Her daughter's teacher said the pilgrims were America's first terrorists

Every parent knows the importance a good education, but the progressive indoctrination of America's children has reached chilling new heights. For over a year, Glenn has been warning parents about the dangers of Common Core. History is being forgotten, and in many cases rewritten. One mother, Cindy Vines, shared a shocking story with Glenn on radio this morning about her daughter's teacher. Allegedly, the teacher not only told the kids they should only learn from her teacher (not her parents), but also that the Pilgrims were America's first terrorists.

Below is a rough transcript of the segment:

GLENN:  So a couple of weeks ago, I was on Facebook, and it's late at night.  And I'm reading my Facebook.  And I really started to try to interact with you a little bit more on Facebook.  I think Facebook is the new -- is the replacement for the telephone and almost talk radio in a way.  It's mass communication, but also personal one-to-one.

So Cassidy Vines is a listener and a viewer of ours.  And she writes:  Glenn, I don't typically post or respond to posts on Facebook.  But after your radio program this morning, I feel compelled to share something, a story on what I feel my life purpose is.

And she goes on to talk about how she was homeschooled, and she didn't like it at the time because she was made fun of.  But then something happened to her.

She said:  Flash forward a decade now, and I have my own daughter.  This is the one-year mark since I graduated from the police academy.  And it was the deciding factor on whether or not I would homeschool my daughter.  I chose to work on my career.  But she started kindergarten and public school this year.  Seemed to be going great until a couple of weeks ago I went in for a parent/teacher meeting and found that they had been teaching these children that Pilgrims were America's first terrorists and I had an oh-crap moment.

[...]

And so we called Cassidy, she's on the phone with us now.  Cassidy Vines.

Hi, Cassidy, how are you?

CINDY:  I'm good.  How are you?

GLENN:  I'm really good.

When you were walking into school, and you found out your daughter was making some Indians artwork.  Right?

CINDY:  Right.  Well, they had already done it.  They had it lined along the hallways on the walls.

GLENN:  And what happened?

CINDY:  I went in for just a routine parent/teacher meeting with my daughter's teacher.  I went in armed with a slew of questions.  The biggest thing that was on my mind was something she told me that absolutely outraged me.  I was absolutely furious.

I was prepared to listen to what the teacher had to say just in case my daughter was maybe stretching the truth a bit.

So how it started was, one night I was helping my daughter with her homework.  You know, it's absolutely ridiculous math homework.  It was the -- the base ten stuff.  One ten plus another ten plus one, two, three, one, makes 23.  So I tried to correct her on it.  And this is Texas.  You know, Common Core.  It's Tekx.  T-E-K-X.

And I tried to correct her on it.  And she tells me that -- she snaps at me and tells me that I can't teach her.

She says, I'm her mommy, not her teacher.

GLENN:  Oh, my gosh.

CINDY:  So I kept that in the back of my mind to bring up with the teacher, but I was more concerned at the time with her new attitude that she brought home from school.

Two days later, she brings home this little booklet to read to me.  And, again, I tried to correct her on a word that she kept reading incorrectly.  And I said it in the most gentle way possible.  And she broke down crying and said, that's how she was taught, and I can't tell her something different because I'm a mommy, not a teacher.

GLENN:  Please tell me at this point you asked, where are you hearing this?

CINDY:  I did.  I did.  And my parents were there at the same time.  And it was like this new thing she learned how to do.  She's reading now.  And there's no way this was a coincidence.

So I asked her, I said, is somebody telling you this at school?

She said, yes, I'm only allowed to learn from my teacher.

And I sent several notes to school with her in her folder.  And I requested several times a meeting with the teacher, and I never got a response.  Finally when I did go in to see her, she tells me she wants me to email her, not send notes.

So finally I get a scheduled meeting with her to discuss her grades, and I tell her what my daughter said.  And I'm waiting for her to deny it.  It doesn't happen.

She goes on to tell me that they try to discourage parents from introducing contradictory concepts to our children.

STU:  Our children?

CINDY:  Yes.  Our children.  As in the school's children?

PAT:  Did you correct her on that?

GLENN:  No.  She's not a teacher.

CINDY:  I was a little baffled.

And so when I started talking about my daughter, I emphasized "my daughter."

So I asked her, I said, am I not allowed to help her with her homework?

She tells me that it's better if I just let her do it on her own.  They don't want parents confusing the kids.

PAT:  Oh, my gosh.  That is amazing stuff.

CINDY:  So going on to the Indians, during the same -- the same conference, I mention all the Indians lined up in the hallway that the kids made, and I asked when they're going to start on the Pilgrims.

Here's where eyebrows start going up.  She tells me that, although they're going to cover the Pilgrims, they're not going to emphasize them because of all the violence and the fact that they were essentially America's first terrorists.

It took my breath away.

GLENN:  Oh, my gosh.  How old was this teacher?

CINDY:  She's probably in her 30s.  She doesn't look much older than me.  I'm 27.

STU:  This reminds me of the "Interstellar" movie that was out recently.  It was the same thing where the machines were bad.

PAT:  And they hadn't gone to the moon.

And the problem was that Matthew McConaughey's character was at the school for was because his daughter kept bringing in the father's history book, his textbook, and he was going over the moon landing and all that stuff.  He was an astronaut at one time.

And she says, we can't have that in our school because that's not the corrected version.

STU:  The corrected version --

PAT:  Of history, which shows that the moon landing was fake.

STU:  That's supposed to be fiction.  We're learning here from Cassidy and we've learned in how many cases around the country that this stuff is going on.

PAT:  Yeah.  The revisionist has begun.

GLENN:  I don't even know what to say about this.  I get so uptight about this stuff.  This is the stuff that enrages me.

PAT:  I would have been arrested.

GLENN:  I would have too.  I would have.  I would have blown a gasket.  What did you do?

CINDY:  I went home.  First thing I do is I text my dad.  Because my dad, when I was homeschooled, he really forced history down my throat.  You know, I was writing college-level papers on history.  Absolutely hated it.

I texted him.

I said, Dad, get this.  This is what they're teaching your grandbaby.

Of course, he was furious.  So we started talking about it, and I decided right then and there that she was going to be pulled out of school and I would be homeschooling her.

So I wasn't going to do it right way.  I had to build her curriculum.  So I'm still working on that.  So probably after Christmas, she will be pulled out of school.

GLENN:  Good for you.

STU:  Wow.  That has to be a tough decision.

GLENN:  And how long will we be able to do that?

CINDY:  I don't know.  I was actually looking that up.

GLENN:  Yeah.  How long will we be able to have the right -- if they're already saying that these are our children and, listen, don't listen to mommy and daddy -- do you know what this?  You remember the Al Gore speech.  It was right after the election.  It was at the inauguration.  And he said -- and it was outrageous at the time.

And we played it on Fox.  And they, of course, distanced themselves from it, and they wouldn't answer anything.  But that's when he called everyone in and would not allow any parents, any adults in there, it was just teenagers.  And one of the kids tape-recorded it.  They turned on their i Phone, and they recorded it.  And what he said was, look, there are some things that your parents don't know that you just instinctively know.

Do we have that anymore?

PAT:  I don't think so.

STU:  We have to break through our kind of private idea that our kids belong to their parents or our kids belong to their families and recognize kids belong to whole communities.

GLENN:  I'm sorry.  But this is Hitler youth stuff.  It is.  When the State deems the child theirs over the parents --

PAT:  You don't have to go back that far.  Remember the Canadian thing?  The co-parent thing?

GLENN:  Yeah.

VOICE:  This is a difficult situation for the family to be in.  And we do work hand-in-hand with these families because we co-parent, so obviously we --

PAT:  Wait.  You co-parent?  The school co-parents?  No, you don't.

GLENN:  Remember that study came out and showed that 98 percent of those who are currently unemployed in the United States, 98 percent do not want a job.  They don't want a job.

And what was the number -- the number with the youth was also staggering.  It was, out of 14 to 27-year-olds, it was -- I don't remember what the number was, but it was a very high number that they don't even want to start looking for a job.  They're just not interested in work.  Well, why would you be when the government gives you everything?  And that's what's happening to us.

They're training us not to think.  Not to think for ourselves.  Not to do for ourselves.  And there is going to come a tipping point, and I don't know when it is.

But when that tipping point hits, we're in trouble.

And I have to tell you, Cassidy, I want to thank you so much for sharing this story with us.  And you just keep going and do the right thing.  Because you're on the right track.  And your parents, I know how much you probably hated -- well, I read your Facebook post.  You hated homeschooling, but are you grateful for it now?

CINDY:  I'm absolutely 100 percent grateful for it.

GLENN:  God bless you.  Thank you so much.

PAT:  Thanks for what you're doing.  I do have the Al Gore thing.

GLENN:  Hang on just a second.  Let me just say this.  That there's coming a tipping point, and it's going to happen sooner rather than later, I fear.  That they will just start to say that you're not doing this with your kid.  And when that happens -- I mean, we're in deep trouble.  We're in deep, deep trouble.  And Americans need to wake up.

When you're sitting around the Thanksgiving table, I want you to bring up what you heard -- this story.  And you heard it.  Don't quote it from me.  Don't say what show you heard it on.

Just say, there was this lady in Fort Worth, and she was talking about this happened.  And then start talking about what's happening in your schools.  And you listen to your parents and your grandparents, the older ones at the table, and see what they have to say about this.  This is an outrage, and Americans need to stand up against this.

We're at a point now to where we have to shut down the department of ed.  There's no reform that will be good enough.  You have to shut down the Department of Education.  It must be turned off.  And the control has got to go back to the local level.

Here's the Al Gore thing.  This happened the week of the first inauguration of Barack Obama.  They call all these students in.  Al Gore is giving a speech.  And there are no parents allowed.  And one of the kids hits record on their i Phone.  Here's what she picks up.

GORE:  I'm thinking back now a long way to when I was your age, and the civil rights movement was unfolding.  And we kids asked our parents and their generation, explain to me again why it's okay for the law to officially discriminate against people because of their skin color.  And parents try to tell their kids the right thing, you know, usually -- I do.  And when our parents' generation couldn't answer that question, that's when the laws started to change.

There are some things about our world that you know that older people don't know.

GLENN:  Oh, my gosh.  This is so dangerous.  So dangerous.

The first Thanksgiving was about humiliation, fasting, and prayer.  Humbling yourself before the Almighty God, praying, fasting, and giving thanks.

May I recommend, may I strongly recommend that we do this this Thanksgiving and turn our face to the almighty before we destroy ourselves?

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.