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

The Entire List of Who to Blame for the Attempted Slaughter of GOP House Members

June 15, 2017
Staff

WRITER

For those scrambling to point fingers at who and what is responsible for the shooting in Alexandria that left five people shot and one person dead, Glenn provided a complete and thorough list on radio Thursday.

"I want to take this, and I want to put it in a lockbox, you know, where all the Al Gore Social Security money is," Glenn said. "I'm going to put that in a lockbox, and we're going to lock it away. And forever, those people responsible will be in that box."

He then opened up the metaphorical lockbox.

"Here's the truth. The shooter is responsible, by himself --- not the gun, not the bullets, not the gun industry . . . not the NRA, not the left, not the right, not the president, not the former president, not Hillary Clinton, not Antifa --- no one," Glenn said. "The shooter is responsible, period."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Okay. I want to show you some pictures. Stu, Pat, you can describe them. Before I get to the real culprit of the shooting yesterday.

And --

PAT: It's the Kathy Griffin holding the head of Donald Trump.

GLENN: It's that one.

STU: You've got -- oh, that the Shakespeare In the Park murder of the Trump-like character.

PAT: Assassination.

GLENN: What does it look like?

STU: What does it look like? It looks like they're killing Donald Trump in a park.

GLENN: Yeah. And got blood all over him. Right?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. Notice, does it look similar to the Kathy Griffin --

STU: Yes.

GLENN: All right. What's this one?

STU: From one of the riots in Berkeley, right? It says, "Kill Trump."

GLENN: Yes. Spring painted up on a pillar or a wall, right? What is this one?

STU: More riots.

GLENN: More riots.

Okay. And what were the riots doing? What were they doing?

PAT: Protesting Trump. Anti-Trump people.

GLENN: Who are those people? Yeah.

STU: Is that an effigy being hung there? I can't even tell what that is.

GLENN: No, that's a guy up on -- a turned over garbage can where they have lit the street on fire, and he's got a mask and he's preaching to the people there, more violence.

STU: Got it.

GLENN: Okay. So these things have happened on the left. All of them, except for the Antifa -- that has happened several times, but the others have happened this week or late last week. Okay?

Nobody is mentioning these in the media today. You're not seeing the pictures of Kathy on CNN. Oh, no, no, no. You're not -- you're not hearing anybody talk about Shakespeare In the Park today. Oh, no, no, no, no. No. No. You're not going to hear that.

So what am I going to say? Well, let me tell you what brought this all about. Let me tell you who is responsible for the shooting. When all is said and done, let me tell you exactly who is responsible for the shooting.

And I want to take this, and I want to put it in a lockbox, you know, where all the Al Gore Social Security money is. I'm going to put that in a lockbox, and we're going to lock it away. And forever -- those people responsible will be in that box because there's two things I want to tell you. So let's open up the lockbox. (sound effect)

Who do we put in there? The shooter, period. End of story. The shooter.

He was living in his van for the last couple of weeks. He is a violent guy who has a history of family violence. His stepdaughter wanted to get out of his -- out of his control so badly, she poured gasoline on herself and set herself on fire. He has a history of gunplay. He is a crazy, dangerous man. Am I going to put him in there, along with Kathy? No. Just him.

How about Shakespeare In the Park? No. Just him. Well, how about the Antifa movement? No, no, just him. He's the guy who got up in the morning and apparently got up several times over the last -- over the last few -- few days and weeks, while -- I mean, it was a big apartment in the back of his van -- loser. But he got up and he paced back and forth in the back of his van. What am I going to do? He went. He got the gun. He got the bullets. He went to the park. He asked, "Are these Republicans, or are these Democrats?" He went to the baseball diamond, and he's the one who pulled the trigger. Period. End of story. Close the lid. Put a lock on it. That is the truth.

Today I saw Michelle Malkin retweet a story -- I don't even remember, from MSNBC. I think. Look at my Twitter feed. See who is it from. Because I retweeted it. And she said -- it was a story -- somebody was blaming Donald Trump for -- for the shooting yesterday. That Donald Trump is responsible.

Now, remember, I have the lockbox over here. Who is responsible? Who is in the lockbox, Pat?

PAT: The shooter.

GLENN: The shooter.

PAT: The shooter.

GLENN: I know it was hard to follow because I had so many people in there.

PAT: It was.

GLENN: It was just the shooter.

PAT: The shooter.

GLENN: Now, I put that in a lockbox because we're going to open it and add some more people to it?

PAT: No. Because -- no, you already shoved it away. It's locked.

GLENN: Shoved it away. It's locked. There's no one else responsible for the shooting yesterday. Is that clear? Is that clear?

PAT: Yes. I think so.

GLENN: Is that clear? It's in a lockbox. It's away. It's in a safe. No one else is responsible.

What did Michelle Malkin tweet? The retweet story?

STU: I don't see a Michelle Malkin tweet, but there's a tweet from the Washington Times, about heated rhetoric that led to the Alexandria shooting.

GLENN: Okay. And the heated rhetoric, they're blaming Donald Trump.

STU: Yeah, Donald Trump partially to blame.

GLENN: Partially to blame.

STU: And that comes from Mark Sanford, by the way.

GLENN: Right. And Michelle Malkin said: Look at this discredited G.O.P. guy who is now blaming Donald Trump. Okay.

STU: The quote does not seem to be as clear as he was actually blaming Donald Trump, by the way. But still.

GLENN: All right. Okay. So what did I tweet? What did I say?

STU: You said Trump is responsible, as much as I am. Rachel Maddow, the New York Times, we all are. What choice will we make today? Deeds, not words.

GLENN: Okay. That's crazy. That's crazy.

STU: Well, especially since you have a lockbox.

GLENN: Right. I've got a lockbox. So how could I possibly --

STU: You made a clear point that the shooter is the only one responsible.

GLENN: Is the only one responsible.

STU: How can you say that?

GLENN: Correct.

STU: It's almost as if you're about to make some nuanced point that actually involves some listening.

GLENN: Nuanced point. That kindergarteners will not understand.

STU: Oh, but our audience, are they filled with kindergarteners? I don't think so.

GLENN: No, they're not. No, they're not. They're intelligent people. And so that's why I'm going to make this point.

Now let's go to point number two. Is there -- have you ever heard of the broken windows theory?

What's the broken windows theory?

STU: Rudy Giuliani.

GLENN: Rudy Giuliani. Okay. Giuliani used it to clean up New York. What is that theory?

STU: The theory being that if people kind of see dumb things -- you know, graffiti, broken windows, stupid things like that, they're going to be more likely to commit crimes because they think no one cares. So fix those things, and you'll start cleaning up the streets.

GLENN: Right. If you are walking down the street and you see a neighborhood where all the windows are broken out and it's all in disrepair, the average person will pick up a rock or is likely to pick up a rock and throw and break another window in a house full of broken windows.

However, the average person will never pick up a rock and -- and throw it through a window in a neighborhood where there are no broken windows. It's the broken window theory. What does it mean, Stu?

STU: Well, as it was applied there, it meant, you know, you need to have these -- you need to clean these things up. And if you have a neighborhood without broken windows, people won't be tempted to --

GLENN: Why? They don't even think about it.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: They don't even think about it. Because they're not bad people. Okay? However, we -- some of us have an instinct to do -- to do things -- and more importantly, criminals will prey on those areas because they think no one cares.

And so that opens up to the most nefarious among us, to take control and to do whatever they want because they think no one cares.

Okay. Broken windows theory: If I said to you I want a president who is walking around stage mocking Tea Partiers by calling them Teabaggers, do you want that?

STU: Uh-uh.

GLENN: Do you want a president who says, "Rough them up. You know, throw them outside in the cold and take his coat from him because he'll figure out what's right." That we want a president doing that?

STU: No.

GLENN: We don't want either of those presidents. We don't want either of those presidents. We'll accept those presidents because America has been walking down a street with more and more broken windows. And what are those broken windows? More and more politicians and more and more people, quite frankly, like me. Just leave everybody else out of it. Just make it me. Because Glenn Beck was on television at Fox saying crazy things. And he has -- he is opening up -- well, you know what, there's some truth to that. I'm not responsible for any of this. But yet, I am responsible in my own way for my own things, just like you are, when you get on and respond in kind. You're picking up a rock, and you're breaking a window.

What is Facebook? What is Twitter? That is the worst neighborhood in America. When you read that, people are vile. They are crude. They are mean.

They devalue other people. There's no kindness on Facebook. Or very little. There's no kindness on Twitter.

That is a neighborhood of nothing, but broken windows. And we are more inclined to pick up a rock and throw it at that other avatar that isn't really a person.

And what does that do? That makes somebody else want to pick up a rock and break another window.

Who is in the lockbox again? All the American people and all the people on the left or the right?

PAT: No, the shooter. Just the shooter.

GLENN: Oh, that's right. Just the shooter.

STU: He's also in there with Facebook and Twitter, right?

GLENN: No. No.

STU: Oh, it's just him by himself?

GLENN: It's just him by himself. In a lockbox. In a safe. Can't be changed.

PAT: Jeffy is not in there with him?

GLENN: Well, Jeffy is in there too, but nobody else is in that. He's the only one responsible.

The question is, will we take responsibility at all for throwing any stones that leads to a society that is not kind, is not gracious, that looks at the opposing point of view as the enemy?

There are bad people in America. I believe -- and I never believed this before, and I have nothing to back it up. And I'm hoping I'm wrong. I'm hoping these numbers are way too big. They may be too big, they may be too small. I don't know. But I hope it's no more than 10 percent of both sides that do want a revolution, that do want to duke it out, that do believe we're in a civil war. "Grab your guns. Let's just get this over."

But that leaves 80 percent of us who do not want anything to do with that. You get a hit of dopamine every time you pick up a rock and throw it. It feels good.

I've said to you before, it's going to be this audience that saves the republic. But only if you choose. I said there's going to come a time when you're going to want to go, and everybody is going one way, and you're going to have to stop and say, "Don't. Don't go that way." That time is right now.

And you may not get anyone else to go with you, but you go the other way. Do not pick up the rock. That doesn't mean surrender. That doesn't mean don't tell the truth.

Here's the truth: The shooter is responsible, by himself. Not the gun. Not the bullets. Not the gun industry. Not the NRA. Not the left. Not the right. Not the president. Not the former president. Not Hillary Clinton. Not Antifa. No one. The shooter is responsible, period.

But here's the truth, as well. We are all accountable for our own actions. And we are all creating an atmosphere where people just think, "You know what, there's no rules, and nobody cares." I care. I care. I care because I want a country left for my children and my grandchildren to grow up in. I want an end to chaos. And the best way to end the chaos is to end it in your own life first. And when you see rock throwing, do not pick up a rock. Help repair the neighborhood.

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.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

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.