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

DNC Wants Radical 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist as Its Chair — Where Is the MSM?

November 17, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The media has accused Glenn over and over of being a conspiracy theorist. There's just one problem with that. Conspiracies are based on speculation, not fact.

Take the Muslim Brotherhood, for example. Glenn has reported on the radical group's plan to take over America. This is a fact based on a document called The Project, found in Germany by the U.S. government after 9/11. It outlines how to infiltrate the United States government, businesses and turn Americans against Americans.

"When you say something like the Muslim Brotherhood has a plan to take over America, that sounds crazy. But once you look into the sources and you see what it is, well then, it's a different story," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program.

Now take Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the man that Democratic Party leadership want as their next chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Rep. Ellison has been tied to the Nation of Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood and holds radical left-wing policy positions. He's also said very troubling things about 9/11.

"A conspiracy theory, to me, is what Keith Ellison said in 2007," Glenn said.

In 2007, Ellison compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire, an arson attack used by the Nazi Party to further its agenda. The insinuation being that 9/11 was blamed on a specific group so the U.S. government could get citizens riled up and fearful, and pass laws like the Patriot Act.

"Keith Ellison is making the charge that Bush was the one who benefited from 9/11," Glenn said. "Yet, the mainstream media are pretending as if none of that is the least bit controversial."

And that is exactly why Republicans and conservatives don't trust the press.

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

• Do people believe the Nazis started the Reichstag fire?

• Why was the Patriot Act written before 9/11?

• When did Donald Trump realize he might win the presidency?

• Why did Democrats lose so many elected positions at all levels?

• Should we have a plan to invade Iceland?

Listen to this segment, beginning at mark 41:04, from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: I want to talk to the media here for a second. The media has made me into a conspiracy theorist. And they will say, "Made you into one? You made yourself into one." By saying things like the Muslim Brotherhood has a plan to take over America. Yes, it's called The Project. It was found by the US government in, I believe, Germany right after September 11th. It outlines how to infiltrate the United States government, how to infiltrate businesses, how to turn us against ourselves here in America. It's called The Project. You can look it up. It didn't come from me. It came from the United States government. That's who found it. You don't cover those things.

So when you say something like the Muslim Brotherhood has a plan to take over America, that sounds crazy. But once you look into the sources and you see what it is, well, then, it's a different story.

Well, the latest was you're a conspiracy theorist because you've said that George Soros paid for protests.

PAT: I've read story after story on that.

GLENN: Story after story after story on that. That is out there.

Now, I don't remember which protests he paid for. But his organization does that. We know that in other countries absolutely positively, he's on the record saying he does that.

PAT: He's proud of it. Proud of it.

GLENN: He's proud of it. Okay. So it's not a conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy theory, to me, is what Keith Ellison said in 2007.

Listen to the man that may be the head of the DNC and what he said about 9/11.

KEITH: Because remember 9/11, right? You never had all this discrimination against religious minorities but for 9/11. You know, you had it, but you didn't have it to the degree that we have it now.

9/11 is this juggernaut event in American history. It allows -- I mean, it's almost like -- you know, the Reichstag fire kind of reminds me of that. Does anybody know what I'm talking about?

VOICE: Yeah. Who benefited from 9/11?

KEITH: Well, I mean, like you and I both know.

VOICE: Yeah, Bush.

GLENN: Bush.

KEITH: But the thing is, after the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the communist for it. And it put the leader of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted.

GLENN: Okay. So Keith Ellison is making the charge that Bush was the one who benefited from 9/11.

PAT: So he could bring about religious discrimination?

GLENN: And the Patriot Act and everything else.

PAT: Unbelievable.

GLENN: Now, you can say that the Patriot Act was there before there was a 9/11, but that doesn't mean that the Patriot Act -- that 9/11 happened to pass the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act was written before 9/11. And it was going nowhere. Nobody wanted to do it. It was written in Virginia. Do you remember that? Stu, look that up. This is a really old fact from the deep reassesses and cobwebs of my mind. When we were arguing it, we looked back and it was written in Virginia by a couple of guys in Virginia. And they wanted pieces of the Patriot Act. And it didn't go anywhere.

I think Joe Biden was even part of that. So the argument is, is that he's making the argument that 9/11 was blamed on somebody so they could go religious discrimination and they could soup everybody up and make them afraid. Well, that's a conspiracy theory.

Show me the evidence of that. Now, if the press wants to have any credibility, you have called people on the right hateful conspiracy theorists.

Will you call out the person who is now going to be the head of the Democratic National Committee? Will you call him a conspiracy theorist?

No.

PAT: Not in a million years.

GLENN: And if they don't, it, again, will just play into more resentment and more dissent and more -- Donald Trump did not beat Hillary Clinton. He beat the press. He was running against the press. That's what he said.

Now, you guys haven't even addressed why Hillary Clinton lost. I haven't seen one autopsy on Hillary Clinton and why she was the worst candidate of all time. The Republicans have known this for a long time. She was the most beatable candidate you could have run.

PAT: Which is what we said from the beginning. That was the one thing during this election cycle we were right, was how bad Hillary --

GLENN: Yes. Yeah, anyone -- I said my shoe could beat Hillary Clinton.

PAT: Yes. Yeah.

GLENN: She was the most beatable candidate. I haven't heard that from the media. They're not doing the autopsy there. All they're doing is they're talked about Donald Trump and what a horrible disarray his cabinet picks are. First of all, he's ahead of every other president in his cabinet picks.

It, of course, is messy. Can you imagine how many picks you have to make in, what? Sixty days? Yes, it's a mess. I'm sure it is. He didn't expect to be president -- and I have this on good authority -- until I think it was 4:30 in the afternoon.

They thought they were going to lose. And at 4:30, somebody came to him and said, "You know what, things are actually in play." He didn't believe it, until North Carolina came in and Florida. And when North Carolina and Florida came in and they were waiting so long on Connecticut and Pennsylvania, he looked at one of his aides and said, "We might win."

They weren't -- they were putting the -- the -- the pathway down for Trump TV, not the presidency. And he's still ahead of every other president, appointing their cabinet members now. And what is the press doing? All they're saying is what a disarray it's in.

What are you talking about? What are you talking about?

Why don't you talk at all about the disarray the Democrats are in? What are the Democrats going to do? The Democrats have lost so many people in local, state, and federal locations, they've lost so much power because the popularity was Barack Obama, not his policies. They also -- even people who voted for Hillary Clinton, 34 percent of those who voted for Hillary Clinton don't believe the press. They think the press was in the bag for Hillary Clinton. And they don't like it. Seventy-four percent of the American people don't trust the press.

PAT: The only thing left Democrats have is Richard Gephardt. That's all they've got left.

STU: Wow. That's what America has left.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: For 2020, we look forward to Richard Gephardt. And what is he going to be? Eighty-nine? 106?

JEFFY: That's not important.

PAT: It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. That's what we have left.

STU: By the way, yeah, there's a -- so Biden wrote something after his -- after the Oklahoma City bombing that had several of the pieces that would later go into the Patriot Act. It was a 1995 bill. CNET referred to it as its cousin. The Patriot Act's cousin. So it was similar.

GLENN: And this was the one that was written in Virginia with a group of governors or something like that?

STU: I don't -- I was looking for the Biden part. I don't have that. Whatever.

GLENN: Okay. So there was -- and I'm not saying it was the same one.

STU: Right. And that makes sense, right?

GLENN: But there was the framework of the Patriot Act, ready to go.

STU: Right. You have --

GLENN: That doesn't -- that doesn't mean that they were like, let's blow something up so we can get this through.

STU: Right. Which is where a lot of people take that.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: It means that they had a terrorist attack. They thought of a way to address it. They didn't necessarily get that through. But when another terrorist attack had, they had the framework.

GLENN: Yeah. And they said, "Let's try this now."

STU: Yeah, "Let's try it now. It would work."

GLENN: Yes.

STU: That's not a nefarious conspiracy.

GLENN: FDR did not trust the Japanese. He did not trust the Japanese.

He sent people out to find out if we needed to do internment camps before December 7th. Do we need to do internment camps for the Japanese? Find out.

The general came back and said, "Nope. They're good Americans. We don't need to do it."

He didn't have the political capital to do it. September -- I mean, December 7th, 1941, that gave him the political capital to be able to say, "We're going to do this because of that," even though he had that idea before December 7th.

Was it a conspiracy that December 7th -- yeah, there are those people who say, "See, he caused it. He knew it was going to happen." No, he didn't

PAT: Well, he may have known it was going to happen, but I don't know that he -- he let it happen --

GLENN: Yeah. He knew a strike --

PAT: -- for internment camps --

GLENN: He knew a strike was coming.

PAT: Yeah, he did.

GLENN: He didn't know and say, "Everybody look over here."

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And in a way --

GLENN: And neither did --

STU: -- this can be a positive, right? You wouldn't necessarily want a tragedy to happen and then just say, "All right. Let's start thinking of new ideas right now in the midst of this and pass them." You would want it to be a little bit more thought out than that. You would hope that --

GLENN: It is their job. It is their job.

STU: Right. It's their job. It's the same thing with the Iraq War. They're like, "Well, they drew up plans for the Iraq War before 9/11." It's like, well, yeah, they should have a plan to invade everywhere, just in case the idea comes up and they need to put it into effect.

GLENN: It's their job.

PAT: Especially countries that are shooting at our aircraft.

GLENN: Should we have a plan to invade Canada? No. If I find out there's a plan to invade Canada for no reason, well, no. But the minute Canada becomes hostile to us, is there a plan to say, "What do we do in case the border becomes a place of unrest?"

PAT: There better be.

GLENN: Okay. There better be something there. Because that's a possibility.

PAT: What about just taking care of the curling problem? What about just --

STU: You got to stop --

GLENN: You got to stop curling.

PAT: Stop the curling problem.

GLENN: Yeah. It's a stone and ice. Get over it. And it's a broom. Stop it.

PAT: And sweeping the ice. Stop it.

STU: But with the military budget we have, I would argue that there should be, I don't know, a few people sitting around thinking about, "What if we have to invade Iceland?" We should have that plan somewhere in a drawer just in case we have to do it. Why -- we have the resources for that.

PAT: That might be our biggest problem that nobody talks about.

GLENN: I will tell you, there's not a plan to invade Iceland. But I can tell you, there's an expert on Iceland whose job is to only think about Iceland, that he would be the first one we would call if something happened. And he would be like, "You know what, that's crazy. I've been thinking about this. I've been thinking about this." Because that's all you do, you're just focused on Iceland.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: That's what should happen. This is not what Keith Ellison is saying.

STU: No. He seems to be thinking that -- it's weird. Because he doesn't -- he's smart enough to know that he's in front of a bunch of people. So he doesn't actually --

GLENN: Plat it again.

PAT: However, he walked up to that line many times. It wasn't just this time.

GLENN: Play that again.

KEITH: Because remember 9/11. Right? You never had all these discrimination against religious minorities but for 9/11. I mean, you know, you had it, but you didn't have it to the degree that we have it now.

9/11 is this juggernaut event in American history. It allows -- I mean, it's almost like, you know, the Reichstag fire -- kind of reminds me of that. Does anybody know what I'm talking about?

VOICE: Yeah. Benefited --

GLENN: So 9/11 is the Reichstag fire. Well, if you know anything about the Reichstag fire -- and he's about to explain that -- that was a total setup. The Reichstag fire, we believe, was started by the Nazis.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Of course. Yeah, that's what he's obviously insinuating.

GLENN: That's what he's insinuating.

STU: I mean, he would probably argue, what I was trying to say is they took advantage of it like the Nazis took advantage of that. Not necessarily that they caused it.

GLENN: Right. Do we think -- so what you're saying is -- you want to talk about a conspiracy theory, what you're saying is replace Bush with Obama. That a tragedy happened and Barack Obama said, "I can finally get control of everybody's email. I can finally get control of everybody's phone calls. I can get rid of warrants, where I don't want to. I can stop dropping drones on people. I'll have control of everything. I'll be able to take the NSA." That -- you think the press would accept someone saying that about Barack Obama?

STU: No.

GLENN: You would be the biggest conspiracy theorist on the planet. And this isn't just a commentator. This is the guy they want to run the DNC.

STU: Yes.

PAT: He's a US congressman.

STU: Uh-huh. And to be fair to Keith Ellison, to give him a little bit of a break here, the man is saying things that were mainstream Democrat positions at that time.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: You go back to polling through that era, you'll find 40, 50 percent of Democrats believed just that. And sometimes the majority of Democrats believed those things, that Bush did 9/11, and he was responsible for it. Or at the very least overlooked it.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Katrina, took advantage of it. Didn't care. He hates black people.

There were a million of these conspiracies that were mainstream Democratic positions for the typical voter. And while he might be a little bit out of step with what they want in the press at that time, he was not out of step with the people who were voting for him.

GLENN: Now, the -- the press wonders why Republicans and conservatives don't trust them and feel the way we feel. Because of that. And this is why I said, we have a third time at bat. First time happened with George Bush. And the Democrats went off the rails. And we stopped listening to them. And then, Barack Obama got in. And we went off the rails. And they stopped listening to us.

It's time to get it right this time. It's time to get it right. But you must call each play equally. If you don't, it's going to get much worse.

Featured Image: Keith Ellison (D-MN) holds a news conference about what he calls 'the rhetorice attacking Muslims and the Islamophobia' in the 2016 presidential election at the National Press Club May 24, 2016 in Washington, DC. Highlighting remarks by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, Ellison and fellow Muslim Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) said the issue of Islamophobia is not isolated to just one candidate or one election. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

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.