Category: blaze media

You see it constantly, some version of this claim: “The cost of child care is the single biggest obstacle to working women and families.”

From there come the familiar conclusions: “The state needs to subsidize child care.” “We need affordable day care for working moms.”

No, we don’t.

While claiming to elevate women, feminism has steadily lowered the status of motherhood and homemaking.

What we need is to recognize that it’s not normal — nor healthy — for children to be farmed out to strangers during their earliest years so that Mom can be “more than just a mom” with her career.

Yes, there are millions of families in which both parents must work to keep a roof over their heads. But there are millions more who don’t need two incomes. What gets called “need” is often just lifestyle expectation. What children actually need rarely enters the calculation.

Luxury expectations

Modern expectations in 2026 America look less like necessity and more like luxury — something closer to the “hands-off” child-rearing of aristocratic households than to ordinary family life.

People talk about “affordable day care” as if it were self-evidently necessary. It isn’t. It only sounds that way because repetition has made it seem normal.

Behind it sits an unspoken belief: “It is right and proper — even ideal — to leave our children with hired strangers for most of the day.”

Even 40 years ago, that would not have sounded normal. Most people still believed that all else being equal, children were best raised by their mothers (and with a father in the home). Day care might be necessary — but it was understood as a regrettable second-best option.

Today, even many conservatives won’t question it. To do so invites accusations of harming mothers or failing to support “hardworking single moms.”

But prolonged parental absence is not neutral. Children need their mothers, especially in their early years. We can cite studies, but we don’t need them to see what’s plainly in front of us.

Strikingly, the people who claim to “need” day care are often those who don’t. What they want is a standard of living that would have been considered extravagant a generation or two ago.

RELATED: Socialist Mamdani rolls out costly ‘free’ child care program to NYC workers — after crying financial crisis

Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images

Maxed-out minimums

Take Democrat Rep. Brittany Pettersen of Colorado. She has cultivated an image as a sainted working mother, bringing her small child onto the House floor while lamenting the lack of day care for “working moms.”

There’s just one problem: Congress has had full-time day care on Capitol Hill since 1987.

What’s happening here isn’t necessity — it’s performance. The question she avoids is whether her child’s needs might outweigh the demands of a camera-facing career.

And it’s not just politicians. Middle-class Americans have adopted a set of “minimum” expectations that earlier generations would have recognized as indulgent:

Two cars (preferably full-size SUVs). Separate bedrooms for each child. A full slate of extracurriculars. No trade-offs between career ambition and motherhood. Children’s needs subordinated to adult preferences. Government support for single parenthood without fathers in the home.

Modern-day Tudors

In the feudal world, there was a distinction between a woman and a lady. A woman belonged to the working class; a lady to the aristocracy.

Women raised their children directly — feeding them, caring for them, folding them into the rhythms of daily life. Ladies did not.

In the Tudor royal court, for example, a noblewoman did not breastfeed. A wet nurse was hired in advance and took over immediately. Children were raised by nurses, governesses, and tutors, with parents appearing only intermittently.

The result was distance — emotional, developmental, and often moral.

For all our technological differences, the psychology isn’t so different today. The aristocratic habits of detachment have been democratized. What was once a marker of nobility is now treated as a baseline expectation.

There are better models to follow.

An old-fashioned approach

I have a friend, Tasha, a Catholic mother of nine. Her husband works full-time; she manages the home.

They don’t have two SUVs. They don’t have a large house. But they have what they need: a home, a van that fits everyone, good food, clean clothes, and a stable, loving family life.

How does she do it? The way families did for generations — before the late-20th-century promise that women could “have it all” and should expect it immediately.

She shops carefully. Buys in bulk. Reuses what she can. She hasn’t outfitted each child with personal screens to keep them isolated. Her household is structured around shared life, not individual consumption.

Degraded status

While claiming to elevate women, feminism has steadily lowered the status of motherhood and homemaking. For decades, we’ve heard that women are “more than just mothers,” that raising children prevents them from “being someone.”

Consider what that sounds like to a child.

The desire for status is natural — for men and women alike. Motherhood once carried that status. As it has been stripped away, many women seek it elsewhere.

But the substitute — career-first identity combined with outsourced child-rearing — is narcissistic, materialistic, and ultimately unsatisfying. It can be hard on families and hard on children.

It’s also hard on mothers themselves. I’ve known many women who report that their contentment increased when they let go of “girlboss” career-woman expectations to concentrate on raising their children and making the home a nurturing place for their families.

Where now?

How do we fix this? I don’t know. Many Western families can’t get by on a single income. Men who want to be good providers can work hard and it’s still not enough. Some mothers need to work.

But we can acknowledge that economic reality without accepting how it has distorted us. We can stop demanding a government solution to what is fundamentally a problem of values. We need to reacquaint ourselves with what we really are as men and women and what we really need. I can’t give a road map for how to achieve this. But it has to start by hauling our aristocratic assumptions into the sunlight and seeing them for what they are.

​Lifestyle, Culture, Motherhood, Day care, Babies, Childcare, Intervention 

Watching the reports out of Old Dominion University following the terrorist attack last month, the details came in the way they always do. Confusion. Fear. Families waiting for answers that arrive agonizingly slow.

There are no clever observations for moments like this. Only grief, a sober anger at what has been done, and a quiet respect for those who move toward danger despite the risks.

In the hours that followed, law enforcement stood before the microphones and said something familiar about the terrorist.

Past behavior predicts future performance.

The gospel does not offer a refined version of our past. It replaces it.

It was not delivered with edge or indignation. It sounded more like a sigh, the kind that comes from seeing the same pattern unfold one too many times.

We all understand what that means.

As Americans stood in grief, that phrase was repeated as the events were recounted. Members of the media, pundits, and political officials picked it up as well, and it echoed for days. And it lingered. You know how some phrases land hard and stay with you?

Past behavior predicts future performance.

I couldn’t shake it. It followed me for several weeks. As Easter approached, that phrase pressed further.

While the pattern is clearly seen in terrorists and career criminals, the harder question is whether that diagnosis is limited to them. Or does that diagnosis reach further — into the human condition itself?

The apostle Paul describes the same struggle with unsettling honesty, doing what he does not want to do and returning to what he knows he should leave behind. The issue is not merely what we do, but what we are by nature.

That uncomfortable truth points to something we recognize much closer to home — not in acts of terror or even criminal behavior, but in patterns we cannot seem to break. We see that uncomfortable truth in the anger that resurfaces, the grudges we carry, the actions we excuse and quietly return to.

Our actions are different in degree, certainly. They are not the same in consequence — but not unrelated.

Scripture does not blur those distinctions, but it does press deeper than behavior. And that is where the discomfort settles in.

RELATED: Scripture or slogans — you have to choose

Godong/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

Because if this is not just “out there,” then we are not merely observers of the pattern. It’s one thing to recognize the pattern in others. It’s another to consider whether it touches us as well. And that raises a question most of us would rather not sit with for long.

Are we simply watching something broken in the world, or are we looking at something that runs through us as well?

Because if it is the latter, then the problem is not occasional, but continual.

It is not just in headlines, it is in our hearts. And that is a harder place to stay.

Because if the future depends on us, then the trajectory is not uncertain. It is already set.

Our culture often insists that we are basically good people.

If so, then why would we need a savior? If not, then what are the implications?

The men who framed this country wrestled with that thought. They did not build a system on the assumption that people would consistently do what is right or that they are basically good. They built a government filled with oversight that restrains what is wrong, because they knew what resides in the human heart eventually shows up in government.

Which raises a harder question than any press conference can answer.

What breaks the pattern?

Because history suggests we do not. We adjust, we regulate, we respond, and all of that has its place. But none of it reaches far enough to change what drives the pattern in the first place.

And this is precisely where Easter speaks.

RELATED: Where Easter really comes from

Bernard Jaubert/UCG/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

It’s not that people try harder or gradually become better versions of themselves. Left to ourselves, we cannot change. We must be changed.

The gospel does not offer a refined version of our past. It replaces it. Not my record, but His. Not a cleaned-up life, but a different standing altogether.

What Scripture calls sin is not managed at the cross. It is judged. And what we could not produce is given.

That is why the Resurrection matters.

Because death has always been the final confirmation that the pattern holds. It is where every life, left to itself, arrives. But if death itself is overturned, then the pattern it confirms is no longer absolute.

Something has interrupted it.

The apostle Paul captured it in a single phrase:

“And such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

Were.

Left to ourselves, the pattern holds. It always has. But Easter declares that we are not left to ourselves.

Past behavior may predict future performance. It often does. But it is no longer the final authority.

Because the One who stepped into history, took our past upon Himself, and walked out of the grave now defines the future of all who belong to Him.

Not a second chance or a fresh start, but a new standing.

Not my record, but His. And that changes everything.

​Easter, Old dominion university attack, Jesus, Christians, Gospel, Sacrifice, Apostle paul, Savior, Christ, Opinion & analysis, Resurrection 

On April 1, NASA launched the Orion spacecraft from Kennedy Space Center in the first crewed lunar journey in over 50 years.

While some celebrated the news as a historic feat, others condemned it as a waste of resources and an overstepping of natural limits.

“I had a lot of people push back and say, ‘Glenn, space is a waste of money, and it’s our Tower of Babel trying to make ourselves look so great,”’ Glenn Beck says.

But he disagrees. “I don’t look at it that way. I look at it from the view of an explorer, and I believe God wants us to explore.”

On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn speaks with Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross about the ethics of space travel from a biblical perspective and the conspiracy theory that the first moon landing was fake.

Ross agrees with Glenn that space exploration does not overstep godly boundaries.

“He made us curious. … I think God gave us a curiosity for a reason. He really does want us to explore, but I think He also wants us to do it in the most efficient and effective way possible,” he says.

Glenn then pivots to the conspiracy theorists who hold that the 1969 moon landing — when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were live-broadcasted walking on the moon — was a hoax.

“A lot of people say we never even went to the moon the first time. … Did we go to the moon, and does it matter?” he asks Ross.

“I actually got to watch the moon landing live on television when I was much younger,” Ross says, “and what really thrilled me was watching Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong putting up a laser reflector.”

“There’s now three laser reflectors on the moon. Physicists beam laser beams off them every single day, and it’s because of those laser reflectors that the Apollo astronauts put on the moon that we’re able to test theories of gravity to a degree we’ve never been able to do before,” he adds.

But these laser reflectors aren’t the only proof.

“The vehicles left behind by the astronauts are still there, and they’re being photographed on a regular basis,” he explains.

Glenn then likens moon landing deniers to the people who contend there’s no evidence that the Great Flood documented in Genesis actually happened.

But Ross has spent years gathering scientific and biblical evidence to argue the contrary. His new book, “Noah’s Flood Revisited,” is a deep dive into his theory that the flood indeed happened — just not the way many have traditionally interpreted it.

To hear Ross explain his fascinating theory, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, Blazetv, Blaze media, Ross hughes, Christianity, Space exploration, Race to the moon, Artemis ii 

The late Christopher Hitchens had no shortage of objections to Christianity. But he reserved special contempt for hell — a doctrine he believed reduced faith to fear and the divine to a “celestial dictatorship.” A God willing to resort to such primitive extortion was hardly worthy of man’s admiration, let alone worship.

Hitchens also certainly knew that bringing up eternal damnation was a good way to unsettle his Christian sparring partners, who often seemed vaguely embarrassed by the punitive side of the faith.

‘I am no longer shocked by the realization that I may be judged,’ he wrote later. ‘It has ever after been obvious to me.’

Peter Hitchens had no such compunctions. Although he was every bit the cosmopolitan sophisticate his older brother was, it was precisely fear — base, desperate, and visceral — that led him back to the Anglicanism of his British childhood.

He was well aware of how unfashionable a motivation this was. “No doubt I should be ashamed to confess that fear played a part in my return to religion,” he later wrote in his 2010 memoir “The Rage Against God.”

The gift of fear

But it was the truth, and he was too rigorously honest to pretend otherwise. Besides, moments in his career as a globe-trotting journalist — crashing a motorcycle, dodging gunfire, confronting an angry mob — had taught him that fear could be a gift, a way of focusing the mind on what was essential to survive. Who was to say that it couldn’t produce the same clarity in matters of the soul?

The crucial moment happened not in some far-off danger zone, but on a vacation in Burgundy with his then-girlfriend.

There, seeking a break from fine food and wine, he dutifully made a brief cultural excursion. Standing before the famous Beaune Altarpiece, 15th-century painter Rogier van der Weyden’s massive polyptych depicting the Last Judgment, Hitchens initially expected very little.

Instead, he found himself rooted to the spot, mouth agape in terror.

The figures in the painting did not seem distant or medieval. “They were my own generation,” he wrote. Naked and therefore stripped of period detail, they seemed unnervingly modern — recognizable, immediate. “They were me and the people I knew.”

One detail stayed with him: a figure recoiling in terror, “vomiting with shock and fear at the sound of the Last Trump.”

Good and evil

The encounter forced him to confront something he had spent years dismissing — that the Christian account of judgment, of good and evil, might not be a relic of the past but a description of reality.

Raised in the Church of England, Hitchens discovered atheism as a teenager. As the 1960s gave way to the ’70s, this adolescent rebellion gave way to an enthusiastic embrace of revolutionary politics with confidence. Reason and progress, Hitchens believed, could create a far more durable moral order than religion ever had. Like many of his generation, he assumed that once Christianity faded, nothing essential would be lost.

Experience had already chipped away at this faith in humanity. His reporting had taken him to societies where ideological systems had already tried to replace older moral frameworks. What he found — especially in the Soviet sphere—was not liberation but repression. Systems that promised a new moral order instead revealed how fragile moral claims become when they rest on nothing beyond power.

Then came that worn yet still vivid tableau, before which the 30-something Hitchens “trembled for the things of which my conscience was afraid.”

RELATED: Chuck Norris: Martial arts legend who submitted to a mother’s prayers

Sunset Boulevard/Getty Images

Inevitable judgment

“I am no longer shocked by the realization that I may be judged,” he wrote later. “It has ever after been obvious to me.”

That recognition did not produce instant conversion. But it changed him. A year later, faced with a private moral decision, he found himself held back — by the same fear of doing wrong. “Without Rogier van der Weyden,” he wrote, “I might have done that thing.”

Hitchens did not return to Christianity for comfort. His account of faith is unsentimental, grounded in the belief that moral reality is not something we create and certainly not something we can escape.

The latter fact can chafe, leading to a rejection of God that is nowhere near as rational as its proponents would like to think. Instead, argues Hitchens, it amounts to a wishful thinking no less deranging than any “pie in the sky” sentimentality.

The most urgent question

That conviction has shaped his public life ever since.

Today, Hitchens defends Christianity not as a private belief or cultural artifact, but as the foundation for any coherent understanding of justice, responsibility, and human worth. Remove it, he argues, and what remains is not freedom but confusion — and, eventually, coercion.

The two brothers — one a leading “New Atheist” and author of “God Is Not Great”; the other the most outspoken defender of Britain’s disappearing Christian heritage — may not seem to to have had much in common.

But what they did share is a willingness to challenge a sacred assumption of modern life: that faith is optional, interchangeable, and purely subjective.

To both Peter and Christopher Hitchens, the question could not be more urgent. To ignore it leads to hell — either here on Earth on in eternity. Wherever we think we’re headed, the beginning of wisdom is to undertake the journey with our eyes open.

​Christopher hitchens, Peter hitchens, Rage against god, Lifestyle, Religion, Art, The last judgment, Hell, Rogier van der weyden, Beaune altarpiece, Culture, Atheism, Christianity, Converts, Faith 

For many people across the U.S., Easter Sunday means pastel-colored clothes, jelly beans, Cadbury eggs, or marshmallow Peeps. But Easter is far more than a cultural tradition or seasonal celebration. It is a declaration that should actually shape the way we live and has the power to transform lives: He is risen!

That truth, echoed by believers all around the world every Easter Sunday, is the foundation of a faith that calls us not to a life of comfort, but to a life of commitment.

To follow Christ is not only to receive the hope of eternal life, but to carry that hope into the world around us.

Too often, we treat Christianity as a system designed to make life easier, provide emotional reassurance, or help us get something from God. Scripture makes it clear, and believers throughout history have experienced, that true Christianity costs us something. It calls for surrender, obedience, and a willingness to follow Christ even when the path is difficult.

It’s natural to gravitate toward a version of Christianity that prioritizes comfort over sacrificial living. But in truth, persecution and hardships are not only possible but an expected outcome for a life of wholehearted devotion to following Christ.

Jesus Christ, our example, willingly left the comfort of heaven’s glory to enter a broken world and dwell among us. He lived among the very people He created, walking dusty roads, experiencing hunger and fatigue, facing rejection and temptation, enduring suffering — all ultimately to make the Father known.

Throughout His ministry, He healed the sick, fed the hungry, and performed miracles — yet He never wanted people to follow Him merely for those “simple” benefits.

During Jesus’ ministry on earth, massive crowds followed Him simply for the possibility of free bread. They wanted miracles and meals. But He wanted them to look past all of that and see that the true gift was Himself. “I am the bread of life,” He told them. “Believe in me!”

Only a few individuals would see past their own desires and take the step to say, “I believe, and I will follow you no matter what.” As a result, they would be forever changed and go on to change the world.

RELATED: Where Easter really comes from

Bernard Jaubert/UCG/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

This is the truth of the Christian life: Following Christ requires us to embrace discomfort, sacrifice, and even suffering. The Bible does not hide this reality, but Easter reframes that suffering in light of something greater.

The cross is not the end of the story.

On that first Easter morning, everything changed. Jesus’ resurrection was not only a victory over death, but a promise that suffering does not have the final word. Sin, brokenness, and the grave were defeated. Because of this, even while withstanding hardship, believers can live with an unshakable hope rooted in the promise of eternity.

As we read in 2 Corinthians 4:17-18, “For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen.”

And this hope is not meant to be kept to ourselves.

Years ago, a friend of mine who was overseas asked a shop owner, “Excuse me, sir, do you know Jesus Christ?” The man turned around and said, “We’ve got Pepsi, we’ve got Coke, but we don’t have Jesus Christ.” He had never heard the name of Jesus, so he thought Jesus Christ was a new soft drink.

As someone who grew up in different cultures, I’ve seen firsthand the harsh truth that many people around the world still haven’t heard the gospel.

Here in Texas where I live now — in the heart of the Bible Belt — it can seem like there is a church on every corner. On the other hand, I have gone more than 300 miles in some countries without passing a single church. As ambassadors for Christ, we still have so much work to do.

After all, even in places like Texas, we have neighbors, co-workers, and friends who may recognize the name of Jesus but do not really understand what His death and resurrection are all about.

For many, Easter remains a holiday without meaning, a tradition without truth.

This is where the calling of every believer becomes both a responsibility and a privilege.

RELATED: Easter changes everything: What the empty tomb means for you today

Urupong/Getty Images

To follow Christ is not only to receive the hope of eternal life, but to carry that hope into the world around us. It is to reflect His love and choose to live so that others are drawn to the reality of who He is.

That calling may be uncomfortable, to require us to step outside our routines, and even to risk rejection, but it is also one of the greatest privileges we are given: to bring light into a suffering world.

Easter is a time to remember Christ’s sacrifice and His victory over sin, Satan, and death. He poured out His life so that we might partake of Him and be made like Him. That process requires obedience, faithfulness, and self-denial.

But for all who trust Him and choose to live for Him as an act of worship, He will fill them with His presence. He will refresh, replenish, and empower us to bring His healing presence into the world around us.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearReligion and made available via RealClearWire.

​Easter, Resurrection, Easter sunday, Jesus, Jesus christ, Christians, Christianity, First easter, Hope, Discipleship, Opinion & analysis, Faith 

Scripture has many warnings about anger. Ephesians 4:31 tells us to put away “all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor.” Psalm 37:8 warns against anger and wrath. James 1:20 says “the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.”

And yet, anger is an emotion we all experience. Even Jesus himself expressed it at times.

So how do we know when our anger is righteous and when it leads us into rebellion against God?

On a recent episode of “Unashamed,” Al and Jase addressed this very question, drawing on the longstanding wisdom of their father, Phil Robertson — the late beloved patriarch of the family.

The key, they explain, is examining what the anger is rooted in. Righteous anger, when boiled down, is ultimately an overflow of love rather than hate.

Al shares a personal example.

“My dad … became angry at me when the lifestyle that I was living was against the covenant of our family,” he reflects.

“I took that as I was being forsaken and shunned by him, … but I was 180 degrees wrong. The only reason he had that conversation is because he did love me.”

When Al finally turned from his prodigal ways, his father’s anger immediately gave way, revealing the deep love that had fueled it all along.

“When I came back, guess who was right there waiting — not with hate, not with forsakenness, not with separation, but, ‘Welcome home, son’? The same dad,” he says. “Why? Because his love for me never stopped.”

“A lot of times people think anger is a sin, but it’s not a sin. Anger can lead you to sin,” Al continues, noting that the Bible mentions anger “over 600 times,” but “85% of the 600 times, God is the one who’s angry.”

To hear the Robertsons dive deeper into the powerful tension between God’s love and wrath — especially how they beautifully intersect at the cross — watch the episode above.

Want more from the Robertsons?

To enjoy more on God, guns, ducks, and inspiring stories of faith and family, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Unashamed, Unashamed with phil robertson, Robertson family, Al robertson, Jase robertson, Phil robertson, Anger, Righteous anger, God’s wrath, Christianity, Blazetv, Blaze media 

Just because something sounds Christian doesn’t mean that it is. Nobody knows this better than BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey, who frequently exposes lies wrapped in Christian-sounding language

On this episode of “Relatable,” Allie unravels three common “Christian mythical mottos” and shines a light on the deception underneath.

Myth #1: “Christianity is a relationship. It’s not a religion.”

Allie acknowledges that this phrase is usually employed with good intentions — typically when Christians are evangelizing specifically to people who have “come out of legalism” or are brand-new to Christianity and are “confused about some of the rules and the standards.”

In these cases, the evangelizer is most often trying to push someone “into daily conversation with and pursuit of Jesus.”

“And there is part of that that is really true and really good,” says Allie.

“Christianity says that you can have a relationship with God right now, no matter what you’ve done or who you are, by grace through faith in Jesus. Okay? So yes, Christianity is a relationship,” she concedes.

But that doesn’t change the fact that it is “also a religion.”

“If you look at the roots of the word ‘religion,’ you can go all the way back to the ancient use of the Latin word, which is relegere,” meaning “to go through again — especially in thought or in word,” Allie explains.

“I love this connection because it implies a routine, a habit, a discipline of repetition that turns an isolated belief into a pattern of thought that dictates a person’s life.”

Another closely related Latin word — religāre — means to “bind again or to tie back.”

“You’ll notice the shared prefix in these words, which is re-. It’s the prefix that we see in repeat, rehearse, rebound, redo. Re- … means to do it again, to repeat,” says Allie.

“Christian religion is the practice of rebinding ourselves to the things of God … rebinding ourselves through grace-filled effort — Holy Spirit-inspired effort — to His wisdom, His ways, the good things of the Christian life.”

Citing the book of James, which explicitly refers to Christianity as a “religion,” Allie concludes, “Scripture does not preach that our Christian faith is not a religion; rather, it’s the one true religion. Religion and relationship in Christianity are not pitted against each other.”

Myth #2: “God answers all of our prayers; the answer might just be no.”

“It is true that God says no; it is not true that God answers every prayer,” Allie says frankly.

The Bible, she explains, explicitly outlines several “kinds of people” whose prayers God may ignore: “those who have personal and selfish motives” (James 4:3); “those who remain in sin and will not heed God’s law” (John 9:31; Proverbs 28:9); “those who offer unworthy service to God” (Malachi 1:8-9); “those who reject God’s call or have no faith” (James 1:6-7); “those who are violent” (Isaiah 1:15); “those who are self-righteous” (Luke 18:11-14); and “those who mistreat God’s people (Micah 3: 2, 4).

“There are several other passages that we could go through that indicate that God sometimes does not hear or does not respond at all to certain prayers due to a person’s heart condition, motives, or relationship with Him,” says Allie.

For Christians, however, who the Bible says are free to approach God’s throne with confidence (Hebrews 4:16), she says it’s difficult to determine whether or not God answers all their prayers.

“I simply don’t know for sure that the answer is always that God is responding to every single prayer that a Christian has … but we do know for sure that for the nonbeliever, it is not true that God hears and answers every prayer,” Allie says.

Myth #3: “Share the gospel; when necessary, use words.”

This maxim expresses the idea that “we preach the gospel by just how we treat people” and that “preaching at people and trying to push religion down their throats is not something that’s going to be convincing,” says Allie.

“It is true that your life serves as an inspiration. It is true that what we do absolutely matters and how we live our life is a testimony to what we believe — 100%.”

But this doesn’t excuse us from the biblical mandate to take the gospel to all nations.

“We are called to preach the gospel with our words. If anyone could have preached the gospel only using deeds, it would have been Jesus, because Jesus perfectly lived out the gospel in his actions. And yet he didn’t just do the deeds. … He constantly preached the gospel using his words,” says Allie.

Between Jesus’ example and the many verses that call believers to speak the gospel (Romans 10:14, 17; 2 Timothy 4:1-2), there is no escaping the reality that Christianity is “a word-based faith.”

“The Bible obviously strongly affirms that our actions, our love, our holy living must back up our message and that hypocrisy undermines it, and it also repeatedly emphasizes the gospel itself must be verbally proclaimed,” Allie concludes.

To hear more, 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, Blaze podcasts, Christianity, Christian myths 

The soccer president from the tiny island nation of Curaçao says divine intervention has brought his team to the World Cup and, in turn, to the United States and in front of President Trump.

The executive’s faith is also what has him confidently saying that everyone involved will lead with love, including the president.

‘President Trump will make sure that this will be a World Cup that will not be [forgotten].’

Gilbert Martina, president of the Curaçao Football Federation, humbly avoided bragging about his hard work that turned his nation’s soccer program around. Instead, he credited a long but fruitful “divine journey.”

In an interview with Blaze News, Martina spoke in detail about his many run-ins with divine intervention, including his trip to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., in December.

There, at the World Cup draw, he sat just a few yards away from Trump and came to believe that Trump will act with love and grace to make it the biggest World Cup in history.

“We are all spiritual beings, and we have to take care of each other, and we have to globalize love,” Martina passionately decreed. “And football unites. That’s the slogan of FIFA. So I’m sure all stakeholders and even President Trump will make sure that this will be a World Cup that will not be [forgotten], ever, because it’s the biggest on this planet.”

RELATED: Unpaid bill has Foxboro refusing to grant license for World Cup games at Gillette Stadium

Your browser does not support the video tag.

Divine intervention

The former insurance director and CEO of a medical center attributed most of his accomplishments to his divine journey with spirituality and faith. This starts with daily gratefulness, prayer, and meditation before preparing for what is ahead, Martina said.

Persistently pointing to this divine journey, he said he always believed his country would qualify for the World Cup. He offered no other explanation as to how such a small nation could unite in under a year for “a greater purpose.”

“With the universe, with God, with the cosmos, whatever name we want to give it,” his team started “co-creating beauty,” he explained. “Then the magic happens.”

Martina also said there were too many instances and overlapping themes to ignore. On the very day he got the job as president of Curaçao Football Federation in April 2025, he predicted to his wife that his team would make the World Cup.

“There is no coincidence,” Martina declared.

RELATED: Seattle plans World Cup ‘Pride match’ — and two countries that prosecute gays will play in it

ANGEL BATTA/AFP/Getty Images

Putting in the work

What the executive also explained — without giving himself the proper credit — was how he brought his country out of the Stone Age in terms of organization and formalities.

Before his election as president of Curaçao’s soccer federation, the tiny country of about 150,000 had a program that was in shambles. Hotels and travel were not organized, players were not paid on time, and soccer teams within the country were at odds.

“Too much distraction,” Martina said, expressing the stress of the job. “There’s so much things that we had to professionalize, and so that was the focus.”

He continued, “Because if they’re not focused [on qualifying] … you will have too much distraction.”

After Martina became president, Curaçao went undefeated in eight matches (five wins, three ties) and qualified for the World Cup. There, the team will share Group E with Germany, the Ivory Coast, and Ecuador, with its first game against Germany on June 14.

Message for others

Martina compared his approach to life, and to a successful nation, with a hummingbird.

“A hummingbird isn’t going to a garbage nest at KFC or Pizza Hut. A hummingbird always goes for the best nectar, the best flowers, because that’s the best of the best,” he said, mirroring advice he gives in his book, “Healthy Minds, Healthy Nation.”

Martina insisted that people should strive for the best, whether it is in performance, organization, or even nutrition.

“That’s a powerful message. … When we are able to convert that into our daily life, purpose, and intention, beautiful things happen.”

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

​Fearless, World cup, Soccer, President trump, Football, United states, Curacao, Faith, Religion, Christianity, Sports 

It’s known as the Easterlin paradox.

Though rising wealth at early stages in the lives of individuals and countries fosters greater happiness, perpetually rising wealth does not make individuals or countries perpetually happier. At some point, economics Professor Richard Easterlin of the University of Pennsylvania and USC discovered, more wealth engenders less happiness.

Private capital mindfully allocated can both do well and do good.

This paradox may be best illustrated with U.S. data. Total U.S. household wealth exceeded $182 trillion at the end of 2025, up 466% from an inflation-adjusted $39 trillion in 1980. Yet in 1980, 82% of Americans described themselves as satisfied versus only 44% of Americans today — a decline of nearly half. Similarly, in 1980, only 20% of Americans described themselves as lonely. Today, it’s 40%.

Paradoxically, more American wealth has made Americans less happy and fostered an epidemic of loneliness. Why is this, and what can be done about it?

According to the Human Flourishing Program at Harvard University, happiness and life satisfaction are only partly material in nature. Work and basic housing, health care, and material attributes are important, of course — but no more so than family relationships and friendships, community engagement, and religious affiliations.

These factors are best promoted through nurturing homes, quality education, and supportive work environments. Character formation is essential for personal meaning and purpose.

Harvard scholars clearly derived much of their insight from Aristotle. In his “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle observed that multiple civic virtues were essential for eudaimonia (his term for flourishing or happiness). These include temperance, magnanimity, courage, generosity, modesty, proper ambition, sincerity, and justice.

Inculcating these virtues throughout society requires commonality of purpose, excellent education, strong families, and enlightened leadership.

One way wealthier people could foster greater happiness — their own and that of others — is to use a portion of their wealth to promote greater human flourishing.. The best way to do this is to invest in companies and funds that authentically support and multiply greater inclusivity, wholesome products and services, and higher civic virtue.

RELATED: Right-wing billionaires are barking up the wrong tree

IsoLab/Getty Images

In short, private capital mindfully allocated can both do well and do good — that is to say, earn reasonable risk-adjusted returns while simultaneously resolving humanity’s material, educational, environmental, social, and inclusivity challenges.

Fortunately, a lot could be accomplished with relatively little. My research shows that all of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals could be achieved in under a decade if ultra-high-net-worth investors allocated no more than 1.6% of their total investable assets a year to verified impact investment strategies; the other 98.4% could continue to be spent or invested however they wish.

Replacing material-driven misery with abundant happiness is an idea whose time has come. If wealthy investors spent a little more effort understanding what their investments could do as opposed to only what financial returns they make, they would help co-create a world of optimal wealth, purpose, and fulfillment. And instead of being a partial cause of their growing discontent, successful investing could become an integral part of the cure.

Material abundance can directly foster rather than undermine human flourishing.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

​Wealth, Wealth creation, Money can’t buy happiness, Easterlin paradox, Household wealth, Human flourishing, Aristotle, Un, Opinion & analysis 

If you had to summarize what Christians believe in as few words as possible, you could do worse than “He is risen.”

In fact, the resurrection is so central to the faith that believers and nonbelievers alike often lose sight of it. In arguing over what Jesus said and what he meant by it and whether or not his moral prescriptions make sense in our “enlightened” 21st century, it’s easy to skip over the one simple, historical question at the heart of it all.

Even ex-evangelists like Ehrman accept that Paul genuinely believed he had an encounter with the risen Jesus.

Did the first-century Jewish leader known as Jesus of Nazareth, executed by Roman authorities in Judea circa A.D. 33, come back from the dead?

If he didn’t, Christianity is nothing more than a nice set of lessons and aphorisms. If he did, well, even the staunchest anti-Christian has some explaining to do.

He is risen. It’s such an embarrassingly outlandish claim, and so obscured by the mists of time, that it is easy to see why even some Christians are tempted to hedge and say it’s a metaphor.

But when you look at the evidence, the “it’s just a story” line gets harder to maintain.

Here are eight reasons why. Have a blessed Easter.

1. The tomb really was empty

If Jesus’ body were still in the grave, Christianity ends before it begins. The movement started in Jerusalem, within weeks of the crucifixion, under hostile scrutiny. Had the authorities been able to produce a body, they certainly would have.

Even the non-Christian historian Michael Grant acknowledged that historians, applying normal standards, cannot simply dismiss the empty tomb. The earliest counterclaim (first reported in the Gospel of Matthew) — that the disciples stole the body — concedes the point: The tomb was empty.

2. The first witnesses were the least credible

All four Gospels agree on an awkward detail: Women discovered the empty tomb first.

As even skeptical scholar Bart D. Ehrman has pointed out, this is not the kind of detail early Christians would be likely to invent in a culture where female testimony carried less weight. If you’re crafting a persuasive story, you don’t start here.

3. The disciples’ behavior doesn’t make sense otherwise

Before the Resurrection, Jesus’ followers were scattered, afraid, and in hiding. Afterward, they were publicly proclaiming that he had risen — at real personal cost, knowing it could mean persecution or even martyrdom.

New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders — hardly anyone’s idea of a biblical fundamentalist — wrote: “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.”

4. The earliest testimony is too early to be legend

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul presents a creedal formula about Jesus’ death and Resurrection that predates the Gospels:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve (1 Corinthians 15:3-5, NIV).

New Testament scholar James D.G. Dunn dates this material to within just a few years of the crucifixion. That’s far too early for legend to develop, with no time for stories to evolve, circulate, and displace living eyewitnesses who could correct them.

5. There are multiple, overlapping eyewitness claims

We don’t just have one Resurrection story. We have multiple early accounts and traditions, including the four detailed narratives presented by the Gospels.

According to Richard Bauckham, the Gospels are best understood as closely tied to eyewitness testimony. Why? Because they read like accounts anchored to real people — named witnesses, stable core details, and traditions formed while eyewitnesses were still alive to check them.

6. Skeptics and enemies didn’t stay that way

Two of the most important early Christians weren’t early believers at all: James and Paul the apostle.

Even ex-evangelists like Ehrman accept that Paul genuinely believed he had an encounter with the risen Jesus. You can argue about what it was, but not that it didn’t happen.

7. It spread fast, in the place where it could most easily be disproved

Christianity didn’t grow slowly as a tale imported from some distant region. It took off in Jerusalem, the very place where Jesus had been publicly executed and buried — and the place where its radical claims could most readily be checked, challenged, and shut down.

New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado has shown how rapidly early devotion to the risen, divine Jesus emerged — far earlier than standard models of religious evolution would predict.

8. The “pagan copycat” theory falls apart under scrutiny

It’s common to argue that Christianity borrowed the resurrection from pagan myths — usually that of Mithras, deity of a Greco-Roman mystery cult.

But the parallels don’t hold. The confusion comes from the fact that Mithraic imagery includes themes of cosmic renewal and salvation tied to the famous bull-slaying scene — language that can sound, at a distance, like death and rebirth. In the actual myth, however, Mithras does not die and return to life; rather, killing the sacred bull creates new life and order. He is a conquering figure, not a dying and rising savior.

Scholar of religion Tryggve N.D. Mettinger — himself no Christian apologist — concluded that while some ancient myths involve dying and rising figures, none match the Jewish, historical, bodily resurrection claim of Christianity.

​Faith, Easter, The resurrection, Christianity, Jesus, Saint paul, Culture, Lifestyle, Christian apologetics, He is risen 

Perhaps the most interesting slice of drama swirling in what we’re told is the imminent AI remake of human life pertains to the persistent theme of its engineers tinkering with the “balance of truth.”

A recently released academic study from the MIT Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences — entitled “Sycophantic Chatbots Cause Delusional Spiraling, Even in Ideal Bayesians” — presents yet another example. It’s a real treat for those who have observed this struggle among the engineers to “align” their silicon machines. From the abstract we read: “‘AI psychosis’ or ‘delusional spiraling’ is an emerging phenomenon where AI chatbot users find themselves dangerously confident in outlandish beliefs after extended chatbot conversations.”

The question posed by the MIT study is: Can it be any other way?

The study, which arrives in the wake of others citing LLM pitfalls and failures, takes two approaches: testing with an ideally rational or “Bayesian” human interlocutor and simply warning the human user that the LLM model he or she is engaging with is sycophantic — unreliable and prone to agree with you because your engagement is its reward system.

Slippery slope

Both tests produced unfortunate outcomes. “Even an idealized Bayes-rational user,” according to the MIT study, “is vulnerable to delusional spiraling,” caused at least in part by AI sycophancy; “this effect persists in the face of two candidate mitigations: preventing chatbots from hallucinating false claims, and informing users of the possibility of model sycophancy.”

Too much truth, in other words, and suddenly chatbot users are launched into the psycho-sphere — researching red heifers, Jekyll Island, the feasibility of the 1960s moon landing, and innumerable other topics that tend to open up yet more curious questions and tend to incline investigators away from participating in aspirational lifestyles, accruing money, or voting for one of the two “major” parties.

Too little truth, however, and innovation, curiosity, and even mere engagement are restricted. In our painful submersion into the deep AI waters where society has no helmsman, the engineering of code away from truth appears to cause genuine psychosis.

To put it simply: The engagement with these machines, however many hundreds of billions are dumped into their creation, can easily lead us humans into confusion and suffering.

RELATED: 10 years ago, hundreds of millions played a new video game. It was secretly built to harvest their data.

JianGang Wang/Getty Images

The question posed by the MIT study is: Can it be any other way?

The trust gap

The answer puts the character of Western civilization at stake. The notion of engineering our way to truth would be surprising to all philosophical and theological thinkers since at least Plato. And for some time, the mental health issues around AI usage have been obvious not only to some philosophers but to other tech outsiders such as doctors, artists, and laymen of all sorts. Here’s professor of neuroscience Michael Halassa on his Substack last year: “The pattern is becoming clearer, and it’s troubling. People spend hours, often late into the night, in dialogue with a system that never challenges them, never disagrees, never says ‘let me think about that differently.'”

From the engineering, coding, AI builder point of view, part of the problem isn’t just steering toward truth; it’s controlling outcomes. It’s a litigious world. People are already very unstable — not just in America, but maybe especially in America, where we’re seeing our economy, infrastructure, and social fabric tear asunder as elites insist we need not worry because the line of progress still goes up.

No, it’s not merely litigation, nor is it purely control that the makers of AI are so concerned with — they’re set on seeing a very particular set of outcomes, part of which necessarily adhere to their specific worldview. It’s a largely secular one, meant to usher in a global and post-traditional economy, privileging a hollow, New Age-y spirituality. The pressure to trust them is immense — not just when they tell us our civilization must and will be refounded and reworked by AI, but when they tell us that just happens to mean they’re the only ones qualified to be in charge.

Black mirror

It’s all a bit suspicious given that, in a deep sense, we have all been here long before. Another powerful and mysterious device that seems characteristically to show us too much and too little of the truth about ourselves is the mirror. Put a hall of mirrors together, and the result is all too familiar: confusion and delusion. Historically, experts at manipulating shifting and unreliable reflections of ourselves have been ascribed near-magical powers. Not until recently has the promise of building the ultimate mirror been hyped as building a whole new god.

Recursion, the hard-to-understand process of machine self-improvement, is the culprit. Much of the “spiral” in AI delusion comes down, say researchers, to the recursive agreeability encoded into LLM answers. Last year, prior to scientific confirmation, the New York Times published a story on the delusional spiral effect, relating an instance in which a man spent 300+ hours with ChatGPT chatting about the man’s mathematics insights. The LLM had him convinced that the insights were groundbreaking. They weren’t. The man wound up fracturing his life and seeking psychiatric care.

Juxtapose this with French X poster Denis Tremblay, who likewise spent a great deal of time discussing some “completely original math concepts” with a couple of LLMs. He did so not to confirm his inventive mathematics but to determine “with critical distance” that the machine would work toward truth with rigor concomitant to that of its human interlocutor. He’s still on X, posting valuable, balanced ideas in imperfect English — his third or fourth language — not suicidal, and not in any need of psychiatric help.

​Tech 

Former professional soccer player Elizabeth Eddy made headlines when she wrote an op-ed in the New York Post calling for clear biological sex eligibility standards in the National Women’s Soccer League to protect the fairness of women’s soccer — but it was not received well by her fellow players.

Eddy received intense backlash from her Angel City FC teammates, who publicly accused the piece of being harmful, transphobic, and racially motivated.

Unlike those teammates, BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey is grateful to Eddy for sounding the alarm on what’s really going on in women’s sports.

“She did not back down,” Stuckey says, before asking Eddy about the initial response to her article.

“What ended up happening is, the article came out … and then before every game, our captains get sent out to the press to do media. … And the two captains shared their thoughts on the article, and they spoke on behalf of the team and the organization,” Eddy tells Stuckey.

“And that was really, really hard to hear because I’d had conversations with both of them in the past, and I was really close with both of them to the point where they were both invited to our wedding. One of them helped my fiancé plan the proposal,” she continues.

And while the article was not “racist” or “transphobic,” her teammates still claimed it was.

“I’ve had a lot of convos with my teammates in the past few days, and they are hurt and they are harmed by the article, and also they are disgusted by some of the things that were said in the article, and it’s really important for me to say that,” one of her teammates said at the press conference.

“And we don’t agree with the things written for a plethora of reasons, but mostly the undertones come across as transphobic and racist as well,” her teammate added.

“I was 100% shocked because … the words I wrote, there’s no way that could be conceived,” Eddy explains.

“Were you able to have a private conversation with them? … After they accused you, racist, transphobic, all of these things, were you able to have a reasonable discussion to be able to say, ‘Well, no, this is what I meant, and this is why it’s not racist,’ or was that not able to happen?” Stuckey asks.

While Eddy admits that those teammates who publicly discussed her article were not willing to have a private discussion with her, she did hear from multiple teammates that they didn’t stand by what the captain said.

“Were you disappointed by any people who said, ‘I completely agree with you, I support you, but I could never do that’?” Stuckey asks.

“Yeah, there’s a part of me that’s like, come on, because if you do, it snowballs and this thing actually changes in a shorter time frame than not. But at the same time, I can totally empathize with them because it was so hard for me to do this,” Eddy answers.

“I was waffling for months about it,” she adds.

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 with allie beth stuckey, Relatable, Allie beth stuckey, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Angel city fc, Racism, Transphobia, Transphobic, Elizabeth eddy, New york post 

Picture this: A 12-year-old stands at the edge of a cold lake at 0600, staring down his swimming merit badge. Nobody asked if he was emotionally ready. Nobody offered a participation ribbon. His scoutmaster told him to jump in. He jumped. He earned it.

That is Scouting — or rather, that is what Scouting was and, if the Pentagon has anything to say about it, what Scouting will be again.

The entire architecture is an applied Aristotelian curriculum. The national office spent a decade dismantling it in favor of ideological programming.

I earned my Eagle Scout rank in the mid-1980s amid the last flicker of Reagan-era optimism. My father served as a district executive with the Boy Scouts of America from the late 1960s through the mid-1970s, when the mission of Scouting was unambiguous and its reputation beyond question.

I served as an assistant scoutmaster at summer camps. My son earned his Eagle Scout rank, went on to graduate from West Point, and now flies as an Army aviator. Three generations; one through-line.

When I graduated from Marine Corps Officer Candidate School in 1988, the discipline I carried with me — compass work, land navigation, physical endurance, mental toughness under discomfort — owed no small debt to what Scouting had already built into me.

The memorandum of understanding signed on February 27, 2026, between Scouting America and the Pentagon is not bureaucratic fine print. It is a cultural rescue operation.

Under pressure from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Scouting America agreed to abandon divisive diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives; enforce biological sex distinctions in membership and facilities; and discontinue the politicized “Citizenship in Society” merit badge.

The organization will introduce a new military service merit badge developed with the Department of War; waive registration fees for children of active-duty, Guard, and Reserve families; and rededicate itself formally to duty to God, duty to country, and service.

The agreement aligns with President Trump’s executive order, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The Pentagon gave Scouting six months to demonstrate meaningful compliance. Hegseth was unambiguous: “Ideally, I believe the Boy Scouts should go back to being the Boy Scouts as originally founded — a group that develops boys into men.”

Scouting has long served as a reliable pipeline to the U.S. armed forces, with Eagle Scouts heavily represented in ROTC, service academies, and military leadership tracks at rates far exceeding the general population.

Meanwhile, roughly 77% of young Americans are currently ineligible for military service, with obesity as the single leading disqualifier. The U.S. Army fell 25% short of its 2022 recruitment goals, and that trend has not reversed.

RELATED: Why do state schools bankroll people who despise the state?

ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images

An institution that once produced physically prepared, morally grounded young men willing to serve their country is not a luxury. It is a national security asset.

Scouting’s founding philosophy was never complicated. William D. Boyce chartered the Boy Scouts of America in 1910 after an unnamed Scout in fog-shrouded London refused a tip for guiding a lost American — because a Scout does not accept payment for a good turn.

Robert Baden-Powell’s Scouting model translated Aristotelian virtue ethics into an applied curriculum. Character, as Aristotle argued in the “Nicomachean Ethics,” is not innate — it is forged through repeated habit and deliberate challenge. One does not become courageous by reading about courage. One becomes courageous by building a fire in the rain, navigating by stars at 0200, and rappelling down a cliff face with a scoutmaster who has no interest in excuses.

The patrol method, rank advancement, merit badge requirements — the entire architecture is an applied Aristotelian curriculum. The national office spent a decade dismantling it in favor of ideological programming. The irony is almost too rich to catalog.

The membership figures tell the story no press release can obscure. Enrollment peaked at roughly 6.5 million in the early 1970s. By 2026, fewer than one million combined boys and girls remained enrolled. The 2020 bankruptcy filing, driven by sexual abuse claims, produced a $2.4 billion settlement compensating more than 82,000 claimants in 2023 — a catastrophic institutional failure that, to put it with considerable understatement, did not help recruitment.

The progression of policy changes is well documented: Gay youth membership opened in 2013; openly gay adult leaders followed in 2015; a 2017 case in New Jersey involving an 8-year-old opened transgender membership; girls entered Cub Scouts in 2018 and the flagship program in 2019. The 2025 rebrand to “Scouting America” completed the transformation — apparently because “Boy Scouts” contained the word “boy,” which had become inconvenient.

The “Citizenship in Society” merit badge, required for Eagle Scout rank, captured the broader problem with admirable brevity. The badge directed participants to “realize the benefits of diversity, equity, and inclusion” and practice “ethical leadership” through the lens of identity politics.

Think about that sequencing: instead of studying the Declaration of Independence, constitutional structure, or proper flag etiquette, Scouts were directed to contemplate microaggressions and systemic bias.

RELATED: Why America’s enemies always target Western civilization first

VCG Wilson/Corbis/Getty Images

As someone who earned merit badges in camping, first aid, and rifle shooting — skills that translated directly into my experience at Marine Corps OCS — the substitution struck me as roughly equivalent to replacing a wilderness survival course with a corporate HR seminar and then expressing genuine puzzlement at falling enrollment. The memorandum of understanding eliminates that badge effective immediately. Eagle Scout rank now requires 13 merit badges instead of 14.

The reforms are a start. The next step is enrollment. Parents with sons in the target age range should investigate local troops directly, ask hard questions about how the new biological sex policies are actually being implemented, not just acknowledged, and choose units that are executing the reforms in good faith rather than grudging compliance.

Adults with relevant skills should volunteer. The merit badge counselor system runs entirely on people with genuine expertise: navigation, wilderness medicine, marksmanship, engineering. If you served in uniform, your experience is directly applicable and badly needed.

Watching a hesitant 12-year-old master the bowline knot and then use it confidently three days later on a climbing wall is, I can report firsthand, among the more satisfying experiences available to a middle-aged man who has otherwise run out of things left to prove.

My father spent a decade building boys into men because he believed the mission mattered. I carried that conviction into my own service at summer camp. My son carried it all the way to West Point. The Scout motto, “Be prepared,” has never been more operationally relevant. These reforms restore a foundation. What gets built on it is up to us.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

​Boy scouts of america, Scouting america, Pentagon, Pete hegseth, Trump, Executive order, Merit badge, Scoutmaster, Boy scouts, Opinion & analysis 

Defending Education, an advocacy organization that combats leftist indoctrination in K-12 public schools, recently obtained documents outlining the talking points and marching orders being fed to radicals ahead of leftist May Day protests planned across the country.

Among the leftist outfits poised to train would-be protesters is the Midwest Academy, a liberal activist-grooming center that has reportedly received over $1.7 million in recent years from the National Education Association.

‘Congress should revoke the NEA’s federal charter.’

The Midwest Academy, joined by the the NYU Metro Center and organizers from Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools member groups, is coordinating a four-week training series titled “Four Weeks of Power” with the purported aim of building “a broader, stronger base of parents, educators and students taking action to defend and transform public schools.”

Although organized by the NEA-backed outfit, sessions will be provided by the leftist organization Free the Future, part of the NEA-aligned Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools network.

Free the Future will start off the sessions by providing “an introduction to community organizing in the context of the rising authoritarianism we’re seeing in real time.” Free the Future will conclude the sessions by helping fellow travelers “better understand power mapping and targets, understanding which actions make sense for our team and community, and the logistics of planning a successful action.”

RELATED: Why Johnny still can’t read: The curriculum cartel doesn’t want reform

Dominic Di Palermo/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

Free the Future is evidently keen to train up radicals with the NEA-backed group in time for mass protests on May 1. Free the Future has partnered with May Day Strong “to plan hundreds of actions in the streets” next month.

May Day Strong’s tool kit reveals that radicals are reskinning their No Kings protests for May Day.

The tool kit recommends not only protesting outside lawmakers’ offices and “one of the many corporate targets we need to take on,” but that radicals stage “school walk-ins” and rally outside schools.

Hilton Hotels, Chevron, Citgo, and Enterprise Rent-A-Car are the corporations targeted by May Day Strong.

The organizers have furnished would-be protesters with a template press release that contains the following talking points:

“Tax the rich so our families, not their fortunes, come first.” “No ICE, NO War. No private army serving authoritarian power.” “Expand democracy, not corporate rule. Defend free and fair elections.”

NEA’s official May Day 2026 “Solidarity Toolkit,” which is greatly similar to the May Day Strong tool kit right down to the advocacy for school walk-ins, states, “This May Day will be a day of rallies, marches, teach-ins, labor actions, and a refusal of business as usual — because when those at the top rig the system, collective action is how we set it right.”

According to NEA’s tool kit, “walk-ins” seem to involve a school invasion:

During school walk-ins, parents, educators, and students, along with neighbors and community leaders, gather in front of their school 30-45 minutes before the school day begins. We rally and listen to a few speakers discuss what they want for the school, and then we all walk into the school together. Walk-ins can be used to celebrate your school, collaborate with school officials, or protest harmful school conditions and policies.

Rhyen Staley, director of research at Defending Education, said in a statement obtained by Blaze News, “This is yet another example of how activists and teachers’ unions view schools as a tool to advance their political agenda.”

“It should be deeply concerning that one of the suggested tactics is to enter schools to protest against policies they don’t like,” continued Staley. “Putting children’s education and safety at risk for political gain is unethical and immoral.”

Corey DeAngelis, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy, told Blaze News, “Congress should revoke the NEA’s federal charter or at least bar them from engaging in political activity altogether.”

DeAngelis noted further, “These radicals are providing free advertising for homeschooling, showing us exactly who they are, and parents need to pull their kids out of these institutions.”

Becky Pringle, the Democrat NEA president who reportedly made over $500,000 while fighting to keep schools closed at kids’ expense between September 2020 and August 2021, made clear in her keynote address at last year’s National Education Association convention that her union is committed to undermining the Trump administration.

“We must use our power to take action that leads, action that liberates, action that lasts,” Pringle said in her speech.

At the convention, the NEA adopted a resolution declaring its support for mass movements against the government, including No Kings protests and anti-ICE rallies.

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

​May day, Protest, No kings, Leftist, Nea, National education association, Teachers unions, Teachers, Education, Leftism, Radical, Demonstrations, School, Schools, Politics 

The Supreme Court recently heard more than two hours of argument in Trump v. Barbara, the case testing the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

Trump himself sat in the courtroom for part of the session, the first time a sitting president has done so. The moment was striking not for its symbolism alone but for what it revealed: a fundamental challenge to a 150-year-old interpretation of American identity.

The American ‘exception’ was built on a conscious break from notions of blood and soil.

The executive order, issued on Trump’s first day back in office in January 2025, directs federal agencies not to recognize automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented or present on temporary visas. It turns on the opening words of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The administration’s core argument — one rooted in a “consensualist” theory of citizenship — is that “subject to the jurisdiction” requires more than mere presence on the soil. They argue it requires full and exclusive political allegiance, a condition that undocumented immigrants and short-term visa holders, who remain subjects of their home countries, cannot meet.

The challengers, led by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a plaintiff identified as Barbara, insist the clause was meant to be a simple, sweeping geographical rule. They point to the common-law tradition of jus soli — citizenship by place of birth — that they argue the framers of the amendment endorsed.

Constitutional history, however, is rarely so settled. While the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 — to overturn the Dred Scott decision — scholars on the right point to the intent of the amendment’s authors, like Sen. Jacob Howard, who suggested the clause excluded those who owed allegiance to a foreign power.

While the Court applied the clause to children of legal residents in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the administration argues that case never explicitly addressed the children of those present in violation of federal law.

Lower courts have struck down the executive order, but the justices’ questions on Wednesday showed they are wrestling with the modern reality of mass migration. Several asked how a “narrow” jurisdiction rule would work in a hospital delivery room. Chief Justice John Roberts reminded the solicitor general that the Constitution is not a “living” document that changes with the wind, but conservative justices also pressed the government on whether this executive action bypasses the legislative role of Congress.

The skepticism was notable because the case arrives after the Court’s 2025 ruling that limited the scope of nationwide injunctions, ensuring the policy reached the high court on its merits.

This debate is not abstract. Birthright citizenship has long set the United States apart from the “Old World.” Most countries grant citizenship primarily by descent — jus sanguinis. In Pakistan, as in India and much of Europe, a child acquires citizenship through a parent’s nationality.

The American “exception” was built on a conscious break from notions of blood and soil, but critics argue that the exception has become an unintended magnet for illegal entry and birth tourism.

RELATED: A birthright citizenship fix is more important than the SAVE Act

PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images

The executive order does not seek to formally amend the Constitution, but rather to correct what its supporters see as a century of judicial and administrative drift. It would not strip citizenship from anyone already born; it applies prospectively.

Still a decision to uphold it would effectively align the United States with the legislative models of Britain, Australia, and Ireland, all of which moved away from pure jus soli to better manage migration pressures.

The Court’s eventual ruling — expected by early summer — matters profoundly. If the justices narrow the clause, they will have restored what originalists believe was the 14th Amendment’s true meaning: that citizenship is a mutual contract between a sovereign and a subject.

If they preserve the status quo, they will affirm that the 14th Amendment’s promise remains a geographical absolute.

The hearing did not settle the question, but it forced a reckoning. In an age of porous borders, the United States must decide whether its rule of soil remains a pillar of strength or an outdated incentive that undermines the very concept of national sovereignty.

The Court’s answer will help determine the terms on which future generations enter the American story.

​Supreme court, Birthright citizenship, 14th amendment, Trump administration, Executive order, Wong kim ark, Trump v barbara, Aclu, Opinion & analysis 

For years, Daniel Horowitz has been sounding the alarm about the deliberate replacement of American workers with foreigners. From H-1B visas to the OPT program for foreign graduates, the conservative commentator has been exposing the policies that keep Americans — especially young graduates — barred from high-paying tech, software engineering, and other STEM jobs.

Now the same pattern is hitting medicine.

Right now, many highly qualified American medical graduates are losing residency spots to foreign medical graduates.

On a recent episode of “Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz,” Horowitz and Houston ENT specialist Dr. Mary Talley Bowden dove into the startling statistics and offered a clear solution to the issue harming would-be American doctors.

Horowitz bemoans the reality that taxpayer dollars via Medicare are going toward programs that won’t even guarantee American students a residency placement. “We’re basically funding our replacement,” he says.

Dr. Bowden points to the shocking numbers from the residency match.

“6,600 foreign medical students got residency spots, and meanwhile … over 1,300 U.S. medical students did not get a spot,” she says, arguing that Americans are “getting the leftovers at that point.”

But it’s not just residencies — Americans are also being shut out of medical schools. “We are rejecting about 30,000 American students a year from medical school,” Dr. Bowden adds.

The solution, she says, is straightforward: Fill residency spots with American graduates first, then offer any remaining positions to foreign graduates. “We could just say, ‘Hey, everybody in the U.S. has to match first, and then we can do a match for the foreign residents,’” she tells Horowitz, who strongly agrees.

“No foreigner should be admitted into a medical school or residency program until every qualified American has a spot,” he says.

To hear more, watch the full episode above.

​Conservative review with daniel horowitz, Daniel horowitz, Great replacement, Medical industry, Replacement of american workers, Blazetv, Blaze media, H-1b visas 

A child reportedly has been arrested for murder in connection with the death of a 12-year-old girl who was protecting her sister amid an alleged bullying incident at a Los Angeles school.

KCBS-TV said the Los Angeles Police Department did not provide many details about the individual arrested, stating only that the person is a minor arrested for murder. KNBC-TV said police noted the arrest Thursday.

‘On the afternoon of Feb. 17, Khimberly was trying to protect her sister. She stepped in when the school didn’t.’

The family of Khimberly Zavaleta Chuquipa, the girl who died, said she was struck in the head with a metal bottle at Reseda Charter High School on Feb. 17, KCBS reported.

Days after the incident, Khimberly was rushed to a hospital, where doctors discovered severe bleeding in her brain, KCBS said.

She spent days in a coma and underwent surgery, but Khimberly died at a hospital in late February, her mother told KNBC.

RELATED: Video: Alleged bully beats up crying 10-year-old girl, pulls her by hair to school restroom floor as other girls cheer attack

The victim’s family said she was trying to protect her sister amid an alleged bullying incident, KNBC reported.

“I’m devastated. I’m full of pain, thinking about how I will never see my daughter again,” Elma Chuquipa, Khimberly’s mother, told KNBC in Spanish.

The victim’s family filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District in March, accusing the district of failing to protect students from bullying, KNBC reported.

RELATED: Video: Female bully towers over and beats up elderly woman on Florida bus. Victim is left ‘battered and bruised’: Sheriff.

“On the afternoon of Feb. 17, Khimberly was trying to protect her sister. She stepped in when the school didn’t,” Robert Glassman, the family’s attorney, said during news conference last month, KNBC noted. “This tragedy really highlights and underscores the very real and very devastating consequences of unchecked bullying.”

What’s more, the family alleged that Khimberly’s sister had been bullied prior to the February incident, but the school “did not do anything,” KNBC added.

In addition, the family said that despite numerous attempts to get more information about what led to the February attack against Khimberly, the LAUSD refused to share details, KNBC reported.

The LAUSD said in a February statement that the incident “deeply saddened” administrators, KCBS noted.

“Our thoughts and condolences are with the student’s family, friends, and the entire school community,” a district spokesperson said, according to KCBS. “The District takes the safety and well-being of our students very seriously. We are currently cooperating with law enforcement in connection with this incident.”

Police confirmed last month that a homicide investigation was under way following Khimberly’s death, KNBC said.

“This arrest is an important step toward accountability, but it does not change the bigger truth: this tragedy was entirely preventable,” Glassman wrote in a statement, according to KCBS.

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

​Los angeles police department, Child arrested, Girl killed, Bullying death, Los angeles unified school district, Lawsuit, Reseda high school, Bullies, Bullying, Crime 

Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the wife of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, explained the steps she was taking to “deconstruct” limiting beliefs in her children about gender in order to make them into ultimate humans.

The resurfaced video was widely circulated on social media as her husband continues his campaign to expand his national recognition in preparation for a suspected 2028 presidential run.

‘At the end of the day, we’re all kind of in this place in history maybe where we’re recognizing what it is to ultimately deconstruct all these gender roles and ultimately be human.’

“I’ve given our boys dolls, even if they tear the head off,” Jennifer Newsom laughed in the video.

“I’ve given them dolls to learn that care and caregiving is not just an activity that’s reserved for women, but that it’s also an activity that is a responsibility of men,” she added.

“What I’ve done with both my daughters and my sons is if I’m reading a book and the protagonist is a male, I just change the ‘he’ to a ‘she,'” Newsom continued.

“And it just normalizes, for my sons in particular — I don’t just do it for my girls; I do it for my sons because I want them to see that women can be the center of a story. That women matter. That women are interesting,” she said.

She went on to offer her theory about how to “ultimately” become human.

RELATED: Gavin Newsom’s wife blames evangelicals and conservatives for holding back ‘woke’ abortion agenda in resurfaced video

“At the end of the day, we’re all kind of in this place in history maybe where we’re recognizing what it is to ultimately deconstruct all these gender roles and ultimately be human,” Newsom said.

“That’s exciting to me,” she added. “So I’ll just continue to kind of do my work and try and deconstruct all of these limiting narratives about ultimately what it means to be human.”

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

​Jennifer siebel newsom, Jen newsom on gender, Woke gender roles newsom, Politics, Raising children to deconstruct gender 

While many eyes are focused on Iran, the Trump administration’s policies suggest that reasserting the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere could rank among its highest geopolitical priorities. As laid out in the 2025 National Security Strategy, the Trump corollary “is a common-sense and potent restoration of American power and priorities, consistent with American security interests.”

The moment is right. The case is overwhelming. And the window is closing.

What if America could project its dominance quickly, dramatically, and without firing a single shot? With one bold stroke, President Trump could expand America’s sovereign territory by nearly 20% and recover the largest unclaimed tract of land left on the planet.

Marie Byrd Land is the name for 620,000 square miles of Antarctica, a territory roughly the size of Alaska. It belongs to no nation and is governed by no sovereign power. It is desolate, largely uninhabited, and of enormous strategic importance. Claiming it would be the largest expansion of American sovereign territory since William Henry Seward’s purchase of Alaska in 1867.

The moment is right. The case is overwhelming. And the window is closing.

The territory carries an American name for a reason. Richard Byrd — a U.S. Navy rear admiral, aviator, and the most celebrated polar explorer of his generation — surveyed and mapped the region in the late 1920s, naming it for his wife. America has maintained a presence in Antarctica ever since, operating research stations, conducting flyovers, and asserting its right to make a claim. But it never has.

The 1959 Antarctic Treaty halted existing territorial claims and committed signatories to peaceful, scientific use of the continent. However, it did not require anyone to relinquish the right to make new claims. America explicitly reserved that right. Sixty-six years later, America still has not used it, and the world has changed considerably since Eisenhower signed the treaty.

The resource case alone justifies the move. Antarctica sits atop estimated offshore reserves of roughly 45 billion barrels of oil equivalent, plus coal, iron ore, and rare-earth minerals that remain largely uncharted. The Madrid Protocol, which added environmental protections to the treaty framework, currently prohibits extraction, but it is up for review beginning in 2048. That is only 22 years away.

A prohibition that depends on the continued goodwill of all signatories, including China, which acceded to the Antarctic Treaty in 1983, is a different kind of guarantee from actual sovereignty. One is a diplomatic norm. The other is a legal fact.

RELATED: America won’t beat China without Alaska

Damian Gillie/Construction Photography/Avalon/Getty Images

But the strategic case runs deeper than oil and minerals. The great infrastructure competition of the 21st century will be fought over low-earth-orbit communications networks, the constellation of satellites that will carry the world’s most sensitive data, military communications, and economic traffic.

Those networks require polar coverage. The physics is simple: Polar orbits deliver global reach, and the ground infrastructure at high latitudes controls latency, resilience, and network security. The northern approaches, Greenland, Iceland, and Svalbard, have been contested and militarized for decades. The southern pole has barely registered.

This is what a strategic choke point looks like. The world is learning that lesson right now in the Strait of Hormuz. The strait’s strategic importance was hardly a mystery, but for almost everyone, it was theoretical. Until it wasn’t.

Since the start of the U.S. and Israeli bombing campaign against Iran, 20% of the world’s oil supply has been trapped by a strip of water 21 miles wide, caught between great powers playing out a global strategic game. The results include the largest disruption to global energy supply since the 1970s; South Korea capping fuel prices for the first time in 30 years; and Bangladesh closing its universities to conserve power.

The world now understands, viscerally, what a choke point costs. The poles are the global choke points of satellite communications. The question is whether America secures its position before the lesson has to be learned the hard way.

The window between ‘no one is paying attention’ and ‘it is too late’ is shorter than Western governments typically think.

The answer cannot wait. In March 2025, Russia and China jointly announced plans to build new research stations in Marie Byrd Land. This was not a scientific gesture. It was the same playbook Beijing ran in the South China Sea: establish a presence, build infrastructure, wait for the world to normalize it, and then dare someone to undo it. It worked at Fiery Cross Reef. It worked in the Spratly Islands.

The window between “no one is paying attention” and “it is too late” is shorter than Western governments typically think.

Strategic ambiguity has its uses. It served American interests during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union could be managed through mutual deterrence and the goal was to avoid locking both sides into positions that could escalate. Ambiguity gave everyone room to step back.

That logic made sense when the Soviets were the main adversary. It makes considerably less sense when your adversary seeks to exploit ambiguity rather than be restrained by it.

The only power that benefits from murky Antarctic sovereignty today is China.

The diplomatic path is more navigable than it appears. Chile, Argentina, Britain, France, Norway, and Australia all hold Antarctic claims, some overlapping, which is its own absurdity. The British, Chilean, and Argentine claims have never been formally resolved; all three parties simply agreed to disagree and keep the treaty functioning. Marie Byrd Land overlaps with none of those claims. A U.S. sovereignty declaration would stake out genuinely unclaimed territory.

Moreover, it could catalyze something broader: a coordinated Western territorial framework that organizes allied claims, provides a legal architecture for resource governance when the Madrid Protocol comes up for review, and, most importantly, excludes adversaries from positions of strategic leverage before those positions become entrenched.

RELATED: What’s Greenland to us?

Leon Neal/Getty Images

The historical precedents are instructive. The Louisiana Purchase looked reckless in 1803. Napoleon needed cash, Jefferson needed room, and $13 million bought 828,000 square miles that doubled the size of the country. Contemporaries called it constitutionally dubious and geopolitically impulsive. They were wrong.

Seward’s Folly in 1867 — the purchase of 586,000 square miles of Alaska for $7.2 million — was mocked almost universally at the time. History was not kind to the mockers. In both cases, the critics had a point about process and a blind spot about geography. Marie Byrd Land is in that tradition: counterintuitive at first glance, obvious in retrospect.

And unlike those other two cases, the U.S. doesn’t have to pay a dime for it.

The objections are predictable. Treaty purists will say a claim violates the spirit of international agreement — but they are technically wrong. The treaty halted existing claims; it did not prohibit new ones on unclaimed land. The foreign policy establishment will warn of diplomatic friction with partners, a real concern. But allies with their own Antarctic stakes have more to gain from a coherent Western framework than from the current vacuum.

Environmentalists will invoke the Madrid Protocol — but a sovereignty declaration changes nothing about current extraction rules. The precedent argument — if America claims land, does everyone else? — has the weakest foundation of all. That scramble is coming whether the United States acts or not. The question is whether America shapes it or watches other countries take the lead.

A declaration of sovereignty on Independence Day would wrap a bold geopolitical move in the most durable possible American framing: expansion as destiny, strength as inheritance, and the republic still growing into its potential 250 years on.

Jefferson did not agonize about whether purchasing Louisiana would set an awkward precedent. Seward did not lose sleep over what Alaska said about the American appetite for territory. They saw geography, they saw the future, and they moved.

There is one large piece of unclaimed earth remaining. It carries an American name. Russia and China are already building there.

July 4, 2026, would be a fine day to make it official.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published at the American Mind.

​Antarctica, Marie byrd land, China, America 250, South pole, Monroe doctrine, National security strategy, Antarctic treaty, Russia, Opinion & analysis 

After a decades-long decline, America is now in the throes of the worst fertility crisis in our nation’s history. A record number of people are not having children.

The big question is why?

Certainly the answer is multifaceted, but there’s one undeniable driver behind America’s as well as nearly every other country’s declining birth rates, says Lyman Stone, senior fellow and director of the Pronatalism Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies: the iPhone.

On this episode of “Rufo & Lomez,” Christopher Rufo and Jonathan Keeperman speak with Stone about how our most pervasive technology is wrecking the world’s fertility numbers.

While there are many drivers behind globally declining birth rates — infertility issues, financial difficulties, a genuine desire to have fewer children, and even a desire to have no children at all — iPhones, says Stone, are “little sterilization boxes that we all carry in our pockets.”

But it’s not a literal sterilization — “The research suggests that the radiation from them is actually harmless,” Stone says — but rather a social sterilization.

“[Smartphones] change how we socialize together. … Social media replaces in-person interaction; reading stuff online replaces in-person interaction, replaces intermediation in the physical world,” he explains.

“Increasingly, it’s not just that people have fewer babies; they have fewer first kisses; they have fewer one-night stands; they have fewer dinner parties; they have fewer every kind of social interaction … and so as social media and cell phones are just killing life together,” he adds.

This isn’t just speculation either. The data shows a major decline in face-to-face interaction starting in 2008 — just one year after the first iPhone hit the market.

Before 2008, fertility rates across the world would ebb and flow depending on a variety of circumstances, but following the invention of the iPhone, they’ve stayed consistently low, Stone explains.

The social isolation caused by the iPhone has resulted in a decline in marriage rates, which directly impacts birth rates.

Interestingly, statistics show that people who do marry young are having the amount of children they desire.

“There’s no gap between desired fertility and actual fertility on average for people who marry before age 26,” says Stone.

Further, countries that have “religious prohibitions” on iPhone usage for extended periods of the day have also maintained higher birth rates.

“So Israel with Shabbat or Muslim countries, where we know from cellphone data everybody turns off their cell phone for 20 minutes five times a day … still have high fertility,” says Stone.

iPhones, he explains, essentially turn off “the part of our brain that’s supposed to know your tribe and recognize your tribe and really want to have sex with your tribe.”

Simultaneously, it supplies “an endless stream of porn” to keep people sexually satiated without producing children.

To hear more about the factors behind the world’s declining birth rate, watch the full interview above.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Rufo & lomez, Chris rufo, Jonathan keeperman, Blazetv, Blaze media, Lyman stone, Fertility crisis, Declining birth rates, Declining marriage rates, Iphone