Did Michelle Obama Deliver the Most Effective Political Speech Since Ronald Reagan?

October 14, 2016

Writer

If you haven't heard Michelle Obama's most recent speech, you need to. Why? Because whether or not you believe a word of it, the impact was devastating.

"The audience was pin-drop quiet. It connected. Whether you like to believe it or not, whether I want to believe it or not, it connected. And it was powerful," Glenn said Friday on his radio program.

Not only has the Democratic Party co-opted conservative language this election season, they're now co-opting women voters of every ilk with Michelle Obama's speech.

"We've switched places," Glenn said. "We don't control the narrative, and we don't control the culture. They do. They control the language. You cannot fight them on things like this. They win . . . we have become them. And now, they've decided that this is all wrong."

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• Who should have given Michelle Obama's speech?

• Why was the first five minutes of the speech so important?

• Who have conservatives lost with this election?

• Did the Trump campaign conduct opposition research?

• What's the greatest irony of Michelle Obama's speech?

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

GLENN: I want to start with the most effective speech, the most effective political speech I have heard since Ronald Reagan.

It kills me to say that. I don't -- I don't think this is necessarily genuine. I think she does believe these things. But it was very well done, very well rehearsed. And in the video that I saw -- now, this was a regular campaign speech -- you would not see several angles. You would see one. They come, they put a camera down in the back. It's all -- lock it down. They lock it down on the podium. And that's it.

If you watch the speech that Michelle Obama gave yesterday, they knew. There were four different camera angles on this. They knew exactly -- the press knew what was coming. This was an important speech.

Normally, if you give this speech -- any campaign speech -- you hear, "I'm going to say something about the bad guy." And what does everybody do?

STU: Boo.

GLENN: Boo. Okay. "I'm going to say something about us." Yay!

STU: Yay!

GLENN: And that's a campaign speech.

I will tell you, if you want to look at what the conservatives have lost in this campaign -- we have lost the argument on economics.

Can anybody remember what the number $787 billion is about? Do you remember what it is? Anybody?

STU: Oh, yeah. Yeah. For sure.

GLENN: Yeah. Stimulus package, right? Why do you remember that number, Stu?

STU: Because we it said 9 million times --

GLENN: Why did we say it 9 million times?

STU: To criticize Barack Obama and his huge spending effort --

JEFFY: So big.

STU: Right. And our change from, you know, violating the free market system to save it. That extending into Obama's presidency where we were just throwing money at this problem.

GLENN: How much is Donald Trump's child care bill? How much is that?

STU: Up to $680 billion.

GLENN: So $100 billion short of the biggest number any of us had ever heard the government spend.

STU: Of course, that doesn't include his $550 billion-plus stimulus plan, which is on top of the 680 billion from child care.

GLENN: Right. So we're over $1 trillion for just two things: a stimulus and one child care package.

So we've lost the economic high ground. We are -- we have proven ourselves to be, what? Liars? We don't care if it's our side. We don't care what anybody does, as long as they don't do it economically.

Small government. Single-payer health care system. He has said it over and over again. He will do a -- he will repeal and replace, with a single-payer health care system. Universal health care. We've lost that argument. Compassion. "You know what, maybe we ought to go over there and kill the families. Kill the families of the terrorists." Or even the deportation force. Instead of saying, "We have ICE. We have to empower ICE to do their job."

He says, "We'll have a deportation force." Compassionate conservatism, if it even existed: Gone.

Corruption on business. We say we don't like corruption in business. Listen to the words of, "What? I use the laws. I -- of course, I use bankruptcy because I use laws that benefit me. You don't like the laws, change them." Now, while that is true, how do you defend that?

JEFFY: It's called business.

STU: That's right.

GLENN: It's cold-hearted, Mr. Potter versus the Bailey Building & Loan kind of business. Heartless. "I use what I can." Cronyism. "Yeah, you damn right I give to all of the guys because they'll answer my calls and I get what I need."

What else have we lost? How about the moral high ground? Anger. Vengeance. Vulgarity. I mean, we could spend days on that one.

We've lost Hispanics. They're not coming back. They're not coming back. Because our cheering crowds, they're not coming back.

We're now losing women. Women are dropping like flies. Why? Why?

Because the people who know how to deliver speeches, who have control of the media, who -- who have defended Bill Clinton for 25 years, who dragged all of the arguments that Donald Trump is making out of in front of people right now, the ones that we are using, they're only being -- we didn't develop those arguments. They did. They fought against them and said, "Oh, that's crazy." Now, they're the ones saying that this is a moral outrage.

STU: Right.

GLENN: We've switched places. But what you don't understand is, we don't control the media. We don't control the narrative. And we don't control the culture. They do. They control the language. You cannot fight them on things like this. They win. Especially when you have a guy who has shown that he is into cronyism, corruption, compassion is gone, small government, economics.

We have become them. And now, they've decided that this is all wrong.

Who do you think is going to win? Women are going to leave us in droves because they will be effective where we are not. And in the meantime, we've lost our religious institutions. Because our religious institutions don't stand for principles or morals anymore. We are losing ourselves.

JEFFY: You've highlighted some inconsistencies.

GLENN: Yes. And who didn't see this coming? We were so wrapped up into winning, we said last year, millions of Americans said last year, "You can't do this. When the media gets a hold of this guy, they're going to kill him. They're going to cream him." No, he's got control of the media. "No, he does now because they want him to win." As WikiLeaks has now shown us, that was exactly their plan. They wanted him to get the nomination. Because they knew she was so weak and he could be destroyed.

STU: They talked privately about how it was basically her only path to the presidency.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Only path to the presidency was Donald Trump.

GLENN: Thank you, Russia. Thank you, Russia, for verifying what we said during the primary.

STU: Probably stop trying to interfere in our elections to do so, but, yes.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

Okay. So we know that's all true now. And we now also know that Donald Trump was so reckless with our nation, that he refused to have anyone do opposition research on him. That is basic. That's the first thing you do. When you want to run, you say, "I need some opposition research. Show me that the worst that they might be able to find." And you do research so you overturn every stone so no one surprises you.

We found out, in the three administrations that have been running the Trump campaign, all three of them have said, "We -- we need to do opposition research. And he has said no."

So now, the campaign has no idea what's coming next. And if you don't think that that was a setup -- Ben Shapiro hit it right -- the nail right on the head: During the debate, "So have you ever said -- have you ever done any of these things that are on this tape on the bus?"

"Look, nobody respects women --

"No, that's not the question. Have you ever done any of those things?"

"No one respects women more than I do."

"Again, sir, have you done any of those things?"

He was trapped. He had to say yes or no. He chose no. Setup. That's not Gary Hart. Who was the guy who said follow me?

STU: That was Gary Hart.

JEFFY: Yeah, that was Gary Hart.

GLENN: Was it Gary Hart? Yeah. Follow me.

"Everybody is saying that I've had affairs. Follow me."

That's what he did. He said no. People are saying, "Well, you can't trust these women." Oh, so now we don't believe the women? Now we take a very vulgar man with lots of power, celebrity, who we know lives this kind of lifestyle anyway, has bragged about it for 30 years, we have footage of things like this, and now we're taking the position of not believing the women?

Why did the women finally come up? Well, I would imagine if that had happened to you, you're not going to say anything. For all kinds of reasons, you don't say anything. Bill Cosby comes to mind. But there comes a point -- and this was the point -- that you're sitting at home and you're watching that and you snap and say, "That son of a bitch. He did it to me."

STU: There very easily could be a mixture of people actually doing that and --

GLENN: And completely false.

STU: -- realizing, hey, here's a presidency that I can take.

I mean, it's not to say that these women are all going to turn out to be true. It's all alleged.

GLENN: You have no idea.

STU: They all say -- you know, Trump says he's going to come out with evidence that's going to disprove all of them today. Let's see.

GLENN: But you don't have the moral high ground because you've already ceded it. You don't have a guy who you can say, "This is out of character." When Donald Trump said, "Ted Cruz has, you know, 12 mistresses," it was pretty easy to question Ted and say, "Ted, did that happen?"

"Please, Glenn."

There's nothing in his character that shows that. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

STU: Right.

GLENN: But there's nothing in his character that hints at that.

STU: Again, think about this again. Here's a guy who is dealing with this now, and having to fight off all these allegations, you know, here's a guy who tried to ruin Ted Cruz's run by pinning a fake cheating scandal on him.

GLENN: Yes. Correct.

STU: And --

GLENN: Beyond this, Stu, beyond this, here's a man -- here's a man who is still trying to make the issue about Bill Clinton and what Bill Clinton did. And the women -- think of this. What did he do on Sunday?

He put people who accused Bill Clinton of doing something 30 years ago in the audience, when his defense of himself is, "That's old news. That's ten years old."

It's the dumbest strategy I've ever seen.

I'm going to take a break. And I don't know if I'm going to have time or patience to play the Michelle Obama speech. But you need to hear it. Because the audience is pin-drop quiet. It connected. Whether you like to believe it or not, whether I want to believe it or not, it connected. And it was powerful.

You don't have to believe it, to see its devastating effects. And I don't even mean on Donald Trump. I mean on the conservative movement. A devastating attack.

We have been talking about, "There is no War on Women." You just handed them a War on Women. And they took it. And if you listen to her words carefully, oh, my gosh, oh, my gosh, they are co-opting women, and it will work. They are -- they are talking about how crippled women are, and it's time you have a protector. Oh, my gosh.

The conservatives, it's probably too late. It's probably too late for you to regain currently, because these crowds are still 15,000 strong. There is a big part of the conservative movement that just doesn't care. And it's going to destroy it. I think it already has.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Michelle Obama's speech at Southern New Hampshire University in Manchester, NH on Oct. 13, 2016.

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Did Michelle Obama Deliver the Most Effective Political Speech Since Ronald Reagan?

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

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.

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

Not-so-expert advice

A republic no more?

The path forward

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

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.

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

Choosing death over care

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

The logical end of a broken system

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

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.

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.

How Sharia arrives

The warning from those who have lived under it

America is vulnerable

Wake up before it is too late

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

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

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

The crisis beneath the headlines

The quiet return of meaning

Where renewal begins