Category: blaze media

The existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre claimed that “hell is other people.” Former Fox News commentator Geraldo Rivera is among the bleeding hearts who believe that hell is Haiti — at least now that the Trump administration is repatriating its people.

Then

President Donald Trump identified Haiti in a January 2018 meeting as one among various “s**thole countries.” This was, after all, then a failed state plagued by violence, haunted by rumors of cannibalism, and still reeling from a deadly earthquake.

‘Ridiculous.’

There was tremendous backlash over Trump’s remarks — not only from the Haitian government and the United Nations’ human rights office but from Democrats and the liberal media.

Twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin (D) were among the many concern-mongers who claimed that Trump’s vivid characterization of Haiti as a less-than-ideal nation was “racist.”

In addition to similarly attacking Trump, celebrities ran a PR campaign for the Caribbean nation, portraying it as a paradisiacal place.

Conan O’Brien, for instance, aired a one-hour special showcasing Haiti’s perceived beauty — a special that included refutations of Trump’s “s**thole” comment from Haitian natives along with repeated emphases that the island nation was a “beautiful country.”

RELATED: Pets of Springfield, rejoice! DHS is coming for suspended-status Haitians after Biden judge takes ‘the L’

In subsequent months, others, including Bill Maher, jumped on the bandwagon, donning apparel that stated, “HAITI IS GREAT ALREADY.”

Unfortunately, the situation deteriorated in Haiti before it got better — simultaneously confirming Trump’s initial framing and prompting the liberal media to ramp up its gaslighting campaign.

When confronted — a couple of years after Haitian President Jovenel Moise’s assassination — with reports that criminals had taken over the country’s capital, freed thousands of felons from jail, engaged in systematic rape, forced the prime minister to resign, and threatened genocide, NBC News, for instance, reassured its viewers in 2024 that contrary to claims by “right-wing pundits,” the Western Hemisphere’s poorest country did not also have a problem with cannibalism.

Now

The Trump administration announced in July 2025 that it was terminating Haiti’s Temporary Protected Status, having determined that the Caribbean nation no longer meets the conditions for special status, in part due to improvements in domestic safety and stability.

While the administration recognized that the country still suffers a “lack of functional government authority” and that “gang violence in Haiti persists,” then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stated that “the environmental situation in Haiti has improved enough that it is safe for Haitian citizens to return home.”

This revocation of Haiti’s special status — which has shielded roughly 350,000 Haitians from removal — faced multiple legal challenges; however, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled in the administration’s favor in June.

Now that the Department of Homeland Security is “going after” Haitian migrants with suspended special statuses, the usual suspects have jettisoned their “HAITI IS GREAT ALREADY” framing and adopted the president’s previous understanding of the Caribbean country as a loathsome place.

Geraldo Rivera, who asked Trump in 2018 to apologize for his “unfortunate” remarks about Haiti and other third-world nations, wrote on Sunday — in the wake of reports about the deportation initiative under way — that “expelling Haitian immigrants is sending them straight to hell.”

Rivera was widely criticized for joining the chorus of liberals against the repatriation campaign.

Normalcy advocate Robby Starbuck wrote in response, “Didn’t the entire media and Democrats in DC swear that Haiti was amazing and wonderful and perfect when Trump called it a hellhole? Trump then said okay, then sounds like they can go back and now the framing switches to, ‘it’s hell on earth, you can’t send them back!’ Ridiculous.”

Mike Howell, the president of the Oversight Project and Blaze News contributor, alluded to Rivera’s previous concern-mongering over Trump’s “s**thole,” then asked, “What happened[?]”

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

​Bill maher, Department of homeland security, Geraldo rivera, Hillary clinton, Robby starbuck, Temporary protected status, Trump administration, Donald trump, Haiti, Politics 

When Biden’s White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre repeatedly downplayed Americans’ frustrations over high milk and egg prices, she helped solidify the voter anger over affordability that directly contributed to the Democratic Party’s electoral damage in 2024.

BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre is concerned the conservatives are now making the same mistake.

“Conservative pundits and influencers are repeating the exact same mistake, telling consumers that everything’s fine and only economic illiterates would think grocery, gas, and housing costs are too much,” says MacIntyre.

But this is disastrous messaging, he warns — especially heading into midterm elections.

“Elections aren’t won by lecturing voters that their problems are imaginary. This is politics 101,” MacIntyre says. “Professional political actors adopting this strategy months before midterms is both bizarre and dangerous.”

The reality is, most Americans are still struggling in the current economic climate.

“Conservative pundits may produce charts, cite aggregate statistics, and explain that certain indicators look healthy, but none of that will save the GOP any more than it saved the Democrats who insisted that Bidenomics was working,” says MacIntyre.

Right now, he explains, “food, health care, child care, education, insurance, housing, electricity, and gasoline remain punishingly expensive.”

While MacIntyre understands that honesty with voters about the current economic situation is a death sentence for politicians, downplaying the predicament isn’t helping either.

“There’s only so much Trump can do about the structural inflation and accumulating debt. He can, however, avoid taking actions that make the problem worse,” he says, pinpointing the ongoing conflict in Iran as a major contributor to America’s economic strife.

But when Americans complain that the war is driving up gas prices and forcing the U.S. to borrow or print tens of billions of dollars to pay for it, they’re called “stupid or selfish” by “the very same pundits” who support the war, he explains.

MacIntyre speculates that these politicians will “blame any disastrous midterm results on the people who oppose the conflict, but the political reality is obvious.”

“The central issue is not that voters have developed a sophisticated position on Iran. Many of them probably care very little about the strategic details. What they do care about is that everything costs more. Telling them that they lack economic literacy has roughly the same electoral appeal as shooting a puppy on live television,” he says.

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Auron MacIntyre?

To enjoy more of this YouTuber and recovering journalist’s commentary on culture and politics, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Affordability crisis, Auron macintyre, Gas prices, Housing costs, Iran, Midterm elections, Blazetv show 

Trump-endorsed Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) lost the Republican primary in Tennessee’s 5th Congressional District on Thursday to newcomer Charlie Hatcher.

The loss comes after the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition PAC spent $2 million against Ogles as retribution for his opposition to green energy subsidies. Ogles was also affected by redistricting, with over 80% of voters in the redrawn district previously belonging to another.

‘Communist Democrats defeated Andy Ogles tonight in Tennessee, but we cannot let them win in November.’

Hatcher did not respond to requests for comment.

“Last night, the radical left successfully employed a strategy to influence a Republican primary,” Ogles told Blaze News. “The night before early voting began, a California Green Energy PAC publicly disclosed a four-week, $2 million spending campaign all to defeat a Trump-endorsed America First conservative.”

“Republicans across the country should take notice. If the left can spend millions to meddle in Republican primaries in Tennessee, they’ll do it in every red state where they think they can buy the outcome,” Ogles said. “While last night’s outcome wasn’t what I hoped, Charlie is a good man, and I will do whatever I can to help him be successful.”

Ogles served in the House of Representatives for two terms. He introduced the Remigration Act bill in June, aiming to expand denaturalizations and deportations.

“Tennessee’s 5th District just proved once again that standing in the way of America’s energy future comes with a hefty political price,” ITC Chairman Tom Matzzie said in a statement provided to Blaze News. “This is our second upset in as many primaries — first Chip Roy, now Andy Ogles — and we will continue to punish members of either party who want to play politics with American jobs, energy security, and utility prices.”

“The entire map is in play, and we will take this fight across the country through November.”

RELATED: Liberals in MAGA clothing run covert campaign against Trump-backed candidate

Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images

Invest in Tomorrow’s campaign ran advertisements attacking Roy (R-Texas) as insufficiently MAGA. Roy lost his primary to state Sen. Mayes Middleton.

Matzzie previously held positions at MoveOn.Org, in John Kerry’s presidential campaign, at the Democratic National Committee, and at the AFL-CIO.The White House directed Blaze News to the president’s Friday Truth Social post when reached for comment.

“Last night was another good night for Endorsements, 8-1,” Trump wrote. “The 1 was a person who I remained loyal to even though he had virtually no chance of winning, and was running against a Great ‘Trump’ Candidate.”

Hatcher served as Tennessee’s commissioner of agriculture for seven years and received Gov. Bill Haslam’s endorsement in July. The primary winner positioned himself as a Trump ally and voice for rural Tennesseans during the campaign.

“Congressman Andy Ogles lost tonight because a super PAC bankrolled by left-wing California Democrats spent $2 million to raid the Republican primary. These leftist Democrats include a San Francisco billionaire who gave $12 million to Kamala Harris and has pledged to spend ‘whatever it takes’ to elect Gavin Newsom,” the Freedom Caucus Fund said in a statement.

That San Francisco billionaire is Ripple Labs co-founder Chris Larsen, who donated $6 million to the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition PAC between February and June 2026, according to Federal Election Commission disclosures. During the 2024 campaign, Larsen donated millions to Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign. Larsen is worth nearly $13 billion.

The Freedom Caucus Fund spent over $560,000 to defend Ogles against Invest in Tomorrow’s campaign, according to a spokesperson.

“This same super PAC is pledging tens of millions to take out conservative pro-Trump Republicans in the House and Senate this November. Their goal is to destroy President Trump’s America First majority in Congress, install Hakeem Jeffries as speaker, and reinstate Biden’s Green New Scam that President Trump and the House Freedom Caucus eliminated in the Big Beautiful Bill.

“Communist Democrats defeated Andy Ogles tonight in Tennessee, but we cannot let them win in November.”

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

​Andy ogles, Democratic national committee, Green energy subsidies, House freedom caucus, White house, Tennessee, Politics 

President Donald Trump announced on July 30 that his Board of Peace had “reached a HISTORIC agreement” in Gaza that would bring an end to a conflict that has claimed well over 70,000 lives.

While the president characterized his proposed resolution as a major win for the Palestinian people and for Israel alike, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is evidently of a different mind.

‘President Trump will be very, very disappointed.’

Netanyahu — whom Trump has rebuked repeatedly in recent months for undermining his initiatives in the region — rejected the Board of Peace’s 15-point peace plan on Sunday, telling his cabinet that some of its terms are unacceptable.

Peace proposal

The peace plan released by Trump’s Board of Peace, which would be undertaken in stages, requires, among other things, that:

Israel, Hamas, and “other Palestinian factions” suspend military operations in Gaza;Hamas and other factions in Gaza agree not only that all civilian governance and security functions in Gaza will be taken over by the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, but that the committee can carry out its responsibilities independently;the NCAG will oversee the disarmament process;Gaza will be “governed according to the principle of One Authority, One Law, One Weapon”;Israeli forces — who presently occupy more than half of Gaza — will execute a phased withdrawal from Gaza; andthe International Stabilization Force will separate Israeli forces from NCAG-controlled areas during the withdrawal.

“This agreement is a critical step towards Gaza finally being governed by a new Palestinian government that will work closely with the Board of Peace to help the Palestinian people,” Trump said in a statement. “At the same time, Israel will have the security it deserves, with Gaza no longer used as a base for terror attacks.”

RELATED: It’s the economy, stupid — again

Khan Yunis in the southern Gazan Strip on July 31, 2026. Bashar Taleb/AFP/Getty Images.

“The threat that emerged from Gaza on October 7 will NOT be allowed to rebuild!” continued the president. “Under this agreement, Gaza will finally be in the hands of a new Palestinian government that serves its PEOPLE.”

After announcing the deal, which Hamas accepted through Egyptian mediators, Trump told reporters that “Israel is very happy.”

While the Israeli security cabinet initially approved of having the International Stabilization Force enter Gaza to aid in the disarmament of Hamas and the transition, top officials called on Netanyahu to reject the plan, reported the Times of Israel.

Rejection

Netanyahu, who facing both a tough re-election battle and an ongoing corruption trial, told his cabinet on Sunday, “Israel rejects the 15-point document.”

“The IDF will not carry out any withdrawal until Hamas is disarmed,” continued Netanyahu. “And when I say Hamas must be disarmed, I mean the heavy weapons, the less-heavy weapons, all weapons. And we are talking about genuine disarmament, not a fictitious one.”

The Israeli leader — whose nation is the “largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II” — noted that his government has raised its reservations over the peace deal with Washington.

“They have ideas,” said Netanyahu, apparently referring to the Americans behind the peace deal. “Some of them are acceptable to us and some are unacceptable to us, and we know how to stand up to these things. We have proven this in the past, and we are proving it today as well. In addition, the IDF will continue to thwart threats against our forces and against our citizens.”

The White House did not immediately respond to Blaze News’ request for comment.

While flatly rejecting Trump’s peace plan, Netanyahu nevertheless spoke warmly of the American president.

“I have great appreciation for President Trump,” said the foreign leader. “He is a great friend of ours in the White House. I greatly appreciate the historic partnership with the United States against Iran’s attempts to acquire nuclear weapons. And I want to emphasize again: With an agreement or without an agreement, as long as I am prime minister, Iran will not possess nuclear weapons.”

“Unlike all those who preach to us, we are doing what needs to be done for Israel’s security, and we can and know how to stand our ground even against our very best friends when necessary,” added Netanyahu.

In addition to rejecting the peace deal, Netanyahu rejected the possibility of a Palestinian state in Gaza.

The prime minister’s remarks were welcomed by various Israeli officials, including finance minister Bezalel Smotrich, the leader of the Religious Zionist Party.

“We went to war with a central goal: the destruction of Hamas,” said Smotrich, in a statement reported by the Times of Israel. “The (military) cannot withdraw even a millimeter from the Gaza Strip. The Gaza Strip cannot begin any process of reconstruction before the complete dismantling and demobilization of Hamas and the Gaza Strip.”

Hamas, on the other hand, remains supportive of Trump’s plan and has asked Washington to pressure Israel to get on board.

According to an X.com translation of the original Arabic, Basem Naim, a member of Hamas’ politburo, stated on Sunday, “We are committed to the roadmap reached with the representatives of the Peace Council in Cairo just days ago, and our agreement, despite all the challenges, reflected a commitment to the interests of our Palestinian people.”

“We expect the mediators and the American guarantor to press Netanyahu and his government to compel him to adhere to the roadmap and not obstruct the path for internal political and electoral reasons,” added Naim.

After Trump first announced the deal, a U.S. official told the Washington Post, “We’re not asking Israel to do anything other than agree to the 20-point plan that they agreed to initially, and so we’re very confident they will adhere to it. If they don’t, obviously, President Trump will be very, very disappointed.”

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

​Benjamin netanyau, Donald trump, Gaza, Israel, Peace plan, War, Politics 

Inflation. Everyone’s discussing it these days, at least on X.

Is it bad? Is it fine? Are our perceptions skewed by virtue of living in 2026 which makes accurate evaluation of prices in 1996 impossible?

Going to McDonald’s was an occasion back then. There weren’t 35 different kinds of IPAs in the grocery store. Arugula didn’t exist until sometime around 2009.

It’s hard to know. Different people have different ideas on all of this and it’s hard to say one is more right than another. Sometimes there are multiple right answers.

Socialism starter

Matt Walsh wrote:

Grocery prices are insane. They’re still rising. Addressing this problem should be the number one priority of every elected leader. End the stupid foreign wars and focus on this issue. It’s one of the main reasons socialists are gaining power.

He’s not wrong. Grocery prices are higher than I ever remember. Most families I know are acutely aware of the situation. When you’re feeding growing kids, you can’t skimp the way you skimped when you were 21. You can’t feed them junk because it’s cheaper; you have to feed them nutritiously, and so you end up feeling those higher prices pretty sharply.

Burrito-nomics

Jeremy Kauffman wrote:

“So far as I can tell, it’s simply not true that food has gotten more expensive in real dollars in the United States. Why are people so convinced this is true? What’s the evidence?”

Below his post he shared a graph detailing the fact that grocery prices have only risen in nominal terms, not real terms, essentially saying prices are higher but so are wages.

In response to claims of $20 burritos being prohibitively expensive for young people, Kauffman detailed the hard numbers for feeding burritos to a family of eight with ingredients from Wal-Mart. The total price was $18.38

Kauffman isn’t wrong either. Although my wife handles the food in our house, I do know we buy our groceries from Meijer, Aldi, and Walmart. I know there are absolutely affordable prices to be found if you don’t buy your ingredients at Whole Foods and you make your food at home rather than going out. A gallon of milk from our local Walmart is $3.17; a gallon of milk from the nearby Whole Foods is $6.69.

To his point about prices rising nominally but not in real terms, I’m not an economist or a statistician, so I don’t know all the ins and outs of how these numbers are calculated, but I do know we tend to really notice in passionate and negative terms when the prices swell at the store but we don’t really notice or account for our paycheck swelling in our bank account. It’s a sad fact that we tend to focus on the bad more than the good.

Passion for premium

Lomez wrote:

Short answer is that post-boomers became accustomed to premium/boutique brands. These things do, in fact, cost a lot more than generics. No seed oils. All organic. Cage free. Etc. Etc. My family spends a lot more on groceries in *real* dollars than my parents did because, like just about everyone posting online about this, we over-extend and buy the$20 dollar bottle of nice Vermont maple syrup and $8 fancy French butter and do this across the board for almost every category [choose your own indulgence/health fixation]. I know we’re not alone in this. I’ve seen your pantries.

The longer answer is that other categories of spending have gone significantly up — housing, childcare, insurance — and so there’s less slack in the average person’s budget. Grocery prices might be flat as a general matter, but the belt can still feel — and actually be — a lot tighter.

He is certainly correct, and like most other very correct answers to complex questions, the people don’t want to hear it.

In the 1990s, before the foodie revolution, our parents fed us very plain food. We rarely went out to eat, and it was a big event when we did. There were no cans of sparkling water. We never had pop in the fridge. We didn’t even really stop at fast food when traveling; we packed sandwiches in a cooler full of half-melted ice bags at the bottom.

Going to McDonald’s was an occasion back then. There weren’t 35 different kinds of IPAs in the grocery store. Arugula didn’t exist until sometime around 2009. The children of 2026 have no experience with the iceberg lettuce salad of 1996 — you know the one, with bland white crispy lettuce, large tomatoes that aren’t even close to ripe, and three fat cucumber slices.

Our kids eat guacamole, sushi, organic eggs, copious amounts of raspberries with Greek yogurt in the morning, and a bunch of other stuff I didn’t even encounter until I was in my 20s.

RELATED: Greetings from my favorite vacation spot; it’s closer and cheaper than you may think

H. Armstrong Roberts/ClassicStock/Getty Images

Fancy feasts

It’s a fascinating story about class and taste. How even though our society is, in many ways, more classless and lowbrow than ever, many people are eating food that really only very wealthy and very health-conscious individuals ate back in 1996, and that fact plays some role in how we perceive prices.

The thing about shifting expectations after the foodie revolution is that it doesn’t feel like any of those things that were fancy and expensive in 1996 are elite in 2026. Fresh guacamole is now the Kraft American cheese single, and now no one would eat the Kraft American cheese single, and this skews our perception.

Of course, it goes without saying that someone does eat the Kraft American cheese single. Millions of people do, just like we did. Actually, in fact, we didn’t eat the Kraft American single at the Root house in 1996 because they were considered kind of fancy and more expensive than buying a block of cheese and cutting it yourself.

Reality bites

The truth about inflation is that whether it’s real bad, pretty normal, or the end of the world as we know it, we can’t do anything about it. You, dear reader, have no way to meaningfully change the global financial system or the American economic situation at this time. These things are too big for an individual citizen to have any control over. You can’t make the prices lower, you can’t stop the bleeding, you can’t do anything other than buy what you need to buy while doing your best to stay within your budget.

We humans have a terrible tendency to focus very heavily on things we can’t really change. I don’t know why it is, but it is. Is it because we are naturally malcontent? Or is it because we are whiners with no strength? Or maybe we are masochists? Obsessing endlessly about something you view as terrible and painful when you have no way to change it seems like a form of masochism, doesn’t it?

Whatever it is, it isn’t good. We can’t focus all our energy or emotional firepower on being angry about inflation. Maybe we should be angry; maybe we shouldn’t be angry. I don’t know. But I do know that all we can do is acknowledge the reality of the world as it is, whether it be good or bad, and do our best to adapt to the current situation, live the best life we can in the meantime, and hope for the best.

That’s how it was in 1996 and how it is in 2026.

​Budget, Economists, Family, Food, Grocery prices, Inflation, Lifestyle, Prices, Reality, Walmart, Socialism, Dsa, The root of the matter 

Actor Jon Bernthal is defending pit bulls from what he calls “racism” — but that doesn’t alleviate concerns about the breed potentially being a legitimate safety issue.

During an appearance on “The Howard Stern Show,” Bernthal compared the stigma surrounding pit bulls to human discrimination, arguing that it’s wrong to judge the breed out of fear.

“He said the widespread fear of pit bulls is ‘dog racism,’ and he said it was compared to judging people on their race or sexual orientation,” Stu comments.

Bernthal has pit bulls himself and has called them “honest.”

“So, apparently they’re giving him factual statements and sticking to their beliefs,” Stu laughs.

The actor also claimed that a pit bull is just as likely to bite as any other dog.

“Look, I think it’s wise to be a little bit skeptical of pit bulls, and I like all dogs. Personally, I know a lot of people that have pit bulls, and I like them, but you know, I think that you should discriminate a little bit,” Dave says.

“So, I don’t know what that says about me, but it’s probably a good idea to be wary,” he adds.

“There does seem to be a more likely terrible outcome when it comes to pit bulls. But still, it’s probably a small percentage of the dogs, right?” Stu asks.

“Not all pit bulls, they’re not all going to be the same, but they were bred for violence initially, I believe, for fighting,” Dave says.

“And sometimes the dog will protect itself against you, the owner,” he adds.

Want more from Stu and Dave?

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

​Dave landau, Howard stern show, Jon bernthal, Stu burguiere, Blazetv show, Pit bulls, Racism 

A Texas pastor who previously served as director of vocations for the Diocese of Dallas and now sees over 9,500 people show up every Sunday at his church in Coppell recently discussed the need for men to assume leadership roles, the challenges they will invariably face, and two challenges fathers should take on today.

Fr. Edwin Leonard noted on the episode of “The Catholic Gentleman” podcast published on Thursday that when he took on the role of pastor of St. Ann Catholic Church during the pandemic, he observed that “everyone had been separated from their church community” long enough for some men to have “gotten used to the loneliness.”

‘He also knew that you would be reading that Gospel.’

Gospel and grill

To combat this pervasive sense of alienation, strengthen the community, and “more purposely target the hearts of men” so that like King David “they could be men after God’s heart,” the parish under Fr. Leonard began holding an annual men’s summit.

“We just got a bunch of guys together, and we had barbecue. We had some bourbon, some beer, and some cigars, and just like hung out in the courtyard of our church,” the priest said. “And it was about, you know, a 20-minute talk that first year from our key presenter.”

Feeling inspired by the Holy Spirit to go beyond consuming content that filled their bodies and minds, the attendees broke into groups and shared what the Lord was doing in their lives and how that had impacted them.

The parish recognized that this summit and similar initiatives focused on fortifying the hearts and minds of men in the community were not only the way to cultivate Christian leaders but to strengthen the faith of multiple generations.

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

Lambert/Getty Images

Test your mettle

The priest noted, after all, that the likelihood of successful religious transmission is greatly increased when children receive and grow in their faith in the presence of their father.

“The fact that he is leading in some way, shape, or form — it astronomically increases the opportunity and the chances for your children to have their faith,” Fr. Leonard said. “So we said … if we’re going to pour forth effort, we can do anything, we just can’t do everything. Let’s build up some leaders.”

The aim behind the men’s summit evidently became helping men not just serve their community but point in their service “towards the Lord whom they know.”

Over the course of the podcast, Fr. Leonard raised several issues he has observed negatively affecting young men and undercutting their leadership prospects, not least of which is passivity and “delayed adolescence,” which he clarified is the result of a lack of exposure to adversity.

To rectify these problems, he repeatedly advocated for controlled adversity — for engaging with and surmounting challenges of the kind that test mettle and build muscle.

Action items

After discussing the need to be challenged, Fr. Leonard was asked to provide those men listening with at least one challenge that if met could help them become better over the next week and into the more distant future.

The priest instead issued two challenges, the first of which was for fathers to “pray over your children every night. Make a sign of the cross on their forehead like you did at their baptism. Bless them.”

The second challenge Fr. Leonard issued was for men to “practice listening to the Word of God. So you need to read the Word of God — I would suggest reading the Daily Gospel.”

“Read it once and then, you know, ask yourself two questions: What is the Lord trying to say to me? This isn’t like a historical, critical method Bible study where you’re like, ‘What was the original source material? What was God trying to say 2,000 years ago?'” Fr. Leonard said. “God is omniscient, so as He was inspiring this to be read, He had a literal first-century meaning, but He also knew that you would be reading that Gospel reading in 2026.”

“The second question is the real crux of what I want people to do,” he continued. “Think how you can put that scripture verse or what the Lord said to you into action that day.”

The priest added, “The more that you listen to the Word of God, the more that you’re going to be able to hear the Word of God” and emphasized that “the practice of putting it into action bears fruit.”

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

​Faith, Religion, Catholic, Coppell, St. ann catholic church, Texas, Fatherhood 

As a modest contribution to the general welfare, I have once again taken on a task that state universities, despite their ever-expanding bureaucracies, seem unable to perform: helping parents and students decipher the course catalog before they accidentally enroll in an ideological boot camp.

This year’s expedition into Arizona State University’s listings produced a familiar discovery.

The challenge is recognizing ideological conformity when it hides beneath academic jargon and historical subject matter.

For fall 2026, ASU offers eight courses with witchcraft, magic, or the occult in the title — and exactly one with Christianity.

Think about that for a moment.

At one of the largest public universities in the country, students can choose from a small festival of courses on witchcraft, while Christianity receives a single titled course.

The predictable defense is already forming: These are history classes. They merely study witchcraft as history; they do not promote it.

If only the syllabus cooperated.

One ASU syllabus from this summer says the course will examine how the identity of the heretic and the witch was constructed against its binary opposite, the “orthodox” Christian. It then turns to “religious Othering,” especially “the female as Other,” and asks students to explain how centuries-old witch persecutions continue to shape their own lives.

A student scrolling through the catalog may think, “Witchcraft? That sounds like an interesting history class.” What the description does not announce plainly is that the course has already selected its moral and political framework before the first reading begins.

Allow me to translate the academic dialect into ordinary English.

The syllabus contains three ingredients that appear with remarkable regularity across what I call the oppression-studies curriculum.

First, orthodox Christianity is cast as the principal villain. The word “orthodox” is not merely descriptive. It identifies the force against which everyone else must be understood. Those troublesome Christians, always insisting that the Word of God is true.

Second, history is organized around a fixed binary of oppressors and oppressed. The key term is “Othering.” Outside the university, the word means little. Inside it, “Othering” functions as a philosophical skeleton key.

RELATED: Warning: This college course may be bad for your brain

Andi Purnomo/Getty Images

Whatever the subject — witchcraft, colonialism, literature, economics, architecture, or even mathematics — the conclusion is expected to fit the same template: One group possesses power, another is marginalized, and scholarship consists of exposing the machinery of oppression.

Questions about whether Christianity is true, whether Christ is who Christians say He is, or whether salvation is real disappear from view. The course’s operating question is not “What is true?” but “Who has power?”

Third, the historical narrative must be applied directly to the present. Medieval Europe is not studied merely to understand medieval Europe. Students must show how the old oppression continues now.

History becomes raw material for a contemporary moral narrative in which Christians are still preventing women from having a little fun — even if that fun occasionally involves necromancy. Dead people need friends too.

Once you learn the pattern, whole sections of the catalog become easier to read.

The subject often matters less than the interpretive framework. Whether a course concerns witchcraft, fairy tales, Shakespeare, climate, coffeehouses, or design, the destination frequently remains the same. Society is assumed to be organized by systems of oppression, and every topic marches toward that conclusion.

That’s precisely why parents and students need help reading college catalogs.

Course descriptions are often written in a dialect that obscures more than it reveals. The average 18-year-old has no reason to know that terms such as “Othering,” “lived experience,” “deconstructing,” “intersectionality,” “hegemonic,” or “dialectic of oppression” may signal not simply a topic but an entire philosophical system.

Learning to recognize those signals is an exercise in intellectual discernment.

At the most elementary level, discernment means making distinctions. Ideas have presuppositions. Professors never merely present facts; every course is organized around assumptions about reality, morality, human nature, and truth.

For Christians, some distinctions remain basic. The Word of God? Yes. Communion with Satan? No. That binary is not about power. It is about truth and goodness, and it should not require four credit hours to sort out.

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

ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images

Once students grasp that first level of discernment, they are prepared for the next: watching how quickly the narrative shifts when necessary.

One day, witchcraft is presented as a genuine spiritual tradition unjustly maligned by Christianity. The next, it is described as a social category invented by Christians to oppress women.

Those claims are difficult to reconcile, but reconciliation is beside the point. Both preserve the same moral architecture: Christians remain the oppressors, and everyone else becomes the oppressed.

The hardest courses to identify are not those that openly advertise ideology. Those are easy enough to avoid. The greater challenge is recognizing ideological conformity when it hides beneath academic jargon and historical subject matter.

The sooner students learn to decode that language, the sooner they can decide where to spend their tuition dollars and intellectual energy.

College is expensive enough without paying thousands of dollars to hear that orthodox Christianity is the principal menace of Western civilization — and discovering only after the drop deadline that you accidentally enrolled in Witchcraft 101.

​State universities, Witchcraft, Occult, Christianity, Arizona state university, College, Opinion & analysis 

When it comes to RAM shortages, no tech company is safe. The gaming industry was one of the first to feel the full effects of AI’s supply chain chokehold, but eventually, it extended outward to impact even the world’s most valuable brands, including Apple.

The Cupertino tech giant has been looking for ways to offset low RAM availability and keep the cost of its products down, but its latest solution has lawmakers worried.

RAM from these blacklisted manufacturers is untested for Apple’s needs.

The rest of us should be concerned too.

Apple’s choice could put at risk not only the company and its products, but our national security.

America’s memory failure

Apple may be a multi-trillion-dollar company, but it’s not immune to the RAM crisis. Especially now that so many Apple products are used alongside AI, ample RAM is crucial to delivering a reliable user experience.

Historically, Apple has relied on several partners to supply the RAM for its first-party Apple silicon chips. You may even know some of these companies — Samsung (yes, the prolific Android phone manufacturer), SK Hynix out of South Korea, and Micron (that recently closed its consumer RAM business after 29 years to service Big Tech AI brands). Unfortunately, the growing need for AI data centers has completely devoured available supplies, forcing Apple to look toward other unlikely partners.

Apple is getting desperate for more RAM

So who’s the memory supplier of last resort?

The very source America is ostensibly gobbling up all that memory to beat.

That’s right. China.

Reports say Apple is in talks with Chinese-owned manufacturers to increase RAM availability for its product ecosystem. This alone is enough to raise some red flags, considering that China has a reputation for spying on Americans and stealing from Big Tech.

To make matters even worse, the two China-based brands that Apple is eyeing for RAM — ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT) and Yangtze Memory Technologies Co. (YMTC) — both have sordid pasts. The Pentagon previously declared both brands as companies linked directly to the Chinese military, while YMTC is on the U.S. Entity List, meaning the company is a direct threat to national security.

In other words, Apple is attempting to partner with adversaries of the United States simply to gain access to more RAM, and lawmakers aren’t happy.

Lawmakers don’t want Apple to make a huge mistake

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have taken notice of Apple’s RAM expansion strategy. Sens. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called on Apple to withdraw its attempts to lobby the Trump administration to agree to the purchase of RAM from CXMT and YMTC, citing connections with the Beijing military. They also noted that Apple’s increasing reliance on Chinese manufacturers could harm attempts to bring more manufacturing jobs back to the States. Finally, national security concerns around Chinese RAM could prevent the U.S. government from using Apple products in any official capacity moving forward. Lawmakers have implored Apple to end its pursuit of Chinese RAM by August 21, but no final moves have been made yet.

RELATED: Trump bans Chinese robots — but your robot vacuum may be spying on you already

salihkilic/Getty Images

It goes without saying that Apple is on the cusp of opening its products to unforeseen vulnerabilities or reliability issues. On a basic level, RAM from these blacklisted manufacturers is untested for Apple’s needs, and they may or may not hold up to the same quality as Apple’s current providers. On a national security level, Chinese RAM could make Apple’s products perfect targets for tampering or unforeseen security flaws. Chinese RAM integration could also make Apple susceptible to a U.S. device ban, similar to what we’ve seen with gadgets from Chinese manufacturers like Huawei and ZTE, though this would only happen in extreme cases, given Apple’s value to the U.S. economy, reputation among consumers, and prowess as one of the most innovative technology companies on the planet.

Apple technically doesn’t need the government’s approval to purchase RAM from blacklisted companies, especially if this RAM is only used in products sold outside of the USA, but moving forward with a deal could have serious consequences for the tech giant, its products, and consumers. That said, while Chinese manufacturers may have the RAM that Apple desperately needs, it may not save the company money in the long run as suppliers are poised to charge top dollar to bail Apple out of a jam.

​Tech, Microchips, Apple, China, Ram 

Caitlin Clark has become one of the biggest names in sports, but BlazeTV host Steve Deace argues she now faces a defining moment that could shape her entire legacy. He explains that she cannot afford to remain silent on the debate over the future of women’s sports, arguing that the issue is not only about personal conviction.

“She has an absolute obligation, not just morally, but financially, athletically, to address the issues that Sophie Cunningham is speaking on,” Deace says.

Clark has remained silent on the issue of men in women’s sports, as she most recently refused to comment on fellow WNBA star Sophie Cunningham’s stance that transgender “women” should not be allowed on the same court.

“This is not a matter of opinion, and I don’t even think it’s a matter of conscience. I think it’s a matter of fact that Caitlin Clark has an obligation to address this,” he continues, asking, “What league does Caitlin Clark play in?”

Deace points out that Clark’s league, the WNBA, is specifically called the “Women’s National Basketball Association.”

He also notes that despite her spot as a top women’s athlete, she still wouldn’t beat a much younger all-American male athlete.

“Freshmen going into college this year. How many of them do you think Caitlin Clark could beat one-on-one?” Deace asks co-host Todd Erzen.

“None. None of them,” Erzen replies.

“She couldn’t beat the average high school star athlete. And she’s the greatest, she’s maybe the greatest female athlete in the world alive today … so then it would seem like protecting the integrity of what that word ‘W’ means, would be vitally important to her,” Deace says.

“What would that do to Caitlin Clark’s stock to just watch these guys come in and pretending to be women and just absolutely physically just roll her, just steamroll her on the way to the basket. She could not even get a shot off,” he continues.

“So it seems as if you are profiting off of being a woman, playing in a league whose first word of its branding is ‘women’s’ … then defining what is and is not a woman would be paramount,” he adds.

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve’s take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Caitlin clark, Sophie cunningham, Steve deace, Womens sports, Transgender women, Wnba, Blazetv show 

The majority of practicing Christians believe that tithing 10% of their income is the biblical standard for living out financial faithfulness — but according to Christian finance expert and Ramsey Solutions personality George Kamel, true financial faithfulness requires a lot more than that.

On this episode of “Relatable,” Kamel tells Allie Beth Stuckey what it really means to honor God with our finances.

Financial faithfulness, says Kamel, starts with changing our mindset about money as a whole.

“I think people underestimate the freedom that exists when you go, ‘You know what? I’m a steward of this money. It’s not mine. I’m managing it for someone else,”’ he says, “and when you do that, you look at money through a whole different lens because now it’s not all about me and my selfishness and what could I do with this? It frees me to go, ‘OK, it’s God’s money.”’

This mentality shift, Kamel suggests, creates “three buckets” our money can go into: enjoyment, saving/investing, and giving.

But all of the buckets must be poured into “wisely,” he emphasizes.

“How do we enjoy [money] wisely? Well, obviously, we don’t want to, you know, use it on debauchery, but you can use it to go on vacation. You can use it to upgrade the car. You can use it to have a nice house. That’s OK. Those things aren’t evil in and of themselves,” he tells Allie.

As for investing, Kamel points to the parable of the talents in Matthew 25 to argue that smart investing is biblical.

“Who got all the accolades? The guy who actually planted it and grew the money versus the guy who planted it and nothing came of it and it was just wasted,” he says, “and so you want to make sure that you’re stewarding this well, that it’s growing so that you can give an inheritance to your children’s children as Proverbs says.”

But in the Bible, money is most often discussed in the context of giving charitably.

“With the 2,300 scriptures about wealth and possessions, I think the authors of the Bible knew that we would struggle with the treasures on earth part more than the treasures in heaven part,” says Kamel, urging people to give their money for kingdom purposes.

Allie then wonders if it’s possible to be “too frugal.”

It all comes down to one’s motive, says Kamel.

“Why am I being frugal? To create margin to have kingdom impact? Great! That’s a healthy motive,” he says, “but if it’s just to save because I’m miserly and I have a scarcity mindset, there is no biblical scripture to back that up.”

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

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

​Allie beth stuckey, Christianity, Dave ramsey, George kamel, Money, Stewardship, Blazetv show 

I don’t love Shiloh Hendrix as a First Amendment martyr. Then again, most First Amendment martyrs aren’t especially lovable.

Maybe Hendrix is a great gal in person. I don’t know her. But on April 28, 2025, she was at Roy Sutherland Playground in Rochester, Minnesota, with her toddler when an 8-year-old black boy allegedly took an applesauce pouch from her diaper bag. Hendrix chased him, retrieved the pouch, and, according to witnesses, repeatedly called him the Very Worst Word in American English™.

A free country doesn’t need to convert every ugly human encounter into a criminal proceeding.

The row got the attention of Sharmake Omar, a Somali immigrant who began recording her on his phone. Hendrix told him it was “none of [his] f**king business” and walked away. Omar challenged her to say the word again.

Hendrix obliged.

“F**k you, n*****. N*****, n*****, n*****.”

Omar posted the video online, sans asterisks. Fifteen months later, an Olmsted County jury acquitted Hendrix of disorderly conduct toward the child — and convicted her of disorderly conduct toward Omar.

Say what?

For good or ill, Hendrix has now joined some august company: Eugene V. Debs, Charles Schenck, H.L. Mencken, Upton Sinclair, Henry Miller, Clarence Brandenburg.

The First Amendment has always had lousy taste in clients. Still, Hendrix hardly belongs in that group. Schenck went to prison for distributing anti-draft leaflets with the Bill of Rights printed on one side. Sinclair was arrested for reading the First Amendment aloud. Brandenburg, a Klansman, gave us one of the great protections for political advocacy.

Hendrix doesn’t even rise to the level of “F**k the Draft.” She got angry in a park, took the bait, and said an ugly word over and over.

Should she have exercised more self-control? Probably. But since when did criminal law punish bad manners?

Which brings me to Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

The 1942 Supreme Court case gave us “fighting words”: face-to-face insults punishable when likely to provoke an immediate breach of the peace and forming “no essential part of any exposition of ideas.”

RELATED: Claude shows the future: No AI for dissenters

SDI Productions/iStock/Getty Images

Libertarians mostly hate Chaplinsky. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression calls the doctrine “quaint” and notes that the Supreme Court has not upheld a fighting-words conviction in 80 years.

True enough. Give government power to punish offensive speech, and it will abuse it. That’s why I’m against hate-speech laws. But that does not require pretending every noise made by a human mouth is an “argument” worthy of First Amendment protection.

Hadley Arkes, the constitutional scholar who has influenced my thinking for decades, suggests an admirably simple test:

The soundness of the test can be confirmed again instantly whenever we give a panel of people this set of words and ask if they can identify the terms clearly established as terms of insult, as opposed to words that may be on the borderline of insult, or perhaps even terms of approval and commendation: 1) kike, 2) wop, 3) n*****, 4) urologist, 5) meter maid, 6) saint. People will not show the slightest puzzlement here in fixing on the words used as insulting or “fighting words.”

Exactly. Nobody wonders whether “urologist” is the slur. A blind man could see the difference.

“F**k you, n*****” directed at a black man advances no proposition about race. It is an epithet. Threats, extortion, perjury, provocation — all are words, and all can be actionable.

I made a related argument 16 years ago in Snyder v. Phelps. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church had every right to preach that America was damned. I argued that they did not have the right to commandeer a dead Marine’s funeral. Mencken called the boundary “the last limits of the endurable.”

So two cheers for Chaplinsky.

But that’s a long way from concluding that Hendrix committed a punishable offense.

She was carrying her child and walking away. Omar was recording and baiting her. He practically announced the consequence: The internet was going to see this. It did. Hendrix was identified, doxxed, and condemned by millions.

Omar had counter speech. He had a camera. He had the internet. He won.

Why did the state need to pile on?

Nothing about the encounter suggested an “imminent breach of the peace.” Yet the jury convicted Hendrix for insulting Omar while acquitting her over the nastier conduct alleged toward the 8-year-old.

RELATED: Two Americas, under Fauci, with liberty and justice for none

Jun/iStock/Getty Images

Hendrix’s attorney, Brian Karalus, says the judge excluded exculpatory evidence and mishandled witness disclosures. He called the proceeding a “fraud” and a “circus” and has filed an appeal. Maybe the appellate court says he is wrong, but I hope he wins.

Chaplinsky does not give prosecutors a permission slip. The state still must prove that these words, in this context, were likely to provoke a fight in the moment.

That’s what angers me about this case. It was needless.

Hendrix behaved badly. She said something vicious to a little kid and allowed herself to be provoked when she should have kept walking.

At the same time: So what? A free country doesn’t need to convert every ugly human encounter into a criminal proceeding.

Again, two cheers for Chaplinsky and the “fighting words” doctrine. It’s good law. We should keep it and use it — sparingly. But thank God for every last constitutional protection Shiloh Hendrix has coming to her.

​Fighting words, Opinion & analysis, Disorderly conduct, First amendment, Minnesota, N-word accusation, Law and order, Chaplinsky v. new hampshire, Hate speech 

For one extraordinary moment, Anthony Fauci had the attention of the world.

For someone working in public health, epidemiology, and infectious disease, that kind of audience was almost unimaginable. A field normally confined to laboratories, medical journals, and government briefings suddenly occupied every household, with Fauci standing at its center.

Others will now have to rebuild the public’s trust in public health. That work will require humility, candor, and a willingness to answer questions without treating the questioner as an enemy.

He had the credentials, the access, and the attention of a frightened public. Imagine what he might have done with it.

I am willing to believe noble aspirations drew Fauci into public health. It is largely unglamorous work performed by people concerned with disease prevention, sanitation, research, and the countless measures that help people live longer and healthier lives. Public health is one of America’s noblest forms of stewardship.

Yet at the field’s most visible and consequential moment, Americans increasingly saw less of a champion for that calling than an indefatigable champion of Anthony Fauci.

A large ego does not necessarily prevent faithful stewardship. A cherished calling, however, can bring even an enormous ego to heel by reminding the steward that the work was never chiefly about him.

Fauci’s media choices reinforced the opposite impression. He became a familiar presence on CNN and MSNBC (now MS NOW) while the country’s highest-rated cable news programs aired on Fox. If persuading skeptical Americans truly mattered, why not spend at least as much time with the audience most skeptical of him?

Truth does not require friendly lighting. Someone confident in his work should be willing to face hostile questions and answer evidence with evidence. Fauci could have engaged Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that way. He might not have persuaded Paul or millions of skeptical Americans, but the public could have watched the exchange and learned from it.

Good teachers do not treat questions as threats to their authority or grounds for censorship. They use questions to explain, clarify, and sometimes reconsider.

RELATED: The Biden autopen scandal has one big winner: Anthony Fauci

Alex WROBLEWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

Americans initially accepted Fauci’s guidance because of the authority of his office. Over time, persuasion gave way to institutional pressure. OSHA imposed a vaccination-or-testing mandate covering roughly 84 million workers before the Supreme Court blocked it. Meta reported removing more than 20 million pieces of content and 3,000 accounts, pages, and groups under its COVID-19 misinformation policies.

Those decisions were not Fauci’s alone. They nevertheless formed the climate in which he told CBS that his critics were “really attacking science because I represent science.”

That was the moment stewardship gave way to something else.

I am not an epidemiologist. My authority to write this comes from more than 40 years of accompanying my wife through scores of operations, intensive care, amputations, complications, and consequential medical decisions. At times, Gracie could not speak for herself.

I have watched her medical challenges confuse, frustrate, frighten, and even humble some of the finest surgeons one could hope to meet. I have also watched those physicians respond by working harder to explain what they saw, acknowledge what they did not know, and guide us through their decisions.

We have disagreed and, at times, argued. The respect remained mutual. The physicians knew medicine. I knew Gracie. Good care required both.

Those rooms taught me that medical authority does not eliminate questions. It creates an obligation to answer them. Uncertainty honestly disclosed earns more trust than certainty falsely projected. Condescension and concealment have no place in examination rooms, intensive care units, or public health.

Scripture provides a simple standard: “It is required of stewards that they be found faithful” (1 Corinthians 4:2).

For a time, Fauci’s voice, opinions, assurances, and even his jokes traveled around the world. But the microphone has passed to others, as microphones always do.

RELATED: Two Americas, under Fauci, with liberty and justice for none

Alex WROBLEWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

The man who once had so much to say was eventually left repeating essentially the same answer 111 times. Invoking the Fifth Amendment is not evidence of guilt. Yet Fauci had already received a full and unconditional federal pardon covering any offenses arising from his official service between January 1, 2014, and January 19, 2025.

The pardon proves nothing by itself. Proof and trust, however, are not the same thing.

I would be hard-pressed to entrust Gracie’s care to a physician protected by a pardon reaching back six years before I had ever heard his name.

Americans have the right to notice the contrast.

Others will now have to rebuild the public’s trust in public health. That work will require humility, candor, and a willingness to answer questions without treating the questioner as an enemy.

Anthony Fauci mistook bright lights for stature. They never made him larger. They only magnified his shadow until it fell across the noble calling he had been entrusted to serve.

​Anthony fauci, Covid, Epidemiology, Intensive care, Medical authority, Misinformation, Osha, Public health, Supreme court, Opinion & analysis 

In March 2026, after a near-death hospital stay with sepsis, celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton publicly proclaimed that a lucid encounter with God inspired him to reconnect with the Catholic faith of his upbringing. He celebrated his new faith and declared his intention to live a holier life and begin taking his children to church.

Tragically, on Tuesday, August 4 — less than five months after his public conversion — Hilton was hospitalized after a TikTok livestream captured him appearing naked and covered in what looked like blood while holding a knife and engaging in self-harm.

Glenn Beck calls it an “absolute horror show.”

“He’s cutting himself, and it looks demonic. It really does. He’s covered in blood, and thousands of people watched it happen,” he says, confirming that the livestream was “not AI” and that Hilton is currently recovering in the hospital from “all kinds of lacerations.”

Before this horrific incident, Hilton, Glenn points out, appeared to be doing well and continuing down the path of his newfound Christianity based on his public activity, which highlighted his Bible readings, church attendance, prayer life, and sometimes the difficult work of his faith.

“Then Tuesday night comes,” says Glenn bleakly.

Naturally, everyone wants to know how this heartbreaking incident happened.

On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn offers a deeper and more sobering take on what happened to Perez Hilton — and where the biggest tragedy lies.

Glenn acknowledges the possibility that Hilton’s chaotic circumstances — near-death experience, a very public and raw Christian conversion, a stressful move to Miami, and 3 young children to care for — could have caused him to experience a psychiatric break.

“We could leave that this is medical, okay? And it very well might be,” he says.

But there’s also the possibility, Glenn argues, that Hilton is experiencing the gruesome realities of spiritual warfare.

He notes how he has warned his own friends about sharing God and the gospel on their large platforms.

“You will come under attack in ways you cannot understand,” he says, highlighting his own experience with spiritual warfare.

Glenn urges his audience not to waste their time trying to figure out the exact cause of Hilton’s tragic breakdown.

“I don’t know if … something [demonic] had taken hold of him or not. Maybe it was just sickness that had taken hold of him. I have no idea. Neither do you,” he says.

The far bigger concern, Glenn argues, is the thousands-strong audience that sat glued to their phones as Hilton self-harmed — some pleading with him to stop, while others recorded or shared the livestream.

“We’re a civilization that is rebuilding the Colosseum, and we put it into every pocket of our children’s clothes. We keep it open for 24 hours, and we call the roar ‘engagement,”’ he warns.

“I think the temptation is to look at a suffering man and see a demon and look at a sick man and see a sinner,” he continues, but the “devil doesn’t need to possess anybody to win Tuesday night; he just needs 15 minutes and a crowd that just can’t look away.”

Glenn pleads with his audience to avoid watching or sharing the video of Hilton and instead pray for him and his family.

“You can’t shut down the amphitheater, but you can decline to be part of the roar — and that’s the only vote that any of us get,” he says.

To hear more, 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.

​Christianity, Glenn beck, Perez hilton, Tiktok, Spiritual warfare, Mental illness, Blazetv show 

Editor’s note: This article is part of a point-counterpoint on Christian nationalism. Read Garen Christopher Kaloustian’s argument, “Why ‘Christian nationalists’ are liberals — whether they realize it or not,” here.

Garen is right about something that many self-described nationalists might rather not admit. Modern political nationalism emerged alongside liberalism, and the two were often allies.

The nationalists of 19th-century Europe were not generally fighting to restore the old order. They were often fighting against it. They wanted Italians to rule Italians, Germans to rule Germans, Hungarians to rule Hungarians. That put them at odds with the great dynastic empires and, frequently, with the Church. Metternich had good reason to regard nationalism and liberalism as related threats.

Conservatives have to conserve something that actually exists. For an American, that something is not the Habsburg Empire or Bourbon France.

Throne and altar

I should disclose my own bias here. I’m Catholic. I recognize the authority of the pope. I have no particular interest in proving that America is, or must remain, a Protestant nation, and I’m considerably more sympathetic than the average American conservative to the old Catholic critique of liberalism. In fact, I tend to see the Protestant Reformation itself as one of the great ruptures that eventually produced the liberal world. When Garen talks about throne and altar, I understand the appeal.

But I’m also an American, and this is where I think his argument goes wrong.

Garen defines nationalism as a doctrine of political legitimacy: Sovereignty belongs to the nation rather than to a king or emperor. Because this transfers legitimacy from the top down to the bottom up, he calls nationalism a species of liberalism. As he puts it, “To actually be conservative is to reject bottom-up legitimacy.”

Why?

That might describe a particular kind of European reactionary thought. It does not describe American conservatism as it has existed for more than two centuries.

America’s inheritance

An American conservative inherits a republic. He inherits the Constitution, representative government, the common law, federalism, Christianity, local institutions, and a political tradition in which the people are understood to possess rights that precede the state. He can argue about how well those things fit together. He can even acknowledge that some of them have roots in liberalism.

What he cannot plausibly do is declare the entire American political inheritance illegitimate. After all, what’s “conservative” about asking Americans to overthrow a 250-year-old constitutional order in favor of a European political system that they never had?

The same problem arises with Garen’s treatment of Christianity. He’s on firmer ground in describing throne-and-altar politics as part of the historic integralist tradition within Christianity. But Christianity itself is not synonymous with monarchy.

As a Catholic, I don’t need to speculate much about this. The Catechism teaches that political authority ultimately derives from God. But it also explicitly recognizes a diversity of legitimate political regimes. The Church’s Compendium of Social Doctrine goes farther: “The subject of political authority is the people considered in its entirety as those who have sovereignty.” The people may entrust the exercise of that sovereignty to elected representatives and replace them when they fail.

That doesn’t mean Catholicism embraces simple majoritarianism. John Paul II warned against the idea that truth is “determined by the majority,” and the Church teaches that political authority remains bound by the moral order and the common good. The people can’t make something just simply by voting for it.

But that is very different from saying legitimate political authority requires a king. Catholic teaching manages to hold together two ideas Garen treats as opposites: Political authority ultimately comes from God, and the people can nevertheless possess and exercise political sovereignty.

So the choice Garen eventually gives us — Christendom on one side, a liberal empire or balkanized ethnostates on the other — is too neat.

RELATED: Bernard Nathanson: Abortion architect who found mercy in Christ

Sydney Morning Herald/Antonio Ribiero/Getty Images

Cherry bomb

In fact, Garen makes a distinction that helps explain where I think he goes wrong. Nations and nationalism are not the same thing. Nations are ancient. Nationalism as a political doctrine is modern.

I’ve been reading Christopher Hibbert’s history of the French Revolution, and one little scene in the book captures the ambiguity nicely. Hibbert describes crowds wandering through the Tuileries after the royal family’s flight in 1791: “A cherry hawker sat with her basket on the eiderdown quilt of the Queen’s bed. ‘Now,’ she said. ‘Today, it’s the nation’s turn to be comfortable.’”

What exactly did “the nation” mean to her?

By 1791, the word had acquired a radical political meaning. The revolutionaries claimed that sovereignty belonged to the nation rather than the king. Perhaps our cherry seller had absorbed the new doctrine perfectly well.

But she was also using a word that referred to something considerably older: the people of France. The revolutionaries did not invent them.

France already possessed a people, a history, a culture, a territory, institutions, traditions, and a religious inheritance stretching back centuries. The revolutionary innovation was the claim that this pre-existing nation was now sovereign.

Americans and America

That is almost exactly the distinction Garen himself makes. And it’s why I think he asks his historical argument to do too much. He is right that modern nationalism emerged from the liberal and revolutionary upheavals that challenged Europe’s old dynastic order. But he has already conceded that the nation itself is much older. Establishing the liberal genealogy of nationalism therefore doesn’t establish that conserving a nation, preferring one’s fellow citizens, or preserving a national culture is inherently liberal.

The fact that 19th-century Italian nationalists fought against throne and altar does not tell us whether an American in 2026 should believe that America is a real nation, that its government has particular obligations to Americans, or that its inherited culture is worth preserving.

What today’s Christian nationalists generally mean by “nationalism” is not that every ethnic group in America should receive its own sovereign state. They mean something closer to the opposite: They believe Americans themselves constitute a nation, with a particular history and culture rather than merely a common set of administrative boundaries. That nation can include people of different ethnic backgrounds who nevertheless understand themselves to belong to a common people.

They believe citizenship entails obligations that don’t extend equally to every person on earth. They believe a government should prefer the interests of its own people. And Christian nationalists add that Christianity is part of the country’s inheritance and ought to have some meaningful place in its public life.

You can disagree with any or all of that. But pointing out that 19th-century nationalism helped destroy the Habsburg order doesn’t refute it.

Succession concession?

Garen argues that if nationalism is taken seriously as the principle that every distinct people deserves its own sovereign state, then the consistent American nationalist begins to look like a secessionist.

Perhaps. But why must an American nationalist accept that definition? If Americans constitute a nation, there is no nationalist principle requiring the United States to be divided into smaller ethnic republics.

A nation does require common things: a language, institutions, historical memory, loyalties, customs, and some idea of what membership means. It also requires boundaries. A nation that cannot distinguish between its members and everyone else is eventually no nation at all.

Garen’s argument about empires has problems of its own. He observes that the three great powers of the present day — the United States, China, and Russia — are enormous, multi-ethnic states capable of projecting power, while many European nation-states are small, dependent, and demographically declining.

Baby bust

True enough. But size is not the same thing as political health, and empire is hardly a guarantee of permanence. The Austro-Hungarian Empire disappeared. So did the Ottoman Empire. So did the Russian Empire, followed eventually by the Soviet Union. The British Empire once governed roughly a quarter of the world’s population.

Nor is it obvious that Germany’s low birth rate or Italy’s aging population is the consequence of being a nation-state. Russia, one of Garen’s own examples of a successful multi-ethnic empire, faces serious demographic problems of its own.

Garen points to the demographic decline of European nation-states, but he never establishes the causal connection. Why would Italians have more children if Italy were incorporated into a large Christian empire? Whatever is causing the fertility collapse across developed societies, Garen hasn’t shown that the culprit is the nation-state.

But the larger problem with Garen’s argument is his conception of what conservatives are supposed to conserve.

Nostalgia nation

Conservatism cannot simply mean fidelity to the political arrangements of Europe before the French Revolution. Conservatives have to conserve something that actually exists. For an American, that something is not the Habsburg Empire or Bourbon France. It is America.

Our inheritance is messy. It contains Christianity and Enlightenment liberalism, English common law and republicanism, individual rights and civic obligations. There are tensions among those things, and Garen is right to point some of them out.

But we don’t get to choose our inheritance; the conservative question is what we do with it.

And if there is such a thing as an American conservative, he must presumably believe there is an America to conserve.

​Christian nationalism, Church and state, French revolution, Moral order, Sovereignty, Protestant reformation, Conservatism, Integralism, Culture, Lifestyle, Point counterpoint, Faith 

Doesn’t it seem like conservatives are always trying to “out-conservative” each other? If you think of yourself as a real-deal, red-blooded conservative, rest assured there’s someone out there ready to tell you you’re not conservative enough.

And more often than not, it’s the self-proclaimed “Christian nationalists” who claim the top spot on the conservative totem pole.

If you care about preserving your people, their country, and their ethnic integrity, then you should not be a nationalist.

It’s a funny phenomenon to me, because If you actually examine it, “Christian nationalism” — and much of the conservative status hierarchy built around it — turns out to be a paradox: a supposedly conservative idea that isn’t conservative at all. And that’s not hyperbole.

Bottom up

Sure, the Christian nationalist’s pitch is that he’s the purest advocate for the normalization and institutionalization of Christianity. He’s staunch on all the “radical” positions (pro-life, anti-gay-marriage, anti-immigration, pro-Jesus), and he’ll tell you the nation needs to be Christian, that the government itself needs to reflect Christian values. He believes he’s a patriot because his beliefs as a Christian reflect the best interests of his nation. It all sounds good on paper.

But let’s forget the “Christian” part for a moment and take a look at “nationalism.”

When we think of a nation, we picture a distinct people who share a history, a culture, and, yes, even a race. Peoples have always belonged to their nations; it’s an ancient biblical concept — and an immutable one.

But nationalism is not the same thing as the “nations” it claims to speak for. Nationalism is a modern political doctrine, and once you trace where it actually came from, you find something the “Christian nationalist” won’t want to hear. It isn’t a conservative idea at all. It’s a liberal one.

Historical nationalism is the doctrine that concerned itself with the feudal peasant’s liberation from his king and church. It’s the idea that a country is governed by the masses of its native people, not the throne and altar. That’s the key distinction here. Political nationalism isn’t necessarily about preserving demographic and cultural integrity, although that is a key component. It’s about the legitimacy and authority of the people of the nation. Under a nationalist framework, the citizen is the sovereign. Authority flows from the bottom up, not the top down.

Vulgar outgrowth

History confirms it. After the French Revolution and the fall of Napoleon, Austrian Chancellor Klemens von Metternich and the Concert of Europe treated nationalism as a vulgar outgrowth of liberalism. The statesmen of the counter-revolution regarded nationalism not as a force for tradition but as one of liberalism’s most dangerous offspring.

That’s because the very concept of “grassroots” legitimacy is, by definition, liberalism. The idea that the underclass of an ethnic enclave can break away from the authority of the king and bishop and carve out their own country has always been (and always will be) a liberal notion. Modern political nationalism is, in many respects, a brand of liberalism draped in a tricolor flag.

Contrast that with how people understand “nationalism” today. When people today hear the word “nationalism,” where their minds usually go to is “race and demographics.” To be a white or Christian nationalist essentially means that you want the majority of the country to be white and Christian.

So then, if we’re to perceive the spirit of the times correctly, what the conservative right really has anxieties about isn’t political nationalism as a legitimacy doctrine, but ethnic integrity. What the majority of people truly want is to preserve their people and their people’s culture, not to necessarily hold the power of kings. These two terms, nationalism and ethnic integrity, definitely overlap and intersect, but they run on separate axes.

It’s important to note this distinction, because I would argue that if you care about preserving your people, their country, and their ethnic integrity, then you should not be a nationalist.

Small and dependent

Why?

Just take a look at what political nationalism has historically accomplished (or hasn’t, for that matter). The European ethnostates of the 19th and 20th centuries were mostly the successor states of the collapsed empires of the ancien regime. Germany, Italy, the Balkan states (you can go down the list) — all these nation-states were the children of liberal nationalist movements that pried their respective populations from the grip of royal authority and carved democratic governments out of them. Freedom and independence for all, or so they say.

But what does this do in reality? It creates security problems. The glaring issue with ethnostates is that they’re no longer large land empires. They’re small and dependent. Whereas these ethnostates would have had their ethnic integrity protected were they part of a larger Christian empire, the modern ethnostate is the fragile vessel that fails to do just that. The old nation that preserved its ethnic integrity inside an empire under throne and altar is swept aside because the people pridefully believe in grassroots self-governance.

Nearly every developed nation-state today faces some combination of demographic decline, economic dependency, or strategic vulnerability. Italy, Ireland, Germany, etc., are struggling to reproduce. Japan and South Korea remain wealthy and technologically advanced, but they too are confronting demographic trajectories that, if left unchecked, will eventually carry profound economic and strategic consequences. Meanwhile, states like Israel remain heavily dependent on the protection and patronage of larger powers.

RELATED: America’s ‘melting pot’ was never more than a covenient myth — here’s why

Bettman/Getty Images

Empire state of mind

Meanwhile, who prospers and dictates terms to everybody else? It’s the large, multi-ethnic empires, which primarily consist of the big three: the U.S., Russia, and China. And yes, both Russia and China are multi-ethnic empires. They’re not on the same level of diversity as the U.S., but they sit on the empire side, not the ethnostate side. Although they’re Russo- and Sino-majoritarian in population, they collectively govern Tatars, Chechens, Uyghurs, Turkics, Tibetans, and Mongols, as well as projecting power in their respective spheres.

All three of the major powers are able to project the power that they project and are able to administer the aid that they administer simply because of how big they are and how much they don’t care about being an ethnostate. They care more about being power-projecting empires than being a state with a distinct culture and people.

So if you’re an American, and you’re opining for a more “nationalist” agenda for your country’s future, what you’re really asking for is a balkanization agenda. You want to divvy the country up into smaller countries, each one carved along the lines of a distinct people.

Because when you take it seriously and follow it all the way through, that’s what nationalism is: the principle that every nation, with its own history and blood, deserves its own sovereign state. If nationalism is taken seriously as that principle, then the consistent American nationalist begins to sound like a secessionist. And anyone who is naively tempted by the prospect of secession has no idea how much harder life gets in a much smaller country.

King me

But here’s where the “Christian” half of “Christian nationalism” comes into play. To actually be conservative is to reject bottom-up legitimacy. To the historic integralist tradition within Christianity, legitimacy flows downward from God through throne and altar rather than upward from the people.

Smuggling a liberal legitimacy doctrine under a Christian banner simply does not fly.

Monarchy, deemed legitimate by the Church, is integralism, which is the opposite of vulgar nationalism. I’m not going to argue here for why Christian monarchism is the correct choice over secular republicanism. The point here is to say that liberalism definitionally is the departure from Christian monarchism. If you disagree with that, then you’re unaware of your own nation’s ideological genealogy.

Tugged in two directions

So what’s left?

The Christian nationalist is not a conservative, because his legitimacy runs up from the people rather than down from throne and altar. He’s a liberal who is unaware of his liberalism.

He is not, in any coherent sense, a Christian nationalist, because the faith he invokes is universal monarchism, which would subject multiple ethnic nations to its governance in practice (and thereby securing the integrity of the ethnic enclaves). And he is not an American nationalist either, because political nationalism applied honestly to this country would dismantle it.

So what does the “conservative” American Christian ultimately want?

When you strip it all down, he is tugged in two different directions. The first option is that he wants a large polity united by the Christian faith, reflected in its traditions, customs, and laws from the top down. That option has a name. It’s called Christendom. It is the old Christian monarchical order that 19th-century nationalist revolutions did so much to dismantle. It’s the precise opposite of “We the People” populism.

The other option is that he wants sovereignty and independence for what he considers “his people,” and that would result in a weak, balkanized ethnostate.

Otherwise, you’re stuck with a diverse, secular, and liberal empire.

The irony is that many who call themselves nationalists are, without realizing it, defending a political doctrine born from the same liberal revolution they claim to oppose.

​Christendom, Christian nationalists, Conservatives, Monarchy, Nation, Nationalism, Populism, Secessionist, Sovereignty, Faith 

What’s the very worst move a TV show can make if it wants to prove it’s a bona fide news outlet?

Bring in an unhinged former host for a teary-eyed reunion.

He’s loaded and stands as a prime example of our capitalistic system in action. Now, he wants to tear it all down.

That’s what “The View” has planned for its 30th anniversary special, at least according to one very unreliable source. The far-far-left showcase has asked ex-host Rosie O’Donnell to join the festivities. And the “Flintstones” alum said “yes.”

That’s according to O’Donnell.

“The View” has yet to confirm the invitation. An O’Donnell rep told USA Today there’s been no concrete announcement of the star’s return. Who are you going to trust: a rabid conspiracy theorist or a show that chronically peddles rabid conspiracy theories?

Extinction-level event

“Creative differences” are making a Hollywood comeback.

It’s one of the hokiest reasons for a film or TV show to fall apart. This time, it’s the next installment of the increasingly awful “Jurassic World” series. The last film, “Jurassic World: Rebirth” starring Scarlett Johansson, stunk up the joint but still made an outstanding $870 million in worldwide ticket sales.

The franchise will have to do it all over again without “Rebirth” director Gareth Edwards. He cited the oft-deployed phrase on the way out the franchise door. If he couldn’t hold his nose and direct the next film in the series, it’s a sign the saga will be about as fresh as pterodactyl eggs …

Dirty jobless

Mike Rowe may be famous, but he has two feet firmly planted in terra firma. The “Dirty Jobs” host is renowned for his practical approach to life. Gritty, blue-collar Americans cheer him on for it.

He isn’t unabashedly on the right, but we can all do the math. And when he speaks, people would be wise to listen. So Rowe went to town on the Democrats’ embrace of all things DSA this week.

That’s not a partisan screed, just a cold blast of reality.

“If the DSA continues to grow in popularity, and the Democrats actually campaign on their behalf, I think it’ll be the largest political blunder in my lifetime,” he wrote on social media.

If anyone can get through to Dems, it’s Rowe. Arguing with the purple-haired, 16-gender crowd can’t be any harder than chicken-sexing or pig-slop processing, can it?

Nolan negged

Did Christopher Nolan step on her cat’s tail?

“The Odyssey” director leaned on scholar Emily Wilson’s adaptation of the Homer poem to fuel his box-office sensation. And days after the film hit theaters, Wilson shredded Nolan’s handiwork.

Now, like Bruce the Shark in “Jaws,” she’s circling back to slam the film anew. The feminist scholar turned to the Atlantic for a fuller evisceration of the film:

The script grandly insists on the importance of human kindness, while the camera shows us an entirely different set of values. In these times of hatred and misinformation, we need more than the “apparent magic” of deceptive images. We need art that is truthful about the costs and the necessity of compassion, and that recognizes that a sense of spiritual superiority may not protect us from lies.

Nolan will have plenty of time to rebut her critiques. If he wants the ultimate revenge, he could name-check her when he’s on stage to pick up one of the film’s likely Oscar wins …

RELATED: 2,500 reasons ‘The View’ is pure leftist propaganda — and 1 reason the FCC should leave it alone anyway

Al Drago/Getty Images

Money Mark

Celebrity Net Worth, a popular site estimating how much the rich and famous have in their piggy banks, says Mark Ruffalo is worth a cool $35 million.

The in-demand actor has played the Hulk in eight feature films and two Disney+ TV shows. That alone can pad one’s bank account, but he’s been steadily employed for two decades in various films and TV projects.

He’s loaded and stands as a prime example of our capitalistic system in action. Now, he wants to tear it all down. He just hasn’t distributed his millions quite yet.

The actor used his celebrity clout to back multiple DSA candidates in Michigan earlier this week. Why? They want socialism in the good ol’ USA, he said (with a straight face).

“This is our movement coming to bear fruit. I mean, this is what we started in 2016. This is where the progressives have been moving. This is our time. And they have to spend more and more money each time to beat us. And it’s just a matter of time till they flop, and this could be it.”

Hulk … hypocrite! And that’s being kind.

​Lifestyle, Entertainment, Hollywood, Toto recall, Mark ruffalo, Marvel, Mike rowe, Dsa, Socialism, The view, Rosie o’donnell 

In July, Shane Gillis made comedy history, selling more than 77,000 tickets and setting records for the largest audience for a comedian and the most tickets sold for a solo stand-up act. The achievement put him past names like Kevin Hart, Steve Martin, and German stand-up Mario Barth.

It also came just seven years after cancel culture nearly killed his career.

Shane Gillis did not beat cancel culture by becoming less offensive. He beat it by becoming too successful to cancel.

In 2019, shortly after Comedy Central named him an “Up Next” comedian, Gillis landed the job every comic dreams about: a spot on “Saturday Night Live.” Then old clips surfaced of him doing a mock Asian accent and using a racial slur. Other clips featured supposedly unacceptable jokes about gay people. Within days, SNL fired him. Gillis later described the experience as painful enough to make it hard to “trust people … for a while.”

The timing was brutal. Gillis was fired during what we now recognize as peak woke, when careers could vanish because somebody with a Twitter account dug through 10 years of jokes and found the wrong sentence.

He was hardly alone. Sarah Silverman faced backlash over an old blackface bit. Dave Chappelle was attacked for mocking Michael Jackson’s accusers. Kevin Hart’s old tweets were dragged back into the spotlight. Suddenly the internet had discovered a tremendous new power: If enough people pretended to be offended at once, they could get somebody fired.

For a while, almost everyone played along.

That was always the secret of cancel culture. It was never a magical force. It was a consensual ideology. It worked because institutions submitted to it, employers feared it, and ordinary people convinced themselves that refusing to obey would make them the next target.

Words became temporarily unsayable. Leftists rewrote definitions and then declared that only certain people were allowed to use them. “Gone with the Wind” was pulled from streaming. James Gunn and Gina Carano lost jobs. People learned to keep their mouths shut because being called racist, sexist, or homophobic could cost them a career.

The woke mob did not win because everyone agreed with it. It won because too many people were afraid to laugh at it.

Now, two presidencies removed from peak woke, the whole thing looks much sillier. Plenty of celebrities once declared untouchable have returned to the mainstream. Land acknowledgments and pronoun rituals have become punch lines. “Culturally insensitive,” the kind of phrase that helped sink Gillis, sounds increasingly like a relic from a very stupid age.

So people post offensive jokes, recycle old podcast clips, and celebrate that “woke is dead.”

I would not start planning the funeral.

Cancel culture isn’t dead. It’s hiding.

Conservatives have every reason to feel confident right now. Republicans control Congress and the presidency. The administration has attacked “diversity, equity, and inclusion” throughout the federal government. The Supreme Court has handed down major victories protecting women’s sports. It can be tempting to believe the culture could never slide back to 2019.

RELATED: BILL PILLED: Maher warns fellow Democrats that they’re headed for woke-tastrophe

Shannon Finney/WireImage/Getty Images

But Donald Trump was president in 2019 too.

The first and second Trump administrations are very different, but Trump’s presence by itself does not prevent a woke resurgence. Cultural power does not live only in Washington. It lives in entertainment, universities, corporations, HR departments, newsrooms, and the countless people who decide whether the mob gets rewarded for showing up.

Gillis’ comeback is encouraging precisely because he did not wait for those institutions to forgive him.

Podcasts gave him somewhere else to go. After SNL fired him, Gillis joked that he could just appear on Joe Rogan’s podcast and everything would be fine. And he was right. Audiences increasingly learned that independently produced shows could be funnier, more honest, and less filtered than legacy television.

That shift reached well beyond comedy. Podcasts became a major force in the 2024 election. Trump and JD Vance used long-form appearances to show voters their humor and personalities outside carefully managed television interviews. Kamala Harris’ refusal to sit down with Rogan only reinforced the contrast. In the peak-woke era, scripted liberal slogans might have been enough. By 2024, they sounded canned.

Comedy is often the canary in the coal mine because comedy requires tension, risk, and the possibility that somebody will be offended. A culture that cannot tolerate a joke will eventually struggle to tolerate an argument.

Gillis rebuilt his career, but comedians are still testing the limits. Jerry Seinfeld said the “extreme left has suppressed the art of comedy,” then later walked that back by saying culture moves and a comedian’s job is to adapt. David Spade criticized L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and California Gov. Gavin Newsom for “killing Hollywood” and took heat for it. Nate Bargatze was slammed simply for attending Trump’s UFC event at the White House.

RELATED: Colorado fire department employee FIRED over Snoop Dogg doll that ‘evoked’ history of ‘racial terror’

Heidi Gutman/Bravo/Getty Images

That is what hiding looks like. The old cultural reflex is still there, waiting for institutions to become afraid again.

Woke politics will not return because somebody waves a magic wand. It will return one concession at a time: one employee fired to stop a controversy, one joke declared beyond the pale, one institution deciding it is easier to surrender than tell an angry mob no.

That is why conservatives should resist the temptation to declare victory and go home. Free speech survives only when people keep using it. Comedy survives only when comedians keep telling the joke. Culture stays open only when institutions refuse to hand professional hecklers a veto.

The late, great Norm Macdonald understood this better than most. Early in his career, he joked: “People were beginning to talk about me, and that’s always good news. As Adolf Hitler once said, all publicity is good publicity.”

Shane Gillis did not beat cancel culture by becoming less offensive. He beat it by becoming too successful to cancel. That’s worth celebrating. It is not a reason to stop paying attention.

​Backlash, Cancel culture, Diversity equity inclusion, Entertainment, Joe rogan, Norm macdonald, Saturday night live, Shane gillis, Woke ideology, Womens sports, Opinion & analysis 

The hardest job in American politics isn’t balancing the budget, but admitting that the other side might have a good idea.

I understand this can feel like swallowing glass, but credit belongs where credit is due.

Prices fluctuate constantly under normal market conditions. Gas prices spike during oil embargoes. Airline tickets double in December. Retailers drop prices to shift winter inventory. Every consumer understands basic supply and demand.

Sustainable commerce requires a baseline of public trust.

Now, however, there’s a new way of pricing that flouts the usual rules, one most people are still oblivious to. It’s known as surveillance pricing.

Companies harvest vast amounts of personal data. They then study behavioral quirks and calculate the maximum amount an individual will pay for a given product.

New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill (D) recently signed a law, dubbed the Fair Price Protection Act, that tackles this predatory corporate practice.

Personalized price tags

When a customer goes to buy something online, the algorithm instantly detects a recent job promotion, a broken appliance, and an exhausting 20-mile commute. The system spits out a “personalized offer” that looks like a VIP discount, right up until you realize the VIP treatment is just a bespoke mugging.

New Jersey’s new law stops businesses from using personal information to construct personalized price tags for essential goods. The statute leaves traditional coupons, storewide clearance events, and opt-in loyalty programs alone. It places a hard ceiling on using private data to extract extra cash from individual wallets.

Every person participating in the economy is a target. Algorithms track physical location coordinates from cell towers, record search histories, and log exact purchasing frequencies down to the minute.

Data collection makes sense when it helps a company stock shelves or route delivery trucks. But we’re way beyond that now. High-tech logistics phases into loan-sharking when it’s used to calculate just how much price pressure you can bear before tapping out.

For example, let’s say two neighbors order identical refrigerators from the same website on a Tuesday afternoon. The first neighbor clears browser cookies, runs price comparisons across four tabs, and waits three days to buy. The second neighbor searches frantically because his old unit died overnight, threatening $300 worth of groceries. The algorithm identifies the second buyer as highly motivated (desperate) and jacks up the price tag.

RELATED: This throwback app is competing with Big Tech — using a business model out of the 1980s

Bryan Bedder/Getty Images

Grocery shopping exposes the same vulnerability that’s ready to exploit. A household managing a strict monthly budget leaves a detailed digital breadcrumb trail across meal-planning apps and store searches. Predictive software analyzes those habits and adjusts item pricing to test the family’s financial pain threshold. The family ends up paying an invisible desperation tax at checkout.

Stopping invisible pickpockets

In 1914, Congress created the Federal Trade Commission to stop trusts from fixing prices in smoke-filled boardrooms. Today, those boardrooms are replaced by cloud servers executing real-time financial extraction on millions of cell phones. Technology scales predatory practices at unprecedented speeds. Automated systems run millions of behavioral calculations every single second, adjusting prices faster than a human brain can process.

New Jersey’s law creates a blueprint for a uniform federal standard. Geographic boundaries should not dictate basic consumer protections against automated price gouging. A family driving across the George Washington Bridge into New York shouldn’t lose basic economic protections the second they cross the state line.

A national policy establishes clear boundaries for market competition. Companies should win customers by refining manufacturing, streamlining distribution, and lowering overhead costs. They shouldn’t win by writing software that hunts down strapped parents searching for infant formula at two in the morning.

Free-market economics depend on transparent pricing and informed consent. Adam Smith wrote extensively about the invisible hand of the market, but he never envisioned an invisible algorithm picking pockets in real time. Transactional freedom evaporates when a multibillion-dollar corporate server has complete information on a buyer simply trying to purchase dinner.

Capitalism for citizens

Conservatives traditionally champion market transparency, personal privacy, and fair exchange. New Jersey’s statute aligns directly with those values. True capitalism requires open competition, not rigged games where one side owns the deck, the table, and the security cameras overhead.

Companies retain every right to generate profits and return value to shareholders. Wealth creation drives technological progress and raises standard of living metrics in America and beyond. Sustainable commerce, however, requires a baseline of public trust. When consumers discover that their own personal information serves as a weapon against their bank accounts, that trust dissolves entirely.

New Jersey typically dominates headlines for political corruption trials, abysmal Turnpike traffic, and the inevitable road rage that follows. Yet Governor Sherrill’s administration managed to draw a remarkably sane line in the sand. Washington and the remaining 49 states need to adopt the exact same rule before every price tag in the country morphs into an automated shakedown.

​Surveillance pricing, Tech 

On August 4, Abdul El-Sayed, the radical progressive Muslim activist who has called for abolishing ICE, universal health care, codifying unrestricted access to abortion, and other far-left initiatives, narrowly beat Haley Stevens in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary.

His victory bodes ill not just for the state of Michigan but for the United States as a whole, says BlazeTV host Steve Deace, because it exposes a chilling reality about America and the direction the nation is headed.

On this episode of the “Steve Deace Show,” the former Michigan resident pulls back the curtain on what’s really fueling America’s downward spiral into radicalization, mental illness, and racial idolatry.

“Gretchen Whitmer is probably the most successful Democrat politician the state of Michigan has had in a generation. … A decade as governor, queen bee of the state,” says Deace, “and she just got rolled by an Islamist in a Senate primary who won despite her endorsement of his opponent.”

What does this say about the direction of the nation?

According to Deace, we’re witnessing an “Islam surge” in the United States because the people have forgotten or rejected America’s intentional design to function like biblical Israel under the Sinai covenant — where the people obey God and receive His protecting and blessing, and as a result, the nation shines as a “city on a hill” that attracts outsiders to the true God.

“We want to be, in a civic sense, a covenantal people of the one true God. We want His favor, which means that we need to be a nation of His instruments, and you’ve seen God bless that,” says Deace. “Otherwise, we wouldn’t have lasted as long as we have.”

But as it was with ancient Israel, when the people stray, God’s discipline follows.

“One of the marks of a covenantal people receiving the discipline of the God you have covenanted with that you also see in the Old Testament is you’re overrun with foreigners and foreign gods,” Deace points out.

He asks if America’s current predicament — being overrun with illegal immigrants and the rising influence of Islam — could be God’s judgment on a nation that has rebelled against the covenantal design its founders sought to emulate.

“The answer, of course, would be yes,” says Deace frankly.

“We disobey God to a point collectively that He then removes His restraining hand. This is Romans 1,” he adds.

Whether America “lost [its] zeal” for “the one true God” or deliberately embraced “foreigners and their ways,” the “outcome is the same,” says Deace: God gives us over to our sinful ways, allowing us to reap the consequences of our decisions.

That’s why Islam is growing in power and influence in the United States, he argues.

New York City’s socialist Muslim Mayor Zohran Mamdani “is not an outlier but a herald,” Deace warns.

“After 9/11, we imported almost 4 million people from Islam-dominated countries,” and then we embarked on “a rebranding campaign that [Islam] is not a violent religion but one of peace,” he recounts.

“These seeds,” he says, “were planted many years ago” and are now being “[fertilized]” with “pagan indoctrination,” creating a spiritual “vacuum.”

“And nature abhors a vacuum, and the fake foreign demon gods will fill it for you. And if you won’t let them, you’re a racist, of course,” Deace observes.

“Normie voters,” he says, mistakenly believe that America’s biggest problems right now are “mental illness,” “racial idolatry,” and “radicalization.” But those are merely “symptoms” of a far deeper and more terrifying root problem.

“The disease is you’re up against a rival religion,” Deace warns.

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve’s take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Abdul el-sayed, Gretchen whitmer, Illegal immigrants, Islam, Mental illness, Michigan, Racial idolatry, Radicalization, Senate primary, Steve deace, Zohran mamdani, Blazetv show