Category: blaze media

The “big, beautiful bill” passed a key vote in the House Budget Committee Sunday night after five spending skeptics initially tanked the bill on Friday.

Rather than derail reconciliation a second time, four Republicans voted “present” to advance the bill in a 17-16 vote on Sunday night. On Friday, Republican Reps. Chip Roy of Texas, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, and Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania all voted against the bill, resulting in a 16-21 vote.

This time around, Roy, Norman, Clyde, and Brecheen voted “present” to advance the bill, while Smucker voted in favor of it. Notably, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) also met with Norman, Clyde, and Brecheen Sunday morning before the vote.

‘This bill is a strong step forward. … But we have to do more to deliver for the American people.’

RELATED: The Republicans who could derail reconciliation

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas). Photo by Tom Brenner for the Washington Post via Getty Images

“Tonight, after a great deal of work and engagement over the weekend, the Budget Committee advanced a reconciliation bill that lays the foundation for much-needed tax relief, border security, and important spending reductions and reforms,” Roy said in a statement. “Importantly, the bill now will move Medicaid work requirements forward and reduces the availability of future subsidies under the green new scam.”

Reforms to the Medicaid work requirements were initially set to take effect in 2029, which was not nearly aggressive enough for fiscal hawks like Roy. Johnson reportedly offered the holdouts a 2026 implementation date, which may have swayed many of the holdouts to allow the bill to advance.

“But the bill does not yet meet the moment — leaving almost half of the green new scam subsidies continuing,” Roy added. “More, it fails to end the Medicaid money laundering scam and perverse funding structure that provides seven times more federal dollars for each dollar of state spending for the able-bodied relative to the vulnerable.”

“This all ultimately increases the likelihood of continuing deficits and non-Obamacare-expansion states like Texas expanding in the future,” Roy added. “We can and must do better before we pass the final product.”

RELATED: Vance tells Glenn Beck Congress needs to ‘get serious’ about codifying DOGE cuts

Alex Wroblewski/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The bill can be amended only in the Rules Committee, which will hold its hearing on Wednesday at 1:00 a.m. House Republican leadership members have also said they will refrain from sending lawmakers home for Memorial Day, which was their original target.

“As such, I joined with three of my colleagues to vote ‘present’ out of respect for the Republican Conference and the president to move the bill forward,” Roy said. “It gives us the opportunity to work together this week to get the job done in light of the fact our bond rating was dropped yet again due to historic fiscal mismanagement by both parties.”

“This bill is a strong step forward — and I am proud of Chairman Arrington, the speaker, and my colleagues for the work we did to make progress with the White House,” Roy added. “But we have to do more to deliver for the American people.”

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

​Mike johnson, Chip roy, Ralph norman, Andrew clyde, Josh brecheen, Lloyd smucker, Reconciliation, Donald trump, Big beautiful bill, No tax on tips, No tax on overtime, Medicaid, Medicaid reform, Doge cuts, Jody arrington, Jason smith, Budget committee, Rules comittee, Ways and means, Fiscal hawk, Fiscal conservative, Government spending, National debt, Federal deficit, White house, Trump administration, Politics 

In the months leading up to the criminal trial of rapper Sean “Diddy” Combs, the public was anticipating an Epstein-level spectacle. Diddy had been dubbed “the Epstein of the rap industry,” after all, as it is strongly speculated that he was also running a blackmailing/trafficking operation that involved a long list of celebrities and other elites.

However, we’re now several days into the trial, and it’s been pretty lackluster. The case has focused solely on Diddy’s own degeneracy, especially as it relates to ex-girlfriend Casandra “Cassie” Ventura.

Glenn Beck’s biggest question is why is no one going after Diddy’s possible accomplices. What about all the celebrities who went to his infamous parties?

Jason Whitlock, host of “Fearless,” has a terrifying theory.

From what he’s seen so far from the trial, Jason says it’s clear they want people to to think “Diddy’s a really bad person; he’s a sexual degenerate; he turns violent against women that he’s dating, but in terms of racketeering or sex trafficking and all that — none of that is being addressed.”

“I’m not sure if they have an interest in even arguing that case at this point,” he tells Glenn.

“I think they raided Diddy’s home to strip him of his power and leverage and blackmail material, and that all this is really about is taking away Diddy’s leverage and handing it over to the Department of Justice or whoever is responsible for this or stripping him of the most damaging information he had on key people that they don’t want harmed,” Jason theorizes.

“So wait a minute, you’re saying that maybe he was an operative, or if he wasn’t an operative, he was collecting stuff on people, and now the government wants that to either protect those people or to have the power over those people?” Glenn asks, shocked.

“And to strip Diddy of his power,” Jason confirms.

“I think that Diddy, being a bit of an idiot, probably got too full of himself and started threatening the wrong people with the information he had, and someone needed to put him in his place — like ‘no, you’re an operative, you’re a tool, you’re an asset; you’re not some ringleader; you haven’t ascended to a place of power where you can actually use this information to start blackmailing people,”’ he explains.

“They raided this guy like he was Pablo Escobar, and now they’re in court arguing that he’s Hugh Hefner. No — that that’s not what we were promised.”

To hear more details of Jason’s theory, watch the clip 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, Jason whitlock, Diddy, Diddy trial, Cassie ventura, Epstein, Diddy epstein, Blazetv, Blaze media 

Seventeen centuries ago, bishops from around the known world gathered in Nicaea to affirm and codify the core tenets of the Christian faith. Now, as the anniversary of that defining moment in Christendom approaches, leaders on either side of the Great Schism are preparing to return, drawing East and West closer and renewing hope in the promise of Christian unity.

In the year 325, Emperor Constantine I called over 250 bishops — 318,
according to tradition — to convene during the pontificate of Pope Sylvester I in the Bithynian city of Nicaea, 55 miles southeast of present-day Istanbul. It was the largest gathering of bishops in the church’s history up until that time.

While the council would ultimately address a number of practical and ecclesiastic matters, it prioritized tackling the
Arian heresy, which entailed a rebuke and an affirmation of the divinity of Christ — “God from God, light from light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, of the same substance as the Father, by Whom all things were made” — and setting the date on which to commemorate Jesus’ resurrection.

This dogmatic council was of critical importance both then to the unified church and now to Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and other Protestants, perhaps most notably for its production of the Nicene Creed — a statement of faith, mutually held as authoritative, that predates both the Chalcedonian schism and the Great Schism.

Pope Leo XIV and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople are making a joint trip to the place where their predecessors met 17 centuries earlier. While various obstacles some figured to be insurmountable still stand in the way of full reunification, the meeting of the Christian leaders on this particular anniversary and the anniversary itself have sparked renewed interest in Christian unity and the ground that the faithful share in common.

Of popes and plans

Prior to his passing, Pope Francis proposed celebrating the 1,700th anniversary with Orthodox leaders in a Nov. 30
letter to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, who previously indicated a joint trip was expected to happen in late May.

Pope Francis noted in his letter to the patriarch that the Catholic Church’s “dialogue with the Orthodox Church has been and continues to be particularly fruitful,” yet acknowledged that the “ultimate goal of dialogue, full communion among all Christians, sharing in the one Eucharistic chalice, has not yet been realized with our Orthodox brother and sisters,” which “is not surprising, for divisions dating back a millennium, cannot be resolved within a few decades.”

‘It is good whenever the pope and the patriarch meet.’

Prior to heading back to Toronto from Rome, where he participated in the conclave that elected the new pope, Archbishop Emeritus Thomas Cardinal Collins told Blaze News, “The 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea is most important for all Christians, because it was there that the bishops clarified the basic Christian faith in the divinity of Christ. The Nicene Creed, from this council and the next one, in Constantinople a few years later, is still the basic expression of our faith in the Trinity.”

RELATED: 2025 will be a landmark year for Christendom — here’s why

First Council of Nicaea. Found in the collection of Saint Sophia Cathedral, Kiev. Photo by Fine Art Images/Heritage Images/Getty Images

“The division of East and West that occurred much later in 1054 is most unfortunate and has impeded the spread of the gospel,” continued Collins. “But the churches of East and West, while having different theological and liturgical styles, recognize one another’s apostolic succession and, with a few issues still in dispute, basically agree on doctrine as well. One thing that divides us is historical memories, but increased cooperation has brought some healing there.”

‘The remembrance of that important event will surely strengthen the bonds that already exist.’

Cardinal Collins noted further that “it is good whenever the pope and the patriarch meet. All Christians, facing so many
external dangers, need to work together. The anniversary of Nicaea, which occurred long before the division of East and West, is a perfect opportunity to deepen our knowledge and love for one another, but especially Jesus. The closer we are to Him, the closer we will be to one another.”

Pope Francis, then evidently of a similar mind, told Patriarch Bartholomew I that the anniversary would be “another opportunity to bear witness to the growing communion that already exists among all who are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

“This anniversary will concern not only the ancient Sees that took part actively in the Council, but all Christians who continue to profess their faith in the words of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed,” wrote Pope Francis. “The remembrance of that important event will surely strengthen the bonds that already exist and encourage all Churches to a renewed witness in today’s world.”

The interest in a joint trip was evidently mutual.

During a March address in Harbiye, Turkey, Patriarch Bartholomew underscored his desire for a joint celebration of the anniversary,
reported the Orthodox Times. He also emphasized the importance of the Council of Nicaea.

“The Council of Nicaea stands as a landmark in the formation of the Church’s doctrinal identity and remains the model for addressing doctrinal and canonical challenges on an ecumenical level,” said Patriarch Bartholomew.

RELATED: Triumph of Orthodoxy? Why young men are embracing ancient faith

Photo by Vatican Media via Vatican Pool/Getty Images

Their plans hit a major snag the following month.

Pope Francis died hours after Easter Sunday — the first time the Catholic and Orthodox Churches had celebrated Easter on the same day in eight years.

“He was due to come to our country, and together we would go to Nicaea, where the First Ecumenical Council was convened, to honor the memory of the Holy Fathers and exchange thoughts and wishes for the future of Christianity,” Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
said in the wake of Pope Francis’ passing. “All of this, of course, was canceled — or rather postponed.”

‘We are preparing it.’

“I believe that his successor will come, and we will go together to Nicaea to send a message of unity, love, brotherhood, and shared path toward the future of Christianity,” added the patriarch.

It would not be clear for several days whom the papal conclave would elect as Francis’ successor and whether he would have a similar interest in an East-West convention in Nicaea on the anniversary of the council.

The Chicagoan steps up to the plate

Various leaders in the Christian East welcomed the new bishop of Rome following his May 8 election.

Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, among them, expressed hope that Pope Leo XIV will “be a dear brother and collaborator … for the rapprochement of our churches, for the unity of the whole Christian family, and for the benefit of humankind,”
reported Vatican News.

Days later, Pope Leo XVI
reportedly stated, “The meeting with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew will take place; we are preparing it.”

When asked about the significance of the joint trip, the likelihood of East-West reunification, and Orthodox interest in such reunification, Fr. Barnabas Powell, a parish priest in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America speaking on his own behalf, told Blaze News, “There is simply no way one can be faithful to Christ and not long for the unity of all Christians.”

RELATED: Not Francis 2.0: Why Pope Leo XIV is a problem for the ‘woke’ agenda

Photo (left): Abdulhamid Hosbas/Anadolu via Getty Images; Photo (right): Simone Risoluti – Vatican Media via Vatican Pool/Getty Images

“We Orthodox pray for the unity of the churches in every service. Our Archbishop [Elpidophoros of America] has proven by his prayers and actions that he longs for unity,” said Fr. Powell. “But unity isn’t merely accepting certain propositional proposals. St. Paul said the Church is the bride of Christ, and this profound witness of the identity of the Church is ontologically connected to the mystery of relationship and love. This means we must work to know one another and not merely know about one another.”

“This is hard work in light of the tragic centuries we have been apart. But just because something is difficult doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try,” added Fr. Powell.

The Greek Orthodox priest expressed optimism about the joint trip to Nicaea, noting that as the “first Nicaea showed us that we are to gather together to struggle and dialogue through our challenges, so this is the normal Christian discipline for us today.”

‘I’m not in the odds-making business, but there is certainly justified hope.’

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
notes on its website that the “anniversary celebration brings together Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants to reflect on the enduring significance of Nicaea, fostering conciliarity, dialogue, prayer, and a renewed commitment to the pursuit of Christian unity, echoing the spirit of the first ecumenical council.”

Monsignor Roger Landry, national director of the Pontifical Mission Societies in the United States, told Blaze News that over the past six decades, popes and the patriarchs of Constantinople have been regularly “meeting, praying, and slowly working for restored communion, as have the churches they lead.”

Msgr. Landry suggested that “there’s no question” that one of Pope Leo XIV’s top priorities, “as we celebrate the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea and move toward the 1000th anniversary of the lamentable split between East and West in 1054, will be to take whatever steps, big or small, that will help the church breathe with both lungs again in communion” — a reference to Pope St. John Paul II’s 1995
metaphor of the Western and Eastern churches as two lungs.

Echoing Cardinal Collins and Fr. Powell, Msgr. Landry noted that there remain various obstacles in the way of restoration of full communion — including the date of Easter, the role of the pope, the Filioque controversy, the sacrament of marriage, the respect for the legitimate autonomy of the Eastern churches — but there is nevertheless “a mutual desire for that communion and a mutual humble dependence on God to reveal the path forward.”

“I’m not in the odds-making business, but there is certainly justified hope because the issues that divide us are small in comparison to the faith, sacraments, life, and calling that unite us,” Msgr. Landry told Blaze News. “We are moving together in the right direction.”

In the meantime, he suggested that the ongoing separation “is a scandal that hinders the witness Christians are called to give of God.”

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew’s joint trip to Nicaea with Pope Leo XIV is hardly the only celebration of the anniversary that has brought East and West together.

Earlier this month in Freehold, New Jersey, hierarchs, clergy, seminarians, and faithful from Eastern and Western traditions — including elements of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA, the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church in America, the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of New Jersey, the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Passaic, the St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Eparchy, and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn —
participated in an ecumenical prayer service “testifying to the unifying power of the Nicene Creed and the enduring vision of the Council Fathers.”

Similar celebrations have been held
elsewhere across the world.

The Catholic Church’s International Theological Commission stated in a
recent publication concerning the Council of Nicaea and the 1,700th anniversary:

The celebration of the 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea is a pressing invitation to the Church to rediscover the treasure entrusted to her and to draw from it so as to share it with joy, with a new impetus, indeed in a “new stage of evangelisation.” To proclaim Jesus our Salvation on the basis of the faith expressed at Nicaea, as professed in the Nicene-Constantinople symbol, is first of all to allow ourselves to be amazed by the immensity of Christ, so that all may be amazed, to rekindle the fire of our love for the Lord Jesus, so that all may burn with love for him. Nothing and no one is more beautiful, more life-giving, more necessary than he is.”

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

​Faith, Abide, Christianity, Religion, Christian, Orthodox, Catholic, Council of nicaea, Nicaea, Nicene creed, Creed, Prayer, Doctrine, Dogma, Heresy, Arian, Catholicism, Patriarch, Ecumenical, Ecumenicl patriarch bartholomew, Pope francis, Pope leo xiv, Politics 

In my previous piece about Pope Leo XIV, I discussed last weekend’s social media buzz around the first American pope’s love of baseball.

Unfortunately, the article went to press before I could confirm one crucial detail: The pope is a White Sox fan.

For every meme of the pope wearing a Sox jersey, someone else is crying because the pope used to go to her high school or speaks with his accent.

“He was never ever a Cubs fan, so I don’t know where that came from. He was always a Sox fan,” the new pope’s younger brother, John Prevost, told WGN TV.

White smoke, White Sox

Footage even emerged on Friday afternoon showing a younger Pope Leo in the stands for Game 1 of the Sox’s historic 2005 World Series sweep of the Houston Astros.

The news was also confirmed by Cincinnati Reds fan Vice President JD Vance, who joked that Pope Leo’s White Sox fandom may be good for his spirituality.

“I had a friend of mine that had a pretty funny take on this,” recalled Vance. “He said, ‘If Pope Leo really is a Chicago White Sox fan, then he’s already actually faced the stress of martyrdom multiple times,’ so maybe we have a real winner in the new Holy Father.”

Sorry, Cubs.

No word on whether club chairman Tom Ricketts’ invitation for Pope Leo to sing “Take Me Out to the Ball Game” at Wrigley Field still stands.

Da memes

Despite enduring some jabs for prematurely claiming Pope Leo as one of their own, Cubs fans seem undeterred, cranking out just as much Leo-themed merchandise and memes as their crosstown rivals.

The sheer number of “da pope” memes, shirts, posters, and bobble-heads that have been made in the past few days shows that Chicagoans love being the hometown of the new Holy Father. One local restaurant chain even named an Italian beef sandwich after the pope, while another local pizza joint is seeing skyrocketing business after it was revealed that the pope ate there. The buzz has yet to die down!

As it turns out, Chicagoans of all baseball persuasions have fallen head over heels for Pope Leo in the past few days.

It all seems a little provincial compared to the significance of the larger milestone: that an American from anywhere in the country made the cut.

American pious

Catholic commentators have long thought the Church would be unlikely ever to choose a leader from a country already so dominant in politics, economics, and culture. Africa or South America, where much of Catholicism’s recent growth has occurred, seemed much more likely candidate pools.

That’s why so many Americans are trying to find a message behind the papal conclave’s choice of Cardinal Prevost. What made an American so uniquely suited to this moment in Catholic history, given America’s history of Protestant anti-clericalism and its dubious distinction of being one of the only countries in history to have a heresy named after it?

Was this a statement about the remarkable revival of the Church in America (through folks like Bishop Barron and Fr. Mike Schmitz) or a warning that its vocal “trad” element needs to be more like the politically moderate Pope Leo XIV?

The Chicago way

Back in my native Chicago, any such speculation seems fairly abstract when compared to the ever-present buzz of excitement. Midwest Americans feel a connection to the pope they’ve never felt before.

This is particularly true in Chicago, where Polish, Irish, German, Slavic, Italian, and Hispanic Catholic communities are deeply rooted in the city’s identity and people. For every meme of the pope wearing a Sox jersey, someone else is crying because the pope used to go to her high school or speaks with his accent, creating a new level of identification they’ve never felt with their spiritual father.

Local clergy and laypeople I’ve spoken to in the last few days are bursting with excitement that a graduate of the South Side’s Catholic Theological Union — and a man with whom they share myriad personal connections — is now the supreme pontiff.

Fellow Chicago native and Catholic apologist Bishop Robert Barron put it well in a video last Friday, reflecting how touching it is to have grown up in the same milieu as Pope Leo. They are only a few years apart in age.

“He’s not only an American; he’s from Chicago. He’s from my hometown,” said Barrron. “In fact, he grew up in Dalton, and I grew up in Western Springs. [In good traffic] I could get to Dalton in 25 minutes.”

Barron couldn’t resist pointing out one crucial way in which he dissents from Pope Leo: “I’m a Cubs fan.”

Chi-town represent

Regardless of team — or even religious affiliation — it’s a powerful thing to see yourself represented in such a significant institution. As my friends have put it, it is both surreal and intensely moving to hear a pope speak English with an American accent.

Especially moved are those who grew up in the neighborhoods that Pope Leo lived and served in. I’m seeing Facebook friends, many who aren’t Catholic, share with obvious pride that their family members went to the same high school as the pope.

As Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson says, “This is a tremendous moment for our Catholic community and for all Chicagoans.”

I can’t say I’m not enjoying it myself. However, as much fun as it is to see all the Mike Ditka and “da Bears” jokes, I must admit I am getting queasy from the memes showing the Eucharist replaced with a deep dish pizza. And the wine replaced with Malort.

Setting aside the mild sacrilege, I don’t like the idea of getting a heartburn from holy communion.

​Catholic church, Chicago, Conclave, Vatican, Pope leo xiv 

With accountability and spending restraint more urgent than ever, Congress should shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for good. Eliminating the CFPB would mark a decisive move to protect taxpayers from another bloated, unaccountable government agency. If Republicans, Congress, and President Donald Trump want to keep their promise to rein in Washington’s runaway bureaucracy, they must ensure this agency stays dead — and buried for good.

The CFPB’s unchecked growth and regulatory overreach have raised red flags for years. Born out of the 2008 financial crisis, the agency operates with minimal oversight and has long avoided serious scrutiny. Its expanding budget and vague authority continue to spark legitimate questions about fiscal responsibility and constitutional limits. Closing down the CFPB would end a failed bureaucratic experiment and send a clear message: Every federal agency answers to the taxpayers. No exceptions.

Consumers deserve clear, commonsense policies — especially after years of market confusion driven by the CFPB’s heavy hand.

The CFPB was built to operate independently, beyond the reach of Congress or the president. Lawmakers granted it broad, vague authority — allowing unelected bureaucrats to meddle freely in the U.S. economy. Beyond its track record of economic failure, the CFPB’s structure flatly contradicts the American model of representative government.

President Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, acted quickly. They made high-impact decisions to show Americans they were serious about cutting waste, reducing overreach, and eliminating redundancy across the federal bureaucracy. When the CFPB came up for its DOGE review, the administration halted its operations and dismissed hundreds of staff.

That move triggered criticism from the usual quarters, but consumers and lawmakers should look deeper. Ending the CFPB isn’t just about cost-cutting. It signaled a broader plan to streamline the federal government and promote efficiency across every agency.

Still, even the DOGE can’t finish the job without Congress. Only Congress can repeal the statute that established the CFPB — and only Congress can shut the agency down for good. Lawmakers must do so.

The CFPB currently controls its own funding, bypassing the regular appropriations process and evading critical checks and balances. Reclaiming those dollars would help reduce the deficit, and redistributing the CFPB’s limited useful functions to other agencies would ensure continued consumer protections under proper oversight.

The Federal Reserve and other agencies already handle key aspects of financial regulation and could easily absorb the CFPB’s remaining duties. Congress must finally draw the line: no more duplicative mandates, no more unchecked authority, and no more mission creep. If consumer protections matter — and they do — then Congress must deliver them through a structure that answers to the people.

RELATED: Congress claps back at Biden’s ‘junk fee’ crusade

Ployker via iStock/Getty Images

Fortunately, the CFPB has begun scaling back some of its overreach. Earlier this month, the agency dropped its lawsuit against Credit Acceptance Corporation, an auto lender. That move signals a step in the right direction — away from regulatory overreach and toward a more balanced role in the economy.

Every unnecessary enforcement action piles compliance costs on businesses, stifles innovation, and hampers economic growth. Reassessing these missteps marks progress toward a regulatory approach that defends consumers without punishing industry.

Consumers deserve clear, commonsense policies — especially after years of market confusion driven by the CFPB’s heavy hand. They also deserve policies shaped by accountable officials, not by bureaucrats operating in defiance of congressional oversight. Credit access remains essential for Americans seeking financial stability in times of need. Crafting sound regulations — and eliminating those that never made sense — protects both their financial futures and the broader economy.

Consumers also deserve protection they can trust. Creditors need clear, consistent rules to serve their customers without facing unpredictable regulatory entanglements. Any reform bill must address these concerns directly and distribute the CFPB’s remaining legitimate duties across existing, accountable agencies.

As these changes take shape, stakeholders must stay engaged. Reforms should be implemented deliberately and effectively — promoting economic growth while preserving oversight where it’s needed. If President Trump wants to cement his legacy as the president who dismantled the administrative state, he must make sure the CFPB doesn’t just get paused. It must stay gone for good.

​Opinion & analysis, Consumer financial protection bureau, Cfpb, Donald trump, Elon musk, Doge, Department of government efficiency, Budget cuts, Lawsuits, Regulations, Bureaucracy, Administrative state, Banking, Loans, Federal reserve, Credit 

Duke forward Cooper Flagg is projected to be the No. 1 pick for the 2025 NBA Draft. It’s no surprise after his stellar freshman season, where he averaged 19.2 points, 7.5 rebounds, 4.2 assists, 1.4 steals, and 1.4 blocks per game and earned the Wooden Award as the top college basketball player.

Between his two-way versatility, defensive prowess, and playmaking ability, Flagg will be a franchise cornerstone for the Dallas Mavericks, who won the lottery with a 1.8% chance and are likely to select him on June 25.

But ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith says there’s something besides just raw talent behind Flagg’s status as the projected No. 1 draft pick. White privilege is also apparently a factor in the equation.

Jason Whitlock plays the clip of Smith explaining why the Dallas Mavericks have no choice but to draft Cooper Flagg.

“When you got somebody with that kind of potential and they’re white and you are in America, you keep that dude,” said Smith. “Texas is different, and in Dallas, Texas, if you got an opportunity to get Cooper Flagg, you take Cooper Flagg – especially when you just let go of Luka Dončić.”

Smith argued that being a white American superstar in the NBA, a league with few white American stars, makes Flagg highly marketable, drawing parallels to Larry Bird.

“I don’t understand why ESPN allows this other than obviously they’re in the racial division business like a lot of the rest of the media,” says Jason Whitlock.

“There is, for whatever reason, this undeniable urge or push for ESPN to utilize this race-baiting tactics,” adds “Fearless” contributor Jay Skapinac, host of the “Skap Attack.”

“Sports to me are the ultimate merit-based entity really. … The best should be the ones playing; the best should be the ones picked; the best should be the ones dictating the merchandising dollars, and so forth,” he continues, noting that Smith’s suggestion that top-tier white players are rare and therefore valuable falls flat when you consider that “for five years the best player in the NBA has been Nikola Jokić by wide margin.”

To see the footage of Smith’s comments and hear more of Jason and Skap’s conversation, watch the episode above.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

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

​Fearless, Fearless with jason whitlock, Jason whitlock, Nba, Stephen a smith, Espn, Cooper flagg, Nba draft, Nikola jokic, Blazetv, Blaze media, White privilege 

Until recently, “woke” was a term that anti-Marxist liberals, nationalists, and conservatives had in common. It was a term we could use to communicate with one another and understand one another in our post-2015 battle against a virulent and ascendant strain of neo-Marxist revolution. In other words, the term “woke” played an important role in building a broad coalition that looked like it could be strong enough to defeat this enemy.

It was a pretty big achievement for such a small word.

But now a handful of anti-woke liberals have decided to turn this formerly unifying, coalition-building term into a weapon to use against the right.

True, some of the most malicious liberals have been intentionally using “woke right” to cover just about the entire nationalist right, whereas other, more naive liberals, having taken the bait, are trying to apply the term “woke right” only to what used to be called the “alt-right” or “white nationalists.”

I get it. I really do. I understand that some of the liberals who’ve been pumping up the term “woke right” are deceitful scoundrels and that others are just honestly, nerdishly trying to work out a way of answering real questions in political theory that bother them.

But for present purposes, it doesn’t matter if you’re a deceitful scoundrel or an earnest nerd. Every liberal using the term “woke right” is being a schmuck.

What they are
all doing is taking a flag and a symbol that for 10 years was highly effective at rallying opposition to the neo-Marxist revolution — and worked well to cement a coalition that could defeat it — and throwing that flag to the ground and trampling on it so it can’t be used any more.

Yes, you schmucks, “woke” always meant exactly one thing: It referred to that part of the neo-Marxist left that liberals, conservatives, nationalists, Christians, and Jews had to join forces to defeat. And by repurposing that term as a weapon against this coalition, you’ve turned it into gall in our mouths. You’ve taken a shared term of discourse, gutted its common and universally accepted meaning, and mangled it so we can’t use it to talk to one another any more.

Targeting the anti-woke coalition

This is why so many on the nationalist right are so amazed by the treachery of certain anti-Marxist liberals who have been promoting the theory of the “woke right” — and by the wretched folly of so many other liberals who have walked right into the trap.

Turning the term “woke” on the nationalist right isn’t just redefining any old term. It’s a betrayal. A betrayal that, if it goes through, will mean the end of the anti-woke coalition that looked, for a few short months, like it could actually win.

Sure, there were always different streams on the right. There was always an “alt-right” (as Richard Spencer called it) or a “white nationalist” right that set itself up in opposition to mainstream nationalist conservatives. There was also the “dissident right,” which had a somewhat broader reach. Then there were mainstream nationalist conservatives (or “NatCons”). These were all well known and reasonably accurate terms for talking about the various movements on the political right. And of course, if you didn’t feel like using reasonably accurate terms, you could always use the corporate left-wing media’s go-to favorites like “illiberal right” and “Christian nationalist right” — typically employed when the idea was to deplore everyone who wasn’t a liberal.

In other words, there were plenty of terms available for those anti-Marxist liberals who just wanted to criticize various factions of the right. Those terms existed, and everyone knew what they were referring to.

Why they’re using this term

So why weren’t all these existing terms good enough? Why did some of the super-geniuses who spend their time competing for the title of grand poobah in the anti-Marxist liberal camp feel like they had to manufacture this entirely new term — “woke right” — and work day and night to get it to take off?

Obviously, it was because, in the eyes of a few anti-Marxist liberals, “woke right” had advantages that more accurate terms like “alt-right” or “white nationalist right” didn’t have. Let’s count the advantages these aspiring poobahs thought they could milk out of using “woke right” instead:

1. “Woke right” is intentionally designed to be humiliating. The whole point of the term “woke right” is to target people who have devoted their best efforts for years — often with serious personal and professional consequences — to mounting a viable opposition to the “woke” left. The whole point is to tell them: Sorry, pal, but you’re not a whit better than the Maoist revolutionaries you were out there fighting. And coming out of the mouths of anti-Marxist liberals who were at least sometimes out there on the barricades with us, that is in fact a pretty demeaning thing to hear.

2. “Woke right” is perfect for virtue-signaling. Because the term “woke right” signals a rupture and a betrayal of the coalition that some anti-Marxist liberals forged with the right, it serves as proof of ideological purity. It says: As for me, I’m still untainted. I will keep delegitimizing and canceling nationalists and conservatives forever.

3. “Woke right” succeeds as a provocation where previous terms of contempt like “illiberal right” and “Christian nationalism” failed. The fact is, the term “woke right” really has outraged many nationalist conservatives. And for a small number of especially thuggish liberal trolls, causing that upset and confusion in the ranks of nationalist conservatives is a good in itself.

4. “Woke right” is a term that neutralizes the power of the term “woke” to forge a broad coalition between anti-Marxist liberals and nationalist conservatives. The term “woke right” destroys the flag and symbol of that broad, anti-Marxist coalition and makes it impossible to rally around it any longer.

5. “Woke right” is a term that actively works to destroy the possibility of mutual respect, political alliance, and friendship between anti-Marxist liberals and the nationalist right. Because of its strong connotations of intentional humiliation and provocation, betrayal, and the destruction of shared symbols, getting this term into wide circulation is the best weapon anyone has come up with yet to ensure that anti-Marxist liberals and nationalist conservatives will truly despise one another and do everything possible to avoid working together going forward.

So that’s a lot of reasons why an anti-Marxist liberal might want to use the term “woke right” instead of more accurate, established terms. But notice that he would only use this new term if his goal was to drive a wedge between liberals and the nationalist right, increase mutual distrust and mutual resentment, and cripple the ability of the two camps to pursue common aims.

That’s why I say that every one of you anti-Marxist liberals using this term is being a schmuck. Because either you are purposely trying to destroy the anti-woke coalition, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, or you are completely clueless about the damage you’re doing to the anti-woke coalition and don’t have the political sense to know when you’re being played like a fiddle and who’s playing you.

Either way, there’s an old political term for what you’re doing. You’re being a schmuck.

A common effort endangered

There are lots of things I find aggravating and distasteful about having to work with liberals to achieve common aims. But probably the worst is the way that certain big-shot liberals continue to find ever-new ways of expressing their disgust and loathing for their nationalist and conservative allies — no matter how much their nationalist and conservative colleagues may have contributed to a common political effort and no matter how recent the memory of it.

Some readers may be too young to remember the end of the Cold War. So for them, let me just add a relevant historical comment. If you want to know what happened in 1989 to transform the victorious anti-communist alliance between liberals and conservatives into a dystopian reality in which liberals worldwide ended up trying to grind their former nationalist and conservative allies into the ground — well, it looked exactly like what we’re seeing with this “woke right” campaign.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, a small group of fanatical liberal commissars decided that the victory over communism was the perfect moment to try for a world without nationalists and without real conservatives in any positions of influence anywhere. When they spoke of a “unipolar” world, they didn’t mean that America was going to be the single great power on earth. What they meant was that their liberalism was going to be the single great power on earth, so that no one with any power or influence would ever be anything other than a liberal again. Francis Fukuyama’s grotesque fantasy about banishing anyone driven by “thymos” to jungles at the edges of the political world was only the best known example of this ideal.

It seems like we’re going through an attempted replay of this same liberal fantasy now, although still on a much smaller scale. A small number of fanatical liberal commissars are giddy with the feeling that the Berlin Wall has fallen again. They think (mistakenly) that the war against “woke” is basically over and that our side has already won. They think (mistakenly) that they can safely turn their attention to trying to remove nationalists and genuine conservatives from whatever positions of influence they’ve succeeded in gaining in the last 10 years.

I admit that for now, this effort still looks pathetic. The anti-Marxist liberals who really believe these things are still just a fanatical few. But when you see how quickly they’ve hoodwinked so many in their camp into embarking on an immediate war against their nationalist and conservative coalition partners, it just makes your head spin.

Donald Trump and JD Vance were right to bring anti-Marxist liberals into their coalition and into their administration. They could not have won without broadening their appeal. And that broad coalition will be needed for many years to come if any part of the nationalist and conservative agenda is going to be implemented in reality.

But there won’t be much hope of holding this coalition together if certain fanatical, anti-Marxist liberal commissars continue inflating the lie that nationalist conservatives are an imminent threat to all things good and beautiful — “just like the left.”

Editor’s note: The second edition of Yoram Hazony’s award-winning book, “The Virtue of Nationalism,” will be published in June and is available for pre-order now.

​Opinion & analysis, Woke right, Wokeness, Marxism, Conservatism, Nationalism 

The Los Angeles Chargers’ director of social media defended the team’s right to make humorous content after other teams removed posts that were determined to be “insensitive.”

The controversy started when the Indianapolis Colts took part in what now seems like a tradition for NFL teams to release lighthearted videos to announce their upcoming schedules. The Colts apparently went too far, however, when they turned Miami Dolphins wide receiver Tyreek Hill into a cartoon dolphin and mocked his 2024 run-in with Miami-Dade Police.

‘Luckily we work at a place that values social [media] and the ability to make a joke.’

The perceived backlash — which apparently no one could pinpoint — was enough that the Colts took down their video and issued an apology.

“We removed our schedule release video because it exceeded our rights with Microsoft and included an insensitive clip involving Dolphins wide receiver Tyreek Hill. We sincerely apologize to Microsoft and Tyreek,” the team said in a statement.

The retraction included an apology to Microsoft due to the Colts’ video animation style mimicking Microsoft’s game Minecraft.

In fact, the video seemed strikingly similar to that of the Chargers, who actually acquired permission from Microsoft to use their intellectual property in their schedule release video.

Given the similarity and the subsequent apology, CNN asked the head of the Chargers’ social media about the content of their video and the reaction the Colts had received, wondering, “How far is too far?”

RELATED: Indianapolis Colts cave to invisible mob, delete hilarious video poking fun at Tyreek Hill despite his approval

Allie Raymond (left) and Megan Julian (right) of the Chargers’ social media team. Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Dolphins reporter Joe Schad said the Chargers’ social media head defended making a joke and putting out witty content.

“Luckily we work at a place that values social [media] and the ability to make a joke,” said Megan Julian, director of digital and social media for the Chargers.

“Not everything has to be serious all the time,” she added.

— (@)

It did not take long for fans to react positively to the refreshing take from Julian, which was seemingly the inverse of how the Colts organization handled the situation.

“We desperately need that mind set for the social media team with the Dolphins,” one fan replied.

“Make America joke again!” another fan chimed in.

A photojournalist for a Fox outlet added, “A lot of NFL organizations could learn from this.”

RELATED: NFL cancels DEI event, yet still makes ridiculous diversity statement about its fans and hiring women

The Chargers’ social media team produces content at Chargers HQ on Friday, May 9, 2025 in Los Angeles, CA. (Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

“If you’re going to go for the joke, and take a page from the Chargers’ social media, just go for it,” sports reporter Alejandro Avila told Blaze News.

He added, “I have no idea why the Colts would take that down,” as it did not seem to offend anyone.

Not even Hill, the apparent victim in the ordeal, took offense to the video.

“He laughed about it and didn’t think they needed to take it down on his account,” Hill’s agent, Drew Rosenhaus, stated.

The agent noted that his client was also willing to accept the Colts organization’s apology, even though it was not necessary.

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

​Fearless, Nfl, Football, Social media, Minecraft, Microsoft, Woke, Cancel culture, Sports, La chargers, Indianapolis colts, Jokes, Humor 

Catholics have a new pope: Leo XIV. Most of the cardinals who elected him were appointed by Pope Francis, and at first glance, the new pontiff appears to share much with his predecessor. But it’s early yet. Catholics should pray that Leo charts a very different course. The reason is simple: The Catholic Church finds itself locked in a battle against three hostile ideologies — globalism, Islam, and communism. And right now, it’s losing on all fronts.

Pope Francis earned the nickname the “People’s Pope,” a title meant to suggest he championed ordinary Catholics. In truth, he aligned more closely with the globalist left. He openly opposed President Trump’s push to restore American borders and criticized similar efforts by European nations to reclaim their sovereignty. Under Francis, the Church’s advocacy of open borders helped dismantle Western Christendom by encouraging the mass migration of Muslims into Europe. Many of these migrants view their secularized Christian hosts with contempt. European leaders, meanwhile, steeped in guilt and detached from the virtues of their own civilization, capitulated. The result: rape, murder, and a continent sinking into self-loathing. Only a radical reformation can pull Europe back from the brink.

Communism and Christianity cannot coexist. The new pope must say so — clearly, unambiguously, and without fear.

Francis also failed pastorally. Faced with the ongoing sexual abuse crisis that has haunted the Church for decades, he refused to lead with transparency or justice. When he became pope, he had the chance to hold predatory priests accountable for their demonic crimes and restore trust among the faithful. Instead, he did next to nothing. His silence signaled to the hierarchy that abuse could still be covered up, even tolerated. That betrayal deepened the wounds of a Church already in crisis and demoralized millions of believers.

Pope Leo XIV now has a moment to break with the past. He must act swiftly and decisively. The Church cannot afford another papacy of retreat and complicity.

A disgraceful bargain

In December 2017, Pope Francis appeared on Italian television and publicly questioned the traditional wording of the Lord’s Prayer. The closing line — “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” (Matthew 6:13, Luke 11:4) — is a direct teaching from Christ. Francis asked, “What kind of Father would lead his children into temptation?”

That question revealed a deeper confusion. The line reflects not divine cruelty but the profound gift of human freedom. God grants mankind free will — the ability to choose between good and evil, between virtue and temptation. The Lord’s Prayer acknowledges that freedom and asks God to help us navigate it. Pope Francis, it seems, struggled to grasp this. His discomfort with the line suggests a broader discomfort with the idea that freedom comes with moral risk — and that risk, in turn, calls for responsibility, discipline, and faith.

At the same time, Francis sent disgraced pedophile Cardinal Theodore McCarrick to Beijing to negotiate a secret deal with the Chinese Communist Party. That deal handed partial control of the Church in China to the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, a CCP-run front established in 1957 to suppress Christianity and replace it with a state-approved imitation.

Religious freedom in communist China remains a fiction. Teaching the faith to children is effectively banned. The Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association exists not to protect believers but to pacify the Vatican and deceive the West. It offers a false promise of coexistence — as long as Catholicism conforms to state-imposed restrictions. Some call this process the “Sinicization” of the Church. A more accurate term would be its communization.

RELATED: Not Francis 2.0: Why Pope Leo XIV is a problem for the ‘woke’ agenda

Photo by ALBERTO PIZZOLI/AFP via Getty Images

The CCP has not simply demanded obedience — it has altered doctrine and replaced sacred symbols. The crucifix — central to the Christian faith as a reminder of Christ’s suffering — has been replaced in churches with portraits of Xi Jinping. That’s not contextualization. That’s desecration.

McCarrick, a despicable character to be sure, traveled to China at least three times to help broker the Vatican’s secret agreement with the CCP. Those negotiations produced disturbing compromises: among them, a shared arrangement where the Vatican and the Communist Party jointly approve bishops. Cardinal Joseph Zen of Hong Kong has condemned the deal as a betrayal of faithful Chinese Catholics — many of whom spent their lives resisting communist persecution.

Even Pope Francis acknowledged that the agreement would cause suffering. He was right. Since its implementation, the CCP’s Ministry of State Security has “disappeared” at least 15 bishops who refused to submit to party rule. Their whereabouts remain unknown.

But the suffering extends further — to millions of Chinese parents forbidden from teaching their children about Jesus. Families must wait until their children turn 18 before they can legally attend church, at which point they don’t approach the altar as supplicants to God but as subjects of the Chinese Communist Party. This forced delay in faith formation is not only spiritually damaging — it is deeply humiliating. It turns the act of worship into a form of ideological submission.

No more submission

Some may argue that Chinese Catholics are better off with a compromised, state-approved church than with no church at all. Pope Francis may have reasoned that accepting the replacement of the cross — the profound symbol of Christ’s suffering — with portraits of the Chinese Communist Party’s first secretary was a small price for institutional survival.

But allowing an atheistic regime to oversee Christian worship amounts to cruelty disguised as prudence. It undermines the very purpose of the church. There is something profoundly demoralizing to the entire world to watch the Holy Roman Catholic Church behave in such a craven manner.

Pope Leo XIV must draw a clear line. He must reject every agreement with the Chinese Communist Party that surrenders human freedom in exchange for bureaucratic recognition. The freedom of conscience, the freedom to worship, and the freedom to speak the truth — these stand at the heart of the Christian mission. In China, the underground church continues to bear witness to that mission. Its members worship in secret, often at great personal risk, defying a regime that demands their silence and obedience. Their defiance reveals a faith rooted in courage and dignity.

The CCP’s version of Catholicism, by contrast, fuses materialism, Maoism, and political submission. No Catholic worthy of the name should pretend that such a hybrid represents anything but ideological fraud. Communism and Christianity cannot coexist. The new pope must say so — clearly, unambiguously, and without fear.

What should alarm the faithful most is the Vatican’s submission to totalitarian rule. Instead of forming a bulwark against tyranny, the Catholic Church has, through its secret pact with Beijing, told its flock to put Caesar before God. That message contradicts the very heart of the faith. The Vatican must repeal its secret agreement with the Chinese Communist Party and make public its contents. Only then can the world see clearly the extent of the CCP’s repression — and the Church’s role in enabling it.

The disaster in China offers a painful reminder: While Christ is king and has conquered sin, Satan still rules the world (John 14:30). That truth remains central to Christian belief. It underscores man’s constant dependence on God — and Satan’s persistent effort to pull mankind away. In China’s repression of believers, its sponsorship of Islamic terrorism, its support for Iran’s nuclear program, and its vicious treatment of its own people, Satan’s fingerprints remain obvious and unhidden.

Catholics and all Christians should pray that Pope Leo XIV receives the grace to lead boldly and reject the globalist path of his predecessor. As an American, he might take inspiration from the words of Thomas Jefferson: “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” That counsel has never been more urgent. May the new pope heed it.

​Opinion & analysis, Pope francis, Pope leo xiv, Vatican, Xi jinping, Catholic church, Chinese communist party, Chinese catholic patriotic association, Secret deal, Communism, Islam, Globalism, Joseph zen, Theodore mccarrick, Sexual abuse in the catholic church, Pedophilia, Scandal, Freedom of religion 

On a recent episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn interviewed Vice President JD Vance over a range of topics, including Trump’s history-making trip to Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, Europe’s social media censorship plans, potential spending cuts in the final version of the “big, beautiful bill,” Trump’s plan to slash regulations on AI and energy companies, why staying ahead of China on AI is a matter of life and death, and, finally, the Vatican’s role in global politics.

In their conversation on the Vatican, Vance, who is scheduled to attend Pope Leo XIV’s inauguration this weekend alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio, revealed a fact about the Vatican few know.

“Why does the pope matter so much to the world … beyond faith and religion?” Glenn asked.

“He is the leader of 1.4 billion Catholics, and so there is just a lot of soft influence, right? He doesn’t have a military; he doesn’t have an army, but he does have a lot of influence,” said Vance.

“I think we won a majority of Catholics in the last election, but a lot of those Catholics continue to vote Democratic, and so there is just a natural influence in having the ear of 1.4 billion faithful people, including 100 million or so in the United States,” he continued.

However, it’s not just the Catholic people who are influenced by the pope; global leaders are listening as well.

“You don’t see a lot of headlines about this, but the Vatican has already played a very constructive role in some of the peace conversations that we’ve been having all over the world,” says Vance. “They’ve been trying to facilitate negotiations between the Russians and the Ukrainians; they’ve been trying to facilitate other peaceful negotiations between various countries.”

“They have the ear of those Catholics, but then they also have an ability to use that soft power to play a mediating role in some of these disputes. So while the Pope doesn’t have an F-35 standing behind him, he does have the prayers of a lot of faithful Catholics, and that matters when you try to insert yourself into these conversations,” Vance continued.

Vance added that he and President Trump “welcome that engagement” from the Vatican, as ending wars and promoting peace are pillars in the Trump agenda.

To hear the full interview, watch the clip 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, Jd vance, Vatican, Leo xiv, Catholic church, Catholicism 

In the modern West, “scientific proof” is considered the gold standard for separating truth from falsehood. The popular belief is that if you don’t have scientific proof of something, then it doesn’t exist or is just a matter of subjective opinion.

This is a viewpoint known as “scientism,” which holds that “science” is the only (or the best) means of discovering truth.

‘The entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge and would be total chaos if any of the natural “constants” were off even slightly.’

But there are many truths about the world that are outside the realm of science. For example:

• Philosophical truths (such as the laws of logic)
• Moral truths (murder is an evil act)
• Historical truths (Columbus set sail in 1492 to discover a sea route to Asia)
• Aesthetic truths (sunsets are beautiful)

So when it comes to providing reasons to believe that God exists, we need not limit ourselves to scientific evidence.

We can appeal, for example, to the existence of objective morality (as C.S. Lewis did in “Mere Christianity”), to religious experience, or to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

Nonetheless, there is powerful scientific evidence that points to God’s existence, and we’ll discuss two lines of this evidence below.

One final caveat before we proceed relates to the term “proof.” Merriam-Webster defines proof as evidence that “compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.” This is the everyday meaning of “proof,” in the sense of demonstrating something beyond any doubt.

It’s important to note, however, that science is unable to provide this level of assurance. As the philosopher Karl Popper famously argued, scientific theories can’t ultimately be proven or confirmed because other theories and observations may arise later that explain a phenomenon better. Thus, most leading scientists today recognize that scientific explanations are always provisional and may be modified or replaced in the future.

This is important to understand because science always deals with probabilities rather than proof. Some piece of scientific evidence can point to God’s existence and make it more probable, but scientific evidence can’t conclusively demonstrate that God exists. It’s simply beyond the purview of science to give us definitive proof about anything.

The evidence we’ll discuss below provides solid reasons to believe that God exists, but it can’t prove beyond any doubt that God exists. Science is incapable of reaching that high bar.

The existence of the universe

The most widely accepted account of how the universe came into existence is the standard Big Bang model. Based on a number of different scientific observations, physicists have concluded that the universe sprang into existence out of nothing about 14 billion years ago.

The most immediate question that comes to mind in light of this account is: Who or what caused the Big Bang?

Significantly, the standard model holds that all space, matter, energy, and time suddenly came into existence — from nothing — with the Big Bang. This means that whatever brought the Big Bang about is beyond space and time, immaterial, personal (this being made a decision to create), and unbelievably powerful. Of course, this is an excellent description of many of the attributes of God.

Who else but God could have brought a universe into being?

Some scientists have proposed alternative scenarios seemingly designed to avoid an absolute beginning of the universe, but none have proven persuasive enough to replace the standard model. While scientific theories, as we’ve noted, are always subject to change, the Big Bang as currently understood certainly points to the existence of God.

The fine-tuning of the universe

Although the fact that the universe exists at all is remarkable, another fascinating aspect of the universe is that it is fine-tuned for the existence of life.

Some examples include:

The strength of gravity: The strength of gravity is determined by the gravitational constant. If gravity were significantly stronger, stars would burn out much faster, leaving less time for life to develop. On the other hand, if gravity were much weaker, stars might not form at all, preventing the creation of essential elements for life.

The cosmological constant: This constant relates to the expansion speed of the universe. If it were just a little bit larger, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form. Conversely, if it were smaller, the universe might have collapsed back on itself before life had a chance to emerge.

The strong nuclear force: This force holds together the protons and neutrons in an atom’s nucleus. If it were slightly weaker, protons and neutrons wouldn’t stick together, making complex atoms impossible. Without complex atoms, the chemical diversity necessary for life wouldn’t exist. If it were stronger, protons could potentially bind to each other more readily, which could lead to a universe without stable hydrogen, an essential element for life.

The size and distance of the Earth from the sun: Earth’s position in the solar system is in what scientists call the “Goldilocks Zone,” where it’s not too hot and not too cold, allowing for liquid water to exist on its surface. The size of Earth also ensures that it has the right gravity to retain an atmosphere suitable for life without being too strong to inhibit the mobility of organisms.

Those unfamiliar with the evidence for fine-tuning will sometimes claim that it’s a concept held only by Christians or theists. Yet, scientists who claim no religious affiliation or are openly agnostic or atheist acknowledge this fact about the universe.

Fred Hoyle, an eminent physicist and agnostic, stated, “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” In his book “A Brief History of Time,” the late Stephen Hawking wrote, “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” Physicist P.C.W. Davies, also religiously unaffiliated, insists that “the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly.”

The existence and fine-tuning of numerous constants and parameters of the universe is unexpected and mysterious if naturalism is true. But it makes perfect sense if Christianity is true, and God desired to create beings He could have a relationship with.

Although acknowledging the provisional nature of science, there are good scientific reasons to believe that God exists, and these reasons seem to grow stronger the more we learn about the universe.

This article is adapted from a post that originally appeared on the Worldview Bulletin Substack.

​Science, Big bang theory, God, Christianity, Atheism, Faith 

Sorry (not sorry), progressives and liberal media: Pope Leo XIV isn’t here to rewrite the gospel and edit the Bible to fit your agenda.

When Cardinal Robert Prevost became Pope Leo XIV, progressives exhaled in cautious hope. Maybe — just maybe — Leo would accelerate the Catholic Church’s liberal evolution as the heir to Pope Francis’ attitude of inclusion.

They want Christians who are obedient to the progressive, globalist overlords — not Christ.

But that hope is quickly turning to frustration as reality sets in: Pope Leo XIV isn’t going to oblige liberals.

Take, for example, Pope Leo XIV’s views on the LGBTQ agenda. Just hours after Leo became pope, the Guardian raised alarm (i.e., clutched pearls) after finding video of Leo standing against the progressive spirit of the age while endorsing biblical ethics on sexuality and life.

In that video, Pope Leo XIV condemned abortion, euthanasia, and LGBTQ ideology while observing how the mass media push an anti-Christian agenda.

“Western mass media is extraordinarily effective in fostering within the general public enormous sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the gospel – for example abortion, homosexual lifestyle, euthanasia,” Leo said, before blasting the media for creating “sympathy for anti-Christian lifestyles choices” in such a way that “when people hear the Christian message, it often inevitably seems ideological and emotionally cruel.”

But this is how the Guardian reported it: “Unearthed comments from new pope alarm LGBTQ+ Catholics.”

In other words: A Catholic priest saying Christian things is problematic.

To be fair to progressives and the legacy media, I don’t think they’re personally upset at Pope Leo XIV (yet). After all, no one yet knows how he will lead the Catholic Church.

Instead, they’re upset that Christianity still means something and that faithful Christians refuse to capitulate to their agenda.

They want a church that shifts with the spirit of the age. Christians who bow to cultural pressure. A religion that nods along with whatever the editors at the New York Times or MSNBC decide is morally right in 2025. They want the church to extract itself from its ancient roots. They want Christians who are obedient to the progressive, globalist overlords — not Christ.

Unfortunately for progressives, the Church does not exist to be a mirror of the age. It is a countersign pointing all to King Jesus, who sits at the right hand of the Father. It does not exist to affirm but to transform.

Not only are progressives upset because faithful Christians refuse to conform, but they’re upset because the truth is a light that illuminates their lies.

Pope Leo XIV, then, is exposing the left’s true enemy — God’s truth — and their greatest fear: the disinfectant that wipes away their lies.

Take, for example, Pope Leo XIV’s comments about gender ideology.

“It seeks to create genders that don’t exist, since God created men and women, and trying to confuse the ideas of nature will only harm families and individuals,” he said in 2016. “This campaign, apparently, is going to create a lot of confusion and do a lot of harm. We mustn’t confuse the importance of family and marriage with what others want to create, as if it were a right to do something that isn’t.”

In the era of cancel culture and progressive-enforced speech codes, these comments are not just controversial — they amount to dangerous “hate speech.”

While Pope Leo XIV has not yet faced the full wrath of the progressive mob, his fidelity to traditional Christian ethics is a clear and present threat to the new religion of woke “inclusivity” in which dissension is branded as bigotry and hate.

The great irony, of course, is that as a faithful Christian leader, Pope Leo XIV is neither a bigot nor hate-filled. He preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is rooted in biblical love — the only love that brings peace to our chaotic world.

But to a world that demands affirmation and acceptance of radically anti-Christian ideals, the love of Jesus Christ — which requires obedience and allegiance to his teachings — looks like hate. In this culture, truth sounds like violence and, as Pope Leo XIV himself said, conviction is rebranded as cruelty.

Perhaps, then, this will be Pope Leo XIV’s greatest cultural transgression: He refuses to lie.

He doesn’t pretend that men can become women. He doesn’t endorse the idea that marriage can be anything but a faithful union between one man and one woman. He rejects abortion and the progressive erosion of the family unit. Under Pope Leo XIV’s leadership, the cross will not be replaced with a rainbow flag.

Pope Leo XIV is a shepherd of God’s truth, like it or not.

All Christians should be thankful. Because in an age when so many leaders bend to the whims of the culture wars or equivocate truth, Pope Leo XIV will do something truly countercultural: He’ll stand on God’s word.

Progressives wanted a puppet. Instead, they got a pope.

​Pope leo xiv, Christianity, Christians, Left, Progressives, Lgbtq agenda, Lqbtq ideology, Gay marriage, Bible, God’s truth, Jesus christ, Catholic church, Faith 

The Catholic Church’s papal transition is set to draw to a celebratory close on Sunday morning in Vatican City. According to Sky News, officials are expecting nearly a quarter of a million people to pack St. Peter’s Square to celebrate the papal inauguration. Millions more are expected to watch across the world.

The holy Mass for the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Leo XIV is set to begin at 10:00 a.m. local time, 4:00 a.m. ET. For those looking to follow along, the Vatican has prepared a booklet for the Mass in pdf form. The American-based Catholic television network EWTN has been broadcasting live from Rome since the death of Pope Francis hours after he was driven through St. Peter’s Square on Easter Sunday. The network is planning to carry the inaugural Mass for Pope Leo live on YouTube, which can be seen below.

Catholic News Agency has prepared a list of the key moments to look for during the celebration. Highlights include a prayer at the tomb of St. Peter, a procession led by deacons holding the signs of papal authority — the pallium, gospels, and fisherman’s ring — an “act of obedience and fidelity of the universal Church to the new pope,” and the rite of initiation of the pontiff, where the new pope will receive his pallium and ring.

Dignitaries from around the world are expected at the celebration, including a delegation from the United States led by Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, both of whom are practicing Catholics.

As the world celebrates the first American pope, many Catholics from the United States are hopeful about what’s to come. Bill Donohue, president and CEO of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, told Blaze News, “I would like to hear Pope Leo XIV speak about the multiple challenges awaiting his pontificate. This would surely entail speaking about contemporary moral issues and addressing the problems that militant secularism has wrought.”

Donohue continued, “He does not have to lay out a specific agenda, but we need to learn of his vision for the Church and where he wants to take us.”

RELATED: Not Francis 2.0: Why Pope Leo XIV is a problem for the ‘woke’ agenda

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

​Catholic church, Holy communion, Jd vance, Marco rubio, Papal mass, Pope leo xiv, Faith 

Like transhumanism, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology, geo-engineering is another one of man’s dangerous attempts to play God.

By manipulating Earth’s climate via scattering particles to block sunlight or sucking carbon from the air, it gambles with nature’s delicate balance, inviting consequences we can’t possibly predict.

Lead researcher and founder of GeoengineeringWatch.org Dane Wigington, however, has dedicated his life to exposing and halting covert climate engineering operations. On a recent episode of “Back to the People,” he told Nicole Shanahan the wild story of how he became one of the world’s most vocal critics of geo-engineering — an insidious threat most know nothing about.

Many years ago, Wigington built an off-grid home powered by solar, wind, and hydro energy in a remote area near Lake Shasta in Northern California. Everything was going great; his home was even featured in a major renewable energy magazine, celebrating his expertise in sustainable living.

But one day, something changed: His solar panels began losing a huge amount of power. Given his professional background in solar energy, Wigington knew that the culprit couldn’t possibly be natural.

After extensive research, he found the answer in his rainwater: It had aluminum in it — toxic levels that rose dramatically over an 18-month period.

Aluminum, Wigington explained, “is abundant in the Earth’s strata; it does not exist in free form naturally — period. If it’s in free form, it’s been mined and refined and dispersed.”

In other words, climate engineering programs, specifically in the field of solar radiation management, were likely spraying aluminum nanoparticles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight and cool the planet, which is deeply problematic considering “aluminum is toxic to all life forms.”

The rainwater is “killing virtually all soil microbiome. … Our forests are completely imploding, not just in Northern California — the entire North American West Coast and most places around the world, and they blame that on beetles or a pest,” says Wigington, but “that’s a symptom of a sick, dead, dying tree and ecosystem.”

“We have too many agencies trying to protect their paychecks and pensions and not willing to tell the truth.”

And that truth is: Geo-engineering, which is marketed as a means of mitigating climate change, is actually causing it.

“It’s speeding up drying,” even though “the goal is to block out the sun to keep the land from heating,” echoes Nicole.

“That’s exactly what’s happening,” says Wigington. “Climate engineering under the stated goal of mitigating the thermal energy buildup of the planet is actually exacerbating it, making a bad situation worse — pushing us from the frying pan into the fire.”

To hear more of the conversation, including details about Wigington’s documentary “The Dimming” that exposes the dark underbelly of the geo-engineering world, watch the episode above.

Want more from Nicole Shanahan?

To enjoy more of Nicole’s compelling blend of empathy, curiosity, and enlightenment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Back to the people, Nicole shanahan, Dane wigington, Geo engineering, Aluminum, Climate change, Solar radiation management, Blazetv, Blaze media, Return 

Nineties nostalgia is big these days.

Some are into the music. Distorted guitars and drum sets. Something more human than samples and synths.

People dressed better in the ’90s. Even considering grunge culture, people dressed better. There were no Crocs in 1994.

Some are into the clothes. Old Polo Ralph Lauren on one hand and grungy baggy jeans on another. From time to time, I see young people crossing the street, and those memories of the JNCO years come rushing back.

Reflections of an unrepentant nostalgist

I’ve been an unrepentant ’90s nostalgist for quite some time now. My argument on behalf of the ’90s predates Zoomer nostalgia. It’s interesting to witness the rise of ’90s nostalgia among young people. It feels like watching others catch up to what I already knew. It’s a rare case of feeling culturally vindicated.

What is happening? People never like what I like.

Of course, it will be short-lived. Trends go as quickly as they come. People are fickle. That’s OK, it’s just the nature of things. But the rise of ’90s nostalgia isn’t just irrational sentimentalism.

Nineties nostalgia makes sense. The ’90s were indeed better.

Better problems

There are always detractors. There are those who respond, “The ’90s weren’t that great, you know. It wasn’t all perfect. It wasn’t utopia or anything.” That’s true, it wasn’t utopia. There is no utopia. No one is saying it was utopia. The straw man argument can be dismissed.

Yes, there were problems in the ’90s. Urban crime, for one. There was a darkness to the grunge scene. Cubicle culture was as stultifying as ever.

There was an ennui looming somewhere underneath everything in the wake of the Soviet Union collapsing. With our enemy on the other side of the world vanquished, where did that leave us? Who were we without a formidable enemy? The end of history was here.

Yes, these were problems in the ’90s. But here’s the crucial point: None of those problems came close to what we’re dealing with today.

Is the darkness of grunge really worse than the absolute nihilism we see among our young people today? No. There was, actually, some kind of vital rage to grunge. Brain-rot culture of 2025 is some kind of unholy combination of “Idiocracy” and “Brave New World.”

Same for office malaise. Yes, more of us may work from home, but those homes are often as sterile as the buildings they replaced. Slack email jobs for people with no kids, two cats, and Netflix every night. Don’t forget DoorDash, vasectomies at 26, and sleep health. Grim.

Bad to worse

Our society today is far more anti-social than the society of the ’90s. People are lonelier. More people avoid marriage or even dating. There are fewer children being born.

There are more suicides. More overdoses. More sexual dysfunction. More mental illness. More prescription drugs. The culture is more disgusting. The music is less human. The clothing is more dehumanizing.

Yes, there were problems in the ’90s, but the problems are worse today.

Lament of a ’90s kid

I remember; I was around in the ’90s. I wasn’t an adult, I was a kid. And, of course, children never know what is really going on, but I do remember what life was like.

I know that there was not one bit of gender destruction going on in school. I know that not a single person in my entire childhood claimed to be a boy when she was actually a girl. I know that no one in 6th grade had unfiltered access to anything resembling the psychotic internet of 2025.

I know that almost no one was on antidepressants in high school. I know what it was like, and it wasn’t like today. I know that with my children, I have to look out for everything my parents had to look out for, plus a bunch of other stuff.

People dressed better in the ’90s. Even considering grunge culture, people dressed better. There were no Crocs in 1994.

People didn’t wear pajama pants everywhere. In high school, pajama day was some weird one-off during spirit week. The lowest of the low was ripped jeans and T-shirts. Girls wore makeup more. Guys shaved more.

There was a general thrust of society that led to girls wanting to look pretty and guys wanting to look handsome. There were more songs about love. The movies were, largely, about adults and life, not super heroes and other banalities. All of this is historical fact.

Kids today

Nineties nostalgia, for those of us who were alive then, is a little less interesting than ’90s nostalgia found among the Zoomers. For us olds, it’s real in a way it just isn’t for the Zoomers.

They are longing for a world they never knew. They are imagining a place they have only seen in photos and videos. And it’s the aesthetic of those photos and videos they love.

Handheld-recorder aesthetic with date and tracking problems is a vibe. It’s not Super 8 midcentury. It’s Sony camcorder 1997. Something — anything! — less sterile than a straight iPhone photo. That’s the meaning of that aesthetic memory.

Were the ’90s the greatest decade? No. Of course not. There is no greatest decade. Some argue that history has a fixed trajectory and that every decade is worse than the previous one. It’s a compelling argument. I can’t say it’s entirely wrong, though spending too much time thinking about that might lead to depression.

So close, so far

But why the nostalgia for the ’90s and not the ’80s? Or the ’70s? Or the ’50s? Or the ’20s?

Because the ’90s were the end and the closest we can get. The final sputters of the 1900s. The end of the other world. Yes, there have been many ends, but the ’90s were really the final gasp. The last chopper out of Vietnam. That flip from 1999 to 2000 was the final nail in the coffin.

The ’90s feel like an alternative reality. It was modern then. Looking back on 1994 isn’t like looking back at 1924. 1924 feels ancient. We can’t really wrap our heads around living then. But 1994 is near us.

The cars, the houses, the technology, the medical advancement, the people, the language, the way of life. It all feels very familiar. It really feels like yesterday, even for the Zoomers who weren’t there. It feels like we can almost reach out and grab it. It feels like we can almost get there from here.

It feels like today, but better.

​Men’s style, The 90s, Nostalgia, Grunge, Culture, Lifestyle, Kurt cobain, The root of the matter 

An independent researcher who has devoted his time to exploring a location near Mount Ararat that is believed by some to be the remains of Noah’s ark is speaking out.

Andrew Jones, who runs Noah’s Ark Scans, a group he described as “a loose organization of individuals interested in pursuing scientific work and promoting [the ark site],” said he became interested in the Genesis flood story when he was a child.

‘We have the shape, we have the location matching, we have the length matching exactly in the Bible.’

Years later, in college, this intrigue expanded when he visited Turkey and saw the location for himself.

“I’ve been going back and forth ever since,” he said.

Jones said Noah’s Ark Scans works with scientists to explore the Mount Ararat site in an effort to take steps toward discerning whether it truly is the resting place of the massive biblical vessel.

“This last year, we had an Australian soil scientist come out there, and he suggested a soil test that we could do because we noticed, for example, that the grass growing in this boat formation was a different color than right outside the boat object,” he said. “So [he] and the local Turkish geologists designed a test, and they got the samples, and we got some … really interesting results.”

One of the central questions surrounding the ark site is why, if it’s believed to potentially hold these remains, it has taken so long to do discernible and definitive research.

Jones said a series of issues have held up that process.

“We are just as interested as anyone else in either proving or disproving what this site is,” he said. “There’s many factors involved — some are politics. So this is Eastern Turkey. You do have issues out there that could affect doing scientific work. Then, you have religious issues.”

From Christian claims to Islamic ones, there’s a “competition” of sorts surrounding the story. Mixing that in with a lack of interest in some quarters, among other factors, has created barriers.

“If you’re going to pursue a scientific investigation to this site, you have to work with a local university, which means you need to find a university and professors who are willing to put their career on the line looking for Noah’s ark, which, even for Islamic scholars, that could be a problem,” Jones said. “People think you’re crazy looking for something like this. And so, yeah, it’s very difficult.”

But Jones said he and others continue pushing on, working with local authorities and international partners to analyze and explore the area where they believe the vessel might be located.

As for the location, Jones said the Bible gives a “very brief description” in Genesis. In fact, Genesis 8:4 reads, “And on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.”

Moses’ description, Jones said, isn’t GPS-specific.

“That’d be like me saying today, ‘Noah’s ark landed in the mountains of Colorado or the mountains of Canada,’” he said. “It is a general area.”

The site where Jones and others are exploring is in this area, he said. The shape of the site reportedly first caught the attention of a Turkish military official decades ago.

“In a remote corner of Turkey, a unique geological formation, unearthed on September 11, 1959, by Turkish Army Captain Ilhan Durupinar, is raising eyebrows and piquing the interest of biblical scholars and geologists alike,” Noah’s Ark Scans writes in a description. “This boat-shaped geological curiosity, commonly referred to as the Durupinar formation, is considered by some to be the final resting place of Noah’s Ark.”

At the time, the discovery made a media splash, and people immediately began heading out to see for themselves. Eventually, though, Jones said the location was almost “forgotten about” until an American named Ron Wyatt started exploring and promoting it in the 1980s and 1990s before his death.

Jones and others have since picked up that mantle, working with experts to collect evidence. He explained the specific components that lead some to believe this is a good contender for the location of the ark.

“Number one, we have a ship shape,” Jones said, noting that the biblical size also lines up. “We have the shape, we have the location matching, we have the length matching exactly in the Bible.”

He continued, “Right now, the only tests that we can do are non-destructive-type of tests, like geophysical scans. … GPR, which is … ground-penetrating radar, ERT, which uses electricity and measures the resistive nature [of] what’s below the ground.”

This data is used to create models and to explore what might be inside the soil. So far, he and other researchers believe there are “angular structures” underground and even a “central tunnel” inside the structure that seems to point to something more than a mere mound of dirt.

Eventually, they hope to excavate when the conditions and parameters allow. Right now, using non-destructive means is important. Jones hopes to continue collecting samples and forging on with a plan to better discern what might be underneath the area.

“We’re hoping that before any excavations are even considered, that we could core drill the site at random locations and at some of these spots that the radar is showing to be like [an] angular structure that … possibly won’t be considered natural, so maybe man-made-like walls,” he said. “And some of these voids, this tunnel is going down the middle about 4 meters down.”

These samples, Jones said, would give more information and context to better understand what’s happening inside the site. He’s also hoping to do additional soil testing.

Ultimately, based on the size, shape, and data, he believes that this “has to be the remains” of Noah’s ark. He doesn’t expect it will be fully preserved due to the age and time passed, but he sees the site as the “best candidate” at the current time.

This article originally appeared on CBN’s Faithwire.

​Noah’s ark, Bible, God, Andrew jones, Turkey, Faith 

In just three days, Jake Tapper’s phony exposé “Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,” which he co-authored with Axios’ Alex Thompson, will be released.

If you’ll recall, Tapper was more than happy to regurgitate the mainstream media narrative that Joe Biden was cognitively stable, downplaying and dismissing concerns about his mental acuity and shaming anyone who dared to raise eyebrows. But now that the secret is out and Democrats are no longer in power, he’s cashing in the opportunity to “expose the truth” he knew all along.

“Is Jake Tapper the king of grift?” scoffs “Blaze News | The Mandate’s” Jill Savage.

Blaze Media senior politics editor and Washington correspondent Christopher Bedford, who explored this subject in his recent article “The Great Biden Book War has finally begun,” says that “it’s just incredible” what Tapper and Thompson are trying to do.

“They covered Joe Biden; they covered him for years. Alex was on the campaign at the time. He wrote a lot of stuff about the campaign … but he never at any point wrote about the obvious cognitive decline of the president,” he says.

The same goes for Tapper, who “covered politics from his role as a host at CNN.”

“[Tapper] never once talked about the obvious cognitive decline of the president,” says Bedford. In fact, at one point, he even “[berated] Lara Trump” for questioning Biden’s mental state, claiming she was shaming children with stutters for pointing out Biden’s speech struggles.

But as soon as the cat was out of the bag after Biden’s disastrous career-ending debate against Donald Trump, Tapper and Thompson seized on the chance to pad their wallets. They began conducting interviews with senior Democrats inside and around the White House and Harris’ campaign, collecting stories to corroborate the truth they already knew.

One highlight in the book is that “the administration was considering the use of a wheelchair as soon as the second administration of Joe Biden started … but not before” so as to maintain the illusion of health, says Bedford.

Another anecdote from the book details how Biden aides tried to conceal his “awkward gait” by blaming it on an old injury that had already healed.

Tapper and Thompson are presenting this information as if it’s shocking, but it was abundantly clear to anyone paying attention that Biden was doing “the dead man shuffle,” says Bedford. “He took the kiddie stairs at the back of Air Force One after multiple falls. This is not an inside scoop.”

“How do you think this thing is gonna sell?” asks Blaze News editor in chief Matthew Peterson.

To hear Bedford’s prediction, watch the clip above.

Want more from ‘Blaze News | The Mandate’?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Blaze news tonight, Blazetv, Blaze media, Jill savage, Chris bedford, Matthew peterson, Biden decline, Cnn, Jake tapper, Alex thompson, Axios, Joe biden 

Oh, Canada!

It’s the country most Americans rarely think of except during hockey season or when pinko celebrities threaten to pull up stakes and move there after an election.

Hey — maybe someday Canadians will be going to India for a better life. To quote Ottawa’s own Alanis Morissette, ‘Isn’t it ironic?’

But lately Canada’s been big news in Yankee-land. Why? Simple: President Donald Trump’s desire to add the True North as America’s 51st state.

With former Canadian leader “Governor” Justin Trudeau out of the picture and new highly educated globalist and Goldman Sachs alum Mark Carney now installed, it’s time to take a look at what to expect if Canada joins up.

As a Canadian, I’m here to show you the icy ropes and separate myth from fact in order to make you incoming American friends feel more welcome and help you integrate to our correct and clearly superior ways.

MYTH: Canada is extremely liberal!

Canada is just super left-wing and even the Democrats in the U.S. are basically more conservative than Canada’s official conservative party. None of Canada’s parties offer any fundamental challenge to things like abortion, same-sex marriage, mass immigration, or extremist woke policies.

FACT: Canada cherishes diverse viewpoints!

Canada has the New Democratic Party (far left in all ways), the Liberals (neoliberal — far left socially), the Conservatives (center left and far left socially), the People’s Party (center right and libertarian), and many additional vibrant parties!

These include the Communist League of Gentlemen, the Rainbow Gender Coalition, the Polycule Collective Party (PCP), the Destroy the Patriarchy (with Fire!) Party, and many smaller highly democratic parties!

Yes, all of them (except for the People’s Party — which also got very few votes this latest election and was viciously defamed by our national media) are what Americans would see as “left wing,” but that’s just because left wing is obviously the only correct belief system for any reasonable person!

If you disagree, we’d love to hear about it as long as you eventually agree with us, while publicly apologizing and vowing to “do better.”

As peace-loving Canadian liberals, we are frightened and confused by how often you Americans are at each other’s throats over mere political differences. We love and respect all of our countryfolx. If you’re here, you’re family. Unless you want to limit abortion in any way, not give out crack pipes in vending machines, or restrict free gender expression.

Sorry. We don’t make the rules (our federally funded news channel CBC does).

MYTH: Canada is overwhelmed by unchecked immigration

Canada is full of people who barely speak English and has become a magnet for economic migrants from all over the world. Walking in many major cities feels like you are in India or China and almost nobody you meet was born here.

FACT: Canada is deliciously diverse, you racist scumbag!

You may have heard Canada has “too many” immigrants. Nonsense — that’s like saying poutine has “too many” cheese curds!

The fact is, as of 2021, over 23% of our population is made up of immigrants — and we’re just getting started! Go into any small town or big city, and you’ll feel a palpable sense of enrichment — and we don’t just mean all the untaxed remittances flying out of the country via the local Western Union.

It’s that magical disorientation you feel when every second person you encounter doesn’t speak English. Does a trip to Loblaws leave you wondering if you’re in Bangalore or Beijing? That’s the multiculturalism working!

Native Canadians may not be having babies (we reject human supremacy), but there are more than enough newcomers to keep the country from thinning out too much. In 2023 alone, we added 1.2 million new Canadians. That’s a 3.2% increase — a rate so high some economists fear we’ve entered a “population trap,” in which masses of newcomers jack up house prices and basic necessities to the point that’s its impossible to raise living standards.

Hey — maybe someday Canadians will be going to India for a better life. To quote Ottawa’s own Alanis Morissette, “Isn’t it ironic?”

MYTH: Canada is overly polite and, well, kinda boring!

Canadians are known for being extremely polite and saying “sorry” (so-rē) a lot. A lot of celebrities and musicians from Canada move to the U.S. because there’s not enough going on here, and red tape and regulation strangles the arts, industrial innovation, business and daily life. Eesh, grim! Thank God it’s entirely false!

FACT: Canada is a laid-back, super fun no-hoser zone!

So you think Canadians are just “Temu Americans”?

In the words of Canuck funnyman Jim Carrey, “Aaaaalrighty then!”

You see, we can’t hear your taunts over this totally epic live Nickelback show at Montreal’s beautiful Bell Centre. Pass me another Molson, eh? Afterward, we might “take off” to Tim Hortons for steaming mugs of maple-flavored coffee and stimulating conversation about parliament.

MYTH: Canada cracks down on free speech

Canada has joined Australia and the U.K. as having some of the harshest restrictions on free speech, online activity, and basic rights of assembly and conscience in the developed world.

The government actively prevented those who declined to get the COVID “vaccine” from leaving the country, while the Toronto Star — one of Canada’s largest newspapers — called them out with the headline “Let them die.”

Canada is also surging ahead with its Medical Assistance in Dying to ensure that euthanasia is offered as a “treatment” option for serious terminal illnesses as well as for chronic mental health issues — including the PTSD afflicting Canadian combat veterans.

FACT: That’s a very hurtful thing to say!

Thanks to bureaucratic reforms by former PM Trudeau, appealing your COVID VACCINE DENIER status and having your internet privileges restored is easier than ever.

​Justin trudeau, Donald trump, Mark carney, Tim horton’s, Canada, Humor, Letter from canada 

David Zucker helped invent the kitchen-sink approach to film satire.

The co-writer/director of 1980’s “Airplane!” hurled gag after gag at audiences until they couldn’t help but howl. Puns. Sight gags. Pop culture Easter eggs.

He recalls a female studio executive objecting to a bit about a female officer getting a breast reduction to fit into her Kevlar vest.

If one joke didn’t land, the next three would.

Ted Striker: Surely you can’t be serious.
Rumack: I am serious … and don’t call me Shirley.

Zucker added to his legacy with “Top Secret!” (1984), the “Naked Gun” trilogy, and more satirical smashes. Even a rare failure, the six-run episode of 1982’s “Police Squad!” is considered a TV classic following its cruel cancellation.

Now, he wants to share the blueprint behind those laugh-a-minute romps.

‘Gun’ grabbers

The upcoming “MasterCrash: A Crash Course in Spoof Comedy” lets the comedy legend expound on the tricks of his hilarious trade.

“One thing we learned … is it starts with the characters. The audience has to be invested in your characters,” Zucker says.

The online course came to him after he got rejected by Hollywood, Inc. for his “Naked Gun 4” script.

“Paramount liked it … but suddenly we didn’t hear anything,” Zucker tells Align about the project. “I woke up [one day] to read Seth [MacFarlane of ‘Family Guy’ fame] had come and taken over the franchise.”

The results? “The Naked Gun,” starring Liam Neeson as the son of the character played by Leslie Nielsen in the original trilogy. The reboot/sequel hits theaters in August.

‘There’s a discipline behind it’

Zucker is skeptical of the upcoming film, and that’s putting it mildly.

“[MacFarlane] doesn’t know how to do it. He can do ‘Ted’ and ‘Family Guy,’” Zucker said, cautioning that his signature style (along with collaborators like Pat Proft, the late Jim Abrahams, brother Jerry Zucker, and Mike McManus) is harder than it looks. “It may seem like we’re zany and crazy, but there’s a discipline behind it.”

The course might even inspire the next generation of satirists, assuming they take copious notes.

“You can’t teach people how to write comedy, but you can stop them from wasting time thinking they know how to do it,” he says.

Zucker can laugh about the Paramount snub now. His legacy is secure, and he has faith in his approach to humor. His films age well, including Val Kilmer’s lead turn in “Top Secret!” He doesn’t like being a victim, either.

“I don’t take it myself seriously,” he adds.

“Everywhere I look, something reminds me of her.” Don Bartletti/Getty Images

Joke police

Zucker recalls the dawn of his satirical approach.

“We’d watch serious B movies and dub in our own voices,” he says of his formative years, captured in the ‘70s-era “Kentucky Fried Theater Show” in L.A.

“That stage show was a live laboratory for us to develop our style,” he says of his comic companions. The showcase became 1977’s cult hit “The Kentucky Fried Movie,” helmed by a then-unknown director named John Landis (“Animal House,” “An American Werewolf in London”).

Zucker’s brand of comedy might dabble in blue bits, but he eschews profanity and often works below the R-rated radar. He still ran afoul of the woke mind virus in recent years, particularly while pitching his “Naked Gun 4” script.

The screenplay spoofs the “Bourne” films and “Mission: Impossible” saga far more than police procedurals. It’s his chance to acknowledge the “Naked Gun” legacy while moving on to fresh satirical targets.

He recalls a female studio executive objecting to a bit about a female officer getting a breast reduction to fit into her Kevlar vest.

“It was such a mild joke, and she said, ‘I don’t know if you can do that.’ We just rolled our eyes,” Zucker recalls.

He says audiences are ready, willing, and able to laugh at big-screen comedies again as woke fades to black. Studio boardrooms aren’t on the same page, he adds.

“These are frightened people beholden to stockholders or big-time owners,” he says. It’s one reason he’s going the independent route for his next big-screen comedy, a film noir spoof, “The Star of Malta,” that he hopes to begin shooting in the fall.

Nakedly conservative

He’s also keen on reviving a repurposed “Naked Gun 4” script as his follow-up project.

Zucker’s inimitable style, seen most recently in the “Scary Movie” franchise, isn’t all that sets him apart from his peers.

The 77-year-old is one of the rare openly conservative artists working in Hollywood. He’s hardly as vocal as a George Clooney or Jon Voight on Beltway matters, but he leaned into his political views for the 2008 comedy “An American Carol.” The satire poked fun at Michael Moore and liberal sacred cows.

Hollywood often punishes artists for embracing the right, but Zucker isn’t sure if his views ever dampened his career.

Zucker recalls working with producer Bob Weinstein (Harvey’s younger brother), whom he jokingly describes as “to the left of Castro,” on three “Scary Movie” sequels. (Zucker directed numbers 3 and 4 and co-wrote number 5).

“When it came to hiring a director, he knew that I was able to do it and I could do it well,” he says. “Bob has always been very supportive and always had faith in me. He didn’t care about the politics.”

​Culture, David zucker, Airplane!, Naked gun, Seth macfarlane, Liam neeson, Leslie nielsen, Movies, Interview 

May 31, 1997. I was 9 years old and had just hit my first home run for Tampa Bay Little League. After the game, a parent handed me the ball, and I wrote the date on it. Today, that ball still rests on a shelf in my den — a small monument to childhood and a boyhood milestone.

Last week, my 7-year-old son earned the game ball after his own baseball game. He plays in the same league and on the same field where I hit that home run. Naturally, I placed his ball right next to mine.

After our last game, my fellow coaches and I said what we all knew to be true: We’re not just teaching a sport. We’re raising boys into men — through baseball.

As I set his ball on the shelf, I picked mine up. The handwriting made me laugh — so innocent, with a crossed-out word where I had misspelled something. Suddenly, the memories came rushing back: the smell of the concession stand, the taste of my glove laces from chewing them in the outfield, and the voice of that one dad in the bleachers who never liked an umpire.

Then, something else caught my attention. The two baseballs, separated by 32 years, looked exactly the same. Same color. Same stitching. Same weight. Indistinguishable.

For a few minutes, I just stood there, staring at the two baseballs. In that quiet moment, something struck me: In a world where nearly everything feels up for grabs — values, definitions, identities, expectations, even truth — a baseball almost feels like an act of rebellion.

In a culture obsessed with chasing the next big thing, those two identical balls offered a much-needed reminder: Not everything needs to be reinvented or improved. Some things are worth preserving.

If you’re familiar with my work, you know I take pride in celebrating the things that never go out of style — faith, family, and freedom. I cast shade on what’s trendy and shine a bright light on what’s true, good, and beautiful. When the world wobbles, these values steady the ground beneath us. They hold together not just our personal lives but the country itself.

And let’s be honest. The world feels very wobbly right now.

RELATED: ‘The Man in the Arena’ wears red, white, blue — and wins

Photo by Hunter Martin/Getty Images

Our institutions keep demanding that we reconsider basic truths: that men can become women, that state ideology trumps parental authority, that patriotism poses a threat, that faith offends, and that masculinity is somehow toxic.

Every tradition gets questioned. Every boundary, blurred. Every norm, up for debate.

And yet — there sits the baseball. Quiet. Unchanged. Still exactly where I left it.

That’s not an accident. It points to something deeper, something God has written into the human heart: a longing for the eternal. For stability. For order. For truth that doesn’t shift with the culture.

When I coach my son on the same diamond I played on as a boy, I don’t think about preparing him for the chaos of the world. My job is to anchor him in the things that aren’t chaotic. After our last game, my fellow coaches and I said what we all knew to be true: We’re not just teaching a sport. We’re raising boys into men — through baseball.

We’re teaching them that manhood isn’t a moving target. That marriage is a covenant, not a contract. That freedom comes with responsibility.

Tradition isn’t something to escape. It’s something to inherit, to steward, and to pass on. That’s what fatherhood demands. It’s what citizenship requires. It’s what faith commands.

Despite what modern culture preaches, tradition isn’t about control — it’s about continuity. It’s the through line that links generations, so we don’t get swept away by every cultural trend. Headlines change. They don’t define you.

You’re defined by how you love your family; how you serve your neighbors; how you show up when it’s inconvenient; how you choose courage when convenience would be easier; how you pray when no one’s watching; how you toss the ball around with your kid in the backyard.

The stitching on that baseball never changed; neither did the role of a father; neither did the moral clarity of the gospel; neither did the beauty of a shared meal or the dignity of honest work.

It’s time we return to those things.

In a culture obsessed with change, maybe the wiser path is to focus on what doesn’t. Maybe the real challenge isn’t keeping up with the world — it’s keeping faith with the people and principles that mattered before the world got so loud.

In 1776, North Carolina’s constitution echoed that truth. American founder George Mason wrote, “A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessing of liberty.”

That baseball on the shelf hasn’t changed — neither have the things that matter most.

And I’m holding on tight.

​Opinion & analysis, Traditional values, Boys, Little league, Sports, American founding, Virtue, Truth, Manhood, Freedom, Preservation, Fatherhood, Father and son