Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Did You Retweet This Picture? If You Didn't Retweet the Apology, You're Guilty of Spreading Fake News

April 21, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Finally, some honesty from a mainstream media reporter.

After tweeting juxtaposed pictures of the New England Patriots with President Trump and President Obama, the sports editor of the New York Times issued an apology. Why? The photos were fake news, comparing apples to oranges.

RELATED: New York Times Sports Editor Takes Blame for Misleading White House Photo

"Congratulations, Jason Stallman. If you can find his Twitter handle, you should tweet this and tweet good job," Glenn said Friday on radio.

There's just one little problem. The damage had already been done --- unless everyone who retweeted the original image retweets his apology.

An initial count showed the first tweet with the two pictures had been retweeted 32,000 times. The apology? About fifty-four.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Glenn: I want to talk to you a little bit about fake news and the press. And I'm going to show you a hero, a villain -- I'm going to show you a mistake and the truth. And some of it you're going to cheer for. Some of it you're really not going to like. But I guarantee you, this will open your eyes if you're willing to look at the stuff you like and don't like, this will open your eyes on who's at fault here? What's happening to our society and who's at fault?

Let's start with the New England patriots. They went to the White House to go with President Trump, and the big thing was, oh, look at the New England patriots. They're not going -- not all of them are showing up to have their picture taken with Donald Trump. When Barack Obama was there, everybody was there.

STU: So the New York Times sports decided to tweet a picture side by side picture of the crowd of the patriots in 2015 versus the crowd in 2017.

GLENN: With the president in the middle.

STU: With the president in the middle and the exact same backdrop. And what you see in 2017 there's a small gathering of players behind the White House. And then there are staircases that go up the sides. And in 2015, those staircases are full. Those people all up and down, obviously much more interest in seeing Barack Obama than Donald Trump because in 2017, there's nobody on the staircases at all, and there's definitely a much smaller crowd. That's what they tweeted.

GLENN: Okay. So the New York Times is trying to make the point and the typical New York Times.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Typical failed New York Times is trying to make it look like nobody wants to have their picture taken with Donald Trump.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Here's what happens.

STU: So the New England patriots tweet "These photos lack context. Facts in 2015, over 40 football staff were on the stairs. In 2017, they were seated on the south lawn. So the picture does not reflect the entire crowd. In fact, they tweet another picture where the staff is there --

GLENN: In 2017.

STU: In 2017. And not only does it go up the stairs and the side, it wraps all the way around the back. That picture that they tweeted has more people than the Barack Obama picture of 2015.

GLENN: Okay. Now you can say fake news New York Times. Look what the New York Times is doing. How many times was the New York Times -- how many times was it retweeted that original picture of Donald Trump looking like a loser?

STU: I don't have the exact amount, but it was in the tens of thousands.

GLENN: Tens of thousands of people retweeted that picture basically to say haha.

STU: Trump sucks. Obama is better.

GLENN: Trump sucks. Obama is great, and it feels good. Tens of thousands of people retweeted it. And The New York Times knew what they were doing, or did they? Here's what the guy who made the decision, the sports editor, who made the decision to tweet those two pictures tweeted once the patriots came out and said "No, you've got the story wrong." Here's what he tweeted:

STU: He actually responded to a reporter asking about what he said. This is what he said "Bad tweet by me. Terrible tweet. I wish I could say it's complicated but, no, this one is pretty straight forward. I'm an idiot. It was my idea. It was my execution. It was my blunder. I made a decision in about four minutes that clearly wandered much more time. Once we learned, we tried to fix everything as much as possible, as swiftly as possible and as transparently as possible. Of course at that point the damage was done. I just needed to own it.

PAT: Wow, that's great.

GLENN: Isn't that the realest apology you've ever heard? That guy is one of my new heroes.

PAT: Stand up guy.

GLENN: Saying, look, man, I own it. It's my fault. It was four minutes I made this. Not even saying it was a little deal, big -- no, I own it. Huge mistake.

PAT: Everybody else almost anybody else would have done that. Been, like. Okay. Get over it.

GLENN: Right it was just a stupid picture. I made a mistake. Blah, blah, blah.

No, this guy -- I'm going to post this story up at GlennBeck.com today. This is a guy I want you to talk about at your dinner table tonight with your family. I want you to read that tweet to your children and say "That's the way you own it. That's the way you make an apology."

STU: Because we've all made mistakes like that. We've all jumped to a conclusion that was incorrect. And, you know, there's a point to be made here that seemingly he wanted to see that; right? Like, somewhere in his mind, he thought that impression was true, and he was, like, wow, look at that. And he put that out there and wanted to make sure people knew that these crowds didn't compare.

GLENN: And the only reason why we say he wanted to do that is because he works for The New York Times. We don't know anything about him.

STU: We don't know. But for some reason jumps to conclusion without checking.

GLENN: But this shows because he's surrounded with people thank that. This shows that I don't care what I think. It doesn't matter what I think. It's the truth. What's his name?

STU: I don't know, actually.

GLENN: We have to find out.

STU: It just says New York Times sports editor. A reporter contacted him.

GLENN: Keith -- is Keith around? Did you find out? Because I asked yesterday if we could get this guy on the air. Did we try?

STU: I know we did try. There's confusion of which one --

GLENN: Which one it was?

STU: I don't want to bore you with it.

GLENN: Please, find out, Keith.

PAT: It's New York Times sports editor Jason Stallman.

GLENN: Congratulations, Jason Stallman. If you can find his Twitter handle, you should tweet this and tweet "Good job."

Here's a guy -- I haven't heard an apology like that in how long? Ever?

STU: Right.

GLENN: I mean, that's a great thing. Now, here's the problem. As he said.

PAT: The damage was done.

GLENN: The damage was done. Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. How was the damage done? We used to say corrections in The New York Times, they run on the back page. Nobody sees the back package page. They run in a little, teeny section. It was the headline. They're not going to correct it with the same headline. New York Times wrong. Well, wait a minute. This isn't a newspaper. This is digital. They're giving it the same 144 characters from the same guy from the same source to the same people. So now, we can see. Because it is truly apples to apples. We're comparing the incorrect story, and its impact of tens of thousands of retweets, and we'll see who the fake news people -- who the fake news people are. Did those people retweet "Oh, crap. I just sent on to all of my followers, I just sent on a fake news story."

STU: Right. Do I have any responsibility -- or at least responsibility to correct it? To be clear what the New York Times did, they retweeted the exact tweet from the patriots that I just mentioned. So they actually said "Oh, by the way. We were wrong. Here's the evidence from the patriots saying we were wrong. And then they went into talk about how the delegation was, their quote was roughly the same. Okay? And this is just a snapshot in time. I don't have the current numbers.

At one point, though, the first tweet of the two pictures where it looked like Trump looked bad had 32,000 retweets. The correction had 54. Not 45,000. 54. 32,000 to 54.

GLENN: Okay. So who's fault is that? And we see this in the conservative realm.

STU: You do.

GLENN: I will tweet something out that feels good. I'll tweet something out that's true but doesn't feel good. No likes. No retweets. Nothing. Nothing. Who's fault is the fake news? In this particular case, who's fault is the fake news? It's not The New York Times. It's not The New York Times editor. They're all skewed. No, huh-uh.

STU: They made a mistake. It happens.

GLENN: It's you, minus 54 people.

STU: It's you, in this particular situation, it's the left.

GLENN: It's the left.

STU: They're the ones excited about this one. And this idea that the left has no appetite for fake news I think is pretty well disapproved right here.

GLENN: Right here. Right here. You are retweeting -- and, again, as Stu said, I guess I should point that out. I assume we all understand that I don't think any of us are following The New York Times, you know? We're not, like, I like and follow The New York Times on Twitter, so I think that's probably pretty low in our audience that you got that and then retweeted it.

But anybody who did, you're following The New York Times, and you retweeted this the first time and didn't retweet the correction, you are the problem. And every time that happens on our side, you are the problem.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: It's as long as it's corrected, and it's on Twitter. Because that's apples to apples. Like, I -- you know, we always say we lead with our mistakes. Most people don't. They won't put the headline right at the top. We put the headline right at the top. Try to do that. That's still not the same because we may have chewed on something for, you know, 20 minutes and the correction only takes three. With Twitter, it's 144 to 144. It's the same space going to exactly the same people. It's not the press, and I will tell you -- I mean, it is the press. But it is the people who are consuming it that are spreading it.

STU: And, you know, look, this guy at The New York Times who actually apologizes and takes responsibility, that person doesn't exist at name your random partisan fake news hack website they just want the 32,000 fake retweets. He doesn't bother with a correction.

GLENN: Nope.

STU: And I think it's important for us as conservatives as people who try to execute principles every day to -- when you see someone on the other side take a step like that, it's important --

GLENN: You have to say thank you.

STU: To make a big deal out of it. It is.

GLENN: This is important for us to retweet because it shows -- because I am convinced a lot of this nonsense is because we're not listening to each other. A lot of this nonsense is because we assume the worst of each other. And we're not following The New York Times. And because we don't follow The New York Times, we didn't see them just correct this, and we didn't see a heroic move of a guy who you know there are people in The New York Times who were, like, just leave it. It doesn't matter. I mean, what are you doing helping him out; right? You know there are people who said that to him in the cafeteria. We need to -- excuse me. We need to get to the point to where we can point out the heroes on both sides. And when we listen to each other, when we actually -- we just assume The New York Times is always going to be unfair. We just assume CNN is just going to be unfair. They just assume Fox News and talk radio is going to be unfair. They put this show into the same category as Alex Jones.

Well, that's because you don't listen to us and you don't listen to Alex Jones. That's why. You don't know the difference. We need to do it.

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.