Glenn Talks With Evan McMullin About Taking the Lead in Utah

October 20, 2016

Writer

Independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin joined Glenn on radio Thursday to talk about his recent surge in Utah. Unheard of less than three months ago, the momentum in McMullin's campaign has been astonishing.

"You have now pulled ahead of both candidates in one state. And if you saw the polls in the others, you may be doing the same in a couple of others, at least in the Mountain West. That changes the dynamic of everything," Glenn said to McMullin.

Encouraged by the traction his campaign is experiencing, McMullin talked with Glenn about a return to principled leadership and why he's running for president.

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

• Does Evan McMullin know what partial-birth abortion is?

• How is McMullin polling in Idaho?

• What is McMullin's vision for the Supreme Court?

• What are McMullin's 13 Principles for New American Leadership?

• Is McMullin building a new conservative movement?

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

GLENN: Evan McMullin is on the phone. EvanMcMullin.com. Running for president.

Evan, what's the problem with partial-birth abortion?

EVAN: Well, it's a violation of our basic inalienable right to life. I mean, you know, it's sad that we even have to make that defense in this day and age. But, look, these are lives, and they have a right to them. And we have an obligation to protect them.

GLENN: Now, I'm going to play Hillary Clinton, and she responds, "Well, I know women who have had to have this because of the life of the mother, and you think don't like moms." How do you respond?

EVAN: Well, look, first of all, I think those kinds of scenarios are extremely, extremely rare. So it's a bit of a -- you know, it's a bit of a cop-out, I think, to make that defense. In most cases, that's not at all the case.

PAT: They were common in the 1800s, Evan. They were common in the 1800s.

EVAN: Yeah, right.

GLENN: So partial-birth abortion, to save the life of the mother.

EVAN: Yeah. It's -- first of all, it's illegal I think in the vast majority of states across the country. Most Americans are even opposed to partial-birth abortions, if not -- I mean, the vast majority are.

PAT: It's illegal in most of the world, actually.

EVAN: Yeah, most of the world too. I mean, you look at both of these candidates, both of these candidates have been supportive of late-term abortions. Forget about partial-birth abortions. Late-term abortions in the past. Donald Trump only became pro-life when he decided to run for president as a part of the -- through the Republican primary.

Mindy Finn and I are the only pro-life candidates running for president and vice president this year. And it's deeply -- well, I guess Pence is pro-life as well. But I'm the only presidential candidate who is pro-life -- truly pro-life in this race.

GLENN: Evan, a new poll has come out. Three months ago, you know, nobody knew who you were. Now, at least in Utah, you are beating Hillary. Last week, you were not. This week, you were beating Hillary and Donald Trump.

EVAN: That's right.

GLENN: And you're beating by four points?

PAT: Yeah, 31-27.

EVAN: Yeah, I'm over Donald Trump by four points. And Hillary by more than that. You know, it's one poll and we've got a lot of work to do. And there's a few weeks left. We're very encouraged by our progress, by our momentum. We see it in the polls. We see it in our online engagement. We feel it in our events. But we're hoping that it will spill over into other states in the Mountain West, and beyond. Even though there are only a few weeks left, we think we can advance this momentum pretty far.

PAT: Evan, if you were to talk about the importance of Supreme Court justices, what is the first thing you would identify as -- as the cause of that importance? Why is the Supreme Court justice so important right now?

EVAN: Well, we need Supreme Court justices who will enforce the Constitution, who will -- who will take it as it's written. That's what we need: Originalists. You know, the one thing that I heard last night from Hillary Clinton is that she thought our justices needed to --

PAT: Originalists.

EVAN: -- quote, represent us.

PAT: Right.

EVAN: And I thought, "My goodness, this is a woman who does not understand what the court is there to do." As I said it, it's there to enforce the Constitution. It's actually precisely not there to represent us. That's the point.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: One of the Supreme Court justices --

(cuts out online and on the app)

PAT: -- what you would identify as the cause of that.

(Cuts out online and on the app) (music)

VOICE: We apologize for this disruption in our regular programming. Thanks for your patience. We'll return to our scheduled show, as soon as we can.

(music)

GLENN: -- you believe your campaign is working and what it stands for.

But are there other states that you're also doing well in?

EVAN: Yes. Well -- so as you mentioned, we're doing very well in Utah. There are not a lot of polls in Idaho unfortunately, because it's just been a very, very -- you know, it's gone Republican.

But so has Utah. But a few weeks ago, we saw polls in Idaho that had us at about the same place we were in Utah. And we're seeing a lot of momentum there online, as well as at our events. And so I think what's happening there is similar to what's happening in Utah. We just haven't been able to quantify it yet.

STU: Yeah, we should point out, as a message to pollsters out there -- I mean, if Evan McMullin is on the ballot in your state, he needs to be included in these polls. I mean, these guys are polling states and leaving "other" as one of the options. And "other" is mysteriously getting 11 percent in the poll. I mean, it would follow logically to believe that a lot of that is going to Evan McMullin. He's been making great gains. I mean, the idea that you're leaving him out at this point, you know, Evan, I think it's just --

GLENN: When you called us three months ago, we were like, "Okay. I don't know who you are. And this is not going to work. I mean, this is crazy."

(chuckling)

GLENN: But now -- you have now pulled ahead of both candidates in one state.

EVAN: Yeah.

GLENN: And if you saw the polls in the others, you may be doing the same in a couple of others, at least in the Mountain West. That changes the dynamic of everything.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Of everything.

EVAN: Yeah, sure. Absolutely.

GLENN: Can you give me the --

EVAN: But, you know, these pollsters, they've got their established plans, and their established plans are competitors. And so, you know, there's a reason why I think many of us are leaving us off. I'm trying to understand it myself.

But look, where they do include us, we register. And we're very excited about that. And we know that we have a great deal of support out there that's growing very quickly. So, you know, we hope that they'll start including us. When they do, they tend to register our support. And in a place like the Mountain West, it's significant. So hopefully we'll see more out of Utah -- or, more out of Idaho.

GLENN: Can you give me any of the items of what you stand for? It was a list on your website. I don't remember what it was called.

EVAN: Yeah, yeah. We released -- Glenn, we released a document called Principles for New American Leadership. And it's just 13 principles that we think are basic for uniting the conservative movement and for drawing in to our side people who are conservatives, but tend to vote on the Democratic side. I'm talking about a lot of people in the Hispanic community, people think -- especially in the African-American community, there are a lot of people who are actually conservative, but they vote Democratic because they don't think they're welcome in the Republican Party.

So what are those principles? Some of the first ones are simply that all of us, all men and women are created equal, that we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's the first thing. The second thing is that we have an inspired Constitution that needs to be respected for how it was written, not how some people wish it were.

The other thing is that we need to have, as the Constitution lays out, a separation of powers, that's both vertical and horizontal. Meaning, the balance of powers between the federal branches, as well as the empowerment of the states, beyond those powers that are explicitly listed in the Constitution for the federal government. These are the types of things.

Another thing is that we need honest and wise leaders because, even though we have an inspired Constitution, Glenn, it doesn't matter if our leaders don't respect it and if they are not wise and honest. We must -- absolutely must have honest and wise leaders. If we don't, our Constitution will be trampled upon, and it won't mean much.

And then the last thing maybe I'll mention her -- and I'm going through the top five points. The last point is that we need a new era of civic engagement. All of us. We cannot trust our leaders anymore, Glenn. And that's why Mindy and I have gotten into this race. Because we couldn't trust them to do the right thing anymore. We -- all Americans have to step up. We need to recruit honest and wise leaders and promote them into office and be educated -- well-educated on the issues and drive this thing forward.

GLENN: What message do you hope that the American people get, the media gets, the two-party system, the Republicans get? What message do you hope that you are sending, you know, the day after the election?

EVAN: Well, we're building a new conservative movement. And that's what -- that's what we're doing.

So, yes, there's a chance that we can block Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, if the race is very close. Right now, Hillary Clinton is absolutely dominating Donald Trump in the electoral college. So it doesn't look like it's going to be a close race.

So what we're building is a new conservative movement that will be dedicated to the principles that I've just described, and others that we believe will unite conservatives. True conservatives, by the way. True conservatives. And also appeal to people who aren't conservative, but who haven't felt welcome in the Republican Party in the past.

That is the kind of leadership that this country leads. That will create a powerful conservative movement in this country that is electorally viable, unlike the type of conservatism -- if you can even call it that -- that Donald Trump has offered the American people. And I wouldn't call it conservatism, to be clear.

But that's the kind of leadership, that's the kind of movement we need in this country, to be powerful and prosperous and to unify us as well.

PAT: If only there was a place where people could go to help your campaign, to donate or volunteer service.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh, we're back to that.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: Man, if they --

GLENN: I didn't think we would hear this for four more years.

PAT: I didn't either. If only there was a place --

(chuckling)

EVAN: There is.

PAT: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh.

JEFFY: What?

EVAN: I know you're surprised by that. And guess what, it's a website, and it's called EvanMcMullin.com.

GLENN: I don't know what that is.

PAT: EvanMcMullin.com. Now, that's with an I at the end of McMullin, right? Instead of an E? Kind of counterintuitive --

EVAN: That's right. That's right. Ends in I-N.

PAT: Now, also, I know you're doing well in both Utah and Idaho, but as a BYU grad, do you have a prediction for BYU/Boise State tonight?

EVAN: Oh, yeah. Well, I'm going to go with the Cougs, of course. Go Cougs!

PAT: He's going to win Utah.

GLENN: All right. Good. I'm glad we have that.

PAT: He's going to win Utah.

GLENN: You guys got to bring Jell-O dishes and share those.

EVAN: Oh, yeah. I'll be eating a lot of Jell-O tonight. You know it.

GLENN: All right. Evan, thanks a lot. I appreciate it. EvanMcMullin.com.

STU: That's the only reason you wanted him on, Pat. Wasn't it?

PAT: That's it. Yeah.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program

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

Glenn Talks With Evan McMullin About Taking the Lead in Utah

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