Pelosi's overhaul of House rules institutionalizes wokeness, targets conservatives & Trump admin

January 06, 2021

Wikimedia Commons

CEO/Founder

Nancy Pelosi and her growing ensemble of radical leftists are making sure that 2021 will be just as terrible as 2020 — terrible, and forcefully gender-neutral. The 117th Congress convened on Sunday, and on Monday, they shifted the goalposts by approving a 45-pages rules package, "H. Res 7," in a 217 to 206 vote. The Rules Package is the brainchild of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern (D-MA).

Yesterday, in a speech to the House, Republican Rep. Tom Cole described the proposals as "some of the harshest and most cynical that I've experienced during my time in Congress." Congressman Steve Scalise accurately called it a "Soviet-Style rules package. ... designed to take away the voice of 48% of this chamber."

Some of the many wild rule changes include a continuation of proxy voting during the coronavirus pandemic, a ban on lawmakers convicted of certain crimes from visiting the House floor, and of course what would Democrats be without their hatred for Donald Trump? With the rule changes, they've found a way to attack Trump even after he's left office. They've added provisions that allow them to send subpoenas to former Presidents, former VPs, and former White House staff long after their administration has left the White House.

They've added provisions that allow them to send subpoenas to former Presidents, former VPs, and former White House...

Pelosi called the plan a "visionary rules package" which "reflects the values of her diverse Democratic majority," framing the proposal as a departure from ignorance, with that elitist under-handed way of condescending to non-woke Americans. She called them "future-focused proposals," as if conservatives and Republicans aren't worried about the future. Democrats honestly believe this. Believe that we pray to God for the destruction of the future, whatever it means. Although, Democrats are certainly not the authority on prayer: They can't even say one without jamming it full of woke inanity. And "inanity" is the word for it. Because the Democrats have devolved into utter nonsense.

In the news cycle, stories get buried. It feels like we're all constantly putting out fires. Politicians love this: Just about every controversy vanishes quickly. Shady legislation goes unnoticed. The mainstream media isn't going to report on this, not with any semblance of honesty or critical thought. As always, they're more interested in attacking Donald Trump. So it's up to us to ask, "Wait a minute, you're doing what now?"

You may be thinking, "How do the rules for the House of Representatives affect me?" Because you can tell a lot about a person by the way they run their house, or in this case their workplace. If this is how they want to conduct their workplace, I'm terrified to see how they'll run the country. Because, even though it will require ethical breaches and severe overreach, that's exactly what they're about to do, including a rule that keeps the House Minority from amending legislation on the floor.

In true leftist fashion, Democrats have projected their own injustices on Republicans. Like how the bill refers to the new rules as "sweeping ethics reforms," the implication being that there were ethical violations that demanded reforming.

Yesterday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said it best, delivered a scathing rebuke of House Democrats. I recommend watching the whole thing. In particular, he took umbrage with the way the rules violate our freedom of speech, the most important right that we have as Americans.

He's right: This hatred for free speech began in academia. Specifically, from the Marxist radicals who promote and adhere to Critical Theory. We conservatives have spent so much time on Critical Race Theory, but we're missing the bigger picture. Critical Race Theory is just a wart on the looming monster known as Critical Theory. If you think the riots were bad, if you thought sports had become overrun by woke politics, if you thought colleges were bad already — you better get ready for the ideological tidal wave, because it's so about to be much worse. The whole thing is Critical Theory gone wild. I'll tell you why in a moment. First, let's look through the details.

Gender

The resolution aims to "make this House of Representatives the most inclusive in history," and opens by formally establishing the Office of Diversity and Inclusion. An entire department within the lower house of Congress devoted to bringing Critical Theory to life."Inclusion and diversity," two concepts entrenched in Critical Theory inanity. The left would call them "dog whistles," seemingly innocuous words that signal something evil. Apparently, inclusion and diversity are the reason House Democrats felt the need to change the name of the Office of the Whistleblower Ombudsman, "to the gender-neutral Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds."

Then they really lose it in subsection e: "Gender-Inclusive Language." This section "modernizes the use of pronouns, familial relationship terminology, and other references to gender in order to be inclusive of all members, delegates, resident commissioners, employees of the House, and their families."

In other words, the standing rules will now be gender-inclusive. ''Seamen'' will now be ''seafarers." ''Chairman'' is ''Chair." And one clause of House rules removed the terms father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother" — you get the idea.

The new rules also require "standing committees to include in their oversight plans a discussion of how committee work over the forthcoming Congress will address issues of inequities on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, age, or national origin; honor all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender-neutral."

Free Speech

One of the most egregious parts of the rules changes is the way they'll compromise free speech. Democrats want to protect free speech only if it's something they agree with. They've taken this to villainous extremes.

Deep Fake Media

●The Democrat rules package also made it an ethics violation for members to knowingly distribute "deep fake" media.

●The wording is vague, and could easily encompass conservative media. What do they mean by fake media? Memes? Articles? Jokes? Op-eds? "regulations addressing the dissemination by electronic means of any image, video, or audio file that has been distorted or manipulated with the intent to mislead the public.

●It applies not only to Representatives' official accounts but also to their personal accounts, a clear violation of free speech. "They would penalize any member who shares news or views that liberals and their allies in the media deem 'fake.' They actually make it an ethics violation, which is usually reserved for such unbecoming conduct as bribery and corruption."

Pay As You Go (PayGo) Exemptions

●The new rules also weaken PayGo, a budgetary-control measure that limits "Tax and Spend" policies and requires Congress to offset spending on bills that would increase the deficit.

●They are the payment rules on legislation related to the virus and climate change that previously required lawmakers to identify new revenue sources or spending cuts to fund their priorities.

●Democrats will now be able to force through any legislation regardless of the cost, and for legislation like the Green New Deal. Yet AOC actually had a problem with this caveat, but of course, her reason for opposing it is as asinine as you'd expect.

The Motion to Recommit (MTR)

Congress is a majoritarian institution. They govern themselves, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. Since Democrats regained the majority two years ago, they have treaded that line and I would say that they've been downright unconstitutional. For those entire two years, they boasted that in 2020 they'd sweep Congress, all of it, but especially The House of Representatives. They were wrong, and now they have the slimmest majority in years. And I'm positive that their hubris is largely responsible.

They were wrong, and now they have the slimmest majority in years.

Since the creation of the modern party system shortly before the Civil War, there have been 18 House majority changes, with Democrats in power the most.

●The motion to recommit provides one final opportunity for the House to debate and amend a measure, typically after the engrossment and third reading of the bill, before the Speaker orders the vote on final passage. ... The motion does not delay or kill the bill. MTR gives the Minority, and by extension their constituents, a voice by denying them the chance to debate a bill on the floor.

●It's been around since the House was founded, and in its present form since 1909. In 1919, Rep. Abraham Garrett said that "The Motion to Recommit is regarded as so sacred, it's one of the few rules protected against the Committee on Rules by the General Rules of the House."

●When Pelosi was in the Minority, she described the MTR as grounded in the Free Speech guaranteed by our constitution. Anytime the Republicans had the majority, they never even considered cutting off MTR.

Democrats shifted the goalposts by redefining words, by degrading the current meanings, and by trying to convince us that we are fundamentally immoral. It's textbook Critical Theory: attack our sense of reality, our understanding of knowledge, our guiding beliefs, and, now, our most fundamental rights.

We've entered the era of Critical Theory. Wokeness is the new law.

Literally.

The time for metaphors is over; the House of Representatives just instituted wokeness into policy. They're still not saying the quiet part aloud. Critical Theory allows for this. Saddle up to the new normal. The new authoritarianism. Just like how nobody took 20 seconds to hop on Wikipedia and check the etymology of "amen", none of the Democrats have really thought out their plan.

Article I, Section 8 of The Constitution delineates the powers granted to the Congress, one of which is "to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions."

Well, lately, America has been overrun by insurrections and invasions and Congress can't do much about it because they're in on the insurrection. Significant factions within the legislative branch have encouraged these insurrections, they have validated the invasive radicals who threaten to destroy our country. And they've done it under the auspices of furtherance. Of being progressive. Of not being racist, or transphobic, or whatever insult is trendy on woke Twitter.

The time for metaphors is over; the House of Representatives just instituted wokeness into policy.

They're saying, "surrender some of your rights, some of your luxuries, some of your privileges — you have so many, you don't deserve them — and you'll make the world a smidge better." It's the kind of ideology that shreds through people like they're nothing and it is swallowing America whole. Once they change the rules and they change the words, you're living a real-life version of Orwell's 1984. What we need in a moment like this are strong people willing to face the wrath of a Leftist establishment that is all too happy to watch the world burn.

McCarthy talked about how people were feeling this indignation. Well, Kevin, I want you to know, it's not just you. I feel it. I think more than 70 million Americans feel it.

WATCH HIS FULL SPEECH HERE:

Leader McCarthy Slams Democrats' House Rules Packageyoutu.be

It's not going away any time soon.

And today, I ask that you just prepare mentally, for a rough road ahead. But one that we win in, in the end. And I can say it with confidence because I know the truth, will always set people free.

The truth will always prevail.

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.