Donald Trump Deserves a Chance and Our Support

November 11, 2016

Writer

After a hard-fought presidential election, Donald Trump has emerged victorious. There now exists a renewed opportunity for him to unite America and lead in a constitutional way. Based on recent tweets from Trump, Glenn believes our new President-elect is evolving into a man worthy of the presidency.

"I want to read a tweet that shows he is becoming presidential, and he is trying to do the right thing," Glenn said Friday on his radio program.

Six months ago, Trump would have stirred the pot in response to the protests taking place on America's streets. Instead, he tweeted a unifying message for the country.

Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 11, 2016

With the slate already wiped clean, Glenn reasserted his support for Donald Trump.

“I’m for the office of the president of the United States, and I will stand with Donald Trump as long as I can. I’ll stand with him until he starts to say crazy, divisive things and suggest policies that are not conservative or constitutional. But until he does that, I stand with him,” Glenn said.

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

• How many retweets did Trump's tweet get?

• Why must we stop labeling people as groups?

• On what will Glenn not budge?

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

GLENN: Okay. So I want to show you the evolution of a man. What did Donald Trump -- what would have Donald Trump said, you know, six months ago, if protests were there. He would have -- he would have been the showman that he is. He would have been the P.T. Barnum, and he would have whipped it up.

Yesterday morning -- now, I'm going to assume that he is making these tweets. And if not, then somebody else around him is making these tweets, and that's good because he is relinquishing his power and saying, "You're more eloquent than I am, go ahead, tweet." Because you know Donald Trump has always said, "No one will corral me." So even if he didn't do it himself, no one is corralling him. We have to take him at his word, that he agrees with this. This is what he did 11 hours ago: Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters incited by the media are protesting. Very unfair.

This was 54,000 retweets.

Then this: Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have a passion for our great country. We will come together and be proud.

That is a presidential tweet. That is what we should be saying to one another. Look, it's a small group. They might look big, but it's a small group.

I saw a -- I saw an ad, if you will, for a broadcaster that said the Democrats hate us. That -- in bold red, "The Democrats hate us. Don't doubt me." And I thought to myself, "No, they don't. Some do." As Riaz said yesterday -- the gay Muslim immigrant -- what else? I mean, he's got -- Pakistani. He's got -- this guy, everybody is against.

I can't imagine this guy's life. But he came down, and he wanted to understand the right. So we spent the day together. And then he went and did something about it.

And last weekend, he went up to Alaska to sit and talk to Trump supporters. And he wrote the best defense of Trump supporters I've read.

And as he said in that, "Look, are there some people that are racist that voted for Trump?" Yes. But that's not all of the Trump supporters.

And? He followed it up. He's a Muslim Pakistani. Are some Muslims terrorists? Yes. But not all Muslims.

The same can be said -- are you a racist? You voted for Trump, are you a racist? No. Are you a Nazi? No.

Do you believe in white supremacy? No. Do you believe that there are those that believe that whites are extreme? Of course. Do you believe that there are some that voted for Trump that are Nazis? Of course. Do you believe that there are some that voted for Barack Obama that are Marxists that want to destroy the United States of America? Yes.

Do you believe there are some that voted for Barack Obama that want to see your rights taken away?

Yes. But do you also believe that the Democrats that you personally know are those people?

No. No. We have to separate and stop labeling people as groups. Or we are going to make this worse.

We are at a crossroads America. And I know this is going to become increasingly unpopular. But I will stand by any man until he loses his principles. The principles of Donald Trump right now, he is being presidential. He is saying I'm going to bring people together. And he is saying, I will do these things through Congress, through the vote.

If Donald Trump would have lost and he would have flamed the fans of these -- of riots, which he could have done, if he had lost, I would be standing against him. But he won fair and square. He is doing things the right way and constitutionally. I don't agree with everything that he wants to do, but that's America. This is who we are.

We don't -- boy, am I going to quote the song that he played at the end? You don't always get what you want. But you just might find that you get what you need. And we have to believe in that. And we have to put our sword and, quite frankly, our shield down against the average person.

When you are in -- let me tell you a story: Fordham University, I believe, turned my daughter against me. My daughter was so angry with me while she was going to Fordham University, she couldn't even speak to me at times. She -- she was convinced that I was a homophobic bigot. And I kept saying to her, "Honey, what in my life has ever given you that perspective?"

You're against gay marriage.

No. I'm against the government being involved in marriage.

I don't want to talk to you, Dad.

And she would cry and walk away. She believed that of her own father. What do you think the people going to NYU, these kids who have been raised, even by Democratic families, what do you think they believe after sitting in those universities with those professors who are tell them -- and you have to understand, New York City, especially, is an echo chamber of biblical proportions. Everything in New York points to the people who would vote for Donald Trump are nothing, but toothless hicks who hate women, who hate blacks, who just want to set the world on fire.

There's a lot of people that are afraid. And, quite honestly, if you're a Republican and you're like me, I understand that. You have -- you have to admit to yourself, even those who reluctantly voted for Donald Trump, there is a part of you that said, "I don't know what we're getting here." But you give your side the benefit of the doubt. I'm giving our side the benefit of the doubt. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that the office will temper and make the man. Because, quite honestly, I don't have any other choice, other than to get into the streets and be an idiot.

He won fair and square. This is the system. Now, how do we come together?

I will tell you, we won't come together -- and I'm not talking about come together and compromise our principles.

I read another story today from the right: The last thing we can do is come together. I'm sick and tired of hearing people say we need to come together with these people.

No. What are you talking about? We get together with our family every Thanksgiving, don't we? I got together -- I got together with the in-laws that -- that Tim's family, my son-in-law's family, who are wonderful people, I love them. I really do love them. We disagreed on who should be president. They were staunch Trump supporters. I obviously am not. But I know who they are. And I know they're not haters. I know they're not idiots. They live in New Jersey, and he's a cop. He's tired of everybody saying that the cops, you know, should die and being okay with it.

Did I say when they came down to visit, "You're not coming into my house?" No. And we had a great time together. We just didn't talk about the things where we knew we disagreed, because we knew where each other stood. And we're not going to do anything, but get pissed at each other. But we're family.

I don't think ill of them. And I hope they don't think ill of me. And I'm certainly not saying, "They hate America." And I hope they're not saying that either -- they're not.

Glenn is just a bad person and he hates us. No, they're not saying that.

This, I've told you for so long: A, there are going to be people -- and you're going to feel justified -- that want to tear us apart. Now, we just went through a horrible, horrible election. We have the opportunity to start all over again. We have the opportunity to not repeat the past, no matter what your enemy does to you, no matter what the person who is calling you names does to you. That has no affect on you, unless you choose to let that have an affect on you.

We are -- we have a chance to start over. We have a chance to be better people. Now, we can go down this road, and we can repeat what happened to us in 2000, which is division and name-calling and eight years of hating the other side.

Or we can do what we did in 2008. Be divided. Don't talk to each other. Hate each other. Call each other names. And make things worse.

Or we can try something new. Because this is something we haven't tried, well, since I've been voting for president. We haven't tried, "Hey, let's assume the best of our neighbor. Let's assume that the voices that are calling today in the streets, around the country for awful things, for revolution, for literally bloody revolution -- let's just assume that they are the minority, and let's politely ask -- politely ask the media to stop excusing this.

Let's not us excuse the violent behavior, but also know that there is a reason that people are afraid. It's been a tough fight.

Those people who are setting things on fire, breaking windows, those are anarchists. Those are anarchists. And if we lump anarchists into the same bed with Hillary Clinton, we would be wrong.

This is going to be hard, guys. This is really going to be hard. But this is our chance. This is the time -- you are blessed to live in this time, because we can be better. We can be leaders. This is the time where giants will come to the forefront. And you have to choose.

Are you going to be one of the 20 percent? That's what it's going to take. And that's typically only -- that's all you get, is about 20 percent. Are you going to be the 20 percent of this society that stands up and says, "I'm not going there. I'm not going there. I will not go over the cliff with the rest of humanity." Will you take the lead from your president? Your president and your president-elect.

Now, this. When you're at work, you can see that your home is safe, right? But when you're on vacation, your home and your family deserve to be protected.

[break]

GLENN: We were just talking in the break. This is really going to be hard, guys. This is really going to be hard. And we all have a choice to make because there's -- there's very few people, I think, that want to feel like we should come together.

But -- and it doesn't mean that we -- I mean, I think we just proved this. If your principles are at stake, we do not budge. But right now, the principles of peace and getting together -- Hillary Clinton -- Hillary Clinton has said he's legitimately our president, we need to support him and give him the opportunity to be successful.

Barack Obama has said the same thing. They have made the gesture of let's come together because this is the way our democracy or our republic works. The vote happens, you accept the vote.

We may not agree with it, and that doesn't mean you stop fighting. Look, if right now -- I'm having a lot of people saying, "Oh, look at Glenn, now he's for Trump." No, no. I'm for the office of the President of the United States. And I will stand with Donald Trump, as long as I can. I'll stand with him until he starts to say crazy, divisive things that are -- and suggest policies that are not conservative or constitutional. But until he does that, I stand with him.

Featured Image: President-elect Donald Trump meets with US President Barack Obama during an update on transition planning in the Oval Office at the White House on November 10, 2016 in Washington,DC. (Photo Credit: JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why do Americans feel so empty?

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Donald Trump Deserves a Chance and Our Support

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

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.

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

Not-so-expert advice

A republic no more?

The path forward

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

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.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

Choosing death over care

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

The logical end of a broken system

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

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.

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.

How Sharia arrives

The warning from those who have lived under it

America is vulnerable

Wake up before it is too late

Why do Americans feel so empty?

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

The crisis beneath the headlines

The quiet return of meaning

Where renewal begins