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

Ted Nugent flips out over calls for more gun control, misinformation

July 25, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Glenn spoke with fervent 2nd Amendment supporter Ted Nugent on radio today because Ted is fired up about all the misinformation being spewed on the media about current laws, assault rifles and more. What are they getting wrong? And what does Ted think is the answer?

Full Transcript below:

GLENN:  Let me go to Ted Nugent.  Jeez.  Another angry gun‑toting white guy. 

 

PAT:  Mmm‑hmmm. 

 

GLENN:  Ted? 

 

NUGENT:  Greetings, Glenn, from the greatest rhythm and blues rock‑and‑roll tour in the history of noise. 

 

GLENN:  Where are you today? 

 

NUGENT:  I'm in the swamps of Jackson, Michigan, cleansing my soul prior to heading for Wisconsin to continue the rock‑and‑roll celebration. 

 

GLENN:  Okay.  Now, do you have to cleanse your soul after Wisconsin? 

 

NUGENT:  I do it daily anyhow, whether I need it or not. 

 

GLENN:  Okay.  Just, I didn't know.  Some people just cleanse their soul on, you know, Saturdays or Sundays. 

 

NUGENT:  I wash my hair on Saturday. 

 

GLENN:  Okay.  Good.  Ted, you have been ‑‑ and I'm sorry that I haven't had a chance to return any of your phone calls this week.  It's been nuts because of the thing that we're doing this weekend, but you ‑‑ I believe you are close to a brain aneurysm on this story coming out of Aurora, Colorado. 

 

NUGENT:  Well, yes.  Number one, I can't go further without saying that the Nugent family and everybody I know, I mean literally everybody says prayers for the victims and their families in the face of such a tragedy, but now we need to go on to the vile intentional misrepresentation of what did happen.  And I think as soon as you can, Glenn, you need to talk to your friend Bill O'Reilly because I've never heard such nonsense in all my life and I think it epitomizes the ignorance out there when Bill O'Reilly states as a fact that anybody can go buy a bazooka and a machine gun without the government knowing it unless, of course, you're in the crips and the bloods.  My God in heaven, since 1934 machine guns ‑‑ by the way, bazookas are not available this week and they never have been. 

 

GLENN:  Really? 

 

NUGENT:  But to buy a machine gun, you have to go through such a vetting, such a federal BATF and local law enforcement, national law enforcement review, background check, fill out all kinds of documents and buy a $200 transfer tax certificate per purchase if they allow it.  So this kind of information is just looney.  And let me state as if fact that I know for a fact that most of the damage done by this devil in Aurora was done with the number one pheasant shotgun in the world, a Remington 870.  His AR‑15 Smith & Wesson rifle is now the most popular sporting rifle in America.  It is the number one competition, number one in self‑defense, it's the number one sporting rifle for big game and small game.  And if they keep calling it an assault weapon, I may have that aneurysm. 

 

GLENN:  You know why they call it that?  Because of the way it looks.  That's it.  Because of ‑‑ I was out shooting, what, two weeks ago and that's exactly ‑‑ that's the gun we were using.  And we were target practice.  I mean, that is the gun we would use.  If I was going hunting, that would be the gun that I would use. 

 

NUGENT:  Oh, and most sporters do but let me ‑‑ you talk about the way it looks.  Dianne Feinstein and her ‑‑ by the way, Dianne Feinstein who's just literally going berserk on the misinformation about the weapons and the ammunition.  This is the woman who had a concealed weapons permit but denied California citizens the right to have a concealed weapons permit.  She demonized the concept of concealed weapon permit when she had one, Glenn, and she sat in a room with a friend of mine who will remain unnamed, unidentified, a Democrat congressman from one of my favorite states and she took out a copy of shotgun news.  This is a publication that, you know, lists the different types of firearms available, legal firearms, and she got out a Sharpie and circled the ones she wanted banned in the original assault weapon ban and she circled ones that were black with folding stocks when, in fact, the exact same weapon, exact same rate of fire, exact same caliber, everything was the same but it was made out of wood.  She didn't want to ban those.  This is lunacy.  And remember, Glenn, this monster in Aurora took 20 minutes to do his evil.  In 20 minutes you don't need an assault weapon, you don't need a machine gun, which he didn't have either of, but you could do more damage with a single shot or a bolt action because he had 20 minutes. 

 

GLENN:  You know, here's the thing.  If ‑‑ and nobody I hear is talking about this except people like us:  If you had more people carrying a weapon.  If people had a gun in their back and they were ‑‑ and they were licensed to carry it, that guy wouldn't have gotten off more than four shots. 

 

NUGENT:  And I'm sure you've covered it because there was a shooting like that in a church in Aurora this year earlier. 

 

GLENN:  Yep. 

 

NUGENT:  That was stopped because the guy had a gun.  And I know the hysteria about teargas and it was dark in the theater.  Glenn, I am not making this up.  Last week my wife Shemane and I were filming a segment for our Spirit of the Wild show and we were shooting at watermelons surrounded by human silhouette targets just as kind of a competition and from 20 feet and from 20 yards and we were shooting from every imaginable angle, undercover, from sitting, from squatting, from prone position, from behind cover and from in the open, and we never hit an innocent and we never missed the watermelon.  And I'm just a guitar player.  If a guitar player can neutralize a watermelon from 20 feet ‑‑ and this is with live fire, by the way. 

 

GLENN:  Do you ‑‑

 

NUGENT:  We would shoot while the other would take the target shots.  So there was that tension of live fire.  And this was done in a scenario ‑‑ and I understand it wasn't real bullets coming at us and it wasn't people screaming, running around. 

 

GLENN:  Please. 

 

NUGENT:  But dear God in heaven, doing nothing is not an option.  Training, having a firearm to neutralize an evil gun maniac is a way to go, and we train for that.  And I wish is I would have been in the theater that day. 

 

GLENN:  So do I.  So do I.

 

NUGENT:  Glenn, I don't mean to monopolize here, but heroism, warrior action was performed that day by men who dove in the line of fire to save their loved ones.  They were a warrior but they were unarmed warriors. 

 

GLENN:  Look.  Ted, this is the same story over and over and over again, and you know as well as I do one of the safest countries in the world is Switzerland.  Because you're required to have an automatic weapon. 

 

NUGENT:  A real machine gun. 

 

GLENN:  Right.  You're required to have it.  Why?  Because they know.  The best way to defend ‑‑ why do you think Switzerland is never overrun?  Because they're all defended ‑‑ every home is defended by the people in the home.  And let's look at Chicago.  Play the audio from Chicago, will you, Pat?  Listen to this audio from Chicago.  And nobody's talking about this.  Here's a city that's got gun control out the wazoo. 

 

NUGENT:  It's a gun‑free zone. 

 

GLENN:  Yeah.  Listen to the audio here. 

 

VOICE:  Six people are shot within 15 minutes on the city's south side.  One teenager is dead.

 

REPORTER:  Nancy Lou is at area two police headquarters.  She has details.

 

REPORTER:  The city's homicide rate is up by about 39% so far this year.  Faith leaders called for a stop to the gun violence, and one pastor said bluntly, "We are tired of doing funerals."  Community activist Andrew Holmes is also urging local radio stations to stop playing gangsta rap music which he believes has only encouraged all this shooting and killing. 

 

GLENN:  Of course it has.  I mean, Ted, you know, does music affect people? 

 

NUGENT:  God knows it affects me, but in a beautifully positive way. 

 

GLENN:  Right. 

 

NUGENT:  And it does affect people negatively.  If you talk about crime and you celebrate crime and you glorify, you know, evil and criminal activity, yeah.  And it's been going on for years now. 

 

GLENN:  And nobody's talking about that.  Nobody on the ‑‑ nobody in the news.  They're talking about gun control, gun control, gun control.  I'm not talking about music control.  I'm not talking about movie control.  I'm saying, can you recognize that that plays a role?  Nobody ‑‑ you should be licensed.  You should be licensed to make a movie.  You should be licensed to make music.  How ridiculous is that? 

 

NUGENT:  It's all ridiculous.  Well, bottom line is Chicago is a gun‑free zone but Rahm Emanuel like Mayor Daley uses tax dollars from citizens who they force into unarmed helplessness to pay for their armed security detail.  This is unbelievable. 

 

GLENN:  Okay. 

 

NUGENT:  And more people should join the NRA. 

 

GLENN:  Okay. 

 

NUGENT:  More people should do their homework about real firearms and real legality of firearms and ammunition.  Everything reported about this shooter and his so‑called armor‑piercing ammo.  And remember, Glenn, they wanted to ban hollow points because it does too much damage.  Well, hollow points won't go through the walls because they're ‑‑ because they disrupt in the target.  There's so much inform ‑‑ misinformation out there that I pray to God you'll talk to Bill O'Reilly because his ‑‑

 

GLENN:  I'm on his show tomorrow night. 

 

NUGENT:  He's screaming that people can go to the local florist and buy a bazooka. 

 

STU:  (Laughing.)

 

GLENN:  Okay, Ted, let me change subjects real quick.  I would like you ‑‑ and just shoot me an e‑mail on this.  I want you to go to TheBlaze.com and I want you to read the story on the East River monster.  This is, there's three pictures of this thing.  Have you guys seen this on The Blaze yet?  There are three pictures of this animal that has washed up on shore from the East River and I ‑‑ and nobody knows what animal this is.  I don't ‑‑ and you know animals.  Maybe you'll know.  It is the freakiest looking animal I've ever seen.  You see that, Stu? 

 

STU:  I'm going there now, though. 

 

GLENN:  It's a freak ‑‑

 

NUGENT:  I will freak it out because I love freakish animals, especially with garlic and butter. 

 

GLENN:  No, you don't want to eat this one.  If you have any idea, maybe it's a dog?  But it's ‑‑ it doesn't look like a dog.  I mean, it has fingers. 

 

STU:  They had one of these that came out recently, though, and it was proven to be a fake, right?  I mean, I don't believe it.  The Montauk monster.  That's what it was.  And that one wasn't real. 

 

GLENN:  Well ‑‑

 

STU:  Right? 

 

GLENN:  I don't know.  I don't ‑‑ this looks pretty ‑‑ I mean, this is freaky looking. 

 

STU:  That is really, really ‑‑

 

GLENN:  Very spooky. 

 

NUGENT:  If you want to save strange animals, be sure you open a hunting season on them and then we will manage them for maximum productivity. 

 

GLENN:  Ted, thanks very much.  I'll talk to you soon, my friend. 

 

NUGENT:  Ytah, God speed, Glenn.  Carry on, my friend. 

 

GLENN:  Have a good rest of the tour.

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.