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

Bruce Jenner transitioning into woman?

April 24, 2015
Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program

Ahead of the highly promoted two hour interview airing on ABC tonight, speculation is swirling that former Olympic Champion Bruce Jenner will reveal to the world that he is indeed transitioning into a woman. This morning on radio, Glenn reacted to the publicity of the interview and explored some of the national conversation.

Glenn felt true compassion for Jenner, saying that if he really is transitioning into a woman, "if that's true, what a hell his life has been. What an absolute tormented hell his life has been."

Glenn expressed that we should not "clam up" about these topics, but talk openly about them as adults and try to understand it. But, even more important is that we need to remember to love. "We are commanded, as people of faith, to love, not necessarily endorse, but always love."

See more of Glenn's powerful response below. Glenn's full response is provided in the transcript below:

Rough Transcript Below:

GLENN: Could I ask if we can do something as adults, as Americans, that we just don't do anymore, and that is have an open and honest conversation about a really sensitive subject, without hating each other, without throwing stones at each other. Just ask some honest questions, and really try to understand one another. There's this superhyped Diane Sawyer interview everyone is waiting for tonight, I guess, Bruce Jenner. He was spotted the other day wearing a dress, smoking a cigarette, in a full length dress. Quite honestly, I don't care what Bruce Jenner does. It does not affect my life at all. So if Bruce Jenner wants to be a woman, he wants to dress as a woman, he wants to change his sexuality, doesn't matter to me. It doesn't matter to me.

I think people are fascinated by this story because back in 1976, was it? He was a decathlon athlete, one on the best on earth, won the gold medal. He was on the Wheaties box. He was a man's man. So I

guess now to see him wearing a dress, you're like what? What? Did he feel that way then? What's happened? And I hope that we're not sickly fascinated like he wants to wear a dress. I don't think we are. I think we are to a point where we've liked this guy in the past, and so we feel for him and we're like what happened to you.

STU: Trying to understand.

GLENN: I want to understand, but I don't know if we can question anymore. So I'm going to try to have a real, open, honest conversation with you about this and about transgendereddism. I don't pretend to understand it. I don't understand it. Maybe it's totally fine, maybe it's not. I don't know. I don't know. What frightens me is if you don't blindly embrace, not just accept it, if you don't blindly embrace it, you are vilified and destroyed, an I think this is dangerous. I would say that about anything, anything. It's not just transgendereddism. A good friend of mine, Keith Ablow, has almost been destroyed. He's a doctor, psychiatrist. A year or so ago, he wrote, I don't see anything but toxicity from the notion of a person with a female anatomy feeling free to use the urinal in a boy's restroom while a boy stand next to her and uses one too. Well, he was viciously attacked. He was called a quack and worse, and he's not. He is a good, decent man.

Because he dared say that there were two genders, he was torn to pieces. Honest question: Who is the science denier here? Are there two genders? Or is everything fluid? And can anyone really claim that the bathroom situation is not a legitimate concern? This is new territory for humankind. So we're taking -- we should be taking baby steps and not runs towards anything, because we don't know. And we want to make sure we don't hurt people along the way. Either those who want to be transgendered or those who do not want to be transgendered. We don't want to do damage either way.

But are you telling me we all have is just blindly accept and embrace a male using a female bathroom and a female using a male bathroom, and then just -- we're all just supposed to blindly accept no genders. There's just go genders. You are not allowed to see any difference between a man and a woman. Now, this is a conversation that we can have as adults, and we should have, and we have to have as adults. And this is the situation with Bruce Jenner. Like I said, it doesn't matter to me. What happens with me doesn't matter, because Bruce Jenner -- whatever, man. Whatever. I'm an adult, he's an adult. I'm worried about our children. And NBC now is running a series on transgendered children, a series on this. Children.

The one I saw was a seven-minute segment on the "NBC Nightly News", and it was about a 4-year-old. And he's gone from girl to boy. He's 5 now. And I mean this sincerely. This is not hyperbole and this is not just a rhetorical question: Are you sure this is the responsible thing for a parent to do; to all of a sudden say to your 4-year-old, you know what; you are a boy. You didn't like being a girl. You are a boy. Wear boy clothes, Tut your hair like a boy, we are changing your name. Everyone will treat you like a boy. Again, I'm not asking you with the answer. I'm asking you as a person that doesn't study this stuff. We all heard in the 1950s we shouldn't discipline our kid. We should tell them they are all winners. We should all give them trophies and ribbons, and we are seeing how that's turned out. All that advice was garbage. Can we slow down and really think? Because we are screwing with children.

And again, I'm not saying stop, because maybe it is the right thing to do. They said their son was uncomfortable being a girl starting at 2, so they went with that. Now, I'm a dad of four, and I will tell you your kids are born with their personality. They are born with their personality. Doesn't really matter. I mean, it does matter what you do as a parent, but there's some things your kids come out with and that's who they are. And they're that way forever, at least till 27.

That's as long as I can go. But they are who they are. So maybe -- I don't know, but in this segment, there was a heart-wrenching statement from the kid I want you to hear.

VOICE: If you talk to gay and lesbian adults, the vast majority will tell you they knew they were gay or lesbian when they were children, and gawking about a gay child would seem taboo or terrifying or bizarre. No longer. There are transgender children across the country. NBC's Kate Snow talked to one family about what it means to make a world accept that.

VOICE: Saying things like why did God make me this way? Why did God make me wrong? A child shouldn't have to live like that.

GLENN: So this is the question. God doesn't make anything wrong. He doesn't make anything wrong. If he was making mistakes, then he'd be a pretty crappy God. And I mean that -- again, I am not trying to be jokey about it. I mean that. He'd be a really lousy God, if it was like oh, man I really screwed that one up. He wouldn't be God, but in all this hysteria, the Bruce Jenner thing, the kids highlighted in NBC, can we even question this? Just as you can't have a religious viewpoint that's contrary to the feelings on home mock sexuality that we now have coming from the media, and from the elites, you can't have those anymore. You are shouted down, silenced, fired from whatever

job you had. Now, can you even say there are two genders, that there are male and female?

There are two genders, male and female, with the exception of 33 hundredth of 1% of births, you could be born a hermaphrodite. So now what does that mean? Did God make a mistake? Is there something beyond hermaphrodite that maybe the parts are parts, but something -- I don't even know. I don't know how it works, but there's something else inside the body that makes them feel like they're a boy or a girl when they're the opposite? Maybe. I don't know. But there's no such thing as gender neutral. Gender fluid, gender questioning, gender nonconforming, pangender, cisgender. Facebook identifies 51 separate genders. 51 separate genders. Another site lays claim to 63 different genders. I'm talking to you as an adult here. The way I was raised, you have a vagina or a penis, and that identifies you, okay? Now, do we have to open our eyes and say there's more to it? Maybe. Maybe we do, but can we please have it in a non-shout people down, calling people names kind of things? I'm not going to call someone a freak because they -- I'm not making fun of Bruce Jenner. I'm not going to shout him down, I'm not going to judge him. Don't judge others who say now wait a minute, wait a minute, is this right, especially when we are talking about children. Can we even ask these questions? This is going to be a real test. Can Glenn Beck get on his radio show and ask these questions in a humble way, really, truly seeking answers and asking the most important question, can we all have an adult conversation and not just jam this down everybody's throat, one way or the other. Can we have this and remain on the air?

Think of this. Bruce Jenner, we all thought was born a male. He thrived for 64 years as a male. He's now telling us he was born a woman, living inside of a male. Well, if that's true, what a hell his life has been. What an absolute tormented hell his life has been. Can we ask questions? Can we watch Diane Sawyer and not gawk? Can wewatch Diane Sawyer and disagree, or do we need to shut up, sit down and applaud anyone who switches from male to fluid or female or pangender or one of the other 63 other genders. And do we really have to clam up about public bathroom usage during these transitions? I have daughters, I have sons. My son is 10. I don't want him going into a public bathroom because of the straight guys there, what might be child predators. Nothing about homosexual or transgender or anything else. I've got my hand full worrying about straight guys who want to touch my son. I worry about my daughters. Do we really have to shut up about this? Is there nobody that says hey, hey, hey, I understand. I do understand. Bruce Jenner is seriously confused. That's what he would have to say for his life. He was seriously confused for a while. Well, Bruce, that's the way the rest of Americafeels. We're seriously confused. We don't know what's right. I'm not gender confused. I'm just confused about the volume of genders

that there is now, and what we are supposed to do about it.

Stop acting, left and right, that this is just an open and shut case. I don't know of a time in human history when this has ever happened. This is new, because man can become God. Forget about male or female.

Man thinks he's God. The speed at which the world is changing is breath-taking, and quite honestly, when things change this fast, people tend to hold onto those time-tested virtues and values that are eternal truths, and many of those are found in our religious doctrine. And deeply held religious views do not change with the draperies. They don't change with the size of the pant leg or the length of skirts or the length of a collar, because if they did, they wouldn't be eternal. They wouldn't be from God. And none of this has anything to do with hate. People of faith are commanded to love. We must love Bruce Jenner, we must -- when we watch this tonight, if you watch this tonight, will your heart break or will you break the commandment and just flip by it and say, freak.

We are commanded, as people of faith, to love, not necessarily endorse, but always love. For those who want to shout religious people down, are you commanded to love? Can we have an actual conversation without shouting someone down, without destroying them, without driving them out of society? Or is that a bridge too far for this, quote, open-minded society?

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why do Americans feel so empty?

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.