Sen. Mike Lee: Progressives are completely circumventing the Constitution

There are days where you wake with just a mild irritation with the news out of Washington, and then there are days where you have “blood shooting out of my eyes” pain over what is happening on Capitol Hill. Have our elected officials completely lost their way? Thankfully, there are still a few out there looking out for the people who elected them. Sen. Mike Lee is one of the good guys. He’s managed to hold onto his soul, and on radio this morning Sen. Lee explained the ways in which the Obama administration and the progressives are disregarding the Constitution in order to push their agenda.

Related: Purchase Mike Lee's new book Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America's Founding Document

Below is a rush transcript of this segment:

GLENN: Welcome to the program. Tons to cover today. I want to start right out of the chute with a guy I really respect. A guy who I honestly said the other take, if there was ever a problem in the world and I couldn't go on, I would feel so comfortable with this man, I would leave him my children. And, in fact, I would like to leave him my children now, just in case. Mike Lee is here. Senator from Washington, DC. Hello, Mike.

MIKE: Hello, Glenn. It's good to be with you. And I suppose I would like to get to know your kids if you're going to --

GLENN: No. It's an emergency, Mike. There's no time. Just take my children. I can't go on.

MIKE: My wife Sharon is here with me, and she's saying, yes, absolutely.

GLENN: Okay. Good. Sharon, I'll deliver them in a box by the end of the show. So, Mike be with I have your new book "Our Lost Constitution". Where is it hiding? Where did it go? Who stole it?

MIKE: Well, you know, it's hiding in plain sight. And I'm not sure there's any one person who has caused it to be hidden, but this is the net result of the American people not reading it, not being aware of its provisions. Not being aware of the stories behind its most important features, and not understanding its most important function is to limit the power of government, both along the horizontal axis, to make sure nobody within the federal government gets too much power, and along the vertical axis, making sure that the federal government itself has powers that Madison described as few and defined, and that most of the powers would remain with the states.

GLENN: But we're here at a time where -- the founders never saw this coming. They never saw a time when people in Congress would gladly give their power up. You guys aren't even defending it.

MIKE: Yes. I think that's an important feature. This is something I discuss in the book. One of the things that they may not have ever expected was that members of Congress wouldn't defend their own power. Rather than increase their own power by making sure that they and only they would write the law, they would delegate it to someone else to make it easier to stay in office.

I explain in my book. It just makes it easier to stay in office forever by delegating the power. They pass a law that says basically, we shall have good laws regarding X. And then they'll say, we hereby delegate that power to make good laws to Agency Y to make sure we have good laws in the area of X. And then it's done. We don't see anything else.

GLENN: Then they can blame it on the EPA or they can say, we'll get down to the bottom of this. And they never do. But there's other things. For instance, you talk about the clause in the Constitution. All bills that raise taxes have to originate in the House. But Obamacare didn't originate in the House, and it didn't matter.

MIKE: That's right. It didn't matter at the end of the day. Because even though the origination clause says that all bills to raise taxes must originate in the House of Representatives, members of Congress have found ways to circumvent that. The law we now call Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it essentially originated in the Senate. That's where the language from this bill first got put into it. This shell, if you will, that started in the House of Representatives. But the real language came in from the Senate. It should never have happened that way. But members of Congress chose to circumvent this. And I don't think the law would have ever passed. It certainly would have had a much more difficult time passing, had it really started in the House of Representatives where it was supposed to start.

PAT: Mike, we go through kind of waves here of absolute despair and then hopefulness and then absolute despair again.

GLENN: I say absolute despair and suicidal thoughts back to absolute despair.

STU: But occasional normal despair.

GLENN: You're right. Occasional profound sadness.

PAT: Last week was absolute despair when I heard Josh Earnest answer a question from I think Shannon Bream from Fox News. She asked him, hey, with this executive order, President Obama is planning on climate change, isn't that something that should go through Congress? And Josh Earnest said, look, these are people that don't even believe that man caused global warming is really a thing. So we can't really give them the opportunity to have any impact on this. To me, that was one of the most outrageous things ever spoken by an administration official, that just because Congress disagrees with you on an issue, you don't have to go through Congress and abide by the Constitution and our system of government.

GLENN: And we didn't hear a peep from Congress.

PAT: Nothing. So how do we fix that?

GLENN: Bring us to a level to where we're just profoundly sad.

MIKE: Okay. I like that standard.

[laughter]

I think I can match that.

GLENN: All right.

MIKE: So here's the thing. What they're saying is that we can't trust -- we can't trust the unwashed masses to choose representatives who will do the right thing. Therefore, we the all powerful, all knowing administration will have to take matters into our own hands and either ignore or outright contravene the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives. That's exactly what they're saying. And that, by the way, is exactly the rationale used by kings over the course of centuries and millennia, to ignore the people and to impose their own will on that of the people.

PAT: Because they know better.

MIKE: This is what despots do. And we have to call this for what it is, which is a form of despotism. It may be despotism with a smiley face on it, but it's despotism nonetheless. And we have to call it as such, we have to resist it, and we have to neutralize it by invoking the Constitution every single time it arises.

GLENN: My uncle Leo is from Italy. And he came before the Second World War. He saw the war was breaking out. And the family decided, we don't know how this will end up. So we'll send Leo who was born in the United States -- and, you know, on a trip and went back to Italy. He came to the United States, and he served honorably in our military. But he was not a guy who was against Mussolini. I said to him one time at dinner, I said, you know, what was it like with Mussolini? And he said, Mussolini was a good man. I said, Uncle Leo, that's inside voice. You should leave that as your inside voice. And he said, the country was falling apart and Mussolini got things done. He wasn't talking about the later Mussolini. He was talking about getting things done. And I honestly think that the American people are to a point where everything is just so screwed up. They'll get to this place where they're going to be like, somebody has got to do something. And that's when they welcome a despot.

MIKE: That's exactly right. And if all you want in a government, if all you expect out of your government is something -- someone to get something done, then you'll end up with a form of despotism. But if instead what you want is a government that works for you, is responsive to you and to your fellow citizens, then you want to follow the Constitution. And that's why I wrote my book. That's why my book really outlines what we can to do restore our lost constitution and protect ourselves against this accumulation of power in the hands of the few, that leads ultimately to a form of despotism. You have to understand the text, the language in the Constitution, and just as importantly, the stories behind it. And that's what I do in this book.

GLENN: All right. Let me play some audio here from Patrick Kennedy and get your thoughts on it.

PATRICK: My dad was always an optimist. I mean, having overcome so many of his personal challenges and political challenges, I mean, this was a guy that everyone loved. Why?

PAT: Not everyone.

PATRICK: Because he persevered. And what does the Senate need to do, but persevere and become the place that my dad wanted always for it to be, and that's a place where major conflicts were resolved for the national interests. Not for either party's interest, but for the national interest.

VOICE: What is it that current senators now should learn from your dad about how you it is you can work across the aisle?

PATRICK: Well, I think the personal etiquette of trying to make an effort to understand what's going on in the other person's life, personally, because you're working with them.

VOICE: Because that's how he did it. He forged these personal bonds. Him and Orrin Hatch. You know, Orrin Hatch got elected probably bashing your dad.

VOICE: He says it. He came from Washington to counteract my dad's vote. Orrin Hatch did. Ended up cutting every deal in the world because he knew it was going to pass if Ted Kennedy signed off on it and he was sponsor of it, then, boom, everyone else would say, well, jeez, if Warren and Ted are for it, then bang. What a revolutionary concept.

GLENN: Yeah, truly what a revolutionary concept. I won't ask you to comment on Orrin Hatch, but just this idea that you go and you cut every deal --

PAT: With who should be your sworn ideological enemy. Someone who is diametrically supposedly opposed to everything you stand for and believe in and you ran against him in your initial campaign for the Senate, and then you work with him on every single bill.

GLENN: How do we as people balance this, Mike? Because there are things that I will work together, across the aisle, even across ideology in some regard, if we happen to agree on one thing, I'll go ahead and say I agree with this one thing and this one thing only. But that's not what happens in Washington.

MIKE: No. It's not. And, you know, I listened to this quote, this recording from Mr. Kennedy. And he's talking about something. But in one sense, it's already happening. He's referring to it as if never happened. He's referring to it as if Democrats and Republicans never come together and never learn about each other's life stories and interests and passions. Never try to resolve something under mutually agreeable terms. This happens all the time. Every single day.

GLENN: That's the problem.

MIKE: You won't agree on every single issue with your ideological opposite. So, look, I run bills all the time. And I refer to these in my book. Bills that I've run with guys like Pat Leahy and Dick Durbin, who are at the opposite end of the political spectrum for me. But sometimes we agree, and when we do, we can get something done. But that's very different than saying we have to agree at the outset to agree, regardless of the issue, because sometimes we don't agree. And when you try to say that we'll come to an agreement on this issue, no matter what, whether it's in a situation like with this Iran deal, where we say we'll get an agreement with Iran or whether you're talking about something within the United States Senate. That's where bad legislation comes from.

GLENN: Go ahead.

MIKE: Something done, regardless of what that something is.

GLENN: Let's talk about two things. We're talking to senator Mike Lee. His new book "Our Lost Constitution". Let's talk about two things. The president is saying, let's get something done with Iran. And going around Congress as well and cutting what everyone believes now, at least our allies believe -- even France says, is not a good deal. Will Congress just allow this to happen?

MIKE: No. No. I don't think so. And, first of all, we don't know, what, if anything, is going to come out of this. First of all, we're being told all of a sudden, oh, a deal is just around the corner. It doesn't materialize. Then they announce something. What they're announcing instead is a framework rather than a deal itself. It's not clear they will come out with any deal at all. I think they're using the worst negotiation tactic possible which is saying we want a deal. Suggesting almost that a bad deal is almost better than no deal at all, which is usually a guarantee that you'll get the worst deal possible.

But, no, I don't think you'll just have Congress just capitulating to it, no matter what. Assuming they do get some kind of an agreement, I think you'll have a heavy weigh-in by Congress. If what the president ends up negotiating is tantamount to a treaty, it would of course be subject to the treaty ratification provisions of the Constitution, which would require a two-thirds super majority vote in the Senate. It's also possible that both houses of Congress could weigh in on one side or another of this deal. But it's hard to predict exactly what the response will be before we even know what the deal is or whether we'll have one at all.

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.