Category: blaze media

We’ve all done it: You’re driving down the highway, observing the speed limit, but also making adjustments based on traffic, weather, or how late you’re running.

Now imagine your car automatically slowing you down, capping your speed regardless of what you direct. This isn’t science fiction. It’s the next move in the government’s campaign to control more of our lives, with the help of intelligent speed assistance, advanced cruise control, and vehicle-to-infrastructure systems.

The 12,000 annual deaths associated with speeding demand attention, but so does your right to choose how you drive.

With speeding linked to over 12,000 U.S. traffic deaths annually, regulators, automakers, and safety advocates argue that mandating this technology in all vehicles could save lives.

But the technology raises questions about cost, privacy, and how much control drivers should have.

Road fatalities on the rise

Here’s a look at what’s coming, the trade-offs, and what it means for your choices on the road. Based on what was passed in the last infrastructure bill, it’s not looking good.

In 2021, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that speeding contributed to 12,151 traffic deaths — about one in three fatal crashes. While other developed nations’ road fatalities have been going down, U.S. deaths have risen, with some calling it a national outlier.

Speed by itself is not dangerous, but combine that with distracted driving, inconsistent road conditions, and weather, and it can be a contributing factor to a major crash.

Regulators and safety groups are pushing technologies to address this, arguing that universal speed controls could prevent tragedies. However, drivers value the freedom to make their own decisions, and any solution must balance safety with choice.

Wouldn’t it be smarter to find out what other countries are doing to reduce their traffic deaths? The Autobahn in Germany has unlimited speeds. Is it possible that German drivers have better training than just teaching new drivers to pass the test? I think so.

Unwelcome ‘assistance’?

Let’s look at the specific technology.

Intelligent speed assistance uses GPS, digital maps, or cameras to detect speed limits and enforce them. It can warn drivers with beeps, resist accelerator pressure, or cap speed entirely.

A U.K. study associated a 37% drop in traffic deaths with ISA, and New York City’s pilot program reported 99% compliance among equipped vehicles. Europe has required ISA in all new cars since 2022, ranging from advisory alerts to mandatory caps.

In the U.S., the National Transportation Safety Board is eyeing ISA for all new cars by 2030, but no federal mandate exists yet. However, it is currently is being implemented by some states, including Virginia and New York State.

Some manufacturers are acting independently. Volvo has capped its vehicles at 112 mph since 2020, prioritizing safety over high-speed performance. Systems like Ford’s BlueCruise adjust speeds based on road signs, and similar features are appearing in premium models from GM and BMW.

California considered requiring speed alerts in new cars by 2030, but the proposal was vetoed amid concerns about driver pushback.

Bad communication

Vehicle-to-Infrastructure technology allows cars to communicate with road infrastructure, like traffic signals or school zone sensors, to adjust speeds automatically. Tests in Seattle and Orlando showed 25% less speeding in school zones, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. This technology could reduce risks in high-traffic areas but requires significant investment in smart roads.

Adaptive cruise control is evolving to read speed limit signs and adjust speeds dynamically. A 2023 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study found drivers using speed-aware ACC were 20% less likely to speed in urban areas. While common in luxury vehicles, this tech is expected to reach mainstream models, influencing driving habits across the board.

Advocates argue that speeding isn’t just a problem for reckless drivers — many exceed limits to keep up with traffic or save time. Safety groups like the National Safety Council compare speed controls to seatbelt mandates, which slashed deaths decades ago. Widespread controls could save 1,700 lives annually, reduce traffic congestion, and lower insurance costs, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Other nations have embraced speed controls with measurable results. Europe’s ISA mandate since 2022 has cut fatalities, with Sweden and the Netherlands reporting double-digit declines. Australia is testing mandatory limiters in government fleets, and Japan’s V2I trials have calmed urban traffic.

Unique challenges

These examples suggest speed controls can work, but the U.S. faces unique challenges, including a culture of independent driving and diverse road systems.

There is also doubt that the technology is ready for prime time. ISA depends on accurate speed limit data, and errors from bad weather or outdated maps can disrupt driving.

Privacy is another concern — systems that monitor speed will share data with insurers and likely law enforcement too, raising premiums and issuing tickets. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety warns that insurers might penalize drivers who override speed controls.

Cost is a significant hurdle too. Retrofitting older cars with ISA could cost hundreds per vehicle, and while new cars would have the cost built in, not all drivers can afford recent models.

V2I requires billions in infrastructure upgrades, a tough sell for budget-strapped cities. Without federal standards, states are experimenting independently — New York runs ISA pilots, while California’s proposed law failed.

A patchwork approach

This patchwork approach creates inconsistency. Some also fear that speed-capped vehicles could frustrate aggressive drivers, potentially increasing road rage or tailgating.

Speed controls can affect every driver, regardless of habits. For those who value flexibility, technologies like ISA or V2I might feel restrictive, limiting the ability to adjust speed to conditions. Low-income drivers could face challenges if retrofitting becomes mandatory or if new cars with speed controls carry higher prices. But safer roads could lower insurance rates and ease traffic, benefiting everyone. The debate hinges on balancing safety with the freedom to drive as you choose.

Public perception is critical. Anecdotes highlight the human cost of speeding, but convincing drivers to accept less control requires clear benefits, and even then, good luck selling the idea to the public.

Federal incentives, such as tax breaks for vehicles with speed controls or funding for smart infrastructure, could encourage adoption. Pilot programs like New York’s ISA trial reduced hard braking by 36%, and Seattle’s V2I tests curbed school zone speeding.

But scaling up demands time and investment. The tech is not ready for the level of adoption regulators are talking about yet.

Other strategies

If universal speed controls raise too many concerns, other strategies could address speeding. Enhanced enforcement, like more speed cameras, could target high-risk areas without vehicle modifications, though it’s less comprehensive — and also a big violation of privacy and freedom.

Speed cameras are already in place in many cities, and they’re completely funded by the federal government. That means you’re paying your taxes to put in these cameras so that you can be fined if you speed.

Public education campaigns, similar to those against drunk driving, might shift attitudes toward speed compliance. Infrastructure improvements, such as clearer signage or traffic-calming designs, could naturally reduce speeding.

We’ve talked about road diets before; they reduce speeds but restrict traffic. These options preserve driver choice but may not match the impact of technology-driven solutions. All road diets actually do is frustrate drivers as they get to a point where they will either not use those roads or will pass across the center median.

A hybrid approach could work: voluntary ISA adoption with incentives, paired with targeted enforcement and better road designs. This balances safety with autonomy, letting drivers opt in while addressing high-risk behaviors. However, any solution must tackle funding, public support, and technical reliability to succeed.

Your right to choose

The 12,000 annual deaths associated with speeding demand attention, but so does your right to choose how you drive. Technologies like ISA, V2I, and advanced cruise control could save lives, but they come with costs, privacy risks, and limits on freedom.

Other countries have reduced fatalities with these tools, but the U.S. must navigate its own path, considering diverse drivers and budgets. Whether you prefer the open road or prioritize safety, these changes will shape your experience behind the wheel.

The push for speed controls is gaining momentum, with proposals like the National Transportation Safety Board’s 2030 ISA target. To stay informed, follow us and share your views with policymakers. What’s the right balance — safer roads or driver choice? Drop your thoughts in the comments, and let’s keep this discussion moving forward.

​Speed limiters, Infrastructure bill, Lifestyle, Highway deaths, Lauren fix, Align cars 

One of the foremost thought leaders in AI and transhumanism is Joe Allen, who now serves as the transhumanism editor for “Bannon’s War Room” — and he warns that transhumanism isn’t exactly a thing of the future, but rather it’s happening right now.

Transhumanism is the merging of humans with machines, and in the present moment, that consists of billions of people obsessively checking their iPhones. That addiction does not bode well for mankind.

While Allen believes “the power is in the transhumanists’ court,” Shanahan, who was deeply embedded in Silicon Valley for a long enough time to really immerse herself in it — believes there is still power in the natural.

“I’ve been surrounded by this world for 15 years now and was always kind of beloved,” Shanahan tells Allen. “Beloved because I was very organic, not augmented in any way. Maybe I used Botox for a few years to try it out, but I stopped all of that.”

“I really love natural human biology. I think it is incredibly beautiful. I think it actually makes an individual beautiful and desirable because there’s something innate in every living being. And I think that this is the piece of the future where there will be mass desire, and this is talked about in ‘Mad Max 2,’ but for fully organic earthly women,” she continues.

“That never goes away, and I’ve seen a preview of that, having lived in Silicon Valley for as long as I have. I’ve seen that preview. I’ve seen these very powerful men seek out the most organic female, a female that almost reminds them of Greek oracles. So, brilliant, connected to God, channeling information, visionary, but also physically pure,” she adds.

She’s noticed that these tech elites “spiral” and become “greedy” in search of these kinds of women, which Allen chimes in to call “crunchy harems.”

An example of this, Shanahan says, is the Burning Man festival.

“Burning Man is a simulation of that world, of that future, of these very powerful elite men going to Burning Man, and all of these young beautiful women going to Burning Man, and creating these miniature harems around these men. I mean, that’s what Burning Man has become, unfortunately,” she tells Allen.

“You’ve been around a lot of these guys,” Allen says. “I know every person’s different, but by and large, is it misguided goodwill at the heart of the tech elite transhuman dream, or is there a touch of malevolence, or is there deep malevolence?”

“A bit of their humanity is possessed by something very anti-human,” Shanahan answers, adding, “They’re so manipulative; they’re trained in humanity.”

While Shanahan admits she doesn’t “understand it all,” she does “see where the humanity is and what is interfering with that humanity.”

“And I don’t know precisely what that thing is. I know Christians have a word for it,” she continues.

“Demon sounds about right to me,” Allen adds.

Want more from Nicole Shanahan?

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

​Back to the people, Back to the people with nicole shanahan, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Joe allen, Steve bannon’s war room, Steve bannon, Transhumanism, Silicon valley, Harems, Botox, Organic, Possession, Demonic possession, Tech bros, Technological slavery, Artificial intelligence, Ai 

On Tuesday, April 29, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker called for mass mobilization against President Donald Trump, marking 100 days of the 47th administration with a clarion call that “these Republicans cannot know a moment of peace.”

And no one listened. Except for maybe the single-looking white woman walking a dog
who spit on acting U.S. Attorney Ed Martin during a Newsmax interview Thursday.

The faithful roared and stomped their feet so powerfully you could feel it in the rumbling floor.

Democrats are confronting a terrible reality in 2025: That mass movement of the past nine years that saw masked Democrats attacking old men and young women, vandalizing minivans at Trump rallies, blocking bridges and defunding police departments?
They didn’t lead that movement. Those people led them.

Politicians like to fancy themselves leaders, but virtually all of them are followers. They don’t make the waves — they do the best they can to ride them. That’s the reason so many recently self-styled “moderate” Democrats are stained by the incredible excesses of the eight-year moral panic that dominated and animated their politics. They followed.

The Democratic Party used to have real leaders. Then-Sen. Barack Obama electrified America’s youth with the promise of forgiveness for slavery and segregation. He invited environmentalists and illegal immigrants, university professors and college activists, peaceniks and aging hippies, the working class and liberal technocrats alike to embrace a radical vision for a new America. Propped up by a reporter class that claimed Michelle Obama was the new Jackie Onassis and her husband was the embodiment of cool, he introduced America to “Hamilton” and hosted famous artists at his White House.

Obama failed to live up to an impossible promise and left the country more divided, embittered, and racially charged than it had been for half a century, but he built a movement.

And then he left it. He retreated to mansions on an island off of Cape Cod and in the center of the Pacific, wore floral silk shirts, and partied with Hollywood actors. He worked on a Netflix series we’ve already forgotten. He helped guide the rudderless Biden administration through hard policy calls but was unable to mobilize voters to support any politicians but himself.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was a leader once, too. It’s impossible to forget what he was like on the campaign trail in ’16. That Bernie refused to be bogged down in the Ivy League politics of race and gender: His call was for no war but class war. The capitalists and warmongers were the enemy; chief among them was the former first lady, senator, and secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

When Sanders spoke at a high school gymnasium outside Manchester, New Hampshire, the crowd was more electrified than any I have ever witnessed. As his condemnations of America’s rulers built, the energy built with him. He pointed his finger in the air and, in his distinctive Brooklyn accent, finished the speech naming Clinton guilty in voting for the war in Iraq. The faithful roared and stomped their feet so powerfully you could feel it in the rumbling floor. He built a movement.

And then he left it, too. Four years later, Sanders was a sock puppet of himself, mouthing critical race theory and mumbling about gender ideology. The man who almost took down Hillary was beaten by Joe Biden.

Who does that leave? Pritzker? Mayor Pete Buttigieg? Podcaster Gavin Newsom? That congresswoman who twerks against Trump?

No one.

Democrats need a leader — someone who won’t grovel before activists and who can rise to meet the moment. Despite their constant griping about Republican loyalty to Trump, they’ve failed to produce anyone untainted and willing to lead with conviction.

It’s difficult to not to be reminded of the Children’s Crusade of the 13th century. That expedition to retake Jerusalem was never even able to muster the resources needed to sail south of Europe, and many died. Eight centuries later, we still remember their fervor, their zeal — and their terrible failure.

Blaze News: Woke reporter uses final ESPN appearance to promote ‘trans kids’ playing sports

The Mandate: Trump White House: Columbia students ‘knew that this attack was going to happen before it happened’

Blaze News: Jasmine Crockett downplays far-left violence, calls Republicans ‘inherently’ violent

Blaze News: Letitia James officially under federal criminal investigation for alleged fraud

Sign up for Bedford’s newsletter

Sign up to get Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford’s newsletter.

​Opinion & analysis, Politics 

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced last month that she would seek the death penalty for Luigi Mangione, the 27-year-old accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Shortly after, Bondi reported receiving death threats.

A recent California ballot initiative seeking to penalize insurers that delay or deny lifesaving care has been introduced as the “Luigi Mangione Access to Healthcare Act.” And last week in San Francisco, the Taylor Street Theater reportedly sold out its upcoming run of “Luigi: The Musical,” described as “a wildly irreverent, razor-sharp comedy” in which Mangione becomes “an accidental folk hero.” The show’s website insists the play is “not a celebration of violence” — only a satire probing why Mangione “struck such a chord with the public.”

Mangione’s story raises broader questions about how justice is defined and how quickly society applauds those who take it into their own hands.

How has a man who allegedly executed a business executive come to be hailed as a hero, packaged as entertainment, and nearly canonized?

On the morning of Dec. 4, Thompson stepped out of his Midtown Manhattan hotel, less than a block from the Museum of Modern Art, en route to a meeting on West 54th Street. Around 6:45 a.m., Mangione allegedly emerged from between two parked cars and allegedly shot Thompson multiple times in the back. Investigators say each round was etched with the words “deny, defend, depose.” Prosecutors say Mangione had tracked Thompson’s routine for weeks, crossed state lines with a silenced pistol, and carried out a carefully calculated assassination.

Social media reacted within minutes. TikTok users anointed Mangione a “Healthcare Hero.” A legal defense fund is approaching $1 million, and online vendors now sell “Saint Luigi” prayer candles. Meanwhile, Thompson’s widow and two children have watched strangers celebrate the man who took their husband and father.

A deeper sickness

The public response reveals a broader frustration with the health care system, where delayed treatments, inflated procedure costs, and unaffordable medications have become disturbingly common. It looks for someone to blame.

But beneath the outrage and helplessness lies something deeper: a longing for rescue. A savior. Someone to step in and make it right. And when no one does, society crowns those who take justice into their own hands. Or inspires others to try.

Many supporters online justified Thompson’s murder. One TikTok user put it bluntly: “Insurance companies have killed thousands by refusing care. Mangione just gave them what they deserve.”

Genuine pain meets cultural drift. Emotions now outrank principles. And spectacle outranks substance. Turning a homicide into a musical is not clever, thoughtful critique — it signals moral exhaustion. Cheering a vigilante says, in effect, “I’ll decide what justice looks like.” And when a society lights prayer candles in honor of an accused murderer, it has confused vengeance for virtue.

True justice, by contrast, is anchored in truth, aims at restoration, and moves through lawful process. The crime bypassed every safeguard — reducing a human being, an image-bearer of God, to collateral damage. Scripture is clear: “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.”

Publicly available evidence doesn’t indicate that Mangione ever filed a lawsuit, sat down with Thompson, or met with anyone from a health insurance company. He never organized a peaceful protest. Instead, he allegedly opened fire — and people cheered.

A different way

History, though, offers a different blueprint for confronting deep injustice — one that Martin Luther King Jr. understood. Writing from a Birmingham, Alabama, jail, King outlined four steps for confronting it: gather facts, negotiate, undergo self-purification, and only then take direct, nonviolent action.

King’s patient, God-honoring approach didn’t just reshape laws — it reshaped hearts. The assassin, by contrast, strategized with rage and gunfire, appointing himself judge and jury. The applause he receives now threatens to silence the very lesson King labored to impart.

Two forces appear to be fueling the public response. First, widespread frustration with systemic failures exposes real suffering in this fallen world. For many Americans, the health care maze of insurers, drug companies, hospitals, and policymakers feels predatory. Second, cultural norms have shifted. Outrage has replaced deliberation, and peaceful restoration is no longer the goal. The value of human life feels negotiable.

Applauding an alleged gunman reveals that self-justified anger, not discernment, is now steering the ship. But vengeance disguised as justice is still evil. Right and wrong don’t bend to hashtags, personal versions of truth, or societal trends. True justice is steady, ordered, and restorative. It requires humility to acknowledge that human beings are not its author.

Micah 6:8 presents a higher standard of justice rooted in mercy and humility: “To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” The verse binds justice to mercy — and both to humility. Mangione’s story raises broader questions about how justice is defined and how quickly society applauds those who take it into their own hands. It also invites a quieter kind of reflection: Where do those same vigilante instincts surface in everyday life — not in violence, but in subtler forms of retaliation, exposure, or punishment that feel justified in the moment?

Maybe it’s blasting a business online for poor service instead of speaking to the owner face-to-face. Perhaps it’s joining a social media pile-on, canceling someone over a single misstep, or cutting someone off in traffic to “teach them a lesson.” Different scale, same instinct: to occupy the judge’s seat and declare justice on personal terms.

These actions may feel justified — even redemptive. In the face of valid grievances, whether rooted in exploitative workplaces or overpriced services, the way they are addressed still matters. When individuals act as their own law, the result is often greater injustice, not less. In such conditions, human flourishing gives way to division, fear, and moral confusion.

Lasting justice, changed hearts

The assassin’s bullets didn’t reform health care or restore human flourishing. They killed a father, traumatized a nation, and tempted a society to pursue a counterfeit justice. They sowed fear, chaos, and the potential for copycats. Proposals such as the Luigi Mangione Access to Healthcare Act may bring change, but it’s born of fear and opportunism, not transformed hearts. It seeks control, proclaiming, “I am the judge.”

Lasting justice doesn’t begin in systems but rather in the moral character of individuals. A just society is built by people who embody justice before they demand it — whose hearts, habits, and relationships reflect a higher moral order. When justice is rooted in truth and shaped by mercy and humility, it becomes self-sustaining. In such a society, the need to seek justice is diminished because it is already present in people’s lives.

God has shown you what is good. And what does he require of you? To act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. It’s justice with mercy, mercy with humility — humility that recognizes no individual is the hero or the god of the story.

The assassin did not just kill a man. He redefined, for some, what it means to be just. It is the kind of distortion that ought to provoke moral outrage, not because it shocks, but because it substitutes true justice with a dangerous imitation. Resisting it demands more than words; it calls for lives shaped by prayer, grounded in truth, and anchored in humility and mercy.

Brian Thompson is gone. Luigi Mangione still faces trial. What remains is a choice: Buy a ticket to the musical or pursue a justice marked by mercy and truth. One path longs for a savior. The other already knows who the savior is.

​Opinion & analysis, United healthcare, Luigi mangione, California, Health insurance, Pam bondi, Brian thompson, Murder, Assassination, Leftists, Folk hero, Luigi the musical, Manhattan, Depravity, Vengeance, Bible, Martin luther king jr., Nonviolence, Mercy 

It’s official: Protein has entered the culture war.

We would die if we did not eat protein. But apparently the macronutrient is now “right-coded.”

Eating protein is now a political act — a meat-powered microaggression. Of course, this is absurd.

In a
Vanity Fair article on America’s “obsession” with protein — a think piece that reads like a political manifesto from a gender studies seminar — the growing interest in protein-maxing has nothing to do with health or science.

No, it’s the fault of the “manosphere,” podcast bros like Joe Rogan and Dr. Peter Attia, and apparently the ghost of Donald Trump lurking in your protein powder.

Who’s to blame for this “obsession”? MAGA, of course.

Feminism strikes again

Tackling every serious topic from 19th-century meat supplements to Rogan’s tequila-fueled pizza fantasies, the article strings together a bizarre thesis: that American men are obsessed with protein at the expense of women.

The article quotes Harvard Medical School professor Peter Cohen, who asserts that the obsession with protein is about the “manosphere,” “manomania,” and testosterone. The writer, Keziah Weir, even claims that the “intertwinement of masculinity and red meat … is strong and deep-seated,” arguing that red meat consumption is associated with perceptions of masculinity. The obsession, she claims, “affords a masculine-coded cover on the feminine-coded world of body image and dieting.”

Somehow, Weir even connects protein consumption to eating disorders — and the rise of Donald Trump.

“By 2015,” Weir writes, “psychologists were finding that the overconsumption of protein among men could constitute an eating disorder. Was it correlation, coincidence, or some lean-meat canary in the proverbial coal mine that it was into this proteinous landscape that Donald Trump — burger loving, locker room talking, and all — announced his bid for the presidency?”

It’s not bro science

If you waste five minutes of your life reading Weir’s article (like I did), you would conclude that eating protein is now a political act — a meat-powered microaggression.

Of course, this is absurd.

In an act of defiant journalistic malpractice, Weir never seriously considers
why people are “obsessed” with protein-maxing, but the answer is obvious: because they want to be healthy.

Protein is not only essential for life, but we need to eat a lot of it to optimize our health and vitality. Protein is critical for immune function, hormone production, and building and repairing lean body tissue. High protein consumption aids in burning fat and preserving lean muscle mass, which is especially important for older people.

That’s not “bro science” — it’s just science.

The rise of MAHA

Weir, moreover, doesn’t ask or answer a key question: Why are more Americans concerned about their health, as the protein craze suggests?

The United States is, after all, undergoing a renaissance of health consciousness, which the Make America Healthy Again movement underscores. I believe this is happening for two reasons.

First, despite being the wealthiest nation in the existence of creation, Americans are fatter and sicker than ever before, increasing our dependence on Big Pharma and the health care industrial complex. We
spend more on health care than other developed nations, we have the best quality of care of any country, and yet our health outcomes are worse. Second, the failures of the “experts” during the COVID-19 pandemic woke up millions of Americans to the importance of becoming healthy, maintaining a healthy lifestyle, and not depending on the “experts” to ensure their health.

Protein-maxing, then, is about Americans finally taking their health into their own hands. Good.

In my own life, I entered my 20s
extremely unhealthy. I didn’t exercise and I ate the standard American diet. I was 60-70 pounds overweight and taking medication for high blood pressure at age 22.

But then I took my health into my own hands.

I’m now 29 and not overweight. I maintain a strict training regime that includes resistance and cardiovascular training. I try to eat as much protein as possible: 170-200 grams from high-quality sources every day. I don’t do this because of my political views, but because I know from experience that it’s critical to my health, both in keeping off fat and maintaining the lean muscle mass that I have worked hard to accumulate.

Millions of other Americans could recite this same story about their lives, and it’s telling that Weir doesn’t interact with this perspective or, for that matter, any idea that contradicts her thesis.

What’s really going on

The goal of Vanity Fair’s absurd article is not to promote health. Its real aim is to pathologize men who prioritize their health, listen to podcasts, and — God forbid — lift weights.

But here’s the truth: Eating protein isn’t a political statement, nor is protein the idol of toxic masculinity, nor is it a gateway drug to the “manosphere.” Protein is food, and it helps everyone — men
and women — build stronger, healthier bodies.

Don’t be like Vanity Fair. Eat more protein.

​Vanity fair, Protein, Make america healthy again, Legacy media, Joe rogan, Maha 

The election of a new pope is always a time of excitement, anxiety, and anticipation. People ask a million questions. Is he conservative or liberal? Is he pro- or anti-migrants? What are his opinions on global warming? The Latin Mass? Capitalism? Gay marriage? Women’s ordination?

But the election of Chicago native Pope Leo XIV on Thursday raised a question that has never before been asked about a pope: Which baseball team does he support?

‘Family always knows best, and it sounds like Pope Leo XIV’s lifelong fandom falls a little closer to 35th and Shields.’

The first-ever American pontiff, the man born Robert F. Prevost spent decades of his life in service to the Order of St. Augustine, in addition to his work in Peru and Rome. He was made a cardinal in 2023 by Pope Francis and was chosen by the College of Cardinals to become the next Holy Father for 1.4 billion Roman Catholics.

Leo XIV certainly won’t be the first sports-loving pope; Pope Francis was well known as an Argentine soccer fan. But never before has a baseball fan occupied the throne of St. Peter.

Which raises the question: Cubs or White Sox?

Well, it depends who you ask. ABC News allegedly declared that he’s Cubs fan. Meanwhile, the pope’s brother went on local WGN News to claim Leo for the Sox. WLS-TV claims that he is a fan of both Chicago teams.

Neither of the Windy City rivals seems ready to settle for a tie.

“Congratulations to Pope Leo XIV! Hey Chicago! He’s a Cubs Fan!” the Cubs proclaimed on their official social media.

The White Sox later tweeted, “Well, would you look at that… Congratulations to Chicago’s own Pope Leo XIV” and “Hey Chicago, He’s a Sox Fan!”

The Sox later made their case in an official statement:

Family always knows best, and it sounds like Pope Leo XIV’s lifelong fandom falls a little closer to 35th and Shields. Some things are bigger than baseball, but in this case, we’re glad to have a White Sox fan represented at the Vatican. A pinstripes White Sox jersey with his name on it and a hat are already on the way to Rome, and of course, the Pontiff always is welcome at his ballpark.

Fr. Burke Masters, the official chaplain for the Chicago Cubs, celebrated the initial news by asking the pope to celebrate Mass at Wrigley Field and saying, “I’ve had the opportunity to meet him; [what an] incredible human being.” Numerous commentators have even suggested that the Holy Father ought to be invited to throw out the first pitch at a game.

Fellow Chicago native, Cubs fan, and apologist extraordinaire Bishop Robert Barron described Pope Leo as quietly competent, prayerful, and experienced and hopes that the unlikely selection of an American pope will revivify the American church. Unfortunately, he did not mention baseball.

The story also comes amid one of the Chicago Cubs’ best seasons in years. The north-side team currently has the best offense of any team in Major League Baseball, marking the Cubs’ best performance since the season after they won the 2016 World Series. They currently have a 22-16 record and are placed first in the NL Central Division.

Maybe if they’re lucky, a papal blessing could net the Cubs their second World Series win this century! Similarly, one could help the White Sox break their current slump of 10-28.

Given the new pope’s quiet temperament and reputation for unity and being conciliatory, he’ll simply say that he loves all of his sports teams equally as a good father does to all his children (except the Brewers …).

​Chicago, Baseball, Chicago white sox, Chicago cubs, Sports, Lifestyle, Pope leo xiv, Catholicism, Christianity 

A colleague of mine recently told me a story about his grandfather. When he was a boy, his family would wait for the iceman to arrive. The iceman — an actual person — would come to their home with a block of ice for the family’s icebox. It was a regular event, like the milkman or the postman, and part of the rhythm of life.

That story stuck with me — not because it was quaint, but because it triggered a deeper realization.

We are watching in real time the collapse of intergenerational continuity.

My colleague’s grandfather relied on the iceman, and his father probably did, too. And his father’s father? Almost certainly. For generations, their lives likely looked the same. They shared the same routines, occupations, habits, expectations, and assumptions about how the world worked.

The world changed — but it changed slowly. Generational continuity was a given, not a gift. Not so anymore.

My colleague’s own life bears little resemblance to his father’s. He works remotely, reads the news on a device in his pocket, and navigates a culture reshaped by social media, digital platforms, and technologies that didn’t exist when he was born. The pace of change has gone from a gentle trickle to a roaring cascade — and with it, the chasm between generations has widened.

The generational delta

To frame this, let’s talk about what I call the “generational delta”: a rough percentage of how much one generation’s way of life differs from the last.

A thousand years ago, that delta might have been 1%. Your father’s life was your life. You tilled the same land, spoke the same dialect, and obeyed the same customs. You learned how to live by watching your parents and doing what they did. The knowledge they passed down was 99% applicable to your world.

By the early 1900s, that rate picked up a bit. Industrialization, urbanization, and mechanization changed everyday life. Still, the average person’s habits and values bore a strong resemblance to those of their parents. Maybe, the generational delta had climbed to 4%.

In the early 2000s, the pace accelerated. The internet reshaped work, entertainment, and communication. Kids no longer congregated at the mall, and many aspects of daily life were beginning to diverge from the experiences of their parents.

New standards were emerging in work, education, relationships, and even identity as digital life began to supplement — sometimes outright replace — traditional experiences. These shifts, while still gradual, began to create noticeable differences between generations. The generational delta may have risen to around 10%.

Today? It feels closer to 30% — maybe more.

Fading generational relevance

We are watching in real time the collapse of intergenerational continuity. Parents can no longer reliably prepare their children for the world they will inhabit because that world is changing too quickly for wisdom to keep up.

A major reason is the all-encompassing nature of modern digital life. Social media has become not just a pastime but a primary lens through which many people experience the world. Trends, ideas, and cultural norms now evolve at the speed of a swipe.

Add to this the advent of artificial intelligence, which is accelerating shifts in education, employment, communication, and even human relationships. These forces are reshaping society so quickly and profoundly that inherited wisdom, once reliably passed from parent to child, struggles to remain relevant for even a single generation.

Let’s use a metaphor. Imagine that every generation passes down an “operator’s manual” for how to be a functioning, successful adult. This manual isn’t written down but rather transmitted through advice, discipline, storytelling, and observation. It tells you how to find work, how to behave in public, how to marry, how to raise kids, how to handle suffering and success.

It’s not that parents don’t have wisdom; it’s that the world keeps moving the goalposts.

For most of human history, that manual changed very little from generation to generation. The instructions your great-great-grandfather had still worked for your great-grandfather. And the manual your father left you was probably mostly useful. Sure, a chapter here or there might be outdated — maybe the bit about walking uphill to school both ways no longer applied — but most of it was solid.

Today, huge sections of that manual will be obsolete by the time a child becomes a teenager.

A parent warns their child not to spend too much time watching TV — only to realize their child doesn’t watch any TV at all but instead consumes algorithmically generated content on three different apps they can’t name. A father explains the importance of in-person communication, while his son is navigating a dating landscape shaped by swipe culture, ghosting, and AI companionship. A mother gives her daughter guidance on writing college essays, unaware that large language models are reshaping the entire application process.

It’s not that parents don’t have wisdom; it’s that the world keeps moving the goalposts.

As this trend continues, something more corrosive begins to happen. Children begin to suspect — not entirely wrongly — that the wisdom of their parents is not only outdated but irrelevant. They stop reading the operator’s manual entirely. They toss it aside and begin writing their own from scratch, guided not by time-tested principles but by whatever voices are loudest in the moment.

This breakdown in generational transmission doesn’t just lead to confusion — it breeds arrogance. When you believe the past has nothing to teach you, you don’t just ignore it; you mock it. Tradition becomes a punchline. Elders become artifacts. The voices of the dead are silent under the noise of the now.

This is not progress. It’s a form of cultural amnesia.

From manual to compass

This is not a Luddite’s lament. I’m not calling for the return of the iceman. I am marveling at — and grieving — a rupture that feels both inevitable and unsustainable. We are now in the strange position of raising children for a world we cannot envision, using tools they no longer recognize.

What, then, are we to do?

Perhaps we return to something older than the iceman, older than the operator’s manual itself: virtue. The habits of heart and mind that transcend technological context. Courage, honesty, discipline, humility, faith — these don’t go out of style. They are not bound to the machinery of the age.

We may not be able to write the next generation’s manual, but we can give them a compass.

Because when the pace of change makes everything else uncertain, what matters most isn’t whether your advice is up-to-date.

It’s whether your children still trust you to give it.

​Opinion & analysis, Education, Family, Parenting, Technology, Generations, Wisdom, Faith, Industrial revolution, Tradition, Virtue, Smartphones, Culture, Amnesia 

For years, Democrats have wielded the phrase “no one is above the law” like a cudgel, particularly when it suited their political vendettas against Donald Trump and other political opponents.

Of course, they never really meant it. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, Anthony Fauci, and other “allies” are above the law — as are illegal aliens (amazingly).

When a judge like Dugan acts as if her robe grants her immunity, she defies not only human law but divine principle.

But never let hypocrisy get in the way of a good talking point, right?

During Trump’s first term, they chanted it as they pushed the Russia collusion hoax, impeachment circuses, and endless investigations built on evidence so weak that if I had to choose between standing on a wet paper towel suspended over the Grand Canyon or their evidence, I would choose the paper towel.

When Trump was out of office, their zeal only intensified. New York Attorney General Letitia James campaigned on a promise to “get” Trump, weaponizing her office to pursue civil fraud cases built on shaky grounds. Special counsel Jack Smith, appointed by the Biden Justice Department, went after Trump with indictments over classified documents and Jan. 6 cases that many legal scholars argued were more about politics than justice.

The left’s mantra was clear: Trump, his supporters, and anyone who dared challenge their narrative must be held accountable, no matter how flimsy the charges or how selective the enforcement.

Now, with the arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan by the FBI on April 25, the tables have turned. The same principle that Democrats championed applies, and it’s being enforced against one of their own.

No one is above the law — not even a judge.

The facts: Dugan allegedly aided an illegal alien in evading arrest

The FBI arrested Judge Dugan on felony charges of obstruction of justice and concealing an individual to prevent arrest, stemming from her alleged actions on April 18 at the Milwaukee County Courthouse.

According to a criminal complaint unsealed by the DOJ, Dugan allegedly deliberately interfered with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents attempting to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national illegally in the United States.

Flores-Ruiz, previously deported in 2013, faced misdemeanor battery charges in a domestic abuse case and was scheduled to appear in Dugan’s courtroom. ICE agents, armed with an administrative warrant, waited in the courthouse hallway to detain him after his hearing.

What followed was a brazen act of defiance against federal law.

Court documents reveal that Dugan, upon learning of the ICE agents’ presence, became “visibly angry” and called the situation “absurd.” She confronted the agents, demanding that they produce a judicial warrant — a requirement she knew was unnecessary for ICE’s administrative action. When the agents explained their authority, Dugan misdirected them to the chief judge’s office, a deliberate attempt to distract them.

While the agents complied, she allegedly then escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney through a restricted jury door, bypassing the public exit where ICE waited, according to the DOJ.

This wasn’t a mistake; it was a calculated effort to help an illegal alien evade arrest. The affidavit notes that only deputies, juries, court staff, and in-custody defendants typically use this exit, making Dugan’s alleged actions highly unusual and intentional.

Flores-Ruiz’s temporary escape — lasting about 22 minutes before agents chased him down on foot — put both the community and law enforcement at risk. FBI Director Kash Patel stated, “The Judge’s obstruction created increased danger to the public.”

Dugan’s charges are rooted in federal law: 18 U.S.C. § 1505 “forbids anyone from corruptly, or by threats of force or by any threatening communication, influencing, obstructing, or impeding any pending proceeding before a department or agency of the United States” and carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 1071 prohibits concealing a person from arrest, which adds up to another year in jail.

The DOJ’s complaint is clear: Dugan didn’t just fail to cooperate; she actively thwarted federal immigration enforcement, violating her oath to uphold the law.

Attorney General Pam Bondi underscored this during an interview on Fox News, stating,

No one’s above the laws in this country. … And if you are destroying evidence, if you’re obstructing justice, when you have victims sitting in a courtroom of domestic violence and you’re escorting a criminal defendant out a back door, it will not be tolerated, and it is a crime in the United States of America. Doesn’t matter who you are; you’re going to be prosecuted.

Since the judge’s arrest, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has also suspended her. This is noteworthy since the Wisconsin Supreme Court is controlled by a liberal majority. According to the AP, “In its two-page order, the court said it was acting to protect public confidence in Wisconsin courts during the criminal proceedings against Dugan.”

This is not overreach; this is justice.

A powerful message: The rule of law is back

The arrest of a sitting judge for lawless actions sends a powerful message: Judges are not above the law.

For too long, some black-robed jurists have acted as untouchable oligarchs, issuing rulings that defy precedent, logic, and the will of the people while cloaking their activism in judicial immunity.

The Founders envisioned a government of checks and balances, where no branch — executive, legislative, or judicial — could wield unchecked power. James Madison warned in Federalist No. 47 that the accumulation of power in any one branch “may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

When judges like Dugan place themselves above federal law, they undermine the separation of powers and erode the republic’s foundation.

If judges can flout immigration laws with impunity, what stops them from nullifying other statutes or constitutional protections?

This isn’t hypothetical.

In 2019, Boston Judge Shelley Joseph faced similar obstruction charges for allegedly helping a twice-deported illegal immigrant evade ICE. Though the federal charges were dropped in 2022, it was only after Judge Joseph agreed to submit to the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct; in June, she will be subject to a public hearing as part of the process.

In a scathing 111-page report, the Commission “charges that Judge Joseph has engaged in willful judicial misconduct that brought the judicial office into disrepute, as well as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and unbecoming a judicial officer.”

Like Joseph, so with Dugan: Her arrest is a necessary corrective, a reminder that the judiciary serves the law — not the other way around.

Arresting lawless judges isn’t ‘fascism’ — it’s Christian

The Bible reinforces the principle of equal justice under the law, a cornerstone of both Christian and American values.

Leviticus 19:15 commands, “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” This verse rejects favoritism, whether for the powerful or the marginalized, demanding impartiality.

Similarly, Deuteronomy 16:19 warns, “You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous.” Dugan’s alleged actions — shielding an illegal alien while obstructing federal agents — perverted justice by favoring ideology over duty.

Proverbs 28:5 adds, “Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.” True justice, as scripture teaches, applies the law consistently, regardless of status, wealth, or office.

When a judge like Dugan acts as if her robe grants her immunity, she defies not only human law but divine principle. The Trump administration’s willingness to hold her accountable aligns with this biblical call for righteousness in governance.

Democrats are outraged. Spare us, please.

Democrats and their allies are predictably outraged, calling Dugan’s arrest an assault on judicial independence. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers accused the Trump administration of “undermining our judiciary at every level.” U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) labeled it “shocking” and “overreach.”

But their protests ring hollow.

Where was their concern for judicial integrity when they cheered the politicized prosecutions of Trump? Where was their outrage when Biden’s DOJ targeted political opponents? Leftists’ selective indignation exposes their hypocrisy: “No one is above the law” apparently applies only to those they dislike.

Dugan’s arrest isn’t about punishing dissent; it’s about enforcing accountability. If judges can obstruct federal law without consequence, then the rule of law is a sham and the American people are subject to the whims of unelected elites.

The broader context of Dugan’s actions cannot be ignored. The Trump administration has prioritized immigration enforcement, responding to a crisis that saw over 2.5 million apprehensions of migrants at the southern border in 2023 alone, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Illegal immigration strains communities, burdens taxpayers, and, in cases like Flores-Ruiz’s, can intersect with criminality.

Judges who aid and abet illegal aliens undermine national sovereignty and public safety. And Joseph and Dugan’s cases aren’t isolated. Just one day prior to Dugan’s arrest, federal authorities arrested a former New Mexico judge and his wife for allegedly harboring an illegal immigrant linked to the Tren de Aragua gang. In response to these charges, Judge Joel Cano has been “permanently banned from the bench by his colleagues, according to state Supreme Court documents.”

If you’re keeping count, that’s three lawless judges who are being held accountable for breaking the law, subverting America’s national sovereignty, and making a mockery of our judicial system and the very Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

Trump is clearly not just trying to “take revenge” on judges who disagree with his policies; he is trying to defend the Constitution and the American people. Because at the end of the day, these are not victimless crimes but deliberate acts that erode trust in our institutions.

A new sheriff in town

Trump’s DOJ, under leaders like Bondi and Patel, is signaling a new era of accountability. The January 2025 memo from Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove directed prosecutors to pursue charges against local officials who obstructed immigration enforcement, citing laws against conspiracy and harboring.

This isn’t authoritarianism; it’s the executive branch fulfilling its constitutional duty to enforce federal law. The arrest of Hannah Dugan is a bold step toward restoring the rule of law, ensuring that even those in high office face consequences for breaking it.

This isn’t tyranny; this is a victory — a reminder that justice, when applied equally, strengthens the nation. Let the leftists cry foul; their double standards no longer hold sway.

No one is above the law, including Judge Hannah Dugan. Good.

This article is adapted from an essay originally published at Liberty University’s Standing for Freedom Center.

​Biblical justice, Bible, Christianity, Hannah dugan, Doj, Illegal immigration, Politics 

I grew up in what many call “purity culture,” a movement where modesty was highly emphasized, especially for women. My parents had clear standards for my sisters and me, and many church messages for women we heard focused on how women ought to dress. While some of those teachings were rigid or based more on preference than biblical principles, I didn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

But the American church today seems to have done just that, largely abandoning modesty as a topic of discussion altogether.

When we understand who we are in Christ, modesty flows naturally from a heart that desires to honor God and serve others.

Our culture tells us modesty is outdated, judgmental, and even offensive. Because of this, many churches have gone silent on the issue, afraid of being labeled legalistic or judgmental. But silence isn’t faithfulness. We’re called to speak the truth on all topics, including the uncomfortable ones.

Christians are not called to conform to the culture’s sensitivities but to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). God’s word is unchanging — even when society’s standards shift with fashion trends.

1. Modesty begins in the heart

The Bible does not give us exact measurements or dress codes, but it does offer principles that guide how we should present ourselves. Modesty, at its core, is a matter of the heart.

In 1 Peter 3:3-4, it teaches that true beauty is not found in outward adornment but in “the hidden person of the heart,” marked by “a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.” This doesn’t mean women must be shy or passive. Rather, it calls for inner humility, a settled heart that seeks God’s approval over man’s.

Proverbs 31:30 reminds us that “charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.” Outer beauty fades — as 1 Peter 1:24 says, we wither like grass — but godly character endures.

Modesty begins with knowing who we are in Christ, having nothing to prove and no need to compete for worldly attention.

2. Our clothing should reflect our calling

The way we dress should reflect our identity as followers of Christ. Romans 12:2 calls us not to conform to the world but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. That includes how we think about our appearance and how we present ourselves to others.

Modesty is not about being frumpy or outdated. Some of the most fashionable women I know dress modestly and beautifully. Style and modesty are not mutually exclusive.

What matters most is the heart behind our clothing choices: Are we seeking to honor God or to gain attention?

I remember my older brother telling me how admirable it was when a woman dressed with confidence and dignity and had no need to flaunt her figure off to feel more secure. It stuck with me because, like many teenage girls, I wrestled with self-image. His words helped me see that modesty was not about restriction but about integrity and self-respect. Still, modesty isn’t about gaining male approval, either — it’s about pleasing the Lord first and foremost.

We are reminded in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. We are not our own — we were bought at a price. Therefore, how we dress should reflect that reality, honoring God rather than drawing attention to ourselves and our bodies.

3. Modesty honors others but doesn’t bear their sin

Many of us grew up hearing, “Don’t cause your brother to stumble.” And while there’s truth worth unpacking here, it’s essential to be biblically accurate.

In Matthew 5:28, Jesus places the responsibility for lust squarely on the individual: “Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Men are accountable for their thoughts and actions. Women are not responsible for managing a man’s sin.

However, this does not mean we disregard how our actions impact others. Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 speak to the importance of not using our freedom in Christ in ways that harm a fellow believer’s conscience. The apostle Paul’s point isn’t that one believer can make another sin by accident — it’s that love should lead us to be mindful and considerate of others’ weaknesses.

Consider alcohol, for example. If a fellow believer struggles with an alcohol addiction, we could choose to abstain out of love. Similarly, modesty can be an act of love and service. While we are not responsible for someone else’s sin, we can avoid adding unnecessary temptation or distraction.

As Christian women, we should be a refuge — not a stumbling block — for our brothers in Christ. That means resisting the urge to flaunt our bodies or post provocative images. It’s not about shame; it’s about love.

Holiness means choosing to build others up — not draw their eyes down.

4. Modesty rejects self-exaltation and embraces humility

Ultimately, modesty is not just about clothing — it’s about character. It reflects our posture before God and others.

Philippians 2:3 exhorts us: “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.”

Biblical modesty rejects the culture of self-promotion and materialism. It doesn’t aim to manage someone else’s lust but to glorify God through humility and honor. We don’t dress modestly because we’re ashamed of our bodies but because we know our worth is not defined by how much skin we show. It’s always a good rule of thumb to be more dressed than less.

As women in Christ, we have a profound opportunity to demonstrate our identity in Him — not by following fashion trends or seeking affirmation that’s purely of the world but by choosing dignity, wisdom, and love in all things, including how we dress.

5. Modesty is a witness to the world

In a culture obsessed with self-expression and physical allure, modesty offers a powerful and countercultural testimony. When we choose to dress with discretion and dignity, we’re not just making a personal choice — we’re making a public statement about whom we belong to. When we choose not to post half-naked photos of ourselves, that alone makes us stand out in a world marked by women flaunting every inch of their bodies.

Matthew 5:16 says, “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” How we present ourselves is one of the many ways we can reflect Christ to a watching world.

Our clothing can either draw attention to ourselves or point others to something greater — our identity in Christ. Modesty, when rooted in love and humility, quietly testifies to the transforming work of the gospel. It tells the world our worth is not in what we wear or how we look but in who Jesus is and what He has done for us.

The early church was known for being different — not just in doctrine but in daily life. Today, modesty is one of the ways Christians can stand out in a way that is gentle, dignified, and compelling. It’s not about dressing to appear “better” than others but about choosing a lifestyle that honors God and invites others to wonder what’s different about us — and why.

Modesty should never be about a set of rules, shame, or man-made standards. It’s about reflecting the beauty of Christ in our hearts, our words, and yes — even our wardrobes. When we understand who we are in Christ, modesty flows naturally from a heart that desires to honor God and serve others.

Let us walk in the freedom of Christ, using our freedom not to indulge the flesh but to display the fruit of the Spirit — especially in the daily choices of what we wear.

​Christianity, Christians, God, Gospel, Modesty, Faith 

The Met Gala is a time for celebrities to socialize and dress to the nines, and this year, Dave Landau of “Normal World” and Stu Burguiere of “Stu Does America” found the looks interesting — to say the least.

“If you look at the people, they’re all pimps. Like 80% of them are dressed as pimps to celebrate black culture,” Landau jokes.

One Met Gala goer, Lisa, who starred in HBO’s “The White Lotus,” has been slammed by critics for wearing what appeared to be underwear with Rosa Parks’ face on them. Her lace briefs were stitched with a collage of women designed by artist Henry Taylor — and fans were convinced they saw the Civil Rights icon’s face on them.

“One thing I will note, and this is another tradition here in the United States, um, pants. You could theoretically wear pants, and even if you had Rosa Parks underwear, we wouldn’t know. That’s just a tip for anyone coming in,” Stu says.

“If you look very closely, you can see little faces of people. Now, I don’t know for sure if it’s Rosa Parks,” he adds.

A representative for the artist who designed the panties explained to the press that the image was not of Rosa Parks “but one of Henry’s neighbors.”

“That’s what happens when you don’t wear pants,” Stu jokes.

Pamela Anderson has also been the subject of criticism after appearing on the red carpet with a “bold new hairdo.”

“The most glamorous night of your life, I suppose it’s an interesting haircut,” Stu comments.

“I would say it’s kind of a Rocky Dennis haircut, maybe a special needs bowl cut, and that’s not against anybody who has special needs,” Landau chimes in, adding, “It’s the Jim Carrey Lloyd Christmas haircut.”

“I don’t understand why all fashion is like this,” he continues, adding, “It all feels like a prank. Like, this feels like a prank.”

Want more from Stu?

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

​Stu does america, Stu burguiere, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Met gala, Pamela anderson, Lisa the white lotus, Rosa parks underwear, Pamela anderson haircut, Met gala theme, Black culture, Pimp culture, Dave landau, Normal world, Dave landau normal world 

Throughout the Bible, we are told that once we become followers of Jesus, we are part of God’s family. One family.

But I don’t think we are doing a good job of living like family, at least not here in the West. The problem is that we don’t understand the crucial role of Christian hospitality.

A love that would be noticed

Loving one another is our primary responsibility when it comes to our fellow believers, and loving one another is a good practice for learning how to love our neighbors and the lost among us, too.

The lost must see our love for one another because, as the apostle John told us (John 13:35):

By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.

How did the early church demonstrate this love to the world?

Their practices included gathering together daily for fellowship, meals, prayer, and teaching. Acts 2:42-47 illustrates families “doing life together” — to use a current churchy phrase — but for them that meant daily, communal, self-sacrificial living.

My house doesn’t belong to me. Your house doesn’t belong to you. Our homes are a gift meant to be shared.

Daily? Communal? Self-sacrificial? Have you ever considered what it might look like if we tried to more closely pattern the early church in this practice?

Author Rosaria Butterfield certainly has. She is living it, in fact, as she describes in a book she wrote several years ago called “The Gospel Comes with a House Key: Practicing Radically Ordinary Hospitality in Our Post-Christian World.”

Radically ordinary hospitality

Most nights at the Butterfield house, more than just immediate family sits around the table. The Butterfields open their home for communal dinners with their fellow church members, and meals include a time in the word, prayer, and singing. Feeding a dozen or a couple dozen people is not unusual.

Other church members help bring food as well and sometimes host such gatherings. But the Butterfields have made an ironclad commitment to hospitality and making their church family a real family, with members who are intimately aware of each others’ needs, sorrows, victories, and joys.

Just like a “real” family.

There are some small groups, within churches, that might approximate this kind of commitment to each other, if they meet regularly in each other’s homes — but I think that’s rare.

And in churches where home fellowships are not even encouraged, especially in bigger churches, it’s all too easy to pop in and out on any given Sunday without even speaking to another human, much less building a relationship with them.

This is particularly problematic for our single brothers and sisters, who literally have no family to go home to after Sunday services.

As Butterfield notes in her book:

Kent and I practice daily hospitality as a way of life because we must. We remember what it is like to be lonely. We remember the odd contradiction: to be told on the Lord’s Day that you are part of the family of God but then to limp along throughout the rest of the week like an orphan begging bread. … We believe that the Bible’s high calling for singleness compels us to live communally when we can and to feast nightly on meals and Scripture and prayer with doors wide open.

Did I mention this is ‘radical’?

There’s a lot in the above passage. Not only are the Butterfields offering communal dinner most nights, with all the work and expense that entails — but they are also advocating living “communally” as it relates to singles.

If we are family — and in light of how God teaches us to view people like the widows and the orphans — I think these are fair questions:

Why does anyone go home alone after church, especially singles? For that matter, why do any families go home without a chance to fellowship with another family or two?Why are we so intent on protecting our privacy and/or independence? Imagine if every Christian who is currently single had the option of renting a room within a Christian family. Or even in a house with other singles! Are we as believers meant to live life day after day alone? (Hint: The answer is no. See Psalm 68:5-6.)Is all this something our churches should be encouraging and perhaps even facilitating? (Hint: The answer is yes.)Are these ideas we should all thoughtfully consider how we might implement? (You know the answer.)

What is Christian hospitality?

That’s the real question here. I used to envision opening my home — at carefully selected times entirely of my own choosing and convenience — to people I wished to be closer to, serving a delicious meal on nice dishes and a lovely tablecloth with vases of fresh flowers decorating my perfectly cleaned house, appropriate soft music playing in the background.

This is an “ideal” that gives most of us a severe case of anxiety, and no helpful books of hospitality tips or recipes can really make it less stressful.

But that is not what Christian hospitality is. Not at all. Really.

Butterfield says:

Our homes are not our castles. Indeed, they are not even ours.

This is the key point of the book — and the starting place for true Christian hospitality.

Our homes are a gift to be used to love others. Starting with our family — and that means our blood family and our church family. If our home is always to be used to love our family, why is it not open to all of our family more often?

Why is hospitality a once-every-so-often rare occasion requiring superhuman preparation, with exhaustion and relief once it’s over?

In my view, it’s nearly impossible to practice biblical hospitality regularly if both dad and mom work outside the home. A full-time homemaker can incorporate hospitality as part of her daily life rhythms. Should we not be opening our homes to each other daily as a practice?

Loving our singles

Along those lines: Why are we not encouraging singles from our church family to live in our families? God put them there! Why are we ignoring them or assuming they prefer to live alone in a sterile apartment?

Are we under the mistaken impression that this would adversely affect our children?

Surely the opposite is true, according to Butterfield:

It is good for children to have many Christian adults pouring into their lives, helping them apply faith to the facts of a hard situation.

That’s our bottom line. My house doesn’t belong to me. Your house doesn’t belong to you. Our homes are a gift meant to be shared, first with family, with the caveat that family means more than just our kids. It means our church family, and/or any believer we encounter who might need our hospitality, whether it’s around the table or in the spare bedroom.

This requires sacrifice. You might not be able to walk around the house in your underwear. You might not be able to spend hours binge-watching Netflix. You might not both be able to have full-time jobs. It will involve a sacrifice of time, effort, and money.

Did I mention that our time and effort and money also don’t belong to us?

Where Rosaria and I don’t see eye to eye

Our home is also a tool to love our neighbor (meaning both our brethren and nonbelievers), and this is where I take exception to Butterfield’s perspective on hospitality.

Throughout her book, she reiterates her view that her home is open at virtually all times to everyone — believer and nonbeliever alike, or as she calls them, “family” and “neighbor.” Her goal is that neighbors will be transformed (by Christ) into family, and that’s a mission with which I agree wholeheartedly.

But I think there are problems with her approach, namely that she combines the two categories at inappropriate times. Butterfield writes:

And those who don’t yet know the Lord are summoned for food and fellowship.

This statement is part of her description of a nightly communal meal at her house, where church members and neighbors freely mingle (the neighbors know they are welcome to come any time, just like her church family).

But spiritual endeavors are never to be pursued in concert with unbelievers. That is exactly what 2 Corinthians 6:14 talks about. We can never really fellowship with unbelievers — they are from a different spiritual world.

What’s more, their presence in an environment where believers have gathered to pursue true fellowship — including sharing our most intimate prayer needs — is harmful to the growth of those family relationships. Family fellowship is by definition for family. It is the ultimate “safe place.” It is not where our unbelieving neighbor should be, generally speaking.

So as much as I admire the Butterfields for opening their home to their neighbors, I don’t believe this is a biblical approach to family (meaning our church family) fellowship.

Does our home play a role, then, in loving our neighbor? It sure does. Butterfield is absolutely right about that. And her book gives many examples of how her family is exemplary at loving their neighbors.

She’s also right that our Christian hospitality is not just for our church family — although that is where it should start. Opening our homes to our brethren is an excellent way to begin prying our grasp free of what we may have seen as our sovereign castle.

It’s time to start.

This article was adapted from an essay originally published on Diane Schrader’s Substack, She Speaks Truth.

​Christian, Christianity, God, Hospitality, Jesus, Rosaria butterfield, Faith 

Only the New York Times could spot a cross and confuse it for a fashion trend.

Christians have been wearing the most important symbol of their faith — the crucifix — for more than a thousand years. But if you read the New York Times last week, you might think that adorning the historic symbol is a resurgent fashion trend.

What is going on here?

In a story titled “A Hot Accessory, at the Intersection of Faith and Culture,” writer Misty Sidell observes that “cross necklaces are popping up everywhere,” because government officials, influencers, and celebrities are wearing them. The story treats the apparent resurgence of the cross necklace as a groundbreaking revelation, leading readers to wonder: Did the New York Times finally discover Christianity?

Unless you’ve lived under a rock — or only in elitist circles — the bizarre premise of the story is obvious because Christians everywhere have always worn cross necklaces. This isn’t new.

‘For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.’

Not only are cross necklaces not new, but they’re not a mere fashion accessory or trendy object. Christians wear them because they symbolize something important: the sacrifice, redemption, and radical love that God displayed through Jesus Christ on the cross.

In other words: Cross necklaces do not need a sociological explanation in the “Style” section of the New York Times.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the “news story” is that it never seriously considers the obvious reason why Christians wear cross necklaces, beyond a vague comment about “faith.” The suggestion, therefore, that cross necklaces are now suddenly “in vogue” because they’re cool (or something?) demonstrates not only a misunderstanding of fashion history but of Christian faith.

Isn’t it obvious?

Here’s the truth: Christians wear cross necklaces because they are Christian. No fancy explanation needed.

But that doesn’t stop Sidell from straining credulity as she attempts to discover an eccentric reason for the supposed rise in cross necklace wearers.

For example, Sidell claims the “cultural meaning” of cross necklaces “can be harder to define as the symbol now seems to vary in interpretation across geography, church affiliation and even — to a growing extent — political value systems.” She even quotes a theologian, Robert Covolo, who claims that “people bring their own meaning” to the cross, “which is where symbols really get their power.”

And, of course, Sidell draws a connection to the Trump administration:

The Trump administration has welcomed religion into the West Wing with the establishment of a new White House Faith Office. In recent months, pastors with Christian nationalist beliefs have been invited to the White House numerous times.

Cross necklaces have, in a way, become the jewelry of choice most associated with President Trump’s second administration.

The real story here isn’t that cross necklaces are suddenly making a fashion comeback.

The real story is that one of the biggest newspapers in the world is apparently surprised that the cross has enduring significance and found it necessary to use fashion as the angle to make sense of it.

It’s a wasted opportunity that amounts to journalistic malpractice.

Instead of treating cross necklaces as a fashion trend, the New York Times could have investigated why the decline of Christianity in America has plateaued. That would have made for a much more interesting story in the context of a supposed rise in cross necklace wearers.

Paul’s prescient message

This “story” is yet another example proving why we cannot trust the legacy media to cover Christianity.

Instead of taking serious the deep and rich meaning behind the cross as a symbol and why Christians proudly wear them, the New York Times reduces cross necklaces to an aesthetic trend that is all about the “vibes.” It’s the true and time-tested way the legacy media covers Christianity: through mockery, ridicule, condemnation, and a refusal to understand.

If you could ask the apostle Paul, he might even suggest the legacy media’s inability to understand Christianity — as this New York Times story demonstrates — is evidence of the media’s godlessness.

Paul wrote, “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18).

Clearly, the cross is still foolishness to those who don’t understand it.

That’s the great irony of this story: What looks like a jewelry fashion trend to the New York Times (i.e., “those who are perishing”) is, for Christians, the symbol of God’s salvific power.

It’s not a trend. It’s eternal.

Christians adorn themselves with the cross to remember their crucified savior, the risen Christ, and to declare without shame their allegiance to Christ, an obedience that cannot be broken — no matter how much the world mocks or misunderstands.

The cross isn’t “style” — but a scandal and a signpost to the greatest story the world has ever known.

​Cross, Christianity, Jesus, Christians, Legacy media, Media bias, New york times, Faith 

One of the main forces driving the populist revolt against Washington stems from a simple truth: The ruling class openly prioritizes foreign interests over the needs of American citizens.

When millions of Americans — spanning political and economic divides — called on their leaders to put America first, the response was rejection.

Blue-collar factory workers, once loyal to the economic left, and Tea Party conservatives, committed to limited government, found rare common ground. Together, they asked their government to put the interests of the United States and its people above globalist agendas. That request was denied.

The political class chose to outsource American manufacturing, ship jobs overseas, and flood the domestic labor market with cheap foreign replacements. When they couldn’t export your job, they imported someone to take it.

At the same time, both parties prioritized foreign wars and border security — for other nations. While American communities faced rising crime and chaos from a deliberately open southern border, lawmakers sent troops, dollars, and attention to foreign front lines.

Washington refused to secure the United States. It focused instead on securing everyone else.

I welcome the growing ‘America Only’ movement, even if it is more isolationist than I am.

To be fair, the two parties expressed their abandonment of American interests differently. The Democrats embraced a fervent anti-patriotism that made clear their hostility and disloyalty to the United States. Democrats swooned over Colin Kaepernick, whose public disdain for the U.S. symbolized their broader worldview. In other words, Democrats embraced “America Never.”

The Republican establishment, despite the party’s base being vocally America First, sought out a compromise position with the Democrats, settling on “America Last” as the middle ground.

America Last is an unacceptable compromise to those of us clamoring for America First. The only rational countermeasure is “America Only” — a position that aims to shift the Overton window back toward the rightful prioritization of American sovereignty, industry, and citizenship. While I don’t believe the United States can completely decouple from the global economy, nor do I consider myself America Only, I welcome the shift in that direction to move the compromise position from America Last to America First.

Too many people in Washington on both sides of the aisle are passionate about defending Ukraine’s border, but they consider it vulgar and racist for Americans to secure our own border. Elites weep over the deportation of violent criminal aliens, yet are silent about their crimes and the victims affected by them. To this day, open-border ideologues claim that the man who murdered Laken Riley is the real victim — and they’ll never forgive her for being killed by one of their prized illegal aliens.

The ‘America Only’ compromise

The genesis of the MAGA movement is often summarized this way: “The Tea Party was the polite request. Donald Trump is the less polite request. It doesn’t get any more polite from here.” That same sequence applies to the uniparty, having rejected America First, which was the polite request. America Only is the less polite follow-up request.

We demanded that our own border be secured before weapons and tax money were sent to defend Ukraine’s border. The establishment responded by draining our country’s stock of munitions and sending them to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, along with $175 billion. Congress’ bipartisan “compromise” was to keep the border wide open and effectively legalize the ongoing invasion. The government hired thousands of border agents, not to protect the border but to process those crossing it.

Moreover, we demanded fair, reciprocal trade, and in response, we got unilateral surrender to foreign mercantilism — our industrial exports widely blocked by tariffs and trade barriers from the same countries granted unlimited access to our markets.

These betrayals have pushed many conservatives who were once pro-trade, pro-legal immigration, and pro-Ukraine into an isolationist mindset that embraces protectionist tariffs, rejects all immigration, and doesn’t care any longer about Ukraine’s fate. This response is not only rational — it might be necessary to tell our government that prioritizing the United States and its citizens must henceforth be its top priority.

A wake-up call

For what it’s worth, I am not an isolationist. I stand solidly with Israel as a cultural and religious outpost that is a linchpin in Western civilization, and I support its current war effort — so long as U.S. troops are not involved. If Israel falls, it wouldn’t just reshape the map; it would embolden those who dream of a global caliphate, including in North America.

I can also be persuaded that a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear program is justifiable so long as the “we broke it, we bought it” policy is no longer operational. If we have to break it, we can break it and leave it until it needs breaking again.

At the same time, I also welcome the growing “America Only” movement, even if it is more isolationist than I am. A coalition of America Only and America First voters has the power to compel the Republican establishment and swing-district Democrats to understand that America First is the compromise position, and if they refuse, then they get nothing on their global wish list.

​Opinion & analysis, America first, America last, America only, Foreign policy, Tea party conservative, America never, Colin kaepernick, Ukraine, Middle class, Donald trump, Tariffs, Trade, Republicans, Democrats, Elites, Ruling class, Deep state 

On May 7, 2025, the White House withdrew Janette Nesheiwat’s nomination for U.S. surgeon general without stating an official reason. Speculation suggests that conservative opposition, driven by her strong support for COVID-19 vaccines and her views on gender identity, played a significant role in the decision.

The same day, President Trump announced Dr. Casey Means as his new pick on Truth Social, praising her “impeccable ‘MAHA’ credentials” and her alignment with the “Make America Healthy Again” movement.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s former running mate, Nicole Shanahan, however, isn’t thrilled with this pick.

On a recent episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” she told Glenn all about her major reservations.

“Casey Means is a founder of a company that does biometric harvesting. She’s very close with many of the big data biometric harvesting companies in Silicon Valley,” says Nicole. “I know several of these people. You do not want them running in a government position that is responsible for everybody equally.”

Nicole explains that biometric harvesting is anything from “heart rate data” and “all of the data that is collected from your Fitbit or high glucose monitor” all the way to “DNA harvesting.”

“MAHA really came from medical freedom and medical sovereignty and the idea that we have to keep conflicts of interest out of the government,” says Nicole. “Our job is to continue to seek the best possible people for government that are truly putting the principles of this country first, the principles of American sovereignty first.”

Glenn references the following tweet Nicole posted on Wednesday, May 7:

https://x.com/NicoleShanahan/status/1920308773979353102

“Wow!” says Glenn. “When I talked to the twins during COVID, they seemed pretty clear on what was bad and what was good; they both seemed to be good on COVID and the vaccines.”

“They talk a great talk, let me tell you. I will say I was once a fan of the Meanses as well,” says Nicole, adding that her opinions began shifting after “[receiving] many comments from individuals in and around the transition team” looking at “new research” and listening to strong concern expressed by the MAHA base.

Nicole says she wants to see “truth, honesty, and dignity in our medical system once again.”

If Dr. Casey Means is confirmed as U.S. surgeon general, will she be able to see that through? Time will tell, but what Nicole knows for sure is that “there are better candidates.”

To hear more of the conversation, including why she believes RFK Jr. might be reporting to someone other than Trump, watch the clip above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

​Glenn beck, The glenn beck program, Nicole shanahan, Casey means, Means twins, Surgeon general, Rfk jr, Blazetv, Maha, Maga, Covid, Vaccines 

Plenty of Teslas zip through the suburbs outside New York City, where I live. Every so often, one has a bumper sticker — less a decoration than a plea for mercy.

These stickers aren’t aimed at political opponents, but at the car owner’s own tribe. The one in front of me recently read: “I bought this before Elon went crazy.”

When Americans can put victimhood and hurt feelings behind, maybe we can get back to lightening up and enjoying a joke or two.

That’s the new defense. Tesla owners feel the need to distance themselves from Elon Musk — not for quality concerns, but to avoid vandalism from their fellow progressives. They fear having their cars keyed or torched by people who once admired Musk but now rage at his defiance.

By slapping on that sticker, they signal allegiance to the very vandals who want to punish Musk for exposing government corruption and fighting to protect taxpayers from waste and fraud. For some reason, they don’t appreciate Musk’s sincere desire to save American taxpayers from being duped and overcharged by shysters.

But for the rest of us common-sense Americans, what Musk is doing with the DOGE is a no-brainer: Cut wasteful spending, and everybody benefits — left, right, and center. Duh!

This tongue-in-cheek defensive message and others I’ve seen, like “Fly to Mars, Elon, and take Trump with you,” and “Love the car, not the CEO,” remind me of some of my early years living in Manhattan.

Decades ago, a spate of robberies plagued the streets of New York. Burglars would break car windows and pry the radios out of the dashboards. It reached epidemic proportions. You could walk down a city block in the morning and see two or three cars with smashed windows and missing radios.

At one point, drivers got so fed up that they started removing their own radios, locking them in their trunks, and displaying handmade signs prominently on their dashboards, reading: “NO RADIO!”

I did not own a car way back then, so I was fortunate enough never to need a parking space on the street. But I was doing stand-up comedy with lots of props. For one bit, I ordered a license plate from a novelty company that read: “NO RADIO.” It had the official-looking New York state insignia, like it came straight from one of the fine craftsmen at New York’s Auburn Correctional Facility.

Well, the quick sight gag eked out only a few scattered titters from the audience, which made me think after a couple of shows that maybe I had just blown 20 bucks.

However, my comedy-writer friend and collaborator Bob Pagani took the idea to another level after his own vehicle was broken into.

From tragedy to comedy

Driving back to his home in New Jersey the next morning with a smashed side window and missing radio naturally got Bob hot under the collar. However, Bob being Bob, by the time he got through the Lincoln Tunnel, he had come up with a wacky scheme to make light of — even profit from — the unfortunate event.

Bob devised a faux charity that would benefit two problems in New York City at the time: the rampant homeless street population and the destructive car vandalism. He called his “charity” Asleep at the Wheel.

The idea was that a homeless person, for a nominal fee, would sleep inside your car overnight. He (or she) would benefit by enjoying a nice, warm place to camp out. You, in turn, would get a “security guard,” assuring that your radio would still be there in the morning.

It was a win-win all around.

Bob made some impressive-looking flyers designed for media eyes only — he certainly didn’t want anyone taking him up on the offer — and dropped them off at various Manhattan news outlets. Once he got a “bite,” Bob convinced an actor friend to pose as a homeless man and sleep in his recently restored car.

Bob caught some nice press, even local television coverage. Of course, the TV crew never caught on to the joke, but Bob sure did have a great laugh.

Lighten up, Tesla haters

Maybe it’s time to bring back Asleep at the Wheel so nervous Tesla owners can rest easy, too.

The days of the great pranksters, which perhaps began in earnest with the creation in the 1960s of Allen Funt’s “Candid Camera,” may have gone the way of the original Earth shoe and New Coke. Could it be that making someone look foolish by catching them in a silly prank might lead to claims of “victimization” — and perhaps be followed by a lawsuit? And has the goofy hoax now morphed into something sinister like Jussie Smollett and his MAGA-noose attack?

At the moment, perhaps the best humor with some bite can be found at the Babylon Bee. In my mind, it is the conservative Christian version of the old National Lampoon.

We need more “Bee,” certainly.

One day, when Americans can put aside victimhood, hurt feelings, and an attitude of “me-me-me,” maybe we can get back to lightening up and enjoying a joke or two, even at our own expense.

Wouldn’t that be funny?

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

​Opinion & analysis, Elon musk, Department of government efficiency, Doge, Tesla, Vandalism, Humor 

Even for those who profess no particular interest in clothing, its practical value is relatively uncontroversial. It covers our bodies, ensuring we aren’t completely naked, standing embarrassed in the middle of the road. It keeps us warm, preventing us from dying in the middle of a snowbank in January.

And most people will concede that clothing reflects our culture and history. No, there isn’t much history in the pair of sweatpants, but there is in the Oxford shirt or the necktie.

A peach OCBD is one of the most peculiar shirts. It is, indeed, very close to pink. But it isn’t pink. It just isn’t at all.

But clothing has another function that is worth considering: helping us reflect the season. Clothes help us feel time.

I know that sounds strange, esoteric, or overblown, but it isn’t.

Christmas in July?

Think about red and green. What comes to mind when you think about those distinct colors together? Is it the Fourth of July? Is it the beach? Is it St. Patrick’s Day? No, of course not. You think of Christmas. Red and green make you think of falling snow and Christmas trees.

Would you feel comfortable wearing this combination in any other month? Probably not. But in December it feels just right. It elevates the season. These two wintery colors help you feel time in an acute way. With red and green in December, you embody the season in sartorial form.

Spring incarnate

We experience the same thing in spring, too. It’s not red and green, trees and snow, of course. It’s pastels. It’s light greens and violets. It’s peaches, sunny yellows, and the lightest blues imaginable on poplin button-downs. It’s these colors that feel like spring incarnate.

They are the colors of the blooming flowers and waking world. They remind us of new life. They are the colors of the living earth brought forward by the blessed sun. These colors are colors for finally coming outside and breathing easy without chattering teeth for the first time in half a year.

A light green OCBD. Can this be worn in October? No. It’s way too fresh for the rotting leaves and darkening days. What about violet? Can it be worn in November? No. Never. Purple is a year-round color, that’s true. A deep purple is regal and works quite well in the darkness of winter. It’s practically like a royal navy. But a violet OCBD? That effervescent shade that reminds us of a young tulip growing from the ground? No.

Peach power

Peach? Isn’t that like red or pink? Can’t that be worn year-round? Again, no. It cannot. A peach OCBD is one of the most peculiar shirts. It is, indeed, very close to pink. But it isn’t pink. It just isn’t at all. It is peach and nothing else. And peach just cannot be worn when it’s cold. Can you imagine a peach sitting in the snow? No. You can’t imagine a peach OCBD under a red and black Mackinaw jacket, either. It’s wrong.

These things are so delicate and nuanced. I realize that for the uninitiated, this can sound too detailed or blown out of proportion. But once you think for just a few minutes about these shades and their intimate relationship with time and season, you realize that they can only be — truly be — in spring.

Yes, they can be worn in summer too, but it is spring when they come rushing out of our closets for the first time. It is spring when we realize just what they mean.

Feeling time

Is this just about color and shade? Is this just aesthetics without any other meaning? Is there a bigger takeaway? Of course there is. Aesthetics, when properly understood, always hold something deeper.

What does it mean to feel the season? How do we feel time? Has our modern world lessened our perception of time and season? These days we have incredible climate control. AC and heat keep our houses at the perfect temperature all year long.

This, while deeply appreciated, has eroded some feeling of time and season. Reliable heat has lessened the need for the wool sweater or tweed sport coat. Wonderful AC has lessened the need for madras or linen.

As we have moved away from an agrarian society and toward a world where we can get any fruit we want from anywhere in the world any day of the week no matter the season, we have also moved away from the land and feeling time in the land.

Unless we are farmers, we no longer feel the harvest seasons in the same way. We no longer realize — deeply realize — that food doesn’t grow all year. Modern society, for better or worse, has led to us feeling the seasons (and time) less than our ancestors did.

Intimate knowledge

Clothes are wonderful because they allow us a return to time. They give us the chance to reflect, embody, and feel time in an intimate way. Clothes are, after all, one of the most intimate items we own. They are on our bodies, against our skin. To be able to feel time and season in such an intimate way is a gift in our era of disorienting time suspension.

Spring is about new life. Thawing after the cold. Sun after the snow. Lightness after darkness. We shouldn’t resist that. It’s our gift after surviving winter. We should wear peach, violet, and light green. We should embrace spring and all its meaning. When we embrace this sunny joy in our clothing, it radiates out into other aspects of our lives as well.

Spring is about joy, so let us feel joy.

​Men’s style, Spring, Colors, Lifestyle, Ocbd, The root of the matter 

Rachel Wilson was born to a Marxist feminist mom and a hard-core conservative, Rush Limbaugh-loving dad. Spoiler alert: It didn’t work out.

Rachel struggled in school but not because she wasn’t smart. On the contrary, she was too smart. By kindergarten she had already figured out that school wasn’t about learning but about obeying rules. When college rolled around, Rachel was so over traditional education that she turned down a full-ride art scholarship.

At 20, she became a mom and felt she had found her calling. But when returning to work at just four weeks postpartum loomed, Rachel realized just how toxic the modern system was.

She began asking questions about how we got to a place where it’s normal for babies to be shipped off to day care and new moms forced to return to work just days after birth.

Her questions landed her deep in feminist literature, where she discovered that the origins of the feminist movement are not what we’ve been told. The story of abused women oppressed by the patriarchy, forced to slave away at the stove and have babies until they perished, is the lie the radical left sells us.

The truth? It’s far more sinister than most realize. Elites, the CIA, and occultists are the ones who shaped women’s liberation — not to free women, but to control society.

On a recent episode of “Normal World,” Rachel joined Dave Landau, ¼ Black Garrett, and Angela Boggs to unpack the dark history of feminism outlined in her book “Occult Feminism: The Secret History of Women’s Liberation.”

“There’s a whole hidden history to women’s liberation that nobody knows about,” says Rachel. For example, most “don’t know that there was way higher participation in anti-suffrage groups among women than pro-suffrage groups.”

However, the most shocking revelation Rachel uncovered during her research was that the feminist pioneers were almost all involved in occultism.

“Not a couple, but most of them dabbled in occult practices, whether it’s like witchcraft, spiritualism. …There’s an old saying that there was never a suffragette that didn’t sit around the seance table,” she says.

“There was a lot of anti-Christian sentiment within the suffrage movement. They had radical lesbian separatist female pastors in like 1895 helping to rewrite the Bible.”

Their core belief was that “Christianity was invented by the evil patriarchy to control women and force them to be rape slaves.”

“Lucifer was actually a symbol of women’s liberation in the 1800s. They openly said Lucifer was the good guy; he was trying to enlighten us and make us free and liberated, and God’s actually the bad [guy],” says Rachel, noting that these aren’t her opinions but the real words of the original feminists.

Later, “the CIA pushed [the feminist movement],” not for the sake of women’s freedom but rather for the sake of control.

“We’ve been lied to about everything at this point,” says Dave.

To hear more about Rachel’s book and the wild origins of the feminist movement, watch the episode above.

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.

​Normal world, Dave landau, Rachel wilson, Occultism, Feminist movement, Feminism, Cia, Blazetv, Blaze media 

The United States once led the world in manufacturing, producing more than 25% of global industrial output. Today, China holds that title, controlling over 30%, while the U.S. struggles to maintain even half that share.

Plenty of factors drove this decline — decades of offshoring, the collapse of industrial job bases, and an obsession with short-term profits over long-term strength. But if America wants to reclaim its industrial leadership and restore economic self-reliance, we need more than reshoring slogans and infrastructure bills.

Innovation isn’t an expense. It’s an investment — in national security, in American workers, and the future of US leadership.

We must fix and expand the research and development tax credit.

A recent Wall Street Journal analysis focused on our loss of industrial capacity. But capacity starts with innovation. Every new factory, process, and product begins with research — and that remains our greatest untapped advantage.

Yet Congress has punished companies for investing in R&D. Since 2022, the tax code has forced businesses to amortize R&D expenses over five years instead of deducting them immediately. That change has choked innovation, especially among small and midsized manufacturers that depend on near-term tax relief to fund future growth.

The result? Reduced domestic innovation, fewer advanced manufacturing breakthroughs, and an economy less equipped to compete with subsidized foreign rivals.

R&D incentives work

The research and development tax credit was meant to drive economic growth. It helps businesses offset the steep costs of developing new technologies, improving production, and staying competitive.

But today’s credit falls short. It’s too small, too complicated, and — after the amortization change — actively harmful.

Now compare that to China. Beijing offers “super deductions,” direct subsidies, and aggressive industrial policies tailored to national priorities. The results speak for themselves: China leads in semiconductors, solar, electric vehicles, and other strategic industries.

Four immediate fixes

To reverse course and restore American competitiveness, Congress must act.

Restore full expensing of R&D investments so businesses can deduct costs in the year they’re made — not years later.
Expand the R&D credit to reach startups, family-owned manufacturers, and small tech firms that often drive innovation but struggle to access support.
Streamline eligibility rules and reduce audit risks that discourage many companies from claiming the credit at all.
Create bonus credits for R&D tied to domestic manufacturing in key sectors like semiconductors, energy, defense, and infrastructure.

R&D as economic infrastructure

American manufacturing won’t come back without innovation. You can’t revive the auto industry, reshore chip production, or scale clean energy without continuous investment in research and development. And without smart tax policy to back it, capital won’t go where it’s needed.

Lawmakers in both parties love to talk about supporting U.S. industry. But support doesn’t come from speeches — it comes from policy. If Congress is serious about restoring American manufacturing, it should start by fixing the one tax tool designed to keep us competitive.

The auto industry didn’t boom just because someone built a car. It took Ford’s innovation of the assembly line and the machines to make it work. Thomas Edison didn’t invent the light bulb — he made it viable. Steve Wozniak didn’t invent the microchip, but he made the personal computer scalable.

Inventors didn’t build the modern economy. Innovators did.

Innovation isn’t an expense. It’s an investment — in national security, in American workers, and in the future of U.S. leadership.

​Opinion & analysis, Manufacturing, Research, Development, National security, Economy, Industry, Microchips, Science, China, Innovation, Tax credit, Congress, Tax reform, Budget 

Across the nation, radical activists and their allies in government wield accusations of “hate” as a weapon to silence dissent and shame those who dare protect children from harmful ideologies.

When my organization, Courage Is a Habit, was labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center for our unapologetic stand against transgender ideology in K-12 schools and transgender trafficking bills, we faced a choice: Defend ourselves against the smear or redefine it on our terms.

Hate is the natural response of any sane person who sees children being indoctrinated, mutilated, or stripped of their innocence.

We chose the latter.

As I told Blaze News in April, “Absolutely we are a hate group. 100%. We hate what’s happening to children. We hate the people that pass transgender trafficking bills, which is what this HB 1312 is, essentially. We hate that children are getting sterilized and mutilated before they can even get their driver’s license. We hate everything that you stand for. We want to run you out of schools. We want to run you out of any political office.”

This is a call to American patriots to rethink the “hate” accusation and embrace it as a badge of courage. By reframing this tactic, we can neutralize its power, refocus the debate on protecting children’s innocence, and reclaim the moral high ground from those who seek to dismantle parental rights and our American way of life.

The weaponization of empathy

For too long, kind-hearted Americans have fallen into a trap. Radical activists, like those pushing HB 1312 in Colorado, exploit our empathy by framing their agenda as compassion and labeling opposition as “hate.”

HB 1312 seeks to undermine parental rights by prioritizing state control over children, allowing the government to facilitate transgender decisions without parental consent. When parents push back, they’re accused of being “hateful” toward the trans community.

“There’s no reason to go to the table with people who are echoing the hateful rhetoric going around about the trans community,” Colorado state Rep. Javier Mabrey (D) asserted.

This tactic is deliberate and dishonest. It shifts the conversation away from their degeneracy and our mission to protect children from irreversible medical decisions and preserve parental authority. The “hateful” accusation forces good parents into a defensive crouch, justifying why they aren’t “hateful.”

This is a losing game. The more time we spend rebutting their labels, the less we focus on exposing their agenda: The erosion of parental rights, the sexualization of children, and the destruction of innocence under the guise of “inclusion.”

Redefining ‘hate’ as righteous indignation

At Courage Is a Habit, we’ve chosen to lean into the “hate group” label because we hate the ideology and policies that harm children.

Hate, in this context, is the natural response of any sane person who sees children being indoctrinated, mutilated, or stripped of their innocence. We hate that bills like HB 1312 enable schools to keep secrets from parents. We hate transgender trafficking bills that allow states like California and Maine to remove custody from out-of-state minors, simply for the fact that their parents do not agree with transgender treatments. We hate that kindergarten children are being influenced to believe they’re born in the wrong body.

Patriots must embrace this reframing. When accused of “hate,” don’t deny it. Instead, redirect it. Say, “Yes, I hate what’s happening to our children. I hate policies that put ideology over their safety, and I hate your dishonesty”

This approach disarms the accuser by rejecting the accuser’s premise.

The moral high ground belongs to us

The radical left wants you to believe that opposing this agenda makes you a bigot. But protecting children is not hate. It’s the highest form of nobility. It’s protecting the most innocent among us who cannot yet make life-altering decisions. It’s love for truth, which demands we acknowledge biological reality over ideological fantasy.

When we stand against transgender ideology in schools, we’re defending the innocence and future of the next generation.

The moral high ground belongs to those who prioritize children over politics. Transgender child mutilation advocates may cloak their agenda in compassion, but their policies betray their true priorities.

The Cass Review, a comprehensive 2024 study from the United Kingdom, found that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones carry significant physical and psychological risks, with little evidence of long-term benefits. Yet radicals dismiss these findings, accusing critics of “transphobia” instead of engaging with the facts.

A call to courageous action

Patriots, it’s time to stop apologizing and start acting. Here’s how to reframe the “hate” accusation and turn it into a rallying cry.

Own the narrative: When labeled as “hateful,” embrace it with clarity. Say, “I hate policies that harm kids. I hate ideologies that confuse and exploit them.” This neutralizes the smear and keeps the focus on the real issue.
Speak with conviction: Don’t shy away from strong language. Call them what they are: Transgender trafficking bills that prioritize ideology over evidence. They’re an attack on parental rights and a betrayal of children’s trust.
Educate and mobilize: Share resources like the Cass Review or stories of detransitioners, young people who regret irreversible procedures pushed by activists. Attend school board meetings, write to legislators, and demand transparency in education.
Build community: Connect with other parents and patriots through organizations like ours or local groups opposing woke ideology. Together, we can amplify our voices and expose child mutilation advocates who constantly gaslight parents.
Stay focused: The left wants to distract you with bad-faith tactics. Don’t take the bait. Keep the conversation focused on the horrors these leftists support and why it’s noble to hate what they’re doing to children’s innocence.

Courage is a habit

We’ve learned that courage is a habit, built through small, consistent choices to speak truth — even when it’s hard.

Being called a “hate group” isn’t a scarlet letter; it’s a badge of honor. It means you’re a threat to those who would harm children and erode freedom. So wear it proudly. Hate what’s happening to our kids. Hate the policies that betray them. And let that passion fuel your fight.

The time for defense is over. It’s time to go on offense. Run these ideologies out of our schools. Run their champions out of office. Protect our children, not just for today, but for generations to come. As I said, “We hate everything that you stand for” — and we’re not backing down.

Make courage your habit.

​Hate group, Lgbt, Protect children, Transgender ideology, Splc, Southern poverty law center, Courage is a habit, Opinion & analysis 

Mark Levin pulls no punches when it comes to the state of postsecondary education in America.

Commenting on the recent assault of Jay Sani, brutally beaten in February for wearing a MAGA hat on campus, Levin declares, “Washington State University, like virtually every other university or college in America, sucks.”

This incident reflects Levin’s broader concerns about academia. He laments that it’s nearly impossible “to get an education without the ideology, without the propaganda, without demagogic faculty members, without feeling threatened by people in your class.”

Reflecting on his own college experience, Levin recalls a time when “the professors were liberal, but they weren’t talking about blowing up America.”

“I don’t remember a single Islamist professor. In fact, I don’t remember a single Islamist student (I didn’t say Muslim; I said Islamist). I don’t remember anybody in there saying ‘death to America’ or ‘we have to overthrow the American Empire’ or any of that stuff,” he adds.

Sure, there were some Marxists and lefties, “But nothing like there is today.”

Free speech was also respected, even by those on the left.

“I would stir the pot, you know. I remember in history and political science and these other relatively useless courses that I took, I remember saying things in order to get a rise out of a couple of the students,” he recalls. But that was OK because “there really was free speech.”

This reminiscing led him to recall a memorable moment from his law school days at Temple University Law School in North Philadelphia. In his constitutional law and civil rights class, taught by a professor who was also “the vice chairman of the Philadelphia ACLU,” a provocative stunt became one of his fondest memories.

One day, “This professor brings out a copy of either Playboy or Penthouse, and he opens it to the centerfold and says, ‘Is this First Amendment-protected free speech?’”

The majority of the women in the class, who “were all radical left-wing kooks” and walked around “bra-less,” objected, screamed in outrage, and stormed out of the room.

“I’m sitting in the back, and I’m laughing. Why? Because here you have the liberals fighting with the liberals, the left is fighting with the left,” Levin recalls. “That was about as entertaining as law school ever got, to be perfectly honest with you.”

For more details on this unforgettable story and Levin’s reflections on the state of higher education, watch the clip above.

Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of “the Great One” — Mark Levin as you’ve never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Levintv, Mark levin, Woke college students, Liberal academica, Free speech, Marxism in education, Blazetv, Blaze media