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

Rabbi Lapin: ‘Christianity Is the Last Unprotected Minority’ and the War Against It Is Real

January 08, 2018
Staff

WRITER

“It’s not hard to see how things are going and you have to put a stop to it on time.“

Rabbi Daniel Lapin joined Glenn Beck on Monday’s “The Glenn Beck Radio Program” to discuss why society accepts the perpetual war on Christianity and Judaism but not the Muslim faith.

Rabbi Lapin also had a dire warning for Christians and likened current hostility toward Christians and Jews by progressives and the alt-right to Nazi Germany. He shared a famous expression by Winston Churchill with Glenn about a time when England ignored the threat from Germany which drew a striking parallel to modern times.

His warning to Christians?

“There’s a war against Christianity right now and I’d go as far as to say that Christianity is the last unprotected minority,” warned Rabbi Lapin. He further discussed the “mind-numbing” bravery by Hollywood elites at the Golden Globes and posited that they mock the Quran on Broadway the same as they did “The Book of Mormon,” and see what happens.

“They’ll never mock Islam …” said Lapin.

Tune into the podcast above to hear the rest of Glenn’s conversation with Rabbi Lapin.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So I spent a lot of vacation reading, and I was trying to look for perspective and insight, and one of the things that I read, one of the articles that I read was by Rabbi Daniel Lapin, and he's with us now.

Hello, Rabbi. How are you?

DANIEL: Hi, Glenn, how are you?

GLENN: I'm good. It's always good to have you. I read a great article that I wanted to talk to you about, by you. Where you start out, "I am no Winston Churchill. I have a hard time even being Daniel Lapin, but I have a warning. Can you a take us through this?

DANIEL: Yeah, sure. My point was that there are times in history when there are certain warnings, where there's writing on the wall. And one of those times was when Winston Churchill, in the ten years that led up to World War II, a time during which England was ignoring the threat of Germany, completely oblivious to the war-like goals of Adolf Hitler in his quest for more space for the third like. Everybody ignored it, and England unilaterally disarmed. They scrapped a number of the royal navy ships. They ignored the possibility of needing an air force. They didn't build planes.

During all this time, Churchill was saying, look. Just read Hitler's book, Mein Kampf. Just listen to his speeches in German. And you'll know where this is going. We are going to have to fight a war, and the longer we put it off, the more serious it's going to become, and the more devastating the consequences to us. Very often -- and this is true in life. Confronting problems on time is better than letting them go. If I had to say, what is the secret of successful living, you know, every one of us right now, do not what you want to do. Do what your head tells you you should do, and do it when you should do it.

And Churchill said the same thing. If you don't fight the war when it should be fought, you're going to fight a much tougher one later on.

And meanwhile, everyone else says, oh, Hitler wants peace, everything's going to be fine, and Prime Minister Chamberlain and said peace in our time -- meanwhile, sold Czechoslovakia down the road.

Anyway, my point is, it's not hard to see how things are going. And you have to put a stop to it on time. Otherwise, it becomes much more difficult. And I felt --

GLENN: You draw this comparison to history, and then you say, look, I want to issue a warning right now to Christians.

DANIEL: Yeah! Absolutely. I know it sounds funny for a rabbi to be singing Onward Christian Soldiers, but the fact is, you know, we just don't have the numbers in terms of people to dramatically impact the culture on the street.

Yes, we have disproportionate influences, no question about that.

Unfortunately, however, 70 or 80% of Jewish influence goes in the wrong direction. It is sadly not a convince that George Soros happens to be a Jew who is utterly divorced from anything Jewish, and he is loathing, I'm quite sure, of the Hebrew testament just as much as he's loathing of anything Christian.

Yes, there is a war against Christianity right now, and I would go as far as to say that Christianity is a lost, unprotected minority.

Yeah.

You know, you spoke earlier in the show about the enormous, mind-numbing, bravery shown by Hollywood. Right?

GLENN: [Laughs.] Yes. It was -- I was weeping.

DANIEL: Sorry?

GLENN: I was weepy and teary-eyed when I saw it the data.

DANIEL: They put the show on Broadway, the Book of Mormon. Really brave, right?

GLENN: Yes.

DANIEL: -- poke fun at one of the most successful groups of people, Latter Day Saints church, most successful group of people on the planet. Strong family life, business, everything works well in the LDS, and so we'll do a show mocking them.

What about the brave -- why don't you do a show called the Book of Islam? Do a show on the Koran on Broadway. Let's see some bravery here. You want to mock something, mock that. But no, never mock Christianity.

Excuse me. They will never mock Islam but they'll mock Judaism, and more than that, Christianity is truly up for grabs.

GLENN: You wrote -- you said, consider the long list of antiChristian books that have been published in recent months. American Fascist, the Christian Right and the War on America. Baptizing of America, the religious right's plans for the rest you was.

The end of faith. Religion, terror, and future of reason. Purity and Politics, the right wing assault on religious freedom. Atheist Universe, the thinking person's answer to Christian fundamentalism. Kingdom Come, how religious right distorts the faith and threatens America. Religion Gone Bad. The hidden dangers of the Christian right.

DANIEL: Without trying, my researchers came up with 50 antiChristian books, books that if you would replace on the cover the word Christian with the word -- pardon me, homosexual or something like that, the world would absolutely go nuts. It would be totally unacceptable. But since it says Christian, it's fine. And you find the same thing also in movies. I'm not saying movies define the culture but they certainly do track the culture.

And the last time a nun was portrayed sensitively and respectfully was the Sound of Music from the '60s. And back in those -- remember Bing Crosby and movies like Boys Town and things like that.

This was a sympathetic priest who played a key role in society, shaped the lives of boys. And now, what do you get now? Now all you get are movies that assault and attack every priest, every nun, every pastor. These are people who are evil and doing horrible things. You know, one in 20,000, but look at the list of folks in show business, right?

One point to find good people overwhelmingly, look at the people who give their lives over to God and who really take care of other people. You find no detection of that at all. Furthermore, I want to say, Roland Emmerich, famous writer and director, he did Independence Day where half the planet was destroyed with computer-generated imagery, of course. But more interestingly, in 2009 I think he did the movie called 2012, which was a celebration of the Mayan myth. He hates Christianity. This is a guy who makes no secret of his loathing of Christianity. He makes the movie, 2012 in which he destroys Jerusalem and the Vatican and the famous statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, and people said to him, look, it makes sense to also destroy the Kaaba, in Mecca.

This is an apocalypse. That's wiping out the whole world. If you're going to wipe out Jerusalem, never mind Washington, D.C. but Jerusalem and the Vatican and Christ the Redeemer statue. He said, do you think I'm crazy? Do you think we want a fatwa?

So he basically said, look, I'm a coward. I'm not an artist. I'm a coward.

GLENN: So you are -- you are saying, your warning, really, was -- because you brought up Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring, and you said, look, you can choose to ignore this, but it's at your own peril.

DANIEL: Well, you know, I'm saying that things are not going to slow down. The history doesn't suggest that all on its own, America's popular culture, which is shaped very much today by a secularist agenda, even in the schools, you know, and when you've got the minds of the young, you pretty much can tell which way things are going in the future.

We used to send our children to schools. They would be safe physically and spiritually, and what they were taught were the famous three Rs. Children need to learn to read, to write, and to do arithmetic. Nowadays, we send children to school. They're not always safe physically. Heaven knows they're not safe spiritually. And we don't teach theology.

They do get inculcated and indoctrinated with what I call the three Ss. Socialism, secularism, and sexuality.

They get drenched with secularism, and this is what children come out of school with. This means that those are the future adults and leaders tomorrow. Their hatred to Christianity is going to be the same or more than today's. And so I guess what I'm saying is, let's link arms, shoulder to shoulder, and let us now be as sensitive to attacks on Christians as the blacks are about attacks on African-Americans, and homosexuals -- heaven knows, the best people in the whole world to jump on anyone in the culture who does anything anti-Semitic are my folks. Let's take a page out of the book of all of these folks and Christians, learn to link arms and defend yourself against insults in the call the. I will tell you, the phrase turn the other cheek, which is so well known in Christianity, actually comes from the Old Testament. It's the book of Lamentations. And when Jeremiah wrote that book and spoke about turning the other cheek, it wasn't a virtue. It was a curse. It was saying that your enemies are getting so strong that when they might you on one cheek, you barely can do anything to stop them hitting your other cheek as well.

And so I say, let's go for the Jewish interpretation here.

GLENN: [Laughs.]

And let's what? Go ahead.

DANIEL: Let's stop turning the other cheek. Let's stop ignoring the attacks on Christianity. We Jews know that these attacks on Christianity are bad for everybody, not just for Christians.

GLENN: Rabbi Daniel Lapin. Author of so many books. Let's see. The latest one, America's Real Buried Treasure, recently, Thou Shall Prosper. Rabbi Lapin. You can find him at RabbiDanielLapin.com. RabbiDanielLapin.com.

DANIEL: I appreciate everything you do, Glenn. I really dough.

GLENN: God bless you. Thank you so much. Rabbi Daniel Lapin.

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.