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

Are Mass Shootings a Reflection of Our Godless Society?

February 27, 2018
Staff

WRITER

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?”

Glenn revisited the famous “God is dead” quote from German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche on today’s show, analyzing how our society has disintegrated since people decided they no longer believed in God and asking if that loss has encouraged mass shootings. When we’re told that God doesn’t exist, there are no heroes to look up to and even science can be ignored, what else can we expect but chaos?

“How much … has the foundation for our society been laid to grow these killers?” Glenn asked. “How much of just the removal of basic principles and then not replacing them with anything other than gobbledygook?”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So I want to tell you about a movement now to get schools just to recognize the sixth commandment. Just can be can we -- can we recognize the sixth. Don't need to have all ten. Let's just put one in. You can't murder.

How much of this has been -- how much of this has been -- has the foundation for our society been laid to grow these killers? How much of just the removal of basic principles and then not replacing them with anything other than gobbledegook.

We're doing this now with science. We're now saying that just because you say you're a man or say you're a woman, you are. Rejecting science. We've always been told, as religious people, you are science deniers. But we're now being told that just because you say you're a woman, you are a woman. Denying the X and Y chromosomes.

What is happening to us? What happens to us is, no matter what the god is, no matter what the -- we used to -- develop a society based on what the shoe box says. And inside the shoe box is a Magic 8-Ball. And that's what we've set our society up on.

Well, we might go and say, you know, we -- am I a woman? Shake the Magic 8-Ball and it says, ask again later.

And we build our whole foundation on that. Well, if you take away the Magic 8-Ball, you better replace it with something else that is going to decide what is true and what is not.

We've taken away our Magic 8-Ball. We've taken away the truth that we all recognize, the Judeo-Christian truth. We have taken -- we have taken God and chased him out in our society. What made western culture different was, we looked to Jesus. Jesus was a messenger of peace.

Now, religion's got screwed up all the time. All the time. But generally speaking, when we would take these big leaps forward, it was because we were basing our society and the greatest men in our society, on Jesus.

They were the ones who sacrificed it all. They were the ones who were peaceful, who were gentle, who were giving, who were healing. Who were listeners and comforters. Who took more than their fair share for everybody else. And that was something that was grown inside of us.

Now we've gotten rid of that character. And what have we replaced it with. Nothing. There is no hero. There is no archetype. There is nothing.

Point to what we're all striving to be. You know, we all -- we all chanted -- well, not all of us, but many chanted for change. To what?

To what? There has to be a point on the horizon. To what?

Many of us said, you're going to make these changes, and they're never going to be enough. It's never going to be enough. Because you haven't told us -- if you told us that look, we just want people to be fairly treated. Gay people should be able to get married. Fine. The way to solve this is to get the government out of marriage.

Otherwise, you cause far too many problems. So get government out of marriage. As a Christian, I don't get anything from the government declaring my marriage is sacred or valid. Who cares?

What we've done, however, is created a system to where now, what about the wedding cake? What about this? What about that? And the government has to be involved. That's not American. That's not freedom.

But because we don't have a point on the horizon, where we're saying, we're headed for that archetype. That's what we want. And this is what people are like, in that archetype. And they're well-defined characters, in all kinds of situations. We know how Jesus acted when he was angry. We know Jesus, how he acted when he was being scourged and accused. We know when he had the power to heal. We know how he acted when he was offered up the wealth of the earth. We know every scenario. We know.

Where is that archetype for us?

This is -- you know, I'm -- I'm reading Pinkerton and I'm also reading Jordan Peterson at the same time. And they're both coming at the problems of our society in very similar ways. Jordan Peterson, however, is saying there is a case for God here. Pinkerton is saying there is no case for God.

As I'm looking at -- as I'm looking at things, I'm realizing how foolish I have been. And how much -- how much I have to learn.

And how I have -- how I have allowed people to shape my thinking. For instance, I've always thought Nietzsche was, you know, God is dead. And it's nihilistic. And it's all over. And there's nothing good.

Nihilism. No, that's what he was warning against. And it's amazing, because he -- he makes this case that God is dead in something that he calls The Parable of the Madman. And the ending is what we've done.

We didn't listen to what he was saying. Listen to this Parable of a Madman.

Have you not heard of the madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours and ran into the marketplace and cried incessantly, I'm looking for God, I'm looking for God. And many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there and excited considerable laughter. And they said, oh, you lost him? Oh, did he lose his way like a child? Is he hiding? Oh, he's afraid of us. Has he gone on a voyage? Maybe he's emigrated. They shouted and they laughed.

And the madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances. So here he is, around a bunch of people, who are mocking the fact that he's looking for God.

He says, where has he gone? I'll tell you, we have killed him. You and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How are we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon?

What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Is it moving, or are we moving? Or are we perpetually falling backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there even an up or down left now? Ask yourself these questions. Is there an up or down left now? Do you know what is up, down, sideways? Do you know which way we're falling?

Are we falling to the left or are we falling to the right? Are we falling, or are we falling backward?

There's no consensus to this at all. We have no idea. That's what this, quote, madman was saying to the people.

We don't have any idea. Is it not more and more night coming all the time? Has it not become colder? Ask yourself that question. Are we not a colder society than we were 20 years ago, 40 years ago? Are we not colder in many ways?

Doesn't it seem like darkness is getting earlier and earlier now in our society?

He then says, the famous quote from Nietzsche, God is dead. God remains dead. Here is what we don't follow.

And we have killed him. How shall we murderers of all murderers console ourselves now?

Think of this. If there is no God, who is consoling? Where do you get your -- where do you get your peace, your solace?

He's saying, because in that society, that's -- everybody found it with God. That which is holiest and mightiest of all, that the world has yet possessed, has bled to death under our knives. Who is going to wipe this blood off of us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement? What sacred games will we need to invent?

Now, think of that. We had a system. It was the atonement. It was for Christians. It was Jesus bore the sins so you can start over. Well, what is our -- what is our ritual of atonement now?

We don't have one as a society. There is no one who makes up for everything. There is no one who can forgive our sins. We just have to do it. You just forgive it. All you have to do is just stop drinking. Just stop drinking. All you have to do is stop eating so much. Just stop eating so much.

That's all you have to do. Then why don't we do it?

You know what I have to do? I just have to start exercising. Why don't we do it? There are things that we tell ourselves all the time that we just have to get over it, but why don't we?

That was an important ritual that we had. Now, here's where it gets interesting. Listen to what the people said.

Here the madman fell silent. He regarded his listeners -- they were silent as well and stared at him.

At last, he threw down his lantern to the ground and broke and it went out. I have come to, too, early, he said to them, my time is not yet come. The tremendous event is still on its way. Still traveling. It hasn't reached the ears of men yet. Lightning and thunder require time. The light of the stars require time.

Deeds require time, even after they are done, before they can even be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant than them from the distant stars. And yet, they had done it themselves. Meaning, Nietzsche is telling us now, what are you going to invent? Who is going to be your God? Who is going to make your rules?

Now, remember, he is writing this in Germany. And he is saying the Germans have lost their God. You're now going to have to restructure. So what is it? So it was built on the Progressive Era. It was built on science and pseudoscience. According to man. And man said, what you know we have to do is treat everybody equally? We have to be a collective. Instead of God saying, each of you are individuals, man said, yeah, but we're going to protect the individuals by working as a collective.

That led to death camps, death chambers, gas chambers, gulags, all over the world.

We have to fix reason firmly in her seat. But we also have to realize, we've killed God in our society. And it's going to end the same way it does every time a society kills God. If you want to kill God, then what are you replacing it with? Let's be very specific on that.

What is our God? What gives us eternal truth? What is that point on the horizon that we need to affix and look at and say, we're headed in that direction? If you get rid of the God who gave us the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as individuals, if you get rid of him, then it's logical to have a conversation about getting rid of those rights.

But then, who is going to issue our rights? And what exactly do they mean?

When 'Abolish America' stops being symbolic

Al Drago / Stringer | Getty Images

Prosecutors stopped a New Year’s Eve bombing plot rooted in ideology that treats the US as an enemy to be destroyed.

Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles announced that four members of an anti-capitalist extremist group were arrested on Friday for plotting coordinated bombings in California on New Year’s Eve.

According to the Department of Justice, the suspects planned to detonate explosives concealed in backpacks at various businesses while also targeting ICE agents and vehicles. The attacks were supposed to coincide with midnight celebrations.

Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist movements share a conviction that the United States, like Israel, is a colonial project that must be destroyed.

The plot was disrupted before any lives were lost. The group behind the plot calls itself the Turtle Island Liberation Front. That name matters more than you might think.

When ideology turns operational

For years, the media has told us that radical, violent rhetoric on the left is mostly symbolic. They explained away the angry slogans, destructive language, and calls for “liberation” as performance or hyperbole.

Bombs are not metaphors, however.

Once explosives enter the picture, framing the issue as harmless expression becomes much more difficult. What makes this case different is the ideological ecosystem behind it.

The Turtle Island Liberation Front was not a single-issue group. It was anti-American, anti-capitalist, and explicitly revolutionary. Its members viewed the United States as an illegitimate occupying force rather than a sovereign nation. America, in their view, is not a nation, not a country; it is a structure that must be dismantled at any cost.

What ‘Turtle Island’ really means

“Turtle Island” is not an innocent cultural reference. In modern activist usage, it is shorthand for the claim that the United States has no moral or legal right to exist. It reframes the country as stolen land, permanently occupied by an illegitimate society.

Once people accept that premise, the use of violence against their perceived enemies becomes not only permissible, but virtuous. That framing is not unique to one movement. It appears again and again across radical networks that otherwise disagree on nearly everything.

Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist movements do not share the same vision for the future. They do not even trust one another. But they share a conviction that the United States, like Israel, is a colonial project that must be destroyed. The alignment of radical, hostile ideologies is anything but a coincidence.

The red-green alliance

For decades, analysts have warned about what is often called the red-green alliance: the convergence of far-left revolutionary politics with Islamist movements. The alliance is not based on shared values, but on shared enemies. Capitalism, national sovereignty, Western culture, and constitutional government all fall into that category.

History has shown us how this process works. Revolutionary coalitions form to tear down an existing order, promising liberation and justice. Once power is seized, the alliance fractures, and the most ruthless faction takes control.

Iran’s 1979 revolution followed this exact pattern. Leftist revolutionaries helped topple the shah. Within a few years, tens of thousands of them were imprisoned, executed, or “disappeared” by the Islamist regime they helped install. Those who do not understand history, the saying goes, are doomed to repeat it.

ALEX WROBLEWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

This moment is different

What happened in California was not a foreign conflict bleeding into the United States or a solitary extremist acting on impulse. It was an organized domestic group, steeped in ideological narratives long validated by universities, activist networks, and the media.

The language that once circulated on campuses and social media is now appearing in criminal indictments. “Liberation” has become a justification for explosives. “Resistance” has become a plan with a date and a time. When groups openly call for the destruction of the United States and then prepare bombs to make it happen, the country has entered a new phase. Pretending things have not gotten worse, that we have not crossed a line as a country, is reckless denial.

Every movement like this depends on confusion. Its supporters insist that calls for America’s destruction are symbolic, even as they stockpile weapons. They denounce violence while preparing for it. They cloak criminal intent in the language of justice and morality. That ambiguity is not accidental. It is deliberate.

The California plot should end the debate over whether these red-green alliances exist. They do. The only question left is whether the country will recognize the pattern before more plots advance farther — and succeed.

This is not about one group, one ideology, or one arrest. It is about a growing coalition that has moved past rhetoric and into action. History leaves no doubt where that path leads. The only uncertainty is whether Americans will step in and stop it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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.