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

Witch Hunt: Bill O'Reilly Deserves the Benefit of the Doubt

April 06, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Glenn has spent a fair amount of time --- in studio and on tour --- with Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News. Not once did he or his staff see anything resembling the accusations being levied at the host of cable news' number one show.

"Not only did we not smell smoke, we never saw smoke. And, quite honestly, when you're out with somebody as famous as Bill O'Reilly, you watch. You want to see their character. Bill O'Reilly was always professional," Glenn said. "[He] deserves the benefit of the doubt."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Somebody that I have known for years and has -- and have really grown to really, truly respect is being raked over the coals in the press right now. People are trying to destroy him by getting his advertisers to run for the hills. Guess who is involved in this, Stu?

STU: I don't know.

GLENN: Color of Change.

STU: Oh, the same Van Jones organization.

GLENN: Yeah, how do we know about Color of Change?

STU: They were trying to lead a boycott against you.

GLENN: Yeah, and how did that boycott work?

STU: Well, they tried to intimidate -- you know, their 14 social media followers would continually tweet, call, and intimidate companies. Companies not wanting to deal with it would just make -- move their advertising from our show on to another show and still pay the same exact amount. And it wouldn't affect the business at all.

GLENN: But that really -- that really was the -- that was the worst of the worst. And there was very little of that, that actually went on.

STU: Yeah. A lot of it -- yeah, that was the most extreme part. Most of it was advertisers that never advertised on the program. They would try to make announcements that they had dropped our show, when they were never on the show.

GLENN: For instance, can you think of a cheese company?

STU: I can think of a cheese company.

GLENN: Would you like to talk about that cheese company?

STU: I can if you want me to talk about the cheese company.

GLENN: That's fine. I just know that Stu has harbored some very deep feelings about --

STU: A particular cheese company.

GLENN: -- a particular cheese company that never advertised on our show.

STU: Yeah. Because I could actually -- and these things are weird. Because companies don't want to be involved in controversies.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Even if they don't believe the controversy is real, they just don't want to deal with it. They make cheese, for example. So I understand sometimes these companies will be like, just don't put me on that show right now. I don't want to be in the news. I get that.

To make public statements in which you are -- well, we cannot be associated with hate, or that type of stuff, which they were doing to us. Many companies are doing the same thing today. That's just infuriating, especially when they know it's not true.

You know, these --

GLENN: No, but -- you didn't know that it wasn't true. Some people still think that I am the reason for all of the hate in the country.

STU: You seem to be leading that brigade lately. But --

GLENN: No, no.

STU: Yeah, I know.

GLENN: So, anyway, what when I worked at Fox News -- when I worked at Fox News, this is what the left did to me. They tried really hard.

It actually didn't work. Unfortunately, Fox News tried to make the case after I left that it did. And that's going to come and bite them in the ass now.

But it actually didn't work. When I was there -- and I've said this many times. Bill O'Reilly was the -- it was the most honest, fair, most intelligent and intellectually curious guy in the media I have ever met.

I don't agree with everything that Bill O'Reilly says. I don't agree with some of his stances. He always seems to be behind because he's not willing to predict or project. He's willing to look at what's a fact today. That's what -- I mean, we've had this argument. I'm like, "Bill, come on, man. Look. Here's history. Here are the facts. Where do you think --

He's like, that's not my job, Glenn.

So I don't necessarily agree with him on things. And, quite honestly, I remember the first time I met him and I was on his show. I was just starting Fox. And, you know, he has quite the reputation of being a bulldog. And he is a -- I think he's 6-5 or 6-6. And he's at this little teeny desk. Those studios -- studios and television look a lot bigger. Objects in the mirror appear to be bigger than they are -- or bigger than they are. They're really small. And you're in O'Reilly's face sitting at that table.

And I remember they were counting him down, five, four -- and I reached over and I grabbed his hand and said, "Please don't kill me." Because you don't go into a room with Bill O'Reilly knowing.

And we became friends, but we became friends because we were both intellectually honest with each other. When we were flying on a plane -- and he probably -- well, no, I think he would be fine with this.

STU: These stories always work out well. I don't see why they would have any problem with this. This is a private story that was told in confidence, but let me just say it right now on the air.

GLENN: So we were on a plane, and I said, "Bill, thank you for being so kind to me. There's no reason you need to be kind to me." And he looked at me and he said, "Stop it." And I said, "What?" And he said, "Glenn, you're jet fuel. You're hot right now. That helps me. By having you on the show, it helps me, you know, continue to expand and boost my ratings and expand my audience."

STU: Right. Makes for interesting, compelling content.

GLENN: Right. And he said, "And it's compelling. It's good stuff. I'm not doing you any favor." And I thought -- because I knew that to be true, but I didn't think anyone would ever admit that.

That's the kind of guy I know in Bill O'Reilly. I know he is intellectually honest. And so buttoned up.

PAT: Tough, but fair.

GLENN: Yeah. He does not --

PAT: That's Bill.

GLENN: He gets the reputation of being tough because if you're not cutting it, he is. He's writing every word he says.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: He's doing all the hard lifting on his own show.

STU: It's almost when you talk to him, you're in a zone where there's not spin occurring.

GLENN: Shut up.

So he's doing all the hard work himself that he's supposed to do. If you are not bringing your full game, he's not a fan of yours.

PAT: And we've spent a lot of time with him. We went on tour with him several times. We toured the country with him. Bill O'Reilly never gave any indication that --

GLENN: That there's any of this stuff.

PAT: This kind of behavior.

GLENN: Never. Not only did we not smell smoke, we never saw smoke. And, quite honestly, when you're out with somebody as famous as Bill O'Reilly, you watch. You want to see their character. Bill O'Reilly was always professional.

We talked about this yesterday in a meeting. With everybody -- we have a large team. We did our tours. When Bill and I went out, it was my company that produced those tours. So it was everybody, from the people that took him to the airport, to the people that took him home, to the people that tucked him into bed at night. It was all my people.

Not one person said anything about Bill O'Reilly, other than, that guy is a professional.

STU: To be clear, none of our people tucked him into bed at night.

GLENN: That was probably a poor choice of words there. But we were with him. Somebody from my staff was with him the entire time.

STU: Well --

GLENN: And no one said anything, but, "Wow, he's buttoned up."

STU: And we've seen -- you hang out with -- we're doing business with a lot of different people. I mean, think of one recent example that we all dredged through of one particular person on a bus with Billy Bush. And that sort of commentary, that --

PAT: That kidding around kind of -- blue humor.

STU: Yeah, we never saw anything like that. Not even jokes. Not even passing comments.

PAT: No.

STU: Nothing like that at all.

PAT: Uh-uh.

GLENN: You notice that I never said anything in defense of Roger Ailes. I never made the statement about Roger Ailes.

STU: Roger Ailes, yeah.

GLENN: Because, A, I never saw it, but it did not surprise me. Let's just put it that way. Because there was enough joking and conversations that I thought, eh, that one kind of made me a little uncomfortable. It did not surprise me.

Bill O'Reilly, I will be shocked, of course, disappointed, but shocked if he was engaged in any of the kind of monstrous stuff that he is being accused of.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I know what it's like to be attacked. And I am not doing this as a favor to him. I'm not doing this because I'm a friend of his. I believe he's a good man who is being attacked.

I could be wrong. But never an indication from us. Settling a lawsuit is not an admission of guilt. Let's make that one really clear.

Because you settle a lawsuit -- for instance, I can tell you I was in a lawsuit recently. How hard did I fight not to settle that, Stu?

STU: Very hard.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Knowing everyone around you.

GLENN: And who was I fighting against?

STU: Your own companies and people that were associated with you. Because they all wanted to --

GLENN: Right. I have several contracts with several big companies, and they were like, just settle the damn thing. Make it go away. The main argument came from the insurance company.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Just settle it. Just settle it. We can settle it for a fraction of the cost.

But it's wrong. Just settle it.

So because you settle does not make -- is not an admission of guilt. It's usually a way to just spend less time and money.

Just move on with your -- with your life.

Now, as a guy who drives about $100 million in revenue every year, that makes you a target. I know it. Because people do not understand that -- when they come to work for us at TheBlaze. They'll be like, oh, no. It's easy. You just do this. No, no. We call it jokingly the Glenn Beck tax. No, you don't understand. You're working with Glenn Beck. There's no -- there's no, like, oh, no, we can do this. No, no. Because we're a massive target.

And people don't understand that until they work here for a while. As a guy who has been number one for 20 years on cable news, do you think some people are going to try to take him down? Especially on the Fox News network. Especially that he is viewed as if he leaves, Fox is destroyed? Without Roger Ailes, who was the bulldog at the door -- like him, hate him, whatever. He was effective. And he kept the vampires at the door, sucking the blood out of -- the lifeblood out of Fox News. How it survives without Roger Ailes is beyond me. How it survives without Bill O'Reilly -- and you don't think the left understands this? The media is never going to give Bill O'Reilly or anyone with his effectiveness and his point of view a fair shake.

I would like one from time to time. I am being accused now that I am stomping on people's freedom of speech. That is so far out of every reality, and my -- and some, very few, claim -- listeners, people that claim to be my listeners believe that. Well, you were never my listener if you believe that. Because you cannot doubt -- you knew nothing about me.

PAT: Why don't you ask Amy Holmes about that?

GLENN: Yeah. But that's the way the world works. That's the way this press works. That's the way the left works. And, quite frankly, that's the way the right works when they want to destroy somebody, but the left is very, very good at it.

STU: And you're not -- this is not you taking -- you know, going after people who are making accusations.

GLENN: No.

STU: This is -- this is just you talking about someone you know. You don't know everything about every person and every interaction obviously. And it's not to -- it's not to go out --

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly deserves the benefit of the doubt.

STU: He gets it from me, surely.

PAT: Yeah, innocent until proven guilty.

GLENN: Yes. Until it has been proven guilty.

PAT: That's certainly not the assumption here by many.

GLENN: No.

STU: Well, and to be fair, it's because --

PAT: Maxine Waters said last night he should go to jail.

GLENN: To go to jail.

PAT: Are you kidding me?

GLENN: To go to jail.

STU: And a lot of this has to do with the stuff that happened with Roger. Because people now see Fox as anything you say about them and that atmosphere will be believed. And that's not fair. You have to look at it honestly.

GLENN: There are things that I saw and I witnessed. And things that happened at Fox that truly turned my stomach. Truly almost destroyed my hope in people. But I will tell you, if it wasn't for Bill O'Reilly, I think it would have been destroyed.

I walked in hearing all these stories about Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly is none of those things. Bill O'Reilly was buttoned up and professional every step of the way. He is uber, uber smart. Now, maybe again -- I don't know. I'm not with him every second of the day. I have no idea. But, boy, the Bill O'Reilly that I know and that I saw working, side by side for a long time, there is no doubt in my mind that he's just smarter than that.

And I would hope that even though I disagree with Bill O'Reilly, particularly on Donald Trump -- and he has said things about, you know, Never Trumpers, or whatever the category he might put me in, and he has not even had me on his show since the Trump thing began. I don't care. I don't care. I know who he is.

He did not ask me. I did not engage with him. So, Bill -- it doesn't matter.

We have to stand up for what we believe is right, and we have to stand up for people who are coming under fire, until they prove otherwise.

By the way, for the record, there are far more facts and witnesses and issues about Bill Clinton, who seems to get the benefit of the doubt all the time.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Good luck, Bill. Stay strong.

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.