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

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi are idiots

February 11, 2013
Wilson

Writer

This is merely further confirmation of an already well known fact, but we here at the Glenn Beck Program feel it’s important to immortalize the unending insanity and stupidity of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Check out the latest evidence which strongly suggests Reid and Pelosi are very, very dumb human beings. Find out what they did in the clip above from radio.

Transcript of segment is below:

GLENN: Harry Reid has lied now about cutting $2.6 trillion from the budget. Here he is.

REID: The American people need to understand that it's not as if we've done nothing for the debt. $2.6 trillion, $2.6 trillion already we've made in cuts.

PAT: No.

GLENN: No.

PAT: Unfortunately that's so far from being true. It's ‑‑

GLENN: Well, let's go to ‑‑ let's go to the really conservative, I think it's really conservative factcheck.org, really conservative.

PAT: Oh, ultra, ultra rightwing conservative.

GLENN: Right. Right.

PAT: Who calls it a lie.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: It almost ‑‑ they say it almost all came from tax increases.

GLENN: By the way ‑‑

PAT: Not spending cuts.

GLENN: ‑‑ factcheck.org is not a conservative organization.

PAT: No. We're being just a tad facetious on that.

GLENN: Really?

PAT: Just a tad.

GLENN: When I say I think it's perfectly rational and right that Stu, who has a baby on Saturday, his wife has a baby on Saturday is not only off today but has taken the entire week off to recover.

PAT: That's facetious?

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: Really? I wasn't catching any of that earlier today.

GLENN: Really? Okay.

PAT: Huh. That's really weird.

GLENN: So anyway, most of these things that he's talking about, 2.6 trillion comes from tax increases.

PAT: Increases and nothing to do with spending cuts.

GLENN: Because remember they said they are not even going to deal with spending cuts?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Not going to deal with it.

PAT: And Nancy Pelosi just said again, and we played this I think last hour, "We don't have a spending problem."

GLENN: Play that again because that's just so ‑‑

PAT: Crazy.

GLENN: That's just so ‑‑ say it again.

PAT: That's crazy.

GLENN: Say it like Michael Jackson.

PAT: That's crazy.

GLENN: Now say it like Al Gore.

PAT: That's crazy. That's crazy.

GLENN: You've got to say it ‑‑ but you have to say it with that chuckle in the voice where he's like ‑‑

PAT: That's crazy. Just below the surface of the Earth, it's crazy hot. All right. Here's Nancy Pelosi.

PELOSI: Though it isn't as much a spending problem as it is a priorities and that's what a budget is setting, priorities.

GLENN: Yeah.

WALLACE: But you talk about growth, even Christina Romer, the form head of the council of economic advisors for the president says you increase taxes, that also hurts growth.

PELOSI: Well, it's about timing. It's about timing.

PAT: Timing.

PELOSI: And it's about timing as to when you make cuts as well. We ‑‑

WALLACE: But you ‑‑ the fiscal cliff you raised taxes $650 billion right away.

PAT: Listen to this.

PELOSI: Yeah. And that was a very good thing to do on people making over the high end in our population.

PAT: She doesn't have any idea on what ‑‑

GLENN: None of them do. None of them do.

PAT: On who they put those ‑‑ that tax burden to.

GLENN: None of them do.

PAT: She was going to say on people over a million or whatever. She didn't know.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: So she had to go on people who are at the high end of our...

GLENN: Do you remember ‑‑

PAT: Unbelievable.

GLENN: I don't remember what the topic was and I think I'd like to stay away from the topic because it might reveal who shared this with us because they have never shared it on the air. But do you remember we talked about ‑‑ yeah, I think I can say it. Harry Reid. And let's just say it was on tax increases. And he was talking to a member and he said, "Harry, we can come together on this because you are ‑‑ you've been the champion of this for ten years." And it wasn't on tax increases. It was something else. But you've been a champion on this. And he actually said, well ‑‑

PAT: Oh, yeah. I have to ask?

GLENN: I have to ask and see if I'm still for that." You have to ask if you're still for that?

PAT: Uh‑huh.

GLENN: I mean, that's the kind of stuff, these guys are so out of touch. They are not ‑‑ they are really not ‑‑ they are just a face. They are puppets. They are really puppets. They are moving in one direction and it's a big, very big, you know, well thought‑out plan and they are just going for it. They are just sticking together. Nobody's actually engaging their own individual brain. They are acting as a collective. And the Center For American Progress is doing all the planning. I mean, we already know that they did all the stimulus bill. We know between them and the unions that they wrote ObamaCare.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: So ‑‑

PAT: And they themselves don't know anything.

GLENN: They don't.

PAT: And Nancy Pelosi proved that a couple of times during this same interview. Listen to see if you can find the one little hair in the ointment.

PELOSI: We avow the First Amendment. We stand with that and say that people have a right to have a gun to protect themselves.

PAT: Anybody see the problem there? We avow the First Amendment there and say that people have a right to own their guns.

GLENN: First Amendment? It's the Second Amendment.

PAT: She doesn't even know what amendment is the gun amendment.

GLENN: Play it again.

PELOSI: We avow the First Amendment.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PELOSI: We stand with that and say that people have a right to have a gun to protect themselves.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: She just such a ‑‑

PAT: Oh, my gosh. I mean, this was the speaker of the House and she's still one of the most powerful people in America. It's mind‑numbing that she's in that position because she's an idiot. She's an idiot and so is Harry Reid.

GLENN: Harry Reid, I think there might be something wrong with Harry Reid, seriously. There might be, you know ‑‑

PAT: No, I think you're right.

GLENN: I think there's something wrong with him. I think he's ‑‑ maybe he's senile or what. I don't know what's wrong with him but I think there's something wrong with him. And I say that, you know, I don't mean to be rude. And I don't want to be ‑‑ but I think there's something wrong.

PAT: Yeah, you're not being flippant.

GLENN: No, no.

PAT: It does seem like there's something wrong with him.

GLENN: Yeah, we've had conversations with people who have been around him in the last year or so and they all say the same thing.

PAT: Well, and his positions have shifted from 20 years ago.

GLENN: Well, you're ‑‑

PAT: Almost a 180 in some cases.

GLENN: Your positions probably ‑‑

PAT: Which they can change, they can evolve but I mean, he's done a 180.

GLENN: But you know what? Pat, have I done 180 some?

PAT: Well, yeah, but there was reasons for that.

GLENN: Exactly right. So there's nothing wrong with your positions changing over a 20‑year period.

PAT: No, but what was his pivot point that they all ‑‑

GLENN: Exactly right.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: What changed him.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: What changed him. Because they've just, they changed and they flipped.

PAT: Radicalized.

GLENN: And they really haven't been ‑‑ it hasn't been 20 years.

PAT: No, it hasn't.

GLENN: It's been within the last decade where it's just been, "What is this?" From, you look at his positions 2004 and his positions today; they are not the same by any stretch of the imagination. He's a radical. And I don't believe he is a radical; he's just taking positions and protecting the radical positions and I don't think he even understands. I don't even know ‑‑ really there might be something wrong with him.

PAT: And he flat‑out lies to protect those positions too.

GLENN: Yeah. Which is not like Harry Reid the way Harry Reid used to be.

PAT: No, I don't think so.

GLENN: Harry Reid I think used to be an honorable man. But I think, you know, look, I have a very good friend, Chris Stewart. He's gone into congress, and it's a very scary thing I think for Chris' family and his friends because Chris is truly a remarkable man and we all have already had the conversation as his friends and family. We start to see him go to the dark side, we start hearing him say the things, well, now, if I just stay on, if I just compromise here, I can get a position on this committee," we're having a family‑and‑friend intervention. And I've told him, I said, look, Chris, I'll ‑‑ to save you, I will do everything I can to rat you out.

PAT: Because we've seen some really good people do that already.

GLENN: Really good people.

PAT: And within a pretty short amount of time go from where we thought we could absolutely trust them to, not so much anymore.

GLENN: Yeah. And you know what's funny is they know. Because they don't call anymore. They used to ‑‑ they used to call and they used to tip us off and everything else. Not anymore. And they know we know. It's like, I really just think it's like alcoholics. You stay away ‑‑ if you're an alcoholic, you stay away from an alcoholic. If you are ‑‑ if you're lying to yourself again, you stay away from an alcoholic because an alcoholic has played that game before. They know. And so they will just, they will rat you out. And not to anybody else but to yourself. They will just say, "Wow. So how long you been drinking?" "I don't know what you're talking about." "Yes, you do." "I don't know what you're talking about." "Well, whatever. Call me when you're sober. Call me if you need help when you're sober. When you're back on track again, or want to get back on track. Don't waste my time." And the same thing. I mean, I've had conversations with a few of these guys to where they're starting to say those things. I mean, when you hear a guy say, "Yeah, but I can get on the committee. If I just do this, if I compromise here, I can get on the committee. They've promised me a committee."

PAT: Or I can be a ‑‑ I can chair the committee.

GLENN: Yeah. You know they're gone. They're gone. Because all you have to do is start compromising. If you want to compromise on something, just make sure it's not your principles. If it's not your principles, compromise. You have to. To move things forward, you have to compromise, but not your principles. And that's where they get lost. And I really think that once ‑‑ and especially if you go there and you do anything wrong. This is why I ‑‑ you pray for these guys, these new freshmen. Because I've heard really good things about the new freshmen. But they are being squashed and they are going to be either absorbed and brought into the GOP machine and promised all kinds of things; or they'll be destroyed. And the worst thing that happens is they're destroyed and then absorbed. And that means that if you aren't ‑‑ if you don't have the full armor of God on, you are not going to make it. Because there's going to be a temptation of money, of power, of sex. Whatever it is your Achilles heel. We all know. I mean, Pat, you don't have to say it, but do you know what your ‑‑ the thing that you are most tempted by as a man or as a person, what's the thing that you're most tempted by? Do you know what it is?

PAT: Sure.

GLENN: Jeffy, same thing?

JEFFY: One thing?

GLENN: Yeah. You're a nightmare. I do too. And it's ‑‑ and Jeffy's right. It's not just one thing. There's a few things that I have shields up because I'm freaked out by it. And I ask my wife all the time, "Honey, you ever start to see these warning signs, you go. Go, go, go, go, go." And most people will fool themselves. They will say, "Well, I'm going to be strong enough." Or they just don't think about it enough.

If you're going into Washington or if you're going to go on the front lines of the TEA Party or anything else, you better know what those weaknesses are. And you better concentrate on those weaknesses. And he will make weak things strong. On the other side, so will Satan. He will make those weak things strong in you. And that's what I ‑‑ the most dangerous thing is you go to Washington and let's say, you know, you're away from your wife and things are tough and maybe your wife, you haven't been getting along or anything. Is anybody watching Downtown Abbey? I'm watching this with my wife.

PAT: No.

GLENN: It's great. You'd love it, Pat, you actually would. You'd like it. But it's, there's this one part in the ‑‑ we're only on the second season and there's this guy who's really upstanding and really good, it's the end of World War I and his whole life has changed. Everything has changed. And his wife now all of a sudden is, you know, I'm going to go out and, you know, I'm going to go out and do stuff and I'm going to go chair this and I'm going to go work here. And his whole life has changed and he can't make sense of the world. And my wife and I are watching this episode and there's some maid, you know, in his house. And he did something nice for her, and it was totally legitimate, totally fine. And then the next time they see each other, she says, "By the way, thank you for helping on my son." And her husband I think is dead or gone to the war or something. And they just started having a conversation. And he says, I just don't understand my world anymore. And she says, I don't understand mine. Immediately my wife and I went, "Trouble. Trouble." Run for help. Run for help. And that's the way it happens. And once you do that, once you go down that road, in Washington you're surrounded by people that want that to happen. Because they will come to you and say, "Now listen. I can destroy you. But everybody makes a mistake. But if you play ball, I can help get you this position. You'll get this position and you'll be able to further the things you care about. Do you really think you're ever going to put that in the past? Never. The thing you would have to do is stand up and say, "I committed this. And if the people want to throw me out, throw me out because I did this and it was wrong. But I am ‑‑ I've got to get this out. Otherwise ‑‑ because they already have approached me with what I believe is blackmail, and I'm of no use you, I'm of no use if that happens." I'll let the people decide. And I think people will understand mistakes. You're destroyed either way. But at least you get out with your sole and maybe, maybe God can use you in some other position.

 

 

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.