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

Woman battling installation of smart meters tells her story on radio

February 14, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Brenda Hawk has been in a long battle with her power company and her sheriffs department over the installation of smart meters. All Brenda wanted from the company was written assurance that these new smart meters are safe and not a hazard, but the company allegedly refused to do so. The story only gets more disturbing from there.

The transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: Next I want to tell you kind of a, I don't know, a 1984 story, if you will, a story of Big Brother, and a story of the little person winning against the machine. At least a temporary battle. Brenda Hawk is a 9/12 project member and she's a woman that lives in Ohio and does not want the smart meter. And she's lived her life the right way. Last October she was told she's going to have to get a smart meter attached to her home, and she said no. She successfully managed to keep the old one until just last week. The CEO of American Electric Power sent her a letter saying, "Too bad, you're getting a smart meter." She has a pacemaker and people have reported problems with pacemakers after getting the smart meters installed. She said, "I don't want it." She is somebody that needs a breathing machine, she's ‑‑ I mean, she's not necessarily the picture of health.

Well, here in the middle of winter they shut her power off and her water. I've never seen anything like it. They shut her power and water off. The sheriff and the power company trucks arrive uninvited and she says to the sheriff, "Are you there to protect my rights?" And he says, "No, I'm here to protect them." She said, "I do not want a smart meter on my house." So they shut her power off. Well, because she's a 9/12 member, the phones at TheBlaze lit up and we found out about Brenda's story, and she spoke to Michael Opelka and she's on the phone with us now to give us the rest of the story. And the kind of happy, I was going to say ending, but middle. Brenda, how are you?

HAWK: Oh, I'm doing fine, Glenn. I ‑‑ it's a great honor to speak with you today.

GLENN: Well, I'm sorry. I wish it was on ‑‑ I wish it was on something else, but tell me about your experience of having the sheriff and the power company come out and put you in your place.

HAWK: Well, it was rather interesting since I had erased my easement with AEP, oh, about ten or twelve years ago due to some tree‑trimming problems and ‑‑

GLENN: Explain ‑‑ hang on just a second. Explain what that means, Brenda.

HAWK: Well, they always had these groups called Asplundh contract with AEP to come trim your trees and they don't trim them. They butcher them to where they ‑‑ they actually make them dangerous and they start dying and that's why they do it that way.

GLENN: Right. They are doing it to keep the power lines clear in case there's snow or wind or something.

HAWK: And unfortunately my trees weren't interfering with their pole. They were 30 feet off their easement even but they said they had a blanket easement to my property. So it made it right that they could even remove my house if they felt it was in the way.

GLENN: That's crazy.

HAWK: I was a little shocked at that. So we had some issues and I found out later on that, studying the law that I could erase my easement with a contract between two parties. So I thought I was safe on this because they haven't returned with the tree trimmers over twelve years and they usually do this every three. And so I informed AEP that, you know, they would need my permission on the land if they did come here. And the issue I had with the meter is that I just wanted a written guarantee. I called PUCO, the whole bit, did everything legally and said that all I wanted was a written guarantee that this meter is safe for my health, my health and my home and for the animals because I've read quite a few things and I wanted the information from them to prove that the meter was safe and to prove what I was reading on the Internet may not be right. They wouldn't give it to me. And so it's quite a shock to see them come last Friday.

GLENN: Did they notify you ‑‑ did they notify you in advance that they were coming?

HAWK: Yeah.

GLENN: But I thought we had cancelled the appointment when I talked to an AEP representative beforehand that I said, I had asked him to send me this information and I had written to the governor of Ohio and my congressman Jim Jordan and it was awaiting, you know, some information or answers from somebody as to whether they could do this or not when they had no easement to my property. And, of course, I hadn't received anything and that was within that week. So it was way too probably fast for anybody to answer me. Jim Jordan's office did contact me and said they were working on it at the local office. And then they called back later in the afternoon and said they found out there's nothing they can do because it's a state issue. So I went, okay. But when the sheriff's department came at 10:00 in the morning, they came with three AEP trucks and when the deputy came to my porch, and I knew to stay on the inside of my enclosed porch with the door locked. Let's just say I've had issues before because of this. And I spoke to the officer, and I'm always very polite to people and I just asked him, like you had stated that, "Are you here to protect my property rights as a citizen of Allen County, or are you here to protect AEP?" And he said, "No, ma'am, I'm not here for you. I'm here for AEP."

GLENN: Boy, I tell you I would do everything I can, and the 9/12 project should do everything they can to make sure that sheriff is voted out.

HAWK: Oh, well, this gets interesting. Let me update you real quick what happened Monday. They did restore my power. I guess they ‑‑

GLENN: Hang on just a second. It's my understanding that within three hours of this being posted on TheBlaze, they were inundated with e‑mails and phone calls and they restored your power. Is that your understanding?

HAWK: Yeah, not until ‑‑ not until 36 hours later, about ‑‑

GLENN: Oh, 36 hours?

HAWK: Yeah. About 5:30 on Friday evening ‑‑ I mean Saturday evening, I'm sorry. So I had to stay awake for 36 hours because if I fall asleep because of my brain injury, it stops my diaphragm from working and without the CPAP type of breathing machine ‑‑ I don't have sleep apnea. It's a brain condition. It's called central apnea. And my brain, if I do fall asleep, the brain just kind of slows down and won't let my diaphragm work.

GLENN: Right. It is a very ‑‑ it is an extraordinarily dangerous medical situation.

HAWK: Condition, yes.

GLENN: And you can die quickly from it. But I understand they laughed at you when you brought that up.

HAWK: Yeah. That was one issue I brought up that I said, you know, there's an Ohio law that states you cannot turn my power off between November 15th and April 15th. And I said, I've paid my bill. And they said, well, that law does not pertain to you, ma'am. And this Mr. Rocco was with this deputy that day. I didn't know who it was at the time, but he was the one pretty well telling me that the law doesn't pertain to me. And I said, oh, you're right. My bill has been paid up to date and I've never missed a payment. So I guess that makes a difference, huh? They were just kind of giggling at me at my expense and they said, well, I'll tell ya, lady, it's either the meter, you take the meter or we take your power. And I said, well, I'll tell you what. If it's about the meter, go ahead and take the analog meter off my house but until you give me a guarantee that the other one's safe, you cannot replace it with the RFM meter. And they said ‑‑ they kind of discussed each other between AEP and the deputy and they said, "Well, it's going to be the power then." They didn't really even want the meter. That was what really fascinated me.

GLENN: I will tell you that, I think there are a lot of people in the power companies that are doing it because it will save them money. And it will. It will save them money. They don't have to go and look at it. But I really, truly believe, and I don't know if you believe this, Brenda, but smart meters in the end are all about control.

HAWK: Right. Right. Yeah, from what I've studied, I understood that pretty well before they showed up.

GLENN: Sure.

HAWK: And yeah, because I ‑‑

GLENN: So what happened on Monday when ‑‑ with the sheriff?

HAWK: Yeah, Monday was very interesting. I just, some friends were kind of concerned about my safety and they said, why don't you call your Allen County sheriff's department and lodge a complaint or file charges against these people. I said, you know, that's probably a good idea. So first thing Monday morning around 8:30 in the morning, I did call the sheriff's department. And they took my report and said they would have a deputy ‑‑ or a sergeant call me back. Well, the sergeant called me back and was extremely rude and disrespectful to me. I mean, he yelled at me up one side and down the other and basically he said I was a criminal, I was shooting at people, I had no right to give anybody ‑‑

GLENN: What the hell kind of sheriff's department do you have?

HAWK: Pardon?

GLENN: What kind of sheriff's department do you have?

HAWK: It's scary. It's really scary.

GLENN: Let me tell you something. Now I sound like a broken record, but Brenda, move to Texas.

HAWK: I wish I could.

GLENN: Jeez.

HAWK: Land here is not selling very well.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, another reason to move to Texas.

HAWK: Tough to leave.

GLENN: Wow. I am sorry, Brenda. Okay. So what is this sheriff's name?

HAWK: The sheriff's name is Sheriff Crish, C‑r‑i‑s‑h.

GLENN: Crish.

HAWK: Yeah, Crish.

GLENN: When is he up for reelection?

HAWK: He was just elected I think a year or so ago. So it's going to be a while.

GLENN: Well, for anybody who is listening that wants to run against him and wants to protect the people of your area, if you're running, I will give you a commercial for free to run against him if you stand for the principles of liberty and the understanding that it is your land. If the sheriffs ‑‑ I will lend my voice to a group of sheriffs that decide that they are going to stand together across the country, and I will do everything I can to empower sheriffs and to make sure that people understand that your sheriff, your local sheriff is the best friend that you have. And any of these sheriffs that decide they are going to go the other way, I'll help ya. I'll help you. You just let me know.

So Brenda, how is this left now?

HAWK: Well, I don't know what happened, but after this sergeant ripped me up one side and down the other and just yelled at me and said, "Lady," never said my name or anything. Just was basically being very rude, he called back about five minutes later. I didn't even recognize the voice. And he said, "Gee, I..." kind of interesting. He said, "It appears that somebody has already filed a complaint and a case with the prosecuting attorney's office and if I wanted the number I could have it and call the prosecuting attorney's office. And he was very calm. I didn't ‑‑ like I said, I didn't recognize his voice. And he actually called me Ms. Hawk at that point. Total turnaround. So ‑‑

GLENN: Before it was "lady"?

HAWK: Yeah, so far as "hey lady" this and "hey lady" that. I don't even want to get into the conversation. It wasn't pleasant. I just sat there and took it. But yeah, so to date I don't know who has done this in my benefit, and I'm extremely grateful to whoever this person is because usually this is what they pull on me: Well, you don't have any rights, so you cannot do any ‑‑ and they definitely basically said he would not allow me to press charges or write up a complaint against anyone in this town. So I was ‑‑ or against AEP for that matter. So I was really shocked.

GLENN: Well, I tell you what, Brenda, we'll do everything we can at TheBlaze to follow the story and to make sure that this sheriff ‑‑ you know, I would like somebody at TheBlaze to do a profile on this sheriff and we'll also find out who filed that lawsuit for you unless they don't want to be exposed. If they don't mind being exposed, we'll let you know who the good‑doer was. Thank you very much. Brenda, you ‑‑

HAWK: Well, thank you, Glenn Beck.

GLENN: You stay in touch with us, all right? You stay in touch with Michael Opelka. These are his kinds of stories. Thank you so much.

HAWK: Thank you.

GLENN: God bless.

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.