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

Cruz Sets the Immigration Record Straight With Megyn Kelly

January 29, 2016
Staff

WRITER

The Context

At last night's Fox News/Google GOP Debate in Iowa, Sen. Rubio did a song and dance with Sen. Cruz on immigration. Rubio accused Cruz of supporting a bill that Rubio himself authored as part of the so-called Gang of Eight, trying to make it look like Cruz had flip-flopped his stance on immigration policy. The bill in question allowed for citizenship and legalization. Cruz had introduced a series of amendments, each designed to fix problems in the bill, but the way he handled it keeps coming back to bite him.

The Poison Pill

Rubio's immigration reform bill allowed for both citizenship and legalization. Knowing the bill would not stand without one of those key issues, Cruz proposed an amendment to remove citizenship, leaving the option of legalization. It's what's called a "poison pill," making the bill completely undesirable to the opposition. Now Rubio is trying to say that Cruz was in favor of legalization. Cruz was never in favor of legalization --- and Sen. Rubio knows it.

For the Record

Marco Rubio was part of the Gang of Eight trying to pass immigration reform. It's an extremely complex issue, and he's used that complexity to his advantage this election season to muddy his opponents positions on immigration. Truth be told, Rubio is the candidate that supports giving citizenship and legalization to people who are currently in the U.S. illegally.

"I just can't believe that Marco Rubio is allowed to distort his own record so much," Glenn said Friday on The Glenn Beck Program.

The Kelly File

So, was Megyn Kelly's line of questioning during the debate foul? She presented a series of edited clips that made it appear Sen. Cruz had flip-flopped on the issue of immigration. However, in her follow-up interview (see below), she admitted Cruz's record did not support that argument, that he had been solid on the issue of immigration.

Common Sense Bottom Line

Ted Cruz has never supported amnesty and anyone who says otherwise is playing games. Rubio authored an immigration reform bill that included citizenship and legalization for illegals. Cruz tried to block it. For Rubio to paint Cruz as supporting legalization is blatantly false.

Listen to the exchange on immigration between Megyn Kelly and Senator Cruz, beginning at about 3:45:

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

GLENN: Let's go to Mo in California. Hello, Mo.

CALLER: Well, good morning. Thank you guys so much for all you're doing. You know, I have a unique perspective. I listen to all these debates on the radio because I'm always driving. So I'm on the road a lot. I live in California.

I'm a Christian conservative. I've got seven kids, five in the military. I've served myself. So I started out a Ben Carson guy. And I always loved Ted. Now I'm a big Ted fan. I kind of switched over to Ted. I don't think last night did him any favors. I was really concerned with some of the -- him and Rubio -- Marco too, some of the clips they played, I didn't watch the clips, I had to hear them. But by listening to what they were saying, they really did a job on him. He really came across as kind of flippy-floppy. Not what I expected. I was kind of surprised. I do the best I can to read. I listen to you guys all the time. I try to keep as informed as I can. I didn't realize there was a history of changing positions and not being -- I really thought Ted was a lot more solid. I still will vote for him, no doubt.

PAT: He is solid actually.

GLENN: He is. In fact, I want to play the audio because after the debate, Megyn Kelly came up to him -- right after the chute. And she said, "Let's go over this again." Because I don't know what the hell is wrong with Ted on this. He has the best reason for doing this. And he eventually got to it with Megyn Kelly.

PAT: It took a long time though.

GLENN: But it really took a long time.

PAT: And we've looked into this. We've dug into this really deeply. We wanted to know ourselves. And he's got a reasonable explanation for it.

GLENN: I think he just doesn't want to say, "I put a poison pill out."

PAT: He doesn't.

GLENN: But that's exactly what he did, and he admitted that finally with Megyn Kelly last night. But by then, I think the damage was done. But we'll play that really fascinating interview with Megyn Kelly immediately following the debate. Next.

(OUT AT 8:33AM)

GLENN: This is the exchange with Megyn Kelly right after the debate with Ted Cruz. Listen to this.

MEGYN: Was that all an act? It was pretty convincing.

TED: You know, the amendment you're talking about is one sentence. It's 38 words. Anyone can go online on TedCruz.org and read exactly what it said. In those 38 words, it said, "Anyone here illegally is permanently ineligible for citizenship." It didn't say a word about legalization.

MEGYN: But the bill allowed both. The bill you were amending allowed citizenship and legal- --

TED: But, Megyn, the bill was 1,000 pages. I introduced a series of amendments, each designed to fix problems in the bill. The fact that each amendment didn't fix every problem didn't mean that I supported the rest of the bill.

PAT: So that was the exchange.

MEGYN: So what I was trying to get at there was, you know, the bill offered both, legalization and citizenship. And you tried to take away citizenship, which would have allowed legalization still.

But, I mean, I look back at your record a lot to see, "Did Ted Cruz really want legalization, or didn't he?" I think the record supports you, that you did not want it.

PAT: And to your point, Stu, where was that during the debate?

STU: Yeah, I like Megyn Kelly. I think she did generally a good job. This moment bothered me a little bit because she made this big montage of these clips that were like cut up in real short segments.

PAT: That made him look bad.

STU: And said, "What were you doing, just acting out there? What was the deal?"

PAT: Making him look like a flip-flopper.

GLENN: I think that's her job though. As a person in the debate, you're not supposed to -- Chris Wallace was like, "Marco Rubio, that's Ted Cruz over there. Get him." Where a job is not to flip it one way or the other. It's to present it and say, "What were you doing there? What is that? Was that a good piece of acting, or did you mean something different?" I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

STU: I just think if she went through the work and realized and came to the conclusion that he did not support this amnesty in this particular bill, it just seems to me like that should be at least a mention in -- as you're discussing it. You know, she comes here and says multiple times, "I looked at your record. You did not want amnesty. So what's the deal with the parliamentary tricks?"

I mean, that's a fair question. I think he should have to answer that, why did he do it? That's fine. But she did the homework and she came to the come conclusion that he didn't want amnesty, and the way the question came off, to me, at least was like, "Hey, you obviously wanted amnesty and then now -- and now you're saying you didn't."

Again, I'm not blaming her that she did a terrible job or anything by any means. I think she did a good job. I just wish that was part of the question. I think a lot of people in Iowa are saying, "Wow. I just saw 19 clips edited very tightly with very little context." And now Ted is sitting there saying, "Well, look, this is what I tried to do." It seems like he's on the defensive. When Megyn Kelly herself, the person asking the question, has done the math and found out that it wasn't true.

PAT: Knew the answer. Yeah.

GLENN: All right. Play the rest.

MEGYN: It does. That it really was a poison pill amendment. What I was trying to get to you was, it just seems weird for the average person to see, like, the acting when you're trying to sell it, saying I want the bill to pass.

TED: But no, no. What I said was I wanted immigration reform to pass.

MEGYN: You also said the bill.

TED: I didn't say I want the bill to pass.

MEGYN: You did. I have it. I played it. That was the very first sound bite we played. The very first one.

TED: What I said was I want immigration reform to pass, and I've laid out on my website an 11-page very, very detailed immigration plan that I would like to have passed. We've got to secure the borders. We've got to stop illegal immigration.

MEGYN: You were talking about people coming out of the shadows. It seems like acting.

TED: Well, look, what I often do, particularly when debating Democrats -- and I was debating Chuck Schumer there -- is use the language of the Democrats to show their hypocrisy. Because, you know what, Chuck Schumer and the Democrats talked about people coming under the shadows. But it wasn't about that. It was about votes.

MEGYN: And they were saying at the time that it wasn't about citizenship. And you were trying to put the lie to that? Is that the --

TED: Yes. Right.

MEGYN: As I read your testimonials on this, that's how I read it.

GLENN: Yes.

TED: No, that's exactly right. They said it was all about bringing people out of the shadows. And I said, "Well, great. Then you should be happy to take citizenship off the table." And, of course, Chuck Schumer responded, "If there is no citizenship, there is no reform. We'll kill the whole thing." And, you know, there's an old joke that the new politically correct term for illegal aliens is now undocumented Democrats. This was about votes. And that amendment laid that there. And when the hypocrisy was shown to the American people, that's one of the reasons we were able to kill it.

MEGYN: I got it.

TED: It's why Jeff Sessions said if it wasn't for Cruz -- he said, "If Ted wasn't there, they would have passed."

MEGYN: I thought is he lying about this poison pill thing? The record supports you that it was a poison pill.

PAT: Well, there you go. It took a long time to get to. But it was a poison pill. And he was doing parliamentary, he was playing parliamentary politics. He was trying to show the hypocrisy of the left.

GLENN: He was doing exactly what we said he was doing about three months ago.

PAT: Yeah. That's right.

GLENN: Because we looked at it as well.

PAT: And, by the way, Marco Rubio was part of that. They were part -- he was part of the Gang of Eight trying to get that bill passed. He helped write it.

GLENN: But I just can't believe that Marco Rubio is allowed to distort his own record so much.

PAT: I know. I know.

STU: It is comical.

PAT: It's amazing.

GLENN: He's flipped him.

STU: What Rubio was accusing Cruz of inaccurately is -- as an attack --

PAT: Is what he has done?

STU: He's like, "You, jerk, you used to believe the thing that I believed."

PAT: Right.

STU: It's like, wait a minute. So you're saying -- your attack against him is that he may have supported part of the bill that you wrote. That's not -- that shouldn't be a good attack. But it seemed -- it seems to be --

PAT: It's weird that it seems to be working.

STU: You could argue I guess that it's just people trying to hide their record or something, and that's what he's attacking. But the huge negative you'd be accusing Cruz of was saying the same thing you believed then too. And, by the way, that's not true.

PAT: And part of what Rubio said last night was that Cruz is now trying to out-Trump, Trump. Well, Trump is for a path to citizenship. Trump has been the one that's been trumpeting, there's got to be a way for these people to become legal citizens.

STU: You can't kick out people who have been living here 20 years. You can't do that. You can't get them all.

PAT: He just said that.

GLENN: Do you have the audio of that?

PAT: Yeah, I'll have to find that.

GLENN: 68 percent of Iowans still have not made up their mind.

STU: It's amazing.

GLENN: It really is. It really is. This is the weekend most people begin to make their mind up in Iowa, studies show. Tomorrow and the next day.

Featured Image: Fox News anchor and debate moderator Megyn Kelly speaks with Republican Presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) after the Republican Presidential debate sponsored by Fox News and Google at the Iowa Events Center on January 28, 2016 in Des Moines, Iowa. The Democratic and Republican Iowa Caucuses, the first step in nominating a presidential candidate from each party, will take place on February 1. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

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.