Now is the time for the 'least likely' to step up to the plate

Oskar Schindler was an alcoholic womanizer. MLK cheated on his wife. Moses stuttered. What was it about these unlikely individuals that allowed them to change the world in such powerful ways for good?

Glenn brought historian and theologian Dr. Jim Garlow and his wife - a direct relative of Oskar Schindler - onto his radio program to talk about what set these people apart.

"Do you believe there is something to the idea that it's the ones that have nothing to lose that do it?" Glenn asked.

Garlow replied, "Well, it's the ones who have an obedient responsive heart. They're faithful, they're available, they have a teachable spirit."

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: I -- I -- I'm a stutterer. Nope. I got the right guy, Moses. It's you. No, you really got the wrong guy.

And you can see that he always selects -- and I'm not convinced that it is that he is selecting as much as he'd like to select all of us. But not all of us are willing to do it. Not all of us are willing to do it. And it's usually the least likely because the most likely is the one that already has the power and the prestige and the money and the following and everything else. It's the rich man that comes into Jesus. And he says, "Hey."

And the way I read this. He comes in and says to Jesus. "You know, Jesus, I can really help you because I'm really well connected. And I can smooth things out for you." And Jesus is like, "No, you don't need to do that. I tell you what, leave all of that. Just come follow me." I see the rich man looking at the apostles going, "Would somebody tell this guy who I am? Doesn't he understand what's coming his way? I can help him. No, listen, Jesus, I can help you."

Yeah, I get it. Leave all of that and come follow me.

No, you're crazy.

That's what happens with the most likely person to do the job is they're going to do it their way because they've had everything. They've already done it. They know how it all works. They can grease the skids. It's always in the case of Oskar Schindler the alcoholic womanizer that is like, here's the call. Like, all right. All right. Okay. Well, I'll do it. They don't have anything to lose. And they're the least likely person.

So welcome to your day to recognize yourself as the least likely person and wear that as a badge of honor. Because now is the time that we are going to see ourselves either step to the plate or be dust away into the dustbin of history.

Jim Garlow is a very good friend of mine. He joined us last hour. He is the head of the Skyline Church. He has his doctorate in what kind of theology?

JIM: Church history and historical theology.

GLENN: Okay. And is fascinating to talk to. He is married to Rosemary, who is Rosemary Schindler. How distant are you in the Schindlers?

ROSEMARY: Like a second or third cousin.

GLENN: So Rosemary Garlow is joining us as well. And Rosemary brought with her something that is truly remarkable. In my hands right now on the radio desk is a Bible. And it is the Schindler family Bible. How old is this?

ROSEMARY: This Bible is this year, 333 years old.

GLENN: And he was Catholic. But this is -- this is a Martin Luther Bible.

ROSEMARY: Yes, Catholic and Lutheran, translated by Martin Luther. One of his first translations on letterpress in Germany.

GLENN: And tell me what else that you have. Because I find this fascinating. One is a passport.

ROSEMARY: Yes. That's a German passport allowing a citizen to be able to travel through and out of -- in and out of the country.

GLENN: And, again, it's a Schindler. It's his brother, right?

ROSEMARY: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: Then there is this -- this is -- a work pass?

ROSEMARY: Yes. It's a passport or a book, certifying that a person could have employment as a Nazi. It's something very valuable because it provided the citizen the chance to provide for their family.

GLENN: Okay. And then there's these two books. And I don't even know -- Aukum Pass (phonetic)?

ROSEMARY: Aryan Pass. It's a genealogy passport. Actually, Oskar Schindler died at age 66 on October 9th, 1974, 46 years ago this week. But genealogy was incredibly important to Adolf Hitler because he had a false theory of racial purity. And he was a father of racism. And in it, the foreword, he signed himself telling how significant it was in his estimation and for all German people to be free, particularly of Jewish blood, and to teach this theory to their children.

GLENN: Okay. I find this interesting in my faith. We are very into genealogy. And we're very into, you know, the hearts of the fathers turn to the sons and vice-versa. And connecting that family. You'll see that in the Scriptures too. The genealogy. I've always hated this part of the Bible where it's like so-and-so begat so-and-so. And you're like, okay, I get it. They're all related. But it's important for some reason. And as I said on yesterday's broadcast just like with the United States. We won't be destroyed by evil. We will be perverted by evil. That's the way -- there's no idea. Evil doesn't have a new idea. He takes what God has built and he perverts it.

Genealogy is very important. And it's interesting that Hitler -- I mean, if you look -- if you look at anything -- we do a genealogy in my church. And what happens is, you fill out a little slip of each person just like this. And you fill it out. You put the name, the date, the birth, the death, all of the details. And then it is signed and it is -- it's just like this. It's just like this. Except it's not for evil. And it is amazing to me how things are perverted. Always evil perverts.

Let's talk a little about the parallels between now and then. Tell me what you -- because you travel all over the world. Just, you have this with you because you just got back from Hawaii?

ROSEMARY: Hmm.

GLENN: Talking about Oskar Schindler and what's happening. You've been to Israel 56 --

ROSEMARY: Three.

GLENN: Fifty-three times. And things are changing in Israel there. You are still bringing survivors of the Holocaust back to Israel.

Tell me the parallels that you are seeing between then and now.

ROSEMARY: What's alarming especially to Germans who are alive in that time is the significant similarities between what is happening in our present government with gun control, socialized medicine, and all the different government regulations to control the populace.

It starts out very innocent. It starts out being promoted that, this is for the best of society. And we're all going to be much more well off if we cooperate together and share our information. And we, the government, are going to protect you. You do not need guns. They're only for criminals. What they did in Germany is begin by having everybody register their weapons. Because they said, that way, if there's a burglary or a crime and somebody gets shot, we get the gun, we know right who it belongs to. So the very obedient German citizens went and registered all their weapons.

Then the government came back and said, "Well, we still have a lot of crime. So I think the next thing is to do, we need to confiscate your weapons, and we'll be in charge of them all." And, of course, by that time, they knew --

GLENN: It was too late.

ROSEMARY: Yeah, everybody's weapon. Nobody could hide anything.

GLENN: Yep.

ROSEMARY: So it goes that way. More and more regulation, even down to having to have a little book to enter every time you bought a stamp in the Post Office and where that letter went. Everything was regulated to its utmost ability 80 years ago.

GLENN: I'm going to do something on either tomorrow's show or Monday's show that is something new out of China that is one of the most terrifying things I've ever seen. And it is now a new social media status. And they're saying by 2020. Right now it's voluntarily. But by 2020, they say it's mandatory in China. And what it is is, you get a ranking a or a rating as a person. What is it you're doing and saying on your social media? How much of it is against the government? How much of it is politically correct? How much of it is for the good of China? How much of it is not? Not only do you get ranked, but your friends get ranked based on what you post. So if you're my friend and I say, "This is a bad policy," you get hurt because you have friended me. So it is a way to isolate entirely. And this is the new thing over in China.

When I show it to you on probably Monday, it will boggle your mind. And if you think that's not coming into the West, you're sadly mistaken. All they need is the information. And people who -- who are not going to take this much metadata and do nothing when they can control populations.

So Oskar Schindler, not a -- not a guy that you would say -- would you agree with -- pastor, let me ask you too? God's last choice, right? That's usually how it works, right?

JIM: He wouldn't have become a member of my church.

GLENN: Right? Right? I love these people -- because a lot of people are like, "Glenn Beck, you're not a Christian. You're not a very -- whatever. A lot of people.

Oskar Schindler would not be on my list either. Martin Luther King, honestly, if I were his -- if I were his bishop or his preacher or pastor, I would have probably been sitting him down a lot saying, "So tell me about how you're treating your wife again." Not the ones that we necessarily pick. But do you believe there is something to -- to the idea that it's the ones that have nothing to lose that do it?

JIM: Well, it's the ones who have an obedient responsive heart. They're faithful, they're available, they have a teachable spirit.

GLENN: Yeah.

JIM: And they're willing not to hold back those things that would cause them to feed their own ego. In other words, there's a bigger cause. I did a study a few years ago on what causes Christian universities to stop being Christian? What causes denominations to slide? What causes local congregations to lose their Christian centricity and stop what they once were? And I was to lecture after the guy who was really an expert on this from Notre Dame. I wasn't the expert. He was. And I had to lecture after him, so I was very paranoid about trying to be in this environment.

So I read the study for like six months. And I could boil everything I studied down to this, a person will lose their Christocentricity. They'll lose their convictional center, once they long for the accolades of other people more than they fear God. It's that simple.

GLENN: So what happened with Oskar Schindler? How did that happen? Who was he before, and why did he do what he did?

ROSEMARY: Well, he was a businessman. And he thought, "What a great opportunity." I'm a Nazi official. And I can take over this factory and have basically slave work for me and make millions of marcs. And he did. But in the process, he got to know his employees. And he had also known Jewish people growing up. So even though all the propaganda was going and trying to persuade the German populace that they were vermin, they didn't deserve to live, he saw for himself, and he knew better. And he kept seeing in them more and more evidence of humanity and kindness under the worst possible conditions. And in his own German people, such as atrocities and sadism, he said they're just acting like pigs. He said, "I had to do something." He said, "I had no choice." So for him, it wasn't a huge dilemma. But when he realized that Hitler's intent was to annihilate all the Jews of Europe, he said, "That's it. I'm going to do everything and give all that I can to save them." And he fought back with all that he had. And he did use all his money and all his resources to preserve the lives of almost 1200 men, women, and children in his factory.

But the significant thing is that even though he cared for them and became like their parent and he called them his children because he had none, when it turned around, they were the ones that saved him. And this is where I think it will come to. As we're being tested right now in the eyes of the Lord, especially the nations. Are you going to stand with me and my people? Are you going to turn your back, America, on little Israel? Because in the end, I believe Israel will come out safe and shining.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

ROSEMARY: But the other nations are going to reap a judgment. So the rest of his life, the Jewish survivors cared for Oskar Schindler. They provided at least a day's wage, giving him funds for he and his wife, Emily, to have money to live on. They gave them work opportunities, but Oskar was very much persecuted by his own German people.

GLENN: What was his life like? You see the movie ends at the train tracks.

ROSEMARY: Yes.

GLENN: What was his life for the next 10 years after the war?

ROSEMARY: Well, that was kind of his shining moment. But he was called a traitor by his own German people. When he would go back to Germany, they would spit on him and say, "You Jew kisser. You traitor." And he was never made a hero until Steven Spielberg's movie came out. And then it was recognized what he did.

GLENN: But he was recognized by the Jewish people.

ROSEMARY: Always when he went to Israel. He would go every year a few times. He was welcomed as a great hero. And the Jews he saved would just cry. They loved him so much. And I know many of the survivors. And they just said, "He was their messiah. He was their savior. He was their deliverer. He was the closest person they had ever seen to being a real Christian." As flawed as he was morally, they considered him a true Christian.

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.