Category: blaze media

Could be some awkward times in Hollywood moving forward.

We recently saw nearly 4,000 Hollywood stars sign an open letter pledging to boycott Israeli-based film groups and productions. The who’s who of Hollywood included Emma Stone, Javier Bardem, Joaquin Phoenix, and many more.

Emma Watson became a star for one reason and one reason only — JK Rowling.

Now, roughly 1,200 actors are firing back.

A group including Debra Messing, Mayim Bialik, Liev Schreiber, Gene Simmons, and Howie Mandel signed a dueling open letter attacking that cultural boycott.

“We know the power of film. We know the power of story. That is why we cannot stay silent when a story is turned into a weapon, when lies are dressed up as justice, and when artists are misled into amplifying anti-Semitic propaganda.”

Imagine if some of these warring factions meet on a film or TV set moving forward. Yikes …

Sorry not sorry

Jimmy Kimmel is back after falsely claiming MAGA killed conservative icon Charlie Kirk. You’d think with all that “free speech” he’s once again enjoying, he could’ve spared a few words for a sincere apology.

After all, Kimmel didn’t like it when Aaron Rodgers falsely alleged that he might be on a certain pedophile’s list.

In fact, as Megyn Kelly points out, Kimmel lectured the NFL star on his manners for never saying he was sorry.

“And when I do get something wrong, which happens on rare occasions, you know what I do? I apologize for it. Which is what Aaron Rodgers should do, which is what a decent person would do.”

Good advice all around. We’re waiting, Mr. Kimmel.

RELATED: Mission: Impossible (to sit through); Final Dud-stination; RIP Joe Don Baker

Mike Malloy/Damon Packard/Cinerama/Manuel Velasquez/Getty Images

Moranis plays ‘Balls’

You can’t keep a good Dark Helmet down.

Rick Moranis, the Canadian comic who brought the Darth Vader-esque villain to life in 1987’s “Spaceballs,” is ending his semi-retirement.

He’ll play Dark Helmet once more for the “Spaceballs” sequel, set for a 2027 release. The studio behind the film sent out a black-and-white cast photo, not unlike the still that triggered the media machine behind 2015’s “The Force Awakens.”

This time, the photo features returning franchise stars like Daphne Zuniga, Bill Pullman, and, of course, Moranis.

The busy actor took a knee on his Hollywood career following the death of his wife, Ann Belsky, from breast cancer. Being a dad took top priority, and he mostly left Hollywood behind. He’s done a modest amount of acting work since then, including voice-over appearances. The “Spaceballs” sequel will be his biggest gig in years.

Let’s hope the comedy sequel is more “National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation” and less “Caddyshack II” …

He’s a man, man!

Media outlets have spent years telling us who the next 007 will be. It was never based on, you know, actual facts, just rumors, wish-casting, and clickbait.

That’s journalism in 2025! (Hard news coverage is no better.)

Now, we’re getting our first real information about the next James Bond. It’s … no one you’ve ever heard of. Ta-dah!

Director Denis Villeneuve and his team crave a “fresh face,” AKA an unknown star, to step into the iconic role. That’s the best news out of 007-ville in some time. The only other clues? The next Bond will be male and British.

Dylan Mulvaney need not apply.

Millions of woke voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced …

JK ok with Emma

Don’t call it a comeback. Maybe just a backpedal.

Emma Watson became a star for one reason and one reason only — J.K. Rowling. The British author wrote the “Harry Potter” books, and Watson snagged the role of Hermione for the movie adaptation back in 2001.

It’s that simple.

Yet, when Rowling dared to disagree with the actor on some trans-related issues, Watson indirectly scorched her views on social media. So did some of her “Harry Potter” cast mates.

That was then — 2020 — when the woke mind virus rampaged Hollywood and elsewhere. Post a black square for BLM … or else.

Now, Watson is singing a more sympathetic tune.

I really don’t believe that by having had that experience and holding the love and support and views that I have means that I can’t and don’t treasure Jo and the person that I had personal experiences with. … It’s my deepest wish that people who don’t agree with my opinion will love me, and I hope I can keep loving people who I don’t necessarily share the same opinion with.

With age comes wisdom. It’s also safer to praise Rowling today following woke’s significant decline and the author’s refusal to bow to the cancel culture mob.

That’s courage, Hollywood-style.

​Hollywood, Culture, Entertainment, Jk rowling, James bond, Toto recall 

We were promised a “green” utopia, free of fossil fuels, powered by sunshine and breezes. However, the net-zero hobbits living in this imaginary Shire were blissfully ignorant of hard realities dictated by physics, engineering, and economics.

Once trumpeted by corporate giants and governments alike, the vision of a world without greenhouse gas emissions is crumbling. It’s pseudoscience coupled with false assurances incapable of sustaining the weight of one reality after another. Major airlines, energy companies, and financial institutions are abandoning net-zero commitments that were always destined to clash with the demands of business imperatives and people’s needs.

Becoming mainstream again is the understanding that affordable and reliable energy, prosperity, and human freedom are inextricably linked — a non-negotiable connection.

Anti-fossil fuel crusaders assured the public that jet travel could be reshaped through “green” fuel and futuristic aircraft. But in 2024, Air New Zealand shattered that illusion by declaring its 2030 emissions target impossible to achieve.

Another blow to the green version of a Middle-earth fantasy came from Airbus, which pushed into never-never land fantasies with its plans to deliver a hydrogen-powered aircraft by 2035.

The necessary technology simply does not exist — neither for airplanes nor so-called sustainable fuels in commercial quantities.

The airline industry’s capitulation is not an isolated incident. It’s a major domino falling in a long line of corporate and governmental U-turns signaling a great awakening.

Over the past 24 months, major banks and investment firms have staged an exodus from climate alliances, no longer willing to bear the costs or regulatory risks of practices that discriminate against enterprises such as traditional energy companies.

The Net-Zero Banking Alliance, once a beacon of green aspirations, has lost some of its largest members, including HSBC and UBS, and all the largest U.S. banks, among them J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup.

The climate industrial complex, through its organs at the United Nations, sought to impose anti-fossil fuel goals on the global shipping industry via the International Maritime Organization. However, in 2025, the United States took a bold stand by formally opposing the IMO’s position.

Across the Atlantic, Scotland made headlines in April 2024 by abandoning its ambitious target to cut emissions by 75% by 2030. At Germany’s Munich Motor Show in 2025, Stellantis — parent company of brands like Jeep, Peugeot, and Vauxhall — declared it would no longer aim to produce only electric vehicles by 2030.

The company called the European Union’s 2035 zero-emission mandate “unrealistic.” Others have cut back or canceled production of EVs, most recently Acura’s ZDX, which was sent packing shortly after the Japanese manufacturer and General Motors ended a joint EV venture.

RELATED: Trump’s climate policy shift could save American farmers from disaster

Photo by JamesBrey via Getty Images

The Science-Based Targets initiative was supposed to be the gold-standard arbiter of net-zero commitments. Yet energy giants like Shell, BP, and Enbridge have quit advisory groups linked to the Science-Based Targets initiative, recalibrating their strategies toward pragmatism in the development of oil and natural gas. BP, for example, slashed future spending on net-zero ventures while upping investments in traditional hydrocarbons by nearly 20%.

All these reversals share a common cause: the profound disconnect between activist goals and economic reality. On paper, it sounds charitable to promise emissions cuts and decarbonized operations by mid-century. However, these pledges assume nonexistent technology, rely on unaffordable energy sources, and require disruption to economic activity that no rational executive team can tolerate. Financial institutions have realized that lending to developers and users of fossil fuels is vital for national security, especially in times of geopolitical uncertainty. Oil and natural gas continue to be essential for infrastructure, industrial processes, and the daily lives of billions. “Green” lending strategies that sounded good at climate summits failed to deliver returns under market pressure.

Becoming mainstream again is the understanding that affordable and reliable energy, prosperity, and human freedom are inextricably linked — a non-negotiable connection. The great climate scare is not ending with a bang, but with quiet, commonsense calculations.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Net zero, Carbon emissions, Carbon footprint, Green energy, Climate change 

At least one person has died and 9 others were injured in a mass shooting at a church in Michigan on Sunday morning, according to local authorities.

The fatal shooting occurred at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Grand Blanc, a suburb of Flint, Michigan.

‘THIS EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE IN OUR COUNTRY MUST END, IMMEDIATELY!’

The Grand Blanc Police Department said in a statement, “[There] has been an active shooter at the church of Latter Day Saints on McCandlish Rd. There are multiple victims and the shooter is down.”

The police department noted that the church is “actively on fire.”

The Grand Blanc Police Department stressed, “There is NO threat to the public at this time.”

Citing Grand Blanc Township Police Chief William Renye, CNN reported: “A gunman drove his car into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and opened fire on congregants during a large service.”

USA Today reported, “He then exited the vehicle and fired ‘several rounds’ at people inside the church, Renye said at an afternoon news conference.”

Renye added that responding officers “engaged in gunfire” with the shooting suspect and said, “That suspect is no longer with us.”

Citing the police chief, USA Today reported that the suspect “is believed to have deliberately set the fire” at the Michigan church.

RELATED: Two ‘MONSTERS’ arrested in shooting of children’s baseball coach were granted citizenship under Biden, DHS says

Multiple reports stated that nine victims suffered gunshot wounds and were rushed to local hospitals.

According to USA Today, the church was “engulfed in flames” and police expect that there will be more victims.

Paul Kirby, an alleged victim of the church shooting, told the New York Times that it was the “scaredest I’ve ever been,” noting that it sounded like an explosion when the vehicle collided with the place of worship.

“When he went outside to help, he said he saw a man about 10 to 20 yards away from him getting out of his truck and starting to fire at people,” the New York Times reported. “He said a bullet went through the glass door beside him and a piece of shrapnel hit his leg. He then ran inside, gathered his family and others, and ran out the back of the church.

Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck stated on the church shooting in Michigan: “Evil feels unleashed, with bloodshed now a daily sorrow. We mourn with all who mourn. Yet I hold fast: evil never wins. Christ will bring ultimate justice and reign in peace. May He find us worthy. May He save the Republic.”

President Donald Trump reacted by saying, “I have been briefed on the horrendous shooting that took place at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in Grand Blanc, Michigan. … The Trump Administration will keep the Public posted, as we always do. In the meantime, PRAY for the victims, and their families. THIS EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE IN OUR COUNTRY MUST END, IMMEDIATELY!”

Vice President JD Vance stated on the X social media platform, “Just an awful situation in Michigan. FBI is on the scene and the entire administration is monitoring things. Say a prayer for the victims and first responders.”

“We are heartbroken,” Grand Blanc Township Supervisor Scott Bennett said at a Sunday news conference. “This kind of violence doesn’t happen in our community, and we are heartbroken that it came to Grand Blanc Township. And we’re going to do everything we can to support the families, the victims, and our community getting through this situation.”

The investigation included members of the local police, Michigan State Police, the FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

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

​Shooting, Mass shooting, Church shooting, Michigan shooting, Michigan church shooting, Donald trump, Jd vance, Crime 

Why is human life valuable?

Alex O’Connor, an online atheist whose popularity has skyrocketed in recent years, recently said this: “I call myself an ethical emotivist, by which I mean that I think ethical statements — statements like ‘Murder is wrong’, ‘Charity is good’, or ‘You shouldn’t steal’ — are expressions of emotional attitudes, and nothing more. They are not objective truth-claims.”

What Christianity provides, and atheism lacks, is an objective standard that can be universally held up to defend human life.

O’Connor, by all accounts, is an upstanding member of society. Not only does he not kill or steal, but he has become famous for treating his debate opponents with respect, especially in comparison to famous atheist polemicists like Christopher Hitchens. He should be applauded for that.

But in his morally relativistic view, human life is only as valuable as his emotions, or anyone else’s emotions, permit.

Tyler Robinson, the alleged assassin of Charlie Kirk, had a very different set of emotions from Alex O’Connor. Whatever respect O’Connor subjectively chooses to show for human beings, Robinson allegedly chose the opposite. Robinson allegedly believed — subjectively — that the value of human life ended where his political resentments began.

If you’re Alex O’Connor, what would you say to a political assassin? How would you convince him that he’s wrong to devalue human life?

Objectively, you couldn’t. Because O’Connor doesn’t think the statement “human life has value” is objectively true, but rather a matter of personal tastes. Even if he personally finds Robinson’s alleged views and actions repugnant, he couldn’t point to any objective standard to justify that.

The trouble with atheism isn’t that atheists personally live immoral lives. Everyone has met atheists who are good spouses, good parents, and good citizens. The problem is that atheism can’t provide an objective defense to the proposition that all human life should be valued by everybody all the time.

According to atheist Richard Dawkins, “We are survival machines — robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.”

People discard machines routinely without any thought at all — laptops, phones, iPads, cars, and many other things. Drive down to the local junkyard and look at the decaying and forgotten corpses of old Toyota Camrys. No one mourns them, no one gave them a funeral, no one had moral qualms about throwing them away.

If Dawkins’ description of human beings as “survival machines” and “robot vehicles blindly programmed” is accurate, then why would human beings be any different from those Toyota Camrys?

Atheism has no answer to that question — but Christianity does.

RELATED: Why atheism can’t explain the one thing that matters

AlessandroPhoto/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In his landmark work “Theology of the Body,” Pope John Paul II said this:

Man, whom God created male and female, bears the divine image imprinted on his body “from the beginning.”

This is a restatement of Genesis 1:26, which is the foundation of Christian anthropology. In this verse, God declares: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Man has objective dignity because man bears the divine image.

Romans 5:8 goes on to say: “But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.” This shows that even serious moral failings do not eliminate the objective dignity of a human being.

“Dignitas Infinita,” a Vatican document released in 2024 and approved by Pope Francis, further states that “every human person possesses an infinite dignity, inalienably grounded in his or her very being, which prevails in and beyond every circumstance, state, or situation the person may ever encounter.”

If Christianity is true, then God is the author of truth itself. And if God is the author of truth itself, and he has assigned infinite dignity to all human beings, then that dignity is a universal truth not dependent on the emotions or whims of any person.

Of course, this does not guarantee that Christians will live by that. Many so-called Christians have warped ideas of what their faith demands. Some use it as a cloak for their political ideology. Vance Boelter, who allegedly murdered former Minnesota Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, seemingly had no respect for human life.

But what Christianity provides, and atheism lacks, is an objective standard that can be universally held up to defend human life against anyone who threatens it. It provides an objective way to say “Tyler Robinson is wrong,” instead of “I personally don’t like what Tyler Robinson [allegedly] did.”

This matters deeply at the societal level, and the data bears it out.

According to Pew Research, in 1972, 90% of U.S. adults identified as Christians, while 5% identified as religiously unaffiliated. By 2022, the percentage of Christians had shrunk to 63% while the religiously unaffiliated percentage had risen to 29%. This is mirrored in other Western countries, often even more precipitously: 90% of Canadians in 1971 identified as Christian, according to census data, with only 4% identifying as non-religious. By 2021, the Christian percentage was just 52% and the non-religious percentage had risen to 34%.

Of course, “religiously unaffiliated” or “non-religious” are nebulous terms that might not refer to atheism in the strictest sense, but at best, they refer to a vague and subjective worldview that, like atheism, allows for someone to assign his own subjective morality, or lack thereof.

The effects of this shift can be seen with the explosion of abortions in the U.S. that coincided with the acceleration of secularism in the 1970s and 1980s. According to the Guttmacher Institute, abortions skyrocketed from 744,000 in 1973, the year Roe v. Wade was handed down, to a peak of 1.6 million in 1990, and to this day they remain well above the 1973 levels, though they have mercifully declined in recent years.

Euthanasia has gained immense popularity in the secular age as well. A horrifying report in the Atlantic — hardly a conservative publication — described how Canadians of all walks of life are requesting doctors to kill them in order to end some form of physical or emotional suffering they are experiencing.

In fact, under Canada’s euthanasia law, mental illness alone will be sufficient for eligibility by 2027 to terminate one’s own life with the help of doctors.

Mass shootings have dramatically increased as secularism has spread. While humans have been killing each other since the fall of man, such killing has usually had a clear motive of some kind: defeating another nation in battle or seeking some form of regime change.

Mass shootings, however, represent a nihilistic form of violence apparently driven by narcissism that has no clear precedent in human history. According to the Violence Project, there were only five mass shootings between 1965 and 1969, but that number rose to 33 between 2015 and 2019 — a shocking increase of over 600%.

Nearly everyone condemns mass shootings, though unfortunately, the same cannot be said about abortion or euthanasia.

But in an atheistic paradigm, can that condemnation be based on anything other than personal emotions, as O’Connor admits his opposition to murder is based on?

RELATED: How the godless elite let the truth slip about atheism

Viktor Aheiev/iStock/Getty Images Plus

As people increasingly treat the value of human life as subjective, consistent with O’Connor’s “emotivist” view, it seems that more and more people are willing to subjectively insert exceptions into their worldview — situations where life can, in fact, be discarded like an old Toyota Camry.

Does this prove Christianity? Not by itself. Just because something would be helpful if it were true doesn’t mean it’s true.

But at the very least, it should make people open to hearing the arguments for Christianity. It should make people want it to be true, and it should move them to investigate the evidence for why it might be. Many people dislike religion and plug their ears when the topic comes up. But the alternative is too dark to just casually accept without any consideration.

Why is human life valuable? In today’s chaotic age, a subjective answer to that question is simply not enough.

​Atheism, Tyler robinson, Christianity, Christian, Charlie kirk, Charlie kirk assassination, Alex o’connor, Faith 

The world is engaged in a spiritual battle, which Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck and Catholic YouTuber Taylor Marshall believe requires immediate action — and not through a political avenue.

“The biggest failure of our time is that Christianity has become more political or more social. And it’s not an interior renewal. It’s not an encounter with Jesus Christ risen from the dead. And ‘How do I live for you daily?’” Marshall tells Glenn.

“It’s too casual,” Glenn agrees, noting that many people are held in high esteem within the church despite their clearly incompatible views.

“In my church, there was Harry Reid. He was for abortion. How the hell does that work?” he asks.

“Part of the problem is, because of original sin and our concupiscence in our flesh, we’re all in a battle ourselves, right? We’re all tempted towards evil, selfishness, power grabs, control. Natural man is an enemy of God,” Marshall says.

“That’s one of the things we’ve lost in Christianity is the concept of war, battle, spiritual struggle … we need to get back to this understanding that we are in a spiritual battle and our enemies are not principally other people,” he continues.

“Our enemies are the dark evil principalities. The demons, the diabolical. That is ultimately what we are fighting against,” he adds.

And with this understanding, Marshall believes it’s time to really “unite.”

“Not just in a generic way, ‘unite,’ but we need to unite structurally,” he says.

“I mean, think of like, the Republican Party. We’re 45,000 different groups. Nothing, I mean, nothing gets done anyway, but nothing would for sure get done. There needs to be a unity. There needs to be a Christendom,” he explains.

“And as a Catholic, I think this is the way forward,” he adds.

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.

​Camera phone, Free, Sharing, Upload, Video, Video phone, Youtube.com, The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Spiritual warfare, Taylor marshall, Demons, Demonic, Spiritual battle, Jesus christ, Religion, Original sin, Glenn beck podcast, Harry reid, Abortion, Politics, Conservatives, Conservative podcast 

Charlie Kirk’s memorial service was wasn’t just a remembrance — it was a revelation.

The memorial service was Christian nationalism in nascent, immature form. Not everyone who spoke was a Christian — and Christian nationalism does not require that. Yet what stood out most was that even people who do not share Charlie’s faith in Jesus showed open respect for the gospel. Everyone at the service was operating under the Christian gaze.

As the left grows more openly hostile to Christian belief, the right is becoming more consistently Christian.

The truth is this: We cannot make America great again without making America Christian again, which in turn means making America biblical again.

MAGA needs MACA and MABA.

No neutral ground

For too long, Republicans spoke in vague religious clichés, paying lip service to an undefined faith in a nameless god. But Kirk’s memorial service was different. We saw speaker after speaker dare to define his faith in explicitly Christian terms.

This marks a seismic shift in a very short period of time. At the memorial, civil magistrates openly proclaimed the lordship of Christ as public truth. Media influencers called on us to repent of our particular sins particularly. A new widow forgave her husband’s alleged killer, in accord with Jesus’ teaching, and civil magistrates promised to use their power to terrorize evildoers, in accord with Romans 13.

As the left grows more openly hostile to Christian belief, the right is becoming more consistently Christian.

The lines are more clearly drawn than ever before. Both the service itself and the events of the last two weeks illustrate this reality.

Perhaps the most important part of the memorial was that Charlie Kirk’s legacy was accurately portrayed. Charlie consistently emphasized the cultural, political, and civilizational impact of Christian faith. Unlike many pastors, he was willing to connect the dots, linking his Christian beliefs to every sphere of life: economics, marriage and family, immigration and nationhood, limited government, and more.

For him, the Christian faith was not a private set of religious ideas but a comprehensive system of truth that works in the real world. He challenged people (especially college students) with a biblical worldview, demonstrating that Christian faith offers coherent and compelling answers to both the pressing personal and political questions of the day.

That conviction came through in the memorial service, and for that I am grateful.

Third-wayism fails

It’s now becoming painfully obvious that the “third-wayism” of so many “Big Eva” leaders has been exposed as untenable.

Third-wayism treats both sides of the political spectrum as morally equivalent, with each side getting some things right and other things wrong. Third-wayism advocates attempt to remain neutral, in order to avoid controversy and causing offense.

But in reality, there is no middle ground between progressive/secular and conservative/Christian political commitments. Those who want to avoid the culture war will still be drawn into it — just on the wrong side.

Third-wayists try to stay above the fray, but in doing so they actually compromise with evil. Because they insist on balancing left and right, if the left radicalizes and moves farther left, the third-wayist must also shift leftward in order to remain in the “middle.” In the process, third-way advocates end up justifying extreme progressive positions simply to maintain their supposed neutrality.

They are constantly chasing an Overton window that keeps moving leftward.

RELATED: How JD Vance exposed the convenient theology of progressive Christians

JimLarkin/iStock/Getty Images Plus

At its core, third-wayism attempts to treat progressivism as equally compatible with the Christian faith as conservatism. It’s true that there exists a kind of Christ-less conservatism that reduces faith to cultural nostalgia or civic religion. This kind of “bar-stool conservatism” should be critiqued and rejected. But in general, conservative positions overlap with biblical truth, whereas progressive positions stand as its direct antithesis.

Conservative, or traditional, Christian theology simply cannot mix with progressive politics any more than oil can mix with water.

Third-wayism is not humility or evangelistic wisdom. Rather, it’s a form of the fear of man disguised as humility. It seeks to ingratiate itself with the left — never to the right. It’s surrender rather than engagement, following rather than leading. It lacks substance and depth. It has no coherent political philosophy of its own. Its positions are dictated by how far to the left the progressive zeitgeist is willing to go. Third-wayists are easily manipulated precisely because of their refusal to take a firm stand. The third-wayist cannot draw a line in the sand.

The third-wayism dynamic, therefore, produces the familiar “coddle the left, punch the right” tendency, where progressive evils are gently excused while conservative shortcomings are harshly condemned. It assumes there is neutrality in the culture war when, in reality, there is none.

The third-wayist paradigm that has dominated the church in recent decades has allowed the culture to keep moving leftward without resistance. It never actually fights the battles that most need to be fought.

Christian faith, however, is not a private sentiment that can remain above political conflict.

Christ or chaos

The Christian faith is a fighting faith. It’s a civilization-building, culture-transforming faith. It claims to be public truth, rooted in hard-edged historical fact. It’s inherently political because it makes demands on rulers and the ruled alike. It includes an ethic that governs all of life, including political life.

America is dividing between those who embrace a consistently Christian vision of life and those who oppose it.

When King David commanded the kings of the earth to “kiss the Son,” there was no third way. When the apostles proclaimed “Jesus is Lord,” they were not splitting the difference between competing political poles. When Jesus said all authority in heaven and earth belong to him, he left no middle ground. When Christians say that life in the womb must be protected, there is no third option; the baby will either live or be murdered. When Christians say men are men and women are women, there is no place for the third-wayist to run and hide from the truth.

The gospel does not call us to neutrality. It calls us to allegiance. Third-wayism, by pretending otherwise, only serves to mask compromise as virtue. Third-wayism is a denial of Jesus’ lordship.

Charlie’s legacy is at the heart of this moment. Charlie never took the third way. He took the Christian way. He refused to compromise with the madness and folly of the left. Charlie’s ministry and martyrdom are a sign that the time for fence-sitting is over.

The lines are drawn.

America is dividing into two camps: one that bows to Christ and one that rages against him. The future belongs to those who have the courage to say what Charlie Kirk said with his life — that Christian faith is not optional if we want a civilization worth living in. America is dividing between those who embrace a consistently Christian vision of life and those who oppose it.

Which side are you on? Only two options are on the table — not three.

The memorial service revealed something profound: a clear contrast between two moral and spiritual visions of America and the need for courage in identifying with the one that aligns with biblical truth rather than cowardly compromise. Charlie embodied that courage, and his legacy continues to press the church and the nation toward a faith that is not abstract but applied — a faith that shapes culture, politics, economics, and civilization itself.

The memorial marked more than the remembrance of one man. It revealed a cultural realignment that Charlie helped bring about. His courage in connecting Christian faith to every dimension of life is the kind of legacy that points the way forward.

​Charlie kirk, Charlie kirk legacy, Christianity, Christian, Jesus christ, God, Bible, Faith 

I have one short story to share about Charlie Kirk, my friend.

He became a friend of mine because I interrogated him one time. Nineteen-year-olds are my specialty. I asked him some questions he couldn’t answer. And he was already becoming famous. And I noticed his reaction. He asked, “What should I do?”

And I said: Well, you have to suffer. If you want to grow, you have to suffer. It’s hard to learn — into the night, crack of dawn in the morning. Start with the Bible. Read the classics. Study the founding of America. In those places you will find that there’s a ladder that reaches up toward God. And at the bottom of it are the ordinary good things that are around us everywhere. If we can call them by their names — they have being, and the beings of the good things are figments of God. You will find that article in Aristotle. You will find it in the Bible. You will find it in Madison and Jefferson.

“How do I learn that?” he asked. I answered, “You have to suffer. You have to study. You have to think.” I thought I’d never hear from him again.

I keep a list in my head of the six or eight young people who are the best I ever saw. Charlie is the only one on that list who was never a full-time student at Hillsdale College.

Within a month, he got hold of my cell phone number, and he texted me a copy of a certificate of completion of a Hillsdale College online course. He would go on to do that 31 times.

I keep a list in my head of the six or eight young people who are the best I ever saw — and I’m very privileged that I get to know many inspiring young people. Charlie is the only one on that list who was never a full-time student at Hillsdale College.

We will miss him dearly. He can’t be replaced.

Just like I told Charlie years ago, a good thing is a thing that has being. An assassin is not a thing that has being. The assassin must give up his humanity to destroy something that has being. Charlie lives on. The assassin will die.

RELATED: How Charlie Kirk’s life shows the power of self-education

Photo by Michael Ho Wai Lee/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

My wife and I have set up a scholarship in the hope that Charlie’s children will go to a good college. I have one in mind. And this May 9, we at Hillsdale College are going to give Charlie and Erika the greatest respect a college can give: an honorary degree.

Charlie has suffered enough. He’s gone to the Lord. He deserves his reward.

Editors’ note: These remarks were delivered at Charlie Kirk’s memorial service in Glendale, Arizona, on Sunday, September 21, and were originally published at the American Mind.

​Opinion & analysis 

Fort Worth city councilwoman Elizabeth Beck decided to mock Charlie Kirk’s death in an Instagram post, so BlazeTV host Alex Stein sent his secret weapon — his girlfriend, Paige, also known as “Pre-Paid Wireless” — to call out Beck’s disgusting actions.

After the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Beck immediately went to Instagram to post a story making fun of the Turning Point USA founder and point out that he supported the Second Amendment.

And Paige — along with many other Texans — is not happy about it.

“Hi, my name is Paige,” Paige began in the city council meeting. “Honestly, it feels like there’s no point in trying to reason with people who are so soulless and so far gone that they openly mock the tragic assassination of someone that they don’t agree with.”

“But the two city council members who did just that need to be publicly shamed and know that this type of behavior will not be accepted in this country. But you know, one of the best parts of social media is that it shows you who people really are,” she continued.

“And hate-filled leftists can’t help but to post every thought they have online, exposing how they truly feel about people who don’t agree with them. Councilwoman Beck quickly took to her Instagram after it was announced Charlie Kirk had been shot and posted ‘unfortunate’ with an out-of-context quote from Charlie Kirk about the Second Amendment on her story,” she added.

Paige went on to explain that the councilwoman made it “clear that if you support the Second Amendment and are tragically killed by a mentally ill man with a transgender boyfriend, that you deserved what happened to you.”

But that’s not all Paige exposed.

Paige also called out Beck for allegedly calling the volleyball coach “a white, skinny, dumb b***h” for not letting her daughter join the volleyball team after missing tryouts.

“Are you starting to see how these people operate?” she asked, adding, “They will call you names such as racist, bigot, white supremacist even if you don’t give them their way.”

Want more from Alex Stein?

To enjoy more of Alex’s culture jamming, comedic monologues, skits, and street segments, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Video phone, Free, Upload, Video, Camera phone, Sharing, Youtube.com, Prime time with alex stein, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Charlie kirk, Charlie kirk murder, Charlie kirk assassination, Charlie kirk leftist reaction, Leftism, Evil, Leftist mocks charlie kirk, Alex stein girlfriend 

About a month ago, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem held a press conference to announce that about “1.6 million illegal immigrants have left the United States population.”

That’s a fraction of the number of people who arrived in the years that the Biden administration essentially opened the border. But it’s a lot of people, and it engendered much eye-rolling among journalists who compared Noem’s claim to Attorney General Pam Bondi’s declaration that President Trump’s drug interdiction policies had saved 258 million lives, roughly 75% of the U.S. total population.

The foreign-born population in the US declined from 53.3 million at the beginning of the year to 51.9 million by the end of June — a decline of 1.4 million in just six months.

However, in the weeks since Noem’s announcement, several data points have since emerged that suggest her estimate may be reasonably accurate. It might even be too low.

Numbers don’t lie

In August, the Pew Research Center estimated that the U.S. foreign-born population dropped from 53.3 million at the beginning of the year to 51.9 million by the end of June — a decline of 1.4 million in just six months. The Pew report noted that the January count of 53.3 million was “the largest number ever recorded” and that the decline this year will be the first decline in the immigrant population since the 1960s.

About the same time, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that the foreign-born population fell by 2.2 million in the first seven months of the year. The center estimates that 1.6 million of those who left were in the country illegally. If this estimate is correct, it would indicate that about 600,000 immigrants left, despite having the option legally to stay.

The center’s report indicates that it relied in part on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks the number of foreign-born workers. The bureau’s data shows that the number of foreign-born workers peaked in March at 32.2 million, before falling to 30.8 million by August — a decline of 1.4 million. Even so, the level remains historically high, and numbers appeared to stabilize in late summer.

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office updated its demographic projections, based on changes in immigration patterns and enforcement since the beginning of the year. It lowered its projection for the population in 2055 from 372 million to 367 million. The current population is about 350 million, so their projection suggests that the U.S. will add only 17 million new residents over the next 30 years. That will be the slowest population growth in the country’s history.

RELATED: American jobs first: Hefty new H-1B visa fee will likely curb legal immigration, especially from India

Photo by filo via Getty Images

The Congressional Budget Office also projects that natural population growth (births minus deaths) will turn negative in 2031. At that point, any population growth will be almost entirely dependent on incoming immigrants. (Longer life spans play a minor role in such projections.) The office’s numbers still assume growth from immigration this year and in subsequent years. That certainly seems unlikely, at least for this year, given all the preliminary data showing that many immigrants have already left the country.

If the U.S. population declines this year, it will be only the second time in the nation’s history. The only other time was in 2021, at the height of the COVID pandemic.

Uncharted territory

There will be those who decry a lower population trajectory as a calamity and others who celebrate it as a blessing. But the truth is that we are in uncharted territory. Classical economic theory holds that the change in economic activity is the sum of the changes in population and productivity, implying that a population decline will lead to economic contraction.

However, many argue that there are conditions today that distort the classical theory. These include the negative impacts of a dysfunctional immigration system, declines in the proclivity of immigrants to assimilate, and a potential massive increase in productivity driven by technology, especially AI.

In other words, all these opinions about the advantages or disadvantages of slower population growth, or perhaps even a population that is declining, are nothing but speculation at this point. For 250 years, companies, institutions, governments, policymakers, and investors have been basing decisions on the assumption that our population will continue to grow each year. At a minimum, this new trajectory will require a major reset of those long-standing assumptions.

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

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Immigration crisis, Immigration enforcement, Immigration, Border patrol, Border enforcement, Border crisis, Immigration and customs enforcement, Pew research center 

While we were in the throes of babies and toddlers, pregnancies and postpartums, my husband would often walk through the door after work with groceries, pour me wine, and hold the baby in one arm while he made dinner with the other. I remember on some days being too exhausted to reciprocate with much except an ardent feeling and expression of gratitude to him, for him. That image of him still stands in my mind as the image of heroic manliness.

Another good father and husband we know once said that when he arrives home, he says to himself, “It’s showtime.” It’s his way of reminding himself that the crux of his day belongs to the moment he comes home from work and crosses the threshold into home. Rather than collapse on a sofa with beer and TV and be done for the day, he intended instead to bring his greatest efforts to his home life. What these anecdotes exemplify is a proper ordering of work and home that translates into specific small acts of love that echo throughout the family.

For too long we’ve repeated the cultural lore in movies and media about the domineering and distant man and the oppressed and under-actualized woman.

The good of home

To say that home ought to have primacy over work for men and women is not to say work is unimportant or that we shouldn’t develop professional skills or seek to advance careers. A job doesn’t need to be seen strictly as a means to an end; it can be a good in itself insofar as it is ennobling and sanctifying, and care should be taken to ensure it be done well. But it is a subordinate good to the good of home. Home isn’t a mere launch pad for a man’s success in the world — rather his success in the world is for the sake of home.

If a man sees his work life as a parallel good, divorced from the good of home, the two disparate goods will tend to become rivalrous, for the family wants from the father what is the family’s due: to have a significance in his eyes greater than that of his career.

It’s not difficult to see how these two goods become inverted. Twenty-first-century Americans look to career for so much: an identity, the expression of some core passion, a measure of success and worth, a measure of where we stand in relation to others. It’s a compelling part of life, and the cultural stoking of its importance has coincided with the modern attenuation of home life.

These ambient messages grease the slide for us all to descend into an exaggerated view of work at the expense of home. Compounding that is the unavoidable fact that jobs often include deadlines and pressure that can understandably (and sometimes justifiably) claim a more immediate urgency than that of home life. All of this creates a tendency to subvert home for work, even without an explicit intention to do so.

Domino effect

But there are good reasons to be wary of such a tendency. When men fail to privilege home above work, as expressed in how they live each day, it has a domino effect on the family, and therefore society, in several ways.

Firstly, the husband can grow to see his family as a burden getting in the way of his higher purpose, which is his career. He begins to see his principal identity as derived from work and his primary relationships that of employer and employee. Home then starts to adopt similar characteristics; his family may be subconsciously reduced to the equivalent of employees in his charge.

Secondly, the mother’s mission is trivialized. She begins to sense her own work at home is not their common life’s work but merely her burden to endure in service of a higher mission that is his alone and to which she has not acquiesced. If work is a separate and vying good from home, it’s more natural that she begins to want that separate good for herself even at the expense of home life, which now has diminished in value for her as well.

Thirdly, their unity of purpose dissolves. The often tedious work of home is elevating and ennobling when acknowledged by both husband and wife as a taking part in an extolled good, valuable in itself and for the sake of their ultimate end of beatitude. Without this unity of purpose, these duties seem merely menial and heavy — and merely menial and heavy work will quickly feel suffocating and oppressive for whoever shoulders it. Resentment calcifies like a tumor as husband and wife become competitors rather than allies.

RELATED: Rob Konrad: Former Dolphin who swam for his family

Eliot J. Schechter/Getty Images

Finally, there are repercussions for society that might be obvious but are worth spelling out. Sons will learn about manhood and daughters about their worth in the eyes of men in large part based upon the axis on which a father orients his life. Both will begin to understand God’s love through their father. Far less than their father’s job promotion, children will remember how he prioritized their mom and them in the small details that make up the composition of their childhood. It’s not the work of one evening or a trip to Disneyland, but it’s the quiet, persevering work of a lifetime. This work, cheerfully and generously done, will reverberate into society and future generations. The neglect of it will as well.

Ordinary love story

The stories we tell as a culture about the dynamics between husband and wife matter. When men and women are united in giving pre-eminence to home, the story can be one of families working in concert, with generosity and gratitude exchanged back and forth in a currency that multiplies with each and every exchange. It’s the story of ordinary people living their quiet shared purpose, a purpose that saturates their hearts and inclines their wills toward God and one another. This love story is transformative and extraordinary precisely because of the seemingly everyday subjects and acts that constitute its operations.

For too long we’ve repeated the cultural lore in movies and media about the domineering and distant man and the oppressed and under-actualized woman, both wanting to break from the tedium of middle-class values. The modern response to this story of dissatisfaction has been that we’ve valued home too much and at too great an expense. What this critique fails to see is that when home feels like a prison, it’s not because we’ve given it too much importance but because we’ve given it far too little.

This essay originally appeared in the Family Revival Substack.

​Family, Fatherhood, Men and women, Greatness, Lifestyle 

Shortly before 10 p.m. ET on Saturday, shots rang out in Southport, North Carolina, a seaside community 50 miles east-northeast of Myrtle Beach. Video provided to Blaze News by Duncan Grey Baker shows law enforcement saying at least three people are dead and multiple additional victims are injured. According to Baker, who is on the scene, the suspected gunman fled the scene by boat, and the Coast Guard and other law enforcement vessels are in pursuit.

According to a Facebook post by the City of Southport, a shelter-in-place order was issued at 9:53 p.m. local time. The post said the shooting took place in the Southport Yacht Basin.

— (@)

Further video shot by Baker shows victims being transported to a staging facility and the massive police presence on the scene.

— (@)

— (@)

Citing a conversation with Southport City Manager Noah Saldo, the Wilmington StarNews reported that “a boat pulled up to the American Fish Company restaurant and fired into the crowd. Then the boat took off, he said. He confirmed that several people were taken to the hospital.”

This is a developing story.

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

​Mass shooting, North carolina, Southport, Crime 

Let’s dive into a driving-related danger you’ve probably never considered: brake dust.

That gritty, black buildup on your wheels isn’t just an eyesore — it’s also a health hazard. New research is pulling back the curtain on how this stuff is quietly damaging our respiratory systems. Buckle up — this is worth your attention.

EVs and hybrids don’t get a free pass, either — regenerative braking reduces pad wear, but extra weight means even more dust when the brakes engage.

Every time you hit the brakes — whether you’re driving a gas-powered SUV or an electric vehicle — tiny particles from your brake pads get launched into the air. A study from the University of Southampton took a close look at this dust and found it’s not just grime — it’s a toxic mix that might be worse for your lungs than unfiltered diesel exhaust. We’ve spent years blaming tailpipes for dirty air, but the real troublemaker could be hiding on your wheels.

Copper stoppers

So what’s in this brake dust? Most brake pads in the U.S. are classed as non-asbestos organic, a change made decades ago to ditch the cancer-causing asbestos of older brakes. Progress, right?

There is a catch, however. Today’s brake pads rely on copper fibers to manage the heat and friction of stopping your car. As they wear down, those copper particles — mixed with other nasty stuff — float into the air. Breathe them in, and they don’t just hang out. The Southampton study shows this dust sparks inflammation in your lungs, kicking off a chain reaction that’s bad news for your breathing.

Slow smolder

Here’s the deal: Inflammation is your body’s distress signal. But when it’s constant — like from inhaling brake dust every day — it’s like a slow smolder in your airways. Over time, that irritation can make breathing harder, worsen conditions like asthma, or even set the stage for bigger problems.

Researchers are starting to talk about possible links to lung cancer. And if you’re already dealing with allergies or smog, this is just another hit to your chest.

EVs and hybrids don’t get a free pass, either — regenerative braking reduces pad wear, but extra weight means even more dust when the brakes engage.

This hits close to home. Picture kids playing near busy roads, commuters stuck in gridlock, or even washing your car in the driveway — you’re all in the path of this stuff. Unlike tailpipe emissions, which face extensive regulation, brake dust and other non-exhaust pollutants are still flying under the radar globally.

RELATED: How female crash-test dummies could save thousands of lives

Jonathan Nackstrand/Getty Images

Fuel to flames

So how does this affect your lungs daily? If you’re healthy, it might just be a slight cough. But for the millions with asthma or COPD, it’s like adding fuel to the flames. Those copper-laced particles are tiny enough to slip deep into your lungs, where they linger and cause trouble.

Over years, that could mean more doctor visits, extra inhalers, and a higher chance of lung scarring — damage that sticks around.

What can you do about it? Next time you need brake pads, opt for low-copper or copper-free ones. Keep your wheels clean to cut down on what’s swirling around your garage. But the real solution? Automakers and regulators need to step up — clean air shouldn’t end at the tailpipe.

Brake dust may be small, but its impact on your lungs is anything but. Stay aware, breathe easier, and let’s keep this discussion moving.

​Brake dust, Lifestyle, Consumer safety, Auto industry, Emissions, Align cars 

The American Academy of Pediatrics, like other institutional medical organizations, demands respect and submission to its pronouncements about public health.

The AAP is extraordinarily influential — perhaps even more powerful than the American Medical Association — because it asserts itself as the authority on our children’s health. The reason it wields more power is because parents — especially first-time parents, even if they’re willing to question “medical authorities” in general — often fold like a cheap suit at the disapproving frown of their own pediatrician.

That’s what makes the latest power play from the AAP especially revolting.

The AAP is unquestionably political and firmly left-wing. Its stance on the ridiculously named “gender-affirming care” is proof.

“The science still supports gender-affirming care; children will still need it,” Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the AAP, said this year. “The American Academy of Pediatrics remains unwavering in our support for transgender and gender-diverse youth and their access to the same standard of compassionate, evidence-based care as every other child.”

Now, the AAP is going to war against states that allow religious exemptions for childhood vaccines, framing its stand as a “public health” issue.

Religious gurus?

To make its argument against religious exemptions to vaccines, the AAP essentially deems itself a source of theological and doctrinal experts.

The AAP said recently:

Among the major world religious traditions, none include scriptural or doctrinal guidelines that preclude adherents from being vaccinated. Just as with other types of doctrines, those related to vaccines might even be developed by small communities or individuals in ways that are completely independent from antecedent scriptural or doctrinal traditions but are, nonetheless, thought of as “religious” commitments by those who hold them.

In other words, the AAP believes that only dumb hicks from small towns believe their faith should inform how they, as parents, care for their children.

It’s sheer arrogance. But not only that, I don’t think parents should listen to the AAP, because its moral authority on the matter of childhood vaccines is compromised — at best.

Protecting pediatricians — not children

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revealed this year that thousands of physicians had Medicare reimbursements altered based on childhood vaccination rates. He called it coercion. Others call it corruption. But there is no dispute that pediatricians receive financial incentives for increased vaccine uptake, sometimes amounting to many thousands of dollars a year.

Until pediatricians stop financially benefiting from a patient’s choice to use Big Pharma’s products, their advice must be examined with considerable suspicion.

The larger reason to dismiss the AAP is that, thanks to the Make America Healthy Again movement, vaccines are finally under well-deserved scrutiny. Research questioning the safety and efficacy of vaccines has existed for years, but it has been actively suppressed by Big Medicine and Big Pharma.

RELATED: Jab first, ask questions later: Vaccine truths your doctor won’t tell you

SementsovaLesia/iStock/Getty Images Plus

As more research comes out, the childhood vaccine schedule is not looking good. Even President Donald Trump is questioning it. The AAP and other similar organizations unforgivably ignore these facts as they seek to protect their fiefdom over vulnerable young parents and their even more vulnerable babies.

Make no mistake: The AAP doesn’t want your kids to be able to go to school unless you inject them with highly questionable and unnecessary substances (a great reason for homeschooling, if you ask me) — and your pediatrician will likely push you hard in that same direction.

I know all about that. I’m an original MAHA mom who visited the pediatrician armed with a list of vaccine questions over 30+ years ago. That doctor was arrogant, dismissive, refused to answer them, and told me I’d be sorry when my child died.

But my child did not die. She is still alive and thriving, more than three decades later.

Vaccines 101

If this is new to you — or if you’re unsure of your own convictions — the rest of this essay will help you.

The starter information that I’ve compiled below — some very practical, some philosophical (even more important for a strong foundation) — is especially designed for soon-to-be parents, friends who are terrified to go against a pediatrician’s advice, or anyone else who has not yet seen through the lies we’ve been fed for so very long.

However, be warned: Once you start down this rabbit trail, your faith in the medical establishment may be shaken so hard you’ll realize that, ultimately, you are responsible for your family’s health. No pediatrician or medical organization — like the self-important, misinformed AAP pontificating about our faith traditions — have your child’s best interests at heart the way you do.

But take courage. There’s a world of information and support out here. Arm yourself with as much of it as possible.

“The Unvaccinated: Proof of What We Lost”: Outstanding starter essay to start getting your brain ready to shift paradigms.Committee of Homeland Security Hearing on Vaccines: Some of the latest intel.No vaccine has been proven to save any lives: I know it sounds shocking, but here’s how peer-reviewed medical journals lie about vaccine efficacy.“Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Serious and Irreversible Neurological, Developmental, and Immune-Related Health Risks”: Tip of the iceberg.“Eighth study of unvaccinated kids is a doozy”: A lot of information is being exposed.Vaccinated kids vs. unvaccinated kids — more: Some of the most recent truths to come to light.How vaccines affect autism and the brain: The nitty-gritty.“Why Is Every Newborn Forced to Get the Dangerous Hepatitis B Vaccine?”: More specifics.“SIDS: Maybe Babies Don’t Just Suddenly Die. Maybe It’s Vaccines That Are Killing Them”: Are we being lied to about SIDS? Probably.“100 Facts Your Doctor Won’t Tell You About Vaccines”: Helpful notes to discuss with your pediatrician — if you’re still seeing one.A complete list of ALL vaccines, all the stuff in the vaccines, and the package insert for all vaccines: Exactly what it says.“Vax Time Religion”: Thoughtful essay well worth your time.

Trust in the medical industry is at an all-time low — and for good reason. They blame everyone but themselves — like the AAP targeting religious people — but the problem isn’t our lack of trust.

The problem is their lack of transparency. And not only is the medical industry not transparent, but the “experts” seem unwilling to consider solutions and ideas found outside of Big Medicine and Big Pharma. They think they know best, but they’re woefully uneducated on nutrition, movement, light, and other well-known natural remedies.

Ironically, these same people should be at the forefront of vaccine transparency because they claim to be guided by “science” and “truth.” And yet, they want to lecture us about our faith.

Now is the time to take back control of our health with professional healers who work with our bodies — not against them. That’s the philosophy we must adopt, whether we’re “religious” or not.

​Big pharma, Big medicine, American academy of pediatrics, Aap, Vaccines, Childhood vaccine schedule, Medical industrial complex 

A few weeks ago, I enjoined all of you men to do what the right-wing bodybuilders and broscientists of X do and sun your scrota, treating the testicles within to certain health-giving frequencies of light.

As silly as that might sound, red-light therapy is a pretty hot trend, and exposing your genitalia to it probably has testosterone-boosting effects. This week, I’m going to be counseling you avoid light — and not just for your nether regions.

A study from last year found a ‘significant relationship between outdoor light pollution and Alzheimer’s disease prevalence.’

The fact is that we’re exposed to too much light, of the wrong kind and at the wrong times, and it’s seriously screwing with our bodies and minds.

Apeman

My attitude to health, in a nutshell, would be this: Try to live, as much as you can, in the manner of your ancestors. Why? Well, because we’re the same as them, more or less. We Homo sapiens haven’t changed much from our days as hunter-gatherers 200,000 years ago. We’re still running more or less the same firmware, with a few important updates here and there.

What is different, however, is the environment you inhabit. It really kicked off about 10,000-12,000 years ago, with the Agricultural Revolution in the Near East. Now there were these things called farms and cities, and there was commerce and administration and taxes, armies and wars.

Once agriculture started to spread, the pace of change really started to pick up. Fast-forward to about 200 years ago and the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and it starts to get really crazy.

All of a sudden you’ve got people living in communities of millions and a mind-boggling complexity. You’ve got people working in factories, eating food made in factories, wearing synthetic clothing made in factories, illuminating their homes and communities with electric light 24/7, bombarding their bodies with electromagnetic radiation 24/7, dosing themselves with ever-increasing numbers of medications, inhaling and swallowing billions of tiny pieces of plastic invisible to the naked eye.

The modern age

I’m not going to list all the changes here. The truth is that our bodies simply can’t cope — not fully — with the vast transformation our way of life has undergone in recent centuries and especially in the last hundred years. Keep in mind that this “modern” way of life is but a blip in human time. Our genes haven’t caught up yet, and maybe they never will. So it pays to treat your body, as much as you can, in the manner of your ancestors — to eat like them, move like them, and do the things they did.

Of course, you can go too far in your pursuit of an ancestral lifestyle — just look at the sad, sad story of the Liver King, a true cautionary tale for the “primal” community.

And I’m not saying the modern world doesn’t have its beguiling or useful aspects. I rather like the fact that I’m here, in my centrally heated living room, writing this article on my swish little iPad with its touch screen and magnetic keyboard. That’s pretty cool and useful. Then again, I suppose I could get used to writing in the manner of, say, Cicero: reclining on a couch in a toga, dictating to a slave while another one feeds me grapes.

Who loves the sun

The changes that have taken place in terms of light in the last century or so — to how we use and relate to light, natural and artificial — have been no less drastic than the changes to any other aspect of our lives, including the way we eat.

For the vast majority of human history, we organized our lives consciously and unconsciously around the natural diurnal rhythms of the planet. We woke up with the sun, and we went to bed when it became dark. There were seasonal changes, but they repeated, year after year. The invention of artificial light — fire, candles — didn’t really affect any of that much.

It was only with electric light that it become possible to defy the natural rhythms of night and day and the seasons and become what we are today: beings in possession of perpetual suns we can use to illuminate ourselves and our surroundings as much as we want, whenever we want.

Night moves

Banishing the darkness has had dramatic effects on our health.

Light governs the body’s circadian rhythms, also known as the “body clock,” which play a key role in regulating the secretion of hormones and processes of growth and recovery.

The main frequencies of light emitted by screens and LED lighting are blue, and these seem to have particularly bad effects on our bodies. Some scientists have suggested that blue light should be considered an endocrine disruptor — something as prone to mess with our hormones as nasty plasticizing chemicals, herbicides and pesticides, and many of the additives we find in ultra-processed food.

A study in the journal Environmental Research associates blue-light exposure with increased rates of breast cancer among women who do night work and sleep disorders among teenagers.

RELATED: LED astray: Yes, those harsh lights are the spawn of Satan

Photo by Bloomberg/Getty Images

Blue arrangements

In my piece on the boon of ball bronzing, I mentioned a study showing that chronic exposure to blue light could actually bring on early puberty in rats. This is a pretty worrying finding, especially since we know the age of puberty in the developed world has been decreasing for decades and children are being exposed to ever-greater quantities of blue light from the screens and electronic devices they play with all day long.

Large-scale studies clearly suggest exposure to artificial light could be having population-level effects. Research has linked nighttime light exposure to cognitive decline, for example. A study from last year compared rates of Alzheimer’s to satellite data for nighttime light levels across the U.S. The scientists found a “significant relationship between outdoor light pollution and Alzheimer’s disease prevalence. States and counties with higher levels of artificial light at night consistently had higher rates of Alzheimer’s disease.” Most worryingly of all, the association was strongest in the under-65s, a demographic that typically doesn’t suffer from this terrible disease.

So what can you do?

Doctor my eyes

In general terms, you should try to reduce your exposure to artificial light and do things that mimic the natural rise and fall of light levels. Go out and get sunlight early in the morning, or expose yourself to bright light with a SAD lamp. As afternoon draws into evening, begin to reduce levels of light in your home or workspace. Tell your body it’s getting closer to sleepy time. Turn off the main lights, turn on lamps, close the curtains — you could even light a few candles. I light my kitchen in the evening with candles, and it creates a wonderfully relaxing atmosphere. Begin to wind down your use of electronic devices that emit blue light.

If you have to spend your day or large portions of it staring at a screen, you can buy a pair of blue-light-blocking glasses. Ra Optics makes some very fetching blue-light blockers that don’t look at all silly. In fact, they’re basically indistinguishable from normal glasses or sunglasses. You could also buy one of Daylight’s very swanky tablets that has a blue-light-free backlight.

Alternatively, you can play with your device’s brightness settings or download a blue-light app like f.lux or Twilight. There’s also a built-in feature on Windows called “Night Light” that allows you to reduce levels of blue light in the evenings. You can even toggle it to come on automatically at set times.

Of course, you could just turn the bloody thing off. Imagine that. Our ancestors, fortunate creatures that they were, didn’t have to.

​Red light therapy, Screen time, Circadian rhythms, Body clock, Endocrine disruptor, Health, Lifestyle, Make america healthy again 

Investors are always looking for hot stocks. But what if the hottest stocks became that way via cursed baptism in a certain lake of fire?

Sulfur and brimstone are two commodities not many should be excited about adding to their portfolio. And yet the world of investing has a twisted fascination with companies that deal in vice. There’s one particular mutual fund that singles out investments in “sin stocks” like cannabis and casinos. The investment thesis is that buying into morally murky industries is a long-term win because addicts make loyal customers, and even in bad economies, people still want to get high.

If people are serious about making America great again, they must consider what their investments are funding.

But the Vice Fund is not actually all that unique — it is just saying the quiet part out loud.

There are hundreds of mutual funds and ETFs invested in the shady businesses of abortion drugs, pornography, strip clubs, and LGBT activism. But what you might not realize is that there is a good chance you own one of those funds in your 401(k), IRA, or other investment fund.

Don’t believe me? Type one of your ticker symbols into www.inspireinsight.com and see for yourself.

It’s easy to be deceived. These dirty funds have normal-sounding names from reputable companies like American Funds Growth Fund of America, iShares Core S&P 500 ETF, and Vanguard Large Cap Index Fund. The devil comes disguised as an angel of light, after all.

But don’t be too hard on yourself. If anyone should have known better it was me. I had the wool pulled over my eyes, too. A financial adviser working in the lofty private client group of a prestigious bank and a dedicated pro-life Christian, I was dumbfounded the day I discovered that I was personally invested in three abortion drug manufacturing companies.

The unsettling truth pierced my heart that every time a young lady went to Planned Parenthood and had an abortion, I made money on that transaction. I literally profited from the murder of an innocent child and was recommending all of my wealthy clients to do the same.

But it didn’t stop there: porn, LGBT activism, human trafficking, the list went on like a “hottest stock picks” newsletter from hell. How could this be?

According to a recent study by the faith-based investing organization Kingdom Advisors, $22.4 trillion of investment assets are owned by Christian church members in the United States, representing about 50% of the entire investment market.

I have two questions: How much of that money is invested right now in industries and activities that are diametrically opposed to the biblical values their Christian owners seek to live their lives by? And how different might corporate America be — and indeed our nation at large — if those Christian investors directed their capital away from the works of evil and into companies that did good instead?

What if major corporations got the message that 50% of the investment assets in America were off limits to any business that manufactured abortion drugs? Or pushed LGBT activist agendas? Or distributed porn?

What if the mutual fund, ETF, and 401(k) providers got the message that 50% of the investment assets in America refused to invest in funds that bought morally compromised stocks?

RELATED: How corporate America helped fuel the hate that killed Charlie Kirk

baloon111/iStock/Getty Images Plus

I believe things would be much different — and much better. Last month, Costco announced its decision not to sell the abortion drug mifepristone in any of its pharmacies. This decision is a huge pro-life victory and followed a sustained shareholder engagement campaign that began more than two years before by my faith-based investing firm, Inspire Investing.

Thanks to Biden-era shenanigans, in 2023, long-standing safety restrictions limiting mifepristone distribution were loosened to allow retail pharmacies to apply for a special exemption to dispense the abortion pill directly: a dangerous practice that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself says puts women in elevated danger of hospitalization and potentially deadly complications, regardless of what you believe about abortion and the effect on the baby.

In early 2024, CVS and Walgreens jumped on the abortion bandwagon and signed up for the exemption. Other large retail pharmacies such as Costco, Walmart, Albertsons, and Kroger, were considering following suit. That’s when our team snapped into action.

We leveraged our position as investors to lobby the investor relations department and made the strong case against getting into the abortion business. We gathered over 9,000 signatures from Costco members and investors ready to cancel their memberships if Costco started stocking mifepristone. We rallied a coalition, including faith-based investors, treasurers, and other financial officers from conservative states. We had numerous conversations with Costco’s management.

Liberal abortion activists were also hard at work, bringing their own firepower to bear.

In the end, goodness and common sense prevailed, and Costco made the rational decision to stay out of such a contentious and legally tenuous line of business, while also citing a “lack of demand from our members and other patients.” But it wasn’t only Costco. Walmart made the same decision, and we are hopeful that other pharmacies will be listening to reason as well.

This isn’t an isolated incident. You can read many more stories of the successes we’ve had, including details of the behind-the-scenes conversations influencing major corporations with conservative, biblical values in my book “Biblically Responsible Investing: On Wall Street as It Is in Heaven.”

If people are serious about making America great again, they must consider what their investments are funding. Is your own money working against you?

Will you invest the hell out of your money?

​Christianity, Christian, Hell, Investing, Money, Finances, Faith 

As a woman in a leadership role of a Christian organization, I appreciate the opportunities available to me in modern America. Women can and do lead with great effectiveness in countless contexts as the Lord calls and equips women to advance His kingdom.

But let me say something that will sound scandalous to modern ears: National leadership belongs to men, and the 19th Amendment was a mistake.

Western imagination continues to swallow, without chewing, the dogma that men and women are virtually interchangeable in every respect but reproduction.

Does that shock you?

It probably does, and we have the rise of feminism and its pervasive influence on the West to thank for that.

Feminist programming

The factory settings of the American mind are thoroughly feminist. We instinctively view women rising into roles once held exclusively by men as positive. But rarely do we pause to contemplate whether such role-swapping might actually be a factor in the sharp moral decline of the last century.

The Western imagination continues to swallow, without chewing, the dogma that men and women are virtually interchangeable in every respect but reproduction. But this is biological and biblical falsehood dressed in cultural orthodoxy. Men and women are different to the core — in body, brain, hormones, and God-given roles.

How could we possibly ignore the reality that these vast differences will have a significant impact on our institutions if we liberally swap women into governing roles?

The emotional, nurturing leanings of femininity are God-ordained. In their proper place and function, they are a strength. But when it comes to the leadership of a nation, feminine traits are an inherent weakness.

Is it time we began reconsidering this?

Grace meets justice

At the recent memorial for Charlie Kirk, masculine and feminine, government and personal were on full display. In an unforgettable moment, Erika Kirk publicly forgave her husband’s alleged murderer. This was a faithful demonstration of the gospel of God’s grace. It was right.

Not long before that, Stephen Miller, in no uncertain terms, made it abundantly clear that our enemies must be destroyed. This was a faithful demonstration of God’s justice and role of government: wielding the sword against the evildoer. It was right.

RELATED: How Erika Kirk answered the hardest question of all

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

For the government to absolve the doer of a wicked deed and refrain from doing justice would be evil. For an individual to forgive is right. This tension is complementary, but blurring the lines is catastrophic. While there may be the rare exception of women who understand this and are able to unflinchingly pursue justice against evildoers, the truth remains that men are intrinsically designed by their Creator for that in a way that women are not.

Seeing men and women as interchangeable in the halls of government has opened our nation up to all manner of evil. Favoring the nurturing tendencies of female leadership over the strength and forcefulness of male leadership has allowed our nation to be infiltrated by those who hate us, using the Trojan horse of misplaced compassion.

Order, not oppression

Not long ago, few questioned whether men should lead their families and their nation.

Leadership of this kind was understood as God’s assignment to men. Departure from this was the exception — not the goal. Scripture itself portrays the rule of women and children over men as a sign of divine judgment, not of blessing (Isaiah 3:12).

When 56 men signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, no one raised an eyebrow at their failure to assemble a gender-balanced cast of signers. The signers knew they were risking their lives by writing their names on that document, and this extreme risk has always been understood to be the God-given role of men.

Voting rights, originally limited to land-owning males, followed a simple principle: Those given authority with the vote should also bear a tangible interest in society’s future. They should have skin in the game.

George Washington once warned: “It is to be lamented that more attention has not been paid to the qualifications of electors. Without property, or with little, the common interest will be disregarded or postponed to that of individuals.”

This was neither a call to oppress nor arbitrary discrimination, but it was a protective recognition of human nature. A man with land, family, and livelihood invested in the community was far less likely to cast votes carelessly than someone detached from such responsibilities.

Disordered chaos

Change came gradually. By the 1820s and 1830s, property requirements for white men were swept away in the name of “universal manhood suffrage.” By 1856, every state allowed men to vote regardless of land ownership.

This was celebrated as progress — but it marked a philosophical turning point. Authority was no longer tethered to responsibility.

The 19th century brought the women’s suffrage movement, culminating in the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. What had for millennia across the globe been seen as natural order was reframed as injustice. Strong male leadership as an ideal was abandoned in favor of sameness.

RELATED: Misogyny? Please: Our real problem is female entitlement

Getty Images Plus

Instead of viewing womanhood as a high calling of influence through nurture, wisdom, and faithfulness, women began rejecting the way God has naturally wired us in order to become functionally men.

Are our families stronger for it? Is our society more stable?

Of course not. Broken homes abound. Men shrink back in passivity. Women carry burdens they were never meant to bear. Children grow up without clear models of what it means to be a man or a woman.

God’s blueprint

Feminism is destroying us, and Christians hardly want to give it a look. A Christian today would likely recoil in horror at the idea of strongly preferring a male candidate vs. a female candidate, all other conditions being equal. But this idea is thoroughly biblical.

The stats are undeniable that unmarried women vote overwhelmingly Democrat, citing the “right” to murder their own babies as a primary issue. This should deeply trouble every thoughtful, Christian conservative. Yet suggest repealing the 19th Amendment and returning to the heavily limited voting rights advocated by the founding fathers, and the negative response from Christians will be more intense than the response to blasphemy against our Creator.

Robust debate is healthy and good for a flourishing society. Disagreement is not a bad thing. But feminism is one of the key culprits that has effectively shut down vibrant debate. All that is required is an accusation of meanness or offense, and the conversation is over before it begins.

Women are experts at leveraging this to our advantage. Men have allowed this to happen.

If America and, more importantly, the church are to recover, we must shed the feminist factory settings and return to God’s blueprint. Men and women are equal in dignity but distinct in design. Women can lead in many contexts — but national headship, church eldership, and family authority are given by God to men.

That is not oppression; it is order. It is not diminishing; it is dignifying. When men and women live according to God’s good design, society flourishes, families strengthen, and the watching world sees something of Christ on display.

​Feminism, Christianity, George washington, Christian, America, Faith 

“Don’t give me doctrine — just give me Jesus.”

It sounds humble, even noble. But ask, “Who is Jesus?” and suddenly you’re doing theology. You cannot follow a Savior you refuse to define.

The modern church has traded catechism for catchphrases. “God has a wonderful plan for your life.” “Don’t judge.” “Everything happens for a reason.” Feelings outrank Scripture. Sentiment trumps substance. Haul those slogans into an ICU or a funeral home and watch how empty they sound.

I’ve been a caregiver for four decades. My wife has endured 98 surgeries, the amputation of both legs, and relentless pain. I’ve tested theology in the harshest corridors of suffering. If it doesn’t hold up there, it doesn’t hold at all.

Jesus said to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. Paul told believers to be transformed by the renewing of the mind. Thinking is not optional for Christians. It’s obedience.

Common sense without Scripture isn’t wisdom — it’s presumption.

Charlie Kirk understood this. He urged Christians to prepare their minds and defend the gospel, echoing Peter’s command: “Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). A church allergic to thinking leaves its people defenseless.

God Himself asked hard questions: “Where are you?” “Where is your brother?” “Who do you say I am?” From Eden to Emmaus, He forced clarity. If the Creator asks hard questions, why should His people settle for bumper-sticker answers?

Economist Thomas Sowell cut through bad reasoning with three questions: Compared to what? At what cost? What hard data do you have? Christians should be just as discerning.

When someone says, “God told me …,” the right response is, “Where is that in Scripture?” Jeremiah 29:11 wasn’t written for entrepreneurs chasing dreams. It was God’s word to exiles facing 70 years of captivity. Context matters.

Bad theology always hands someone the bill. “If you had more faith, you’d be healed.” Cost: shame when healing doesn’t come. “God just wants you happy.” Cost: broken families. “Don’t judge.” Cost: silence in the face of destruction. Cheap slogans carry devastating price tags.

The real test? Would you say it to grieving parents? To a family in hospice? If not, why say it at all? Job’s friends did well when they sat in silence. Once they opened their mouths, they leaned on speculation that sounded like wisdom. God rebuked them for speaking falsely about Him. Common sense without Scripture isn’t wisdom — it’s presumption.

I saw that same trap in a heated exchange with a friend. He waved off Scripture: “That doesn’t make sense to me.” Then he defended himself with, “It’s just common sense.” It was a modern echo of Job’s companions: trusting opinion over revelation. My answer stayed the same: “But what does Scripture say?” He had no reply. Like too many believers today, he didn’t know his Bible.

This problem extends beyond private conversation. When Jimmy Kimmel returned from suspension, he tearfully said he tried to follow the teachings of Jesus. It sounded noble. But isn’t that just another way of saying, “Just give me Jesus” — without doctrine, without definition?

RELATED: How Erika Kirk answered the hardest question of all

Photo by Mandel NGAN / AFP) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

Where does he think those teachings come from? The only record of Jesus’ words is in Scripture. To claim His teaching while denying His identity cuts out the very ground you’re standing on. Which parts of the Bible will he follow, and which will he ignore? You cannot have the Sermon on the Mount without “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). C.S. Lewis was blunt: Jesus was Lord, lunatic, or liar. There is no safe middle ground. To quote Him on television while ignoring His divinity may play well on-screen, but it isn’t Christianity.

Proverbs gives the wiser course: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5). Our reasoning is clouded by sin. Scripture, not sentiment, must be our guide.

Jesus never called for blind faith. He asked, “Who do you say that I am?” He invited thought, demanded clarity, and confronted error. We don’t need louder voices. We need sharper minds — sanctified, surrendered, and grounded in Scripture.

Truth doesn’t fear scrutiny. Faith doesn’t fear questions. So ask them. Challenge the slogans. Don’t leave your brain in the narthex.

Feelings collapse. Scripture stands.

​Opinion & analysis, Faith, Religion, Scripture, Gospel, God, Jesus christ, Truth, Christianity, Theology, Doctrine, St. peter, Charlie kirk, Thomas sowell, Abide, Hospice, Funeral home, Slogan, Bad advice 

Childbirth is often painted as beautiful and natural — but for many women, the fear is overwhelming.

And that fear has a name: tokophobia.

Tokophobia is defined as an extreme fear of childbirth that can cause some women to take excessive measures in order to avoid pregnancy. And Abbie Halberstadt, a mother of 10, while a major advocate for pregnancy and childbirth, understands those women who are paralyzed with fear.

When she was a few weeks out from her labor with her eighth child, she started having “significant anxiety in the evenings.”

“This is my number eight … and I have tokophobia. I mean, I am like, ‘I can’t do this again. Like, I can’t,’” she tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable,” explaining that she had the closest thing she’s ever had to a “full-blown panic or anxiety attack.”

“I woke up contracting in the middle of the night … in the middle of a contraction and could not catch my breath. My heart started racing,” she explains.

And while she understands the fear, she believes that there’s a problem with the way women think about pregnancy and childbirth that leads to this extreme fear.

“I think the problem is that the mindset that is feeding this is ‘hard things are bad things.’ Hard is not the same thing as bad,” she says.

“I think when we’re picturing birth or picturing pregnancy, and I’m even, you know, talking to myself, I have a lot of fear surrounding all of that, having done it three times already, it’s like I can trust that God is a good shepherd, that he’s going to lead me where He wants to lead me,” Stuckey agrees.

“Not that it’s going to be perfect or easy,” she continues, “and also that His goodness and His mercy will follow me and will accomplish in and through and behind and around me everything that God wants them to accomplish.”

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.

​Camera phone, Free, Sharing, Upload, Video, Video phone, Youtube.com, Relatable, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Allie beth stuckey, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Childbirth, Fear of childbirth, Pregnancy, Religion, God, Jesus christ, Post partum, Abbie halberstadt, Womens health 

In an article published only two days before Charlie Kirk was assassinated, a writer at the far-left outlet Jezebel detailed her experience working with witches in an attempt to place a curse on Kirk and silence his message.

The article, titled “We Paid Some Etsy Witches to Curse Charlie Kirk,” was written by Claire Guinan. It has since been taken down but can still be accessed through internet archives.

Guinan wrote that she felt obligated to do something about Kirk, whom she called a “fake news vending machine.” If it meant silencing his “nightmare ideology,” she wrote, “I’m more than happy to be the hag of his nightmares.” She went on to describe “cursing Kirk” as her “personal goal.”

One of the supposed witches sent her evidence of the completed curse: a burning photo of Kirk and the message, ‘Trust the unseen.’

To procure a curse, Guinan turned to Etsy, a popular e-commerce platform where private sellers can advertise and sell a wide variety of products and services. Her search term, “curse enemy,” turned up 5,000 results. She purchased the services of three different women claiming to be witches, who agreed to place curses on Kirk.

Guinan provided Kirk’s date of birth to ensure accuracy and even paid $50 extra to boost the supposed power of the curse. She claimed that she did not intend for the curse to actually harm Kirk: “I’m not calling on dark forces to cause him harm.” She described her intent as an effort “to ruin his day with the collective feminist power of the Etsy coven.”

RELATED: Evil unmasked: How Charlie Kirk’s murder exposed a diabolical spiritual war

Photo by Milissa Majchrzak / Contributor via Getty Images

After ordering the curses, Guinan waited in the hope that “justice would be done.” The next day, one of the supposed witches sent her evidence of the completed curse: a burning photo of Kirk and the message, “Trust the unseen.” Guinan was optimistic since she had “timed the purchase perfectly with the August new moon in Virgo.”

In wondering whether the curses would work, Guinan placed her trust “in the timing of the great unknown,” relating how one of the witches told her “spellwork is a collaboration between the caster, the client, and the universe itself.”

At the time of the article’s publication, she was still waiting for definitive results, while giving a shout-out to “the witches of the modern world” for their efforts “to hex Republicans and topple conservative regimes.” She ended the article with a line directed at Kirk, telling him, “May the rash come swiftly.”

Jezebel and Etsy did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

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

​Abide, Align, Witches, Charlie kirk, Etsy, Curse, Politics 

Veteran journalist Paul Bond is breaking the silence on what really happens inside major newsrooms — and it’s not comforting for those who want to believe that there are still objective journalists out there.

“If we don’t have journalists that say, ‘I will be an objective journalist, not an activist,’ we are a communist country,” BlazeTV host Nicole Shanahan tells Bond, who has some bad news for Shanahan.

“Problem is, we have lots of people who say that; they just don’t mean it,” Bond warns. “I mean, if you ask the people who work for the New York Times and the Washington Post and Newsweek and Time and MSNBC and CNN, they will tell you, ‘I’m an objective journalist.’”

“I’ve met some that are good, and they’re hard to find,” Shanahan agrees.

“It’s hard to be a trusted journalist,” Bond says, “because you’re dealing with others with other agendas. And, you know, sometimes somebody at Newsweek or at the Hollywood Reporter would reach out to me saying, ‘Hey, we’re writing this piece on so and so, and we know you have a relationship with them. Can you get a comment?’”

“I’ll reach out for a comment, and they’ll give me a comment because they trust me. And then it’s this hit piece. And so, I feel like I was used,” he adds.

Bond recalls once interviewing Jesse Watters from Fox News while someone at Newsweek was writing a negative piece about Watters at the same exact time.

“I forgot what it was, but in that story, it says, you know, ‘Newsweek was unable to reach Jesse Watters.’ And I’m like, ‘I’m on the phone with Jesse Watters. Newsweek is able to reach Jesse Watters. I’m talking to Jesse Watters about this thing that you’re writing about,’” he recalls.

“They wanted their hit piece. They didn’t want him to deny that it was true, or whatever he would have said if he hadn’t been on the phone with me. So, they write this hit piece. They publish this hit piece. ‘No access to Jesse Watters,’” he says, noting that this happens all the time.

“A lot of times, they’ll reach out to people to get their comment after the story’s written,” he adds.

Want more from Nicole Shanahan?

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

​Camera phone, Free, Sharing, Upload, Video, Video phone, Youtube.com, Back to the people, Back to the people with nicole shanahan, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, The new york times, Mainstream media, Newsweek, Washington post, Corrupt journalists, Msnbc