Category: blaze media

Look up which shows are most popular among children these days, and you’re sure to find Netflix’s “CoComelon” at the top of the list. The animated series prides itself on teaching preschoolers basic concepts like letters, numbers, colors, shapes, and social skills through catchy nursery rhymes, original songs, and colorful 3D animation. Emphasizing positive themes such as kindness, sharing, and problem-solving, “CoComelon” seems benign, perhaps even beneficial, to parents who need a moment’s peace or a few minutes to prepare a meal.

However, a deeper dive into the making of the series reveals a sinister truth: The creators are purposely frying children’s brains.

To dive into this controversy, Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” invites Clare Morell, author and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, to the show to share her knowledge.

Morell, citing a New York Times article, says that researchers at Moonbug Entertainment, the British children’s content company behind “CoComelon,” test child subjects in front of two screens. One airs an episode of “CoComelon”; the other, dubbed the “Distractatron,” runs through mundane footage — “ a mom cooking dinner, a dad vacuuming.” A team of note-taking researchers observes from a glass room.

“Any time the child looked away from “CoComelon” and found the real-life scene more interesting, the episode makers would note that down, where that time stamp was within the show, and then they’d go back and they’d add more music, brighter lights, flashing colors to that point in the show because they want it to be immersive and addictive to a child,” says Morell.

So what kind of digital content is safe for young children, then?

According to Morell, none.

“The brain is in really critical periods of development, especially in those early years, and the problem is that screens are way overstimulating for a child’s developing nervous system, and studies show that handing devices to these young children robs them of their ability to develop emotional regulation,” she explains. “Instead of developing patience and self-control and frustration tolerance, they’re just learning to be calmed by a screen.”

Screen time limitations, she says, unfortunately, are ineffective.

“A daily screen time limit — even if it’s a short amount of time — is incredibly habit-forming,” she tells Allie. Like “CoComelon,” “devices are made to be addictive to a child’s brain.”

“The problem is that the screen time limits don’t map on to a child’s mental or emotional time that is then spent craving more and more of that device because of the dopamine in the brain,” Morrell explains. “They’re going to constantly crave more, and it really disregulates their developing nervous system, and so it’s really important to protect those young years.”

To hear more of the conversation and learn how to protect not just your young children but also your teenagers from the harms posed by screens, watch the episode above.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Relatable, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Allie beth stuckey, Blazetv, Blaze media, Cocomelon, Childrens shows, Screen time, Clare morell 

It is against Twitch’s streaming rules to say the word “ho,” but it is not against the platform’s rules to promote yourself as one.

Ask Jason Ruchelski, aka JasonR.

‘The Twitch front page is a bunch of girls twerking and dudes throwing money at them. You used to have to be funny!’

Search the name of this massive video game streamer with nearly 900,000 followers, and it is likely that along with his Twitch page, his past controversies are among the first results to appear.

What did the streamer do, exactly?

Ho no

Ruchelski was accused, tried, and convicted of simply not wanting to play a video game.

It is not a trick statement or something that could be deemed as misleading by an online fact-checker. The claims against Ruchelski that are unironically pinned to him by his biggest detractors are as straightforward as it gets.

“I said hoes,” Ruchelski told Blaze News with a smile.

The father of two explained that in reference to women who showcase their bodies as the focal point of their video game streams, he said, “Be careful, these girl streamers, they’re hoes, man.”

Forbidden speech

Ruchelski was hit with a ban from the Twitch platform for specifically using the derogatory term, as it was considered forbidden speech.

“They literally titled the email ‘hoes.’ They said, ‘You’re not allowed to call people hoes, it is deemed hate speech,’ and I was banned for 15 days.”

The top Reddit thread for this event — yes, such a thing exists — does not dispute these simple facts, but rather it claims this nearly 7-year-old comment is indicative of a pattern of JasonR’s “sexist behavior.”

RELATED: Can ditching DEI save the failing video game industry?

Peter Nicholls/Getty Images

Therefore, it was entirely predictable by the oracle-like Redditors that Ruchelski would lash out in a second instance of “misogynistic” behavior when he engaged in the hateful act of not wanting to play a video game.

‘Toxic coping mechanism’

Yes, Ruchelski’s name has been battered around online for years over the horrendous crime of either “dodging (or exiting) a game” when he recognized a provocative female streamer or simply muting the female player.

Ruchelski’s apparent apostasy from the streaming community even garnered attention from Imane Anys, a streamer with over 9,000,000 followers of her own under “Pokimane.”

Anys called Ruchelski’s actions a “toxic coping mechanism” that signaled that his wife did not trust him.

Needless to say, the attention to Ruchelski’s supposed ecrimes resulted in a bevy of attacks and even “a ridiculous amount” of death threats along with attacks directed at his wife.

To this day, the streamer explained, he still has random drop-ins to his streams calling him “sexist” or “misogynist.”

The gaming industry is changing, though, rapidly.

Flop shops

Massive flops from massive gaming studios are becoming the norm, even for some of the most popular intellectual properties. A “Suicide Squad” game lost Warner Brothers $200 million; Unknown9: Awakening lost its studio more than $100 million after its lead actress boasted about the game’s diversity. Sony even closed a studio and ate hundreds of millions in losses after a diversity-laden game shut down after just two weeks — all of this within the last year.

Also in 2024, a community of more than 475,000 popped up on the gaming platform Steam, all centered on the rejection of diversity and inclusion in video games.

Moreover, where Ruchelski may formerly have been on the defensive, his sentiments have changed to where attacks on his character are more revealing of his critics than they are of him.

“What happened is happening all the time now, and it’s not that people believe someone is actually sexist or someone is actually racist,” Ruchelski explained. “They’re manipulating audiences because that’s what people want to see.”

Ruchelski is convinced that some of his harshest critics would be polite and passive in real life and would not care about any of the claims made about him online. But “sexist this, racist that” is what drives a lot of people’s paychecks, he believes.

Pendulum swings

The pendulum is swinging, and fast, according to investigative journalist and avid Counter-Strike player Mocha Bezirgan.

RELATED: GamerGate at 10: What did it mean, and why do we still care?

seamartini/Drew Angerer/John Lamparski/Getty Images

The reporter said that the court of public opinion on provocative female streamers has changed also, and these characters have quickly lost respect from audiences when they seem unwilling or unable to have conversations on tough subjects rather than point to vague notions of sexism.

“In my past as a popular short film producer, I’ve crossed paths with female streamers in different capacities,” he told Blaze News. Bezirgan’s shorts were actually seen by millions in Turkey, launching him into star status in the country.

“They were not necessarily good at video games, but were good businesswomen profiting from the sexual hunger of men,” he continued. “It’s not an industry that I respect, but the audience is changing.”

Ruchelski’s past supposed crimes are indicative of a time when online discourse, specifically in the gaming community, was stuck in a rut, but now it is digging itself out.

“What the hell happened to the content?” Ruchelski asked rhetorically.

“The Twitch front page is a bunch of girls twerking and dudes throwing money at them. You used to have to be funny!” he raged sarcastically.

Thinking for themselves

But there has been a shift, he emphasized. Curiosity for Ruchelski’s story has grown recently, as have the collective raised eyebrows of his followers, who are typically apolitical.

What used to be an inundation of questions about his alleged controversies are increasingly being replaced with inquiries like, “What is this cancel culture?” and “Why are they saying this about you?”

“I think it was kind of a combination of Elon Musk and Trump. [These events] are kind of making people finally think for themselves a little bit more than before.”

The streamer is open to these conversations, seemingly more than ever before, and so are other gamers.

​Culture, Tech, Technology, Video games 

Donald Trump’s endorsement of Karrin Taylor Robson in December marked one of the most baffling moves of his political career. Still riding the momentum of his victory, Trump pre-emptively backed a known RINO for Arizona governor — nearly 19 months ahead of the 2026 primary. The endorsement fit a troubling pattern: early-cycle support for anti-Trump Republicans who hadn’t lifted a finger for the movement, while stronger MAGA candidates waited in the wings.

If Trump wants to deliver on his campaign promises, he needs to reassert deterrence against weak-kneed incumbents and withhold endorsements in open races until candidates prove themselves.

At some point, conservatives must face the hard truth: The swamp isn’t being drained. It’s getting refilled — with Trump’s help.

Arizona illustrates why MAGA must push back hard on Trump’s errant picks. Robson, a classic McCain Republican, publicly criticized Trump as recently as 2022. She ran directly against MAGA favorite Kari Lake in the 2022 gubernatorial primary. Maybe she could merit a reluctant nod in a general election, but nearly two years before the primary? With far better options available?

And indeed, better options emerged. Months later, Rep. Andy Biggs — one of the most conservative voices in Congress and a staunch Trump ally — entered the race. The Arizona drama had a partially satisfying resolution when Trump issued a dual endorsement. But dig deeper, and the story turns sour.

Top Trump political aides reportedly worked for Robson’s campaign, raising serious questions for the MAGA base. Their loyalty seemed to shift only after Robson refused to tout Trump’s endorsement in her campaign ads.

Which brings us to the million-dollar question: Why would Trump endorse candidates so subversive that they feel embarrassed to even mention his support?

The Robson episode is an outlier in one way: Most establishment Republicans eagerly shout Trump’s endorsement from the rooftops. Yet the deeper issue remains. Without MAGA intervention, Trump keeps handing out endorsements to RINOs or to early candidates tied to his political network — often at the expense of better, more loyal alternatives.

A pattern of bad picks

Some defenders claim Trump backs incumbents to push his agenda. That theory falls apart when so many of those same RINOs openly sabotage it.

Take Reps. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) and Jen Kiggans (R-Va.). Both received Trump’s endorsement while actively working against his legislative priorities — pushing green energy subsidies and obsessing over tax breaks for their donor class. These aren’t minor policy differences. These are full-spectrum RINO betrayals.

Trump wouldn’t dare endorse Chip Roy (R-Texas) for dissenting from the right, so why give cover to Republicans who consistently undermine his mandate from the left?

And don’t chalk this up to political necessity in purple districts. Trump routinely gives away the farm in safe red states, too.

Here’s a list of Trump’s Senate endorsements this cycle, straight from Ballotpedia — and it’s not comforting.

You’d struggle to find a single conservative in this bunch. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, and Jim Risch of Idaho all represent the globalist mindset that Trump’s base has spent years fighting. So why did Trump hand them early endorsements — before they even faced a challenge? What exactly is he getting in return?

Well, we know what his loyalty bought last cycle.

After Trump endorsed Mississippi’s other swamp creature, Roger Wicker, against a MAGA primary challenger in 2024, Wicker walked into the chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee — and now he’s stalling cuts to USAID. That roadblock has helped keep the DOGE rescissions package from reaching the president’s desk.

Wicker isn’t the only one. Several of Trump’s endorsees have publicly criticized his tariff agenda. Whether or not you agree with those tariffs, the pattern is telling. Trump only seems to call out Republicans who dissent from the right. Meanwhile, the ones who oppose him from the left collect endorsements that wipe out any hope of a MAGA primary.

Ten years into the MAGA movement, grassroots candidates still can’t gain traction — and Trump’s endorsements are a big part of the problem.

Instead of amplifying insurgent conservatives, Trump often plays air support for entrenched incumbents. He clears the field early, blasting apart any challenge before it forms. That’s how we ended up stuck with senators like Thom Tillis (N.C.) and Bill Cassidy (La.) — both from red states — who routinely block Trump’s nominees and undermine his priorities.

Trump endorsed both Tillis and Cassidy during the 2020 cycle, even as grassroots conservatives geared up to take them on. In fact, almost every red-state RINO in the Senate has received a Trump primary endorsement — some of them twice in just 10 years. That list includes Moore Capito, Graham, Hyde-Smith, and Wicker.

Saving red-state RINOs

What’s worse than endorsing RINOs for Congress in red states? Endorsing RINOs for governor and state legislature.

Yes, Washington is broken. Even in the best years, Republicans struggle to muster anything more than a narrow RINO majority. But the real opportunity lies elsewhere. More than 20 states already lean Republican enough to build permanent conservative power — if we nominate actual conservatives who know how to use it.

The 2026 election cycle will feature governorships in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming, to name just a few. These races offer a chance to reset the Republican Party — state by state — with DeSantis-caliber fighters.

Instead, we’re slipping backward.

RELATED: Reconciliation or capitulation: Trump’s final go-for-broke play

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

Trump has already endorsed Rep. Byron Donalds for Florida governor — nearly two years before the election. In most red states, Donalds would look like an upgrade. But Florida isn’t most red states. Florida is the citadel of conservatism. It deserves a contested primary, not a coronation. Donalds hasn’t led the way DeSantis has — either nationally or in-state — so why clear the field this early? Why not at least wait and see whether DeSantis backs a candidate?

And don’t forget about the state legislatures.

Freedom Caucuses have made real gains in turning GOP supermajorities into something that matters. But in Texas, House Speaker Dustin Burrows cut a deal with Democrats to grab power — then torched the entire session. Conservative voters are eager to remove Burrows and the cronies who enabled him.

We’ll never drain the swamp this way

This is where Trump should be getting involved — endorsing against the establishment, not propping it up.

Instead, he’s doing the opposite.

Trump recently pledged to back Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows and his entire entourage of RINO loyalists — just because they passed a watered-down school choice bill that also funneled another $10 billion into the state’s broken public-school bureaucracy.

The same pattern holds in Florida.

The House speaker there, Daniel Perez, has consistently blocked Governor Ron DeSantis’ agenda, including efforts to strengthen immigration enforcement — policies that are now a national model. Despite this, Perez cozied up to Byron Donalds. Donalds returned the favor, but refused to take sides in the Perez versus DeSantis clashes. He also ducked the fights against Amendments 3 and 4. So what exactly qualifies Donalds to become Trump’s handpicked candidate in the most important red state in America?

This new paradigm — where candidates secure Trump endorsements just by parroting his name — has allowed RINO governors and legislators to push corporatist policies while staying firmly in Trump’s good graces. They wrap themselves in the MAGA brand without lifting a finger to advance its agenda.

That’s not the movement we were promised.

At some point, conservatives must face the hard truth: The swamp isn’t being drained. It’s getting refilled — with Trump’s help. We can’t keep celebrating Trump’s total control of the GOP while hand-waving away the RINOs, as if they’re some separate, unaccountable force. Trump has the power to shape the party. He could use it to clean house.

Instead, he keeps using it to protect the establishment from grassroots primaries.

At the very least, he should withhold endorsements until candidates prove they can deliver on the campaign’s promises. Don’t hand out golden Trump cards before they’ve earned them.

Mr. President, please don’t be such a cheap date.

​Opinion & analysis, Donald trump, Endorsements, 2026 midterms, Republicans, Rinos, Red states, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South carolina, Tennessee, West virginia, Wyoming, Senate, Maga, Karrin taylor robson, Arizona, Governor, Andy biggs, John mccain, Mike lawler, Jen kiggans, Chip roy, Shelley moore capito, Lindsey graham, Cindy hyde-smith, Pete ricketts, Jim risch, Roger wicker, Thom tillis, Bill cassidy, Byron donalds, Florida, Globalism, Dustin burrows, Freedom caucus 

I was swimming at my athletic club the other day when I saw a woman on the second floor running on a treadmill and watching CNN. I always think that’s a weird thing to do. Like, would that make you less stressed or more stressed?

I mean, what fun is running on a treadmill? All that pounding on your knee joints. And for what? And then you’re watching TV? That can’t be good for your mental health.

Plus, it’s good mental health to be on a team. Doing something that involves skill, coordination, and strategy … doing it with your team, against another team.

But you always see that in gyms. Thirty-something women running on the treadmill. Guys too. Guys who don’t like sports but know they’re supposed to “stay active.”

So they run on the treadmill. Their wife does it. Their co-workers do it. People on TV do it. So they do it.

I’ve been in that upstairs area. There’s a weight room too. That also seems weird to me. Lifting weights. Dudes sitting in front of a mirror, admiring themselves doing arm curls.

Not that swimming laps is much better. But I’m in my 60s. I’ve reached that age where I have to go easy. And at least it’s quiet and peaceful in the pool. It’s meditative. And no CNN.

The shape I’m in

Growing up in Oregon, I never saw a real gym. Not like you see in movies, with the grime and the sweat and the old guy with the broken nose.

In the suburbs of Portland, we had weight rooms in our high school gyms. I guess that counts. I remember bench-pressing 150 lbs once, during football season. That was considered good at the time, for someone of my small size and weight.

At college, in Connecticut, I played in alternative rock bands. Music and sports didn’t really mix in the 1980s. So if you were in a band, you wanted to avoid any overt “jock” behavior.

Still, at one point, I joined the local YMCA so I could “stay in shape.” I don’t remember why I did that. I was 20 years old. How “out of shape” could I get?

That was my first urban gym experience. I went there and swam and shot baskets, by myself mostly. Then I ventured into the mysterious steam room.

During the day, most of the patrons of the local Y were older black men. So it would be me and a bunch of white-haired black guys, sitting there in the dense steam fog, sweating into our towels.

Coffee and cigarettes

After that, I enrolled at NYU, where I began my career as a writer. This began a long period when I didn’t think about my health or my physical fitness at all.

I became a coffee and cigarettes person, which kept me slim and trim. I worked in nightclubs for a couple of years. I got pasty. I got pale. But that was good. I was the right age for that look.

It wasn’t until I’d sold my first novel at 32 and moved to Los Angeles that I once again signed up for some physical exercise. I joined the Hollywood YMCA.

Playing with ‘the big kids’

There, I planned on swimming laps, maybe shooting some baskets, but within a week, I was playing in pickup basketball with out-of-work actors and recently fired movie producers. There were also some very talented ex-high school and college players in these games. So the competition was sometimes intense.

But that’s what I needed. Competition. I didn’t have the discipline to swim laps in my 30s. I needed something to get my blood flowing.

Those pickup games became the highlight of my week. Since I wasn’t a great basketball player, every time I was on the court, I had to hustle to make myself useful. It was like being a little kid again. Playing with the big kids.

Some of those guys could really play. In many cases, if I could do anything positive in a game, it was an accomplishment. And then I’d walk home along Hollywood Boulevard, glowing with excitement and satisfaction.

Swimming in it

Eventually, at age 37, I ended up back in New York, living in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Whenever physical fitness came up, people would talk about the Williamsburg pool.

So I signed up and started going there. It was a public pool and not the cleanest. At times, it would get super crowded. The good news was that Williamsburg was the coolest neighborhood in the world at that time (late 1990s).

So even at the public pool, there were interesting people around. Hipsters, weirdos, indie-rock stars, trust fund bohemians — a true cast of characters!

A young man’s game

And then I learned to surf in my 40s, and that changed everything. I would never have to join another YMCA or a gym or a pool again. Or so I thought. Surfing took care of all your physical fitness needs. If you surfed regularly, you were in the best shape of your life, all the time.

Unfortunately, surfing is a young man’s game. It can become genuinely life-threatening in the big, brutal surf of the Oregon coast where I live now. I’ve had to cut way back and limit myself to only the mildest surf days.

Team player

So now I’m playing in a senior softball league, which has been great fun. Competitive sports, to me, are always preferable to just working out.

Basketball, softball, volleyball, whatever. Competition creates adrenaline. Adrenaline cleans out your body and clears your head. And generates testosterone, if you’re worried about that.

Plus, it’s good mental health to be on a team. Doing something that involves skill, coordination, and strategy … doing it with your team, against another team … what could be more fun than that? And better for you. Much healthier than staring at your biceps in a mirror.

Of course, being older, I can’t go super hard. That’s why senior softball is a good fit. But even senior softball involves speed, skill, split-second decisions, and physical dexterity under pressure.

That might be the most important thing of all: a chance to be cool under pressure. There’s nothing that elevates your confidence and self-esteem like calmly making a key play in a crucial situation. And you can’t do that at a spin cycle class.

In my opinion, exercise with no goal, no sense of victory or defeat, no risk, no danger, no moment of truth where you either make the play or you don’t … to me that’s just moving your body around. It doesn’t enrich your life.

Old joy

But yeah, I’m in my 60s now. So I’m back in the pool, back in the hot tub, trying to soothe my joints and ease my stiff muscles between softball games. I sweat in the steam room. Now, I’m the old white-haired guy.

But I have to say, I never feel frustrated with my aging body or the physical limitations that seem to come faster and quicker as you age.

The main thing I think about is how lucky I have been. And all the joy I’ve experienced from sports and exercise and the thrill of competition.

​Sports, Exercise, Aging, Health, Softball, Gyms, Treadmill, Lifestyle 

On Monday, May 5, President Trump signed an executive order banning “dangerous gain-of-function biological research in the United States and around the world.” This directive added muscle to his previous decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization. However, the United States remains vulnerable to international control.

Let’s review the history.

Until President Trump severs all remaining ties between the United States and the WHO, the public health of all Americans remains under threat of global government control.

On January 30, 2020, Tedros Ghebreyesus, director general of the World Health Organization, announced a “public health emergency of international concern.” With these magic words, Tedros put into force the WHO’s International Health Regulations that supercharged the WHO into a one-world government health agency with the legal authority to declare pandemic sovereignty over all member nations, including the United States.

Tedros (as he is known) was born in Ethiopia and is not a medical doctor. Still, he is a Marxist and member of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, a group the Ethiopian government has classified as a terrorist organization. So Tedros, by extension, is not only a Marxist, but he’s also a terrorist. Tedros handled the COVID-19 response by running cover for the Chinese Communist Party, denying resolutely that the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and setting the stage for medical martial law and planet depopulation.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump finally withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization. Under terms of the WHO constitution, however, America’s involvement will not end officially until January 23, 2026.

Enter the Pentagon’s Defense Health Agency. The DHA monitors vaccine creation and “communicable” diseases and determines disease origination. The DHA uses the CDC for guidance, and its Influenza Division “provides … leadership for the detection … and control of influenza in the United States and around the world.” More importantly, the DHA still maintains “a vital partnership” with the WHO in a collaboration that includes “expanding military biodefense vaccine manufacturing.”

This could become especially alarming if the world faces “Disease X.”

“Disease X” is the generic term the WHO uses to refer to an anticipated but unspecified future pandemic. That future may be now. Our research suggests that “Disease X” has already been weaponized and released in the form of a gain-of-function-enhanced version of COVID-19 that is more contagious and possibly more lethal than its predecessor.

A new “vaccine” to combat the next pandemic includes a “replicon” that continues to reproduce the active ingredient of the virus spike protein throughout a patient’s body, even after the patient is dead. Replicon is a self-amplifying mRNA technology that copies itself and crosses between species. There is no known antidote that can stop the replicon from propagating the pathogenic COVID-19 spike protein.

RELATED: WHO director is upset ‘conspiracy theories’ may derail his global pandemic treaty

Photo by FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images

A more contagious and fast-acting version of COVID-19 propelled through the body by a replicon vaccine could well become a highly lethal nightmare pandemic concoction. In 2024, scientists in Japan developed the world’s first replicon vaccine, brand-named “Kostaive.”

Knowing that the United States remains tied to the WHO until next January and that the DHA maintains a “partnership” with the organization, what assurance do we have that our military would not bow to the WHO if the WHO defied the U.S. commander in chief by declaring a “Disease X global health emergency” that required forced replicon vaccination?

Until President Trump issues an executive order severing all remaining ties between the NIH, the CDC, and the DHA and the World Health Organization, the public health of all Americans remains under threat of global government control.

Ghebreyesus is, in our view, the most powerful and potentially dangerous person on the planet. With his connections and self-professed infallibility, what possibly could go wrong?

Editor’s note: This article has been adapted from “Disease X and Medical Martial Law: Defeating the Globalist Plan to Depopulate the World and Enslave the Remnant” (Post Hill Press).

​Opinion & analysis, Donald trump, Executive order, World health organization, Tedros adhanom ghebreyesus, Martial law, Covid-19, Disease x, Replicon, Virus, Pandemic, Scamdemic, Quarantine, Influenza, Cdc, Defense health agency, National institutes of health, Infectious diseases, Vaccine, Vaccine mandates, Mrna 

New York has just joined more than a dozen states in prohibiting the use of cell phones or personal electronic devices during the school day — a move that should prompt us to honestly evaluate how technology, in all its forms, is reshaping education.

The arguments in favor of cellphone bans are persuasive.

We’ve allowed tech companies to dictate classroom norms — and our students are paying the price.

A
2023 meta-analysis across 14 countries found that student phone use significantly harms educational outcomes, including test scores, GPA, and self-assessed academic performance. Both educators and students in that study recognized the issue: Phones were seen not just as distractions, but as threats to student safety — enabling cyberbullying, inappropriate photo-sharing, and constant social media interference.

This reckoning with smartphones is overdue and welcomed — but it needs to go farther.

It’s time to reconsider the role of technology in the classroom more broadly. Because let’s be honest: Technology hasn’t delivered on its educational promises.

The Big Tech lie

The widespread deployment of laptops and digital tools as pedagogical instruments wasn’t driven by educators, parents, or students. It was pushed by Silicon Valley.

Big Tech companies like Google and Apple aggressively marketed their products as educational tools, positioning themselves as essential partners in a tech-forward future. By 2020, Google was raking in an estimated $200 million annually from school-issued Chromebooks.

We were sold a lie.

We were told that giving every student a laptop would facilitate personalized learning, student engagement through interactive platforms, improved digital literacy, and preparation for a 21st-century workforce.

What we got instead was distraction, degradation of core skills, and exposure to risks no school administrator can fully control.

The data speaks loudly

There is no proof by any available metric that educational outcomes have improved as a result of making laptops part of the learning environment.

On the contrary, a report from the National Education Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group at the University of Colorado at Boulder, found the rapid adoption of the mostly proprietary technology in education to be rife with “questionable educational assumptions, self-interested advocacy by the technology industry, serious threats to student privacy, and a lack of research support.”

Students routinely bypass filters to access gaming, entertainment, and social media during class — something any parent who has had to keep her student on task while the student is supposed to be doing homework could have told you would happen.

Kids are exceptionally talented at finding — and sharing with their peers — work-arounds to circumvent content filters and monitoring software. Schools have profoundly failed to protect children from explicit material.

A
survey from Common Sense Media found that at least one in four teens had seen pornography while at school; more than two in five (44%) respondents who had seen pornography during the school day said they had seen it on a school-issued device; and reported exposure on school-issued devices was highest among 13- to 14-year-old teens.

So-called “educational” sites like coolmathgames.com — often promoted by schools — can include links that lead students into inappropriate digital territory.

But the deeper concern is what this tech dependence is doing to how — and whether — students actually learn.

The Big Tech crutch

Note-taking by hand, once a cornerstone of learning, is being replaced by typed notes — or worse, voice-to-text digital transcription. But typing notes verbatim doesn’t force students to process or internalize the information. That mental work — summarizing, interpreting, organizing — is where learning actually happens. Without it, comprehension suffers.

Critical thinking and writing skills are declining. Why bother learning how to spell, rules of grammar, or how to construct a cogent, thoughtful sentence when you can have autofill, predictive text, spellcheck, Grammarly, and ChatGPT do all the work for you?

The rise of gamified learning is rewiring the rewards systems of a child’s brain. Tech advocates claim that video tutorials and interactive games increase engagement. That may be true. But engagement is not the same as learning.

Students are conditioned, like Pavlov’s dogs, to seek the cheap rewards of flashing lights and electronic fireworks, bells, and whistles for getting an answer right — rather than the deeper reward of meeting a challenge and mastering it.

But just as kids awarded “participation trophies” know that the award doesn’t really mean anything, they also find the digital “You won!” displays, ultimately, unfulfilling. Concepts that are easily learned are also easily forgotten. And instead of encouraging deep thinking, “gamified” education is training kids to expect mastery without effort.

They come to expect learning to be entertaining, and when it’s not, they disengage.

The real goal of education

Generations of educators understood that slow reading allows students to deeply engage with texts and absorb their meaning. Lingering over books allows students to reflect on ideas rather than rushing through content. It fosters comprehension, retention, and the ability to make meaningful connections with the material.

This, rather than merely passing a test, should be the objective of education.

Technology has a role in education. But its current dominance has outpaced evidence of its benefits. We’ve allowed tech companies to dictate classroom norms — and our students are paying the price.

If banning phones is a necessary first step, then let it be the start — not the end — of a much larger reckoning, one that reclaims the classroom as a place of focus, rigor, and real learning.

​Smartphones, Students, Children, Technology, Classroom technology, Ipad, Big tech 

Get in hosers, we’re going back to 1986 — when you could “just do things,” as the kids say.

If you’re middle-aged, you remember when you could just do things without filming them for TikTok. Without rearranging your bedroom to have the right look for “the ‘gram.” You could do things without waiting for an audience of thousands or millions staring at their phones.

Swishy 12-year-old boys in grandma drag talking about ‘bulbous bits’ were thin on the ground in rustbelt New York State, and I gave the people what they didn’t know they needed.

But more than that, you could just do things in the real world without a phone, a tablet, a smart watch, or any other digital tether.

Weird kid, normal childhood

Generation X was the last cohort to have a normal childhood of riding bikes until it was dusk (suppertime), playing with old cars in the junkyard, and making lean-tos in the woods. No adults expected their kids to be under their gaze all day, and we only had to fish out a quarter for a call home on a pay phone if something happened and we needed a ride.

I was a weird kid with weird friends. You develop unusual interests when you grow up with no father and a mother who is a cross between Nurse Ratched, Mommie Dearest, and Piper Laurie’s religious fanatic mother in the movie “Carrie.” While normal boys were playing T-ball, I was playing “funeral home” and “cemetery.”

As a kid in Southern California, my friend Julie and I used to ride our banana seat bikes down to the school parking lot and outdoor paved cafeteria on weekends. The metal clasp hanging on a rope on the flag pole used to clank against the pole in the wind, making a “bong!” sound like a church bell.

RELATED: Had an abusive mother? Then you understand the left’s anti-Trump insanity

AllNikArt/Silver Screen Collection/Getty Images

Julie and I knew this was because Topaz Elementary School had been built on an “ancient graveyard.” The bells were ringing to let the dead know that it was OK to come out of their graves under the pavement because those pesky living kids were all gone for two days.

Mummy dearest

Fast forward five years, and back in upstate New York, I found a kid named Tom who was just as odd.

Tom had a kind of modern-day, white-trash Pippi Longstocking lifestyle. Unlike Pippi’s dad, Tom’s father wasn’t a captain at sea, but he might as well have been. Mr. E spent spent every day completely schnockered. He mowed the lawn in a frayed jockstrap and nothing else. We had the run of the three-story house because Mr. E ignored everything but Schlitz and that brown corduroy recliner.

Tom built a stone kiln in his backyard to fire clay pots. This is where we made miniature sarcophagi for the dead birds and shrews that we mummified. Yes, we did place them in salt (we called it “natron”), then wrapped them in cotton bandages before respectfully encasing them in pottery coffins. I still have one (the sarcophagus, not the mummy).

Audience by ambush

Like many of today’s kids, I was a performer who wanted an audience. But in the pre-internet, pre-smartphone days, your audience was limited to the people you could persuade to stand in front of you in the actual three-dimensional world.

Or you could get an audience by stealth ambush, my preferred method.

Vinyl LPs were still the dominant way people heard music in my youth, and my mother had a collection of comedy show records; they were in vogue in the 1970s.

Pranks for the memories

I wore out Lily Tomlin’s “This Is a Recording,” her stand-up show featuring Ernestine, the telephone operator. I practiced saying things like, “One ringy-dingy. Two ringy-dingies,” for hours in front of the mirror until I got the voice just right.

Then, I opened up the phone book and picked “old people” names at random and dialed (remember, this was before caller ID).

Me: One ringy-dingy. Two ring-ooh! Snort! Good afternoon; have I reached the party to whom I am speaking?

Her: Yes, this is Mrs. Fletcher.

Me: Mrs. Fletcher, I have an annoying problem that only you, as a New York Telephone customer, can solve. According to our files, you owe a balance of 15 dollars and 78 cents for the use of your instrument, which, I remind you, is wired into your wall courtesy of our burly repairmen [fiddle with décolletage] at the telephone company. When may we expect payment?

I shudder to think how many unnecessary checks the elderly ladies of Cortland made out to New York Telephone.

Junior shock jock

But that was just one person. What about an audience of thousands?

I started calling into WOKO 100.1, OK-100!, “Central New York’s Home for Top 40 Hits.” It was always having contests where caller number seven got a free pizza from Pudgies or a copy of Madonna’s new album. I figured out a timing system, accounting for the travel time the phone’s dial took to complete each number, and managed to be “caller seven” suspiciously often.

When the DJ answered the phone, I was in go-mode as the “Church Lady,” the prudish fundamentalist grandma character played by Dana Carvey on “Saturday Night Live.”

OK100: Caller seven, you’ve got it! Tell us who you are.

Me: Most people just call me the Church Lady, which you should well know, as Satan has obviously been whispering sweet-and-sour nothings into your ear or you wouldn’t be playing music from harlots like that bleached-blonde tart named after our holy mother.

You cannot imagine the joy of being 12 years old and making a fully grown man, an on-air DJ, crack up laughing so hard he could barely put the next record on. They started asking me to call in on purpose to do impressions.

But it wasn’t enough.

Hooked

The year before, I played Captain Hook in the Cortland Junior High production of “Peter Pan.”

As I was speaking one of my lines, the painted wooden cutout of a pirate ship collapsed on the stage. So I ad-libbed: “Don’t just stand there, pick it up, you lazy swabbies — we’ve got a play to finish!”

It brought down the house.

I wanted another taste of entertaining a live crowd, so I decided to perform on the roof of the wraparound porch on the old, beat-up Victorian we rented from Mr. and Mrs. Maniacci two doors down.

Isn’t that special?

My gorgon mother had gone to California for a week’s vacation and hired Lori the babysitter to stay with us kids. Oh, boy!

Stuffing my paper route money into my satchel, I walked to the Salvation Army store and came home with a curly grandma wig, a seafoam-green polyester shift, opaque “nude” pantyhose, and sensible orthopedic shoes.

My sister helped me crawl out the window of her bedroom onto the roof of the porch and handed me a broom so I had something with which to menace passersby. It wasn’t long before a young couple came walking up the street.

“It’s always nice to see a young couple,” I called out.

Having secured their attention, I continued, “… except the kind that doesn’t wear a wedding ring and thinks co-habitation is just fine and dandy. How long have you been living in sin, pressing your engorged naughty parts against the devil’s finger? Does it tingle?”

The first reaction was shocked silence. The second was uproarious laughter. Swishy 12-year-old boys in grandma drag talking about “bulbous bits” were thin on the ground in rustbelt New York State, and I gave the people what they didn’t know they needed.

For the rest of the afternoon I preached fire and brimstone, insulting everyone who walked by as a rake and a floozy. A few people came back with friends so they, too, could experience the cleansing power of righteous testimony.

Canceled!

At the end of the week, my mother returned. While I was taking a bath, I heard a rap on the front door. “Bonnie! Bonnie! I need to talk to you.” Oh, shoot — it was Mrs. Maniacci, the landlady!

Scurrying out of the tub to press my ear to the door, I mostly heard my mother’s side of the conversation. “Uh-huh. Really? He did what? I see. Thank you Mrs. Maniacci, I’ll take care of it.”

“JOSHUA LAWRENCE SLOCUM GET OUT HERE RIGHT NOW!”

The punishment was worth it. I’d do it again and again and then again.

Do your kids know how to just do fun things?

​Saturday night live, Childhood, 1980s, Lily tomlin, That’s entertainment, Lifestyle, Culture, Josh slocum, Intervention 

In the middle of a halftime interview, WNBA star Brittney Griner interrupted the conversations to yell at the referees for “blowing a call” and revealed her true colors to fans all over the country.

“No one wants to see that,” BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock tells BlazeTV contributor Steve Kim on “Fearless.” “And look, I’m going to be hypocritical, or double standard, if that were a man in a men’s league, I think people would be more tolerant of it.”

“But to see women behaving that way, behaving as men, being as profane, trying to be as intimidating,” Whitlock continues, “This is why they don’t want fans like me paying attention. That kind of stuff could go on in the old days, and it would be a tree falling in the woods. No one would complain because no one saw it.”

“So you’re not a fan of her being authentically Brittney,” Kim responds.

In another clip of Griner during a game against the Indiana Fever, it appears that she’s saying something negative about “white girls” through lip reading and clear anger through her body language.

Kim doesn’t believe it matters what Griner said as it’s during a heated game, and Whitlock agrees — but notes the fallout would be different for someone like Caitlin Clark.

“Steve, I’m right there with you. It doesn’t matter to me what Brittney Griner said there in the heat of the moment. You’re absolutely right,” Whitlock says. “If Caitlin Clark’s on camera mouthing the words ‘black girl,’ it doesn’t matter in what context. She’d get strung up.”

“This is why they don’t want Caitlin Clark fans paying attention, because we’ll question things that previously would never be questioned,” he adds.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Sharing, Video phone, Camera phone, Upload, Video, Free, Youtube.com, Fearless with jason whitlock, Fearless, Jason whitlock, The blaze, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Brittney griner, Caitlin clark, Wnba, Racism, Basketball, Professional basketball, Conservative podcast, Steve kim, Womens basketball 

Dear class of 2025: You’ve already won. You’re the largest high school graduating class in America’s history. It’s all downhill from here — for America’s population. The number of graduates will decline every year going forward.

But now that you’re emancipated, you’re not going to move downhill. You’re going to move uphill into a life of purpose and significance.

Your mission — should you choose to accept it — is to discover the core truths that made it possible and nurture them.

Young adults often ask me, “If you could go back in time, what would you tell your 18-year-old self?” If I could, I would tell myself four words: service, calling, wisdom, and truth.

1. I need to serve

When asked this question — “What is more important for you: achieving at a high level, happiness, or caring for others?” — 80% of young adults said that achievement and happiness are most important.

But what they don’t know (or forget) is that achievement and happiness come through service. The people most likely to succeed in life are those who serve others best. Similarly, the happiest people are those who serve others rather than demand to be served.

This is good news for an anxious generation. The eminent psychiatrist Karl Menninger said that if you’re overcome by anxiety and depression, the best thing you can do is leave your house and go serve others.

We become fully human by loving and serving others, giving of ourselves for the genuine benefit of others.

2. I need a calling

If I could do it over again, I would focus more on finding my unique calling — my vocation — and not just getting a good job. There are a lot of talented job seekers, and talent is distressingly common. What is rare is people who discover what they “cannot not” do and work hard at it.

Now is a good time to take an inventory, not of your trophies, but of the things you’ve done that return energy to you and make you feel more alive. Think back on the things you did that fascinated you and made a difference for others. Those are the seeds of your calling.

3. I need old people

What my 18-year-old self needed to know is this: “Stop thinking you can figure out everything for yourself. Find people who know what you don’t know and keep buying them coffee until all their good advice spills out of them.”

Wisdom isn’t the same as knowledge. AI offers information. But what you’re looking for is formation from people who have the kind of knowledge that only years of experience can give. I want to invest my life in the company of curious people who can’t help but learn and grow, no matter their age.

4. I need to seek the truth

I know, I know. We are “supposed” to believe that we are each the center of our “own reality.” But your generation knows better than mine that if you are the center of reality, then everything wrong in the world is essentially your fault.

No one can bear that burden.

My generation was told, “The world is going to end during your lifetime because of nuclear war.” Your generation is told, “The world is going to end during your lifetime because of climate change.” That kind of thinking locks you in a prison of fear, and fearful people don’t innovate. They don’t follow their inspiration. They just try to manage their fall.

Fear lies to us, and the only way to conquer it is to seek the truth.

Societies typically move toward success by climbing a wall of worry. You’re coming into a world that boasts unprecedented levels of economic, political, and religious freedom. Your mission — should you choose to accept it — is to discover the core truths that made it possible and nurture them.

But don’t do it alone. The best truth-seekers aren’t solitary. They process things aloud with others.

People who think they alone know the truth become arrogant. People who don’t care about the truth, on the other hand, become apathetic. But people who seek truth in a relational way are the most powerful people who exist.

If I could go back in time, I would tell myself those four words: service, calling, wisdom, and truth.

So I say this to every young American now: Your life will be better if you emblazon those words on your heart and mind — for your own sake and the world’s.

​Young americans, Class of 2025, Teenagers, Life advice, Wisdom 

In recent decades, a subtle and sinister revolution has occurred in our scientific and educational institutions. It’s not the kind of revolution that makes headlines or sets off protests in the streets.

No, it was a quiet shift: an erosion, not an eruption. One classroom, one textbook, one policy at a time, faith was quietly displaced by a dogmatic secularism masquerading as neutrality.

It’s time we return to a posture of humility — a recognition that science, at its best, is the study of God’s handiwork.

Science and faith once walked hand in hand in this great nation, but they have since parted ways — to our detriment.

Our founding fathers, many of whom were devout Christians, believed that the natural world was a testament to a supernatural Creator. In declaring the 13 colonies’ independence from England, the founders sought to build a nation that honored “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” They signed one of the most iconic and carefully thought-out documents stating that “our Creator” gave us the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — not our government.

Traditionally heralded as the most elite of educational institutions, Harvard and Yale were once proud of the fact that they taught Christian and biblical morals along with the sciences.

Today, representatives of prominent scientific institutions speak as if they are the sole gatekeepers of truth. But science is a process of discovery, not a guaranteed path to certainty. And truth, by its very nature, is not limited to what can be placed under a microscope or replicated in a laboratory.

For centuries, some of the most brilliant minds — Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Pasteur — understood that the wonder of creation points us back to the Creator. Yet in much of modern academia, the mention of God is not only unfashionable, it’s taboo. A “scientism” has replaced true scientific pursuit, where ideas are acceptable only if they are in vogue and aligned with an atheistic agenda of naturalism.

This calculated extraction of faith from science is not merely an academic shift; it’s a symptom of America’s spiritual crisis.

When a culture teaches its children that they are nothing more than biological accidents in a purposeless cosmos, should we really be surprised when those children grow up uncertain about their identity, worth, and purpose?

Like our scientific and university institutions, our public schools used to operate on a foundation of faith. Public school classes once opened with prayer. Scripture served as a moral compass. But everything changed in 1962 when the Supreme Court banned prayer in schools with the Engel v. Vitale decision.

Traditional government-funded education traded the pursuit of eternal truths for moral confusion, and it’s not just our culture that pays the price — so do our children.

The statistics speak for themselves. Depression, suicide, and social isolation rates among adolescents are rising at unprecedented levels. At the same time, belief in God, church attendance, and biblical literacy are plummeting. The two trajectories are connected. We are reaping the fruit of a generation taught to look to the stars without ever learning to look beyond them, to the One who placed them there.

Let me be clear: I love science. I’ve spent my life exploring the wonders of the earth, sea, and sky. But science, when divorced from faith, becomes sterile. It loses its soul.

Science can tell us how something works, but it can never tell us why. It can explain how to split atoms and sequence DNA, but it cannot explain beauty, justice, or love. It cannot answer the questions that ache in our hearts: Who am I? Why am I here? What happens when I die?

Only God can answer those fundamental questions.

That’s why it’s so important that we revitalize a faith-based perspective of science, one that acknowledges not only natural laws but the lawgiver. We — along with our scientific and educational institutions — need to affirm the laws of nature and nature’s God.

Let’s celebrate the harmony between Genesis and genetics, between Scripture and cell structure, between faith and fact. Such harmony will not plunge us back into the Dark Ages nor suppress discovery. It will deepen our scientific curiosity.

It’s time we return to a posture of humility — a recognition that science, at its best, is the study of God’s handiwork.

That harmonious vision is alive and well at the Wonders Center & Science Museum in Dickson, Tennessee. It unapologetically views science through the lens of biblical faith. Like the museum, we shouldn’t shy away from scientific exploration. Instead, we ought to embrace it as a form of worship.

We need not choose between being people of faith and people of reason. God calls us to love Him with all our heart, soul, and mind. That includes a mind that inquires, a heart that wonders, and a soul that seeks meaning.

We’ve spent too long teaching our children to marvel at creation while denying the Creator. It’s time for pastors to speak boldly about the harmony of science and Scripture and for parents to ask what kind of worldview their children are being taught in school. It’s time for believers to stop ceding the realm of science to those who say faith has no place in the lab.

Let’s let God back into the lab and watch scientific discovery catapult to new heights.

The more we learn about the universe, the clearer it becomes: We were made on purpose, for a purpose, by a Creator who calls the stars by name — and He knows yours, too.

​God, Christianity, Christians, Science, Scientism, Bible, Faith 

Charlie Kirk has done something few public figures attempt: For the past decade, he has toured American university campuses and taken unscripted questions from students. In the process, he has exposed the intellectual rot at the heart of the modern academy. Most students come prepared not with arguments but with slogans — recycled from gender studies lectures and Ibram X. Kendi reading groups. What’s missing is actual critical thinking, the very trait these institutions pretend to cultivate.

Kirk recently brought his project to the United Kingdom, with similarly revealing results. At the storied Cambridge Union on May 19, he debated students and fielded questions from the audience. The encounter didn’t showcase the vitality of one of Christendom’s oldest universities. It exposed its decline. What stood out wasn’t the strength of Cambridge’s intellectual tradition but its weakness — the spectacle of a self-assured student, brimming with elite self-regard, being outmatched by an American who never earned a degree.

Kirk delivered the mortal blow: A child has more wisdom than a Cambridge student.

Once upon a time, the Cambridge student who wanted to “challenge the system” or “speak truth to power” might have supported William Tyndale in translating the Bible into English — an act that cost him his life. Or perhaps he would have taken pride in the legacy of John Eliot, a fellow Cambridge alumnus who crossed the Atlantic, entered the wilderness, and ministered to the Algonquin. Eliot invented a written form of their language, translated the Bible into it, and sent a copy back to Cambridge — confident the university would take pride in such a feat. His was the first Bible printed in the American colonies.

Those days are gone.

No God, no goodness

In the recent debate, former Cambridge Union President Sammy McDonald didn’t use his platform to pursue truth. He used it to mock the Christian faith. While Kirk’s Christianity is no secret, McDonald’s contempt was likely aimed at specific claims Kirk made during the event — that life begins at conception and that monogamous, heterosexual marriage benefits society. In today’s academic climate, such positions qualify as heresy. The punishment is no longer martyrdom (not yet) but smug derision.

In that context, Kirk performed a public service for Cambridge and the world. McDonald stands as a warning of what students too often become when shaped by today’s academic regime: clever but foolish, hostile to God, Christ, and Christianity, and armed with a brittle moral confidence unsupported by any coherent view of good and evil.

One of the most painful moments of the debate came when McDonald revealed he didn’t know what “genocide” or “ethnic cleansing” meant. His tactic was simple and dishonest: accuse Charlie Kirk of endorsing atrocities without a shred of evidence, then use the rest of his time to condemn those atrocities as evil. It’s a lazy maneuver — a rhetorical sleight of hand — and emblematic of the intellectual decay at the Cambridge Union.

Worse, McDonald offered no coherent explanation for why anything is evil. His only moral compass seemed to be a vague intuition that suffering is bad. But where did that intuition come from? He professed concern for innocent children killed in Gaza, yet never acknowledged the mass slaughter of unborn children in his own country. That’s not moral reasoning. That’s hypocrisy. And one wonders why a Cambridge education failed to help him see it.

The problem of abundance

Kirk, by contrast, praised Great Britain for its civilizational legacy and urged students to reclaim it. When asked why wealthy societies tend to abandon monogamous marriage, Kirk’s answer cut to the heart of the issue: Once a society stops needing to delay gratification — once comfort becomes the norm and abundance replaces sacrifice — moral decay follows. Without a transcendent order grounded in the creator, collapse becomes not just possible but likely. Even before collapse, citizens lose their footing. Anxiety and misery take hold.

It was an odd question, really, since the dominant theme among leftist students is that wealth corrupts and the rich are inherently evil. And yet they seem eager to imitate the decadence of affluent societies rather than return to the moral clarity of more modest times.

McDonald’s moral confidence boils down to a single assertion: Suffering is bad. He has hollowed out anything transcendent. When Kirk affirmed that there are good guys and there are bad guys, McDonald scoffed, accusing him of holding childish morality.

Then, Kirk delivered the mortal blow: A child has more wisdom than a Cambridge student. And that’s what Kirk puts on display time and again: University students do not know what is clear.

RELATED: Charlie Kirk is not wrong about birth control

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

When Kirk spoke of truth, beauty, and goodness, the students stared blankly, as if they had heard ancient words but had forgotten what they meant. To borrow from Johnny Cash, “They say they want the kingdom, but they don’t want God in it.” Like Richard Dawkins, such students want the benefits of Christian culture but without Christ.

That tells us nearly everything. Students like McDonald study among the crumbling stones of a university built on Christian foundations — a place that once trained minds in piety, theology and the Great Commission. The Physics Department at Cambridge still bears the words of Psalm 111:2 above its door: “The works of the Lord are great; sought out of all them that have pleasure therein.” But reverence has given way to signaling, posturing, and progressive clichés. Today’s mission is not to spread the gospel but to promote the sexual politics of Alfred Kinsey — and to call that “progress.”

In his final moments, McDonald grasped for a rhetorical flourish and accused Kirk of having betrayed America — a country McDonald, bizarrely, claimed to admire. After the applause, Kirk delivered the final blow: “The difference is, when we get our way, we’ll still have a country. You’ll be living in a third-world hellhole.”

It was a moment of historical symmetry: the smug redcoat realizing, too late, that the ragtag colonials had just won.

A call to return

If “loving America” means gutting its Christian foundation and moral clarity, young Mr. McDonald can keep his affection to himself. No means no.

Cambridge should reclaim its former glory. As Kirk rightly observed, the United Kingdom has become a husk of what it once was. This was once the land of Bible translators, of scholars who believed every reader deserved Scripture in their own language — and the education to understand it and live by it. On that foundation, England abolished slavery and carried Christian morality across the globe in pursuit of the Great Commission.

Short of revival, Kirk has performed a necessary service. Just as he has done for American families, he has now done for English ones: exposed the ignorance of the modern university. He’s held up a mirror so that every parent might ask, honestly and urgently, whether a diploma is worth the price of their child’s soul.

​Opinion & analysis, Charlie kirk, Tpusa, Cambridge, Debate, God, Christianity, Atheism, Jesus christ, Richard dawkins, Suffering, Ethnic cleansing, Genocide, Gaza, War, Religion 

Democrats have a “man problem” — and now they’re spending $20 million on a study examining how to speak to their problem demographic after losing major ground with them during the 2024 election cycle.

According to the New York Times, “Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan” was created by the party to “study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces” of male voters.

“I don’t know what could possibly be the reason for that at all,” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere says on “Stu Does America.” “You know, they all just seem so masculine. Think of the masculinity of a Pete Buttigieg for a second. Okay? I mean, how do you get more masculine than that?”

The study also recommends buying advertisements in video games, to which Stu laughs and says, “Oh my God.”

However, the effort recommends one piece of genuinely good advice, which is to “shift from a moralizing tone.”

“Pretty good advice. Yes, every time you hear a joke that you don’t like, trying to get the person canceled and saying how evil they are, probably not the right path to go down. Should be pretty obvious, I would think, to people,” Stu comments.

“But you know, you can’t reverse engineer what it’s like to be one of the two genders. And again, probably, if you felt offended by that statement, it’s part of the problem,” he adds.

Even the left finds the study a little strange, like Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) — who plans to run for president himself.

“That’s the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard,” Khanna said in an appearance on “The Young Turks.” “Donald Trump would never have to give a speech on manliness. He just exudes it.”

“The Democrats don’t need a study. We just need to understand that a lot of people lost jobs supporting their families. They lost self-respect. We gave all the glory to tech folks in my district, and some of them were doing great things,” he continued.

“But not the people who built the steel and built the industry. They literally were flyover country. We never recognized their contributions. We didn’t recognize the challenges that men were facing in terms of their physical safety, in terms of getting a good job, and the pressures of supporting a family,” Khanna added.

“We kind of made it seem like being a man was easy, when men were struggling. And then on top of that, we had this sense that if they said the wrong thing, they would be canceled,” he said, adding, “So, I don’t need a study to say any of that. I just talked to enough people.”

“It should be that obvious,” Stu agrees, adding, “I don’t think Democrats can possibly get there, though. I don’t think that is obvious at all to most Democrats.”

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.

​Camera phone, Sharing, Video, Video phone, Upload, Free, Youtube.com, Stu does america, Stu burguiere, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Democrats, Democrats man problem, Democrats manhood plan, The new york times, Trump voters, Biden voters, 2024 election, 2024 election polls 

Two months have passed since high school senior Karmelo Anthony allegedly fatally stabbed Austin Metcalf at a track meet in Frisco, Texas. The killing sparked national outrage and reopened difficult debates — about race (Karmelo is black, Austin was white), school safety, and the crisis among young men in America.

Also justice. While the Metcalf family mourns — and has to contend with being swatted — Anthony’s bond was reduced and quickly paid. He now awaits trial from the comfort of a new home, funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from supporters. He was even allowed to graduate on May 22, though he did not attend the ceremony.

Quiet policy tweaks won’t cut it. The Frisco school district can’t just wait for the public to move on.

Meanwhile, Anthony’s family and legal team have mounted a public relations offensive. In an outrageous press conference, they blamed Austin’s father, Jeff Metcalf, the Frisco Independent School District, and even systemic racism for Anthony’s predicament.

The strategy is clear: Rebrand Karmelo Anthony as a victim. They want the public to believe he was a mostly peaceful teen forced to act in self-defense after being told to change seats.

No new evidence has emerged in the case, but the existing facts undermine Anthony’s claim of self-defense. He allegedly brought a knife to the event, provoked the confrontation with Metcalf, fled the scene after the stabbing, and later asked a police officer whether he could plead self-defense. His actions — before, during, and after the incident — suggest intent, not fear.

Why did he sit there? Why did he bring a knife? Why did he run?

Red flags all over

Equally troubling is what remains hidden. Notably, Anthony’s social media accounts have been scrubbed. His disciplinary record hasn’t been released — student privacy laws and all that. The school has also withheld any security camera footage. If Anthony truly acted in self-defense — if he sat quietly on a bench and responded only to a threat from a belligerent Austin Metcalf — then that evidence should exist. And it should exonerate him.

But it doesn’t appear to, at least not so far. We may or may not find out, either when the case goes to trial or when Anthony accepts a plea deal and explains his actions to the court.

As I wrote previously, red flags almost certainly existed — flags that should have prompted school officials to remove him from extracurricular activities. They didn’t. And they didn’t because they may have feared the appearance of racism more than the consequences of inaction.

Educator Tillman Plank, who works in North Texas, says that Texas schools routinely discourage direct disciplinary action against disruptive or violent students. Even without the racial angle in Anthony’s case, the system would likely have enabled his behavior — just without the media framing it as a civil rights issue after the fact.

Frisco ISD and other suburban districts that maintain two-tiered discipline systems must abandon these policies immediately. If they don’t, they risk a mass exodus of families — especially with Texas’ new school choice law now in effect.

That legislation passed in April. It allows parents to use public funds to enroll their children in private schools or purchase homeschooling resources. Understandably, many parents fed up with Frisco ISD’s response are actively weighing their options for the next school year.

Even if FISD outperforms most Texas districts on paper, that means little if it can’t keep students safe.

No more half measures

To its credit, the district has taken initial steps to boost supervision and tighten security at public events. Administrators also appear to be preparing disciplinary documentation for students who pose a threat — potentially paving the way for behavior intervention plans or long-term placements at alternative campuses.

Of course, this is the bare minimum a school district should do after a student is murdered at one of its events. Frisco ISD’s leadership must speak up — clearly and publicly — about what steps they’re taking to ensure student safety. Parents deserve to know that students like Karmelo Anthony won’t be given another free pass.

Quiet policy tweaks won’t cut it. FISD can’t just wait for the public to move on.

To restore trust, district officials should first admit where they failed. They need to acknowledge that they could have acted before Austin Metcalf was killed — but didn’t. Why? Possibly because they followed flawed educational theories and caved to progressive posturing.

Owning up to that failure would spark a backlash — especially from non-black families already frustrated by double standards in discipline. And yes, it might force other districts across Texas to come clean and change their own policies.

Good. The alternative is silence, followed by collapse. As families flee for safer options under the Lone Star State’s new school choice law — and you better believe they will — the cost of inaction grows by the day.

By taking bold, transparent action, FISD could finally correct the record. Karmelo Anthony is not a civil rights hero. He’s not the victim of an unjust system. By all available accounts, he belongs in prison. And students across Texas deserve schools willing to keep people like him out of the stands — and off the track.

​Opinion & analysis, Karmelo anthony, Austin metcalf, Swatting, Crime, Murder, Stabbing, School violence, Discipline, Frisco independent school district, Texas, Kyle rittenhouse, Rosa parks, Media bias, Civil rights, Self-defense 

Democrats are making a full-court press to woo men back to the party, with the New York Times recently reporting that donors are considering a $20 million effort to connect with the more “privileged” sex. The plan apparently includes studying the “syntax, language, and content that gains attention and virality in [male] spaces.”

It’s good that the party finally realized that alienating half the electorate is an unwise political strategy. Kamala Harris lost the male vote to President Donald Trump in 2024 by 10 points. The president won 60% of the white male vote, along with 54% of the Hispanic male vote and 21% of the black male vote. Those results are unsustainable.

A party beholden to feminists who think traditional masculinity is toxic will never prioritize the needs of the average American male.

But I have news for donors that will save them from wasting time and money: A party can’t do meaningful outreach to people they resent.

That may sound like a harsh assessment of the left’s relationship to men, but it’s true. What’s also true is that the problems Democrats have with messaging to men are primarily ideological, not rhetorical. That’s because the modern Democratic Party has a broad coalition of voters who hate any expression of traditional masculinity. This includes both liberal and radical feminists, LGBTQ+ activists who want to change the definitions of “male” and “female” altogether, and self-flagellating male “allies” who feel duty-bound to rid themselves publicly of their “toxic masculinity.”

The party’s inability to reach men is a structural — not syntactical — problem.

Men in previous generations, including the white majority, had a home in the Democratic Party. At that time, Democrats campaigned on bread-and-butter issues, such as jobs and education. They still talk about those issues today, but they occupy a much different space within the left’s business model.

Issues like the economy, health care, and even race could be viewed as “expenses” Democrats are willing to pay in order to sell their preferred “products”: abortion, all things related to LGBTQ+ Pride, and climate change.

In fact, progressives are so invested in “transgender rights” that they are willing to throw women under the bus to do so. That’s why Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said he would support boys who identify as girls competing against natal females in sports. Any man watching the left dump its commitment to second-wave feminism in favor of first-wave “theminism” would be a fool to think Democrats would be loyal to him.

RELATED: From feminism to ‘theminism’: Nancy Mace faces liberal fury in Congress

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images. Tom Williams / Contributor | Getty Imageseditsharetrending_up

The modern left prioritizes “marginalized” identities more than anything, which makes straight white Christian males apex oppressors in the left’s intersectional “Hunger Games.” This warped worldview puts Democrats in a bind. They want to win back men, but at the same time, they don’t want to upset the coalition of “oppressed” groups who look to them for protection from the “orange menace” currently in the White House — especially since some of the men they’re courting voted for Trump in 2024.

No one on the left wants to be blamed for bringing in a new batch of men into the party whose land acknowledgments are some version of, “My ancestors were settlers, and I don’t apologize for the country they’ve built.”

The truth is, the party whose symbol is a donkey is only interested in male “mules” — men willing to leverage their male “privilege” on behalf of the feminists, abortionists, and Pride activists who hold all the sway on the modern left. That means a black Christian man who is solidly pro-life has no space in the modern Democratic Party, while a white male feminist wearing a shirt with the slogan “The future is female” is a useful ally.

Men can sense the resentment, and many won’t be swayed by effete influencers who binge Joe Rogan interviews and practice their “bro” lingo in the mirror. A political movement can’t spend decades telling men that their very nature is problematic and then act surprised when the people they’ve been chastising defect in large numbers.

The irony is that when these efforts fail to produce the results the party desires, progressive pundits will respond 95% of the time with the type of preachy scolding from the same bitter “cat ladies” who drove men away from the left in the first place.

This is why any attempts to win young men back to the left will ultimately fail without a major change in the party’s priorities. A party beholden to feminists who think traditional masculinity is toxic will never prioritize the needs of the average American male.

​Opinion & analysis, Feminism, Men, Democratic party, Democrat men, Transgender agenda, Theminism, The left, Language, Messaging, Abortion, Christians, Voters, Chris murphy, Toxic masculinity 

Pride Month is here.

For the next 30 days, corporations will rebrand their logos with rainbow colors, politicians will posture toward the LGBTQ lobby, and progressive ideology will be shoved down our throats.

We can’t stand sheepishly in the face of anti-God celebrations. Silence isn’t neutral, but is itself an action that speaks volumes — it’s surrender.

As the most holy secular celebration — a month-long altar call to the gods of sexual identity and self-expression, complete with its own liturgies, saints, and sacraments — Pride Month claims to be a celebration of liberation and truth. But beneath the rainbows and glitter lies a dark reality: Pride Month is a demonstration of our culture’s complete rebellion against God.

RELATED: Parents score victory as Disney walks back plans for transgender character in animated series for children

This month, Christians have a choice.

We can be quiet, keeping our convictions hidden while silently hoping that no one asks us if we are a fellow Pride parishioner or an “ally.” Or we can fight fire with fire, reclaiming the very thing the LGBTQ lobby has monopolized: pride.

Not pride in sin — the kind God hates — but pride in truth.

God’s truth speaks

The Bible mostly condemns pride.

Hear the wisdom of Proverbs: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18). Or, from the epistle of James, which quotes Proverbs 3:34, “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble” (James 4:6).

This is the kind of pride that exalts the self to the place of God, thereby defying God.

RELATED: Target learned a lesson: Pride Month plans already upsetting LGBTQ activists

But scripture also speaks of a different kind of pride, which is rightly ordered. Let’s call it “holy boasting.”

The apostle Paul, for example, instructs the Corinthians to “boast in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 1:31; cf. Jeremiah 9:24). Paul himself takes pride in his weakness — because it demonstrates the glory of Christ (2 Corinthians 12:9-10). In fact, Paul expresses a desire to boast — but only “in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Galatians 6:14).

Follow Paul’s example

This month, Christians should follow Paul’s example. We should boast and take pride in God’s truth.

Let us, therefore, boast in God’s design: God made us in His image, male and female. He made us with complementary sexual and biological distinctions ordered toward the covenantal union of marriage — not personal fulfillment — so that we can carry out the divine mandate to subdue the earth and multiply. That vocation, ultimately, is for the flourishing of all creation.

Let us boast in God’s vision for marriage: He created marriage to be a lifelong, sacred, one-flesh union between one man and one woman. It’s neither a social contract nor a lifestyle accessory, but it is meant for the building up of families who can carry out the divine vocation.

Let us boast in our identity: Not in the self-chosen, surgically constructed, self-designed identity of the LGBTQ brigade, but in the identity that God has given us in Christ. We received our “born again” Christian identity from the Creator, our Father in heaven who calls us “sons” and “daughters.”

Let us boast in our redemption: Not in the redemption of self-actualization and therapeutic happiness, but in the redemption that comes only from the blood of Jesus Christ, a redemption that invites every sinner to repent, be forgiven, and be made into a new creation through Christ and the Holy Spirit.

This is our witness to the rainbow warriors. We boast not in sin but in our Savior.

Why this matters

Pride Month isn’t neutral. It’s a month-long catechism in a counterfeit religion that preaches a false gospel. It demands affirmation and allegiance and silences all dissent. It forces our culture to wear its colors, chant its creeds, and celebrate its dogmas.

Worse, it’s being forced not only on us, through TV advertising campaigns and glitter parades, but the LGBTQ ideology that Pride Month celebrates is being forced on our children. And while the LGBTQ movement and its takeover of June are finally losing steam, now is not the time for passivity.

RELATED: LGBTQ Pride festivals see corporate funding dry up after conservative boycotts

The question for Christians, then, is this: Will you have the courage to live and speak the truth?

How we respond matters. We can’t stand sheepishly in the face of anti-God celebrations. Silence isn’t neutral, but is itself an action that speaks volumes — it’s surrender. Faithfulness, on the other hand, requires courage.

The early church didn’t spread Christianity through passivity. Rather, Christians under the thumb of the Roman Empire lived countercultural lives that bore witness to the truth about our holy God.

We must do the same. We must speak the truth — not only with our voices, but with our lives. Our faithfulness is a witness to the beauty of God’s truth, and it brings moral clarity where there is confusion.

So as the culture waves its rainbow flags for the next 30 days and celebrates rebellion as “liberation,” Christians must stand faithfully on God’s truth with boldness and resolve.

This Pride Month, let us take pride in God’s truth and boast in Christ. Not because we hate, but because we know the truth — and because we know that God’s way is the righteous path that leads to life.

​Pride month, Lgbtq agenda, Lgbtq, Christianity, Christians, God, God’s truth, Jesus, Christ, Apostle paul, Proverbs, Bible, Faith 

Tomorrow begins Pride Month, and while Sara Gonzales is dreading all the events she has to attend as the vice president of Texas Family Project, she finds comfort in this: Texas at least knows what a woman is.

“I am very happy to say, here in Texas, we now have heading to the governor’s desk for signature the Women’s Bill of Rights,” she says.

Authored by Rep. Ellen Troxclair (R) and carried by Sen. Mayes Middleton (R), the bill defines “man” and “woman” based on biological sex for state records, requires state documents (e.g., birth certificates, driver’s licenses) to reflect biological sex at birth, and aims to protect women’s spaces, including bathrooms and sports, by codifying biological definitions.

It’s sad, Sara says, that we “need the legislators to pass bills informing people of what we already know is common sense,” but that’s just the reality of living in a world that’s “gone crazy.”

On a recent episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” Sara spoke with Rep. Troxclair about her Women’s Bill of Rights.

“It is sad that we need to define what a woman is, and yet we have thousands of references to words like ‘boy,’ ‘girl,’ ‘man,’ ‘woman,’ ‘mother,’ ‘father’ in Texas state statute. Well, for thousands of years, people have understood the very clear, very basic difference between the two, and it’s only now in 2025 that women are being asked, ‘Well, what are you again?’” says Troxclair. “And so this definition will finally give legal foundation to all of those references.”

While she’s thankful that President Trump and Governor Greg Abbott (R) have already issued strong executive orders differentiating man from woman, she knows how quickly “the stroke of a pen” from a new administration can undo progress, which is why codification is so critical.

Following Gov. Abbott’s signature, Texas will become the 17th state to enact a law defining “man” and “woman” based on biological sex at birth.

The glaring irony, of course, is that feminists are often the first to clutch their pearls when such a law is passed.

“Isn’t that so strange that we had all of these feminists who fought for all of these rights, who fought to be equal … and now you’ve got the feminist movement who is here to tell you, ‘Well, that male can be a female if he wants to be,’” says Sara.

The law will impact a wide range of areas — everything from sports and bathrooms to medical care and law enforcement practices.

“For things like domestic violence reports, the state keeps statistics that lawmakers then use to make public policy, and we have a situation where if somebody is arrested or booked for domestic violence, they might be categorized as a woman when in fact it was a man beating a woman, not a woman beating a woman,” says Troxclair.

Even though the bill is common sense, Troxclair says it was “the most hated bill of this entire legislative session.”

“The left, the Democrats — absolutely hysterical,” she says.

“It was shocking to me to have to stand on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives on the microphone answering questions about why women deserved protection, why women deserved to have a restroom, a locker room, and change in a private space … why girls needed the right to not have to undress in front of boys,” Troxclair tells Sara, noting that the media fallout was perhaps even more brutal.

But, “Hey, Democrat party, if you want to dig even deeper into this nonsensical world you are forcing everybody into, then then go for it,” she laughs. “You’re just going to keep losing election after election after election.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Sara gonzales, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Blazetv, Blaze media, Texas, Greg abbott, Womens bill of rights, Transgenderism, Ellen troxclair 

Two female Secret Service agents were caught on video tussling outside former President Barack Obama’s residence in Washington, D.C., earlier this month, reigniting concerns that diversity, equity, and inclusion-related policies implemented under previous administrations continue to impact the agency negatively.

Around 2:30 a.m. on May 21, two agents assigned to guard the Obama home “got into a physical fight,” according to Susan Crabtree of RealClearPolitics. Crabtree confirmed to Blaze News that both women are black. They were also likely armed at the time.

Crabtree told Blaze News that the altercation began after an agent with 15 years’ experience became upset that her shift replacement, an agent with three years’ experience, arrived late and in the wrong vehicle. The more senior agent then reportedly made a call to a Secret Service line, threatening violence in notably crude, colloquial terms.

“Can I get a supervisor down to Delta 2 before I whoop this girl’s a**?” she said, according to audio shared by Crabtree.

RELATED: Secret Service places at least 5 agents on leave weeks after Trump assassination attempt

— (@)

‘We likely witnessed the catastrophic consequences of sacrificing job knowledge, skills, fitness standards, and personal conduct in favor of immutable gender and racial characteristics to meet arbitrary diversity standards.’

Shortly after that call, the fight broke out, Crabtree explained. She later shared video of it on X:

— (@)

The crass language and brief scuffle both seem to qualify as “offenses” delineated in a “Professionalism in the Workforce” report prepared by the USSS and submitted to Congress by the Department of Homeland Security in 2015.

Screenshot of USSS report

In a statement obtained by Blaze News, the Secret Service acknowledged the “on-duty altercation” involving “two Uniformed Division officers.” The statement claimed that both participants have been “suspended from duty.”

“The Secret Service has a very strict code of conduct for all employees and any behavior that violates that code is unacceptable. Given this is a personnel matter, we are not in a position to comment further,” the statement said.

A representative for Obama did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

Crabtree indicated to Blaze News that the fracas is yet another example of the “lowering of standards” at the “once-vaunted agency.” She added that officials must give a strong response to it to demonstrate that they take such incidents “seriously.”

Former FBI Special Agent Steve Friend claimed it is yet another “real-world consequence” of identity politics.

“Here we likely witnessed the catastrophic consequences of sacrificing job knowledge, skills, fitness standards, and personal conduct in favor of immutable gender and racial characteristics to meet arbitrary diversity standards,” Friend said in a statement to Blaze News.

‘What I’ve seen … is a different set of standards based on gender.’

As the incident apparently involved two black female officers, many have begun to wonder whether past DEI emphases still affect the agency today, despite President Donald Trump’s efforts to eradicate DEI policies across the federal government.

Though the alleged aggressor in the fight has been with the force for 15 years, the other officer joined just three years ago under President Joe Biden, who appointed Kimberly Cheatle to be USSS director in 2022. Just the second woman in history to lead the agency, Cheatle took several steps to increase female and minority representation at the Secret Service, including joining the 30×30 initiative, which called on law enforcement agencies across the country to increase female participation in policing to 30% by 2030.

Cheatle was still at the helm on July 13, 2024, when then-candidate Trump was shot and nearly assassinated during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Iconic images from the shooting showed both male and female Secret Service agents hustling to protect Trump and to shuttle him off the rally stage to safety.

RELATED: This deadly experiment endangered Trump’s life — and imperils public safety

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Video taken moments later went viral because it featured multiple female USSS agents gathered around the vehicle that would transport Trump away from the area. On the video, a heavyset female agent — seen in the above photo sliding off stage — struggled to holster her weapon. She and other agents, according to Friend, “appeared overwhelmed by the situation.”

Cheatle resigned 10 days later.

In February, Special Agent Rashid Ellis, a 13-year veteran of the USSS, stated publicly that DEI policies were at least partially responsible for the Butler shooting. “My initial thoughts when seeing the Butler assassination attempt was dread,” Ellis told the Independent Women’s Forum. “My stomach was in knots watching it because we had known for years that this was coming.”

Though black, Ellis said he was passed up for a leadership position in part because of the agency’s focus on gender “quotas.”

“I’ve always viewed [it] as an honor and privilege to serve in this capacity. However … what I’ve seen with the United States is a different set of standards based on gender.”

While sources told Crabtree that some women at the USSS do excellent work, others have difficulty meeting physical standards and maintaining professionalism.

“To be in the Secret Service, you have to be worthy of trust and confidence,” Ellis explained.

“Real danger is out there. We need to restore confidence. We have to be focused on the threat that’s outside and the threat that’s in front of us.”

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

​Secret service, Barack obama, Dc, Susan crabtree, Dei, Butler, Butler shooting, Kimberly cheatle, Politics, Fbi, Steve friend 

Dr. Jamal Bryant, a liberal black preacher at a Baptist megachurch in Georgia, is angry that Target stores have dropped the secular left’s diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative. And so, along with Al Sharpton, he has urged black people to boycott Target.

Bryant is leading a deceitful political scam while insisting he is a man who seeks to help black people. DEI has never been about that. Instead, proponents of DEI play the race card, using black Americans to advance what amounts to a godless agenda. Worse, in pressuring Target to restore DEI, this man of the cloth is undermining the gains Christians have made in getting the retailer to remove homosexual-themed children’s clothing from their stores.

Should Bryant’s boycott grow enough to overwhelm complacent Christians, it could possibly provide Target a new political lifeline (and excuse) to reverse course on DEI.

As many will recall, back in 2023, Target made national news when conservative influencers and media outlets reported how the national retailer was using customer profits to target children with a marketing campaign promoting pro-homosexual-themed apparel. This was bad enough by itself.

You boycotted, Target listened

What added insult to injury was the way Target seemed to be riding a wave of some organized propaganda campaign pushing drag-queen story hours — where perverse men dressed in women’s clothing would read books to children — often while behaving in lewd and suggestive ways.

As a result, a tsunami of public outrage ensued, and an untold number of Americans immediately decided to boycott Target stores.

It made a difference: Target got the message that the bulk of its consumers reject the woke agenda. In June 2024, the retailer announced that it would no longer sell children’s apparel as part of its “Pride Collection.” Even though Target still sells merchandise that promotes the homosexual lifestyle, the removal of this apparel from the children’s departments is nonetheless a victory for morality.

This victory was followed by President Donald Trump’s executive order against DEI in January, which prompted Target to join other major companies — including Walmart, McDonald’s, and Ford — in announcing it would end several corporate DEI initiatives.

A counter-boycott

This is when the left-wing preacher Bryant stepped into the breach to stage a counter-boycott that attempted to mimic what conservatives had done.

Protesting against the corporate practices that include selling homosexual-themed paraphernalia to children is an odd move for a man with the title of preacher — one would hope he is in agreement with biblical values.

RELATED: Pastor compares Kamala to Esther from the Bible — then the sermon gets even crazier: ‘This is an idea that cannot be stopped’

Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images

In fact, Bryant has never publicly denounced Target’s previous practices. Yet, he’s chosen now to speak up and fight for Target to restore DEI. And so has Twin Cities Pride, a homosexual activist group, which also lashed out at Target for ending its DEI initiatives.

Seeing that Bryant is taking the same side as Twin Cities Pride, it’s hard not to conclude that Bryant’s passionate drive to pressure Target to reinstate DEI is motivated by his full-throated agreement with the far left’s secular agenda.

There’s more proof of this.

Woke, not Christian

Not long ago, Bryant appeared on a podcast and engaged in a heated exchange about political and spiritual matters with Pastor Mark Burns, a black conservative pastor who has gained fame for his support of President Trump.

The takeaway from some online viewers was that Bryant did not align with the standard scriptural interpretation that the Bible supports only traditional marriage and opposes abortion.

To make matters worse, Bryant seems to be making inroads with Target CEO Brian Cornell. In a symbolic gesture of agreement, Cornell reached out and met with Al Sharpton because of Bryant’s boycott.

It’s important to note that Cornell was also CEO of Target back in 2023 and had initially refused to back down from selling rainbow-colored onesies for infants and T-shirts that say, “Pride Adult Drag Queen ‘Katya,’” “Trans people will always exist!” and “Girls Gays Theys.” He was so adamant about pushing the homosexual agenda on kids that, in response to conservative backlash, he told the press that he thought it was “the right thing for society.” Cornell also admitted that this agenda is directly linked to Target’s DEI initiatives: “The things we’ve done from a DEI standpoint, it’s adding value,” Cornell said.

Hold the line

Based on these comments, can there be any doubt that Target would love to restore DEI, including its children’s “Pride Collection”? Of course not. But the social pressure against it is finally having an effect. That is, it was until Bryant and others began to get louder.

Let there be no doubt: Should Bryant’s boycott grow enough to overwhelm complacent Christians and conservatives, it could possibly provide Cornell a new political lifeline (and excuse) to reverse course on DEI. If that happens, you can bet that all perverse children’s merchandise will return to store shelves.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at Chronicles Magazine.

​Opinion & analysis, Woke culture, Pride month, Transgender agenda, Target pride collection, Target boycott, Al sharpton, Woke religion, Jamal bryant, Diversity equity inclusion, Dei, Corporations, Donald trump, Executive orders, Walmart, Mcdonald’s, Ford, Religion, Christianity 

Bono is more than just a rich and famous rock star. He’s also a rich and famous activist.

The U2 front man has never been afraid to take bold stands — sometimes right in the middle of a song. AIDS? Poverty? He’s against them — and he doesn’t care who knows it.

Former Paramount CEO and Hollywood legend Barry Diller called ‘Popeye’ the most ‘coked-up film set’ he ever saw.

Now he’s risking it all to oppose an even bigger scourge of humanity: Donald Trump.

This week the Irish warbler stopped by “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” to swap anti-Orange Man barbs with late night’s saddest clown.

Now, Bono isn’t one to meddle in American politics. He never said a peep about the Biden administration’s rampant censorship arm, the loss of personal freedoms during COVID-19, or his own homeland’s rising levels of anti-Semitism.

But the 47th president? Drastic times call for drastic measures. Or maybe he’s got his eye on a late-night show all his own?

He also sided with Bruce Springsteen in the aging rocker’s war on Trump.

“I think there’s only one Boss in America,” Bono said, the equivalent of a comic saying he’s glad to be back in (insert city) for cheap applause.

Anti-Hamas celebs a class act

It’s not very hard to speak out against anti-Semitism, is it? Bigotry bad.

See?

Tell that to Hollywood A-listers. They’ve been mostly silent over the past year-plus following the October 7 attacks and the shocking rise of anti-Semitism on college campuses. Yes, some signed open letters in the days following October 7 condemning Hamas, but that’s been mostly it.

The exceptions? Patricia Heaton, Debra Messing, singer John Ondrasik, Julianna Margulies, and Mayim Bialik. Those celebrities, along with Dean Cain, signed a new letter decrying the anti-Israel rhetoric which helped fuel the recent slaying of two Jewish people in Washington, D.C.

“Hamas, Iran, and their allies and ideological sympathizers in the West have flooded the world with their hateful lies and anti-Semitic incitement since October 7 — lies designed to demonize Israel, the Jewish people, and their supporters,” the letter reads.

Never forget that the media helped peddle many of said lies.

That wasn’t spinach …

The 1980 film “Popeye” seemed like a can‘t-miss adaptation.

Rising star Robin Williams played the sailor man, Shelley Duvall looked like the spitting image of Olive Oyl, and famed director Robert Altman worked behind the camera. Yet it missed by a country mile.

Many critics trashed it, and longtime Popeye fans were likely stunned by what they saw. The movie made back its budget, but it wasn’t the blockbuster many anticipated.

Yeah, it was weird.

Now we’re learning one reason why the film didn’t live up to its potential. Former Paramount CEO and Hollywood legend Barry Diller called “Popeye” the most “coked-up film set” he ever saw.

Film cans were used to sneak cocaine onto the set, for starters. It only got crazier from there, apparently.

As Diller recounts, “If you watch ‘Popeye,’ you’re watching a movie that … runs at 78 rpm and 33 speed. … Everyone was stoned.”

Broadway diva’s latest ‘bomb’

Madonna famously dreamed of blowing up the White House after Donald Trump’s stunning 2016 electoral victory. She made that shocking statement during a Women’s March rally at the dawn of Trump 1.0.

She quickly backpedaled, suggesting she didn’t actually mean it. The press took the comments “out of context.”

Sure, Jan.

Still, back in 2017, the left still had a dollop of common sense and a sense of shame. Boy, have the times changed since then.

Broadway legend Patti LuPone just doubled down on Madonna’s line of thinking. And, chances are, she won’t apologize — or be asked to do anything of the kind.

LuPone spoke to the New Yorker magazine for a fawning profile, and this part of the feature seemed to sneak past the editors as something cute, not horrifying.

“She’s even angrier at the rest of the country. She told me, more than once, that the Trumpified Kennedy Center ‘should get blown up,'” the profile reads.

When they go low, we Google detonation devices.

Sweeney, take me away!

We don’t deserve Sydney Sweeney.

Not only is the comely star eager to flaunt her curves sans apology, but she’s also come up with a product that speaks to her tongue-wagging admirers.

Introducing Sydney’s Bathwater Bliss. The new soap product, according to manufacturer Dr. Squatch, features a “touch” of the starlet’s bathwater.

“When your fans start asking for your bathwater, you can either ignore it or turn it into a bar of Dr. Squatch soap,” Sweeney said in a release. “It’s weird in the best way, and I love that we created something that’s not just unforgettable; it actually smells incredible and delivers like every other Dr. Squatch product I love.”

Not too long ago, Sweeney’s fellow starlet Rachel Zegler told half the country they should “never know peace.”

This feels like a slight improvement on Hollywood’s PR front, no?

​Hollywood, Entertainment, Culture, Movies, Barry diller, Jimmy kimmel, Bono, U2, Bruce springsteen, Toto recall 

Canada could soon be booted from NORAD, the binational aerospace defense system it has shared with the U.S. since 1958.

The reason? Once again backing away from its commitment to replace its decrepit F-18s with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the jet that is used by the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and Marines.

Canada has a long history of … putting off the acquisition of military aircraft until they are nearing obsolescence when finally delivered.

Canada needs to buy the F-35 to be compatible with the U.S., as well as with the other principal allies that Canada also flies with: the U.K. and Australia.

East Alaska?

But President Donald Trump hinted at a way his penny-pinching neighbors to the north could get around the costly upgrade: Join the U.S. as its 51st state.

Who needs NORAD when you can enjoy the benefits of Trump’s ambitious Golden Dome missile defense shield — free of charge?

“I told Canada, which very much wants to be part of our fabulous Golden Dome System, that it will cost $61 Billion Dollars if they remain a separate, but unequal, Nation, but will cost ZERO DOLLARS if they become our cherished 51st State,” Trump posted on Truth Social Tuesday.

“They are considering the offer!” the president couldn’t resist adding.

Straight man

Canada was quick to play the straight man to Trump’s trolling.

A spokesperson for Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney said: “The prime minister has been clear at every opportunity, including in his conversations with president Trump, that Canada is an independent, sovereign nation, and it will remain one,” according to the Financial Times.

Carney ordered a review of the F-35 purchase in March, insisting that Canada could be better served with fighter jets produced by Sweden, France, or the U.K. Although Britain remains a primary military partner, Canada does virtually no military training or operations with Sweden or France.

That suggestion has prompted U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra to note that any cancellation of the F-35 contract would have serious consequences for Canada — including threatening NORAD, over which the two countries have maintained joint command of operations for almost 60 years.

Plane speaking

“I think that’s worked pretty well for the U.S., and it’s worked well for Canada. It’s, I think, one of the only, if not the only, bilateral military relationship in the world. So I think it would, but, I mean, there’s criteria, OK, and some of those criteria are being questioned right now,” Hoekstra told CTV News.

Hoekstra continued:

One of the criteria for NORAD is interchangeability and interoperability. So that would mean that, you know, we’re flying the same kinds of planes, we’re using the parts, and, you know, it’s all interchangeable. It’s one system. You know, Canada is challenging that; they’ve made a decision to buy F-35s; that’s now up for review. If Canadians are flying one airplane, we’re flying another airplane, it’s no longer interchangeable. And so that might even threaten NORAD, without talking about new alliances that promise even more security and safety to our people.

It’s not clear whether Hoekstra’s comments were designed for Trump to open the door on Golden Dome negotiations, but he has nonetheless exposed one of the more absurd and potentially tragic exercises in Canadian military procurement.

Jet set

Canada has a long history of either sabotaging its own aerospace industry — as with the cancellation of the famed Avro Arrow in 1958 — or by putting off the acquisition of military aircraft until they are nearing obsolescence when finally delivered.

The F-35 is another case in point. Canada has dithered so long on its decision to buy or not to buy that sixth-generation fighter jet technology is now on the horizon.

Incredibly, the government of Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien first signed on to the F-35 program in 2002. Even though that was almost 25 years ago, Canada has managed through successive governments never to see the delivery of one aircraft.

Chretien refused to make a decision on the F-35, as did his successor, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who toyed with Canada’s air force for nine years over the deal. Meanwhile, the military continued to fly the F-18/A, as it had since 1982.

Today, those jets are over 45 years old.

Justin Trudeau campaigned in 2015 on a pledge never to buy the F-35, but after eight years of reviewing other aircraft, he flip-flopped on that promise in January 2023 and agreed to buy 88 of the jets at a cost of $85 million (USD) each.

Hoekstra’s comments sent a clear message: fish or cut bait. Enough with using military spending as a political poker chip; upgrade to the F-35 or leave NORAD.

In response, Carney offered more dithering.

“The review of the F-35 contract is ongoing,” he said at a news conference last week. “There’s many factors that come into that interoperability that would relate to the NORAD element. There’s value for money, broader Canadian industrial impacts. All of those are factors that are under consideration.”

​Donald trump, Mark carney, Norad, Golden dome, Defense, Military, Culture, F-35, Arvo arrow, Letter from canada