Do the ends ever justify the means?

During Tuesday's morning meeting, Glenn expressed a lot of concern over the comments he was seeing on social media calling for an armed response in the conflict between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government. The concern wasn't over the comments necessarily, but the overwhelming sense that good people who believe in freedom and small government will be caught between violent, anti-government fringe groups who offer chaos and progressive, big government people who will offer control under the guise of safety. And that's why in the meeting Glenn decided "it is more important then you can understand that we are messengers of peace at all times, that we are very clear at all times, that I think the show today needs to focus on that message of peace that we have declared over and over and over and over."

And that message of peace and it's history as part of every project and event that Glenn has worked for more than five years was the focus of Tuesday's monologue.

It’s an interesting time to be alive, but there is a question that I want you to answer right now if you haven’t answered it already before.  And it is this, and I want you to really think about this because we have always thought of the ends justify the means.  We always say no.

But it’s always been because we’re looking at the Progressives.  We’re looking at the Bill Ayers.  We’re looking at the Barack Obamas.  I want you to look at your circumstance.  Is there any circumstance where you are willing to violate your principles in order to achieve a desired result?  Would you ever steal, cheat, lie, murder?  This is the question that Dietrich Bonhoeffer dealt with his whole life, frustrated and just so torn apart in the end.

If you thought, really thought it would lead to an overall better ending, remember, Moses did this, he killed the Egyptian because it will lead to a better ending.  But it didn’t.  If you think that it will lead to a better ending, would you do any of these things?  We’re called to be honest, faithful, kind, peaceful, still have a spine, still stand up, and it is hard to follow those guidelines during times of prosperity.

I mean, people are having a hard time doing it now.  But what happens when your options are stripped from you, and your back is pushed up against the wall?  I have told you in the past that there would come a time when you will have to choose.  I’ve been saying it for a while.

Glenn (2011):  It’s up to you.  Will you link arms?  Will you reach across the aisles?  Will you defend the defenseless?  Will you stand up against the lies?  Will you do it with peace and love?  Read Gandhi.  Read Jesus.  Read Martin Luther King.  Will you stand up? 

That was two days after the event in Washington, D.C.  We chose peace.  I’ve chosen peace, and we’ve been in this really easy…I know it hasn’t seemed easy, but we’ve been in the easy part.  We have had the patriot movement, if you will, kind of be this one big block where we all kind of agree with things.  But I knew there would come a time when that would start to break apart because we’re not all alike.  There are those that do want revolution.

That’s been my message from the start of be peaceful, and it began with the 40-day and 40-night challenge while we were at FOX.  We committed, and I asked you to commit yourself to the pledge of nonviolence of Martin Luther King, and people didn’t understand why I was doing this.  I was laying a foundation, and I was lucky enough to be able to do it with Alveda King.

I remember seeing a picture of Martin Luther King with his son, and he was taking out a burnt cross from his front yard the next morning.  And his son was sitting right behind him, this big, and I thought to myself wow, that takes a great man.  And I don’t know if I’m a good enough man to be able to make it, but I will if I plant the roots deep in honor and courage and love.  And this is what we’ve done for the last four summers.

Think of this, I want to show you these, and listen to the words I said in the last four summers, first at the mall in Washington, then in Jerusalem, then at Dallas Cowboys Stadium, then in Salt Lake City with the Man in the Moon.  Listen to the words.

Glenn (Restoring Love, 2012):  We must be better than what we’ve allowed ourselves to become.  We must get the poison of hatred out of us.  No matter what anyone may say or do, no matter what anyone smears or lies or throws our way or to any Americans way, we must look to God and look to love.

We win because while their conviction is rooted in hate, our conviction is rooted in love.  And love always wins in the end. 

With malice toward none and charity toward all, let us tonight restore love, for love will hold us together.  Love will make us a shelter from the storm.  I will be my brother’s keeper, and the world will once again know that they are not alone because again, the Americans have stood up and arrived again with honor, courage, and love.

That was the Restoring series.  The theme of that was always love and peace.  And then we went into a new phase, and we started trying to make that message more accessible to people.  And that’s why I did Man in the Moon.  But I want to show you just this last clip.  This was the point, the message of the moon.  Listen.

Man in the Moon (2013): Tonight, you will go home and kiss your little beasts, and they shall kiss you.  If I have done my job, your light shall burn just a little brighter, and when you awake, you will again choose and begin to write the next pages of this amazing story yourself.  And so will all those around you.  Help each other.  Be good to each other.  Love one another.

I will tell you that I didn’t realize when I was writing that that it was as autobiographical as it turned out to be.  It wasn’t until I had the moon makeup on, and I read those lines, “if I have done my job, your light will burn a little brighter.”  I wrote to my wife this morning, and I asked her to pray for me because I fear I haven’t done my job.

Somehow there are those in this audience and millions in America that did not hear the message of MLK, not from me but even MLK himself.  Quote something from Gandhi, can you?  Tell me something Bonhoeffer said.  We know them, but they’re like cartoon characters to us.  We don’t know really what they said.  Their message today is as clear and as new as anything I could tell you myself, and it is the message of our day and the message of our coming days, months, and years.

And it is a message that I ask you to share with everything that you have, everything that you are.  Live it, learn it, live it, and share it because the time to make a choice is now here.  The hatred is spreading.  In Nevada, one of the guys, he was a former sheriff, he was on television, and he was actually talking about how they were going to put women in front of the protests so in case somebody shot anybody, it would be the image of a dying woman on television, and that would help their cause.  Watch.

Ex-Sheriff supporting Cliven Bundy: We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front.  If they’re going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.

I don’t think appalling even begins to describe that.  Do the ends justify the means?  If there is violence, well, as long as it’s violence with them shooting women and kids, then it will be good for the cause.  They’re not saying they want to get them to shoot them, but if they’re going to shoot, let them shoot women and children.  It is evil.  It is the same kind of thinking that the Progressives have.  This is not George Washington.  That is George Bernard Shaw.

Three were shot dead in Kansas right before, Passover is tonight, last night.  I mean, just as the suspect yelled Heil Hitler, shots rang out.  You know that we’ve had yet another killing, another tragic shooting at Fort Hood.  And it’s also today the anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing today.  All of those people, the Heil Hitler guy, the Boston bomber, they all were terrorists.  They thought they would win.

Timothy McVeigh said this, that he hoped that he would prove some point, and it would be a tipping point.  And all of a sudden the people would rise up.  It doesn’t work that way.  It never will, and if it does, remember what happened to Hungary.  Remember what happens every single time.  Remember what happened with Egypt.  It is the fallen and the injured in those attacks who are the true victors, not the people who started it.

Their memories and stories of overcoming whatever it is are our rallying point.  They inspire people, not the people who set it up.  I mean gosh, you talk about a false flag, my gosh, who in their right mind says put women and children up front?  Who says that?  Bill Ayers says things like that, Bill Ayers.  Bill Ayers bombed buildings, attacked police, spit on soldiers.  Is that who we are?

It is those who put themselves in harm’s way peacefully.  Remember, “Don’t break the ranks,” said Martin Luther King.  Let them beat you on camera.  Do not swing back, don’t, don’t.  Don’t taunt them.  Don’t be Occupy Wall Street.  Those will be the true victors, not the terrorists like Bill Ayers or the Boston bombers.

My gosh, I think of that picture of Martin Luther King with his son, do you really think that you have it worse than Martin Luther King and blacks in the 1950s did?  Do you really think so?  Have you done everything in your church?  I’m sorry, I don’t mean to lecture you because you’re here, and you know this.  We are not the violent revolutionaries in the Middle East, Ukraine, Greece, Occupy Wall Street, those people fueled by hate, anger, and vengeance – give it to me!

It is so easy to be consumed by hate.  I have seen it happen with my friends.  I have.  Please, get the poison out of you, please, please, please.  You will regret this.  Don’t let the sun go down on your anger.  Let me tell you something, there is somebody who I had a real problem with, and it’s not worth telling, but I had a real problem with this individual.  And my wife and I got down on our knees every day.  It took us four years, four years, to forgive this person.  And there’s constant injury going on on top of it.

We got to the point to where we weep for them because we see what pain they must be in to cause this pain.  It is tough, but we’re required to do it because vengeance is a losing battle.  Vengeance is His and His alone.  I was in that meeting this morning, and I brought this up.  And Pat, my partner on air, said Glenn, why are you bringing this up?  Because, you know, the Nevada thing is passing.  I said, you know, maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, I don’t know, but what I do find so alarming is that there are so many people on the left and the right, people who claim now to be fans of mine, posting on my Facebook page.

Please, defriend me.  Please defriend me.  I want you to unfriend me, defriend me, whatever the hell it’s called, click that button.  I don’t want you to be my friend.  If you believe vengeance is yours, I don’t want you.  It doesn’t belong to you.  One guy wrote, “Well I guess I am no longer a fan of yours because it’s time we the people make a stand and fight.”  No, it’s not.  No, it’s not.  Who are you, we the people?  How dare you speak for we the people.  I’m one of the people.  I don’t agree with you.

You were never a fan of mine.  If you were a fan of mine, you wouldn’t have missed the message of Restoring Honor, Restoring Love, and Restoring Courage or the Man in the Moon or how many shows have I done?  The message of love and peace is at the core of everything that I am, everything that I am as a human being, so no, you have not been misled.  I have not defrauded you.  You deceived yourself.

You’ve been itching for this fight.  I don’t know if I’m in the minority or if they’re in the minority.  I think that this is a really, really, really, really, really tiny minority on Facebook, but I will tell you this, even one person calling for violence is too many, and you must separate yourself.  You must be very clear, if that’s who you are, I am not with you, and you must work to defuse that as much as I do.  You must be vigilant on calling it out, the ends do not justify the means.

Angry people, violent people claiming to be fans of mine, calling for armed insurrection, are not fans of mine.  Unfriend me.  I’m almost up to 3 million friends on Facebook.  I don’t care if I have ten friends on Facebook.  I’m a recovering alcoholic, do you know how many friends I lost when I sobered up?  All of them, all of them.  I’m fine.

We can agree that the government is corrupt.  We can agree that they are usurping the Constitution.  We can agree they’re bloated, out of control, they are spending our children, children’s, children’s, children’s money.  We can agree that they’ve pushed us to the brink.  They’ve poked, they’ve prodded, they’ve taxed, they’ve regulated, they’ve lectured, they’ve mocked us.  They have done everything, everything, except set us on fire.

I get that.  I get it.  But if you are for provoking violence against the Bureau of Land Management, the post office, the dogcatcher, I don’t care, we don’t have anything in common.  I know you’re frustrated, I know, but your frustrations cannot be allowed to boil over into anger, hate, and rage.  That’s what makes us human.  The ends never justify the means, especially when they’re violent means.  Love and peace are the lasting answer.  They always have been the answer.  They always will be the answer.

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.