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

Fact Check: No, Gun Laws Don’t Reduce the Murder Rate

February 23, 2018
Staff

WRITER

Liberals like to point to countries like Australia to “prove” that sweeping gun reform will prevent future mass shootings.

On today’s show, Glenn and Stu talked about why Australia didn’t affect its homicide rate with a mandatory buyback program. (You can learn more about Australia’s mandatory gun buyback program and why it won’t work in the U.S. with Stu’s analysis here.)

Glenn and Stu also took a look at a now-expired federal ban in the U.S. that also didn’t help prevent crime.

In 1994, the U.S. implemented a ban on “assault weapons,” which were defined as certain semi-automatic firearms. The ban, which expired in 2004, had no discernible effect on the homicide rate.

“The Department of Justice found that there was no change in murder rates; it didn’t affect it at all,” Stu pointed out on today’s show.

Listen to the podcast above to hear more.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Boy, the book that we wrote, what, three years ago and put out, control, exposing the truth about guns. Has never been needed more than it is right now. I urge you to pick this book up. Grab it on Amazon. It's a small paperback. We've made it so you could keep it, you know, in your back pocket. It has -- man. Holy cow. Twenty-five pages of footnotes in the back. So -- because I never want you to quote me. I want you to quote the original source.

And it has all of the stats and all of the arguments one by one laid out, so you can have an intelligent argument. Because that's -- that's what we -- the only thing that is going to get us through this, is trying to have an intelligent argument. Screaming at each other or coming, you know, unarmed in an intellectual gunfight, that person is going to lose.

They're unarmed. They are unarmed. Come to the table with the facts. The topics are, we should start drafting a bill to ensure Newton or a shooting like this never happens again. Guns are lethal. No one wants to take your guns away. Boy, did you hear the father last night?

So the father last night -- and I think we have it. The Rubio --

STU: I think it's victim's father, Senator Rubio, and heated change?

GLENN: Yes. That's it. Listen to this.

He first accuses Rubio of being pathetically weak. Go ahead. Play this.

MARCO: I do believe what you're saying is true. I believe that someone like this individual and anyone like him shouldn't have any gun. Not this gun, any gun.

But I want to explain to you for a moment the problem with the law that they call the assault weapons ban. And if you'll indulge me for a minute to explain to you the problem.

First, you have to define what it is. If you look at the law and its definition, it basically bans 200 models of gun. About 220 specific models of gun.

VOICE: Good. Good.

MARCO: Okay? But it allows legal 2,000 other types of gun that are identical. Identical. And the way that they function and how fast they fire and the type of caliber that they fire and the way they perform, they're indistinguishable from the ones that become illegal. And the only ones that separate the two types -- the only thing that separates the two types, is if you put a plastic handle grip on one, it becomes banned. If it doesn't have a plastic handle grip, it does not become banned. So let me explain if I may just for a moment more.

VOICE: Are you saying you will start with the 200 and work your way up?

GLENN: Notice that?

MARCO: I would say -- I would explain to you what has happened.

VOICE: It's a good place to start. We can do that.

(applauding)

GLENN: And notice the cheers. It's a good place to start.

So this is what the left has to understand. Anybody who is intellectually honest on the left and says, why can't we just do common sense?

Well, because this kind of language scares everybody who says, wait, you guys want to take away guns. Well, good. It's a good start.

Then are you going to go after -- let's get this done, then we'll go after the other 2,000 guns. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. What are we trying to do?

The people that I heard speak last night, were emotional. And I understand that.

If I just lost my daughter a week ago and I'm talking to somebody and I don't believe in guns, I just think that they're whatever, I am really angry. And I am going after -- and I shouldn't be listened to. I should be heard. But I shouldn't necessarily -- you shouldn't design policy around an angry grieving father, mother, friend.

Grief brings in really bad decisions. So I understand the feeling. But if you -- if you listened last night, what did we get out of this? You scared the people on the right because of statements like that and the cheers behind.

Good. Good. Then we'll start there.

No, wait a minute. That's the problem. That's why there is no middle ground. That's why we can't have a common sense conversation. Because no one trusts the other. Now, I could flip this around and say, I'm sure that there are people on the left that heard Marco Rubio say he's not going to take -- or, he will take money from the NRA. And they believe that it's money that is influencing Congress. It's not.

It's the membership of the NRA. That's what scares Congress. The membership. Not the money.

So you hear, well, he won't stop taking money. So they're -- and so now you don't trust. If we're going to do anything, we have to base everything on reason. You're not going to get that in an emotional debate. You're going to get my side is better than your side.

Honestly, we were playing a clip earlier today. I've got four monitors sitting in front of me. And we were playing a clip, and it was just an audio clip. So I was looking for the video that went with it. And I looked down at the bottom video, and I thought that was the video for about five seconds.

It wasn't the video. It was the crowd at the Olympics last night. Because I heard -- I heard the audio of people shouting and cheering, and I just -- I went down and I thought, okay. Well, that's -- man, look at that. No, oh, my gosh, that's the crowd at a sporting event. That's not the way to make national policy.

STU: No. There's something very peculiar about the way we're doing this. You know, you have -- you're going to emotional, grieving 18-year-olds to try to find out what we should do with national policy. And their recommendation is that non-grieving, nonemotional 18-year-olds don't have the capacity to own a firearm. So we're saying that the people who are making policy are not capable of exercising their Second Amendment rights.

That's a very strange thing to do. And honestly --

GLENN: When did we get to the point to where we didn't say as a culture, leave the families alone?

STU: Well, I mean, obviously they want to be involved in this, right? They are willing participants, because they think they're doing something important. And as you said, Glenn, you go through something like this, I will give -- personally, I'll give you a complete pass on anything you say. Everything you say could be wrong. You could start speaking in languages I don't understand. You could do anything you want at this point. Because I know if something like this happened to me, I would be blurting out all sorts of stuff that's a lot dumber than arguments that aren't buttoned up.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: But it's the media that I have a problem with here. The media knows. And they've been clear about this. They say it after every shooting, we don't understand. We thought that after Sandy Hook, they would finally do the thing that we wanted them to do. And they didn't do it. And then we thought after the Pulse shooting, they would finally do the thing we wanted them to do, and they didn't do it.

Because what they're -- their whole plan is, wait for something to make people so emotional, that they abandon the rights that they've been given, by God. They will abandon those rights because the emotion will overcome them, and they never let a crisis go to waste. This is exactly what you're seeing playing out right now. This does not make the people who are at -- you know, who are making emotional arguments -- this doesn't make them bad. There's no criticism of them.

I can't even comprehend what they're going through. But the idea that the media takes them out and says -- buts that show on last night, where you have thousands of people who all agree are going to shout down anyone trying to make a point that is rational on the other side, serves nobody, unless you are an activist group. If you're an external advocacy group, which is not what CNN is supposed to be, then I understand that.

But --

GLENN: The -- several times, some of the speakers or the people who are asking questions said, look, I want to like you. That was the father who was speaking to Rubio. Somebody else said, I want to believe that you are going to be part of the solution. And, you know, anybody here who agrees that we have to take these guns off the streets, I -- I will support.

Wait a minute. Wait.

No. That -- that's --

STU: Right.

GLENN: What's the big deal on that? Hey, as long as you agree with me 100 percent, I won't kill you.

STU: Well, it's the old compromise of the Obama administration. Look, I'm willing to talk to anybody, who will do the thing that I want them to do.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Well, that's great. Thank you for that. That's not compromise.

GLENN: That's not having dialogue. That's not trying to work through the issues.

STU: No.

GLENN: I have to hear you. And I do hear you. I hear you. But have you taken the time to hear us? Have you taken the time to hear, wait a minute, what that dad just said makes half the country lose their mind. Makes half the country go, see, they are coming for all of them.

And that wasn't misspoken. They knew what he said. He knew what he said.

Let's get rid of all of these. Whenever you hear somebody in the media go, you know, Australia did it. Australia took all of the guns.

STU: Yeah. Well, 30-some-odd percent of them, which -- which in the United States would be between 60 and 100 million guns.

GLENN: Correct.

Let's look at Great Britain. The police don't even have guns. The police don't have guns.

And how -- how is it working in Australia?

STU: Well, I mean, it didn't do much of anything, to be honest with you. It showed -- multiple studies showed -- and I post this had yesterday on my Facebook page. Go to Facebook Stu Burguiere. I think you shared it as well, the Glenn Beck page. It goes through everything that happened there. But it was -- they showed that there was no discernible change in murder rates.

Remember, this is 20 times as far as any proposal goes in the United States right now. This is way further than an assault weapons ban or anything like it. It goes much further than that. They purchased 30 percent of the weapons in the country. And there was no discernible drop in murder rates. The same thing happened when we did a an assault weapons ban here in the United States.

What you found was that there -- the Department of Justice found there was no change in murder rates. It didn't affect it at all.

GLENN: It's not going to.

This is -- and I don't know where you're going to get this -- I don't know where you're going to have this conversation. And, you know, maybe it's up to -- maybe it's up to us.

The conversation needs to be had, look, let's stay on the actual facts. It's math. It's math. Let's stay on the actual facts. Let's look at history. What works, what doesn't. If you can come up with a proposal that works, let's discuss it. But please understand, that, yes, I love my children. But I also believe the best way to protect my children is through a Constitution. A Constitution that allows me to make the decisions that are best for me and my family. I believe that we have a right to free speech. How does one protect that speech if you don't have a weapon?

Remember, the weapons were taken from the Germans and the Jews, for their own protection. How is anyone able to do anything to stop Hitler?

How is anyone? You weren't. You didn't have a right to self-defense.

Everybody, oh, it's crazy. Oh, that will never happen here.

Listen to what the left is saying about Donald Trump right now. They're already saying that he's akin to Hitler.

Listen to how many of those of us on the left thought that Obama, may not leave office. It can't happen here?

What kind of world are you living in?

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

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

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

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

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

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

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

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

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.