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 true history of the Republican Party

April 28, 2015
Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program

As promised, this morning on radio, Glenn revealed the true history of the Republican party in relation to the Civil Rights Movement. Glenn used an article from Gateway Pundit entitled "ON MLK Jr Day-Here's the realy history of the US Civil Rights Movement You Won't Read About" by Jim Hoft as one of his main sources doing his on-air history lesson.

During the program, Glenn pointed out that he is not a member of the Republican party, saying "I'm not here as a Republican shill...They've lost their way. But let's get history right."

Why is the history of a political party so important? Who cares if someone labels themself a Democrat or a Republican, right? As Glenn said, "Why are we having to explain ourselves?" Because, it was the Republican party that fought for the Civil Rights movement and the right to vote. As Glenn said: "we have to stand up for ourselves...enough is enough...Here's who we are! Here's who you are. Why are we defending our record? Our record is fine...We should be putting them [Democrats] on the offense and asking them to explain their record...in every city that they have destroyed."

Watch some of the facts and Glenn's powerful argument below. A full transcript has been provided so you can have all the facts, as well as, the link to the original article at Gateway Pundit.

Rough Transcript Below:

GLENN: The left is rejecting Bruce Jenner because he has said he is a Republican. And the Republicans are the ones that have always been the sticks in the mud. The Republicans are the ones that have the problems. They're the racists. They're the haters. I just want to go through history. And I want to take you -- I want to take you from 18 -- 1862 to 1870. 1871.

And I just want to -- I want to show you the roots of the Republican Party. What was -- why -- who was the first Republican president?

Abraham Lincoln. The Republican Party started in the 1850s. It gathered steam because there was enough -- listen to this. There were enough Whigs and enough Democrats that afternoon that what was happening with slaves was wrong. And they knew the Whigs and the Democrats wouldn't do anything. Congress was just stalled on it and wouldn't do anything. Does this sound familiar? Finally on both sides, they said enough is enough. And within a decade, they had nominated and elected the first Republican president of the United States. Abraham Lincoln. And had you seen him? Not an easy election.

January 1st, 1863, the Emancipation Proclamation has been issued in 1862. January 1, 1863, it starts. And they begin to implement the Republicans Confiscation Act of 1862. The Democratic party continues to support slavery. February 9th, 1864, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to US Senate supporting -- when you think -- when you hear those two names. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton, which party do you think of? It's women's rights. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to the U.S. Senate supporting the Republican plan for the constitutional amendment to ban slavery.

June 15, 1864, Republican Congress votes for equal pay for African-American troops serving in the U.S. Army. June 28, 1864, Republican majority in Congress repeals the Fugitive Slave Act. October 29, 1864, African-Americans abolitionist, Sojourner HEP Truth says to President Lincoln, I was never treated by anyone with more kindness than he has shown me. January 31st, 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery passed the US House with unanimous Republican support and intense Democratic opposition.

The Republican support, 100 percent. The Democratic party support, 23 percent.

That's to ban slavery.

March 3rd, 1865, Republican Congress establish Free Men's Bureau to provide healthcare, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves. That's the Republican Congress.

April 8th, 1865, Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery passed by the US Senate. Republican support, 100 percent. Democrat support, 37 percent.

June 19th -- on June Teenth, US troops land in Galveston, Texas, to enforce a ban on slavery that has been declared for more than two years by the Emancipation Proclamation.

November 22nd, 1865, Republicans denounce Democratic legislature of Mississippi for enacting black codes, which institutionalized racial discrimination. 1866, Republican Party passes the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to protect the rights -- did you even know there was one?

The Republican Party passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to protect the rights of newly freed slaves.

December 6th, 1865, the Republican party's Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery is ratified.

1865, the KKK launches as a, quote, terrorist arm, end quote, of the Democratic party.

PAT: Of the what party?

GLENN: The Democratic party. The Klan.

PAT: Wait. The KKK.

STU: You mean the Tea Party? You said Democratic party. I think you meant Tea Party.

GLENN: Democratic party.

February 5th, 1866, US representative Thaddeus HEP Stevens, Republican from Pennsylvania, introduces legislation successfully opposed by Democratic President Andrew Johnson to implement forty acres at a mule relief by distributing land to former slaves. Stopped by the Democrats.

April 9th, 1866, Republican Congress overrides Democratic President Johnson's veto, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, and it becomes law. The Democratic president vetoed the Civil Rights Act. The Republicans stood when they knew what they were all about.

April 19th, 1866, thousands assembled in Washington, DC, to celebrate Republican party's abolition of slavery. May 10th, 1866, US House passes Republican's Fourteenth Amendment, guaranteed due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens. 100 percent of the Democrats vote no.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: I am not a fan of the Republican Party. I'm not here as a Republican shill. I don't like them. I'm not a member of the Republican Party. They've lost their way. But let's get history right.

June 8th -- sorry, July 16th, 1866. Republican Congress overrides Democratic President Andrew Johnson's veto of the Free Men's Bureau Act, which protects former slaves from black codes denying their rights.

July 28th, 1866, Republican Congress authorized formation of the buffalo soldiers. Yes, the buffalo soldiers, two regiments of African-American's calvary men.

July 30th, 1866, Democratic controlled city of New Orleans orders police to storm racially integrated Republican meetings. The raid kills 40. Wounds more than 150.

January 8th, 1867, Republicans override Democratic President Johnson's veto of a law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19th, 1867, Republican Congress overrides the veto of legislation protecting the voting rights of all African-Americans.

March 30th, 1868, Republicans being impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson who declared, this country is for white men. And by God as long as I'm president, it shall be a government of white men.

You never learn that. When we had the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, they always talked about Johnson, but they never taught us this part of history, did they? Ever heard that quote?

PAT: No.

GLENN: You know why? He was a Democrat. May 20th, 1868, Republican National Convention marks the debut of an African-American politician. In fact, many. Two of them, Pinckney Pinchback and James Harris attended as delegates and several serve as presidential electors.

1868, July 9, Fourteenth Amendment passes and recognizes newly freed slaves as US citizens. The Republican Party support, 94 percent. Democratic support, zero.

September 3rd, 1868, twenty-five African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans expelled by Democratic majority. Later reinstated by Republican Congress.

September 12th, 1868, civil rights activist, Tunist Cambell HEP and all other African-Americans in the Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by a Democratic majority. They were later reinstated by a Republican Congress.

September 28th, 1868, Democrats in Louisiana murder nearly 300 African-Americans who tried to prevent an assault against a Republican newspaper editor. We're coming back to this one.

October 7, 1868, Republicans denounce Democratic Party's national campaign theme. The Democratic Party's national campaign theme in 1868. Do you know what it was?

This is a white man's country, let white men rule. We're the Democratic Party.

PAT: Jeez. Wow.

GLENN: October 22, 1868, while campaigning for reelection, Republican James Hines HEP is assassinated by Democratic terrorists who were organized as the KKK.

November 3rd, 1868, Republican Ulysses S. Grant defeats Democratic Seymour HEP in a presidential election. Seymour HEP has denounced the Emancipation Proclamation.

December 10th, '69, Republican governor, John Campbell of Wyoming territory. Republican governor of Wyoming. Signs the first in-nation law granting the right to women to vote and to hold Republican -- sorry, to hold office. A Republican.

February 3rd, 1870. US House ratifies the Fifteenth Amendment. Democratic support, 3 percent. Republican support, 97.

February 25, 1870, Hiram HEP Rhodes becomes the first black seated in the U.S. Senate. Becoming the first black in Congress and the first black senator.

PAT: It was the next year when the Republican War on Women began, right, 1871?

STU: We're about to get to that.

PAT: There we go.

GLENN: I'm going to skip a whole 'nother page of these. Because I want to get to something here at the end.

February 28th, 1871, Republican Congress enforces -- passes the Enforcement Act, providing federal protection for African-American voters. March 22nd, 1871, Spartanberg HEP Republican newspaper denounces Klan. The Klan campaigned to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina.

That brings us to this. Remember I said, September 28th, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-American Republicans in Louisiana. It began when racist Democrats attacked a newspaper editor, a white Republican and a school teacher for X slaves. Several African-Americans rushed to the assistance of their friends. And in response, Democrats, quote, went on a Negro hunt killing every African-American. All of whom were Republicans. As all African-Americans at the time were.

April 28th, 1871, the Republican Congress enacts the anti-Ku Klux Klan act, outlawing the Democratic Party terrorist group. Which oppressed African-Americans.

That's who these people were.

PAT: You didn't even get to the 1960s. 1950s. 1960s.

GLENN: No. I didn't even get to the 1930s. The 1930s are pretty --

PAT: But as late as the '60s, it was Republicans passing civil rights. Republicans pushing for it. Republicans voting for it. Democrats fighting against it. People like Al Gore Sr. fighting against it. People like Lyndon Baines Johnson, HEP the hero of the left, fighting against it at first.

GLENN: People saw some of that if they saw Selma. They saw how racist this guy was. And I contend they're still this racist. Look at what they've done to the great city of Detroit. Look what those policies have done. Look what it's brought on to the African-American. Look at what the great Democratic policies have done to the city of Washington, DC. To the city of Philadelphia.

Name any city --

PAT: Cleveland.

GLENN: Where the Democrats have ruled since the 1960s. At some point, you say, this doesn't make any sense. At some point you say, I'm not getting any better. This is not helping me.

They are -- they are playing this card again. And this time, we have to stand up for ourselves. This time we have to stand up and say, enough is enough. I know your record. I know who you are. See, I have in the vaults, here at the Mercury Studios. I have the anti-Democratic and anti-Republican literature that went back and forth. The Republicans used to defend themselves.

They used to say, I've had enough! Here's the record! Here's who we are! Here who you are. Why are we defending our record? Our record is fine. Why are we defending our record? We should be putting them on the offense and asking them to explain their record, in Detroit, in Cleveland, in Philadelphia, in Washington. In every city that they have destroyed.

Why are we having to explain ourselves?

Now they're doing it with another class of people. Gays. Women.

Remember, it was the Republicans that gave you the right to vote in the first place. The first time, they had to drag the progressives, kicking and screaming.

Let's stop taking it and being quiet. With love and peace and armed with the facts. It's time to go to battle.

Because it's only going to get harder from here. When Hillary Clinton says what she said over the weekend, play it, Pat. This is so critical for you to hear. This is a -- this is possibly what the press will tell you is the next president of the United States. Hillary Clinton. In a speech just this weekend said this.

HILLARY: Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases, have to be changed.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Your deep-seated religious belief has got to change. Game on, gang. It is here.

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.