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

Glenn's emotional message to Israel: Forgive us, for we know not what we do

July 23, 2014
Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program

On Tuesday, the Federal Aviation Administration temporarily banned all U.S. airlines from flying to and from Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel. The ban followed reports a Hamas rocket infiltrated Israeli airspace and landed near the airport.

As TheBlaze reported, the FAA’s notice “was issued in response to a rocket strike which landed approximately 1 mile from Ben Gurion International Airport” Tuesday morning, the agency said in a statement. The ban will remain in place “for a period of up to 24 hours.”

The moratorium has come under fire from many who believe the FAA’s action signifies a “win” for Hamas. Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg was one of the vocal detractors who went so far as to board a Tel Aviv-bound El Al flight Tuesday night to protest the FAA’s decision.

"This evening I will be flying on El Al to Tel Aviv to show solidarity with the Israeli people and to demonstrate that it is safe to fly in and out of Israel," Bloomberg said. "Ben Gurion is the best protected airport in the world and El Al flights have been regularly flying in and out of it safely. The flight restrictions are a mistake that hands Hamas an undeserved victory and should be lifted immediately. I strongly urge the FAA to reverse course and permit US airlines to fly to Israel."

On radio this morning, Glenn issued a harsh condemnation of the FAA and the Obama Administration for empowering Hamas via this decision. As he explained, the flight moratorium offers Hamas a rare victory in this two-week-old bloody conflict, while choking Israel. Glenn reiterated his personal support of Israel and its right to defend itself.

Below is an edited transcript of the monologue:

I want to talk about what the FAA and the Obama Administration did. They gave a win to Hamas. I want you to listen to this and understand. Without an investigation, there was a rocket landed a mile away from the airport in Tel Aviv. They didn't report that it landed on a house. How about we start with that one? You're always talking about how the rockets of Israel are landing on houses. How about the rocket from Hamas? It didn't land in an open field. It landed on a house. But it was a mile away from the airport. And, immediately, the federal government shuts down all American planes going to Tel Aviv and Israel and Ben Gurion airport.

I know this for a fact: If you stop the airlines from going to Tel Aviv, you're choking Israel to death. This was a 24-hour suspension without any kind of investigation at all. What they are doing is they are sending Israel a message. And let me just ask you: Do you believe that if American airliners feet it was unsafe to fly into Israel, they would make that call? Shouldn't the airlines be the one, without my pressure, to say, ‘I don't want to fly in there because I don't feel safe’? Wouldn't they do that? El Al is one of the safest airlines in the world and Ben Gurion Airport is one of the safest airports in the world. Israel is not like Boston.

That's not to say, God forbid, something couldn’t happen. But Israel knows, especially now, that if an airliner was about to be shot out of the sky, it would be horrible for their country as well as ours. You might say that's counterintuitive. ‘Glenn, that would make Hamas look bad.’ Really? Let's think this through.

Who would the media blame? Would the media blame Hamas or would the media blame Israel? I contend that already the media would have blamed Israel, but now that there's been an FAA moratorium, and the FAA is saying, ‘Hey, we're a little concerned about planes flying into Israel.’ What have they done? They have just set Israel up. So if, God forbid, something does happen, Israel would get the blame because the President and everybody else would say, ‘See, they should have known better.’ That's where it starts. Have you heard anyone talking about how Hamas should stop?

Instead, we're stopping people from flying, while we are lecturing the people who are trying to stop the people with the rockets. We are equating violence with violence. I heard the argument yesterday. I think it's great. As if somebody who is trying to stop a rapist, that their violence is equal to the violence of the rapist. No, no. That's not the way it works.

Could I ask you a question? Would JFK airport or Newark airport, if they were being bombed, would we have planes flying in there? ‘Yeah, Canadian Airlines, keep flying into Newark.’ Or would we say, ‘No, we know better?’ Would we have more compassion and say, ‘We don't want 300 dead people burning up like in Ukraine. Would we want that? Would we want our international flights from our biggest allies, especially knowing that even our biggest ally will put the blame on us and not the separatists? This is a direct attack on Israel by our country and by the FAA, and all in the name of safety.

America, answer a few questions: Do you think the FAA and the DHS know how to keep our airports safe? Do you think our airports are safer than they were on 9/11? I would be hard-pressed to find anyone to say yes. There are a lot of trappings. But do you really believe you are safer than you were on 9/11? Do you really believe this government – a government that didn't know that a country in revolution was being taken over by Muslim extremists in Libya would be unsafe for an ambassador to fly into and go to a lightly guarded non-embassy in the heart of terrorist town on the anniversary of 9/11? This government didn't see that one coming. You really believe they know what's happening in the air space halfway around the world of another country? Do you really believe that they're better to judge it than that other country?

If I hadn't seen the anti-Israel actions, the fruit of this government's labor in the last six years, I would say to you, ‘They've got to know something that we don't know, but I don't.’ But, especially seeing that this President continually says, and I quote, ‘I get the news only TV, just like you did,’ I can't give him credit he knows something that I don't know. Even if he does, his very intelligence organizations were the ones that said that whole attack on 9/11, by Muslim extremists, was a video. That had nothing to do with extremism. Why would we listen to those advisors?

So a message to Israel. Israel, hear me clearly: As an American citizen, I don't represent all Americans. I don't even come close to representing all Americans. I represent me. I'm sorry. I am really sorry. I am sorry to the Ukrainians as well. We have violated our oath to you to be your friends. We're not going to come over and fight your wars, but, Israel, you don't need anybody to fight your wars. You seem to do a mighty good job on your own.

Here's what I can offer: My prayers and my support. And I wish my country would support you, but don't think that our country is our government. It's not. Our country is set up unlike any other country in the world, even yours. Our country is ‘we, the people.’ And there's a good number of ‘we, the people,’ a lot of people that – Republican, Democrat, independent, left, right – support you. We support our right to exist. We support your right as a Jew to live unmolested. We support your right to live in a state.

Everybody is saying we need to have the UN try to come up with a solution. Everybody says we have to have the UN. What does the UN say? Well, why are all these people asking what the UN says? Because we have to have a global governance. We have to have a global community come together and agree on a solution. Well, the UN came up with a solution. You should be the most legitimate state ever created. Your borders should be the most legitimate of all time because all those people who say we have to go to UN should be reminded that it was the UN that created your borders in the first place. It was the UN and this beloved global body that put you in that space.

You're just trying to live by the rules the world and that global body set up. You have a right to defend yourself. And dare I say it, none of us would have put up with this as long as you have. If Canada had in its charter that their goal was to destroy the United States of America and kill every American, as Hamas has in her charter, that they want to wipe Israel and all the Jews off the face of the earth, this is a no-brainer. You can't sit at a negotiating table when your ‘whys’ are different. Why does Israel want peace? Because we just want to live as neighbors side-by-side and just get along so we can raise our children. Why does Hamas want peace? Well, because it furthers my goal to wipe them off the face of the earth and kill all the Jews. There is no peace there.

I know that Jon Stewart and everyone else can make a joke of that. That's what they do. We are here to talk about adults. If this were happening to us or any other country, we would have bombed that country into the Stone Age. Be it right or wrong, that's what most of us would have done. Maybe you have an Israeli exceptionalism, because your Israeli exceptionalism would come from the same source, the God of Abraham Isaac, and Jacob that teaches us to be good the one another. Our best way to serve God is to serve our fellow man. And maybe that's why our rage would have bombed Canada into the Stone Age, but I've never seen Israel act out in rage. Boy, you have had reason. But you don't. You understood, when you took the Temple Mount, that God does not want bloodshed. You understood the sacred nature of that land, and so when you could have taken the Temple Mount, you didn't because you know that bloodshed is not always the answer.

Hear me, Israel. Sometimes, unfortunately, bloodshed is the only option left to a peace-loving people. I feel for the Palestinian people. I have met Palestinian people. We have working for us Palestinians. There's a difference between those who have been rapped up in hatred. That's not Palestinian. I feel for the Palestinian people and their children. I believe you do too, but you know and the rest of the world refuses to face that they are being lied to by their clerics and politicians. Unfortunately, in many ways, we are too. It isn't hard to figure out who the bad guys are in this, when people are handing out sweets and candy and celebrating in the streets when there's a kidnapping of a soldier, a kidnapping of anybody. I would say the same thing about you. That's despicable. They did the same thing to us, but too many Americans have forgotten. They did exactly the same thing when our World Trade Center came down and all humans on the planet were sorrowful. All humans on the planet mourned with us and stood with us. They, the Palestinians, were handing out sweets and candy in the streets, exactly the way they are doing it to you now.

The Palestinians have to stop the insanity themselves. Until they do, you have to protect yourselves. We pray for a peace and we pray for the end of bloodshed as quickly as possible, but don't let us pull the rug from underneath you. Remain standing – even when your closest allies won't stand with you – unflinched in your hour of need. But know this: Many Americans and many all over the world still stand with you. And we will stand with you to the end.

While charity helped you build hospitals that take in friends and foe, our charity, Mercury One, has done the same. We have helped you build those hospitals, and, today, we are launching another initiative. We are going to help your military as well. We are sending supplies for your military – for you sons and daughters – who have been called into action and need flashlights, need blankets, need tents. Mercury One will deliver them. Quite honestly, I am thinking about delivering them myself this weekend.

While your sons and daughters are fighting, we refuse to stand by and let them be in need. While they are protecting the only land the Jews has ever owned and the only land ever to be created not only by the United Nations but by the only global authority I recognize – the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Israel, you are not alone. God speed. God bless. And forgive us, for we know not what we do.

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.