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

What is happening to American entertainment?

August 14, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Earlier this week, TheBlaze reported the story of Rebeca Seitz, a publicist and mother who is fed up with Hollywood’s exploitation of sex. According to TheBlaze:

It all started last week as Rebeca Seitz of Naples, Florida, was enjoying some morning television. As commercials began to air, she could hardly believe her eyes. While she was watching “Good Morning America,” an advertisement for the ABC show “Betrayal” came on, featuring a male and female in the midst of a steamy sex scene. The commercial for the show was apparently graphic, exposing her 8-year-old son to extremely unpalatable content.

Seitz, who first posted the story on Facebook (before being asked to remove the post because of it’s graphic content), wrote a blog post about the incident that has now gained national attention. On radio this morning, Glenn spoke to Seitz about her experience and how conservatives can reclaim the culture.

Below is a rough transcript of the interview:

GLENN: Now the third story is somebody else who's doing the very same thing. This is a story I read about last night on the Blaze. It's about just a mom. She was watching ABCs good morning America. And she was watching with her 8-year-old son. And there was a graphic sexual image on the screen. I mean really graphic. And it was for a show called Betrayal. And she about lost her mind. The story is up on the Blaze but she's with us now. She's Rebecca Seitz. Hello Rebecca, how are you?

REBECA SEITZ: I'm better today than I was Thursday morning.

GLENN: Tell the story exactly what happened.

REBECA SEITZ: Well, my husband was on a business trip and school starts here pretty soon, so I'm letting the kids sleep in a few more days and we slept in and they slept in my bed with my because daddy was gone so we did not roll out of bed until a little after 8 and my son a got up at the same time we came into the living room and most mornings, we turn on the news. We flip back and born between GMA and headline news and I do that so that he can see what's going on in the world. We can talk about what's going on in the world. I can seek him to process things there will always be wild fires and earthquakes. And it went to commercial. And I looked up and I thought, that, I did not just see what I just saw. There's no way they just aired that at 8:30 in the morning and I turned to my son and his, his eyes had gone so wide and he looked at the T.V. and he looked at me and I quickly, I got it off. And I pause it on a different image. And I told him to go to the refrigerator where he couldn't see the television and my daughter, thankfully she was waking up and she was still in my bedroom. She couldn't see yet and I rewound it thinking it won't be what we think we saw. And so I'll be able to explain to him that's what we just saw. When I rewound it and saw, no, these were two completely nude people, similating sex with, with the camera was four inches below their waste, I thought, oh, okay. My husband will have to have a conversation request him about this. So I snapped the picture and I texted it to my husband and I said your son just saw this, you'll need to have a conversation with him when he goes home. I'm talking to him now, but you'll have to do the man to man thing when you get home. And he couldn't believe it. And I thought, you know, I worked in the entertainment industry the media industry a long time. And for most of my friends op Facebook are also in that industry and I thought they won't believe this we'll be an I believe to do something about it. If they knew about it.

GLENN: Nope.

REBECA SEITZ: I put it up on Facebook.

GLENN: No, they are not going to do anything about it. What happened then, Rebecca?

REBECA SEITZ: I then got a note from Facebook telling me I had violated their community standards, which I replied yeah, that's kind of the point here. And they took it down. And a friend of mine, people had already started commenting on it. A friend of mine messaged me. She said you need to put in on your blog so people can keep talking about this if Facebook has taken it down. I said okay. My blog is this, it's not this big, you know, media destination. It's friends and clients go to see what I've been thinking about. I put it on my blog so that those people on Facebook could still go over there and talk. And it just, it went nuts. All of these people seeing it going, I cannot believe that was on your television. At 8:30 in the morning.

GLENN: It's amazing to me that ABC has lower standards than Facebook does.

REBECA SEITZ: I know.

GLENN: That's amazing. You wrote, I understand that we've seeded the idea of morality in prime time a moron in this case move. But one, we in, by we, I mean, Jesus, following folk, have to own. What do you mean by that.

REBECA SEITZ: Well, I grew up in that generation where our president told us that it depended on what the definition of is. And everything became very relevant. At least in my generation. So you made your own truths. You made your own standards. There were no absolutes. That he is what we were being taught anyway. We were taught if we believed there were absolutes, moral absolutes, we needed to hush. We were completely not cool. Out of the mainstream. We needed to shut up. I think a lot of us did. I know I did. And so, I think in, in shutting up, and sitting down. We ceded a hat of the ground that we're looking at now going, oh, my gosh, how did it get to that point? It got to that point because we weren't there. And that's been the big eye opener to all of these responses on my blog and on TheBlaze, of how many of these people are posting, I just throughout the cable box, I throughout television years and we just don't have it and I keep asking these people, if you do that, then what will our children have in ten years if we just leave, then we have no voice. We have no say in what's on that T.V, if we just leave. We have to stay and fix it. We have to stay and have a voice. And so this has been the big eye opener for me.

PAT: Rebecca you mentioned that you've been in media for a long time. What, what do you do or what have you done?

REBECA SEITZ: I started an agency for novelists and I have an agency side at Glass Road and we manage artists and help them get their work out there and a couple years ago, we, I started getting more involved in film and television from a creation standpoint. I always booked my clients on film, on television. But I had not had a part in creating it. A couple years ago I started going into that realm and I realized that there was this incredible bias on the production side. If you are conservative or a person of faith, that pretty much the closet you have to stay in if you have to get anything maybe.

GLENN: Not anymore.

REBECA SEITZ: I thought that's insane. I'm not saying you can't make a movie because you don't share my faith. Why are you saying I can't make a move fees because I have faith. That makes no sense. So these when we started spirit of signs to sort of gather other people faith who were feeling this way who weren't making necessarily religious movies or T.V. shows or books, just good solid entertainment, that they were running into walls trying do get it out there.

GLENN: So Rebecca, I mean, I don't mean to be an egotist here at all by any stretch of the imagination by asking you this question: Do you know who I am?

REBECA SEITZ: You know, it's funny that you ask because when we started, my husband took up the mantra, you have got to get to Glenn Beck and I kept saying, do you know who Glenn Beck is? Do you know how many people are around him? That will happen in the Lord's timing. It will happen if the Lord has that, which I guess he did.

GLENN: Yeah. That's amazing. Well, it's happened because you were braver and you did the right thing. But that's, you know, I just, I just bought a movie studio. This is the movie studio where she shoot an in studio a. We have three studios we're about to build. I think five more. But they are these movies studios, this is where they did Robocop. This is where they did Silkwood. This is where they did some of the other for Forrest Gump was in here I think. This did prison breakout of this studio. And we just bought it. And one of the reasons I mean people think that we're just going to do the news. But we're not. And I'm not going do be doing religious shows per se. I'm going to be doing shows that have values and principles that won't, that won't insult people. And I will tell you, that one thing that came to mind here is, like-minded people, a have to stand together. So, you should get to know us. And we should get do know you. But the other thing that I wrote is, it's time now. We've been toying around with a, a, with one another show, and it's a morning show. These morning shows like ABC, Good Morning America, it's crap. And it's, when people understand and you know, you're kind of just kind of coming into it and you've booked, I've done these shows. And I know what these shows are and I know how they work and I do this for I an living. This is business. And what they are doing is, they are selling a lot of these segments to corporate sponsors. The reason why they talk about health or global warming whatever, is because they are sold. And so, they sell that as a package. So what you are digesting every day, and you're saying with your son, you're seeing these things, they are only there because they were sold and they are making money for these people. And that's the only reason why they are doing the story. And the rest of it is TMZ. The rest of it is garbage news. And, and we've been talking about that it's, it's about time to launch a morning show, on television. That can compete. Because this either just vac cue with us, and it's just happy talk, nonsense, or, it is just Hollywood, and, and sold sponsorship nonsense. Mornings are a dumping ground for networks and they can't be a dumping ground because too many people get up every morning and watch it. And I think there's a better way of doing it. May I make a recommendation that you don't stop on this. And because I know, because I know how this industry works, if you want to make an impact with ABC you don't go do ABC. Don't worry about ABC. Don't worry about anybody that works at ABC. You go to the mouse house. And you start kicking up dust about how your a, a mother, and you are starting to gather steam and you're going to start protesting in front of, Orlando and in Los Angeles and you're going to start a campaign, against how the guys who are trying to bring your children in, are the same people that are exposing your children to pornography and I guarantee you, you will see changes. I guarantee it.

REBECA SEITZ: Well, we will absolutely get on that. We have, we do have a gathering in October, of all of these other film makers and television production people and author's, who are coming here to Naples to talk about this. About how go we make better content. How do we get it out to the masses. So --

GLENN: I tell you what, I'm going to put you on hold. I'm going to have you talk to one of our producers. They're going to put you in touch with Joel Cheatwood. He's the president of content for my company. But I don't want you to lose focus on what you're doing here. Also on this, on the bringing this up to ABCs attention. Because you're exactly right. We cede the ground and it not time to draw line in the sand. That time is over the time to draw a line in the sand and say we're not passing this point that's over. It is now time to walk across that line, and advance the flag. And you have the opportunity to do it. Because you're a real genuine person. Get them.

REBECCA SEITZ: Thank you for that.

GLENN: Thanks a lot, Rebecca.

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.