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

Note to Jeffy and Pat: 'The Walking Dead' Is Not a Documentary

October 24, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Here's a no brainer: The Walking Dead is a fictional TV show. Therefore, when discussing the much-anticipated season 7 premiere, one should keep in mind that it's not real. Repeat. The Walking Dead is not real.

"There is no government. There is no authority. There is no law. There's only chaos. And there's only these walkers and then bad people trying to kill less bad [people]," Co-host Pat Gray said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Co-host Jeffy concurred.

"Groups of people trying to survive with each other," he said.

Pat went on to marvel at people hanging on to their humanity in that type of situation.

"Guys, you realize this isn't a documentary, you realize that?" Co-host Stu Burguiere bravely asked.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these battered questions:

• What does Pat consider the greatest TV show before The Walking Dead?

• Is The Walking Dead torture porn?

• How did 24 turn into a commercial for CAIR and global warming?

• Why would Pat become violent with Jeffy?

• Is there a new standard in TV violence?

Listen to this segment, beginning at mark 38:28, from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

The Walking Dead premiered season seven, is it, Jeffy?

JEFFY: Yes, it did.

PAT: Season seven, last night. And we'll start there, right now.

(music)

PAT: I'd have to say The Walking Dead is one of the best television shows of all time. Would you agree with that?

JEFFY: I would. I would agree with you. Yeah.

PAT: I mean, I -- 24 -- up until now, up until recently, 24 was probably the TV show that I thought was maybe the greatest of all time.

JEFFY: For you.

PAT: Every week was like movie-quality programming, during the best years of 24. And then at the end, it was like, "Shut up." It was a commercial for CAIR toward the end and global warming.

STU: And global warming.

PAT: Oh, it was agonizing.

STU: It's funny. Now you're seeing like a pushback against that. What was that movie? It was an English movie -- a bunch of English guys, and they were kind of like in their own little FBI, Secret Service. The -- oh, God. The Kingsman. The Kingsman. Anyone see the Kingsman?

The villain in that movie was a guy -- it was Samuel L. Jackson, who his belief was man was killing the environment so much, he had to wipe out most of humanity. And so he was starting out this like doomsday-level event to call all these people. The new movie with Tom Hanks coming out which is from the Da Vinci Code.

JEFFY: Oh, yeah, yeah.

STU: Seemingly from the previews --

PAT: It's called Inferno.

JEFFY: That's what it is. Right? Yeah.

STU: Inferno. The Inferno virus is something created by a crazy environmentalist who believes he has to wipe out most of the world's population because the earth is destroying it.

PAT: Wow.

STU: I mean, two from Hollywood.

PAT: Good.

STU: Kind of incredible to see that.

PAT: It is.

STU: Yeah, but you go back to the 24 days, that was a big thing. They break to say, by the way, we want -- sure, we shot and tortured a bunch of Muslim terrorists.

PAT: We didn't mean to. And don't ever think that any Muslim is ever responsible for any terrorism because that just can't happen. That can't happen.

JEFFY: Ever.

STU: This is fiction. And you shouldn't go beat up your local Muslim because we know you people. We know what you're like.

PAT: Thanks, Keeper. None of us could figure that out on our own.

STU: Exactly. And then global warming, I don't even know how that one was thrown in there. Look, if you're going to kill a bunch of terrorists, you're going to emit some CO2. And that's why -- that was just a bizarre tie-in. But I think it was one of the costs of liberals participating in a conservative show. It's like Kiefer (phonetic). Come on, do the show. It's a great show. It's about struggling against terrorism. Look, I'm not comfortable about that material. If I can do a message about global warming though, a serious message in the break and just say, "Guys, I know -- this is all fun and games. This whole terrorism thing, it's not real." But you know what is real: Invisible gas, changing your world. That is -- you needed to have that in there to get them to play along.

PAT: They did. And they deny it. I mean, we talked to Joel (inaudible) that one time. Had a get-together. And I asked him if, you know, he was forced. And he didn't think that they were doing anything out of the ordinary.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: And I don't know if he just -- if that was just the line he had to sell to feel better about it.

STU: Well, I think --

PAT: But it was pretty clear they had caved at the end.

STU: I think too, there's an instance of you're trying to be surprising, right? The thing with 24, there was always unexpected twists and turns. And you could say that, okay. The Muslim -- because there's always a low-level Muslim terrorist involved in every 24 plot. At the very lowest level, there's a Muslim terrorist. There's an Islamic extremist involved.

PAT: Yeah, but it's usually the president or vice president of the United States that's really behind it.

STU: Right. Who is really behind it, it's always like a Croatian. Okay.

PAT: A Croatian, but with help from the US government. You got to get that help from the US government.

STU: Always. It's always an inside job.

PAT: Always. There was a French guy one year. There was a Croatian. There was a French guy. I don't know which. And then there was some Frenchy guy in there.

STU: Oh, yeah. Yeah.

PAT: It was always --

STU: Nazis. There's the one Nazi who --

PAT: South African. South Africans are popular.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: You can make fun of them all day because of apartheid.

STU: So The Walking Dead doesn't do this. All the walkers are not Republicans or anything like that.

PAT: Actually, we don't to have deal pretty much with any politics like that.

STU: You're just beating the crap out of zombies?

PAT: Yeah. And live people.

JEFFY: Yeah, this year --

PAT: Really, it's kind of morphed into -- the zombies are sort of secondary now.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: It's really the live people you have to worry about.

JEFFY: And, first of all, we don't call them zombies.

STU: They're walkers. I know. But if you don't watch the show, you might not understand them.

PAT: Hardly anybody doesn't watch the show, it's the number one show on TV.

JEFFY: Yeah, I'll be fascinated to see the ratings from last night.

PAT: Yeah, it will be interesting.

JEFFY: What they were. Because I was just reading, season six, last season, they were 48 percent higher than the top show on broadcast TV, season six, their ratings. 18-49.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

JEFFY: That's pretty impressive.

PAT: It's on AMC. Think of that.

JEFFY: I know.

PAT: I mean, there was a time five years ago we didn't think that was possible. There will never be a cable show that would beat network television. That just won't happen.

STU: It's not even close.

PAT: It's not even close. And now, because of The Walking Dead and other shows -- Breaking Bad broke a lot of ground and created a lot of buzz. And then that kind of built up for The Walking Dead. And now, look at where that is. The by far the number one show on TV. By far. So it will be interesting to see how well --

JEFFY: I want to talk about it really bad. And you're going to not want me to talk about the episode --

PAT: Well, they were saying there was a lot of violence, right?

JEFFY: There was quite a bit of violence.

PAT: A lot of violence.

JEFFY: With -- and there was quite a bit of violence done by Lucille, the bat.

PAT: If you divulge one thing -- because I haven't seen it yet -- if you divulge -- if you wreck this for me, the violence on that show will be nothing compared to the violence I'm going to reign down on you today. Don't even do it. Don't even do it.

STU: Well, I think it was Dana Loesch who is on TheBlaze as well, tweeted something to the effect of that it's essentially -- we -- it's torture porn. Like, we're to the point where now, we're getting to torture porn in this show.

JEFFY: Well --

PAT: That was one of the knocks on it. We read an article last week, about the decline or something of The Walking Dead. And their deal was, it started out as kind of charming violence or gore. And now it's become something -- it's morphed into something more than that.

JEFFY: Yeah. And they were -- in that article, he was talking about how he wanted the survivors to evolve. And he was saying the survivors haven't evolved enough. In the article, he mentioned Carol. But really, when you -- I think all the characters have evolved, quite a lot.

PAT: Oh, yeah. They have.

JEFFY: They've done the best they can to hold on to their humanity. I mean, that's what makes the show so good. Right?

PAT: Right.

JEFFY: And we're at a point now where --

PAT: And you see that struggle all along, to hang on to some remnant of humanity.

JEFFY: Right. Right. I mean, that's what makes them different than the people they run into.

PAT: Because if you know about what the show is about, we're at seven years now into this apocalypse, where every -- society has completely broken down.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: There is no government. There is no authority. There is no law. There's only chaos. And there's only these walkers and then bad people trying to kill less bad --

JEFFY: Groups of people trying to survive with each other.

PAT: Yes. And they're trying to set up some form of hierarchy so that there can be some order among the chaos. And for anybody to hang onto humanity in that situation, it's pretty amazing. Pretty amazing.

JEFFY: Yeah. And this show shows you obviously how difficult it is with all the obvious around them.

STU: Guys, you realize this isn't a documentary, you realize that?

JEFFY: For instance, what happened last night, Stu.

PAT: So you're not going to tell us what happened last night?

STU: The Economist did an article about guns and how they get into films. And it's largely about how basically, you know, gun manufacturers -- like how specific guns get into films, they become popular and their sales go up. You know, just like product placement for anything.

JEFFY: Sure.

STU: But there's one little nugget in there that I thought was pretty interesting. Researchers have found that gun violence in PG-13 films -- and this doesn't necessarily go to all violence, but this is just specifically gun violence. In recent years has -- has tripled since 1985 and has even exceeded the violence in R-rated films.

PAT: Wow.

STU: And we're seeing this -- Walking Dead is an example of this, where it's become so violent. There's some scenes in Breaking Bad is another one. Is so incredibly violent and disturbing. And it's going further and further and further on that. And it's a weird line. Because for some reason, that's much more okay than -- than the oversexualized stuff and even the language.

PAT: And that's explainable.

STU: I think it is. I think it is.

PAT: You're much less likely to go out and murder somebody after you've seen violence than you are to go out and have sex with somebody once you've been stimulated in that way, right?

STU: Yeah, I think -- well, I look at it a little bit differently than that.

JEFFY: I don't know.

PAT: Oh, come on. It's a no-brainer.

STU: The difference between it is -- morally speaking, for a second, morally -- because I don't think that stuff -- I don't necessarily think that, you know -- it can. Obviously, like, you know, certain -- opening yourself to certain things that you watch can influence your behavior. It's certainly been shown in studies.

But I think like, more than that is, morally speaking, I have no desire to go out and, you know, torture a zombie or a walker for the next 45 hours. I have no -- maybe I would if I was in that situation. But there's no, like, inherent desire for me to commit violence against another person. Obviously there is inside of most of us, there is a sexual desire that you like.

PAT: Right.

STU: So, you want to see women naked. You don't necessarily want to see -- I have no -- I'm rooting for the person to avoid the violence in most of these movies. You want the person to get away. To escape. That's different motivation, I guess, when it comes to the nudity and such.

But, again, even -- even language -- I mean, Jeffy, ever since I've known Jeffy --

JEFFY: Language.

STU: -- one of the first things he said out of his mouth when we were doing radio is, "I'm not the word police," when someone was swearing on the air. "I'm not the word police."

Jeffy, you're supposed to press the dump button --

JEFFY: I'm not the word police.

STU: I'm not the word police. That was the big Jeffy thing. Ever since I've known him, he's said that.

But you think about it, we really do monitor language much more than we monitor violence.

JEFFY: Yes, we do.

STU: It's a shocking thing. I mean, if someone comes on the air and swears here, we're going to dump your words. But, I mean, there would be huge consequences if we didn't. You know, the FCC would be all over that. We could go on and on and on about extreme violence. And in some cases, to make points about war and terrorism and things like that, we have. We've talked to you about people being beheaded on the border and all of that. The crime that goes on there. You know, you could do that all day. But if you say a word that is a little bit salty, you know, the whole world collapses. It is a weird standard.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh. I know.

STU: I do think that is a strange standard. And we all kind of accept the violence thing. And sometimes it is, it can be really disturbing. I mean, stuff that was in Saw, you can now see --

JEFFY: It was there for the violence. That was the whole point of those movies, right? Was to just see how bad you could torture people.

STU: I think it was the problem-solving Jeffy.

JEFFY: Oh.

STU: How do -- it was more of an IQ test.

JEFFY: You're right. You're right. How to get out of it. I apologize. You're right. You're right.

STU: But, I mean, a lot of that stuff -- certainly on HBO, for sure. But even on AMC -- you know, a scene in Breaking Bad comes to mind, where they needed to get rid of a body, and they put it in a bathtub with acid and stuff like that. It was really disturbing.

PAT: And there's some disturbing scenes in in The Walking Dead. I mean, seriously disturbing. Things you thought you could never see on TV are right there for you.

STU: And it's the number one show on television --

JEFFY: I know.

STU: Remember how they used to say, well, like family hour. When you have shows that are aimed at a large audience, you don't put those things in there. I mean, this is -- while it's not aimed at family hour, by any means, it's still a show that's the number one show on television. And, I mean, it's probably the top three or four most violent shows on television.

PAT: Oh, yeah. By far.

STU: The stuff, they talk -- I listen to it. I cannot even discuss it on the air. I just went on this whole thing about how we can't say certain things on the air. I cannot even discuss on this show what was discussed on a recent episode of Law & Order SVU that I watched. I cannot believe that show airs.

JEFFY: I'll tell you, Criminal Minds does the same thing. Criminal Minds from time to time goes really deep into stuff we can't talk about.

STU: It's insanity. I mean, the fact there is a show that runs every week that is highly rated that every week, as a requirement of the episode, is a detailed description of a brutal rape --

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: That's the premise of the show, is that they're going to describe how a woman was brutally raped and left on some sidewalk somewhere. And, of course, it's a -- it's one of those shows where you're looking for sort of forensic information and everything. So they always, as a requirement of the show, go into extreme detail about how the crime was committed. What fluid was left where. What -- what it -- I mean, what the medical reports say. And it's insanity. I want -- I was a -- I was in a hospital for -- I had a relative who was in the hospital. And they, you know, of course -- as I think every day they run a non-stop marathon on like TBS or something. And that was the channel was on. So I was in the waiting room for hours and hours and hours. And it was episode after episode after episode of freaking Law & Order SVU. And, you know, I had watched the show a couple times, but never really put it together. These people have put together hundreds of rape story lines.

JEFFY: Oh, yeah.

STU: And it's on normal TV every single week.

JEFFY: And they put together fake rape story lines. And real rape story lines.

STU: Yeah.

JEFFY: And story lines that much -- the top story of the news.

STU: Oh, yeah. They like that.

JEFFY: And old rape story lines. I mean, it's amazing.

STU: It's incredible. The stuff that is discussed on just mainstream television. They always like to say, "Oh, conservatives, they're always trying to control the culture." If we are, we suck at it. I mean, we are terrible at that. I mean, the lines that get blown by every single day on television now, it's incredible.

PAT: It's unbelievable. Yeah, we're past Leave It To Beaver land.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh, yes. There was a scene last night in Walking Dead --

PAT: Gee, Wally, it wouldn't be real neat-o if you told me what happened last night. I'll crush your skull.

JEFFY: There was a scene last night.

PAT: It wouldn't be real neat-o to tell me.

STU: Come on. Let's just get a quick update from Jeffy of exactly what happened.

PAT: Just overall, was it a great episode?

JEFFY: I enjoyed it, yes.

PAT: Yeah. Okay. 877-727-BECK. More of the Glenn Beck Program. Coming up.

(OUT AT 9:23AM)

PAT: What do you think about this mega merger with AT&T, BellSouth, TimeWarner, Turner TBS, CNN, Warner Brothers, DirecTV, all under the same umbrella? All the same company. Wow.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: I mean, you want the free market to be free, but then you also think, well, isn't that like a monopoly? Don't we have --

STU: Yeah. That standard should be super high for that.

PAT: But, I mean --

STU: If you're going to get the --

PAT: You're getting pretty out of control with a company like that.

STU: Why? To do what? The worry is, they might restrict -- I mean, it's the same net neutrality arguments that get made over and over again. They might restrict people from watching Game of Thrones, because if you're not AT&T or DirecTV.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Well, first of all, they're not going to do that in their own interests. Second of all, should the government get involved because -- if they did this, should the government get involved because Game of Thrones can't be watched by anyone else? Let's just say they want to a ridiculous level they never would. You can't purchase it. You can't watch it. We won't stream it to you if you're on a competitor.

If you have Comcast, you cannot see the show from HBO.

And? Like is that where the government is supposed to step in and get involved.

PAT: Just worry about competition. I worry about -- I mean, this is almost everybody. I mean, this is --

STU: But, again, we've been hearing these warnings for how long. And it's like, have our entertainment options, have they increased or decreased? We've got the number one show on television that's on AMC.

PAT: Yeah. I know.

STU: I mean, we have -- this -- this world -- again, we're at a point where the shows that everybody is talking about are on a network that's not even a network. Netflix -- we talked about this last week on Pat & Stu, which by the way, airs on TheBlaze every single day. And this was a situation where it's Netflix that's spending more than anyone else on original programming. Netflix.

This is -- you know -- I mean, we have more options now than we've ever had before. More high quality television than we've ever had before. These are -- these are the golden years of television right now. I mean, you can go to channels you didn't even know existed five years ago and watch shows that are better than anything that was on television.

PAT: It's nerve-racking because just 15 months ago, AT&T acquired DirecTV. Now if they acquire TimeWarner, that gives it HBO, CNN, TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network, and Warner Brothers. That's a -- that's a pretty massive company.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah.

Featured Image: Photos from Twitter/The Walking Dead (@WalkingDead_AMC)

The melting pot fails when we stop agreeing to melt

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Texas now hosts Quran-first academies, Sharia-compliant housing schemes, and rapidly multiplying mosques — all part of a movement building a self-contained society apart from the country around it.

It is time to talk honestly about what is happening inside America’s rapidly growing Muslim communities. In city after city, large pockets of newcomers are choosing to build insulated enclaves rather than enter the broader American culture.

That trend is accelerating, and the longer we ignore it, the harder it becomes to address.

As Texas goes, so goes America. And as America goes, so goes the free world.

America has always welcomed people of every faith and people from every corner of the world, but the deal has never changed: You come here and you join the American family. You are free to honor your traditions, keep your faith, but you must embrace the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. You melt into the shared culture that allows all of us to live side by side.

Across the country, this bargain is being rejected by Islamist communities that insist on building a parallel society with its own rules, its own boundaries, and its own vision for how life should be lived.

Texas illustrates the trend. The state now has roughly 330 mosques. At least 48 of them were built in just the last 24 months. The Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex alone has around 200 Islamic centers. Houston has another hundred or so. Many of these communities have no interest in blending into American life.

This is not the same as past waves of immigration. Irish, Italian, Korean, Mexican, and every other group arrived with pride in their heritage. Still, they also raised American flags and wanted their children to be part of the country’s future. They became doctors, small-business owners, teachers, and soldiers. They wanted to be Americans.

What we are watching now is not the melting pot. It is isolation by design.

Parallel societies do not end well

More than 300 fundamentalist Islamic schools now operate full-time across the country. Many use Quran-first curricula that require students to spend hours memorizing religious texts before they ever reach math or science. In Dallas, Brighter Horizons Academy enrolls more than 1,700 students and draws federal support while operating on a social model that keeps children culturally isolated.

Then there is the Epic City project in Collin and Hunt counties — 402 acres originally designated only for Muslim buyers, with Sharia-compliant financing and a mega-mosque at the center. After public outcry and state investigations, the developers renamed it “The Meadows,” but a new sign does not erase the original intent. It is not a neighborhood. It is a parallel society.

Americans should not hesitate to say that parallel societies are dangerous. Europe tried this experiment, and the results could not be clearer. In Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, entire neighborhoods now operate under their own cultural rules, some openly hostile to Western norms. When citizens speak up, they are branded bigots for asserting a basic right: the ability to live safely in their own communities.

A crisis of confidence

While this separation widens, another crisis is unfolding at home. A recent Gallup survey shows that about 40% of American women ages 18 to 39 would leave the country permanently if given the chance. Nearly half of a rising generation — daughters, sisters, soon-to-be mothers — no longer believe this nation is worth building a future in.

And who shapes the worldview of young boys? Their mothers. If a mother no longer believes America is home, why would her child grow up ready to defend it?

As Texas goes, so goes America. And as America goes, so goes the free world. If we lose confidence in our own national identity at the same time that we allow separatist enclaves to spread unchecked, the outcome is predictable. Europe is already showing us what comes next: cultural fracture, political radicalization, and the slow death of national unity.

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Stand up and tell the truth

America welcomes Muslims. America defends their right to worship freely. A Muslim who loves the Constitution, respects the rule of law, and wants to raise a family in peace is more than welcome in America.

But an Islamist movement that rejects assimilation, builds enclaves governed by its own religious framework, and treats American law as optional is not simply another participant in our melting pot. It is a direct challenge to it. If we refuse to call this problem out out of fear of being called names, we will bear the consequences.

Europe is already feeling those consequences — rising conflict and a political class too paralyzed to admit the obvious. When people feel their culture, safety, and freedoms slipping away, they will follow anyone who promises to defend them. History has shown that over and over again.

Stand up. Speak plainly. Be unafraid. You can practice any faith in this country, but the supremacy of the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian moral framework that shaped it is non-negotiable. It is what guarantees your freedom in the first place.

If you come here and honor that foundation, welcome. If you come here to undermine it, you do not belong here.

Wake up to what is unfolding before the consequences arrive. Because when a nation refuses to say what is true, the truth eventually forces its way in — and by then, it is always too late.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Shocking: AI-written country song tops charts, sparks soul debate

VCG / Contributor | Getty Images

A machine can imitate heartbreak well enough to top the charts, but it cannot carry grief, choose courage, or hear the whisper that calls human beings to something higher.

The No. 1 country song in America right now was not written in Nashville or Texas or even L.A. It came from code. “Walk My Walk,” the AI-generated single by the AI artist Breaking Rust, hit the top spot on Billboard’s Country Digital Song Sales chart, and if you listen to it without knowing that fact, you would swear a real singer lived the pain he is describing.

Except there is no “he.” There is no lived experience. There is no soul behind the voice dominating the country music charts.

If a machine can imitate the soul, then what is the soul?

I will admit it: I enjoy some AI music. Some of it is very good. And that leaves us with a question that is no longer science fiction. If a machine can fake being human this well, what does it mean to be human?

A new world of artificial experience

This is not just about one song. We are walking straight into a technological moment that will reshape everyday life.

Elon Musk said recently that we may not even have phones in five years. Instead, we will carry a small device that listens, anticipates, and creates — a personal AI agent that knows what we want to hear before we ask. It will make the music, the news, the podcasts, the stories. We already live in digital bubbles. Soon, those bubbles might become our own private worlds.

If an algorithm can write a hit country song about hardship and perseverance without a shred of actual experience, then the deeper question becomes unavoidable: If a machine can imitate the soul, then what is the soul?

What machines can never do

A machine can produce, and soon it may produce better than we can. It can calculate faster than any human mind. It can rearrange the notes and words of a thousand human songs into something that sounds real enough to fool millions.

But it cannot care. It cannot love. It cannot choose right and wrong. It cannot forgive because it cannot be hurt. It cannot stand between a child and danger. It cannot walk through sorrow.

A machine can imitate the sound of suffering. It cannot suffer.

The difference is the soul. The divine spark. The thing God breathed into man that no code will ever have. Only humans can take pain and let it grow into compassion. Only humans can take fear and turn it into courage. Only humans can rebuild their lives after losing everything. Only humans hear the whisper inside, the divine voice that says, “Live for something greater.”

We are building artificial minds. We are not building artificial life.

Questions that define us

And as these artificial minds grow sharper, as their tools become more convincing, the right response is not panic. It is to ask the oldest and most important questions.

Who am I? Why am I here? What is the meaning of freedom? What is worth defending? What is worth sacrificing for?

That answer is not found in a lab or a server rack. It is found in that mysterious place inside each of us where reason meets faith, where suffering becomes wisdom, where God reminds us we are more than flesh and more than thought. We are not accidents. We are not circuits. We are not replaceable.

Europa Press News / Contributor | Getty Images

The miracle machines can never copy

Being human is not about what we can produce. Machines will outproduce us. That is not the question. Being human is about what we can choose. We can choose to love even when it costs us something. We can choose to sacrifice when it is not easy. We can choose to tell the truth when the world rewards lies. We can choose to stand when everyone else bows. We can create because something inside us will not rest until we do.

An AI content generator can borrow our melodies, echo our stories, and dress itself up like a human soul, but it cannot carry grief across a lifetime. It cannot forgive an enemy. It cannot experience wonder. It cannot look at a broken world and say, “I am going to build again.”

The age of machines is rising. And if we do not know who we are, we will shrink. But if we use this moment to remember what makes us human, it will help us to become better, because the one thing no algorithm will ever recreate is the miracle that we exist at all — the miracle of the human soul.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Is Socialism seducing a lost generation?

Jeremy Weine / Stringer | Getty Images

A generation that’s lost faith in capitalism is turning to the oldest lie on earth: equality through control.

Something is breaking in America’s young people. You can feel it in every headline, every grocery bill, every young voice quietly asking if the American dream still means anything at all.

For many, the promise of America — work hard, build something that lasts, and give the next generation a better start — feels like it no longer exists. Home ownership and stability have become luxuries for a fortunate few.

Capitalism is not a perfect system. It is flawed because people are flawed, but it remains the only system that rewards creativity and effort rather than punishing them.

In that vacuum of hope, a new promise has begun to rise — one that sounds compassionate, equal, and fair. The promise of socialism.

The appeal of a broken dream

When the American dream becomes a checklist of things few can afford — a home, a car, two children, even a little peace — disappointment quickly turns to resentment. The average first-time homebuyer is now 40 years old. Debt lasts longer than marriages. The cost of living rises faster than opportunity.

For a generation that has never seen the system truly work, capitalism feels like a rigged game built to protect those already at the top.

That is where socialism finds its audience. It presents itself as fairness for the forgotten and justice for the disillusioned. It speaks softly at first, offering equality, compassion, and control disguised as care.

We are seeing that illusion play out now in New York City, where Zohran Mamdani — an open socialist — has won a major political victory. The same ideology that once hid behind euphemisms now campaigns openly throughout America’s once-great cities. And for many who feel left behind, it sounds like salvation.

But what socialism calls fairness is submission dressed as virtue. What it calls order is obedience. Once the system begins to replace personal responsibility with collective dependence, the erosion of liberty is only a matter of time.

The bridge that never ends

Socialism is not a destination; it is a bridge. Karl Marx described it as the necessary transition to communism — the scaffolding that builds the total state. Under socialism, people are taught to obey. Under communism, they forget that any other options exist.

History tells the story clearly. Russia, China, Cambodia, Cuba — each promised equality and delivered misery. One hundred million lives were lost, not because socialism failed, but because it succeeded at what it was designed to do: make the state supreme and the individual expendable.

Today’s advocates insist their version will be different — democratic, modern, and kind. They often cite Sweden as an example, but Sweden’s prosperity was never born of socialism. It grew out of capitalism, self-reliance, and a shared moral culture. Now that system is cracking under the weight of bureaucracy and division.

ANGELA WEISS / Contributor | Getty Images

The real issue is not economic but moral. Socialism begins with a lie about human nature — that people exist for the collective and that the collective knows better than the individual.

This lie is contrary to the truths on which America was founded — that rights come not from government’s authority, but from God’s. Once government replaces that authority, compassion becomes control, and freedom becomes permission.

What young America deserves

Young Americans have many reasons to be frustrated. They were told to study, work hard, and follow the rules — and many did, only to find the goalposts moved again and again. But tearing down the entire house does not make it fairer; it only leaves everyone standing in the rubble.

Capitalism is not a perfect system. It is flawed because people are flawed, but it remains the only system that rewards creativity and effort rather than punishing them. The answer is not revolution but renewal — moral, cultural, and spiritual.

It means restoring honesty to markets, integrity to government, and faith to the heart of our nation. A people who forsake God will always turn to government for salvation, and that road always ends in dependency and decay.

Freedom demands something of us. It requires faith, discipline, and courage. It expects citizens to govern themselves before others govern them. That is the truth this generation deserves to hear again — that liberty is not a gift from the state but a calling from God.

Socialism always begins with promises and ends with permission. It tells you what to drive, what to say, what to believe, all in the name of fairness. But real fairness is not everyone sharing the same chains — it is everyone having the same chance.

The American dream was never about guarantees. It was about the right to try, to fail, and try again. That freedom built the most prosperous nation in history, and it can do so again if we remember that liberty is not a handout but a duty.

Socialism does not offer salvation. It requires subservience.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatism as stewardship

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

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

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

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

Rebuilding what is broken

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

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

Eric Lee / Stringer | Getty Images

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

A creed for the rising generation

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.