Intentional, Provoked Violence Is Coming — Don't Give in to It

March 21, 2016

Writer

Violence erupted again at a Donald Trump rally over the weekend, and Trump supporters need to know one thing: They're being used as pawns by George Soros and those wanting to destabilize the West.

Chaos is their goal, and it was on full display in Arizona. The highway leading into a Trump rally was shut down by Soros-funded Black Lives Matter protestors. Inside another venue, a Trump protestor wore a KKK hood, deliberately trying to agitate the crowd.

"So these people came in, and of course, they're going to be pigs — not the Trump people, the Black Lives Matter, Soros people," Glenn said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program. "They are trying to get you to strike back."

Restraint is key — be angry, be vocal, but don't react with violence.

Glenn commented on one Trump supporter who reacted in horrific violence, punching and kicking a protestor who was being escorted out of a rally.

"This is the French Revolution, not the American Revolution. And it doesn't end well," Glenn said. "You want the French Revolution or the American Revolution? One ends horribly. The other ends in a rebirth of freedom."

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Also, in Arizona, there was a --it's getting ugly. It is really getting ugly. Soros is funding the Black Lives Matter riots. There is a whole system now that they have set up to prepare us -- to prepare them, the Occupy Wall Street and the Black Lives Matter people, including the Muslim Brotherhood, Soros is funding this -- really, this training camp over the summer, where you can learn how to protest and how to break things up and be violent. I'm sorry. He's suggesting that they're not violent at all.

And you know the Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, and Muslim Brotherhood people are never violent. So he's funding, for instance, in -- in Phoenix, this shutdown of the freeway. Did you see that -- follow that over the weekend?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And these people just shut the freeway down. And they were all Black Lives Matter, Soros people.

(BREAK)

GLENN: Soros like the imams over in Iran, like the -- the people over in Europe that are -- what is it, The Coming Insurrection people, like Occupy Wall Street, like Black Lives Matter, they all want one thing, and that is chaos.

So Soros could be explained as easily as he wants chaos. He wants it to go to a brokered convention because he knows that will cause all kinds of problems. He wants to shut down the streets and have riots in the streets. It doesn't matter. Just shut them down. He is looking for chaos. And who is the father of chaos? I would just like to remind you.

Chaos is what people are shooting for right now that want to collapse the West.

So two stories out of Arizona, besides the roads being shut down by the Black Lives Matter people. When you see Black Lives Matter, I want you to understand, we've already been through this. This is Occupy Wall Street. Black Lives Matter. The Muslim Brotherhood. This is the Occupy Wall Street movement, version two.

And remember what all -- Occupy Wall Street and the press wanted to happen. They wanted us to strike back. When we didn't strike back, they disappeared. They had no power. But the minute they found, "Oh, we can get somebody to strike back at us, it's going to cause riots in the street." This is George Soros, remember. Top-down, bottom-up, inside-out. That's George Soros because he saw it work in Hungary when the communists took over.

You get enough of your people in the government, you get riots on the street, the people -- the regular people scream out and say, "Somebody has got to make this stop." The top comes down, turns the country inside out, and it's over. So the worst thing you can do is respond in anger or violence. But try that at a Trump rally.

So these people came in. And, of course, they're going to be pigs. Not the Trump people. The Black Lives Matter, Soros people. Of course. They are trying to get you to strike back.

So somebody goes into this Trump rally. I think it was a woman. And this person -- I don't know if it was a woman or a man. This person puts on a Klan hood in the middle of Donald Trump's rally. Now, how do you think that's going to go over?

STU: Had his back patted by the people near him.

GLENN: What?

STU: People started patting their back.

GLENN: Yes. You could do that in any really. You could do that at a Cruz rally, and it's not going to go over. You do that in a Trump rally, and you have a very good chance of getting coldcocked in the face.

Well, what a surprise. Trump says, "Get that person out of here. That's disgusting." Well, of course, his crowd will get that person out of there. This person was vile, despicable, you name it. I am not siding with this person with the Klan hood.

But as they're being escorted upstairs, a black guy coldcocks this person, which is bad enough. Then this person is laying down on the ground of the steps, and he body-blow kicks her repeatedly. It is something like I've never seen before. It was despicable. Absolutely despicable.

Violence is coming. And I'm going to leave it at that. Violence is coming 1968-style. And it's coming to our conventions, unless we get a hold of ourselves.

And when I say that, I want the Trump people to hear me clearly: You're being set up. Do you understand that? Look at the history. Look at what Occupy Wall Street did. They want you to strike back. And your fearless leader is too arrogant to figure out what's going on. And your fearless leader is not leading you to a place of peace. He is telling you that he will pay for your legal fees.

You will be responsible for the end of the republic if you don't wise up and figure this out: restraint. You can be as angry as you want. Restraint. "Well, they deserved it." Restraint. The republic is at stake. And you're being set up.

Does that make sense to anybody? If you know people are trying to get you to do something, you're an idiot if you go and do it. What do you think they want?

Now, let me tell you another story: In that blockade, there was -- of the freeway, which was despicable again. George Soros money. The blockade happens. This guy who is driving his construction truck, he's sitting there. He's stuck in traffic. He's a youth pastor. And he's just trying to get to his church.

Everybody is in line trying to get to this Trump rally. He's just trying to get to his church for service. The blockade happens. CNN covers it. His truck is up front with the name of his construction company. The Trump supporters are now calling in death threats to his construction company. He was a youth pastor. He has nothing to do with it. He was stuck in traffic, just like everyone else. But you went and jumped to the conclusion that he was involved. This is the French Revolution, not the American Revolution. And it doesn't end well.

But it seems like all we're doing right now is just jockeying for who will be the next dictator. Could it be Barack Obama? Could it be Bernie Sanders? Could it be Clinton? Could it be -- why not? Donald Trump? They're all jockeying for power. None of them for the principles of the Constitution. You want the French Revolution or the American Revolution?

One ends horribly. The other ends in a rebirth of freedom.

(OUT AT 8:25AM)

GLENN: So what did -- I read a quote. I thought this was an old quote. Is, do we know yet about what Donald Trump has said or not?

STU: We're looking at it. I heard it this morning on the radio.

GLENN: Is he paying the guy's legal fees. Do we know that yet? Is he --

STU: Because there's multiple -- you talked about someone in a hood who got kicked. The one I saw was in an American flag shirt that got kicked on the ground.

GLENN: Okay. That's why I said I wasn't sure. Because I think the woman in the hat -- in the hood, I think that was a woman.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: And I think she was leaving, and maybe somebody else was kicked down to the ground or something. I don't know. I saw the video on the plane. But I know that, if it wasn't the woman in the hood, then it was somebody else that was being escorted. And she was -- and he was punched in the face, down to the ground, and then kicked. Repeated body blows. That guy should be in jail. I don't know if he --

PAT: He was arrested. I mean, it looks like they were taking him.

GLENN: And what is the story of Trump's campaign manager roughing somebody else out and getting him out?

STU: So there's a protester that they were -- the campaign manager and another guy were standing next to. He started walking away. The same guy who grabbed the girl and called all the controversy last week. He grabbed this guy by the collar. Pulled him back.

The guy to his left, at the same time, also pulled him back and pulled him back harder. The Trump campaign was, well, this -- it wasn't Corey Lewandowski, our campaign manager. You can see him clearly grab his collar and pull him back.

But he said, really, he was reacting to the other guy who pulled much harder, and they tried to blow it off on that. Took about 24 hours for it to be revealed that the other guy was also a Trump campaign worker that the campaign just forgot to mention that in their denial.

PAT: And it shows.

STU: They blamed it on the other guy, and it was their guy too.

PAT: And it shows that's what he does. So it kind of reinforces the proof of the other one.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: It does. They're all New York, Mafioso-style thugs. That's all they are.

PAT: Yeah, they're thugs. Yeah.

GLENN: And I can't believe -- I mean, there's got to be some Trump supporters -- because Trump supporters, there's a lot of people, I've met people who are --

PAT: Reasonable.

GLENN: Don't like me because of what I'm saying. And I'm not saying they're necessarily open-minded on things, but they are not thugs. They're not thugs. They're not somebody that is going to kick somebody when they're down.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And I think the vast majority of Trump supporters are like that, they won't kick somebody when they go down. It's probably 10 percent of Trump supporters that are bad, really bottom-of-the-barrel, Occupy Wall Street, except -- I hate to say on the conservative side. They think they're on the right. They're just, they're progressive Republicans. They have to be.

You know, I saw a study this weekend: What do Trump supporters have in common? Did you guys see this? We have to look for this. They did a test, and I got to read the test to you. They did a test. They put questions out on the field and said, "Are you a Trump supporter?" If you said yes, they asked you all of these questions: Pick this or this. Which is better? This or this? And they found the thread through all of them. And you have -- if you're a Trump supporter, you have one thing in common for sure, and that is authoritarianism.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: We've seen that. We've seen a test like that. But have you actually read the questions?

STU: I think I did read some of the --

GLENN: Yeah, they were very interesting. Very interesting questions. We'll give those questions to you here in a minute and see if you -- see how you answer them. Because that's what they have in -- I like the power of the government to take care of things and take care of business.

Featured Image: Protesters filter into the crowd of Trump supporters during a campaign rally at Fountain Park on March 19, 2016 in Fountain Hills, Arizona. Trumps visit to Arizona is the second time in three months as he looks to gain the GOP nomination for President. (Photo by Ralph Freso/Getty Images)

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.