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

Teachers in MI stand behind a colleague convicted of rape - Glenn speaks to the victim’s father

August 19, 2013
Wilson

Writer

On radio this morning, Glenn shared the story of John Janczewski, a resident of Rose City, Michigan whose son was molested by a teacher, Neal Erickson, at Rose City Middle School. The sexual abuse happened on several occasions when Janczewski’s son was in 8th grade. The boy is now a sophomore in college.

Erickson was convicted of statutory rape after a picture surfaced of the boy in a compromising position with the teacher. On July 10, 2013, the judge sentenced Erickson to 15-30 years in prison, but six educators and one school board member came out in support of the teacher and asked for leniency. According to The Detriot News:

Before the sentencing, six teachers and two retired ones wrote letters to the judge asking for leniency.

None of the teachers condoned what Erickson did. Instead, their letters focused on his 17 years of teaching, describing his popularity with students and teachers, how hard he worked and how often he volunteered for school functions.

Parents in the town have since called for the firing of the teachers and board member who have defended. The town has balked at the requests claiming the firings would result in expensive litigation that would drive the city into bankruptcy. Tonight at the Ogemaw Heights High School auditorium at 7pm, there will be a meeting to decide the fate of the administrators.

Glenn spoke with Janczewski this morning about the impact this ordeal has had on his family, who have endured a string of vandalism and threats since the verdict was handed down.

Below is a transcript of the interview:

GLENN: John, how are you, sir?

JOHN: I'm doing great. Thank you, Mr. Beck.

GLENN: I'm sorry that we have to meet under these conditions. I would imagine the conversation we had for the last couple of days had to be -- your son has -- did you guys know at all? Did you have any idea at all that this was going on?

JOHN: No. We had no idea at all. I basically, when it first started happening at about 13, 13 and a half years old, I chalked it up to puberty, but as it got worse, I said to myself, going through puberty myself, I was never that bad.

GLENN: What was happening?

JOHN: What was happening is he began to hate me. He began to lash out at me. We had physical battles. I was worthless to him as time went on. And we are a close family, we tell each other we love each other. That all diminished. And it never came back. And it just got worse.

GLENN: Is it back now?

JOHN: It is back now. Now we text and talk at least two to three times a week, maybe sometimes four; where over eight years, he wouldn't even talk to me. He didn't bother to take the time. We were -- we appeared to be a happy family on the outside, but on the inside, we were torn apart and tearing apart. It was horrible. For eight years, I lost my son that I'll never get back for over eight years, some of the best years of his life, growing up I lost, that are gone forever.

GLENN: So I don't want to be the guy that asks you the questions, so feel free -- nobody's going to say a word about you not answering a question and I do not mean to be rude or pry. It is none of our business.

JOHN: Please go ahead.

GLENN: The picture, how did the picture come out?

JOHN: What had happened is somebody sent the picture to the board of education the superintendent, the principal. And they sent it in an e-mail, and then they sent another e-mail, more pictures will follow. And four days before it came out, my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer.

GLENN: Oh, dear God.

JOHN: She was diagnosed and told about it on a Wednesday. On that Sunday back in October, four days after that, the state police were in my driveway and they showed up and they -- when they showed up, they had a picture of our son and asked if that was our son and they stated right there, he was molested by a Rose City Middle School teacher called Neal Erickson.

GLENN: So you had to -- first of all, how is your wife?

JOHN: My wife isn't doing very well. She's been through two breast surgeries. When she did radiation, on her last couple of visits of radiation, they do x-rays each week, and they told her it's in her lungs now.

GLENN: How is her relationship with your son?

JOHN: It's always been okay, but he has lashed out with her, but now her relationship is really well with him. My son and I are trying to open a new chapter and a new book, and try to start all over again.

GLENN: Was your son relieve that had this came out?

JOHN: He was relieved, yes. He's held this inside for eight to nine years. Psychologically, imagine that on a young boy, having to hold that in and be threatened all the time and hold that inside him? What a way to grow up and enjoy the best years of your life.

GLENN: So now there's two parts of the story we have to get to. One is the teachers that came in support, how many people with living in your town?

JOHN: Approximately, I would say 6,000 to 8,000.

GLENN: So it's a small town. And it is a small town school. I would imagine that your values are not New York City values.

JOHN: Right.

GLENN: And these teachers -- it had to be shocking for the teachers to come out and say, well, we don't know. The totality of this teacher's life and career is not so bad.

JOHN: Right.

GLENN: What exactly is the case they're making here?

JOHN: The case they were making is it was a one-time incident, you know, that the child could have stopped it. He was groomed and he was a predator.

GLENN: So the community, they want these teachers fired.

JOHN: Right. Right.

GLENN: They do?

JOHN: Yes, they do. They want the teachers fired, they want Mike Eagan recalled and taken off the board.

GLENN: Who's Mikey?

JOHN: Mike Eagan is a member of the school board. He sat on the molester's side. His wife, Amy Eagan wrote a letter.

GLENN: So tonight at 7:00 at the auditorium -- how do you say the name of your --

JOHN: Ogemaw Heights High School at 7:00 in the auditorium.

GLENN: And there you have to decide the fate. They are saying if you fire these teachers because they will sue, it will bankrupt the town.

JOHN: That's what they are saying, but as a molester, that does not matter. He molested a child.

GLENN: But they will say that it is just their right to free speech, so why should they be punished for free speech? Have we lost him?

Below is a transcript of the interview:

GLENN: We are talking to John Janczewski, he lives in Rose City, Michigan, where tonight they are having a meeting at the auditorium at 7:00 p.m. to decide the fate of teachers who openly supported a pedophile, saying that's an awful long risen sentence for a teacher we all know and love. No, no. We didn't know the whole raping of a child part. Now, they will say they have freedom of speech, it will bankrupt the city because they will all sue, but do you want somebody who says hey, lock, 15 to 30 years for raping of a child, an 8th grader is a little harsh. Do you want them teaching your child? I don't think they have the common sense to do it.

And bankruptcy's all the rage nowadays. So anyway, John is put in this horrible position and it's his son that was raped and there's something else that we have to talk about. You have now been the victim of violence, your family has, John. Can you tell me what happened to your garage?

JOHN: We had some threats on us, and they wrote letters on our house. The letters were YWPITY. You will pay. I told you.

My wife had threats on her right after July 10th sentencing. Then what happened, I called the state police, they said if we have any issues, call us back. Lo and behold, two and a half days later, 1:30 in the morning on a Saturday, I was awaken to a bomb sound going off, and then I went to the window to find my garage was on fire and engulfed in flames. My camper on the side of my house. If I wouldn't have woke up, we could have all died. We could have all not been here doing anything right now. That's what happened?

GLENN: Why would they do that to you? What is your motivation?

JOHN: Because we are speaking out against these teachers, because they're wrong. They took an oath when they did their license to be a teacher and that is to protect the child, and getting back to the money issue, it would bankrupt the county. Since when do we put a price on a child? Since when? It is wrong. How many teachers are going to turn a blind eye? These teachers cannot be trusted, they cannot be trusted.

GLENN: John, I wish I could stand there with you tonight. Mercury 1 is a -- has a charity that I started and we talked to them and normally don't get involved in things like this, but I think one of their founding principles is to bring people hope, and so we are going to take care of your garage and rebuild your garage.

JOHN: That is so awesome. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. You know, I've got to tell you something else. Could you believe a church posted bail for him? A church just down from my house, that back in April, he came into where I work and I asked him, I said I'm losing my faith in God. My wife has cancer, I have MS, my son was molested. Can I talk to you. He said I'm going on a cruise for two weeks. I will call you then. It's been an awful long two weeks, hasn't it. And he was in court, sitting on Neal's side, and that church posted bail for a child molester.

GLENN: What church is that?

JOHN: Prince of Peace Church, Father Stonebeck. It's just unbelievable.

GLENN: John, move to Texas. I don't think -- I just don't think I have seen a family kicked in the teeth as much as your family has been kicked in the teeth, but I will tell you this. I'm sure in a town your size, there are -- out of 6,000 people I bet there's 4,000 that stand with you and know what you are going through I don't know John.

JOHN: This community has been so supportive for tonight, they made T-shirts, my son's favorite color, blue, and we are all going to be wearing them and they all say support the Janczewski family. We want all these teachers fired, we want the board member to step down, which he will not. He'd rather cost the school district $30,000 than have him recalled. That's how sick he is. It's just unbelievable. We would like to get out of this as Eagan to step down, fire the teachers, have background checks on teachers and every six months have them go through a training, how to spot signs of a child molestation?

GLENN: You're not asking for lawsuits, money, you're not asking for anything. You just want to make sure -- I mean, they didn't catch it the first time. They didn't catch it with your son. And how they can say it only happen this had one time. How do you know? Did they know this was happening?

JOHN: Yeah. They turned a blind eye. The community asked a question at the last board meeting and they said through the board members, there's six of them, would you want these teachers to teach your grandchildren or your children. All five of them said absolutely not. Mike Eagan grabbed the microphone and said I would have no problem with none of this. I would let them teach my children or grandchildren.

GLENN: I don't know, we will continue to follow the story. And our heart and our prayers go out to you. Just know there are millions of Americans who have heard this story now and will keep you and your family in their prayers. God bless, my friend. We will talk again.

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.