Fundamental Transformation: Obama trying to change the definition of “individualism”

June 11, 2015

Writer

Ladies and gentlemen, here we go again. Barack Obama promised his presidency would fundamentally transform the United States of America, and it sounds like he won’t stop until they are literally rewriting the dictionary. In a recent speech, President Obama redefined the American concept of “rugged individualism” - and it no longer involves “rugged” or “individualism”.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

GLENN: So the president has come out with a fascinating new definition -- because that's really what we're into now, new definitions. We've redefined brave. We've redefined hate. We've redefined love. Let's we define -- because we have to change our words and our meanings. Let's redefine rugged individualism.

OBAMA: The rugged individualism --

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Before we go on, I just have to ask everybody here. Rugged individualism. How would you define that Jeff Fisher?

JEFFY: Strong by yourself.

PAT: The ability to take care of oneself, right? Come what may, you're independent. I'm going to make my own way. I'm going to make sure that whatever happens to me and mine, I'm going to take care of it.

JEFFY: And I don't need you.

PAT: I don't need you.

STU: This is the definition of individualism. The habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant. Now, rugged to me in this particular context would indicate that it's not always going to be easy. It might be bumpy. It might be hard. It might be tough to get through it. But you do it anyway because you believe in self-reliance so much.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: You're tough. You're tough. Nothing will stop you from being self-reliant.

PAT: It certainly doesn't mean I'm depending on the government.

STU: No.

GLENN: Well, who would say that?

STU: Let me give you definition number two before you figure that out: A social theory -- this is for individualism -- a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control. That is the actual definition of the word.

GLENN: Okay. All right. So we got it. Rugged. Come hell or high water. Individualism, I am going to fend for myself and I'm going to make it. Rugged individualism. Here's the president's definition.

OBAMA: The rugged individualism that defines America has always been bound by a shared set of values.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop. I just want to say -- it's defined by a shared set of values. So we're already into the collective. It's defined by a shared --

PAT: Yeah, you're sharing it with everybody. My individualism is shared with everybody. My individualism is so collective that we all have it.

[laughter]

GLENN: I'm so independent that I'm tied to you in the same definition.

PAT: Yes.

OBAMA: That we're in this together.

PAT: We're in it together. Forget individualism. We're in it together.

GLENN: My individualism is a shared definition that we're all in it together.

[laughter]

OBAMA: That America is not a place where we simply turn away from the sick.

GLENN: Stop. Now, notice what he's done.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: We're all in it together. Our rugged -- I'm going to redefine some words and some theories here for you, kiddoes. I'm going to take and I'm going to turn it upside down. But then once I do that, before you can say that doesn't make any sense, I'm going to throw in something that we all do share, we don't let people starve. We don't let people die on the street.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And if you want to define rugged individualism any other way, that means you'll let them die on the street.

PAT: That's what this guy does.

GLENN: That's what he's doing.

PAT: That's what he does all the time.

GLENN: That's how he makes you into someone who must be hated because he's redefining words. We all know that -- Webster, not the little black guy, the dictionary says -- Webster says rugged individualism is a determination to be able to make it on your own. Come hell or high water, you will make it on your own.

STU: Without anyone's help.

GLENN: Without anybody's help. That's the definition of that. He's changing the definition. And to be able to call you a bigot or a hater that just wants to have people die, he has to redefine the words "rugged individualism."

So when you say, wait a minute. No, I'm a Libertarian and I believe we can all make it. He then can go, well, see we -- we once had this shared idea that we don't let people starve in the street. Wait a minute. Hang on just a second. We were talking about what it means to be a rugged individual. It didn't mean I didn't help the person on the street who was dying, who maybe got their hand cut off by, oh, I don't know one of the new Islamic, you know, terrorists that you have working at the Department of Homeland Security. I don't know. Maybe that's what happened.

PAT: Rugged individualism has nothing to do with anybody starve to death. It has nothing to do with being poor. It has nothing to do --

GLENN: With the collective.

PAT: Any of this crap he's talking about.

GLENN: Right. It has nothing to do with the collective. It's who you are and how you make it. It doesn't mean that you make it at anybody else's expense. You're making it because you won't take a handout from anybody else. You don't need it. You will make it. It will make you stronger. You see somebody along the way that needs help. My Christianity, which I know he doesn't like, my Christianity tells me I have to help. My rugged individualism says, I don't need help. I'm going to do it. And I'm going to make it. And don't spend your time worrying about me. You worry about you.

Then when I get to somebody on the side of the street, my Christianity says, I got to help that person.

PAT: Yeah. It doesn't say I have to pay more taxes so the government can help that person. It says I have to.

STU: Individually.

PAT: Again, individually. So it's not conflicting with your rugged individualism.

GLENN: Correct.

PAT: Everything he's saying conflicts with the definition he's supposedly defining.

GLENN: I --

PAT: I mean, this is madness. This is --

GLENN: I'd like to raise my hand. I'd like to raise my hand. Enough is enough. Enough is enough. I just can't go there anymore. I raise my hand to say enough of the insanity.

PAT: How is it that somebody in this audience doesn't raise their hand and say, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. You don't have any clothes on right now. You have no clothes.

GLENN: He wasn't wearing clothes?

PAT: No, he wasn't. He was completely naked.

GLENN: Wow. For a minute I thought you were referring to that fairytale, the emperor has no clothes, but he's --

PAT: No, I was really -- it wasn't a metaphor. He was actually naked. He was actually naked.

GLENN: He was actually naked. Wow. Okay.

PAT: It was weird. I don't know why he did that.

GLENN: But there's more.

OBAMA: Turn our backs on the tired. The poor. The huddled masses.

It is a place sustained by the idea, I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper. That we have an obligation to put --

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop. That's not what sustains us. That's not what sustains us. I am my brother's keeper? All we would be is a hospital. That's all we would be.

PAT: And a broke one.

GLENN: And a broke one. No. It requires people to go out and create something.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: That's what sustains us. What lifts us up and makes us a great nation is we also help people and love people. My gosh this guy doesn't get it. He's -- honestly, he has a third grade understanding of the United States of America.

PAT: I don't give him that much credit.

GLENN: In today's world. Today's third grade.

OBAMA: And see each other's common humanity.

GLENN: Still defining rugged individualism.

OBAMA: After decades of trying, after a year of sustained debate, we finally made health care reform a reality here in America.

PAT: All about health care. Rugged individualism is about socialized health care.

STU: Again, I give you a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control. It's actually in the --

GLENN: It's actually the exact opposite of the dictionary definition.

STU: Uh-huh. And there we are. As Jeffy said so many times, whatever they say, you should believe the opposite.

JEFFY: Because the opposite is true.

STU: And here it is.

GLENN: That is absolutely unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

PAT: I don't -- I really -- I mean, I know he does this all the time. How does he get away with it? There's nobody that's curious about --

GLENN: Okay. All right. So when you -- there's two things that have happened to our country. One, you teach people to -- you can't make a difference. Don't say anything. Don't cause a hassle. Just -- just leave it alone. It will pass. Okay? So there's the first reason why we don't say anything. Just don't -- we're not -- we're not those people. We never have been. We just all want to get along. Okay? So we have backed up and backed up and backed up. And we have been taught to back up. Then comes the second lesson. You better shut up or we'll destroy you. Now, there is a third lesson to this. And that is, I'm going to beat you nearly to death and the fourth lesson is, I'm going to beat you to death. But the first two lessons are, you don't make a difference. It's better just to leave it alone. Just be quiet. That one has been taught my whole life. The second lesson has just started in the last ten years. And that is, shut up, or I'll destroy you. The third lesson is coming soon. Shut up or I will beat you within an inch of your life. And all you have to do is beat a few people. So we don't say anything because we're like -- have you ever been around a dog that has been abused? You are around a dog who's been abused, you reach out to pet that dog, and they turn away. They put their head down. They see that hand coming, and they think they're going to get hit. We're close to being that dog. We're not there yet. But we're close to being that dog.

Many Americans are that dog. We've never been hit. Think we're cowards now? We've never been hit. You have people now who are being put in jail because they were a baker who wouldn't make -- in jail! Not a fine. Jail. You do that, and enough people will say, you know what, I don't want this hassle. I'm just going to go on with my life. I just want to be left alone. We cannot be those people. We cannot be those people. You know, Martin Luther King, by the time he got to -- the entire black population was like that dog who had been abused. They had been abused for 300 years. So every time they saw a white person come, and they, still, many places they still flinch, you're white, they flinch. That's how deep the abuse went. You can't claim anything close to that abuse.

We're just getting to the point to where we're being told, you don't make a difference, and shut up and sit down or I'll destroy you. But look at what happened. When Martin Luther King taught them, no, no, no. Stop arguing. Stop fighting with each other. Start standing together. Start being who you really are. You're good, decent, honorable people that just want a fair shake. You're not trying to hurt anybody else. You're not trying to put the whites out of business. You're not trying to kill them. You're trying to just be a neighbor. That's all you're trying to be, is just be a neighbor. Hey, neighbor. Hey, neighbor. That's it. How unreasonable is that? Stand together and don't flinch. If they hit you, don't hit back. And look what he changed.

We don't have that ground to make up. Only a few people have been imprisoned or thrown in jail, like the baker. We have not had -- we don't have most of our society being thrown in jail. We have not received 300 years of abuses.

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.

Glenn's Show Prep

Fundamental Transformation: Obama trying to change the definition of “individualism”

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

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.

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

Not-so-expert advice

A republic no more?

The path forward

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

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.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

Choosing death over care

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

The logical end of a broken system

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

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.

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.

How Sharia arrives

The warning from those who have lived under it

America is vulnerable

Wake up before it is too late

Why do Americans feel so empty?

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

The crisis beneath the headlines

The quiet return of meaning

Where renewal begins