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

Ben Shapiro Praises Trump for This Bold Move on Israel

December 06, 2017
Staff

WRITER

President Donald Trump formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel today, a controversial move that undoes decades of U.S. foreign policy.

The decision is part of a plan to shift the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, something Trump promised during his 2016 campaign. Moving the embassy is a long process that will take several years, but formally recognizing Israel’s capital is the first step.

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro joined Glenn on today’s show to share his perspective on Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Good friend of the program. Daily Wire host and I think one of the most important men in the conservative movement today is Ben Shapiro. He joins us now. You up in New York, Ben?

BEN: Actually, no, I'm in LA. A little early.

GLENN: Yeah, sorry about that.

BEN: Not at all.

GLENN: Ben, I want to talk to you a little bit about what the president is claiming he's going to do today. And that is announce that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. If he does that, but he's not announcing that, you know, that there is a new embassy -- we're going to ground break on, does it matter? And why?

BEN: So it does matter. It would matter more if he would move the embassy. The reason why it would matter is because that's a permanent statement. For him to say Jerusalem the eternal, undivided capital of Israel, that's stuff that presidential candidates have said before. The Senate itself voted 90-0 back in June that that was the case. So a political statement by the president is important. But it's always revocable. You can have a new president come in and say, while we don't necessarily believe what Trump believed and maybe it's up for negotiation --

GLENN: Yeah.

BEN: -- moving the embassy is more permanent. Yeah.

GLENN: I think it's Obama's Bear Ears monument. The next guy comes in, and it's whatever he wants.

BEN: Yeah, I think that's right. And what I'm hearing from the White House is that the White House is serious about moving the embassy. They're investigating the sites right now. But they're going to have to get it done before the next election, obviously, because you can't expect a Democrat to actually fulfill promises that Democrats have been making for 50 years.

So it's a big move. It's a big announcement. And good for Trump for doing it.

But I would definitely like to see it made more permanent. On the other hand, listen, the president of the United States is saying something that takes moral courage to say, in a time when people refuse to recognize both religious and historic reality on the ground. And that is a grand and good thing. It's definitely a gesture I think that's meaningful.

GLENN: So, Ben, I think you're a religious guy. And those who bless Israel will be blessed. And those who curse Israel will be cursed. I happen to believe that. I believe that we -- we were a country that was founded in part by our desire to restore Israel and to -- to bring Israel back. I think we played a key role to that.

And I've talked to scholars of the Founders who disagreed with me at first, and then went back after a year's worth of research and went, oh, crap. I think you're right. So I think we were blessed because of that path.

I think we'll be blessed because of this. Do you -- do you see it that way at all?

BEN: Yeah, 100 percent. I'm a religious Jew. This means a lot to me as a Jew because Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people. I was explaining it this morning on Fox, that -- in order to understand the value of Jerusalem to Israel, you have to take Washington, DC, and then invest it with godly power and multiply it by a thousand. (inaudible) these things -- literally that we built on a swamp because we didn't want it to be part of any state, Jerusalem was built on a rock because God said so, right? That's the reason Christians care about it. It's the reason Muslims care about it, and it's the reason Jews cared about it a thousand years before Christ. So the idea that it's not the eternal capital is absurd.

As far as whether this is going to be a blessing, I think it will be a blessing because one of the things politically -- just in very practical terms, that I think is necessary here, is if you actually want a real peace negotiation between the Israelis and the Arabs, that has to be premised on some elemental truth.

Israel is not going to give up Jerusalem. Israel is not going to divide Jerusalem. And as soon as the other side recognizes that, as soon as the Arabs recognize that, maybe they can have a negotiation based on reality.

Beyond that, one of the things we're watching in the Middle East is something incredible right now, which is this unintended consequence of Obama's unbelievably crappy foreign policy. There is this new alliance, and pretty strong alliance, now forming the Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia against the Arabians. And for Trump to basically say, listen, I'm just going to get this Jerusalem thing off the table right now with the Israelis. And you're still going to have an alliance. Because it's more important for you to ally against Iran, than smack the Jews about. That's a ground shift in the nature of the relationship and I think something very important.

GLENN: So what do you think is the -- what do you think are the ramifications of this? Do you see any real ramifications?

BEN: Well, I think the Palestinians will try to launch a terror wave. But that's also true in most states.

It -- I think that you'll see some regimes like Saudi Arabia and Jordan have platitudes about how they'll oppose this. But I don't think they'll do anything of any real consequence.

Turkey might try to type in some more supplies to Hamas and the Palestinian authority, which had been operating in a quasi unity government for several years.

But, you know, again this is not the first wave of violence that has hit Israel, not even with regard to Jerusalem. I mean, I wrote an entire piece over at Daily Wire, tracing the history of violence with regard to Jerusalem. The reason that the Muslim world doesn't want to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, because they don't want to recognize Israel as existing. Jerusalem is the heart of Israel. Jerusalem is not Jewish. Neither is Tel Aviv. Neither is Jaffa. Neither is any other Jewish city in Israel. So the recognition of Jerusalem that's an Israeli territory, that may be an ugly truth for a lot of anti-Semitic Muslims, but it is also a truth that is not going to change.

GLENN: So as I was trying to look at this today and put this into perspective, you know, as a lover of history, I look at this and I say, in my lifetime, born in 1964, there are very few things that I would say had real ramifications, eternal ramifications, big ramifications, like the fall of Berlin wall. The defeat of communism.

I believe this is one of the biggest events, if they move the capital. I believe this is one of the biggest events of my lifetime.

Would you agree with that?

BEN: It certainly could be. Yeah, it certainly could be. I mean, if they moved the embassy to Jerusalem, then it does set a new groundwork. And it makes it difficult for the United States ever to back off of that. It puts Israelis in charge of their own faith.

I mean, basically Bill Clinton, since Oslo, too many presidents have held that the fate of Israel's future in their hands, as opposed to letting the Israelis hold their own future in their hands. We really shouldn't be part of these negotiations in the first place. I mean, these are bilateral negotiations the United States has very little to do with.

It's an important thing. It's an important moral step. Because -- because the more that we recognize that, number one, we don't get to boss our allies around. And, number two, the more that we recognize that Israel is a force for good for the region, and we understand our own role in the world.

Our role in the world is as a freedom loving country that helps out freedom-loving allies. It's not as, quote, unquote, honest broker (phonetic) between freedom-loving countries and terrorism and tyranny-loving countries. I think that that is going to set American foreign policy on a new tactic that it desperately needed for a long time.

GLENN: So can I be really crass here? And now look at this politically.

You know, the timing is really interesting to me. And, you know, out of all of the people on the stage, you know, out of the 17 candidates, I just did not think he was going to be the guy that would actually come through with this. Because this takes massive stones to do. And you also have to really believe it. And I don't think -- while he has, you know, some Jewish influence in his family now, I don't think that's enough to do something like this. Usually it comes from a religious zeal, that this is right and righteous.

So let me just float this by, Ben, and see what you think. I think -- I think the president is in much more trouble than he wants to let on or anybody on the right wants to let on. Maybe not as much trouble as the left seems to hope for. But he's in real trouble.

And this gives him -- you can only -- you can only pick the bones of the Gorsuch nomination for so long. And this, again, puts him into a situation with a lot of groups. Especially evangelical Christians. Where you kind of put up with a lot of stuff. And kind of defend -- because you're like, look, that just happened. I mean, I don't know who else would have given us that. And it seems to me that it could be a -- a political maneuver to shore up some real fight to the end of the battle supporters. Am I being --

BEN: That's definitely a possibility. I don't want to psycho analyze the president because I think that's a fool's errand. But I also think that the timing of it is interesting. The truth is, I've never seen anything like -- the last two weeks have been so good for conservatives on policy.

GLENN: Yep.

BEN: You know, everything from the tax cuts to the national TARP stuff to Jerusalem. I mean, this is really, like, hard-core good stuff for conservatives.

And at the same time, the rhetoric that is coming out of the administration, like Roy Moore are really a problem.

And I do agree with you, that I think there may be a political attempt to shore this up.

But I will say that everyone that I know who surrounds the president, and I've gotten to know some members of the administration relatively well.

Everyone who surrounds the president, does believe this stuff, the Jerusalem stuff down to their bones. I'm not just talking about Jared and Ivanka. I'm talking about Vice President Pence. The people who are very close to the White House. This is stuff that they -- one of the things -- you're right, of the people on the stage, who pledged to do this, Trump was the person who I didn't trust the most.

But it does show, for all the people that keep saying, on the left, that the Republican Party is, you know, quasi anti-Semitic and all this nonsense, the fact is that I think that Trump was not the only guy on the stage who actually would have done it.

I mean, the fact that he's done it, he gets the credit obviously. But I think Ted Cruz would have done it. I think there's a good shot Marco Rubio would have done it.

I think there a bunch of candidates on the stage -- this has become a very strong issue for Republicans. So in that sense, I think you're right, it's one way of shoring up the base. But I'm not going to detract from the president for doing the moral thing, just because it's political advantageous.

GLENN: Yeah. I don't -- in fact, I want to do the opposite. I think, if he does this -- yeah, if he does this and he moves the embassy, it's one of the bravest moves I've seen probably since Ronald Reagan said that's an evil empire and needs to be destroyed.

BEN: I think that's right. I think that's exactly right. And I think it's very similar to the way the left has responded. The international commotion. Oh, this is going to be so terrible. It's going to lead to World War III. It's going to be a conflagration.

You know what is really going to happen? Countries have interests in the world. Saudi Arabia does not care that much about Jerusalem.

You know how I know that? Last week, the New York Times reported that Saudi Arabia was actually going to the Palestinian and telling them, you guys need to back off this Jerusalem thing and just cut a deal with Jerusalem and be done here. Saudi Arabia has no interest in this.

The Jordanian kingdom has no interest in this. So the idea that they're all going to suddenly stand up on their hind legs because they're so mad that Trump says that Jerusalem is a part of Israel, which it always has and always will be. I think that that's a lot of leftist claptrap.

GLENN: Ben Shapiro. Thank you very much. God bless. Editor-in-chief. DailyWire.com.

BEN: Thanks a lot.

GLENN: 2017. Wow.

Could anything else have happened in 2017? I mean, look at the history. We're going to do -- is it next week or the week after, we'll be doing some shows of just the year end review. Oh, my gosh

STU: I'm hesitant because at the end of 2016, I was like, ugh, let's get this year over with, get to something else. Then 2017 is happening. I'm thinking the same thing. But maybe I shouldn't.

GLENN: I know. Be careful what you wish for.

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.