Category: blaze media

Everybody has a diagnosis these days.

Not just adults — kids too. It doesn’t matter if you’re 8 or 38, there’s someone somewhere waiting to explain away whatever’s different about you.

Perhaps you find your work excruciatingly boring and hard to care about precisely because it is excruciatingly boring and hard to care about.

It’s not a quirk of your personality or a flaw in your character or a wound in your soul. It’s a illness. Never mind that the symptoms are vague or the evidence that it’s a discrete medical condition are lacking — a pharmaceutical cure will fix it.

Just pop this pill, and you will be like everyone else. Isn’t that what you want?

All the rage

All the kids these days have ADHD or autism. Which often makes me wonder if any of them do. Or if these conditions exist at all.

Autism certainly seems real in its extreme forms, but I am not at all convinced that it’s at the far end of a continuum. I don’t really think being a little “on the spectrum” is a thing. Those people are just a little weird and need stronger guidance on how to get on in life.

I have a friend who was an engineer at Google. He told me half the people he worked with claimed to be “on the spectrum,” and according to him, it was all bull. They didn’t have medical problems; they had personal problems. They were guys who never learned how to interact normally, so they just ended up being kind of weird and rude.

As for ADHD, it’s so obscenely overdiagnosed that it’s essentially fake at this point. The market has been so oversaturated by ridiculous and erroneous diagnoses that whenever I hear about another kid with ADHD, it tells me more about the doctors and the “system” and less about the kid.

Boys will be boys

Are some kids better at sitting down at a desk for three hours at a time? Sure. Are more girls than boys better at doing it? Yes. Is there a gender factor here when it comes to diagnosis? Absolutely.

Boys don’t learn the same way girls do. But much of modern education ignores this fact. So when boys fidget or get bored, it gets chalked up to ADHD. This is more or less common knowledge by now. So the only thing a boy being diagnosed with ADHD tells me is that he doesn’t get enough recess.

Of course, there are extreme cases. There are kids who genuinely don’t seem to be able to focus at all. Something like actual ADHD exists in a small number of boys, but that doesn’t negate the broader truth: Instead of seeing people as individuals with different strengths and weaknesses, we decide to overmedicate when someone isn’t exactly like everyone else.

My mom worked with special ed kids. Some of them had mild disabilities, some more extreme. In some cases, it was clear they would need supervised care their entire lives. But in other cases, it wasn’t clear just what, if anything, was wrong — besides a certain learned helplessness reinforced by doctors and parents.

Pill and chill

Nowadays ADHD diagnoses aren’t just for kids; adults are getting in on it too. Believe it or not, an increasing amount of men and women, especially women, in their 30s and 40s are discovering that they too have ADHD — a discovery that inevitably “explains everything.” My wife sees reels on Instagram all the time, along with ads selling various solutions.

What’s that? You couldn’t focus at your computer, clicking on an excel spreadsheet, sending pointless emails for seven hours at a time? Shocking. No, you don’t need ADHD medication. You need to do something else with your life. Perhaps you find your work excruciatingly boring and hard to care about precisely because it is excruciatingly boring and hard to care about.

Overmedicalization and overdiagnosis is a deep problem in our society. Not just because the result is an increase in prescription drug use, but because the individual human being is lost or suffocated a little bit at a time. Everyone is different. Everyone has skills, and everyone has weaknesses. Everyone learns in a different way, and everyone focuses on different things too.

RELATED: Drugged for being boys: The TRUTH behind the ADHD scam

Blaze Media

Free agency

Some people are just a little awkward, a little weird, a little absent-minded, or a little dry. Sure, they should try to meet society halfway in some reasonable sense — but that happens through early teaching, parental guidance, community expectations, and personal effort, not through a pill you pop every day. For most of the 20th century, we relied far more on those nonmedical supports.

All the pill-popping flattens our individualism and undercuts our own agency as humans. It presupposes that one cannot make oneself better, one cannot work to act right, and that one doesn’t have any control. This is a lie. Yes, of course, there are people who suffer with truly debilitating problems who need medication, and they should get that medication. But it is a small fraction of the population. Most people can make themselves better when they set their minds to it.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not anti-psychiatry. I’m not into alternative medicine or any of the hippie stuff. I’m not denying that there are people with problems who are helped most effectively with medication. I’m thankful for the blessings of modern medicine and the advancements we continue to see every year.

But we have a problem with overdiagnosis in our country. We have a problem with losing sight of the individual. We have a problem with people who want to give up their agency and turn it all over to a pill, and we are worse off because of it.

​Men’s style, Family, Lifestyle, Health, Adhd, Autism, Big pharma, Pharmaceuticals, Fatherhood, The root of the matter 

Antifa radicals have been causing chaos throughout America for years and have finally been designated as a terrorist network by the Trump administration.

However, they’re still getting away with crimes.

“Antifa radicals in Berkeley, California, disrupted a Turning Point USA event outside of UC Berkeley, punched a conservative in the face. The conservative gets arrested,” BlazeTV host Christopher Rufo tells co-host Jonathan “Lomez” Keeperman on “Rufo & Lomez.”

“But our policy prescription is, the administration has to dismantle the left-wing terror networks, whether it’s Antifa, other organized militant groups. They have to actually get mugshots, case numbers, inmate numbers,” he continues.

“The tangible evidence that these left-wing terror networks, which are essentially saying that we can control the streets in places like Portland, we can veto peaceful conservative speech in places like Berkeley — we have to ensure that they can no longer do so and can no longer exert control through violence,” he adds.

While Rufo points out that Antifa is still out there disrupting whatever it can, Lomez notes that it was a “huge step in the right direction” that it has at least been designated as a terrorist network.

“The administration is making the right moves and/or saying the right things. What’s missing is the conspicuous action so that your average American, let alone Trump supporter, but just your average American goes, ‘Yeah, I don’t like Antifa, and the administration is doing something about it, and that’s good,’” Lomez says.

But the next step is taking the terrorist designation and doing something with it.

“Let’s just take this case at UC Berkeley, this recent event. The attorney general, Pam Bondi, released a great tweet,” Rufo says.

“Antifa is an existential threat to our nation. The violent riots at UC Berkeley last night are under full investigation by the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force. We will continue to spare no expense unmasking all who commit and orchestrate acts of political violence,” Bondi wrote.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, and pursuant to his Executive Order designating Antifa as a domestic terror organization, the Department of Justice and our law-enforcement partners are dismantling violent networks that seek to intimidate Americans and suppress their free expression and First Amendment rights,” she added.

While Rufo is glad to see Bondi using such strong wording, he’s skeptical.

“Why hasn’t UC Berkeley been defunded? Just say, ‘Hey, we’re withholding funds until you can establish a basic environment of civil discourse,’” Rufo says.

“You have to make sure that the directive that comes from the, you know, FBI director’s office, the attorney general’s office, you have to make sure that it means something at that regional level, at that agent level,” he explains.

“And I am not convinced that the current leadership, that the current structure, the current techniques that they’re using has sufficiently done that,” he adds.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

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

​Video phone, Upload, Sharing, Camera phone, Free, Video, Youtube.com, Rufo & lomez, Chris rufo, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Lomez, Antifa, Uc berkeley, Tpusa event, Terrorist designation, Left wing militant, Left wing violence 

The United States Senate is broken, and most Americans know it — including President Donald Trump. A chamber that once passed laws with a simple 51-vote majority, a practice that held for more than a century, now demands 60 votes for nearly anything of consequence.

Defenders call this the “world’s greatest deliberative body,” guarding minority rights. In reality, the 60-vote threshold is a rule the Senate invented in the last century — and one it can discard tomorrow.

The filibuster transformed from a test of stamina into a tool for avoiding hard votes — and, today, a convenient excuse to delay or kill the America First agenda.

Article I lists exactly seven situations that require a supermajority: overriding vetoes, ratifying treaties, convicting in impeachment, expelling members, proposing constitutional amendments, and two obscure quorum rules. Passing ordinary legislation is not on the list.

The Senate’s tradition of unlimited debate — the seed of modern filibusters — wasn’t designed to create a supermajority requirement. It was an accident.

In 1806, on Aaron Burr’s suggestion that the Senate rulebook was cluttered, the chamber deleted the “previous question” motion, the mechanism the House still uses to end debate and vote. No one understood the implications at the time. Filibusters didn’t appear until the 1830s, and even then they were rare because they required real endurance. Senators had to speak nonstop, often for days, until they collapsed or yielded.

How the filibuster became a weapon

Everything changed in 1917. After 11 anti-war senators filibustered Woodrow Wilson’s bill to arm merchant ships on the eve of World War I, the public revolted. Wilson demanded action. The Senate responded by creating Rule XXII — the first cloture rule — allowing two-thirds of senators to end debate.

Instead of restraining obstruction, the rule supercharged it. For the first time, a minority didn’t need to speak until exhaustion. They only needed to threaten it. The majority now had to assemble a supermajority to progress.

The filibuster transformed from a test of stamina into a tool for avoiding hard votes — and, today, a convenient excuse to delay or kill the America First agenda.

The Senate has rewritten its filibuster rule many times since. In 1975, it lowered the cloture threshold from two-thirds to three-fifths (60 votes). In 2013, Democrats eliminated the filibuster for most presidential nominees; in 2017, Republicans applied that same exception to Supreme Court justices.

These changes all point to the same reality: The filibuster is not a sacred tradition. It is a standing rule, created and amended by simple-majority votes. The Senate can change it again any time.

The myth of ‘unprecedented change’

Filibuster defenders insist that ending the 60-vote rule would be radical.

It wouldn’t. In reality, it would restore the practice that governed the Senate for its first 128 years — unlimited debate, yes, but no supermajority threshold for passing laws.

RELATED: Democrats reject ‘current policy’ — unless it pays their base

DOUGBERRY via iStock/Getty Images

Defenders also claim the filibuster forces compromise. History says otherwise. The biggest legislative achievements of the last century — Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — all passed when the filibuster was weakened, bypassed, or irrelevant.

What we have now is not deliberation. It is paralysis: a rule that allows 41 senators, representing as little as 11% of the country, to veto the will of the rest. The Senate already protects small states through equal representation and long tenures. Adding a 60-vote requirement for routine governance is not what the framers intended.

The fix

The solution is straightforward. The Senate can return to simple-majority voting for legislation. It can keep unlimited debate if it wishes — but require a real talking filibuster that ends when the minority runs out of arguments or public patience. Or it can leave the system as it is now and watch President Trump’s America First agenda stall for another generation.

The filibuster is not a 230-year constitutional safeguard. It is a 108-year experiment born in 1917 — and it has failed. The Senate invented it. The Senate can un-invent it.

​Opinion & analysis, Senate, Constitution, Filibuster reform, Nuclear option, Cloture, History, Supreme court, Supermajority, 2026 midterms, Wesley hunt 

The Bible isn’t meant to be a selective tool from which we cherry-pick elements we like and leave behind those truths with which we disagree.

But many of our politicians have a penchant for taking this very approach, with some on the hyper-progressive side commonly enacting policies that directly fly in the face of Scripture.

It’s a diabolical form of spiritual manipulation meant to prey on people’s thoughts and emotions.

Amid the mayhem, some of these individuals have simultaneously perfected the art of gaslighting, often times unexpectedly emerging from the abyss to quote the Bible as an appeal to truth when it suddenly seems to serve their policy proclivity.

Case in point: California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) recently waxed poetic on the Old and New Testaments, wielding the Bible to condemn the Trump administration over the impact of the recent government shutdown.

Newsom announced during a press conference that he had filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a government program that provides food to low-income Americans.

“It’s also interesting to me because I spent a little time at a wonderful Jesuit university,” Newsom said. “If there was anything I remember about my four years with Father Cos is that the New Testament, Old Testament have one thing dominantly in common — Matthew, Isaiah, Luke, Proverbs. I mean, go down the list. It’s around food. It’s about serving those that are hungry. It’s not a suggestion in the Old and New Testament. It’s core and central to what it is to align to God’s will, period, full stop.”

But he wasn’t done there. The liberal governor went on to say that “these guys need to stop the BS in Washington, D.C.,” and took further aim at political foes who often tout the importance of prayer and yet supposedly don’t align with him on these issues.

“They’re sitting there in their prayer breakfasts,” Newsom continued. “Maybe they got an edited version of Donald Trump’s Bible and they edited all of that out. I mean, enough of this. Cruelty is the policy. That’s what this is about. It’s intentional cruelty, intentionally creating anxiety for millions and millions of people, 5.5 million here in our home state.”

The outrageousness of these statements is beyond anything comprehensible. Newsom isn’t wrong that feeding the poor and helping those in need is a core tenet of Jesus’ call for humanity to love God and love others. But the hypocrisy here is limitless.

The Bible also says a lot about religious liberty, protecting life, and putting God above the whims of man, yet we don’t see Newsom offer the same level of energy on those issues.

RELATED: How liberals hijack the Bible to push their agenda on you

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

It’s become beyond remarkable to watch some of our politicians behave and legislate in ways that are openly hostile toward the Bible and Christianity, but then start unleashing verses and Christian claims when it’s convenient for their own political agendas.

It’s a diabolical form of spiritual manipulation meant to prey on people’s thoughts and emotions — and it’s particularly rich coming from a political crop of people who have spent the past few years warning about the purported perniciousness of so-called Christian nationalism.

In 2024, Newsom responded to President Donald Trump’s re-election by calling a special session aimed at addressing “reproductive freedoms, immigration, climate policies, and natural disaster response.”

The governor somehow missed the biblical lessons on the value of life, as his statement at the time warned that Trump would likely continue the “assault on reproductive freedom” and limit “access to medical abortion.” Newsom also worried over any “expanding conscience objections for employers and providers.”

The reality is that California is hardly governed as a bastion of Christian and biblical thought. Quite the contrary: In California, basic freedoms are often on the chopping block, with bizarre battles and strange debates taking root.

Newsom was also recently under fire for a post on X seen by many critics as missing the mark on prayer. After the August shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minnesota, Newsom went after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

At the time, Leavitt criticized MSNBC host Jen Psaki’s controversial comments about the shooting after Psaki proclaimed, “Prayer is not freaking enough. Prayers does [sic] not end school shootings. Prayers do not make parents feel safe sending their kids to school. Prayer does not bring these kids back. Enough with the thoughts and prayers.”

When Leavitt called these remarks “insensitive and disrespectful” to those who believe in the power of prayer, Newsom proclaimed, “These children were literally praying as they got shot at.” Newsom’s failure to understand prayer — and his attempt to step into the debate in what felt like an effort to purportedly score political points — wasn’t only unneeded, but it was also grotesque.

Of course, Newsom’s official press office recently did invoke prayer — to lambaste Trump. “Please pray for our President,” a post read. “He is not mentally well.”

Once again, the governor seems to be using faith to push political antics.

These incongruities, when it comes to faith rhetoric, aren’t unique to Newsom. We see it unfold again and again from politicians who seem to rely upon Scripture and faith themes when it’s convenient or expedient, yet other elements of their rhetoric and policy-making ignore elementary biblical truth.

Interestingly, the San Francisco Chronicle noted that Newsom’s invoking of Scripture, in particular, has ramped up in recent weeks.

“In recent months, the California Democrat’s rhetoric has become strikingly biblical,” the outlet noted. “Even his mocking ‘patriot shop’ — which mimics the merchandise sold by President Donald Trump to raise money for his political work — sells a Bible (though, as part of a long-running gag, it is always sold out).”

The Chronicle noted that Newsom has cited his Catholic faith in the past for his choice to end state executions and that he has sometimes referred to his Jesuit education. But, according to the Chronicle, “his overt and repeated references to scripture are new in the past few months.”

Some observers believe Newsom could be gearing up to appeal to middle America and other voters for whom faith is a central part of their identity.

At this point, that’s unclear. But what is evident is that his selective policy-making and proclamations are incongruent — and anyone paying close attention should keep that in mind as they watch Newsom continue to weaponize the Bible for his own political ends.

​Gavin newsom, Christianity, Christian, Progressive christian, Bible, God, Jesus, Prayer, Faith 

America runs on diesel. From freight haulers and farm equipment to fire trucks and snowplows, diesel engines are the torque behind our economy.

Yet the same engines that built the nation’s backbone are now in Washington’s crosshairs — strangled by layers of federal regulation that threaten the people who keep America moving.

Fire departments, ambulance services, and municipal snowplows all run on diesel. If their vehicles can’t move, lives are at risk.

The Environmental Protection Agency insists it’s cleaning the air. But for those who live and work beyond the Beltway, these mandates aren’t saving the planet — they’re shutting down livelihoods.

Cost of clean

Since 2010, every diesel engine sold in the U.S. has come fitted with diesel particulate filters and selective catalytic reduction systems — components meant to capture soot and neutralize nitrogen oxides. In theory, they’re good for the environment. In practice, they’re crippling the very trucks that keep shelves stocked and first responders rolling.

DPFs clog, SCR units freeze, and when that happens, engines “derate” into limp mode — losing power until the system is fixed. A single failure can leave a truck stranded for days and cost upwards of $5,000 to repair. For independent owner-operators, who haul 70% of the nation’s freight, that can mean the difference between survival and bankruptcy.

Even worse, under the Clean Air Act, simply repairing or modifying those failing systems can make a mechanic a federal felon.

Tamper tantrum

Meet Troy Lake, a 65-year-old diesel expert from Cheyenne, Wyoming. For decades, Lake kept his community’s fleets running — farm trucks, snowplows, ambulances, and school buses. But when emissions systems began failing in subzero temperatures, Lake found himself forced to choose between obeying Washington’s regulations or keeping critical vehicles on the road.

His fix? Remove the faulty components and reprogram the engine to restore performance — a commonsense solution that kept essential services moving. But the EPA saw it differently. Under federal law, “tampering” with emissions controls carries up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines per vehicle.

In June 2024, Lake pleaded guilty to one count of emissions tampering. By December, a federal judge sentenced him to a year in prison. His shop was fined $52,500 and shut down. Ironically, during his sentence, Lake worked on the prison’s own diesel equipment — the same skills that, outside those walls, had made him a criminal.

Now home but barred from his trade, Lake carries a felony record that cost him his business, his rights, and his reputation — all for keeping his community’s engines running.

Endless repair cycles

No one disputes that diesel exhaust can harm air quality. The EPA’s emission rules dramatically cut pollution over the past decade. But these results have come at an unsustainable cost to the people who depend on diesel most.

According to the American Trucking Associations, emissions-related repairs account for roughly 13% of total maintenance costs for Class 8 trucks. Each incident costs an average of $1,500 and countless hours of downtime. Multiply that across millions of trucks, and the burden on small businesses and rural economies is staggering.

Farmers, truckers, and local governments can’t afford the endless repair cycles. For them, Washington’s mandates translate to fewer working trucks, higher consumer costs, and dangerous response delays in emergencies.

Senator Lummis fights back

Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis (R) sees what’s happening. She’s watched the federal government criminalize working Americans while ignoring the real-world consequences of its rules. In October 2025, she introduced the Diesel Truck Liberation Act — legislation designed to restore sanity and balance.

The bill would:

Remove mandatory federal requirements for DPFs, SCRs, and onboard diagnostics;Limit the EPA’s enforcement powers over diesel tuning and emissions deletes;Protect mechanics and operators from prosecution for performing practical repairs; andProvide retroactive relief — vacating sentences, clearing records, and refunding fines for past convictions.

A call for flexibility

Environmental advocates warn that such legislation could reverse decades of progress under the Clean Air Act.

That’s a legitimate concern. Clean air matters. But it’s also true that today’s engine tuning and filtration technologies are far more advanced than those available when these mandates were written. Recent research shows that advanced, model-based engine controls and “virtual sensors” can significantly cut nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions and help engines stay within strict tailpipe limits while reducing dependence on extra physical sensors and minimizing urea and fuel penalties.

Even current EPA leadership has acknowledged the need for flexibility and modernization. The question isn’t whether we should protect the environment — it’s whether rigid, outdated enforcement is the best way to do it.

And the impact doesn’t stop at the loading dock. Fire departments, ambulance services, and municipal snowplows all run on diesel. If their vehicles can’t move, lives are at risk. A snowstorm doesn’t care about EPA compliance, and neither does a heart attack.

Who makes the rules?

Opponents of the Diesel Truck Liberation Act argue that removing emissions hardware would increase pollution, disproportionately harming urban and low-income communities. Supporters counter that Washington’s policies have already created economic inequality by crushing rural economies and small operators.

The divide isn’t really about clean air — it’s about who gets to make the rules. Should unelected bureaucrats in D.C. dictate how a farmer in Wyoming runs his truck? Or should local communities have the flexibility to balance environmental goals with economic reality?

RELATED: Trucker perfectly dismantles electric vehicle narrative in 2 minutes: ‘You would need to pack 50,000 pounds of batteries!’

Image via @MusicScarf/X (screenshot)/Photographer: Emily Elconin/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Common sense prevails

The Diesel Truck Liberation Act doesn’t aim to destroy the Clean Air Act. It aims to reform it. It recognizes that environmental protection must work hand in hand with reliability, safety, and economic survival.

For people like Troy Lake, it’s about justice — not just for one man, but for thousands of mechanics and operators who’ve been punished for solving real problems in real America.

And there’s already a hopeful sign: President Trump recently issued a full pardon for Lake, acknowledging that enforcing broken regulations against hardworking Americans is not justice — it’s overreach.

The next step is whether Congress will follow through. The bill currently sits in the Senate Environment Committee, with hearings expected later this year. If it passes, it could set a precedent for rethinking how environmental policy is enforced — and how to protect the people who keep America running.

America’s diesel fleet isn’t the enemy. It’s the engine that powers our nation — from coast to coast, farm to factory, and every highway in between. Reasonable environmental goals are achievable, but not through criminalizing those who fix the equipment that keeps this country alive.

The question facing lawmakers is simple: Will they choose common sense — or continue punishing the very people who make modern life possible?

​Diesel, Emissions, Lifestyle, Trucking, First responders, Troy lake, Donald trump, Align cars 

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

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

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

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

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

But who is the “we” in Acts 2?

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

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

A few important clarifications:

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

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

Socialism starts and ends with a deadly sin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socialism sounds compassionate — but it’s not

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

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

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

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

bauhaus1000/iStock/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

I will choose freedom over control every single time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instagram combatants

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

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

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

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

‘Broadcast the images’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by ZAIN JAAFAR/AFP via Getty Images

Perception shapes policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

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

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

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

‘Devaluing marriage and motherhood has consequences.’

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by STRINGER/AFP via Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by Lambert/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Very disturbing and distressing information.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by Karl Merton Ferron/Baltimore Sun Staff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want more from Stu?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That shouldn’t be so difficult to understand.

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto via Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

Families gather for all sorts of reasons — Thanksgiving, Christmas, weddings, funerals. And sometimes that’s when the fireworks start. There’s an old joke that any family gathering where the cops aren’t called is a successful one. Beneath the laughter sits a truth most families know. When people with long memories sit at the same table, old hurts rise right alongside the cranberry sauce.

Sin fractured families long before politics did. It divides hearts, poisons conversations, and leaves scars that last for generations. Every family bears some of that damage, and nowhere does the fracture cut deeper than between fathers and children.

Every father fails in some way, and those failures bring deep sadness. Grief isn’t a sin. Derision and resentment are.

A caller once told me about his alcoholic father, who had been abusive for years. The caller was 52, yet when he talked about being around his father, his voice broke. “Every time I’m around him,” he said, “I feel like I’m 9 years old.” The man’s father had fallen and now needed care, but the wounds had not healed. His wife and children were watching, waiting to see what he would do. His father was still drinking, still choosing the same path.

I told him, “You’ve made sure your father has food and care, but you’re not required to be subservient. Your family counts on you. Your father continues to make destructive choices, and you can’t change that. Your family’s well-being cannot come at the expense of his demands. He may not make it — but you have to.”

That conversation stayed with me. It reminded me how hard it is to see a parent’s weakness and not respond in anger or disgust or fear. We want to fix it, mock it, punish it, or walk away. Yet scripture gives us a different picture of what honor can look like when a father’s failings are laid bare.

After the flood, Noah planted a vineyard, drank too much, and passed out naked in his tent. His son Ham saw him exposed and mocked his shame. His brothers, Shem and Japheth, took a blanket, walked backward, and covered him.

It wasn’t easy. I imagine Shem and Japheth groaning at the sight of their father — maybe with tears in their eyes. Some fathers decline; some abandon; but every father fails in some way, and those failures bring deep sadness. Grief isn’t a sin. Derision and resentment are.

What do we do when we see our fathers in their weakness? When bitterness stirs, when old wounds reopen, when the urge to expose feels justified? The man who once loomed large now looks small. He wielded power over a child but appears diminished, not just by age but by the perspective that comes with time. That truth can stir anger or sorrow — or offer release.

In the garden, when Adam and Eve sinned, they saw their own nakedness for the first time and tried to cover it with leaves. The first act of grace in scripture was God covering their shame with garments He made Himself. Blood was shed to make those coverings — a quiet foreshadowing of what grace would one day cost.

That moment wasn’t about modesty. It was mercy. God did for them what they could not do for themselves. He covered their shame. From that moment on, grace has always moved toward covering — not humiliating.

At the cross, the story reached its fulfillment. The Son of God allowed Himself to be stripped bare. He bore the nakedness that belonged to us. What began in Eden with God covering human shame ended on Calvary with Christ carrying it. We were clothed in mercy because the innocent one was exposed.

Jesus told another story about a father and his sons. One rebelled and returned in disgrace. The other stayed but grew proud and resentful. Both disrespected their father — one through sin, the other through scorn. Yet the father ran to meet the prodigal and later went out to plead with the older son. He carried the same heart as Shem and Japheth. He covered shame, and even resentment, with grace.

RELATED: What we lose when we rush past pain

O2O Creative via iStock/Getty Images

Caregiving brings old wounds to the surface fast, and the holidays push them even closer to the edge. Many caregivers know this. They spend their days covering weakness — with blankets, patience, or prayer. They honor parents who can’t return the favor, who may not even recognize them anymore. Sometimes they protect in spite of, not because of. Some fathers, like that caller’s, won’t change. But we can.

At some holiday tables, people say, “Please pass the turkey,” when what they really want to say is, “Why can’t you?” or “Why didn’t you?” Those moments expose the gap between what we feel and what we’re called to.

Some fathers failed in ways that make reconciliation impossible. Honoring them does not mean returning to harm, pretending nothing happened, or carrying the weight of their failures. Their shame is not ours to bear. But we’re also not given permission to parade it.

So we honor the office, tell the truth, and set safe boundaries. We refuse to be shaped by their sin and trust God to deal with what belongs to Him. And because grace covers us, we can choose dignity over bitterness — even when fathers fall.

​Grace, Forgiveness, Family, Opinion & analysis, Fathers, Holidays, Arguments 

Much like gas-station sushi, David Brooks is hard to stomach at the best of times.

But his latest New York Times essay is the kind that makes you reach for the sick bag. He opens with the usual routine: an exasperated sigh, a long, self-important pause, and the unmistakable air of a man convinced he has cracked the cosmos — again.

A hidden faith saves no one, a timid faith shapes nothing, and a faith that folds under pressure is closer to cheap furniture than conviction.

He quotes a Czech priest, hints at deep wells of wisdom, and then meanders toward the real purpose of the piece: explaining, with mild exasperation, why Christians are once again disappointing him. This is nothing new. It’s a ritual at this point — a complaint that returns like spam you swore you unsubscribed from.

To be fair, Brooks isn’t stupid. He knows how to spin a story, how to climb onto the moral high ground without looking like he’s climbing, and how to crown himself the lone voice of reason in an age he insists is losing its mind.

But there is no missing the tone that hangs over almost every line he writes about believing Americans: a thin mist of condescension, settling somewhere between pastoral concern and a parent-teacher conference. He talks about everyday Christians the way a pretentious barista talks about someone ordering regular coffee — uncultured, embarrassing, and in need of enlightenment. And the tone, more than any point he makes, gives him away instantly.

Brooks claims to fear “rigid” or “pharisaical” Christianity. Yet the only certainties that radiate from his essay are his own. He divides the world into two armies — Christian nationalists on one side and “exhausted” secular humanists on the other — and then steps forward as the lone oracle who claims to see a path out of the fog.

Christians who vote for borders, who cherish the nation that shaped their churches, or who think culture is worth defending are waved off with his familiar, weary flick of the wrist. They’re told they practice a “debauched” version of the faith.

No evidence needed. Brooks’ opinion is treated as its own proof.

His description of these believers always follows the same script. They are angry, dangerous, and obsessed with power. They clutch their creed like a makeshift weapon, ready to wallop anyone who wanders too close.

In his telling, they never act from devotion, duty, or gratitude. They never look around their communities and see an America they love slipping away. They never mourn the millions taken before they drew a breath, the cracking of our shared foundation, or the slow burial of the sacred.

Instead, Brooks tells us they operate from “threat more than hope,” as if the country’s cultural decay were some far-fetched tale told for effect, rather than something families watch unfold every day in their schools, in their cities, and on their screens.

Brooks then pivots to his preferred theological register: the poetry of longing. He praises yearning, doubts, desires, and pilgrimages — all worthwhile themes.

But he uses them the way an interior decorator uses throw pillows: scattered for mood, never for structure. His spiritual reflections float past in soft, airy phrases that never touch the ground. This isn’t the faith of the Gospels, anchored in sacrifice and truth. It’s faith as fragrance — atomized cosmetic, evaporating faster than one of his metaphors. It asks nothing, risks nothing, and confronts nothing, which may be why Brooks finds it so comforting.

RELATED: Exposing the great lie about ‘MAGA Christianity’ — and the truth elites hate

jokerpro/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Throughout his essay, Brooks holds up a small circle of “wise people” as models of the faith America needs — Tomas Halík, Rowan Williams, and a handful of theologians who speak in clichés and move through the world like contemplative shadows. Their calm inspires him. Their pluralism delights him. Brooks treats their quietism as the apex of Christian maturity, as if the holiest life is lived at arm’s length, murmuring about mystery while the roof caves in.

What he never admits is what these figures actually represent: a brand of Christianity that thrives in seminar rooms, academic conferences, and anemic interfaith panels — spaces far removed from the daily battles most Christians face. Halík writes beautifully about longing. Rowan Williams writes elegantly about humility. But neither man spent his life in the trenches defending children from ideological capture in schools, or standing up to governments intent on shredding the family, or speaking plainly about sin in a culture that now calls sin a civil right.

Brooks misreads their vocation as the universal Christian posture when it is, at best, one posture among many.

The heart of the essay is its barely disguised contempt for ordinary Christians who believe their faith should shape the societies they inhabit. This is the point he never states outright but gestures toward with every paragraph.

Faith, to Brooks, is primarily personal, private, and utterly toothless. The moment it concerns the fate of a nation or the moral trajectory of a culture, he calls it nationalism. If a Christian speaks of stricter immigration policies, he hears xenophobia. If a parent protects his child from the cultural free-for-all, he calls it regression.

Brooks leans heavily on the aforementioned Czech priest and philosopher, Tomáš Halík, as if Halík were handing him a permission slip for a diluted Christianity. Halík writes movingly about interior struggle and authentic witness, ideas rooted in his years serving an underground church under communist rule.

But Brooks treats Halík’s reflections on the inner life as a blanket command for Christians to withdraw from the outer one. Halík speaks of sincerity; Brooks hears surrender. Halík points to the vast, ungraspable side of faith; Brooks converts it into a polite memo urging believers to stay in their lane.

And so Brooks gets the entire lesson backward. Halík survived a regime that tried to erase Christianity from public life. He never argued for Christians to silence themselves or retreat from cultural battles. Yet Brooks uses him as cover to criticize anyone who won’t float along with the cultural current.

What Brooks never admits is that what he calls “Christian nationalism” is not the fringe menace he imagines. For many believers, it is simply the instinct to guard the faith that built their communities. It isn’t a hunger for domination, but a love for the inheritance passed down to them. It isn’t outright hostility toward outsiders but gratitude for the civilization that formed them.

Brooks conveniently sidesteps all of this and builds a caricature he can berate, warning of a “creeping fascism” that lives entirely in his own mind.

The self-anointed sage wants Christians to trade their armor for aroma, to swap vigilance for vague platitudes, and to follow his favorite tastemakers into a future where faith survives only behind closed doors.

But Christians know better. A hidden faith saves no one, a timid faith shapes nothing, and a faith that folds under pressure is closer to cheap furniture than conviction. Brooks will disagree, naturally. He always does.

As so many times before, the smug sexagenarian takes a swing at American Christians. And once again, he misses the target by a mile.

​David brooks, Christian nationalism, New york times, Christianity, Christian, Faith 

The American dream is slipping away for many young Americans, as life becomes increasingly unaffordable — especially home ownership. Soaring home prices and interest rates and a housing shortage bar younger generations of people from purchasing a house. Today, the average age of a first-time home buyer is 40 years old.

Many ideas are being tossed around regarding how to bring home ownership back into the realm of possibility for young families — most notably President Trump’s polarizing 50-year mortgage proposal.

But Sara Gonzales, BlazeTV host of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” says we’re ignoring a simple solution: eliminate property taxes.

Right now in the state of Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis (R) is aggressively pushing for the elimination of property taxes, condemning them as “rent to the government.”

Abolishing property taxes, says Sara, is a “standard conservative position.” “You should not have to buy a home and then spend 20, 30, 50 years paying off that home, and yet you still never truly own your home because you would still pay rent to the government,” she says.

And yet there are conservatives who oppose the elimination of property taxes, claiming it encourages older homeowners to hoard inventory.

“So you’re basically saying … we should what? Kick all the oldies out of the homes that they’ve paid for so that young people can buy them up? Like, I’m sorry, are we conservatives or are we not?” asks Sara.

Further, senior tax caps allow older homeowners to pay significantly less in property taxes than younger homeowners, meaning Boomers are already incentivized to not sell. But if we were to enforce higher taxes on our senior population, as some conservatives suggest, we’re now guilty, Sara argues, of the same thing we criticize socialists for — taxing the rich.

Another pro-property-tax argument is that the tax accounts for significant funding for education. But public schools, says Sara, aren’t something most true conservatives want to fund anyway because “they’re indoctrinating your children.”

If we really want to make sure the essentials, like police and fire services, are well funded, we should first look at eliminating all waste, fraud, and abuse. If it’s out of control at the federal level, then it’s almost certainly out of control at the local level, says Sara.

All in all, eliminating the property tax benefits everyone, says Sara. Not only will it prevent people from being forced to pay lifetime rent to the government, but when older homeowners eventually do die, younger families have a better chance of affording those vacant homes because they’re not inheriting enormous property taxes.

“Take this into consideration,” says Sara.

“Say you have parents who are wealthy because they’ve worked hard and they own a lot of land … that they would like to give to you when they die. Consider you will not even be able to keep your parents’ property or home with the astronomical property taxes that you will owe at the end of every year on land and a home that they already paid for.”

“If you’re young and you ever want to own a home, you should recognize that [property taxes are] a problem for everyone. So let’s solve the problem for everyone.”

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

​Sara gonzales, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Blazetv, Blaze media, Housing crisis, Home ownership, Boomers, Property tax, Ron desantis, Abolish property tax 

Although there has been a long slew of adaptations, parodies, and spin-offs of “Frankenstein,” many fans of Mary Shelley’s famous novel were looking forward to the newest iteration by Guillermo del Toro, which just came out.

In the age of AI, gene therapy, and the modern aversion to death, the story of a scientist who gives life to a creature of his own design naturally resonates with most people. Moreover, a director who is known for his ability to craft fantastical narratives, gothic settings, and unworldly monsters seemed like the perfect fit for such a story.

What could have been a story of redemption and radical love is turned into one of violent horror and unavoidable tragedy.

But with such a tale from such a director at such a time, there was also a good chance the whole film could become an overwrought piece of woke propaganda. Would del Toro stay faithful to the source material, or would he indulge his worst tendencies and recreate “The Shape of Water” with Shelley’s basic premise?

Sadly, he opted for the latter.

Woke makeover

While showing his usual visual flare, del Toro and his writers nonetheless succumbed to transforming the romantic tale of man’s excesses and consequent fall from grace into a woke narrative of a marginalized victim suffering from an oppressive father figure. The monster is not a hideous abomination that goes on a killing spree to spite his creator, but is rather a misunderstood, sensitive outcast who deserves sympathy.

It is his creator, Victor Frankenstein, who is the real monster: Not only does he abuse his own creature, but he murders multiple people and lies about it.

In fairness to del Toro, he probably planned out the film a few years ago when such a script happily aligned with the woke spirit of the time. And he did win an Oscar for “The Shape of Water,” so he can’t be blamed too much for returning to the same formula. How was he supposed to know that this would all become tedious and unfashionable in 2025?

And yet for all that, it’s wrong to assume that the original novel lacked these themes entirely.

Original intent

While most fans and critics examine the science-fiction elements of the novel and the Promethean allegory of man’s creation running amok, an honest reading would show that the novel is first and foremost a Romanticist manifesto. The main character is neither Victor nor his creation but the Swiss Alps that provide the backdrop of every scene, monologue, and conversation. The main conflict is not Victor attempting to stop his monster from terrorizing his friends and family, but finding meaning and unadulterated joy in the world rendered cold and dull by Enlightenment philosophy.

Most importantly, the book’s main argument is the problem of loneliness and how it animates humanity’s darkest impulses. The movie actually deals with this idea somewhat, though the novel is fully based on it.

How else should the reader make sense of all three of the main characters (besides the Alps), who all suffer from profound loneliness? The first character to appear in the book is the ambitious explorer and scientist Robert Walton, who attempts to go to the North Pole. Besides detailing his progress to his sister in a series of letters, he also mentions his lack of a friend. This leads him to immediately take interest in the Swiss scientist Victor Frankenstein, who just happens to be in the Arctic, searching for his monster.

Frankenstein, in turn, also reveals his own introverted nature and consequent desolation.

RELATED: How Disney butchered ‘Snow White’ — and it’s worse than just wokeness

Manuel Velasquez/Getty Images

Even though he has good friends, a loving father, encouraging teachers, and a bride waiting for him, Frankenstein seems to reject their company. Either he feels unworthy of such friends, especially after the mayhem inflicted by his monster, or he desires full control in his relationships.

More than anything, this antisocial stance seems to be the main inspiration for creating his monster. Even though many naturally assume he was driven by glory, power, and morbid curiosity, Shelley hardly mentions any of that. Instead she details Victor’s loving upbringing and beautiful surroundings, only to have him forget all this and conduct a weird experiment of bringing a monster to life.

Then, of course, there is the monster himself, who is quite open about his loneliness and resorts to terror to have a companion. Abandoned by Victor, the creature roams the countryside, fruitlessly searching for a human being who can stand to befriend him. Long story short, this doesn’t happen, so he takes revenge on Victor for putting him in this situation.

Alone, we break

Read through the prism of loneliness, the novel makes a surprisingly compelling case not only for cultivating friendship but also for the kind of dysfunction that results from the lack thereof.

This is especially pertinent for audiences today who are forced to cope with the mass atomization of modern life.

In terms of their social life, most young people in the developed world often resemble Robert Walton, Victor Frankenstein, Frankenstein’s monster, or some combination thereof. They feel misunderstood, have few outlets for their thoughts and emotions, and respond in similar ways to the characters: They seek internet fame, indulge in darker temptations, and even lash out against a world that seems to reject them.

Much like the literary critics and adaptors who miss this larger theme in their analysis of the smaller ones that result, today’s social commentators who remark on the pathologies of the youth do the same.

At the heart of all this dysfunction is loneliness. And behind the social crisis lies a spiritual crisis.

Had Frankenstein abided by Christian teaching, he would accept his limitations and work to overcome his personal misgivings of befriending and serving others. Instead of trying to build a companion for the monster, only to dismantle it in a fit of rage, Victor could have loved his creation, much as God does. Instead of the monster basing his morality on Goethe, Plutarch, and Milton — which all promote epic struggles and titanic egos — he could have picked up the much more available (and readable) Gospels, which stress forgiveness and humility.

Then again, this is Mary Shelley’s story, and she was far from a devout Christian. Similarly, del Toro is also an atheist and likely shares the same outlook on the Christian demands of friendship, virtue, and human creativity.

What could have been a story of redemption and radical love is turned into one of violent horror and unavoidable tragedy.

Created for fellowship

Still, even if such Romantic secular humanism makes for better dramatic tension and suspense, it elides the deeper truth that comes out of the story: Man is not meant to be alone.

Victor’s real crime was not his ambition or curiosity but forsaking everyone around him. It wasn’t an abusive father that led him to this (as the new film suggests) but his willful ignorance of the Father in Heaven. As such, he creates a personal hell with its very own devil.

Even if Shelley and del Toro miss this point, readers and audiences should take heed and confront the problems of loneliness and nihilism in the world around them.

​Woke, Frankenstein, Mary shelley, Netflix, Guillermo del toro, Movie review 

Many working in technology are entranced by a story of a god-tier shift that is soon to come. The story is the “fast takeoff” for AI, often involving an “intelligence explosion.” There will be a singular moment, a cliff-edge, when a machine mind, having achieved critical capacities for technical design, begins to implement an improved version of itself. In a short time, perhaps mere hours, it will soar past human control, becoming a nearly omnipotent force, a deus ex machina for which we are, at best, irrelevant scenery.

This is a clean narrative. It is dramatic. It has the terrifying, satisfying shape of an apocalypse.

It is also a pseudo-messianic myth resting on a mistaken understanding of what intelligence is, what technology is, and what the world is.

The world adapts. The apocalypse is deferred. The technology is integrated.

The fantasy of a runaway supermind achieving escape velocity collides with the stubborn, physical, and institutional realities of our lives. This narrative mistakes a scalar for a capacity, ignoring the fact that intelligence is not a context-free number but a situated process, deeply entangled with physical constraints.

The fixation on an instantaneous leap reveals a particular historical amnesia. We are told this new tool will be a singular event. The historical record suggests otherwise.

Major innovations, the ones that truly resculpted civilization, were never events. They were slow, messy, multi-decade diffusions. The printing press did not achieve the propagation of knowledge overnight; its revolutionary power was in the gradual enabling of the secure communication of information, which in turn allowed knowledge to compound. The steam engine unfolded over generations, its deepest impact trailing its invention by decades.

With each novel technology, we have seen a similar cycle of panic: a flare of moral alarm, a set of dire predictions, and then, inevitably, the slow, grinding work of normalization. The world adapts. The apocalypse is deferred. The technology is integrated. There is little reason to believe this time is different, however much the myth insists upon it.

The fantasy of a fast takeoff is conspicuously neat. It is a narrative free of friction, of thermodynamics, of the intractable mess of material existence. Reality, in contrast, has all of these things. A disembodied mind cannot simply will its own improved implementation into being.

RELATED: ‘Unprecedented’: AI company documents startling discovery after thwarting ‘sophisticated’ cyberattack

Photo by Arda Kucukkaya/Anadolu via Getty Images

Any improvement, recursive or otherwise, encounters physical limits. Computation is bounded by the speed of light. The required energy is already staggering. Improvements will require hardware that depends on factories, rare minerals, and global supply chains. These things cannot be summoned by code alone. Even when an AI can design a better chip, that design will need to be fabricated. The feedback loop between software insight and physical hardware is constrained by the banal, time-consuming realities of engineering, manufacturing, and logistics.

The intellectual constraints are just as rigid. The notion of an “intelligence explosion” assumes that all problems yield to better reasoning. This is an error. Many hard problems are computationally intractable and provably so. They cannot be solved by superior reasoning; they can only be approximated in ways subject to the limits of energy and time.

Ironically, we already have a system of recursive self-improvement. It is called civilization, employing the cooperative intelligence of humans. Its gains over the centuries have been steady and strikingly gradual, not explosive. Each new advance requires more, not less, effort. When the “low-hanging fruit” is harvested, diminishing returns set in. There is no evidence that AI, however capable, is exempt from this constraint.

Central to the concept of fast takeoff is the erroneous belief that intelligence is a singular, unified thing. Recent AI progress provides contrary evidence. We have not built a singular intelligence; we have built specific, potent tools. AlphaGo achieved superhuman performance in Go, a spectacular leap within its domain, yet its facility did not generalize to medical research. Large language models display great linguistic ability, but they also “hallucinate,” and pushing from one generation to the next requires not a sudden spark of insight, but an enormous effort of data and training.

The likely future is not a monolithic supermind but an AI service providing a network of specialized systems for language, vision, physics, and design. AI will remain a set of tools, managed and combined by human operators.

To frame AI development as a potential catastrophe that suddenly arrives swaps a complex, multi-decade social challenge for a simple, cinematic horror story. It allows us to indulge in the fantasy of an impending technological judgment, rather than engage with the difficult path of development. The real work will be gradual, involving the adaptation of institutions, the shifting of economies, and the management of tools. The god-machine is not coming. The world will remain, as ever, a complex, physical, and stubbornly human affair.

​Ai, Return, Tech 

Presidio Healthcare recently made history by launching the nation’s first pro-life, Christian health insurance option in Texas at a time when many families are experiencing both historic rate increases and decreasing subsidies in the Obamacare marketplace.

While the heart of our mission focuses on serving families with an affordable option that protects both their values and their financial security, the vision for how we accomplish that aim rests on a lesser-known Christian principle that I believe provides a road map for reforming our broken health care system.

Health care policy should focus on expanding options for families while empowering them to own their own health insurance.

That principle is called “subsidiarity,” which represents a system of values that puts families first — in contrast to our current system that ignores the individualized needs of Americans.

The Christian principle of subsidiarity states “that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized competent authority rather than by a higher and more distant one, whenever possible.”

The latest debate over Obamacare subsidies serves as a great example of how our current system prioritizes the higher and more distant authority (i.e., Washington, D.C.) over the least centralized authority (i.e., American families).

The Obamacare market was designed to provide subsidies for low-income Americans, which by itself does not inherently violate the principle of subsidiarity. Rather, the problem lies with the insistence that this one federally controlled market should serve as a one-size-fits-all solution for everyone, including middle-income Americans who do not qualify for adequate subsidies.

The centralized answer that Democrats offer requires the Obamacare market to be propped up inefficiently with more subsidies. The subsidiarity answer would propose decentralizing the market by allowing alternative risk pools regulated at the state level to serve the middle-income Americans with products designed for their needs.

To summarize the principle for a broader application: Health care policy should focus on expanding options for families while empowering them to own their own health insurance.

In a decentralized system, Americans would become smarter consumers of health care as they bear the responsibility of owning and paying for their own health care expenses. The impact would reach beyond the economic. The key benefit to subsidiarity is its preservation of each of our relationships to God through our individual decision-making responsibility.

If tomorrow’s health care shoppers were individuals and families (instead of governments and employers), private insurance markets would be forced to serve the Christian and pro-life values of families, as opposed to our current system of serving government agendas and large employer needs. Presidio is building toward that tomorrow and starting now in Texas.

RELATED: Medical ‘experts’ want to jab a needle through your God-given rights

EKIN KIZILKAYA/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Unfortunately, there is a major roadblock to this future.

Ironically, the employer-sponsored marketplace and the single-payor Medicare program — two markets that conservatives often support — in many ways violate the principle of subsidiarity to a greater degree than the much smaller Obamacare individual market.

We need to be consistent if we want to reform our health care system. Employers control the health insurance decisions for close to 150 million Americans, and all of us are forced to pay into a federally centralized Medicare program that exhibits some of the worst elements of socialism, such as dictating prices that distort our entire system.

The spiritual impact is evident through the contraceptive mandate and employer decisions that force millions of Christians to be insured on products that cover abortion, abortifacients, contraception, and other immoral services. Through Medicare, we have collectively forfeited our health care autonomy to Washington, D.C., when we turn 65, creating problematic scenarios that could prioritize our federal budget over dignified treatment for end-of-life care.

We need to do more than just talk about Obamacare — and we need take action now.

The good news is that health care policymakers need to look no farther than to what the private market is already doing.

Presidio is part of a decades-long movement in the health care industry to launch innovative alternative services that serve families directly. This includes affordable non-Obamacare alternatives, health-sharing ministry plans, and, more recently, “ICHRA” benefit platforms that are moving employers out of the business of purchasing health insurance and into a defined contribution model where employees purchase and own their own insurance.

The road map is there. Government and employers can assist families in purchasing health insurance rather than purchasing it for them. Private market innovations would follow.

At Presidio, we are building toward a future where subsidiarity replaces centrally controlled markets and the pro-life values of Christian Americans drive pro-life health insurance options that help fund life-affirming care. We do not take federal subsidies, and we do not want your employer forcing you to have Presidio coverage.

As in all authentic Christian movements, we rely on individual families to help build Presidio, and we look forward to serving your needs while we expand our vision of a health care system in America founded on the principle of subsidiarity.

​Health care, Presidio healthcare, Christianity, Christian, Subsidiarity, Faith 

The number one country song in America isn’t sung by a human. Instead it was generated entirely by AI — which may have devastating implications for music, creativity, and the very definition of humanity.

The song “Walk My Walk” is by AI artist Breaking Rust and features lyrics like, “Every scar’s a story that I survived / I’ve been through hell, but I’m still alive.”

“They say slow down, boy, don’t go too fast / But I ain’t never been one to live in the past,” croons the AI artist.

“If you look at some of the lyrics of this song, I mean it talks about how he’s been dragged through the mud. He’s, you know, had to really stand. I mean, it doesn’t know any of this stuff. None of it is real. And yet it is assembling it in a way that is so appealing, it’s number one on the Billboard country music chart,” Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck says on “The Glenn Beck Program.”

“The whole world is about to change,” he continues. “You know, I just heard Elon Musk say that in five years, there’s not going to be phones or apps. It will just be some sort of a box or device that you kind of carry around with you and it’s listening. It’s anticipating. It’s AI.”

“And it will know what you want to hear, what you want, and it will create the music you want to hear. It will create the podcast you want to hear. It will do all this stuff for you. So we will be in our own universe even more than we are right now,” he adds.

This has led Glenn to ask some serious introspective questions like, “If AI can fake being a human and sing soulfully while not having a soul, what does it mean to be human?”

“I think a lot of people won’t care,” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere chimes in. “Like, people won’t care if it is made by humans or not if they like it. And they seem to like it.”

While both Glenn and Stu agree AI will likely take over the arts, Glenn believes that “handmade is going to come back into style at some point.”

“Human-made will come back into style,” he says. “But … we’re going to go through a period where it’s going to get really scary.”

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.

​Video phone, Free, Sharing, Camera phone, Upload, Video, Youtube.com, The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Ai, Artificial intelligence, Breaking rust, Walk my walk, Ai country song, Ai music, Billboard country music chart, Elon musk 

For decades, U.S. education has been dominated by the American left. Its stranglehold was highly visible during the Biden administration, with countless stories about wildly inappropriate books in school libraries, critical race theory being taught in classrooms, and national associations calling for parents to be designated domestic terrorists.

How did our public school systems — including those in red states, from Iowa to Alaska — become infected with radical leftist ideology? The answer is education consulting groups.

As long as Republicans continue to outsource their governance and expertise to thinly veiled activist groups, nothing will change.

Most Americans don’t realize that every aspect of governance, from parks and wildlife departments to the curriculum in kids’ schools, has been outsourced to a coalition of nameless, faceless NGO consulting groups that are funded by millions of taxpayer dollars funneled through the government. One of the worst offenders is the American Institutes for Research.

AIR is currently under contract with at least 25 states, with the majority involving contracts to develop state standards. For those unfamiliar with education policy, standards determine what students need to learn and when they need to learn it. Lesson plans, curriculum, and textbooks are required by law to be aligned with standards.

AIR’s tentacles stretch from D.C. into health care and counseling policy — and education. It has long been entrenched in most red-state education departments to “facilitate” standards revisions. Take its influence in Alaska as a recent example.

Alaska has had multiple contracts with the nonprofit, including the School Climate and Connectedness Survey, which focuses on social-emotional learning and adult education content standards. AIR is also cited as a teaching resource for curriculum implementation.

On the Alaska Department of Education’s social studies website, AIR is listed as a source multiple times, including in the HQIM Rubric and in a PowerPoint presentation that was given to the state board, which was co-presented with an AIR employee. The presenters insisted that standards must have an equity focus and touted a shift from learning about social studies to student activism, or “action civics.”

These standards were implemented in Alaska’s new social studies curriculum, and the results are predictably a mess. Developed by a panel selected by race rather than merit, the standards are chock-full of land acknowledgments and other progressive claptrap. Alaska is now training its kids to be activists rather than teaching them about the American founding.

Worse yet, Alaska is also a partner with AIR for its Indigenous Student Identification Project, headed by Nara Nayar. On her LinkedIn account, she proudly lists her work “on comprehensive sexuality education for elementary and middle school students.”

This is where Alaskan taxpayer dollars are going: equity education, activism training, and filling the pockets of far-left education consultants who teach sex ed to elementary students.

Turning to the Midwest, Iowa’s social studies overhaul is in consultation with Stefanie Wager, a former AIR employee who is a glorified activist. She lists “racial justice, equity, and inclusion” as top priorities. Wager has an extensive list of extremist views that influence her work as an education consultant.

Wager was once president of the National Association for the Social Studies, a left-wing outfit that has shaped red-state history instruction. She has also worked as the education partner manager for Bill Gates’ personal office. Wager began as an AIR employee embedded within the Iowa Department of Education. When news broke about her involvement, she left AIR and joined the Iowa Department of Education full-time.

These aren’t just one-off examples — they are emblematic of the reach and influence of shadow consultant organizations that control public education. Peruse nearly any state department of education, and you will find rubrics with equity focuses, social studies curriculum full of progressive ideology, and AIR-linked content on state websites. Nebraska, for example, contracted AIR for a social studies report that is spotlighted on AIR’s website.

RELATED: Trump admin takes major step toward dismantling the Department of Education

Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The worst part is that state taxpayers are unknowingly funding all of this. South Dakota signed a nearly quarter-million-dollar contract with AIR to facilitate work-group meetings to revise the state’s social studies standards, which produced standards laced with wokeness. The blowback was so swift that then-Gov. Kristi Noem (R) had to intervene and force South Dakota’s Education Department to restart its standards revision work from scratch.

The result was some of the best standards in the country.

Alaska has likely paid millions for its various studies and surveys, but the cost of only one project, at $350,000, is publicly available. Iowa awarded AIR a $31 million contract for testing assessments. This is a patronage scheme using taxpayer dollars to fund pet leftist programs. To make matters worse, most red states keep all of this hidden. In Alaska, you have to pay the state for a contract to be disclosed.

As long as Republicans continue to outsource their governance and expertise to thinly veiled activist groups, nothing will change. Schools will continue to be breeding grounds for left-wing extremism, school libraries will be filled with radical propaganda — and taxpayers will keep funding all of it.

Red-state legislatures and governors need to look to trusted alternative providers that reflect their states’ values. They should create and fund parallel structures that put outcomes above partisan dogma and properly vet each person to whom they give their constituents’ money. This is the only way to begin countering the efforts of the shadow government in our states.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

​K-12 education, Left wing, State education, Opinion & analysis, Department of education, Public education, American institutes for research, Standardized tests, American founding