Mark Levin interview: Are we any closer to a Constitutional convention?

Mark Levin has championed the idea of holding a modern day Constitutional convention but few took the possibility of it actually happening seriously. Now, after government abuses continue to pile up, momentum is gaining. Will it actually happen? Glenn talks that and news of the day on radio.

Get more on this story from Mark's book The Liberty Amendments.

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Mark Levin. Glad to have you.

MARK: Glenn, how are you?

GLENN: I'm great. I'm a little upset. I just talked to Kevin O'Connor, the owner of Memories Pizza in Indiana. Sweet, sweet guy. They're afraid of opening up their shop because a -- try this on for size. You ready? A local TV station just happened to Google, and they were just looking for a few of the local persons in the small town on the Freedom of Religion Act. And they just wanted to find some local -- and they just happened to find this place that was decorated for Easter and had a sign about how we pray, you know, as a family. So they went in and they asked the daughter if you were asked to cater a gay wedding, you know, as a pizza place, would you do it? And they said, no, but we don't refuse service to anybody here. You know, and we have gay customers and whatever. But now they're being hammered. And a teacher in Indiana tweeted, who will join me tonight at Memories Pizza to burn the place down to the ground?

MARK: You know what, tell me how many gay people who run pizzerias are prepared to conduct ceremonies at evangelical weddings? You know, we could turn this all around. The fact of the matter is, what's going on here is so un-American, and the media are so pathetic. So totalitarian.

GLENN: No, no, Mark, hang on just a second. I'm going the other way. I think this is getting great. Maybe we should have a night where we go out and we break down their doors or -- hey, I know, we break all of the glass and we do it at night and we call it maybe the night of broken glass -- that doesn't sound -- hey, that's classy sounding. Let's do that.

MARK: It is just amazing to me. People understand this law, all it does is provide people of faith who can demonstrate that providing service at -- let's say, this is just one example. At a same-sex wedding, substantially burdens their religious practices and beliefs. Then you get to go to court, then you have this high burden, it's a substantially high burden where you have to prove that it's substantially burdens your religious beliefs and practices. And if the court says no, you have to service that wedding.

GLENN: Here's the amazing thing, nobody would go -- nobody would do this to the Amish. It's just because Christians -- so many Christians appear to be hypocrites. Because, quite honestly, a lot of Christians are hypocrites. And they don't live their --

MARK: They don't care about the Christians who are hypocrites.

GLENN: I know that. I know that. So there are a lot of Christians who are like, I don't really care. It doesn't matter to me. I'll serve anybody. Sure. I'll go serve a -- you know, a devil worship, you know, ceremony. Whatever. I'll go do that.

MARK: I want to read you something. It's very short. I want to read you something because I know you'll move on eventually. I want to hit this.

James Madison, the first Congress. He was chairman of the House Conference Committee on the Bill of Rights. His first draft of religious liberty related to the first amendment, which became the first amendment, read as follows, quote: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any matter or on any pretext infringed. Unquote.

Now, getting it through the committee, the House, then to the Senate, then to the states, it changed to Congress shall make no law respecting the establishing of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. But this was the mentality. This is the background. In other words, even our pre-colonial times, people came to this country for religious liberty. Now, if the country doesn't stand for religious liberty, what the hell does it stand for?

GLENN: It doesn't stand for anything right now.

Let me ask you this, Mark, that says conscience. I would go a step further. If there is somebody who is, you know, really big in the Planned Parenthood movement and was leading the charge for everybody has got to have birth control at birth you need to be able to get birth control. And somebody -- and they run a print shop. And somebody comes in and they're evangelical Christians and they're doing this magazine and flier and everything else that says, you know, no to abortion and everything else, that would violate their -- it would be hard for them to do. I believe they have a right to say, I'm not going to take your business.

MARK: Well, ultimately at least from our founding principles, you're correct.

But you see, the religious liberty now should be the new civil rights movement.

GLENN: Yes, it should.

MARK: Because it's under brutal assault. And, of course, it's under assault because we have damn few institutions left to stand up to big iron-fisted centralized government, and this is one of them.

But I'll tell you something else, Glenn, if they think they're going to find people of faith, whatever their faith is, who are just going to buckle under and say, all right, fine, I'll just throw my faith out the window and do what I'm told. And, you know, three years ago, this wasn't even a big issue, now it's a big issue. It ain't going to happen. People of faith, big faith. I don't mean sort of secularists who show up on Saturdays and Sundays depending on their faith. I mean people who are actually believers, they won't buckle under to this stuff.

GLENN: Does this bother you that we're talking about this while Christians, Muslims, atheists, and homosexuals are being thrown off a building by ISIS?

MARK: Well, you're right. It's amazing. And not just ISIS, by the IslamoNazi regime in Iran which we're negotiating with.

GLENN: Yeah, I find this incredible.

MARK: Are they doing that in Indiana, by the way?

GLENN: We're bashing a pizza parlor in Indiana, yet we're sitting down trying to find common ground with people who are currently killing, crucifying homosexuals.

MARK: Because it's easy. It's easy for some doofus who graduated with a D-minus from journalism school to go into a pizza parlor and harass a little girl. It's quite different if they actually flew over to Tehran and demonstrated that they are real journalists, they have really guts, but they're not. They're pathetic.

GLENN: Well, how about the journalist from Iran that is now no longer welcome because he spilled the beans and said it's like the United States is negotiating on behalf of Iran. And now he can't go back to Iran or he'll be killed and arrested.

MARK: Of course. That's quite right.

GLENN: There's real journalism for you. Let me switch subjects here. First of all, let me ask you about Iran. We had a conversation yesterday.

MARK: You asked it.

GLENN: I know that. We had a conversation yesterday. We can't let that stand. The Congress cannot let that stand. Do you think Congress will do anything if he comes back with a deal with Iran?

MARK: No. You know, they seem to think going on Fox and beating their chest is doing something. It's doing nothing. Here's what happened, Glenn. As soon as Mitch McConnell was elected, the next morning, he went in front of the Mitch McConnell Memorial, something or other, in Kentucky, and announced that we will not shut down the government.

Now, first of all, to preemptively blame yourself for shutting down the government seems fundamentally stupid to me, but there you go. That's number one.

Number two, what he really means by that is we're surrendering the power of the purse. If Congress surrenders the power of the purse, above all else, impeachment and the rest, it has no power. That's what congresses do. They spend money. They tax. They borrow. What the hell else do they do? So if every prior Congress uses the power of the purse to try and effect change in departments and agencies, in presidential directives, and so forth and so on, when you surrender that, you have no power left. So what are they going to do exactly? That's number one.

Number two, in the Senate, they should abolish the filibuster while this guy is president of the United States because that's a rule. That's not in the Constitution. In order to fight this imperial president. But he won't do it.

Now, you and I can talk until we're blue in the face. The answer is, they won't do anything to stop this president. He knows it. And this is why he pushes harder and harder and is more and more

despotic.

GLENN: I will tell you, Mark, I'm getting a lot of mail from people that say that you and I are among the only ones that are taking on Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, and the G.O.P. But I don't think that's true. I think there are millions of Americans who feel exactly the same way. These guys got to be stopped. They just have to be stopped.

MARK: Well, these guys have been hanging around forever. Let's look at Karl Rove. The architect, pretty funny, huh? Let's look at his record. Number one, in 2006, you know, when George Bush came in, he didn't win the popular quote. He did win legitimately the electoral college, so he was a legitimate president. But who was the architect of that? Rove. Then in 2006, we lose both the House and the Senate. They had a Republican House and Senate when they came in, we lost them both, under who? The architect. Karl Rove. We lose with McCain. We lose with Romney. Now they tell us conservatives can't win. This guy is a Svengali. You're right to take him on. I despise him. And I despise what he's doing to my party. It's still my party, barely. And I despise what he's doing to my country.

As for Grover Norquist, that is one seedy character, no question about it.

GLENN: Okay. Let me change this subject --

MARK: And, by the way, thank you for slamming away. And I've done everything I can on my social sites to support you.

GLENN: Well, thank you. I know that. And I know that I'm not alone because you were leading this with Karl Rove. You've been there before I was.

Let's talk a little about North Dakota. It became the 27th state to call for a constitutional convention. When I saw that there had been 27 states. This is your idea. It came from -- well, it was the founder's idea, but you're the one that brought it up in your book, and it caught fire. And when I saw that we were, what, six states away --

PAT: We're almost there.

MARK: Thirty-four we need.

PAT: Seven states. We need seven more. Now, so the legislatures of these 27 states, Mark, have already voted on this?

MARK: All right. Let me slow this down a little. Let me unravel this a little.

First of all, the language is important. Because the John Birchers who despise me -- and the feeling is mutual -- tell you that this is a constitutional convention. It is not. Article five says convention of the states.

GLENN: Okay.

MARK: There's a reason why that's important. They're not free to just go to this convention and throw out the Constitution. They actually have to go to a convention of the states. Look at it as a meeting of the states. The state sends delegates to meet, and they meet to discuss possible amendments to the Constitution, just as Congress meets all the time and they can propose amendments. Well, now a certain number of states can meet and propose amendments. Now, first of all, let's start right there.

Do we believe in federalism, or do we not? Do we believe the problem is this overbearing centralized federal leviathan, or do we not? So as conservatives, immediately this should be attractive to us. We have an ongoing constitutional convention, it's called the Supreme Court. We have an ongoing constitutional convention, it's called the president and Congress. They're changing, undermining, usurping the Constitution daily. This is the only recourse we have to fight back. That's number one.

Number two, I don't believe we should only be focused on a balanced budget amendment. Our problem is systemic. Our problem is structural. We are no longer a constitutional republic. Or federal republic. Or representative republic. I don't know what the hell we are. But we're not that. To say I just want a balance budget amendment. You'll be balancing the federal budget, but the Congress will still be out of control and Obama and the Supreme Court. That's why there are other things that need to be done. Term limits for members of Congress. Term limits on the Supreme Court and so forth.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: I will tell you, when I saw that it was only budget, I thought, well, that's a good start, but term limits should be in there as well. And everybody agrees on term limits, except those in power. And the only way it will happen is through a convention of states.

MARK: That's correct. The only way you'll bust up this entrenched professional class is to bust them up. Begging them to bust themselves up or beg them to restrain themselves, they're not going to do it.

GLENN: Here's the problem with this that I've not been able to solve. You've probably thought it all through. The problem is, not necessarily with the politicians, I mean, it is with the politicians. But it doesn't stop there. The State Department needs to be just fumigated. So how do you get -- you get new guys coming in all the time, you're going to have all the Karl Roves, all the professionals that are there, who are like, no, no, you don't know how the game is played. We've been setting this up for a long time. You just do this. How do you get the State Department to react to politicians? They think these guys will come and go. We'll be here forever.

MARK: Here's a couple things. Number one, this is why among my proposed reform amendments, three-fifths of the state legislatures. You know, the state legislatures, Glenn, acting together are more powerful than the federal government, period. This is what people don't get. The framers said, okay, here, we'll give you a fire alarm. And if the house is on fire, pull the damn thing. So my proposal is that the state legislatures, if three-fifths of the legislatures want to override a federal statute or a federal regulation -- if they can do it within two years, they do it. And there are other proposals in there. You're talking about the permanent bureaucracy.

GLENN: Yes.

MARK: Well, we have to elect people, or in my view, appoint senators through the state legislature process, who are going to do that.

GLENN: Amen.

MARK: We can only go so far. You've made the point that the real war here is a culture war. Okay, if Americans don't want to be free, they're not going to be free. You're the latest to say this. Franklin said it. Lincoln said it. Reagan said it. You've said it. It's true. If we don't want to be led by virtuous people, we won't be led by virtuous people. If we want to live under the iron fist of invisible shadowy consultants and operatives, then we will. But there are certain things we can do to address this like term limits, like giving the state legislatures the power to appoint senators again and giving state legislatures the power to override these outrageous federal regulations and federal statutes. We wouldn't have Obamacare today if the state legislatures would step up. We wouldn't have an out-of-control EPA today if the state legislatures would step up. So when I talk to these state senators and representatives, I say, pal, you have an obligation under the federal Constitution to step up. Now step up and do something.

GLENN: Mark Levin, it is great to talk to you. Great to have you on the air.

MARK: You're a good man, my brother.

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.