that's a pretty horrifying thing to say.

VOICE: What?

PAT: What?

VOICE: That you would put the pillow over the --

VOICE: Of course I would. If it was a child I really loved that was in agony, I think any good mother would.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Wow.

Matt, where is this coming from?

MATT: Now, that you played that, I do remember that. And that is -- just the idea that you're going to kill your own child out of love. This idea of killing out of love -- it's not any different than you hear these horrifying cases of mentally disturbed mothers. What about Andrea Yates who drowned her five kids in a bathtub and did it because she loved them? How is that any different?

It's no different. So once you start going down this train, that's where it heads. But where it comes from, we know all across the West, it's just a fundamental inability some people have to recognize that life is sacred, to recognize that life has inherent value. So you start seeing -- they see someone and they say, "Oh, they're suffering. They're disabled. Or they're poor," or they've got these other external factors that make their life less desirable. Well, you might as well get rid of them. Because there's no reason to keep them around.

So there's this kind of, like, utilitarian, materialistic view of life. That, as long as it's useful, as long as it's pleasurable, as long as it's convenient to those around it and to itself, then we keep it around. But once that ends, then we get rid of it. And it's just a -- it's a -- that's what I tried to explain when I wrote about it.

Once you've put yourself on that side of the argument -- and this is not hyperbole, you have put yourself on the same side of all of the worst people in the history of the earth. And all of the worst atrocities that have ever been committed, have always been committed with that kind of thinking. So you place yourself on that side. And good luck to you in that case.

GLENN: So, Matt, do you find any cause of concern? Have you read what the pope actually said, not just the release, but -- or the newspaper account from it, but what he actually -- the entire thing?

MATT: Yeah. Well, this is the story with the Vatican. At first, the -- you know, the Vatican comes out with a statement that all but explicitly endorses the courts and the hospital and takes their side in it, which was horrifying. I mean, I couldn't -- as cynical as I am, especially about this pope sometimes, I couldn't even -- I couldn't believe that. I couldn't believe that they actually did that.

Because we need -- we need the Vatican and the Catholic church to be pro-life, to be -- it's been one of the only pro-life institutions left standing. The idea that that would go away, to me, especially as a Catholic, I just couldn't stomach it. But then the pope comes out -- he sends out kind of a vague tweet. And then he comes out and he says that we need to support the child. And the Vatican offers to take the child into the Vatican Hospital, which, of course, the other hospital declines that.

But it's the same story. Where there's kind of conflicted messages. And obviously Pope Francis doesn't have control of what's going on there. But to me, it's still not enough. I need the pope to come out in stronger language and actually -- I know he doesn't like doing this kind of thing. But he needs to. Actually condemn --

GLENN: He condemns capitalism -- he condemns a lot of things. But he did not condemn the snuffing out of this child's life. And here's what he said: The complexity of the situation and the heart rendering pain of the parents and the efforts of so many to determine what is best for Charlie, we have to acknowledge we do sometimes, have to recognize the limitations of what can be done in modern medicine.

Well, where is the talk about, you know, the sanctity of all life? Where is the talk about miracles?

I mean, I don't understand this. We would stop all cancer treatment, except for the most benign of cancers. We would be doing experiments with people who are in stage four cancer. We would just say, you know what, let's accept the limits of modern medicine.

If we stop trying to save lives, medicine stops moving forward. Doesn't it?

MATT: Yeah. Well, it defeats the entire purpose of medicine. But that's the problem, once you introduced as we have in the last -- once you've introduced abortion and you introduce euthanasia -- and keep in mind, that in Europe, in some countries in Europe, you can get euthanasia -- even if you're not terminally ill, they give euthanasia to alcoholics, depressives, to children. So they're just getting rid of everybody on both ends of the spectrum over there, and it's completely perverted the whole concept of medicine, which is always to do no harm. Hippocratic oath. To always treat and heal and do what you can.

And that's the thing that's so horrifying, that the Vatican missed this aspect. Not just -- you know, it's bad enough that they didn't say enough on the sanctity of life issue of it, but this is -- the fundamental issue here is that the parents have their own money. And they just want to take what was donated to them -- they just want to take the kid, bring them to America, and just try, try something, rather than just letting him die. I mean, of course, any parent would want to do that if they had the means to do it. So this is just -- it's just -- I'm speechless.

GLENN: Slate has written an article: The right is turning the Charlie Gard tragedy into a case against single-payer health care. It's just the opposite. That's their headline.

And, first of all, is this not a case against single-payer health care? Even though these -- these parents have the money, once you're trapped into that system, that system must be absolute. You can't let people make their own decisions. So it must be absolute.

Is that not the only reason why they're not allowing this child to leave the hospital? Because the state must have control and be able to say, "I have the control of God over life and death and what you do once you check into our system." It's hotel California.

MATT: Yeah, this is all about -- of course. That's Slate for you, always missing the point. But that's -- of course, this -- it's about single-payer health care and it's about the sanctity of life. Those are the two issues that this is about, and about parental rights too. So those are the three. And it's all linked, of course. And the issue is: Who should have the final say on these kinds of medical decisions? Should it be the patient or the patient's caregiver, the parent, or should it be the state? Those -- that's the question. When it comes down to it, who decides what kind of treatment is given and which lives are worth saving?

And in a single-payer health care system, of course, it will be given control over to the government, so the government is going to make those decisions. Because it's all about efficiency. And it's all about, well, let's not waste our time or precious resources on this life that's going to die anyway, which is a really troubling way of looking at it. Because, hey, we're all going to die anyway. Like you pointed out, Glenn, cancer. I mean, there are many kinds of cancer that can be treated. But it probably will shorten your life span, even if you get past the first bout of it. I mean, there are many diseases like that.

So once you start traveling down this road, it goes to some really dark places. And it's astounding to me that so many people fail to see that because it's so obvious to me.

GLENN: Matt Walsh, the author of the article that I believe was the first article really to bring this to light in America, the story of Charlie Gard.

Slate writes -- and just think about what you just said, Matt. Slate writes: The right will raise the specter of death panels, which you just said, who makes the decision of who lives or who dies? Which is exactly what's happening. These outlets have turned one hard case into a sweeping referendum on the inherent justice and effectiveness of socialized medicine.

It's as if the death of one child matters, but the death of thousands is the cost of reform. Or as if intervening in one complex and tragic case is heroic, but building a system that would prevent the suffering of many is more intolerable overreach. How do you respond?

MATT: Well, that is -- first of all, I don't want to get too sidetracked. But this is not a hard case. This is not a hard case. This is a very basic, no-brainer case, that the parents should be able to go get treatment for the child, period. There's no other way of looking at it. There's no other way that a sane person can look at it. But, second, that's the whole point. This is what we're trying to avoid, this idea of weighing the one against the many. It -- health care, it's not supposed to be that way. We don't look at Charlie Gard and say, "Well, let's weigh him against 1,000 people."

He is one individual. Every life is of infinite value. And that's how all those lives -- all of them should be treated when they're in the hospital. Certainly, parents should have the right to treat their own children's lives that way.

And so we don't want to get into a situation where the government is coming in and sort of -- they have their formulas and their statistics, and they kind of have everybody on a spreadsheet. And they decide, "Well, let's emphasize this life over that one." We don't want to do that at all. That's the whole point -- we're trying to avoid that.

So that's why you allow individuals to make the decisions. And you allow the free market to reign, so that we don't have these kinds of weighing this against that. Because it shouldn't be. There's no reason for it to be that way. There's no reason we should have to weigh Charlie Gard's life against anything else because the parents have the money and they just want to get him treatment. And so they should be able to do it. That's it. We don't look at anything else or any other situations. They should be able to do what they want to do and have the resources and capability to do it.

GLENN: Matt, thank you very much. You can follow Matt at TheBlaze. Also, follow him at Matt Walsh Blog. And look for his podcast at SoundCloud.com. Matt Walsh.

Shocking shift: America’s youth lured by the “Socialism trap”

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.

Rage isn’t conservatism — THIS is what true patriots stand for

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

Conservatism is not about rage or nostalgia. It’s about moral clarity, national renewal, and guarding the principles that built America’s freedom.

Our movement is at a crossroads, and the question before us is simple: What does it mean to be a conservative in America today?

For years, we have been told what we are against — against the left, against wokeism, against decline. But opposition alone does not define a movement, and it certainly does not define a moral vision.

We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.

The media, as usual, are eager to supply their own answer. The New York Times recently suggested that Nick Fuentes represents the “future” of conservatism. That’s nonsense — a distortion of both truth and tradition. Fuentes and those like him do not represent American conservatism. They represent its counterfeit.

Real conservatism is not rage. It is reverence. It does not treat the past as a museum, but as a teacher. America’s founders asked us to preserve their principles and improve upon their practice. That means understanding what we are conserving — a living covenant, not a relic.

Conservatism as stewardship

In 2025, conservatism means stewardship — of a nation, a culture, and a moral inheritance too precious to abandon. To conserve is not to freeze history. It is to stand guard over what is essential. We are custodians of an experiment in liberty that rests on the belief that rights come not from kings or Congress, but from the Creator.

That belief built this country. It will be what saves it. The Constitution is a covenant between generations. Conservatism is the duty to keep that covenant alive — to preserve what works, correct what fails, and pass on both wisdom and freedom to those who come next.

Economics, culture, and morality are inseparable. Debt is not only fiscal; it is moral. Spending what belongs to the unborn is theft. Dependence is not compassion; it is weakness parading as virtue. A society that trades responsibility for comfort teaches citizens how to live as slaves.

Freedom without virtue is not freedom; it is chaos. A culture that mocks faith cannot defend liberty, and a nation that rejects truth cannot sustain justice. Conservatism must again become the moral compass of a disoriented people, reminding America that liberty survives only when anchored to virtue.

Rebuilding what is broken

We cannot define ourselves by what we oppose. We must build families, communities, and institutions that endure. Government is broken because education is broken, and education is broken because we abandoned the formation of the mind and the soul. The work ahead is competence, not cynicism.

Conservatives should embrace innovation and technology while rejecting the chaos of Silicon Valley. Progress must not come at the expense of principle. Technology must strengthen people, not replace them. Artificial intelligence should remain a servant, never a master. The true strength of a nation is not measured by data or bureaucracy, but by the quiet webs of family, faith, and service that hold communities together. When Washington falters — and it will — those neighborhoods must stand.

Eric Lee / Stringer | Getty Images

This is the real work of conservatism: to conserve what is good and true and to reform what has decayed. It is not about slogans; it is about stewardship — the patient labor of building a civilization that remembers what it stands for.

A creed for the rising generation

We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.

For the rising generation, conservatism cannot be nostalgia. It must be more than a memory of 9/11 or admiration for a Reagan era they never lived through. Many young Americans did not experience those moments — and they should not have to in order to grasp the lessons they taught and the truths they embodied. The next chapter is not about preserving relics but renewing purpose. It must speak to conviction, not cynicism; to moral clarity, not despair.

Young people are searching for meaning in a culture that mocks truth and empties life of purpose. Conservatism should be the moral compass that reminds them freedom is responsibility and that faith, family, and moral courage remain the surest rebellions against hopelessness.

To be a conservative in 2025 is to defend the enduring principles of American liberty while stewarding the culture, the economy, and the spirit of a free people. It is to stand for truth when truth is unfashionable and to guard moral order when the world celebrates chaos.

We are not merely holding the torch. We are relighting it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck: Here's what's WRONG with conservatism today

Getty Images / Handout | Getty Images

What does it mean to be a conservative in 2025? Glenn offers guidance on what conservatives need to do to ensure the conservative movement doesn't fade into oblivion. We have to get back to PRINCIPLES, not policies.

To be a conservative in 2025 means to STAND

  • for Stewardship, protecting the wisdom of our Founders;
  • for Truth, defending objective reality in an age of illusion;
  • for Accountability, living within our means as individuals and as a nation;
  • for Neighborhood, rebuilding family, faith, and local community;
  • and for Duty, carrying freedom forward to the next generation.

A conservative doesn’t cling to the past — he stands guard over the principles that make the future possible.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I'm so tired of being against everything. Saying what we're not.

It's time that we start saying what we are. And it's hard, because we're changing. It's different to be a conservative, today, than it was, you know, years ago.

And part of that is just coming from hard knocks. School of hard knocks. We've learned a lot of lessons on things we thought we were for. No, no, no.

But conservatives. To be a conservative, it shouldn't be about policies. It's really about principles. And that's why we've lost our way. Because we've lost our principles. And it's easy. Because the world got easy. And now the world is changing so rapidly. The boundaries between truth and illusion are blurred second by second. Machines now think. Currencies falter. Families fractured. And nations, all over the world, have forgotten who they are.

So what does it mean to be a conservative now, in 2025, '26. For a lot of people, it means opposing the left. That's -- that's a reaction. That's not renewal.

That's a reaction. It can't mean also worshiping the past, as if the past were perfect. The founders never asked for that.

They asked that we would preserve the principles and perfect their practice. They knew it was imperfect. To make a more perfect nation.

Is what we're supposed to be doing.

2025, '26 being a conservative has to mean stewardship.

The stewardship of a nation, of a civilization.

Of a moral inheritance. That is too precious to abandon.

What does it mean to conserve? To conserve something doesn't mean to stand still.

It means to stand guard. It means to defend what the Founders designed. The separation of powers. The rule of law.

The belief that our rights come not from kings or from Congress, but from the creator himself.
This is a system that was not built for ease. It was built for endurance, and it will endure if we only teach it again!

The problem is, we only teach it like it's a museum piece. You know, it's not a museum piece. It's not an old dusty document. It's a living covenant between the dead, the living and the unborn.

So this chapter of -- of conservatism. Must confront reality. Economic reality.

Global reality.

And moral reality.

It's not enough just to be against something. Or chant tax cuts or free markets.

We have to ask -- we have to start with simple questions like freedom, yes. But freedom for what?

Freedom for economic sovereignty. Your right to produce and to innovate. To build without asking Beijing's permission. That's a moral issue now.

Another moral issue: Debt! It's -- it's generational theft. We're spending money from generations we won't even meet.

And dependence. Another moral issue. It's a national weakness.

People cannot stand up for themselves. They can't make it themselves. And we're encouraging them to sit down, shut up, and don't think.

And the conservative who can't connect with fiscal prudence, and connect fiscal prudence to moral duty, you're not a conservative at all.

Being a conservative today, means you have to rebuild an economy that serves liberty, not one that serves -- survives by debt, and then there's the soul of the nation.

We are living through a time period. An age of dislocation. Where our families are fractured.

Our faith is almost gone.

Meaning is evaporating so fast. Nobody knows what meaning of life is. That's why everybody is killing themselves. They have no meaning in life. And why they don't have any meaning, is truth itself is mocked and blurred and replaced by nothing, but lies and noise.

If you want to be a conservative, then you have to be to become the moral compass that reminds a lost people, liberty cannot survive without virtue.

That freedom untethered from moral order is nothing, but chaos!

And that no app, no algorithm, no ideology is ever going to fill the void, where meaning used to live!

To be a conservative, moving forward, we cannot just be about policies.

We have to defend the sacred, the unseen, the moral architecture, that gives people an identity. So how do you do that? Well, we have to rebuild competence. We have to restore institutions that actually work. Just in the last hour, this monologue on what we're facing now, because we can't open the government.

Why can't we open the government?

Because government is broken. Why does nobody care? Because education is broken.

We have to reclaim education, not as propaganda, but as the formation of the mind and the soul. Conservatives have to champion innovation.

Not to imitate Silicon Valley's chaos, but to harness technology in defense of human dignity. Don't be afraid of AI.

Know what it is. Know it's a tool. It's a tool to strengthen people. As long as you always remember it's a tool. Otherwise, you will lose your humanity to it!

That's a conservative principle. To be a conservative, we have to restore local strength. Our families are the basic building blocks, our schools, our churches, and our charities. Not some big, distant NGO that was started by the Tides Foundation, but actual local charities, where you see people working. A web of voluntary institutions that held us together at one point. Because when Washington fails, and it will, it already has, the neighborhood has to stand.

Charlie Kirk was doing one thing that people on our side were not doing. Speaking to the young.

But not in nostalgia.

Not in -- you know, Reagan, Reagan, Reagan.

In purpose. They don't remember. They don't remember who Dick Cheney was.

I was listening to Fox news this morning, talking about Dick Cheney. And there was somebody there that I know was not even born when Dick Cheney. When the World Trade Center came down.

They weren't even born. They were telling me about Dick Cheney.

And I was like, come on. Come on. Come on.

If you don't remember who Dick Cheney was, how are you going to remember 9/11. How will you remember who Reagan was.

That just says, that's an old man's creed. No, it's not.

It's the ultimate timeless rebellion against tyranny in all of its forms. Yes, and even the tyranny of despair, which is eating people alive!

We need to redefine ourselves. Because we have changed, and that's a good thing. The creed for a generation, that will decide the fate of the republic, is what we need to find.

A conservative in 2025, '26.

Is somebody who protects the enduring principles of American liberty and self-government.

While actively stewarding the institutions. The culture. The economy of this nation!

For those who are alive and yet to be unborn.

We have to be a group of people that we're not anchored in the past. Or in rage! But in reason. And morality. Realism. And hope for the future.

We're the stewards! We're the ones that have to relight the torch, not just hold it. We didn't -- we didn't build this Torch. We didn't make this Torch. We're the keepers of the flame, but we are honor-bound to pass that forward, and conservatives are viewed as people who just live in the past. We're not here to merely conserve the past, but to renew it. To sort it. What worked, what didn't work. We're the ones to say to the world, there's still such a thing as truth. There's still such a thing as virtue. You can deny it all you want.

But the pain will only get worse. There's still such a thing as America!

And if now is not the time to renew America. When is that time?

If you're not the person. If we're not the generation to actively stand and redefine and defend, then who is that person?

We are -- we are supposed to preserve what works.

That -- you know, I was writing something this morning.

I was making notes on this. A constitutionalist is for restraint. A progressive, if you will, for lack of a better term, is for more power.

Progressives want the government to have more power.

Conservatives are for more restraint.

But the -- for the American eagle to fly, we must have both wings.

And one can't be stronger than the other.

We as a conservative, are supposed to look and say, no. Don't look at that. The past teaches us this, this, and this. So don't do that.

We can't do that. But there are these things that we were doing in the past, that we have to jettison. And maybe the other side has a good idea on what should replace that. But we're the ones who are supposed to say, no, but remember the framework.

They're -- they can dream all they want.
They can come up with all these utopias and everything else, and we can go, "That's a great idea."

But how do we make it work with this framework? Because that's our job. The point of this is, it takes both. It takes both.

We have to have the customs and the moral order. And the practices that have stood the test of time, in trial.

We -- we're in an amazing, amazing time. Amazing time.

We live at a time now, where anything -- literally anything is possible!

I don't want to be against stuff. I want to be for the future. I want to be for a rich, dynamic future. One where we are part of changing the world for the better!

Where more people are lifted out of poverty, more people are given the freedom to choose, whatever it is that they want to choose, as their own government and everything.

I don't want to force it down anybody's throat.

We -- I am so excited to be a shining city on the hill again.

We have that opportunity, right in front of us!

But not in we get bogged down in hatred, in division.

Not if we get bogged down into being against something.

We must be for something!

I know what I'm for.

Do you?

From Pharaoh to Hamas: The same spirit of evil, new disguise

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone footage out of Gaza isn’t just war propaganda — it’s a glimpse of the same darkness that once convinced men they were righteous for killing innocents.

Evil introduces itself subtly. It doesn’t announce, “Hi, I’m here to destroy you.” It whispers. It flatters. It borrows the language of justice, empathy, and freedom, twisting them until hatred sounds righteous and violence sounds brave.

We are watching that same deception unfold again — in the streets, on college campuses, and in the rhetoric of people who should know better. It’s the oldest story in the world, retold with new slogans.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

A drone video surfaced this week showing Hamas terrorists staging the “discovery” of a hostage’s body. They pushed a corpse out of a window, dragged it into a hole, buried it, and then called in aid workers to “find” what they themselves had planted. It was theater — evil, disguised as victimhood. And it was caught entirely on camera.

That’s how evil operates. It never comes in through the front door. It sneaks in, often through manipulative pity. The same spirit animates the moral rot spreading through our institutions — from the halls of universities to the chambers of government.

Take Zohran Mamdani, a New York assemblyman who has praised jihadists and defended pro-Hamas agitators. His father, a Columbia University professor, wrote that America and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent — that suicide bombings shouldn’t be viewed as barbaric. Imagine thinking that way after watching 3,000 Americans die on 9/11. That’s not intellectualism. That’s indoctrination.

Often, that indoctrination comes from hostile foreign actors, peddled by complicit pawns on our own soil. The pro-Hamas protests that erupted across campuses last year, for example, were funded by Iran — a regime that murders its own citizens for speaking freely.

Ancient evil, new clothes

But the deeper danger isn’t foreign money. It’s the spiritual blindness that lets good people believe resentment is justice and envy is discernment. Scripture talks about the spirit of Amalek — the eternal enemy of God’s people, who attacks the weak from behind while the strong look away. Amalek never dies; it just changes its vocabulary and form with the times.

Today, Amalek tweets. He speaks through professors who defend terrorism as “anti-colonial resistance.” He preaches from pulpits that call violence “solidarity.” And he recruits through algorithms, whispering that the Jews control everything, that America had it coming, that chaos is freedom. Those are ancient lies wearing new clothes.

When nations embrace those lies, it’s not the Jews who perish first. It’s the nations themselves. The soul dies long before the body. The ovens of Auschwitz didn’t start with smoke; they started with silence and slogans.

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

So what do we do? We speak truth — calmly, firmly, without venom. Because hatred can’t kill hatred; it only feeds it. Truth, compassion, and courage starve it to death.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage. That’s how Amalek survives — by making you fight him with his own weapons. The only victory that lasts is moral clarity without malice, courage without cruelty.

The war we’re fighting isn’t new. It’s the same battle between remembrance and amnesia, covenant and chaos, humility and pride. The same spirit that whispered to Pharaoh, to Hitler, and to every mob that thought hatred could heal the world is whispering again now — on your screens, in your classrooms, in your churches.

Will you join it, or will you stand against it?

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.