Category: blaze media

Five years after a firestorm of media attention, a mountain of legal troubles, and a run for office, Mark McCloskey has finally collected.

In 2020, McCloskey and his wife, Patricia, went viral in the media after Mark wielded an AR-15 on his porch alongside his pistol-packing wife as a large group of Black Lives Matter protesters demonstrated down their private street.

The protesters broke down an iron gate leading into the McCloskeys’ neighborhood, leading the couple to say they were “in fear of [their] lives” at the time.

‘You have to let them know that you will never back down, you’ll never give up.’

Mr. McCloskey eventually surrendered the couple’s guns as part of an agreement in which he pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault and his wife pleaded guilty to second-degree harassment, both misdemeanors, after being originally charged with felonies.

Former Missouri Gov. Mike Parson (R) pardoned all of the McCloskeys’ charges in the summer of 2021. Now, some of their property has finally been returned.

“It only took 3 lawsuits, 2 trips to the Court of Appeals and 1,847 days, but I got my AR15 back!” McCloskey wrote on X. The home owner compared 2020 photos of him and his wife brandishing their guns alongside a new photo of himself with the AR-15 in front of his house.

“We defended our home, were persecuted by the left, smeared by the press, and threatened with death, but we never backed down,” he continued. “What’s missing — Patty and the Bryco (soon),” he added, referring to the Bryco .380-caliber pistol his wife was holding in 2020.

RELATED: ‘It’s time for the city to cough up my guns’: Mark McCloskey throws down after judge expunges convictions against him, wife

Mark McCloskey, a Republican candidate for US Senate in Missouri, and his wife, Patricia McCloskey (Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

McCloskey also posted a video of himself picking up the AR-15 from a police property room on Friday afternoon.

“That gun may have only been worth $1,500 or something, and it cost me a lot of time and a lot of effort to get it back, but you have to do that,” McCloskey told Fox News. “You have to let them know that you will never back down, you’ll never give up.”

The personal injury attorney also expressed that each American has a “personal responsibility” to defend freedom and added that “if you’ve been wronged, if you’ve been overreached by the leftist government — you can’t give up. You can’t let them get an inch.”

McCloskey parlayed his legal and moral fight into a 2022 Senate run in the Missouri Republican Party.

RELATED: Missouri governor pardons McCloskeys of all charges related to BLM protest incident

ST. JOSEPH, MISSOURI – MAY 7, 2022: Missouri Senate hopeful Mark McCloskey’s campaign vehicle parked outside in St. Joseph, Missouri. (Photo by Dominick Williams for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

One of McCloskey’s stances was a firm belief that abortion was not justifiable, even in cases of rape or incest of young teens.

McCloskey eventually lost the primary to Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt.

He told Fox News that he expects to get the Bryco pistol within the next week.

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

​News, 2nd amendment, Second amendment, Mccloskeys, Missouri, Blm, Black lives matter, Politics 

President Donald Trump just keeps proving his critics wrong.

This week, he announced a trade deal with the European Union that will bring in $1.35 trillion in new investment just days after securing $550 billion from Japan. The U.S. Treasury has pulled in a record-breaking $150 billion in tariff revenue this year. New GDP figures show the economy growing faster than inflation.

A rebate, carve-out, or full exemption would show Trump responds to market realities with precision.

Trump has reason to celebrate. But he also knows tariffs can hurt. In February, he warned about the pain tariffs might cause consumers and businesses. More recently, he backed Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley’s proposal to send at least $600 in tariff rebate checks to working-class Americans.

That same logic should apply to the people who sign their paychecks: small business owners.

Since the government-imposed COVID restrictions, small businesses have faced brutal headwinds. The National Federation of Independent Business reports weak job creation plans. Bank of America says hiring costs are down but entrepreneurs are leaning harder on credit cards just to stay afloat due to tighter markets.

To ease the burden, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has urged the Trump administration to create an automatic exemption from new tariffs for small businesses. These companies don’t have the cash reserves or supply chain flexibility to absorb cost hikes. They can’t just retool overnight. The Chamber also called for exemptions for any business that proves tariffs would threaten American jobs or that imports goods not produced domestically — like coffee or bananas.

That pitch should resonate with Republicans. America’s 34.8 million small businesses provide nearly half of all U.S. jobs and created 70% of new ones between 2019 and 2024. They make up 98% of all manufacturers, with payrolls topping $278 billion.

And they lean Republican. Last fall, small business owners favored Trump’s economic policies over Kamala Harris’ by 32 points. Five of the top 20 importing states — Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Wisconsin — are swing states where small businesses are watching closely.

Democrats know it, too. They’ve already started highlighting tariff-related struggles in their appeals to Main Street voters. According to the FedEx Small Business Trade Index, one-third of all imports and exports come from small businesses. Two-thirds of small and midsize business leaders say imports are vital to their domestic operations. The National Retail Federation recently flagged the impact of tariffs on the nation’s 15.5 million retail workers.

Trump understands something his critics don’t: The economy depends on balance — between tariffs, taxes, incentives, and regulation. Targeted relief for small businesses fits perfectly with his broader economic vision.

It complements the SBA’s Made in America Manufacturing Initiative, which cut $100 billion in red tape, and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s tax reforms that let domestic producers write off depreciation and R&D costs.

RELATED: Trump says he’s considering ‘a little rebate’ for Americans from tariff revenue

Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

Sure, Trump could fold a small business rebate into Hawley’s legislation. But exemptions work faster — and speed matters when you’re operating on razor-thin margins. That’s why Chamber of Commerce CEO Suzanne Clark is right: Small businesses need relief now, not months from now — if and when Congress acts.

A rebate, carve-out, or full exemption would show Trump responds to market realities with precision. It would give small businesses breathing room to shift toward domestic suppliers. And it would help Republicans tie a policy win to the pro-growth momentum already under way.

Foreign onshoring, U.S. reshoring, and renewed consumer confidence are already reshaping the economy. Strategic relief for small businesses could help seal the deal — and give Republicans even more to smile about in 2025.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Tariff, Tariffs, Small businesses, Trump tariffs, Global tariffs, Small business, Tax cuts, Tax deductions, Targeted 

Texas House Democrats fled the Lone Star State for the District of Columbia in July 2021, denying Republicans a quorum — the Texas Constitution requires two-thirds of the state House to be present to conduct legislative business — and thereby temporarily preventing the passage of legislation that would improve election integrity.

This strategic play, celebrated by then-Vice President Kamala Harris and other radicals, was not the first time state Democrats had abdicated their duties in order to thwart the execution of the people’s will. Texas Democrats also fled to New Mexico in 2003 in order to prevent a vote on redrawing congressional districts in Republicans’ favor.

Republican Governor Greg Abbott suggested in response to the 2021 holdout, which lasted 38 days, that Democrats could be arrested. Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan signed 52 arrest warrants for the absentee lawmakers, but no one was ultimately held to account.

‘Democrats in the Texas House who try and run away like cowards should be found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol immediately.’

Years after confirming that they could torpedo the democratic process without consequence, Texas House Democrats have once again fled the state — this time to prevent their GOP colleagues from advancing new congressional maps that would give Republicans five more pickup opportunities ahead of the midterm elections.

Abbott indicated on Sunday that unless the “derelict Democrat House members” return to Texas and show up when the House reconvenes at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, they will be removed from office.

“Real Texans do not run from a fight. But that’s exactly what most of the Texas House Democrats just did,” wrote Abbott. “Rather than doing their job and voting on urgent legislation affecting the lives of all Texas, they have fled Texas to deprive the House of the quorum necessary to meet and conduct business.”

RELATED: Democrat offers bizarre spin on imploding support for his party — and he’s getting amazing backlash

Texas House Democrats abandoning their posts on Sunday. Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

The governor indicated that the exodus amounts to “an abandonment or forfeiture of an elected state office.”

“This truancy ends now,” said Abbott.

The governor indicated that he will invoke Texas Attorney General Opinion No. KP-0382.

The opinion, released by Attorney General Ken Paxton on Aug. 24, 2021, states that “whether a specific legislator abandoned his or her office such that a vacancy occurred will be a fact question for a court” and that “through a quo warranto action, a district court may determine that a legislator has forfeited his or her office due to abandonment and can remove the legislator from office, thereby creating a vacancy.”

In addition to potentially risking their offices, Abbott said that Texas House Democrats may have also committed felonies, as many of the absentee lawmakers “are soliciting funds to evade the fines they will incur under House rules,” which might be in violation of the Lone Star State’s bribery laws.

The governor was referring to the $500-per-day fine that Republicans implemented in 2023 to deal with legislators who intentionally broke quorum.

“It seems to me that the only way some of the fleeing Democrats can avoid bribery charges is not to break quorum,” Abbott tweeted. “It seems that would eliminate any potential quid pro quo connected to any payment they received to deny a quorum and skip a vote.”

Paxton minced no words, writing, “Democrats in the Texas House who try and run away like cowards should be found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol immediately.”

“We should use every tool at our disposal to hunt down those who think they are above the law,” added the Texas attorney general.

RELATED: Gov. Gavin Newsom threatens to redistrict California after Texas GOP drops new district map proposal

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Photo by Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The Texas Supreme Court ruled in August 2021 that Texas House Democrats who intentionally break quorum can be arrested and dragged into the state legislature.

Meanwhile, radicals farther afield have celebrated the Democrats’ anti-democratic gambit.

‘The DNC is proud to support these legislators in standing up and showing real leadership.’

U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), whose approval rating a recent YouGov poll indicated was 25%, expressed support for the Texas Democrats over the weekend, stating, “It’s an all-hands-on-deck moment.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) suggested that the absentee lawmakers’ efforts to undermine the democratic process “is what fighting for our democracy looks like.”

Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin said in a statement that “the DNC is proud to support these legislators in standing up and showing real leadership. We will fight alongside them to stop this anti-democratic assault.”

State Rep. James Talarico (D), fresh off suggesting that there was no “historical, theological, biblical basis” for Christians to oppose abortion, said the purpose of the Democratic exodus was to “stop Trump’s redistricting power grab.”

Talarico’s fellow obstructionists suggested their departure was in the interest of democracy. State Rep. Mary Ann Perez, for instance, said that “by breaking quorum, we are standing up for democratic values.”

Dozens of absentee lawmakers gathered in Chicago, where they were celebrated by Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker. Others traveled to Massachusetts and New York.

“Texas Democrats are once again neglecting their responsibility to serve the people of the Lone Star State by engaging in absurd theatrics intended to mislead the public into believing they are upholding their values,” Mason Di Palma, communications director for the Republican State Leadership Committee, said in a statement to Blaze News. “By traveling to Illinois and New York, two of the most partisanly gerrymandered Democrat-controlled states in the country, these stunts are rooted in nonsense and illustrate how disconnected today’s Democratic Party is from the needs of the American people.”

“Texas Democrats need to return home immediately, stop wasting taxpayer money on their media tour, and work collaboratively with Republicans in Austin to advance the future of Texas,” added Di Palma.

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

​Texas, Greg abbott, Ken paxton, Paxton, Abbott, Lone star state, House democrats, Democrats, Quorum, Absentee, Fafo, Redistricting, Politics 

The long-awaited new season of “South Park” kicked off with a serious bang, as its premiere featured President Trump begging for sex from Satan and threatening to sue everyone.

A deepfake-assisted PSA at the end of the episode also starred Trump, where he was portrayed as nude and wandering the desert.

But the White House wasn’t laughing.

“This show hasn’t been relevant for over 20 years and is hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention,” a statement from the White House read. “President Trump has delivered on more promises in just six months than any other president in our country’s history — and no fourth-rate show can derail President Trump’s hot streak.”

When asked about his response to the White House’s statement, “South Park” co-creator Trey Parker said, “We’re terribly sorry,” and nothing else.

BlazeTV host Dave Landau has a theory as to why “South Park” hit so hard at the president.

“There’s also a theory that they attacked Trump because they’re hoping to get sued and therefore dropped from the Paramount contract because they supposedly do not like it,” Landau says on “Normal World.”

“I thought them making fun of him from the Epstein angle was really funny. Him threatening to sue people was really funny. That’s just my opinion. And they’re absolutely not like whiny left, you know, Democrats,” he continues.

BlazeTV host ¼ Black Garrett doesn’t disagree, but also has his own issue with the episode.

“I think my only problem with it is it wasn’t that funny. I thought they could totally have made fun of Trump in a million other ways,” he says.

Though there was one character who has never disappointed, and didn’t start in the new season.

“Cartman’s death of woke,” Landau laughs. “Now he no longer knows what person he should be because he’s like, ‘Where’s my favorite show? It’s got lesbians and liberals crying on it.’”

Want more ‘Normal World’?

To enjoy more whimsical satire, topical sketches, and comedic discussions from comedians Dave Landau and 1/4 Black Garrett, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Camera phone, Free, Sharing, Upload, Video, Video phone, Youtube.com, Normal world, Normal world with dave landau, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, President trump, The trump administration, White house, South park, Cartman, Eric cartman, South park trump 

It’s good to be back in the Advocate — the self-described “world’s leading source of LGBTQ+ news and information.” The last time it covered me, it involved a spat with a group of criminal, gay furry hackers. It never published the follow-up when one of those hackers was arrested, just as I promised. This time, I’ve committed an even greater sin in the Advocate’s eyes: I asked a woke, gay professor at a public university to share his syllabus.

That professor, Christopher Petsko, teaches at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. And his reaction — along with the left’s coordinated meltdown — tells you everything you need to know about how deeply embedded DEI ideology remains in taxpayer-funded higher ed.

The Trump administration has made its position clear. Our job is to ensure it follows through.

Here’s what we’re doing. The Oversight Project submitted public records requests for syllabi from professors at public universities — institutions subject to state transparency laws. President Trump and his administration have made it a public priority to root out diversity, equity, and inclusion programs from the federal government and its beneficiaries, including universities. Our aim is to determine whether schools are complying with the law — or rebranding DEI under another name.

Because if they are, the administration should know. And act.

Follow-through matters. We’ve seen high-profile announcements on anti-DEI and anti-anti-Semitism efforts before, only to watch the implementation get outsourced or quietly neutered. Columbia University, for example, partnered with the far-left Anti-Defamation League to monitor itself for anti-Semitism — then gave itself a clean bill of health. That’s theater, not accountability.

It’s the same story with the so-called crackdown on law firms weaponizing their influence. We contacted many of the firms that pledged pro bono support for conservative clients. Most didn’t respond. Most have done nothing. We’ll be publishing the receipts soon.

In that context, our university initiative is simple: Show us the syllabi. If DEI ideology is still embedded in coursework, the public deserves to know. Instead, some of these professors are losing their minds.

Petsko responded with a melodramatic LinkedIn post:

Keep doing the work you were trained to do. Keep educating others. Keep sharing your expertise. And don’t let vague references to executive orders make you question whether you have a right to be sharing your knowledge with the world.

He then declared he would not release his syllabus. (Too late.)

Other academics rallied to his side. Colin Carlson of Yale took to Bluesky to frame our request as “targeted harassment at scale.” Kate Starbird of the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public responded, “Of course they are.”

RELATED: Harvard’s hypocrisy hits the courtroom

Harvard’s hypocrisy hits the courtroomPhoto by Rick Friedman / Contributor via Getty Images

The irony, of course, is that these same people preach transparency when they’re not the ones being scrutinized. Why is it that transparency always seems to flow one way — targeting the right while the left hides behind tenure and taxpayer funding?

Next came a hit piece from Inside Higher Ed, which apparently objects to anyone trying to get inside higher ed. I told Inside Higher Ed:

UNC is a public school with a long track record of discrimination. Syllabi are public records and belong to the public. We intend to let the public know what is being taught at a public school. That’s not intimidation. It’s good governance and transparency. If a professor is too much of a wimp to let me read his syllabus, then he’s in the wrong business.

The response? A pile of quotes from leftists accusing us of “chilling free speech” and “intimidation.” Apparently, basic accountability is now oppression.

As for Petsko — he didn’t get the last word.

We now have his syllabus. And surprise: It’s loaded with DEI propaganda. Required reading includes “Dear White Boss,” which claims white executives should be forced to read it. Another entry, “Why Diversity Programs Fail,” criticizes corporate DEI efforts for not going far enough. Students are also instructed to listen to “How to Bust Bias at Work,” which promotes race-based promotion practices.

This is what passes for education at a public university.

The University of North Carolina is out of compliance with federal policy. The Trump administration has made its position clear. Our job is to ensure it follows through.

And we intend to do exactly that.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Woke universities, Lgbtq, Lgbt, Lgbtq agenda, Lgbtq university, Threat to democracy, First amendment, Free speech, Freedom of speech, Indoctrination, Politcal correctness, Diversity equity inclusion, Dei programs 

When T.J. Hoover was declared brain-dead after suffering an overdose in October 2021, the last thing his loved ones thought would happen, happened.

While on the operating table as an organ donor, Hoover was alive.

Donna Rhorer, Hoover’s sister, says doctors were attempting to harvest his organs while he was still showing signs of life — like his eyes being open and tracking movement during his honor walk, which is when family says goodbye before organ donation surgery.

“Almost immediately as soon as his honor walk started, his eyes were opened, and they were tracking, looking around at the people that were there,” Rhorer said.

Forty-five minutes after he was taken away, a doctor then informed her and the rest of the family that the procedure had been stopped.

“She said, ‘I stopped it. He’s not ready. He woke up,’” Rhorer said.

“He was admitted to Baptist Health’s emergency room. He was unresponsive for two days. His family then agreed to donate his organs, and that was his wish. So he was prepped for organ donation surgery,” BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey explains.

“But as they were prepping him, he began thrashing, crying, resisting, showing signs of life,” she continues.

The independent Health Resources and Services Administration review found clear negligence by the organ procurement organization, or OPO, that was involved in Hoover’s case.

But they didn’t stop at Hoover.

“HRSA examined 351 cases where organ donation was authorized but not completed, identifying issues. … Of those, 73 patients showed neurological signs incompatible with organ donation, and 28 may not have been deceased when procurement began,” Stuckey explains.

“That’s very scary,” Stuckey says. “Should we credit this to just incompetence and laziness, or is there something else going on?”

“The error here, I think, was that when you assess somebody, when you look at them in the bed and you get a sense of how severely they’ve been neurologically injured, you need to know, are you actually seeing their neurologic function?” Dr. Raymond Lynch, chief of the organ transplant branch at HRSA, tells Stuckey.

“Or is that being clouded either by the drugs that the hospital’s giving to keep them comfortable,” he continues, “or by some other thing like a drug overdose that led to them coming into the hospital in the first place?”

“In Mr. Hoover’s case … he was recovering, and it was being documented by OPO staff that he was recovering. He was waking up, but they didn’t change what they were planning to do, and it was a hospital physician who said, ‘I’m not comfortable proceeding with this,’ and ended the process,” he adds.

“So, I don’t know if you can answer this,” Stuckey says, “but why would they record that there were signs of recovery and decide to move forward anyway?”

“I think this is something that,” he answers, “you know, we find in government review of similar systems. … There was a lack of critical thinking to reassess what trained physicians and hospital staff were telling them, and it’s a circumstance where you can’t let this be a runaway train.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

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

​Camera phone, Free, Sharing, Upload, Video, Video phone, Youtube.com, Relatable, Relatable with allie beth stuckey 

American health care is a paradox. We spend more than any nation in history — nearly 20% of our GDP — yet our outcomes remain stubbornly mediocre.

New hospitals rise like monuments to excess. Their parking lots fill with luxury cars. Tax dollars pour in from every level of government. Private spending remains sky-high. But while the profits flow, patient satisfaction and results don’t keep pace.

At a bare minimum, nonprofit hospitals should be required to deliver real value — quality care, satisfied patients, and meaningful charity work.

That’s because the system doesn’t reward quality. It rewards short-term financial performance.

Health care costs keep rising faster than inflation. Voters resist higher taxes, so deficits explode. The federal government now routinely runs annual shortfalls exceeding 6% of GDP — even during boom times. Something’s got to give.

Enter Dr. Mehmet Oz. Once a fixture on daytime TV, now head of Medicare and Medicaid Services under President Trump, Oz has zeroed in on the real source of bloat: hospital executives enriching themselves under the guise of nonprofit care.

Oz recently urged Americans to review tax filings and publicly “shame” hospital administrators pulling down massive salaries. He’s right to sound the alarm.

Most hospitals claim nonprofit status — but their leadership rakes in pay packages in the tens of millions, complete with bonuses, stock perks, and golden parachutes. Those compensation schemes only make sense because the IRS grants nonprofits huge tax breaks. And the standards for maintaining that status? Laughably weak.

As a result, the federal government forfeits tens of billions of dollars annually — revenue that could support real health care reform or reduce the deficit.

Consider Nazareth Hospital in Philadelphia. It belongs to Trinity Health Mid-Atlantic, a large nonprofit chain. Trinity’s CEO earns over $1.4 million a year. Yet, Nazareth carries a dismal one-star Medicare rating, charges high prices, and provides very little charity care. Despite funneling more than $160 million annually through its doors, it contributes almost nothing in taxes — while local, state, and federal governments foot the bill for many of its patients.

It’s a rigged system: Taxpayers pay, executives profit, and patients suffer.

RELATED: Medicaid for millions, misery for the middle class

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Dr. Oz is asking the right questions. Where does the money go? Who benefits most? Are we getting anything close to our money’s worth?

At a bare minimum, nonprofit hospitals should be required to deliver real value — quality care, satisfied patients, and meaningful charity work. When they fail, they should lose the privileges that come with tax-exempt status.

Congress must act. Update the laws. Close the loopholes. Scrutinize executive pay. Tie compensation to performance. And most importantly, re-center the system on patients — not the almighty dollar.

Thanks goes to Dr. Oz for breaking the silence. The American people deserve transparency, accountability, and a health care system that serves them — not the bureaucrats and fat cats feeding off the public trough.

​Opinion & analysis, Medicare, Medicaid, Hospitals, Executives, Compensation, Salaries, Nonprofit, Taxes, Spending, Accountability, Transparency, Health care reform, Mehmet oz, Health and human services, Health insurance 

On July 22, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) released a new interim staff report on former President Joe Biden’s Catholic spy ring.

Thanks to FBI Director Kash Patel, some of the information is new. And when pieced together with what we already knew, the picture that emerges is one of an FBI that went off the rails. Christopher Wray, who led the FBI under Biden, bears much of the blame.

This was not a mistake. It was a well-planned effort to intimidate and harass practicing Catholics.

The FBI was apparently focused on “radical-traditionalist Catholics.” Who are these people? According to the FBI’s own internal review of this matter, “investigators found that many FBI employees could not even define the meaning of ‘radical-traditionalist Catholic’ when preparing, editing, or reviewing” the Richmond Field Office memorandum that authorized the probe.

In other words, the FBI decided that these Catholics were a problem, even though agents were unable to explain who they are. FBI agents were convinced that the so-called rad-trads were “linked” to “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists.”

What made them think this way is still a mystery, but we know they found nothing. That’s because there is no record of very conservative Catholics linking up with violent thugs. Indeed, on this basis alone there was no reason to investigate them.

This didn’t stop some FBI operatives from categorizing “certain Catholic Americans as potential domestic terrorists.” They came to this absurd conclusion based on articles employees read. “How Extremist Gun Culture Is Trying to Co-opt the Rosary” is one of the gems they named as evidence of the nefarious agenda of “rad-trad” Catholics.

RELATED: The FBI was completely correct to keep an eye on Catholics

Bettmann/Contributor/Getty Images Plus

If there is one Catholic group that the FBI thought was emblematic of very conservative Catholics, it is the Society of Saint Pius X. This was not a good choice — this group is not in full communion with the Catholic Church. This is a breakaway association of Catholics founded in 1970 who were upset with the reforms of Vatican II in the 1960s. They were once excommunicated, then reinstated, but are still one step removed from being an authentic part of the Catholic Church.

I have been saying all along that the FBI’s focus on SSPX and the “rad-trads” is a ruse. Quite frankly, this was a pretext to opening the door to a much wider investigation of practicing Catholics, most of whom tend to be more conservative than non-practicing Catholics.

The evidence is conclusive.

The latest report shows that the FBI proposed a probe of “mainline parishes.” It says that “FBI employees believed without evidence that mainstream Catholic churches could serve as a pipeline to violent extremist behavior.” Without evidence! Also, “The FBI seems to have considered Catholic churches as a potential hot spot for radicalization and viewed investigating Catholic churches as an ‘opportunity.’” Exactly.

As an example of this mad search for wrongdoing, the FBI investigated Catholics who evinced “hostility toward abortion-rights advocates.” In other words, Catholic activists who exercised fidelity to Church teachings on abortion — they are called pro-life Catholics — were considered a domestic threat by the FBI. Similarly, those who espoused “Conservative family values/roles” were labeled “radical.”

This tells us all we need to know about the politicization of the FBI under Biden.

It also tells us something else: It was not dissident Catholics the FBI was concerned about. It was the loyal sons and daughters of the Church. How strange it is to note that at least some dissident Catholics, and some FBI agents, were both seeking to subvert the Catholic Church.

This may not have been coordinated, but the outcome is nonetheless disturbing.

RELATED: Christopher Wray must be prosecuted

MANDEL NGAN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

It is not just the profile of Catholics whom the FBI was examining that was a problem — it was the scope of its investigations. It started in Richmond, then spread to Louisville, Milwaukee, and Portland. Its reach even extended overseas — the FBI’s London Office was involved. This is hardly surprising given that we already knew the FBI further proposed “to infiltrate Catholic churches as a form of ‘threat mitigation.’” The goal was to have a “national application” of its investigatory measures.

This was not a mistake. It was a well-planned effort to intimidate and harass practicing Catholics. The Committee and Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government determined in the last Congress that “there was no legitimate basis for the memorandum to insert federal law enforcement into Catholic houses of worship.” That says it all.

Under Biden, the FBI was looking for dirt on Catholics, especially those who are pro-life and hold to traditional moral values. This was one of the most despicable violations of the civil liberties of innocent Americans conducted by the federal government in modern times. That it took place in an administration run by a “devout Catholic” makes it all the more outrageous.

We are thankful to Rep. Jim Jordan for all the good work that he, his committee, and his staff have done.

This essay was adapted from an article originally published by the Catholic League.

​Fbi targets catholics, Biden fbi, Jim jordan, Fbi, Catholics, Catholic church, Joe biden, Christopher wray, Christianity, Christians, Pro-life, Faith 

In today’s high-tech world of driving, cars are getting smarter — and so are traffic enforcement tools.

From red-light cameras to radar and laser traps, motorists are facing a growing array of surveillance on the road. That’s where Escort Redline 360c Radar Detector steps in, not as a gimmick or gadget, but as a serious investment in driver awareness and protection.

‘The more you know about what’s happening on the road ahead, the safer and smarter your drive becomes.’

At $799.95, the Redline 360c isn’t cheap — but for those who value precision, reliability, and situational awareness, it just may be the best money you can spend on your vehicle.

I had the opportunity to speak with Joe Sherbondy, director of Escort Radar detection products, to get a closer look at what makes the Redline 360c such a game changer.

“The newest firmware update cuts response time in half,” Sherbondy told me. “This isn’t just a minor tweak — it puts Escort firmly ahead of the competition in terms of speed and reliability.”

Setting a new benchmark in detection speed

What sets the Redline 360c apart is its extreme detection range combined with intelligent filtering. Most radar detectors flood drivers with false alarms from automatic doors, collision avoidance systems, and other non-threatening signals.

The Redline 360c’s updated firmware uses machine learning and signal classification to reduce those false alerts while maintaining rapid and accurate identification of legitimate threats.

Sherbondy explained it simply: “Drivers want to be informed — not overwhelmed. Our detectors learn over time, and the Redline 360c now responds faster than anything else in the market, with fewer distractions.”

An evolving ecosystem

What’s equally impressive is how Escort continues to build out its ecosystem. The Redline 360c is integrated with the North American Defender® Database, which offers real-time notifications of red-light and speed cameras.

With a subscription (available in one-year or three-year packages), users receive automatic updates to ensure they stay protected as enforcement zones evolve.

And for those upgrading from an older device, Escort’s trade-in program allows customers to send in their previous detector for credit. It’s a practical option, especially with older detectors quickly falling behind in today’s rapidly advancing enforcement tech landscape.

Bundled protection and smart integration

Escort is also offering compelling bundles that make upgrading more attractive.

Redline 360c + M2 Dash Cam Bundle: For $949.95 (a $50 savings), you get not only the top-tier detector but also Escort’s smart dash cam, the M2. This adds real-time video recording, voice alerts, GPS tagging, and integration with the Drive Smarter app — perfect for reviewing incidents or protecting yourself against false claims.Redline 360c + ZR6 Laser Shifter: For those looking for total peace of mind, the $1,999.90 package includes Escort’s most powerful radar and laser defense tools. The ZR6 system is designed to combat modern laser enforcement, making this combination one of the most comprehensive protection solutions available for everyday drivers.

Why it matters

Speeding tickets aren’t just costly — they can raise insurance rates and impact your driving record. But more importantly, having a radar detector like the Redline 360c empowers drivers with real-time information, helping them make safer, more informed decisions on the road.

Joe Sherbondy summed it up: “We’re not encouraging speeding — we’re enabling situational awareness. The more you know about what’s happening on the road ahead, the safer and smarter your drive becomes.”

The Redline 360c isn’t a toy — it’s a precision instrument built for serious drivers. Whether you commute daily, travel long distances, or simply want to stay one step ahead of modern enforcement, this device delivers.

Yes, the price point may seem high, but consider the long-term savings: fewer tickets, reduced insurance hikes, and a better understanding of your driving environment. Add to that Escort’s trade-in incentives and bundled discounts, and the investment becomes even more worthwhile.

For those who value performance, reliability, and cutting-edge protection, the Escort Redline 360c is the radar detector to beat.

​Align cars, Lifestyle, Radar detectors, Provisions, Auto accessories, Escort, Sponsored post 

The new lunch boxes are ordered, class rosters are on their way, and the back-to-school haircuts are booked. And like clockwork, the cultural chorus salutes the return to routines.

But here’s my contrarian parent confession: I secretly wish summer would never end.

Too often, summer is seen as downtime before ‘real life.’ But for us, it’s as real as life gets.

This isn’t a critique of education. Our children attend a Catholic school we deeply trust. They are taught by teachers who live out the virtues they teach with a curriculum grounded in faith, character, and critical thinking. That kind of schooling is a blessing, but it’s also increasingly rare.

In many states, public schools today resemble social engineering experiments more than places of learning. Parents are often sidelined — if not pushed out entirely.

Still, even in the best schools, summer grants a freedom that’s hard to find the rest of the year — the freedom to let our kids learn through life, not just curriculum.

Learning outside the classroom

Summer brings boredom, and that is a glorious gift. Without constant scheduling, kids are forced to imagine. They build forts, tell stories, invent games, and watch a snail for three whole minutes. That kind of unhurried pace awakens creativity in a way no planned activity can match. And when days aren’t packed from activity to activity, children learn the rhythm of reflection, rest, and real connection.

This year, my daughter spent her third summer at sleepaway camp. My son went away for the first time. They learned kayaking, pottery, survival skills, and, most importantly, a little independence.

Independence isn’t learned through lectures. It is cultivated through doing — managing a tent, getting mud on your shoes, and forging friendships under the sun.

Meanwhile, my wife and I curated our own two‑month formation plan: fishing, family prayers, vacation hikes, and teaching patience alongside some bug spray.

Office visits are another summer staple in our family. It’s one of the only times of year our kids get to see us work. They come with me to the studio, watching all the cameras turn on and interactions with my guests. They help my wife pick out decorations for her nonprofit’s next event. They see the planning, the problem-solving, the hustle, and most importantly, they see it up close.

For them, work isn’t some abstract idea of “what parents do all day.” It’s a living example of vocation and stewardship. We want them to understand that work isn’t something you escape from — it’s something you pour into with purpose.

Whether it’s watching one of my podcast episodes materialize or popping up in the background of a Zoom meeting, they’re learning that faith, family, and calling aren’t siloed. They’re integrated. And summer gives us the margin to demonstrate that firsthand.

These are the moments that shape character, not standardized tests.

A growing movement

Too often, summer is seen as downtime before “real life.” But for us, it’s as real as life gets.

I know many parents don’t enjoy such freedom. That’s why I’m also encouraged by the rise of what policymakers now call “parent‑directed education” (instead of “homeschooling”).

Across the U.S., more than 3.7 million students are now being educated at home, reflecting a profound shift in how families view schooling. Our home state of Florida — where my wife serves on the State Board of Education — leads the nation with the largest homeschooling population. Around 155,000 students are educated at home as of the 2022‑23 school year, adding nearly 70,000 learners since 2017.

RELATED: Want to homeschool? Read this first

Photo by Jessica Lewis via Unsplash

Florida isn’t just the top state in numbers. It’s the conservative test bed for parent‑directed education. Thanks to voucher expansions under Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), homeschoolers now receive state-funded education savings accounts alongside private and charter students. That public support recognizes a crucial truth: Parents — not bureaucrats — deserve the right to direct their children’s formation.

Forging family and future

Yes, summer ends. And yes, school matters, and we’ll rejoice when they go back — especially to a Catholic classroom that lives up to its calling. But I refuse to rush the last golden days with my kids. Summer’s lessons — for our family, for the future — are just different.

So no, I’m not racing back to the academic calendar. I’m squeezing every barefoot, sunlit, bored (in the best way) moment with the people God called me to raise.

Let them learn from campfires and daydreams, from sibling squabbles and midnight conversations. Because true learning — the kind grounded in freedom, faith, and family — doesn’t fit in a syllabus.

And at the heart of it all, what makes summer truly irreplaceable is us. Me. My wife. Our family. Present. Laughing. Slowing down long enough to notice who we’re becoming together.

That’s the education I’ll fight hardest to protect.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Homeschooling, Summer camp, Summer, School, Education, Catholic school 

I’m as close to a card-carrying evangelical as you can get. I tote my Bible everywhere, I’m married to a Baptist pastor/chaplain, and I hold fast to sola scriptura.

But since I first waded into the culture war more than a decade ago, I’ve experienced a surprising and sweet solidarity … with Catholics.

Yes, our differences matter. Yes, we should debate them. But we must refuse to destroy one another in the process.

Catholic thinkers first introduced me to natural law, a framework that became the foundation of my nonprofit’s work, Them Before Us. Over the years, I’ve stood shoulder to shoulder with Catholic friends in the trenches of some of our most significant cultural battles: fighting the transgender juggernaut, overturning Roe v. Wade, and defending parental rights against government overreach. None of those victories could have been accomplished had either side fought alone.

And yet, lately, I’ve been watching that solidarity fray. If we don’t recognize what’s happening and why, it will strip us of the ability to wage successful future battles.

Shared battlefields, different churches

Make no mistake: I’m not suggesting that our theological differences don’t matter. They do.

I’ve had Catholic friends tell me, lovingly, that they’re praying that I’ll “come home to the one true Church.” I’ve smiled and told them, just as lovingly, that I don’t believe the veil was torn so I could pray to St. Joseph.

I’m deeply uneasy with the level of attention given to Mary (“It’s not worship, it’s veneration,” they’ve explained to me over and over). But I also believe many Protestants undervalue Mary’s radical obedience and submission to God. Fun fact: Years ago, I even named a brief LLC “The Lord’s Handmaid” because I wanted everything in my work to reflect Mary’s posture, “Let it be done to me according to Your word.”

They think I don’t know enough church history. And to be fair … they’re right. I was shocked when I overheard a Catholic share that her favorite verse was found in the Book of David.

We have significant doctrinal differences, worth discussing, worth debating, even worth worshiping separately over. But the differences have never escalated into open warfare between us. And the peace we’ve worked to keep has yielded real, tangible results — wins we’d never see without cooperation.

Shots across the Tiber

But something’s shifted. In recent months, I’ve seen evangelicals and Catholics turn on each other in ways I haven’t witnessed before.

Maybe it’s because conservatives have regained some level of cultural influence, at least online, and old tensions are resurfacing. Maybe it’s because conflict drives traffic and subscriptions for those who monetize outrage. Whatever the reason, the tone has grown brutal. Personal. Ugly.

Instead of sharpening one another through debate, we’re seeing believers on both sides calling each other stupid. Hypocritical. We’re seeing slander, misrepresentation, and clickbait-level caricatures.

Meanwhile, there are wolves at the door — figures like Father James Martin on the Catholic side and Matthew Vines on the Protestant side — actively working to erode the teachings of both traditions. I would, and have, sent my children to learn (about philosophy, relationships, marriage, IVF, transgenderism) under faithful Catholic teachers. I would never do the same with Preston Sprinkle or Jen Hatmaker. I have far more in common with faithful Catholics than with progressive Protestants who have rejected biblical truth.

And yet, if we let these intra-Christian fractures widen, our fragile but powerful unity will crumble. And when it does, so will our ability to face what’s still ahead.

The battle ahead requires us both

My nonprofit, Them Before Us, is spearheading a coalition to challenge gay marriage. It’s equal to, or maybe more difficult than, the task of overturning Roe v. Wade. Retaking and restoring the institution of marriage, legally and culturally, will demand a united front.

It can’t be done by Catholics alone. It can’t be done by Protestants alone. And it definitely can’t be done if we waste our strength sniping at each other while the real enemy advances.

Yes, our differences matter. Yes, we should debate them. But we must refuse to destroy one another in the process. The stakes for children, families, and the future are far too high for friendly fire.

Faithful Catholics and Protestants may never worship under the same roof, but we can and must fight under the same banner for the sake of the children whose futures hang in the balance. Let’s debate with respect but lock arms where it counts, so together we can reclaim the one institution that safeguards every child: marriage.

This article was adapted from an essay originally published on Katy Faust’s Substack, Them Before Us.

​Protestants, Catholic church, Catholics, Christianity, Christians, God, Jesus, Bible, Faith 

I’d been in Budapest for a week, and I was running out of things to do, so I decided to check out a free walking tour.

Usually with these, you walk around with a local person who tells you random things: some local history, a little trivia, maybe a famous war they fought in 1832 that you’ve never heard of.

The Japanese girls became confused. And frustrated. Sofia tried to explain. Under communism, you were constantly denied things. Sometimes the leaders did this on purpose.

Often these tours were not very good. Often, they were so bad you had to sneak off in the middle of them.

This tour met up in a downtown park. I got there a little early and sat on a bench nearby. That way, I could escape if the tour group didn’t look promising.

People started to show up. Three college-age Japanese girls. A young American couple (newlyweds?). A German woman and her daughter. Other random tourists. About a dozen in all.

But I still kept my distance. I wanted to see what the tour guide looked like before I committed.

Punk perambulator

Finally, the guide showed up. It was a woman. 50-ish? Her name was Sofia. She was dressed all in black. She looked like the “cool” gender studies professor at your local community college. Short, dyed-black hair in an ’80s, punkish style.

In Budapest, it was often difficult to size people up by their fashion choices or their appearance. The city was still struggling style-wise because of its long history under Soviet rule. There were still a lot of babushka ladies wandering around.

But Sofia was at least trying to look like a chic European intellectual. That seemed like a positive sign.

I got off my bench. I joined the group

Nice revolution — when’s lunch?

She started us off with some normal stuff. The park we were standing in once held a famous rock concert. Pink Floyd? Metallica? Rock Against Racism? Something like that.

She told us some basic Budapest history. Lots of wars. Lots of violence and political upheaval.

She must have mentioned the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, which is a huge deal in Hungary. The people rose up against their communist rulers, and for a brief moment — a week or two — it appeared they might free themselves from Soviet rule.

But the communists regained control and of course executed anyone even remotely associated with the rebellion. I don’t remember how much Sofia said about this. And even if she did, our little tour group would probably not absorb it.

That is the nature of tours like this. You tell ordinary tourists about wars and brutality and horrific events, and they just nod and ask about lunch.

Hungary heart

About half way through the tour, Sofia began to talk about her family. By now, everyone liked Sofia, myself included. She was engaging. She was easy to listen to. Her English wasn’t the greatest, but that added to her appeal.

She told us about growing up in Budapest. She talked about her parents and siblings. Her father was educated and had a good job. Her mother was a teacher. They lived not far from where we were walking.

She described her childhood. For one thing, they didn’t have toys. They had other things to play with. But you couldn’t just go to the store and buy a Barbie doll. They didn’t have things like that.

Wait for it

Then she explained how her mother had to stand in breadlines. And sometimes her father would have to buy food on the black market. It was illegal to do this, but everyone did it. Sometimes you had no choice.

When Sofia got older, she only had two dresses and very uncomfortable shoes. The shoes were so stiff and badly made that by the time they stopped giving you blisters, you’d outgrown them.

Everyone listened without comment as she described these hardships. Nobody asked any questions. Sofia explained how frustrating it was to stand in a two-hour line, twice a week, to get bread. The tour group nodded their heads.

Droog, where’s my car?

Then she explained about the car. Her father had ordered a car when she was a child, maybe 6 years old. So she was excited that they were going to get a car. The whole family was.

But as Sofia got older, the car didn’t come. And this wasn’t the 1930s when cars were rare. This was the 1980s, when everyone in Western Europe had a car. Sofia and her friends could see on TV how common cars were in the rest of the world. But they were still waiting for her father’s car to come.

Eventually, Sofia turned 12. Still no car. And then her family stopped talking about it. Sofia continued to get older. She got well into her teens. The dream of riding in a car with her family was eventually forgotten.

The cheating classes

This was the point when one of the Japanese girls raised her hand. She didn’t understand about the car. Why didn’t her family get their car? Did Hungary not have factories to build cars?

Yes, said Sofia. They did build cars, but you had to wait to get one.

The Japanese girls didn’t understand. Why did they have to wait? Did her father not have the money for the car?

Yes, Sofia assured her, he had the money, but the car was like the bread. The government had the bread. They just made you wait for it. And sometimes, even if you waited a long time, you still couldn’t get it.

The Japanese girls became confused. And frustrated. Sofia tried to explain. Under communism, you were constantly denied things. Sometimes the leaders did this on purpose, to maintain control of the people.

Other times it happened because the leaders didn’t know how to run the country. The factory would break down. Or someone in the government would steal your car.

Beggaring belief

Everyone in our tour group thought this was very bad. The newlywed couple shook their heads. This wasn’t right. They didn’t like hearing about this.

Sofia explained that there was nothing you could do. You couldn’t leave the country. That wasn’t allowed. You couldn’t move to a different town. You couldn’t even move to a different apartment without permission. And then you had to bribe someone.

The Japanese girls looked at each other. There was a kind of rebellion in the tour group. Like, surely, it couldn’t have been that bad. Surely, Sofia was exaggerating.

I could feel Sofia getting upset on her side. How could these young people not know about this? This was history. Sofia thought everyone knew.

As I looked around, I saw that I might be the only one who fully believed Sofia’s story.

RELATED: What moving my family to Budapest has taught me about America

nedomacki/Getty Images

Cruel summer

I had visited several communist countries in the 1980s. I was shocked by how poor they were, how hopeless the people seemed, how cruel everyone was to each other. It was illegal to criticize the government, so they turned on each other.

But the nice Japanese girls couldn’t imagine that. It seemed impossible to them that a person could not have a car if he had the money to buy a car.

The other young people were also incredulous. Sofia’s father had a good job, but she couldn’t have toys? How was that possible?

And breadlines? You could tell people had heard of “breadlines.” But that couldn’t have happened to people in a modern society. How could there not be bread? That was the cheapest thing in the supermarket where they lived.

Tour’s end

When the tour officially ended, our group shifted back into docile tourist mode. Everyone thanked Sofia and gave her generous tips. Most people seemed happy and genuinely impressed by her, despite those few tense moments near the end.

And now they felt sorry for her. Having no toys as a child? And no car for her family? How sad!

The Japanese girls were especially polite and gracious. They were sorry if they had offended her. Sofia would get their highest ratings on Yelp, or whatever the equivalent was in Japan.

I hung back and waited for everyone else to leave. I had a big tip for Sofia. Also, I wanted to ask her to lunch. Or coffee. I liked her. I thought she was cool.

When it was just her and me, I quickly told her that I had been in Eastern Europe myself. Back in the 1980s. And I knew she was right. I had seen it myself.

On the other hand, I could understand how younger people had trouble believing it. It must seem like another age to them.

She agreed and thanked me. She took my money. But she never really made eye contact. She seemed wary of me. And suspicious in general. So I didn’t ask her to lunch.

Trust fall

Instead, I watched her hurry away. And then I had a weird thought: What if she did exaggerate the communist stuff? Probably that would get her bigger tips.

And what if she didn’t even live under communism? I couldn’t tell how old she was. 40? 50?

Maybe she was just repeating stories she’d heard from older people. What if she wasn’t even from Budapest?

I turned and headed back to my hotel. That’s how it is in cities like Budapest. A lot of strange stuff goes on. You never knew who was telling the truth, who you could trust, what the reality of the situation was.

And this was 30 years after communism fell. And it was still like that.

​Lifestyle, Culture, Socialism, Cold war, Hungary, Eastern block, Budapest, Breadlines, First person 

BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock doesn’t agree with Michelle Obama often, but when he does, it’s because she’s laughing at the expense of ESPN host Stephen A. Smith — which she did on a recent segment of her podcast.

“If I listen to ESPN for an hour, it’s like watching ‘The Real Housewives of Atlanta,’ you know? I mean, you know, it’s the same drama, and they’re yelling at each other, and they don’t get along, you know?” Obama said, before bringing up Stephen A. Smith.

“He’d be a great real housewife,” one of her guests chimed in.

“He would be, right?” Obama laughed.

“I’m like, what’s the difference? It’s just, you know, it’s just a sociological drama. I mean, the fact that people over seasons of working together still can’t get along, right? They still have the same arguments, and it’s just not women, but this happens in sports too. I find it fascinating,” Obama continued.

“This has got to be a high point for ESPN. … They’re talking about how feminine ESPN is. Hats off to Stephen A. Smith and Bob Iger and Gilbert Arenas and Shannon Sharpe. You have feminized ESPN,” Whitlock laughs.

“They look like a bunch of desperate housewives from Atlanta,” he continues. “Could they be calling you more ghetto than that?”

Whitlock isn’t letting Joy Taylor, who hinted in an interview that she was moving to Barstool, off the hook either.

“It just fits,” he says. “She’s a desperate housewife. She’s sexually liberated. Makes perfect sense for her to wind up at Barstool.”

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

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

​Blaze news, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Blaze podcast network, Blaze podcasts, Blazetv, Camera phone, Desperate house wives, Fearless with jason whitlock, Free, Michelle obama, Real housewives of atlanta, Sharing, Stephen a smith, The blaze, Upload, Video, Video phone, Youtube.com 

The death of a loved one can prove devastating for a surviving spouse or parent. A study published on July 24 in the journal Frontiers in Public Health revealed that the bereaved faced an increased risk of dying from grief.

Research has long shown associations between bereavement and increased cortisol secretion, sleep disturbance, immune imbalance, inflammation, blood clots, and heart conditions, including Takotsubo cardiomyopathy — also called broken heart syndrome — and arrhythmias.

Numerous studies have also indicated that those grieving the loss of a loved one are at higher risk of dying.

A 2014 study in JAMA Internal Medicine, for instance, showed “25% higher mortality in the first year after partner bereavement in older couples, with a peak in the first 3 months.” Within 30 days of a spouse’s death, the study found that persons ages 60 or older were found to face twice the risk of a heart attack or stroke compared to those who had not suffered such a loss.

Dr. Lisa Shulman, a professor of neurology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, told American Heart Association News that the death of a loved one triggers the body’s “fight or flight” response: “Your heart starts racing, your blood pressure increases, your respiratory rate increases, you become sweaty, as the body marshals defenses for you to protect yourself, one way or another.”

Shulman indicated that in some cases, grief can leave widows and widowers in a state of permanent stress.

RELATED: This is true fatherhood: My dad’s final act defined love and manhood

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Dr. George Slavich, director of the Laboratory for Stress Assessment and Research at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, indicated that prolonged grief can be debilitating for some individuals and is linked to serious health consequences, including increased risk for cancer and mortality.

The new study in Frontiers bolsters the connection between grief and mortality.

In the study, Danish researchers tracked the long-term health outcomes of 1,735 bereaved men and women over the course of 10 years. The median age of the participants at the time of enrollment was 62.

A national register of drug prescriptions tipped researchers off to which patients were recently prescribed treatments for terminal conditions. After identifying the corresponding moribund patients, the researchers invited them and their loved ones to participate in the study.

Among the participating relatives of the dying patients, 66% ultimately lost their spouse, 27% lost a parent, and 7% lost another kind of loved relation.

The researchers assessed participants’ grief symptoms prior to bereavement, six months after bereavement, and three years after bereavement, and divided the participants into five common categories of trajectories with those suffering persistently “low grief” on one end and those suffering persistently “high grief” on the other end.

Those in the “high grief” camp stood an 88% higher risk of dying within 10 years than those in the “low grief” camp.

Those in the “high grief” camp saw 186% higher odds of receiving talk therapy or other mental health services, 463% higher odds of being prescribed antidepressants, and 160% higher odds of being prescribed sedatives or anxiety drugs.

During the 10-year study period, 21.5% of the bereaved relatives in the “high grief” camp died. Only 7.3% of those in the “low grief” trajectory perished.

Dr. Mette Kjærgaard Nielsen noted that, “The ‘high grief’ group had lower education on average, and their more frequent use of medication before bereavement suggested that they had signs of mental vulnerability, which may cause greater distress on bereavement.”

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

​Science, Heartbreak, Health, Study, Mourning, Despair, Sadness, Physiology, Psychology, Politics 

Just three days after President Donald Trump announced his 2024 presidential campaign, Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland unlawfully appointed prosecutor Jack Smith as special counsel to oversee two criminal investigations into the Republican candidate.

One of the Justice Department’s investigations concerned Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents; the other pertained to the imagined efforts by Trump to subvert the 2020 election.

While it was immediately clear to Trump that Smith was “a political hit man who is totally compromised,” Garland’s special counsel soon gave critics cause to suspect the president’s instincts were right once again.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey told Blaze Media co-founder and nationally syndicated radio host Glenn Beck last year that the Biden DOJ’s “witch hunt prosecution” of Trump was “not designed to obtain a legally valid conviction. It’s designed to take anyone running against Joe Biden — in other words, president Donald Trump — off the campaign trail.”

Although Trump was ultimately slapped with scores of charges, neither case went anywhere. The classified documents case was torpedoed in July 2024 because of Smiths’ unlawful appointment, and the Jan. 6 case was scuttled in November following Trump’s re-election.

Trump is no longer in hot water; however, Smith appears poised to take a plunge.

RELATED: Why an Epstein special investigator is a disastrously stupid idea

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel confirmed to Reuters on Saturday that it has launched an investigation into whether Smith violated the Hatch Act — a federal law that prohibits government employees both from using their “official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election” or from engaging in partisan political activity while on official duty time.

The investigation by the independent federal prosecutorial agency follows a request by Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton (R), who has accused Smith of interfering in the 2024 presidential election.

‘President Trump’s astounding victory doesn’t excuse Smith of responsibility for his unlawful election interference.’

“Jack Smith’s legal actions were nothing more than a tool for the Biden and Harris campaigns. This isn’t just unethical, it is very likely illegal campaign activity from a public office,” Cotton wrote.

In a July 30 letter to Jamieson Greer, acting special counsel at the OSC, Cotton highlighted a number of instances where Smith expedited trial proceedings and released provocative information allegedly “with no legitimate purpose.”

Cotton noted, for example, that Smith tried to rush Trump’s election subversion case, demanding a trial start date of Jan. 2, 2024 — just four months and three weeks after Smith filed the indictment against the president.

“Notably,” Cotton wrote, “jury selection was to begin just two weeks before the Iowa caucuses.”

RELATED: Ratcliffe releases damning Durham annex. Here’s what it reveals about Obama-Clinton Russia collusion hoax.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

In another example, Cotton said that Smith filed a brief on Trump’s immunity from prosecution that was 165 pages long — exceeding the normal maximum page limit by four times — and “incorporated grand jury testimony typically kept secret at this point in other proceedings.”

“This action appears to be a deliberate and underhanded effort to disclose unsubstantiated and extensive allegations timed to maximize electoral impact,” Cotton wrote.

“These actions were not standard, necessary, or justified — unless Smith’s real purpose was to influence the election,” wrote the senator. “President Trump of course vanquished Joe Biden, Jack Smith, every Democrat who weaponized the law against him, but President Trump’s astounding victory doesn’t excuse Smith of responsibility for his unlawful election interference.”

The OSC could reportedly refer its findings to the DOJ; however, the Justice Department is already reviewing “politicized” actions taken by Smith, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and New York Attorney General Letitia James through its Weaponization Working Group.

Blaze News has reached out to the White House for comment. Politico indicated that Smith did not immediately respond to its request for comment.

Smith’s office altogether blew over $47 million in taxpayer dollars on the two failed probes. He noted in his investigative report on Trump, “While we were not able to bring the cases we charged to trial, I believe the fact that our team stood up for the rule of law matters.”

Smith resigned 10 days before the president’s inauguration.

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

​Jack smith, Special counsel, Lawfare, Weaponization, Tom cotton, Donald trump, Office of special counsel, Osc, Investigation, Election interference, Election, Joe biden, Merrick garland, Politics 

My son moved out of the house this spring. My daughter moves out in a couple of weeks, and my older kids are headed up north. Now, it’s just Tania and me — and it’s been quiet. Too quiet.

As I sit here in a house full of space and silence, my mind has been meditating on the reality of being a dad — and what that really means.

As a father, I’ve learned that sometimes the most important thing is simply showing up and doing the best I can — even when I’m not sure what that looks like.

I didn’t grow up with the model of fatherhood that I now find myself trying to live out. My dad wasn’t present. He worked hard — harder than most people I’ve ever met — but he wasn’t there for me the way I needed him to be. My dad was passionate about his job, and that job was providing for the family. He taught me about hard work, but there wasn’t much emotional connection. We didn’t start developing any real relationship until I was 30.

I’m not complaining. That was just the reality. But such memories inevitably materialize as I reflect on my own experience as a father and try to navigate this new chapter in my life.

When my kids were little, it was clear that I wasn’t home enough. And looking back, I knew that my work — this job — was costing me time with them. But we all talked about it as a family. When the opportunity to make this career change came in 2006, we discussed it openly because we knew it would change everything, for better or for worse. We made the decision as a team.

Now that they’re moved out, I walk around in this big house filled with all this stuff, considering whether anything was worth it. In the end, it’s just stuff. Everything in my home could be gone, and all I would miss are the kids.

The reality of fatherhood

Something I thought — and I think many others can relate — is that you think that your main job is to provide. You’re not needed in the same way mom is. You’re not the one the baby looks to in those early years. You watch your wife bond with the child, and you wonder where you fit in. It’s a strange feeling.

But as I’ve come to learn, you are needed in more ways than just a provider. You just don’t always get the immediate connection that mothers do.

A special season starts around age seven when dad becomes a little magical. You can feel it. The connection is there. It’s that sweet spot before the teenage years, when everything is awkward, when both dad and kid seem to be at odds. But in those years before, it’s golden.

Then, it all changes.

As kids hit the teen years, they start to pull away. The relationship with dad often becomes strained. They turn to mom when they need comfort, leaving dad in the background, unsure of where he stands. And that’s fine. That’s how it goes. But in this phase of life, as the kids start moving out and forging their own paths, I wish things were different.

I feel that loss deeply. As a father who wasn’t home all the time, I worked to provide. But now, I’m left with this ache in my chest, wondering, “Did I do enough?”

Releasing the outcome

The hardest part of fatherhood is when you stop expecting a certain outcome. My wife often tells me, “It’s going to happen. It will all work out.” And I believe her. But honestly, it’s hard not to be caught in the endless loop of second-guessing. Did I make the right decisions? Did I do enough? How can I fix this?

This struggle isn’t just about fatherhood. It’s about life. I’ve spent so much time looking ahead, planning, pointing to the horizon. I could always see the future and strive toward it. But in this season of life, I’m realizing that we also need to release our attachment to the outcome — whether it be over the injustices we see in the news cycle or the things we are wrestling with in our individual lives.

RELATED: How strong fathers shatter a poisonous narrative about manhood — one child at a time

Photo by Kelli McClintock via Unsplash

It doesn’t mean we’re not engaged. It just means we have to stop wanting a specific outcome. It’s a journey where the road is uncertain, and the destination might look different than what I expected.

I’ve always been someone who could picture the future and work relentlessly toward it. But it’s not just about getting to the destination — it’s about being present in the moment, doing the next right thing, and giving the end result to God.

Applying this to life

We live in a world obsessed with results, with winning, with reaching that end goal. But what if, just for a moment, we stopped obsessing over the outcome? What if we focused on doing the next right thing, one step at a time?

I don’t have all the answers. I’m still figuring it out. But what I do know is that there’s beauty in the process. There’s meaning in the moments, even if they don’t lead to the perfect outcome. As a father, I’ve learned that sometimes the most important thing is simply showing up and doing the best I can — even when I’m not sure what that looks like.

The house is quiet now, but the work isn’t over. There’s still plenty to do. And it’s time to focus on making each moment count.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn’s FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Glenn beck, Fatherhood 

Unbeknownst to many, the New York Times has a podcast called “The Opinions,” which features columnists, staff writers, guest essayists, and editors diving into various issues and ideas.

In the latest episode titled “Why the Right Is Obsessed with Thinness,” Times opinion editor Meher Ahmad and opinion writer Jessica Grose discussed how being thin and fit is an unhealthy right-wing obsession.

BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales analyzes several audio clips from the interview.

In the first clip, Ahmad opens the podcast with the following preamble: “There’s been a resurgence in explicit ‘be thin’ messaging in culture. With the Ozempic boom, we see the body shaming of actresses like Sydney Sweeney and red carpets that were already filled with thin actresses becoming even thinner. On the right, there’s been a focus on body size that’s sort of been bundled up not just with health and wellness, but with religion, morals, and politics.”

“Being skinny is related to Christianity, I guess,” scoffs Sara.

In the second clip, Grose argues that conservatives are elevating thinness as a response to the body positivity movement.

“I think it’s a reaction to the body positivity movement, which I would say peaked about 10 years ago, and it was the idea that weight is not tied directly to health and that you can be healthy and not real thin. It was never predominant,” she says.

“That’s not what the body positivity movement has ever been,” Sara corrects.

“The leaders of the body positivity movement said things like, ‘Fat is fit, BMI is not a measure of wellness, healthy at every size, body size does not indicate health.”’

“We can have a debate on what people deem beautiful … but you can’t tell me that being morbidly obese is actually healthy, and yet, that is the lie that they tried to put on young women.”

In the third clip, Grose argues that conservative influencers aim to be attractive and physically fit because those endeavors align with conservative values, especially traditional gender roles: “It’s all traditional gender roles, right? I mean that litany of things … like marriage, babies, fitness, protein — it’s all one very narrow image, and anyone who is not conforming to that image is sort of outside the circle.”

“We do see fewer female leaders across the board, I would say Democrats and Republicans, and so the idea that women should be physically smaller goes along with the idea that they are not going to be the ones out front taking up space,” she added.

“It’s just so funny listening to them talk about, oh, conservative women, they just want to be physically smaller so they can take a backseat to all the powerful men. OK, well, I don’t know, I think that we’re doing OK as a whole here,” scoffs Sara, displaying a collage of beautiful conservative women who have large platforms and a lot of influence, including Alex Clark, Riley Gaines, Candace Owens, Lara Trump, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), and Nicole Shanahan, among others.

To hear more audio clips and more of Sara’s analysis, watch the episode above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

​Sara gonzales unfiltered, Sara gonzales, Blazetv, Blaze media, New york times, Conservatives, Liberals, Body positivity movement 

Jean Garnett’s recent New York Times screed, “The Trouble with Wanting Men,” poses as cultural critique. It’s not.

It’s a bloated confession, narcissistic navel-gazing wrapped in feminist jargon.

If heterosexual relationships are fundamentally broken, what, one wonders, is the solution? Lesbianism by committee? Celibacy as political statement?

The article reads like a therapy session conducted in public. Unfiltered, sure — but more like a late-night voicemail from an unhinged ex. And painfully personal, without ever brushing up against anything profound. It’s Lena Dunham with a thesaurus, mistaking self-exposure for substance.

Fatal attraction

The premise is absurd. Women are “fed up” with the “mating behavior” of men. So fed up that they need a fancy name for it. Heterofatalism — the academy’s latest made-up spew. A term coined to canonize female disappointment and package failed flings as compelling commentary.

The term suggests fatal attraction to heterosexuality itself. As if being straight were a terminal diagnosis. As if desire for men were a character flaw requiring academic intervention.

Consider the writer’s “case studies,” if you can call them that. A man cancels a date because he’s anxious. This, we’re told, is proof of masculine failure.

A lawyer takes too long to text back. Suddenly it’s a crisis in male communication.

Then there’s the polyamorous sex enthusiast — honest, up front, emotionally literate. And yet even he disappoints. Too clear. Too composed. Too self-aware to project fantasy onto. His failure, it seems, is not failing enough. In Garnett’s world, men can’t win — not because they’re cruel, but because they’re human.

Tramp stamp

Garnett’s romantic history tells the real story, though she frames it as a feminist awakening. She and her husband enjoyed an open relationship, a setup that gave her license to chase new highs under the banner of sexual liberation.

What follows isn’t empowerment. It’s a slow-motion train wreck of bad choices, dressed up as theory. She blows up her marriage for a man defined by his “incapacity to commit” — J., the sad-eyed drifter who all but hands her a warning label. He’s detached, clear about his limits, uninterested in anything lasting. She pursues him anyway, certain she’s the exception.

When it all falls apart, as it inevitably does, she blames him for being exactly who he said he was. Garnett might be a capable writer, but she’s adrift — romantically, intellectually, and morally. Deluded, self-excusing, and painfully detached from reality, she isn’t just a product of modern feminism. She’s its poster child.

Soft boys

The “good guy” phenomenon reveals the deeper pathology. Men, having internalized decades of feminist scolding, now perform contrition. They soften their edges. They distance themselves from anything deemed traditionally masculine. They over-apologize, over-communicate, and tiptoe through relationships as if masculinity itself were a moral failing.

But this softness — the very quality they were told women wanted — has become the new target. Too hesitant. Too self-conscious. Too accommodating. In trying to be safe, they became invisible. The irony is brutal: Women spent years dismantling the masculine ideal, only to mourn its absence once it was gone.

Whine tasting

Garnett and her dinner companions ask, “Where are the men who can handle hard stuff?” They drove them out. They turned strength into suspicion, decisiveness into something diabolical. Now, faced with the results of their own demands, they sneer at the men left behind.

The restaurant scene is a window into this cultural mess. Four women, past their prime, wine in hand, mocking male inadequacy, giggling over penis jokes like it’s political commentary.

This woman’s work

Then comes the grievance inflation monologue. Women, apparently, are now burdened with interpreting “mystifying male cues.” They call themselves “relationship-maintenance experts,” as if carrying the emotional weight of a partnership is a modern injustice. But relationships have always required attention and effort, from both sides. What was once called being an adult is now considered a form of oppression.

And then there’s the pièce de résistance: “hermeneutic labor.” A term so overstuffed that it buckles under its own pretension. It’s academic nonsense for what used to be called understanding your partner.

Women read signals. Men retreat. That’s the rhythm. One leans in, the other pulls back. Not because of patriarchy, but because intimacy is uneven, unpredictable, and often inconvenient. This dynamic didn’t arrive with gender studies. It’s been around since the first couple argued under a tree.

Rebel without a cause

Garnett’s sexual encounters reveal the true dynamic. She wants dominance from men. The guitar player who makes her wait, who calls her a “bratty sub.” This excites her. Clear masculine authority works.

Yet she simultaneously resents male confidence as problematic. It never occurs to her that the contradiction isn’t societal. It’s entirely personal. She’s not uncovering a grand cultural flaw. She is the flaw.

The contradiction is stark. Feminist theory demands male sensitivity. Female biology craves male strength. Women caught between ideology and instinct blame men for the confusion. “Heterofatalism” becomes the convenient scapegoat.

Consider the broader implications. If heterosexual relationships are fundamentally broken, what, one wonders, is the solution? Lesbianism by committee? Celibacy as political statement? The heterofatalists offer no answers, only complaints. So many complaints.

The real tragedy is simpler. Modern dating culture has poisoned romantic relationships for everyone. Apps reduce people to profiles. Hookup culture eliminates courtship. Endless options prevent commitment. Both sexes suffer equally.

But women have weaponized their suffering into theoretical frameworks. Men’s pain remains invisible, their struggles dismissed as weakness, their anxiety mocked as inadequacy.

Intellectualizing idiocy

The solution is not new terminology. It’s old wisdom. Lower expectations. Accept imperfection. Stop treating romantic disappointment as social pathology. Recognize that good relationships require compromise from both parties.

“Heterofatalism” is not a real phenomenon, of course. It’s a fancy name for ordinary human disappointment, a way to intellectualize personal failures, to repackage private mistakes as cultural critique. To turn individual shortcomings into a shared burden everyone else is expected to answer for.

Academia enables the absurdity. Professors build careers on cataloging female dissatisfaction. Students earn degrees studying their own disastrous dating decisions. The circular logic is perfect. Every bad date becomes data. Every ghosting proves the theory.

Meanwhile, actual problems go unsolved. Birth rates collapse. Marriage rates plummet. Loneliness epidemics spread. But sure, let’s focus on heterofatalism. Let’s give hyper-liberal women another reason to avoid commitment. Another excuse to blame men for everything.

The real fatalism is accepting this story of victimhood, thinking half the population are powerless against their own desires. Women deserve better than this pseudo-intellectual mush. Men deserve better than being cast as villains in every failed relationship. And society deserves more than recycled heartbreak dressed up in academic drag.

We need honesty about modern romance. Not another made-up term for problems as old as desire itself.

​Dating, Lifestyle, Media, Media criticism, New york times, Heterofatalism, Feminism, Chattering classes 

Are Christians really trying to “cancel” Chip and Joanna Gaines?

The Magnolia power couple faced backlash last month over their new reality show, “Back to the Frontier,” because it features a homosexual couple with two children acquired via surrogacy. Understandably, Christians voiced dismay and disapproval that Chip and Jo — who once faced leftist wrath for being members of an evangelical church that opposed LGBTQ ideology — had capitulated to the rainbow mafia.

It’s possible to love people while still being honest about sin. Christians do this every day.

But according to New York Times columnist David French, the backlash is not about concerns over biblical fidelity. No, it’s really an example of “Christian cancel culture.”

In his telling, conservative Christians are behaving “exactly like their cultural opponents” because they feel “powerful” and wield “influence” to abuse it. And, of course, French accuses conservative Christians of hypocrisy because many of them support President Donald Trump.

Worse yet, French describes these Christians as “budding authoritarians.”

French’s broadside is as predictable as it is shallow (he regularly smears conservative Christians). He paints biblical conviction as “hypocrisy,” hides behind the “But Trump!” distraction, and pretends that calling sin by name amounts to silencing people.

But this isn’t an example of cancel culture. This is Christians exercising biblical discernment and refusing to support what God calls evil.

Not cancel culture

Everyone knows what cancel culture is. We’ve all seen it. It’s about seizing on people’s worst moments and erasing them: silencing them, destroying their careers, and driving them out of the public square.

But that’s not what’s happening here. Christians aren’t trying to strip Chip and Jo of their Magnolia empire, remove them from television, or erase them from polite society. Christians are not even demanding that “Back to the Frontier” be canceled.

What’s happening here is quite different — but much simpler.

Faithful Christians are calling out Chip and Jo — whom Christians have supported for more than a decade — for giving a platform to an anti-God lifestyle that harms children by depriving them of God’s design for a mother and father, a lifestyle the Bible explicitly condemns and Christianity has never endorsed.

That’s not cancel culture. It’s moral clarity and biblical accountability.

RELATED: Chip Gaines tells us not to judge — but we won’t pretend any more

Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images for Warner Bros. Discovery

French deliberately blurs this distinction because his argument collapses without it. He wants his audience to believe that public disagreement with someone’s decision is equivalent to the mob-driven erasure tactics of progressive cancel culture.

But scripture makes this distinction clear. When public sin is celebrated, public correction is often the prescribed remedy. Such accountability is not about “cancellation” but protecting the witness of the church and encouraging fellow Christians back to the truth.

The Christian problem with “Back to the Frontier” is obvious: Chip and Joanna Gaines decided or agreed to use their platform — one that Christian support helped build — to normalize sin. This is bad because it confuses believers, distorts the gospel, and damages the church’s witness.

‘But Trump!’

Like a playlist on repeat, French can’t resist making this, in some form or another, about Trump. In his view, conservative Christians lack the moral credibility to critique Chip and Jo because many of those same critics also support Trump.

But this is a tired and overused false equivalence.

I dare say not a single Christian voter who supports Trump endorses his sins — just as they don’t endorse the sins of anyone else. Voting for a candidate in an election is not the same thing as endorsing the candidate’s personal decisions. In fact, many Christians who support Trump vote for him in spite of his moral flaws. And, of course, the truth is that many Christians believe Trump’s policies more closely align with a biblical worldview than whatever gobbledygook the Democrats have on offer.

Here’s the real hypocrisy: While French lectures Christians about morality, he supports Democrats whose worldviews, ethics, morals, and political platforms are empty of anything that resembles Christian ethics or a biblical worldview.

How can someone who endorsed Joe Biden and voted for Kamala Harris seriously lecture other Christians about the morality of their vote, then use that vote as a cudgel to smear them? If French were serious about rooting out Christian hypocrisy, he’d start with his own politics.

A time for courage

Christians don’t want to cancel Chip and Jo. We’re simply being clear about what’s true and false, what’s good and evil in an age where everything is upside down.

Now is the time for Christians to stand up and courageously proclaim God’s truth with love.

What we cannot do is celebrate, excuse, justify, or normalize sin, especially sin of this magnitude, an issue that is foundational to creation and shapes the very fabric of society. And we definitely shouldn’t capitulate to the culture for the sake of pluralism, as French suggests we do. That’s not cancel culture. It’s what Jesus calls being “salt” and “light.”

After all, what good is salt if it has lost its saltiness?

On this issue, French is like a light hidden under a basket. He is not only dead wrong about his conclusions, but his framing is dishonest. This isn’t about cancel culture or partisan politics. The real issue here is whether Christians will be faithful to God and His ways or whether they will bend to a culture that hates God and His truth.

It’s possible to love people while still being honest about sin. Christians do this every day. Love does not require complicity.

The Christian faith isn’t a private hobby. It’s a comprehensive worldview that speaks to every part of life. If God’s design for sexuality and family is true — and it is — then pretending to be neutral in the public square is just another form of surrender.

That’s why Christians must reject French’s false equivalences and cheap moralism. Because in the end, this isn’t about Chip and Joanna Gaines. It’s about whether the church will have the courage to tell the truth and discern the difference between light and darkness.

Chip and Jo just gave Christians a test. The backlash — epitomized by David French’s absurd accusations — only confirmed how urgent it is for Christians to pass that test with flying colors.

​Chip and jo, Chip gaines, Joanna gaines, New york times, Christianity, Christians, David french, Lgbtq agenda, Faith 

Hyper-realistic baby dolls, commonly called reborn dolls, originated in the 1990s as a benign artistic hobby for doll collectors and artists who sought to push back against mass-produced dolls by creating lifelike versions using techniques including repainting, rooting hair, and adding realistic details.

For decades, this avocation remained niche, but in recent years, reborn dolls have become mainstream. Social media is saturated with content capturing adult women toting their reborn dolls around, treating them as actual children. Even the Wall Street Journal published an article about the waxing lucrativity of the reborn doll world, with prices ranging from a few hundred to several thousand dollars for a single doll.

Today, there are entire conventions and expos dedicated to reborn dolls, the most notable being Dolls of the World Expo, which just held its third annual event in June.

So why are dolls, specifically hyper-realistic ones, suddenly so popular among adults?

On a recent episode of “Relatable,” Allie Beth Stuckey dove into this strange new trend that’s grown into an entire industry.

In “Why People Are Buying $8,000 Lifelike Baby Dolls,” WSJ writer Rory Satran revealed one of the main reasons the reborn doll industry has boomed: Reborn dolls have become therapy tools. “Collectors argue that the dolls can be therapeutic for women who have lost babies or suffered miscarriages,” she wrote.

Allie, however, begs to differ. “I don’t think that this is a form of redemption and therapy for people who have lost or who have struggled with infertility. In fact, I know it’s not because it is a fake replacement for something that is real, and it is a fake balm for a real deep wound,” she says.

But attempting to use dolls as a palliation isn’t just futile, it’s injurious to the human spirit.

“You are creating an infection that is going to infest your heart and your soul by trying to attach to and put hope and belonging into an inanimate object. … At some point, the humanity inside you, the conscience you have, the real grief you’re feeling will collide with the reality that this is not a real person,” Allie says.

She disputes the claim that using reborn dolls for therapeutic purposes “hurts no one.”

Elevating dolls above human children is a “problem that creates disorder” in society, she says.

“Successful and healthy societies are ordered around caring for the most vulnerable, [and] I’m not talking about a welfare state. … I’m talking about how we order our communities, how we order our own lives, our own churches, how we create these systems of care,” she clarifies.

“It is disordered when we say, ‘Well, we are actually going to sacrifice the needs of children on behalf of adult desires,’ which we see in so many different ways.”

When adults use reborn dolls to quell their suffering, they are selfishly “ignoring their responsibility to care for real children — whether they’re their own children or they’re orphans or they’re poor children or they’re foster children,” Allie says.

She then plays a disturbing social media video of a grown woman changing, feeding, and rocking her newborn doll to illustrate that this isn’t just some hobby for oddballs. It’s “a form of worship.”

To see it, 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 with allie beth stuckey, Relatable, Allie beth stuckey, Reborn dolls, Reborn therapy, Blazetv, Blaze media