“Nothing is free.” I can still hear my dad saying this whenever I excitedly told him I got something for “free.” I would argue, “But it was free for me,” and he would reply, “Yes — because someone else paid for it.”

That is exactly how many of the 40 million Americans hooked on food stamps and government assistance think. It feels “free,” but it is paid for by hardworking taxpayers — like yours truly. And a government that can feed you can also starve you.

On paper, socialism looks compassionate — until you remember history and human nature.

In the wake of the New York mayoral election, socialism is trending again. Zohran Mamdani is just the latest pawn to make it look flashy and appealing.

Even worse, progressive Christians have jumped on the bandwagon, insisting that socialism is biblical and pointing to Acts 2 as their proof text. They say, “We need to feed the hungry,” “We need to provide for the homeless,” “We need to sell what we have so others have more.” These are admirable sentiments. But they are often advocated by people who rarely offer up their own property or pocketbooks, though they are eager to demand yours.

But who is the “we” in Acts 2?

The answer is simple: the church — not the government.

Acts 2 took place during Pentecost, when Jerusalem was crowded with Jewish pilgrims from across the empire. After thousands came to faith, many stayed longer than expected, creating urgent, unusual needs. In response, believers shared what they had. Acts 2:44-45 says Christians “had everything in common” and “were selling their possessions” and distributing the proceeds “as any had need.”

A few important clarifications:

These were Christians, not government officials.Their giving was voluntary, not legislated.Their generosity was rooted in personal sacrifice, not state coercion.This was a temporary response to a specific moment, not an economic model for nations.

The early church practiced radical generosity because the situation demanded it — not because God or scripture command state-run redistribution. It was compassion from the heart, not a political system.

Socialism starts and ends with a deadly sin

Socialism is inherently immoral because it is built on envy — one of the seven deadly sins. Envy is a resentful desire for what someone else has. Scripture warns against it repeatedly because it is rooted in covetousness: “Do not covet.” Proverbs says envy “rots the bones.” Galatians tells us not to provoke or envy one another. It is part of the “acts of the flesh,” something to root out of our lives entirely — not something to build public policy around.

Socialism claims it reduces inequality by redistributing resources “fairly.” In practice, that means taking from those who earn and giving to those who don’t, with the government deciding how every penny is spent. The poor become dependent, the productive get punished, and the state grows stronger.

On the NYC campaign trail, Mamdani promised a buffet of freebies — free child care, free bus rides, rent control, city-run grocery stores. Margaret Thatcher famously and pointedly said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

Economist Thomas Sowell put it even more bluntly: “What do you call it when someone steals money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes money by force? Robbery. What do you call it when politicians take someone else’s money and give it to people likely to vote for them? Social justice.”

That is how Mamdani won and why the fantasy of socialism keeps selling. There’s a reason the mousetrap always has “free” cheese.

Interestingly enough, Mamdani also claims to be in favor of feminism and woke policies at the same time — but these contradict with his Muslim faith entirely. His ideas end up at stark odds with Christian values and the dominant moral language of modern progressives alike.

As believers, we must reject his ideas altogether and fight for what is true and good for human flourishing.

Socialism sounds compassionate — but it’s not

On paper, socialism looks compassionate. Everyone gets something “free,” and everyone is supposedly happier. It can even sound like something Jesus would endorse — until you remember history and human nature.

The Bible promotes voluntary generosity, not government-run redistribution. From “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15) to Paul’s reminder that giving should never be “under compulsion” (2 Corinthians 9:7), scripture keeps ownership and charity in the realm of personal moral choice. With socialism, religious liberty — living out your faith convictions — goes out the window completely.

Every nation that has embraced socialism — from the Soviet Union to Venezuela — has collapsed into shortages, inflation, and hunger. Power consolidates at the top, innovation dies, dependence grows, and people lose freedom, dignity, and hope.

RELATED: How one ancient sin empowers wokeness, socialism, and cancel culture

bauhaus1000/iStock/Getty Images

Human nature hasn’t changed, and it will not change any time soon. No one wants to build a business through blood, sweat, and tears only to watch the government seize most of the earnings and waste them. The more you make, the more the state takes.

Arthur Brooks’ research in his book “Who Really Cares” shows conservatives give about 30% more to charity than liberals — even though liberals earn slightly more. Conservatives volunteer more, give blood more often, and donate more time.

Why? Because voluntary, faith-driven generosity is far more effective than state-mandated redistribution.

Socialism is born from envy, mandated by force, and finished by famine. It has never worked, and it will not magically work now. Socialism in practice is like being a zoo animal: fed and controlled, but never free. Liberty lets you roam, build, create, and live with dignity.

I will choose freedom over control every single time.

The Bible doesn’t endorse socialism — and neither should we

Scripture calls believers to voluntary generosity and selflessness. It never once advocates for government coercion or its reckless policies. And America’s heritage of Christian-informed self-governance affirms personal responsibility and limited government.

That’s why the Bible doesn’t endorse socialism, and that’s why Mamdani’s state-centered vision should concern anyone who values Christian freedom and America’s founding principles.

Government has a role, and the church has a role. They are not the same. And because politics deals with morality, Christians must be engaged — especially when socialism resurfaces dressed up as compassion.

My dad was right: Nothing is free. Not then, not now, not ever. Someone always pays for it.

​Christianity, Christian, Bible, Socialism, God, Jesus, Zohran mamdani, Faith 

As President Donald Trump toured Israel and the region celebrating his newly brokered Gaza ceasefire agreement last month, several Israeli families received unexpected video calls from their loved ones still held captive in Gaza.

After more than two years without information, many suddenly found themselves staring at the faces they feared they might never see again. “I love you! I can’t wait to see you already!” cried one shocked mother.

In a post-truth environment, Hamas has learned how to set the terms of debate, frame Israeli actions, and pressure global institutions.

Behind each hostage stood a Hamas militant in a green headband and full face covering. Before release, the militant gave a command in broken Hebrew: “Post this on social media. Put this in the news.”

It was a scene both surreal and deliberate. For Hamas, the call was not simply a gesture ahead of a ceasefire. It was the final stroke in a propaganda campaign the group has refined into a core battlefield strategy.

Across the war, Hamas moved far beyond the low-tech, grainy videos of earlier terror groups, like al-Qaeda 25 years ago. Borrowing lessons from Russia, China, Iran, and ISIS, it adopted a multi-platform media operation built on drone footage, high-definition body cameras, Telegram networks, curated databases, and a constellation of Instagram influencers.

The goal was simple: Demoralize Israelis, energize supporters, and sway public opinion abroad — especially in the United States and Europe, where diplomatic pressure could yield concessions no battlefield victory could deliver.

Instagram combatants

Influencers became frontline assets. Saleh Aljafarawi, a 27-year-old Instagram personality, chronicled rubble tours and took selfie videos with children and activists, overlaying them with music to evoke sympathy. His content racked up millions of views.

Motaz Azaiza, another influencer, surged to more than 16 million Instagram followers while documenting scenes on the ground and conducting street interviews. A graphic video credited to him — viewed more than 100 million times and widely disputed — showed what appeared to be bleeding toddlers pulled from wreckage.

Hamas-aligned Telegram channels such as Gaza Now and Al Aqsa TV amplified their posts around the clock. Western media outlets often ran these images uncritically, including allegedly starving children later shown to have congenital conditions unrelated to the conflict.

But the visual blitz was only one part of the strategy. Hamas understood that controlling the premises of the debate mattered as much as controlling the images. That is why organizations such as the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs relied heavily on casualty numbers supplied by the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health. Those tallies — widely framed as disproportionately civilian — drove international diplomatic pressure on Israel and fueled student protests across American campuses.

‘Broadcast the images’

A recently declassified memo from Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar revealed the strategic logic behind the group’s media doctrine. Mixed among military instructions were orders to create “heart-breaking scenes of shocking devastation,” including directives for “stepping on soldiers’ heads” and “slaughtering people by knife.” Body-camera footage from the Oct. 7 massacre reflected that intent.

To execute the strategy, Sinwar empowered a spokesman known as Abu Obaidah, who was killed in an Israel Defense Forces strike last year. Under his direction, Hamas expanded its propaganda arm from roughly 400 operatives during the 2014 conflict to more than 1,500. Every battalion and brigade gained its own deputy commander for propaganda, each trained in field filming, livestreaming, and rapid editing inside decentralized “war rooms.”

One category of production featured Israeli hostages forced to deliver scripted messages from tunnel captivity, urging Israelis to protest their government. These videos were released with trilingual subtitles and high-end visual effects. They accelerated domestic pressure inside Israel to accept a deal on terms favorable to Hamas.

During the January 2025 exchange, Hamas choreographed the release events with precision. Operatives filmed every moment with high-definition lenses as hostages were paraded before Red Cross representatives and instructed to wave to crowds. Slogans appeared in Arabic, Hebrew, and English — some tailored to Israeli politics (“we are the day after”), others crafted for Western activists (“Palestine — the victory of the oppressed”).

Iran funds roughly $480 million annually in state propaganda efforts through its IRIB broadcaster. It is reasonable to assume Hamas directs a significant share of its estimated $2 billion budget into communications.

RELATED: The genocide that isn’t: How Hamas turned lies into global outrage

Photo by ZAIN JAAFAR/AFP via Getty Images

Perception shapes policy

The investment has paid off. A Quinnipiac poll found that half of Americans — and 77% of Democratic voters — believe Israel committed a “genocide” in Gaza. A Cygnal survey shows Israel at -21 net favorability among voters younger than 55. Younger Americans, who consume more social media, are almost three times more likely than older voters to view Hamas favorably.

Substance remains another story. A majority of Americans — 56% — oppose or remain ambivalent toward the two-state plan frequently cited by foreign governments and activist groups.

But perception is shaping policy. Hamas has become a dominant force in the narrative battle, feeding imagery, statistics, and talking points directly into Western media ecosystems. In a post-truth environment, the group has learned how to set the terms of debate, frame Israeli actions, and pressure global institutions.

Israel and its allies cannot afford to treat communications as an afterthought. Effective messaging is a force multiplier — not a cosmetic accessory. It frames the battlefield, shapes public opinion, and constrains diplomatic options.

The war showed that Hamas understands this. It is time its opponents understood it too.

​Opinion & analysis, Israel hamas war, Israel, Hamas, Media bias, Propaganda, Social media, Genocide, Abu obaidah, October 7 terror attack, Iran, United nations, Gaza ministry of health, Lies 

Last week, Glenn Beck released an exclusive, tell-all interview with Cracker Barrel CEO Julie Masino that extracted the juiciest details regarding the country chain’s disastrous and quickly walked-back attempt to modernize its beloved old-timey brand. Glenn pulled no punches about the failed revamp: It was “just stupid from start to finish.”

Masino insisted that it was never her intention to change the iconic Cracker Barrel brand. She claimed that her goals were to boost engagement after COVID did immeasurable revenue damage, address common customer complaints (like uncomfortable chairs and dim lighting), and make practical adjustments to a busy logo that wasn’t conducive to an iPhone screen.

“The intent was not ideological. It was not to put the old version of Cracker Barrel in a box,” she vowed.

But given the fact that many believe the rebranding was indeed rooted in left-wing dogma, like DEI, Glenn asked the question point-blank: “Had the company embraced DEI as a culture?”

Masino initially gave an indirect answer: “Cracker Barrel has always been about welcoming everybody in. I think before I was here, we had different policies. We’re here to take care of people. We’re here to make sure everybody can work here, can be welcome here.”

But Glenn, unsatisfied with her response, pressed harder: “Every American wants that. … When a brand … all of a sudden makes it a point of saying, ‘Boys can be girls, and they should be in the girls’ locker room,’ I don’t need that from my brand; I don’t want that from my brand. You as individuals can make whatever choice you want, but don’t preach to me from a corporate place.”

“What I’m asking you — was [making political statements] part of any of the strategy?” he repeated.

“No, it’s pancakes. Yeah, we’re not trying to make political statements,” Masino said, insisting the rebranding initiative was always about “food and experience.”

Glenn pushed back again with the analogy of “Uncle Ted” moving into Grandma’s house. “He’s now taking care of Grandma, but he’s getting rid of all of the doilies that have been on Grandma’s table, and you’re like, ‘That’s not Grandma.’”

“You were messing with Grandma’s house,” he boldly accused.

“We’re sorry that that’s what people feel. That was not the intent. … It hurts me because I don’t want people to be mad at Cracker Barrel. Our job is to make people love Cracker Barrel,” Masino said.

“And so, even trying to invite new people in, it was always about, how do we show them the magic that is Cracker Barrel, the stories of America, the stories of our guests? … That’s what we want everybody to love.”

To hear more of the interview, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The glenn beck podcast, Glenn beck, Blazetv, Blaze media, Julie masino, Cracker barrel, Cracker barrel caves, Cracker barrel boycott 

The marriage rate has been in decline for decades, dropping from 10.6 per 1,000 people in 1980 to 6.1 in 2023. Last year, American adults were less likely to be married than at nearly any other time since the Census Bureau began logging marital status in 1940, with married couples heading only 47.1% of U.S. households.

The apparent aversion to marriage is bad news for American children, who perform better in school and are far less likely to end up in prison or depressed when raised by married parents, as well as for American adults who tend to see better health outcomes, be happier, and live longer when espoused.

‘Devaluing marriage and motherhood has consequences.’

Recent Pew Research Center analysis of survey data from the University of Michigan suggests that this decline may continue — especially if young women’s growing resistance to marriage goes unremedied.

Whereas 20 years prior, 80% of 12th graders said that they were most likely to choose marriage in the long run, only 67% of 12th graders polled in 2023 indicated that they want to get married someday. Another 24% said they don’t know if they’ll get married, up from 16% in 1993.

This drop appears to have been largely driven by shifting views among girls.

In 1993, 83% of girls and 76% of boys said that they wanted to get married. In 2023, only 61% of girls said they wanted to get married — a drop of 22% — while 74% of boys indicated they wanted to ultimately tie the knot.

RELATED: Family or fallout — experts assess the threats now facing the nuclear family

Photo by STRINGER/AFP via Getty Images

Pew indicated that there was also a precipitous drop in the percentage of 12th graders who indicated they wanted to have kids if they marry.

Whereas in 1993, 82% said they wanted to have kids, in 2023, only 73% indicated they wanted to welcome new life into this world. Even more dramatically, the percentage of those who said they would “very likely” want to have kids if married dropped from 64% in 1993 to 48% in 2023.

“It’s almost like decades of devaluing marriage and motherhood has consequences,” wrote the Alabama Policy Institute.

Katy Faust, founder of the children’s advocacy group Them Before Us, stated, “More than almost anything else trending, this terrifies me. Because of the nature of our bodies women have historically pursued marriage more. What kind of disastrous, antihuman messaging are young women being flooded with to return these kinds of results?”

RELATED: Domestic extremist or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the mom

Photo by Lambert/Getty Images

Dr. Brad Wilcox, professor of sociology at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, said the anti-nuptial trend among young women and adolescent girls was “disastrous.”

Wilcox underscored that this trend reflects a particularly raw deal for women, highlighting a recent YouGov survey of U.S. women, ages 25 to 55, fielded by the Institute for Family Studies and the Wheatley Institute, which found that married women with children are:

more likely (19%) to report being “very happy” than both unmarried women with children (13%) and unmarried women without children (10%);more likely (47%) to report that life has felt enjoyable most or all of the time in the past 30 days than both unmarried women with children (40%) and unmarried women without children (34%);less likely (11%) to report being lonely most or all of the time in the past 30 days than both unmarried women with children (23%) and unmarried women without children (20%);more likely (51%) to receive physical affection than both unmarried women with children (29%) and unmarried women without children (17%); andmore likely (28%) to report their lives have a clear sense of purpose than both unmarried women with children (25%) and unmarried women without children (16%).

Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet said of the Pew report, “Something has gone terribly wrong.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Marriage, Sacrament, Family, Husband, Wife, Matrimony, Health, Science, Feminism, Domesticity, Love, Relationships, Life, Lifestyles, Families, Children, Pew, Poll, Politics 

A Missouri woman who was accused of paying students for sex and giving them alcohol and drugs while she was a substitute teacher just learned where she’ll be spending the next decade.

Carissa Smith, 31, was arrested last November and indicted on a host of charges including two counts of sexual trafficking of a child under the age of 18, nine counts of statutory rape, two counts of statutory sodomy, three counts of sexual contact with a student, and one count of patronizing prostitution from a victim 14 years and younger.

‘Very disturbing and distressing information.’

Investigators indicated the incidents occurred from August 2023 to September 2024.

According to the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office, victims alleged that Smith — who began regularly working as a substitute teacher at Dixon Middle School in August 2022 then worked at Dixon High School from 2023 until her resignation in August 2024 — “would offer money, marijuana and/or alcohol to students in return for sex or to allow her to perform oral sex.”

The probable cause statement indicated that Smith paid one victim at least $100 to engage in sexual activities with her. Authorities noted further that Smith urged one minor victim not to discuss their encounters with anyone else.

Court documents reviewed by USA Today indicated that Smith also involved her husband, informing him that one victim had a compromising video and was blackmailing her. The husband allegedly threatened more than one minor with a baseball bat.

The affidavit reviewed by People magazine indicated that after hearing a rumor about a video circulating in the community that allegedly showed the substitute teacher performing a sexual act with one of her students, Smith’s brother-in-law caught her in bed with an underage student.

RELATED: Former teacher sentenced to 132 years in prison for horrific abuse of her two stepsons

Photo by Karl Merton Ferron/Baltimore Sun Staff

Victims claimed that Smith would have sex with them at her house as well as other locations, including on roadsides.

The day after Smith’s Nov. 12, 2024, arrest, Dixon R-I School District Superintendent Travis Bohrer revealed to parents that the district had received a report of possible misconduct by Smith earlier in the year from at least one student and had notified the relevant authorities.

Bohrer noted, “This is very disturbing and distressing information for everyone in our school community.”

While out on bond, Smith was arrested again in September and charged with tampering with a witness after court documents say she was caught at the home of one of her victims, the sheriff’s office confirmed to USA Today.

The former teacher’s $250,000 bond was revoked on Sept. 10.

“The defendant was ordered to have no contact with any victim in this case,” noted prosecuting attorney Jeffrey Thomas. “The defendant has failed to follow a course of good conduct.”

Smith pleaded guilty to lesser charges of two counts of sexual contact with a student and one count of first degree endangering the welfare of a child/sexual conduct on Sept. 17, reported KRCG-TV, and faced as many as 12 years in prison.

Smith instead received a sentence Wednesday of 10 years behind bars, the station said in a separate story.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Crime, Pedophile, Molester, Teacher, Substitute teacher, Carissa smith, Missouri, Dixon r-i district, School, High school, Predator, Court, Prison, Law, Order, Middle school, Arrest, Sentence 

A civilization is only as healthy as the families that make it up. Decades of research confirm that a society’s best shot at thriving depends on people getting married and having children. In general, individuals flourish in this environment, as does the community — and ultimately the nation itself.

But what happens when an entire generation loses interest in traditional family? This is a pivotal question conservative America is asking right now, as marriage and fertility rates are at all-time lows.

A brand-new Pew Research Center analysis is making waves after revealing that only 61% of 12th grade high school girls intend to get married some day — a 22-point drop from 1993 when 83% expressed interest in marriage.

Interestingly 12th grade boys stayed about the same: 74% expressed expectations for future marriage, compared to 76% in 1993.

For the first time ever in this dataset, high school boys are now more enthusiastic about marriage than girls.

The poll revealed other alarming statistics regarding marriage as well: From 1993 to 2023 among male and female high school seniors, the intention to stay married to the same person for life dropped 4%, while intention to have children dropped 9%.

Stu Burguiere, BlazeTV host of “Stu Does America,” warns that these stats do not bode well for the country. “Every metric (this is no exaggeration), every financial metric, every well-being metric, every happiness metric — all of these things are improved when you get married,” he says, reminding that marriage “is a foundational part of our society, and that has been true for decades and decades and decades and decades.”

The fact that girls are losing interest in monogamy at unprecedented rates is a direct result of the woke feminist movement that’s aimed to “liberate” young women by discouraging marriage and childbearing and encouraging promiscuity and abortion.

Not only does this leave people chronically lonely and unfilled, it also threatens the well-being of the nation that depends on a steady birthrate to thrive.

“The trends are bad — really, really bad — and if it continues, it will turn into a crisis,” Stu warns.

To hear more of his analysis, watch the episode above.

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu’s lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Stu does america, Blazetv, Blaze media, Stu burguiere, Marriage rate, Monogamy, Marriage crisis, Fertility crisis, Feminism 

Is principled conservatism dead? And would that even be good?

Robert P. George’s resignation from the board of the Heritage Foundation last week suggests a deeper shift inside the conservative world. George is one of the most respected conservative intellectuals alive — a Princeton professor who built the James Madison Program and shaped a generation of natural-law scholarship. His departure, prompted by how Heritage President Kevin Roberts handled Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes, exposes a widening fracture on the right about what conservatism is and what it should defend.

The first lesson conservatives should recover: Reason and faith are not optional in the public square.

I have watched this tension escalate since what some have called Charlie Kirk’s “martyrdom.” Voices from what garden-variety conservatives call “the far right,” what liberals lump together as “the right,” and what Antifa brands “fascist” are pushing for influence inside the movement. Some insist these agitators are leftist plants sent to fracture the right. Others believe God allows the intentions of every heart to be revealed.

Whatever the explanation, the attacks now directed at George follow a predictable pattern: an “OK, Boomer” dismissal of a man who has spent his life defending the unborn, natural marriage, and the created order.

Full disclosure: When I was a graduate student studying natural law at Arizona State University, George took time to meet with me and guide my work. Later as a tenured professor, I became a fellow in the very program he founded. One of my own undergraduate professors — the great ethicist Jeffrie Murphy — said George’s work compelled him to rethink everything.

So-called far-right critics now claim George will debate and even co-author books with Cornel West, with his ties to Louis Farrakhan, but refuses to work with people “to his right.” The charge — absurd on its face — is that he is some kind of “controlled dissenter,” a token conservative tolerated by the Ivy League so long as he stays within its boundaries. From there, the speculation drifts into unfounded theories about motives and self-preservation.

George does not need me to defend him. His life’s work refutes these claims. He has never backed away from his convictions. He has never trimmed the truth to curry favor with elite institutions. He debates West because he believes reason still matters, because he believes truth can be argued in public, and because he believes even fierce disagreement does not require abandoning basic human dignity. He refuses to compromise an inch while treating his interlocutors as human beings.

That shouldn’t be so difficult to understand.

In fact, that’s the first lesson conservatives should recover: Reason and faith are not optional in the public square. They are the foundation for honest argument, and honest argument is the only way a free people can persuade and be persuaded. If we descend into conspiracy theorizing, rage, or tribal loyalty as our primary modes of engagement, we abandon the very tools that made conservatism coherent.

Here is George’s warning: Don’t become postmodernists. Don’t imitate the left’s racial essentialism or identity politics. Don’t throw out reason because some Enlightenment thinkers misused it. If you want to rethink every narrative you’ve heard, fine — do it with reason, not with the power-dialectic that dominates progressive thought.

But principles alone are not enough. Being principled does not mean being naïve. Conservatives once understood strategy and tactics — long-term goals paired with immediate steps that move us toward them. I believe the United States should acknowledge the kingship of Jesus Christ. Presidents from both parties once referred to America as a Christian nation. If that is true, then we must engage publicly, argue publicly, and fight publicly for that idea of ordered liberty.

That means getting into the trenches. It means refuting Marxism and atheism clearly and without apology. It means being innocent as doves and wise as serpents, fighting to win without surrendering either virtue.

RELATED: Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, and the war for the conservative soul

Photo by Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto via Getty Images

What we cannot become is principled losers. The enemy welcomes our gentlemanly retreats. The progressive movement wants more than policy wins; it wants to redefine the human person, the family, and the moral order itself. A party that endorses abortion at any point, supports the mutilation of healthy children, and treats scripture as hate speech leaves no moral ambiguity about which side a Christian or natural-law conservative should support.

Read George’s arguments against liberalism. Read his defense of natural law. If you disagree with him, he will debate you — he always has. But you can learn from him that a revival of natural law and natural theology is essential right now. That requires teaching the truths in Romans 1 and learning from Acts how to speak across cultures and ideologies.

We are in a spiritual war. The weapons are spiritual, but the fight is real. The stakes are real. The consequences are real.

It is far better to be fighting through the mud of Mordor than fat, complacent, and conquered in the Shire.

​Conservatism, Nick fuentes, Heritage foundation, Opinion & analysis, Tucker carlson, The right, Conservatives, Kevin roberts, Robert p. george, Cornel west, Louis farrakhan