Category: blaze media

With California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) nearing the end of his term, numerous candidates have stepped up to replace him in the upcoming gubernatorial primary race on June 2.

Sixty-one individuals appear on the official certified list of candidates competing for California’s top office. While there is currently no clear front-runner, several notable candidates have emerged. These include former Rep. Katie Porter (D), Rep. Eric Swalwell (D), climate advocate and businessman Tom Steyer (D), Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco (R), and Fox News host and small-business owner Steve Hilton (R).

‘With President Trump’s full backing and federal support, we are going to take California back and make it better than ever before!’

President Donald Trump released a post on social media on Sunday attempting to tip the scales in favor of his preferred candidate in the crowded race.

“I have known and respected Steve Hilton, who is running for Governor of California, for many years,” Trump wrote. “He is a truly fine man, one who has watched as this once great State has gone to Hell.”

Trump gave the current governor the nickname “Newscum” and criticized him and other Democrats for doing “an absolutely horrendous job.”

“People are fleeing, crime is increasing, and Taxes are the highest of any State in the Country, maybe the World,” Trump continued. “Steve can turn it around, before it is too late, and, as President, I will help him to do so! With Federal help, and a Great Governor, like Steve Hilton, California can be better than ever before!”

RELATED: Republicans are leading the field in the California governor race

Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images

Trump declared that Hilton has his “COMPLETE & TOTAL ENDORSEMENT” in the upcoming primary.

“He will be a GREAT Governor and, importantly, WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!!!” Trump added.

Hilton’s campaign thanked the president for his endorsement.

“With President Trump’s full backing and federal support, we are going to take California back and make it better than ever before!” the campaign wrote. “This is the moment California has been waiting for!”

RELATED: USC accused of racism after minority candidates don’t qualify for gubernatorial debate — so USC makes drastic decision

Steve Hilton. Ronaldo Bolaños/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

Newsom has previously stated that he has “some concern” about how crowded the race has become. He told CBS News in early March that he was not yet ready to endorse any of the candidates.

“I don’t have an endorsement,” he stated. “There might be a moment [for that] in the next few months.”

Several recent polls show Hilton with a narrow lead, while other surveys favor Bianco, Swalwell, or Porter. The top two finishers in the primary, regardless of party affiliation, will appear on the ballot in November.

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

​News, Gavin newsom, Newsom, California, Donald trump, Trump, Steve hilton, Chad bianco, Katie porter, Eric swalwell, Tom steyer, California gubernatorial race, California governor race, California governor, Politics 

Catholic churches across the U.S. and other parts of the Western world welcomed historic numbers of new members over the weekend. Although popularly characterized as a “surge,” some analysts have suggested the flood of new and often young converts is actually a rebound.

Prior to welcoming 20 people fully into the faith during the crowded Easter Vigil at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles, Archbishop José Gomez said, “Tonight your story will be joined to His story, to the beautiful history of salvation, the great story of God’s love for His people.”

‘This generation just seems open to the call of the Lord.’

Altogether, 8,598 catechumens and candidates were received into the Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles this Easter, reported Angelus News.

On Saturday, Archbishop Ronald Hicks welcomed some of the over 3,600 new catechumens who reportedly joined the Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of New York this Easter season, telling a packed house at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, “It does feel good when you belong, and we belong to Jesus and we belong to our church.”

Father Andy Matijevic of Holy Name Cathedral in the Archdiocese of Chicago told WBBM-TV, “We had six Masses so far, last night and a few this morning, and all of them have been packed inside.”

Holy Name, which held overflow Masses on Sunday, reportedly saw 18 people baptized and another 23 confirmed, contributing to the archdiocese’s total of over 600 catechumens who received the sacraments of initiation at the Easter Vigil.

Chicago Catholic noted last month that the archdiocese was also set to welcome 445 individuals from other Christian traditions this past weekend, representing a 78% increase in members over last year.

RELATED: Catholic church sees huge surge in conversions — due to inclusivity?

Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. Ronaldo Bolaños/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

Father Burke Masters, whose St. Isaac Jogues Catholic Parish in the Chicago suburb of Hinsdale reported a 124% year-over-year increase in new members, told WLS-TV that the average age of those being received into the church is 28 years old.

St. Mary’s Church near Texas A&M’s campus in College Station, Texas, also managed to roughly double its 2025 Easter baptism numbers, welcoming 61 catechumens into the Catholic Church. Again, most of the newcomers were apparently young adults.

“Most of the [new members] are students, most of them are invited by other students, most of them also maybe heard a call or were drawn to the church,” Rev. Will Straten told KBTX-TV. “So it’s great to see more students desiring to be baptized and to live the faith.”

Boston Archbishop Richard Henning, who saw the churches under his purview similarly packed over the weekend and expected over 680 catechumens to join the Church at Easter, told CBS News, “I think this generation just seems open to the call of the Lord in a way that we’ve not seen in a while.”

Numerous other American dioceses — such as the Archdiocese of Newark — similarly reportedly years-high numbers of new Catholics converts, as did dioceses elsewhere in the Western world.

In Canada, for example, the Archdiocese of Toronto counted a total of 2,050 adult catechumens baptized at its Easter Vigil celebrations — a 12.4% increase over last year. Other Canadian dioceses, including those covering the cities of Montreal, Ottawa, and Vancouver, were also reportedly set for significant growth over the weekend.

In France, over 13,000 adults were set to be baptized into the Catholic Church over the weekend, including more than 700 catechumens in Paris, reported the National Catholic Register.

The numbers appear especially high in large part because conversion numbers in recent decades had fallen so low.

According to U.S. diocesan statistics compiled by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University and analyzed by the Pillar, there was a precipitous decline in the number of people becoming Catholic from 2000 to 2020.

Whereas, for instance, there were 173,674 adults baptized or received into full communion in 2000, that number reportedly had plummeted to 70,796 in 2020.

The Pillar noted that while there has been a significant increase in the number of new adult Catholics following the pandemic, the number of babies baptized every year has dropped by over 50% since 2000.

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

​Religion, Catholic, Catholic church, Church, Conversion, Baptism, Religiosity, Faith, Catechumen 

When BlazeTV host Rick Burgess first read the story of Jesus casting out a demon from a young boy after the disciples had been unsuccessful, he was confused.

“I remember the first time that I heard it … I didn’t understand it. I thought, well, are they different kinds of demons you’re supposed to do different things to? And why didn’t the disciples know this?” he reflected on a recent episode of “Strange Encounters.”

While many interpret this story to mean that there are different ranks or strengths of demons, with more powerful ones requiring specific disciplines, Rick says this misses the main point.

The disciples’ issue was never tactics or strategy; it was self-reliance.

According to the three gospel accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus stumbled upon his disciples arguing with the religious elite after they had been unsuccessful at casting out a demon from a young, mute boy, who would convulse, foam at the mouth, and self-harm as a result of being possessed.

After speaking with the boy’s father, who uttered the famous words “I believe, help my unbelief” (Mark 9:24), Jesus cast out the demon and restored the boy to health. Afterwards He privately addressed His disciples, who were upset that they were not able to do it themselves, as they had previously been casting demons out successfully.

Jesus told them that “this kind can only come out by prayer” (Mark 9:29 — with some manuscripts adding “and fasting”).

But contrary to popular belief, this isn’t Jesus saying there are different strategies for different demons, says Rick.

He argues that the disciples “let their power go to their head” and had stopped “consecrating themselves under the authority of Jesus.”

“These disciples started thinking they were casting out demons. They’ve never cast out a demon. Jesus cast out demons,” says Rick.

“Even when a human being casts out a demon, the human being brings the demon to Jesus. You and I have no ability to cast a demon out of anyone — not by our own strength. The only thing that gives the redeemed power against demons is Jesus,” he continues.

Even the highest ranking angels rely on the authority of Jesus to rebuke the demonic.

Rick references the story from Jude where the archangel Michael is disputing Satan over the body of Moses. Rather than attacking Satan with harsh accusations or trying to condemn him on his own authority, Michael simply said: “The Lord rebuke you!”

“He rebuked Satan by bringing in Jesus,” says Rick.

The disciples, he argues, should have done the same thing when they were attempting to rid the boy of the unclean spirit.

“The disciples have no ability to cast out demons unless they access the power of Jesus, and they had stopped doing that. They started thinking they had the power,” Rick explains, “and Jesus is saying, ‘Y’all better get back to prayer. You better get back to fasting. And you better get back to concentrating on me.’”

To hear more of Rick’s spiritual analysis, watch the episode above.

Want more from Rick and Bubba?

To enjoy more legendary comedy, political arguments, and lessons in common sense, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Strange encounters, Strange encounters with rick burgess, Rick burgess, Blazetv, Blaze media, Christianity, Spiritual warfare, Demonic possession, Jesus’ disciples 

For the past few years, a familiar narrative has taken hold in American automotive media: Chinese electric vehicles are about to reshape the global car market.

Reviewers highlight low prices, sleek interiors, and giant screens. Commentators talk about a coming wave of imports that could challenge American, European, and Japanese automakers. Some even point to BYD surpassing Tesla in global EV sales as proof the shift is already happening.

Some reports suggest a large number of brands could disappear, merge, or restructure in the coming years.

That all sounds compelling — until you ask a simple question: What does this actually mean for a buyer?

Because right now, most of these vehicles aren’t even for sale in the United States.

Tariffs and regulations keep them out. So a lot of this hype is based on overseas test drives and showroom impressions — not real ownership in North America.

And where these vehicles are being used, the story isn’t nearly as clean.

What happens in real-world driving

Cold weather is one of the first reality checks.

Like all EVs, Chinese EVs lose range in low temperatures — sometimes up to 30% to 40% of their range.

That’s not a small difference. That’s the difference between getting home comfortably and watching your battery percentage like a hawk.

Shorter range means more charging. Charging takes longer in the cold. And more energy goes to heating the battery and cabin instead of driving the car.

If you live somewhere with real winters, this isn’t theoretical. It’s your daily routine.

The problem with ‘cool’ features

A lot of the appeal here is design — flush door handles, fully electronic entry, big minimalist interiors.

It looks great in photos; a different story in real life.

Electronic door handles and latches depend on power and sensors. Lose power after a crash, or deal with freezing conditions, and those systems can fail or become harder to use. There have already been reports of handles sticking or not working properly in cold weather.

That’s the trade-off with adding complexity to basic functions.

And when something breaks, it’s not a simple fix. It’s usually more expensive, more specialized, and more time-consuming.

Here’s the bigger issue

The structure of China’s EV industry may matter more than any individual feature.

Over the past decade, government incentives fueled a wave of EV startups. Dozens of companies jumped in. A lot of them are now competing on price, trying to survive.

And not all of them will.

Analysts at firms like Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan Chase expect consolidation. Some reports suggest a large number of brands could disappear, merge, or restructure in the coming years.

That’s not just industry chatter. That’s a real risk for buyers.

Because if the company behind your car disappears, what happens next?

Who provides software updates? Who supplies parts? Who services the vehicle?

That “great deal” doesn’t look so great if you can’t get support — or if resale value drops because buyers don’t trust the brand will still be around.

We’ve seen this before with failed automakers. The difference now is how dependent vehicles are on software.

RELATED: How government and Big Tech can wreck your new car’s resale value

Denver Post/Getty Images

Price isn’t the whole story

There’s no question Chinese automakers have pushed prices down in some markets.

But price is only part of the equation.

Many of these companies are operating on thin margins while spending heavily to stay competitive. That creates pressure — and in some cases, instability.

Some brands will make it. Companies like BYD and Geely have the scale.

Others won’t.

And you don’t get to choose which one you bought after the shakeout happens.

What American buyers actually care about

Even if these vehicles eventually reach the U.S., they’ll be competing on more than price.

American buyers care about reliability, service access, resale value, and long-term support.

That’s not something you figure out in a quick test drive or a YouTube review.

That’s built over time — through dealer networks, parts availability, and how a company stands behind its product.

And that’s where newer players still have something to prove.

Don’t buy the hype

Chinese EVs are real. Some are competitive. Some are impressive.

But the idea that they’re about to flood the U.S. market and take over leaves out a lot.

They face trade barriers, infrastructure challenges, and a major shakeout at home.

For buyers, the takeaway is simple: Don’t buy the hype — buy what actually works for your life.

Look at how the vehicle performs in real conditions. Look at who’s going to support it. Look at what it’s likely to be worth in a few years.

Because in the end, the question isn’t how a car looks in a headline, but how it holds up when you’re the one paying for it.

​China, Auto industry, Ev, Tesla, Byd, Lifestyle, Align cars 

Trial lawyers are poised to accomplish in courtrooms nationwide what politicians have thus far failed to write into statute. The effects of this effort — undertaken without the deliberation of the nation’s representative bodies — are likely to rival those of even the most sweeping laws.

The product of social media platforms is not loaves of bread or pianos or widgets, it is speech, protected by the First Amendment.

A jury in Los Angeles is determining whether Meta and YouTube are liable for design features alleged to have substantially aggravated a young woman’s psychological disorders.

As thousands of similar lawsuits are ongoing — with more likely to follow — the determination of the Los Angeles jury will echo loudly in the deliberations of other juries across America.

These echoes will prove dissonant with Americans’ love for, and dedication to, free speech. Meta’s Instagram and YouTube were said to have disseminated speech too well, working too successfully to configure their products to maintain users’ interest.

This is supposed to constitute “addicting” their users. In fact, it is the aim of every business — from media organizations to retail stores to restaurants to attract and retain customers, to earn profits by marketing a product that consumers value.

In short, it is the business of entrepreneurs to give the people what they want. The product of social media platforms is not loaves of bread or pianos or widgets, it is speech, protected by the First Amendment.

Meta and YouTube are charged with having designed their products to include features — such as “infinite scroll” and individualized algorithmic recommendations — which allow and incentivize their users to view too much speech for too long.

As National Review’s Andrew McCarthy put it, “the plaintiff’s lawyers argued … a theory that the case was not about the content but about the processes by which the platforms present the content.” Despite titanic efforts to harden this distinction, it melts under the heat of elementary scrutiny. Platforms’ design features are impotent absent content that intrigues users.

Mike Masnick, editor of Techdirt, put it this way:

Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine Instagram, but every single post is a video of paint drying. Same infinite scroll. Same autoplay. Same algorithmic recommendations. Same notification systems. Is anyone addicted? Is anyone harmed? Is anyone suing?

Social media algorithms sort and distribute speech — a function without which individuals could neither access speech online nor effectively find an audience for their own speech.

RELATED: The new censorship doesn’t say ‘no’ — it says ‘no one can see it’

Delihayat/Getty Images

Whatever the plaintiff’s attorneys contend, the liability imposed upon Meta and YouTube cannot be severed from the content they host and disseminate. Without the latter, the former would never be imagined, much less found by a jury.

The plaintiff in the case, a young woman known as Kaley or “KGM,” was brought up in anguishing conditions, the daughter of a mother who physically and emotionally abused her. She “was self-harming around when she was in the 6th grade,” reads the Associated Press account of the trial.

It is unsurprising that she, as a young girl, withdrew to social media to find something like peace, fulfillment, and satisfaction. It is equally unsurprising that she used social media to excess and leveraged her every chance to obtain engagement.

More generally, it is anything but certain that users’ affinity for social media is rightly termed an “addiction.” Likewise, research purporting to prove that social media has caused an epidemic of psychological disorders among children — the research of Jonathan Haidt, for example — has proven to be faulty, rife with faulty methodology and confirmation bias.

It is obvious that some misuse social media and their lives are, consequently, diminished. But this no more indicates that the platforms are “defective” in some legally cognizable sense than the mere existence of obesity in America indicates that McDonald’s or Taco Bell’s offerings are “defective” — or that fast-food restaurants ought to be held liable for occurrences of diabetes.

RELATED: Predatory gambling apps are using loopholes to avoid state laws

Gabby Jones/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Humans are a diverse bunch. That a minority, suffering from particular difficulties or vulnerabilities, cannot engage with this product or that in a healthy fashion should not, in a courtroom or the public square, constitute the basis of a totalizing rebuke.

Should the Los Angeles verdict stand, social media companies, confronted with the prospect of liability, are bound to remake their products to prevent any allegation — credible or otherwise — that their platforms cause or worsen whatever psychological distress from which users might suffer.

“If media companies must worry about liability whenever their expressive outputs are thought to be ‘harmful,’ the universe of available content would be reduced to the safest, blandest, and least engaging stuff imaginable,” warns Ari Cohn, the lead counsel for tech policy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

The operations of Instagram and YouTube broke no law enacted by Congress or a state legislature to regulate the workings of social media. Even so, this litigation, if successful, will be regulatory in its effect, resulting in the contracting of the free and open internet.

​Free speech, Social media, Social media ban, Internet, Trial lawyers, Social media lawsuit, Meta, Youtube, Social media addiction, Opinion & analysis 

It’s a running joke in the Beltway that defense contractors put up billboards advertising, say F-35s, at the Pentagon City metro station. Your everyday commuter, even in Washington, isn’t picking up fighter jets off the shelf at Costco on Sundays. But a chunk of the people who work on defense contracts will pass through the Pentagon’s metro stop, and Lockheed Martin knows this.

In practice, Beltway newsletters are funded to the hilt by the businesses they cover.

In theory, the same logic fuels D.C.’s media business. In the last two decades, the capital city has become dominated by a constellation of powerful media outlets that deliver niche, social-media-based coverage of the federal government. Think Politico, Semafor, Punchbowl News, and Axios.

These publications produce insider email newsletters that cover the daily pulse of Capitol Hill, foreign affairs, and the White House and are written specifically for staffers, journalists, and lobbyists. Web 2.0 made this business model possible, and it’s only grown as mass media flails.

Typically a reader will see at the top of each day’s newsletter some version of “Sponsored by” or “Brought to you by” followed by the name of a major corporation or interest group. Sponsor ads will be inserted sparingly, with political motivations ranging from explicit to subtle. Examples of corporate sponsors include Meta, BlackRock, Microsoft, and many, many more.

Anthropic, for example, sponsored Politico’s Playbook newsletter immediately after its high-level negotiations with the Pentagon fizzled in March. The ads didn’t have much to do with defense, focusing mostly on children, learning, and Claude’s efficiency.

The goal instead was to buy goodwill — to make powerful people think nice thoughts about Claude as they read the news.

This is all supposed to be aboveboard because, as ever, advertising departments insist they maintain a strong firewall that keeps journalists unaware of business decisions. Some news outlets, for what it’s worth, are very disciplined about this, but many aren’t.

And nothing prevents the latent affection that can bloom between journalists and their frequent sponsors, who also regularly work with their sources and subjects.

During COVID, one reporter friend of mine shared warm feelings about a major tech company precisely because that company kept its employees working during hard times. Imagine the hypothetical dilemma of a local paper forced to choose whether to blow the whistle on a family-owned landscaping business that also happens to be one of the publication’s most faithful advertisers.

Then scale that up to the international level.

In practice, Beltway newsletters are funded to the hilt by the businesses they cover. The system is not comparable to D.C.’s metro system — getting some advertiser cash from RTX for a few square feet of a dirty wall. The D.C. newsletter model is thoroughly corrupting.

RELATED: America has a spending problem Congress refuses to fix

DNY59/Getty Images

This is because news outlets are becoming increasingly brazen about corporate partnerships. It was somewhat amusing to see DataRepublican recently pick up on a report my colleagues at “Breaking Points” produced last year about Punchbowl News.

DataRepublican, a relentless investigator of political money trails, noticed the outlet had been flamboyantly defensive of Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.). Many of Thune’s donors also happen to sponsor Punchbowl.

Last year, a source leaked one of Punchbowl’s latest pitch decks for corporate advertisers to “Breaking Points.” The document offered editorial influence for cash. Granted, Punchbowl dressed the offer up in corporate language, but its invitation was unmistakable. Corporations can pay them to cover a “mutually agreed upon topic” in podcast series, “editorial deep dives,” and events.

The pitch deck even included a sample of Punchbowl’s work with Google on “custom content.”

This is undeniably a breach of basic journalistic ethics. But nobody in D.C. bats an eye. Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer, the founders of Punchbowl, are beloved in Washington. They are called upon for sober analysis, win awards, and lecture others on journalism.

What’s funny is that D.C. reporters honestly do not believe these dishonorable financial relationships influence their coverage. This is a common — and entirely reasonable — misconception about how Washington works.

The wall between Washington and the world grows taller. An insular city becomes more insular, and the citizens it serves become more distant.

Corporations and their lobbyists do not approach journalists and say, “Here’s $20,000, write something nice about the F-35 Lightning.”

A famous 1996 BBC interview sheds light on what’s really going on. Journalist Andrew Marr asked Noam Chomsky, “How can you know that I’m self-censoring?” “I don’t say you’re self-censoring,” Chomsky replied. “I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”

This is the way the system actually functions. Sherman, Palmer, and their peers in the business see themselves as genuine shoe-leather reporters, covering politics without fear or favor.

The perception of the “facts” and of right and wrong just happens to fall within the same range of beliefs shared by their subjects and sponsors.

Why might John Thune, the leader of the Senate GOP, share donors with a center-left Beltway rag? Thune and Punchbowl are cogs in the same machine, and the corporate cash is the grease on its wheels. Some of those wheels get a bit squeaky at times, but the machine never stops.

Meta can pay a newsletter to host a breakfast on internet safety where journalists will exchange cards and conversation with executives and lobbyists. They won’t meet the parents who say Meta failed to protect their child from sex predators. Those stakeholders are typically not organized or wealthy enough to pay for face time with executives.

RELATED: Tax-exempt hospitals are not putting their patients first

David M. Levitt/Bloomberg/Getty Images

As a consequence, the wall between Washington and the world grows taller. An insular city becomes more insular, and the citizens it serves become more distant.

One reporter who spent years working at one of the Beltway rags put it this way:

It’s important to understand that corporate sponsorships are central to the business model. Honestly, the newsroom at Politico is only about half of the actual company. They have an entire floor in their Rosslyn office for business operations. When you have that level of financial interdependence, it inevitably spills into the newsroom. Even if there’s not an explicit bias in reporter stories or Playbook it still creates an institutional alignment with corporate interests and priorities that runs afoul of what we expect from a truly adversarial or accountability-driven press.

This story isn’t as sexy as cash being exchanged for coverage in some back-alley deal. The problem is much worse than that. It’s the final form of the American media’s shared worldview with its powerful subjects. They’re in control, and the rabble must be tempered.

The interests of politicians and journalists used to look like a Venn diagram: divergent with small overlap. Now that picture is just a circle.

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

​Media, Dc, Opinion & analysis 

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

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

No, we don’t.

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

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

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

Luxury expectations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images

Maxed-out minimums

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

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

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

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

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

Modern-day Tudors

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

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

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

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

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

There are better models to follow.

An old-fashioned approach

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

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

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

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

Degraded status

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

Consider what that sounds like to a child.

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

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

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

Where now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Past behavior predicts future performance.

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

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

We all understand what that means.

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

Past behavior predicts future performance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED: Scripture or slogans — you have to choose

Godong/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

Our culture often insists that we are basically good people.

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

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

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

What breaks the pattern?

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

And this is precisely where Easter speaks.

RELATED: Where Easter really comes from

Bernard Jaubert/UCG/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

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

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

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

That is why the Resurrection matters.

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

Something has interrupted it.

The apostle Paul captured it in a single phrase:

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

Were.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But these laser reflectors aren’t the only proof.

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

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

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

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

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The gift of fear

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good and evil

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

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

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

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

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

Sunset Boulevard/Getty Images

Inevitable judgment

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

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

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

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

The most urgent question

That conviction has shaped his public life ever since.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED: Where Easter really comes from

Bernard Jaubert/UCG/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

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

The cross is not the end of the story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Urupong/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Al shares a personal example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want more from the Robertsons?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

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

​Relatable, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Allie beth stuckey, Blazetv, Blaze media, Blaze podcasts, Christianity, Christian myths 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your browser does not support the video tag.

Divine intervention

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

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

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

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

“There is no coincidence,” Martina declared.

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

ANGEL BATTA/AFP/Getty Images

Putting in the work

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

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

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

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

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

Message for others

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s known as the Easterlin paradox.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IsoLab/Getty Images

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

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

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

Material abundance can directly foster rather than undermine human flourishing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are eight reasons why. Have a blessed Easter.

1. The tomb really was empty

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

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

2. The first witnesses were the least credible

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

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

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

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

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

4. The earliest testimony is too early to be legend

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

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

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

5. There are multiple, overlapping eyewitness claims

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

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

6. Skeptics and enemies didn’t stay that way

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slippery slope

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

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

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

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

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

JianGang Wang/Getty Images

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

The trust gap

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

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

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

Black mirror

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

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

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

​Tech 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VCG Wilson/Corbis/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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