On December 8, 2024, the Israeli Air Force conducted targeted operations against weapons storage facilities across Southern Syria in order to prevent stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

Israel was intent on destroying the weapons that the ousted dictator Bashar al-Assad — who has fled to Russia — and his father spent half a century accumulating, but Syrians fear Israel is taking advantage of a weakness to capture territory.

Mark Levin of “LevinTV” believes their fear is completely unfounded.

“Israel has said as recently as yesterday, ‘We’re not interested in land in Syria. We’re not taking land in Syria. We’re in the buffer zone, and we intend to protect Israel from the buffer zone, that is in the buffer zone, from the terrorists coming into the buffer zone and then Israel having to actually go to war over it,’” Levin explains.

“The Israeli government is protecting their country and their cities, while you have miscreants and malcontents, including reporters, coming in from other countries, like our own country — ‘Israel is seizing land, Israel’s doing this, Israel is doing that.’ Israel is doing nothing but defending itself,” he continues.

However, Levin points out that most of the land surrounding Israel once belonged to the Jewish people.

“If you really want to redraw the map of the Middle East, the vast majority of those areas we’re talking about, whether it’s the area in Jordan, whether it’s the area in Lebanon, whether it’s the area, Gaza Strip — were Jewish,” Levin says.

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.

​Camera phone, Video phone, Upload, Free, Sharing, Video, Youtube.com, Levintv, Mark levin, Bashar al-assad, Syria, Israel, Israeli air force strikes syrian weapons factory, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze media, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Netanyahu 

After President-elect Donald Trump swept all seven swing states and the popular vote on November 5, the Republican Party has largely fallen behind his MAGA mandate.

Although Trump has become the face of the Republican Party, some defectors have required the shepherding of the president-elect in order to effectively implement this MAGA mandate.

While Republicans control both the executive and the legislative branches, the narrow majorities in the House and Senate have left the GOP with very little wiggle room to implement Trump’s policy agenda. But where pressure is needed, pressure has been applied, and it has worked.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Trump is the only Republican with the Midas touch of political viability.

One of the earliest examples of Trump’s effective pressure campaign was when Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa withheld from formally endorsing Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host and veteran who was nominated to head the Department of Defense. Ernst, who focuses much of her advocacy towards victims of sexual abuse in the military, privately expressed reservations about Hegseth, who was facing several allegations, including sexual misconduct. Importantly, Hegseth and many of his former colleagues have firmly denied these allegations.

After the pair first met on Capitol Hill, sources close to the Senate confirmed to Blaze News that Ernst had begun lobbying against Hegseth’s nomination. One source told Blaze News that Ernst lends her ear to the old guard, establishment Republicans in the Senate, serving as a “useful proxy” for former leader Mitch McConnell.

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (C) walks through the Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on December 3, 2024 in Washington, DC.(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Once reports shed light on Ernst’s disapproval of Hegseth, the Trump world launched an online pressure campaign to sway the senator. Trump even threatened to primary Republican senators who withheld support from his Cabinet nominees. Ernst quickly caved to the pressure, warming up to Hegseth and leaning into more of the MAGA message.

At the same time, this was not an isolated incident. During the December funding fight on the House side, Trump put his thumb on the scale to produce a more favorable outcome.

Speaker Mike Johnson initially introduced a bloated 1,547-page continuing resolution just days before the government was set to shut down, prompting outrage from fiscal conservatives in the Republican conference. MAGA allies like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy also chimed in and criticized the funding bill. However, Trump’s condemnation of the CR was the final blow.

Johnson quickly returned to the drawing board and made as many amendments as Trump demanded. The amended CR went up for a vote but was struck down due to a provision that raised the debt ceiling, one of Trump’s demands. Despite this, the House eventually passed the slimmer 116-page CR that omitted the debt ceiling provision, averting a government shutdown.

Despite some blunders, Johnson has secured Trump’s blessing.

Shortly after the end-of-year spending fight, Johnson was facing a challenging reelection to the speakership. Ahead of the January 3 election, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky vowed to vote against Johnson, who could only afford one “no vote” given the GOP’s historically slim margins. Despite Trump’s endorsement of the Speaker, several other fiscal conservatives also expressed hesitancies about reelecting Johnson.

Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump listens as Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks during a press conference at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate on April 12, 2024, in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

While the election was taking place, seven Republicans initially refrained from voting for Johnson altogether. Among them was Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, a staunch fiscal conservative who, along with Massie, endorsed Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in the GOP presidential primary. Although Roy had previously defected from Trump, he eventually changed his vote to Johnson because of his “steadfast support of President Trump.”

This left Johnson with a total of three defections. Massie voted for Majority Whip Tom Emmer, which remained unchanged in the final vote tally. Republican Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina officially voted for Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, and Rep. Keith Self of Texas voted for Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida.

At this point, Johnson had come up two votes short of securing a second term. Rather than moving on to a second round of voting, which has historically lost votes for candidates, Johnson, Norman, Self, and other Republicans huddled in a room off of the House floor.

In order to secure another political victory, Trump reportedly called Norman and Self in order to sway their votes. Just minutes later, the two defectors approached the clerk and voted for Johnson, securing his speakership in just one round of votes.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Trump is the only Republican with the Midas touch of political viability.

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

​Donald trump, Mike johnson, Maga mandate, Republicans, House republicans, Senate republicans, White house, Trump administration, Pete hegseth, Joni ernst, Capitol hill, Mitch mcconnell, Establishment, Swamp, Trump cabinet, Trump nominee, Cr, Continuing resolution, Funding fight, Spending fight, Fiscal conservative, Federal deficit, National debt, Elon musk, Vivek ramaswamy, Funding bill, Debt ceiling, Thomas massie, Speaker of the house, Chip roy, Tom emmer, Jim jordan, Ralph norman, Keith self, Byron donalds, Politics 

Should Christians engage in so-called gender pronoun hospitality?

Gender pronoun hospitality refers to the concept of using someone’s “preferred pronouns” or a trans-identifying person’s transgender name despite otherwise disagreeing with LGBTQ ideology.

God’s truth about human identity and sexuality trumps anything we internally perceive for ourselves.

The idea behind gender pronoun hospitality is that using preferred pronouns or a trans name when requested by LGBTQ-identifying people preserves a relationship with that person. Not to practice gender pronoun hospitality, its practitioners argue, risks offense and, ultimately, the potential destruction of relationship, which could be a barrier between LGBTQ-identifying people and the Gospel. Bible scholar Preston Sprinkle has even described pronoun hospitality as a “common courtesy.”

But according to famed pastor John Piper, Christians should not engage in gender pronoun hospitality — and for good reason.

On a recent episode of his podcast “Ask Pastor John,” Piper answered a question he received from a concerned church elder about gender pronoun hospitality and whether Christians can use it in relationships with non-Christians in evangelism contexts.

What Piper said

At the outset, Piper spotted the problem with the phrase “gender pronoun hospitality.”

He explained that it connects a “beautiful biblical word” (i.e., hospitality) with an “unbiblical concept” (i.e., gender pronoun ideology), which renders the phrase “unhelpful and misleading.”

“We ought to be hospitable, but we ought not to be affirming of pronouns that designate a destructive choice and a false view of reality,” Piper advised. “It is possible to be hospitable and honest.”

Even more important, using “gender” in the context of LGBTQ ideology, Piper said, is a “compromise with sinful views of reality.”

Instead, Christians should use terms for biological sex because it distinguishes between male and female, whereas gender is a “reality-distorting designation.”

He explained:

Gender (as a designation for persons, not grammar) was pushed into our vocabulary by radical feminists fifty years ago, in the seventies, who believed that the givenness of sexual distinctions forever condemned women to kinds of existence they may or may not want. Therefore, to create the freedom to define their existence, “gender” was used as an alternative to “sex” because gender can be chosen and sex can’t be. Sex is bondage; gender is freedom — so it was thought. I think using the word “gender” where the right word is “sex” is like using the word “marriage” for a relationship between two men or two women. It’s not marriage. It is so-called “marriage.”

After advising Christians to be up-front about the Gospel’s “implications and purifying power” in evangelism contexts, thus undercutting one of the primary arguments for gender pronoun hospitality, Piper explained the serious issues with pronoun hospitality.

Most important, Piper said, “it defies God.”

Gender pronoun hospitality, moreover, involves endorsing lies that distort the God-designed true nature of humanity, promotes a “deeply anti-God commitment to human autonomy,” contributes to our culture’s disordered sexuality and persuades more people to become members of it, and situates sexuality as core to human nature, Piper explained.

Another major problem

Practitioners of pronoun hospitality claim not to agree with or to affirm LGBTQ ideology per se.

But here is the major problem: Using the grammar of LGBTQ ideology — like preferred pronouns or a trans-identifying person’s transgender name — affirms the legitimacy of those categories despite their incoherence with objective truth.

This is why professor Carl Trueman, in his book “The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self,” warns against Christians using the grammar of LGBTQ ideology.

“Societies,” Trueman explains, “have categories for thinking about people and identity, and a real problem occurs when those categories are simply not adequate or appropriate.

“That is the question the church needs to ask about sexual identity: Are the categories that society now prioritizes actually ones that are appropriate?” he asks. “If the post-Freud taxonomy represented by the acronym LGBTQ+ rests on the basic category mistake (that sex is identity), should Christians not engage in a thoroughgoing critique of such and refuse to define themselves within the framework?”

Conceding the “categories” of LGBTQ grammar, Trueman warns, leads to “unfortunate confusion.” It also creates the illusion that one legitimizes not only the categories themselves but the moral and philosophical propositions on which they are built.

That is the exact reason Piper warns against engaging in pronoun hospitality and instructs Christians to think seriously about the implications of such “hospitality” before handing it out.

God’s truth about human identity and sexuality trumps anything we internally perceive for ourselves. Christians must stand on — not compromise — God’s truth.

​Christianity, Christians, John piper, Lgbtq ideology, Lgbtq, Pronoun hospitality, Preferred pronouns, Faith 

What is the church to you? Do you go to church to feel closer to God? Is it your sanctuary in a world that’s hurtling deeper and deeper into hell? Does the church make you feel safe?

What if I told you the church isn’t the church? That it can’t functionally act as the body of Christ. Not anymore, at least.

If the church can’t even keep its holy sacraments in order, then what can it realistically accomplish otherwise?

The church today is nothing more than a pretty ornament on a burning Christmas tree.

It exists as it does today to make people feel good. To provide for them a sense of spirituality they yearn for.

But what is spirituality? It means absolutely nothing. It’s a vague, ambiguous cloud of nothingness. It’s a feeling you feel when you tell yourself Jesus lives in your heart.

You wonder why the moral foundations of the world are crumbling? It’s because the church serves as little more than a refuge from a world falling apart. It’s seen as a place of escape rather than the institution of power and influence.

But the church was never supposed to be a retreat. The church was meant to engage with the real world, to shape it, to transform it. God isn’t some ambiguous feeling of connection or an abstract concept. Jesus was the word made flesh, not a disembodied notion of spirituality. The church was meant to operate in the here and now, not hover above reality in some ethereal sense of well-being.

Historically, the church had teeth. It wielded power — not just spiritual power, but real, tangible authority. Popes used to coronate kings, crowning monarchs as divinely sanctioned rulers. This wasn’t limited to the Roman Catholic Church, either; patriarchs in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches did the same. The state was dependent on the church for its legitimacy, and its doctrines and edicts carried real weight. When the church spoke, it wasn’t a suggestion. It was the voice of authority.

Compare that to today. If a man finds himself served with divorce papers by his wife, what does the church do? It offers prayers, maybe a referral to a good lawyer. But where is its power? Where is its authority to stand against the chaos of the modern world?

As a professor of political theory, Dr. Stephen Baskerville aptly points out in his interview with YouTuber Hannah Pearl Davis that the church today is incapable of providing solutions to the very real crises its members face.

Instead of a priest and his parish showing up to a divorce court and demanding legal standing to object to and prevent a divorce, it merely offers prayers to the soon-to-be separated parties. And if the church can’t even keep its holy sacraments in order, then what can it realistically accomplish otherwise? It’s become toothless.

This decline from authority to ornamentation is at the heart of why our society is crumbling. The church has abdicated its role as the moral and spiritual backbone of civilization. It has retreated into vague notions of spirituality and feel-good sermons, rather than engaging with the world and asserting its rightful place within it.

Until the church reclaims its authority — until it once again becomes the church — it will remain nothing more than a relic of what it was meant to be.

The question isn’t what happened to society. The question is: Why did we separate the church from society?

​Garen kaloustian, Lifestyle, Christianity, The church, Christians, Christmas, Abide 

This year will be a significant year for Christendom.

While the United States is experiencing a Bible boom — with a significant number of first-time buyers — suggesting Americans are searching for God in a chaotic and disordered world, 2025 is going to be a significant year for Christians worldwide for two important reasons.

1. Easter

This year, all Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) will celebrate Easter — the most holy holiday in Christianity — on the same Sunday.

While all Christians agree on the significance and the timing of Easter — it takes place on the first full moon after the spring equinox, which is called the paschal full moon — Orthodox Christians typically celebrate Easter later than Catholics and Protestants because they follow the Julian calendar while the Catholic Church and Protestants use the Gregorian calendar.

But this year, the paschal full moon on the Julian and Gregorian calendars align — so Christians worldwide will celebrate Easter on the same day: April 20.

Though it is rare, the last time the Easter dates coincided happened in 2017, and it will happen again in 2034.

2. 1700th anniversary of Nicaea

Even more significant, this year marks the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, otherwise known as the first ecumenical council.

Convened by Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325 AD, Christian bishops met in the Bithynian city of Nicaea (now a city in modern-day Turkey) for approximately two months.

The primary issue the council sought to address was Arianism, a popular ancient heresy. Arianism taught that Jesus was a mere creation of God, making him neither co-eternal nor consubstantial with God the Father. The teaching is a rejection of Jesus’ divinity and the Trinity. At Nicaea, however, the ecumenical council affirmed that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, is “of one substance” with God the Father.

It was not only a wholesale rejection of Arianism but a complete affirmation of the Trinity.

Importantly, the council formulated a creed to communicate the church’s teachings and beliefs. That creed is known as the Nicene Creed, which has been recited by Christians throughout history and is regularly recited by countless Christians each week.

The First Council of Nicaea is one of the most important events in the history of the church, and its impact cannot be understated.

If you are a Christian, this year would be a good time to learn about the First Council of Nicaea, how the decisions of Nicaea impact your faith today, and why the Nicene Creed is important for Christians.

​Christianity, Christians, Nicene creed, Council of nicaea, Faith 

New Year’s often inspires plans for enhancing our lives, and a recent trend could spark a nationwide revival.

America saw a Bible boom last year — the hope and good news of Scripture reaching millions of new eyes. Bible sales
increased 22% in 2024 over 2023, led by shoppers purchasing copies as first-time readers. Bible sales rose to 14.2 million in 2023 from 9.7 million in 2019, according to data reported by Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg at the Wall Street Journal, and hit 13.7 million in the first 10 months of 2024.

An interesting point is that sales of all books — including secular ones — were up less than 1%. That means there’s an undeniable spike in demand for the Good Book.

What does all this mean? Christians like me are rejoicing at this opportunity for more people to know God’s love. As a recovered agnostic, baptized as an adult seven years ago on December 3, my desire is to encourage new believers or curious seekers exploring faith.

For some new Bible readers, it may seem foreign and uncomfortable to embark on this journey, especially if they experienced or witnessed religious trauma and abuse. I certainly did, which is part of why returning to Bible reading was hard for me at first.

I grew up with seven biological siblings and a violent, mentally ill street-musician father, who believed he was a prophet and would someday become president of the United States and that Satan had “reassigned” lesser demons in order to personally torment our family. We lived a transient lifestyle, skirting authorities by constantly moving. Besides various houses, we lived in motor homes, tents, mobile homes, and sheds.

I learned the abundant scientific evidence for a divine creator that blew away any last vestiges of agnosticism.

One of my five brothers was born in a tent when our family lived in the public campground woods of Greenbelt Park, Maryland. Besides time spent in homeschooling, I attended 17 different public schools. When I took my ACT exam, we lived in a shed with no running water in the Ozarks.

The LDS Church eventually excommunicated my dad, so I’m careful to distinguish his behavior from the official, 17-million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As a child, my dad was sexually assaulted by a female Mormon babysitter and witnessed the sudden death of a best friend. Sadly, his children inherited the effects of his trauma.

Three siblings attempted suicide, and I have two brothers with schizophrenia, including one brother who tried to rape me and another who accused me of trying to seduce him. I’ve been hospitalized nine times for depression, fibromyalgia, suicidal ideation, and PTSD.

For years, I assumed I’d never return to belief in God or organized religion. My heart remained closed for over a decade because of the evil things I’d seen done in God’s name. To fill the void, I threw myself into work, schooling, dating, friends, and travel as ultimate sources of meaning. I studied business policy with a full-tuition scholarship at Harvard and worked as an analyst for major Wall Street firms, earning unthinkable sums for a girl from a motor home. I launched a career in political journalism at outlets like Politico, The Hill, and the Washington Times.

But it didn’t provide the meaning and purpose that only God can.

After unexpected turns, I turned to studying the Bible and Christian theology. I also began studying science and metaphysics, embracing a ministry called
Science + God created by former Harvard physics professor Michael Guillen, a nondenominational Christian and former atheist. Guillen earned a Ph.D. in mathematics, astronomy, and physics from Cornell before teaching physics at Harvard and serving as ABC News’ chief science correspondent.

I learned the abundant scientific evidence for a divine creator that blew away any last vestiges of agnosticism. I eventually embraced Christianity and haven’t looked back.

While there are many ancillary readings that complement the Bible, nothing compares with the life of Jesus himself and the Old Testament that points to Him.

The former French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who saw his political fortunes collapse, reportedly said while in exile after defeat at the Battle of Waterloo:

I know men; and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for him.

In today’s modern world of cheap social media tricks to buy followers and “influencers” buying engagement, Jesus’ powerful influence has lasted more than 2,000 years, with billions of Christians worldwide today and many millions throughout the centuries.

As Christians recently celebrated the birth of our Savior at Christmastime, we also have reason to rejoice in our brothers and sisters learning more of Jesus’ life and teachings.

Congratulations to the millions of Americans buying their first Bible. You’re in for a powerful journey, one that won’t necessarily be easy. As Jordan Peterson would say, welcome to your first wrestling match with God.

​Revival, Christianity, Christians, Bible, Scripture, Bible boom, Faith 

America’s police forces are in a dire state. Not just in terms of recruitment but in terms of quality.

The crisis transcends numbers; it strikes at the heart of the institution’s ability to keep Americans safe. Joe Rogan recently hosted John McPhee, the “Sheriff of Baghdad,” on his podcast.

One of my closest friends, a member of the NYPD, has shared with me the unbelievable nonsense that has unfolded in the post-George Floyd years — stories that reveal just how dire the situation has become.

The retired special ops soldier delivered a sobering indictment of U.S. law enforcement.

McPhee, who now focuses on training police and civilians, highlighted systemic failures, from fitness to training, that jeopardize both officers and the public. Although he was contacted for comment prior to the publication of this article, he did not respond.

That said, one doesn’t need to be a grizzled, gun-slinging guru to see the elephant in the room.

The thickening blue line

A staggering 40% of American police officers are obese. Not just overweight — obese. It’s a sobering reality for those entrusted with the duty to protect and serve. When officers cannot pursue a suspect, subdue an attacker, or endure the physical demands of their work, it fundamentally undermines the notion of public safety.

Obese police officers not only heighten the risk of injuries but also increase the likelihood of relying on excessive force. When stamina or strength is lacking, officers may feel compelled to resort to extreme measures, such as prematurely using deadly force.

An example is the case of Parker v. District of Columbia, as part of which an officer’s poor physical fitness directly led to a serious incident. Officer Hayes, unable to pursue a fleeing suspect effectively, resorted to using his firearm, causing severe injuries to the suspect. The court determined that the officer’s physical condition, exacerbated by insufficient fitness training, left him with no viable non-lethal options.

Contrary to the delusional beliefs of the fat positivity movement, there’s nothing “positive” about lugging around bucketloads of fat. Santa Claus aside, the idea of the jolly fat man is pure fiction. And Saint Nick is only cheerful because he punches in one day a year.

Obesity doesn’t just weigh down the body; it crushes the mind too. It’s a breeding ground for depression, anxiety, and chronic stress, all of which wreak havoc on judgment and decision-making. Studies reveal that obesity dulls executive function and fuels impulsivity, turning high-pressure moments into fertile ground for bad decisions.

Obese officers often report simmering anger and frustration, a cocktail mixed from their physical struggles and society’s not-so-subtle disdain.

No respect

Moreover, respect plays a crucial role in the profession of policing. Officers rely on public cooperation, trust, and authority to perform their duties effectively, whether it’s calming a tense situation, issuing commands, or establishing credibility in court. However, societal biases often complicate this dynamic, especially when it comes to physical appearance — and obesity is a significant factor.

Studies consistently show that obese individuals face widespread discrimination, both overt and subtle. They are often perceived as less competent, less disciplined, and even less authoritative. These perceptions stem from deeply ingrained stereotypes associating weight with laziness or a lack of self-control — traits that directly conflict with the image of a disciplined, reliable police officer.

Consciously or unconsciously, people think, “How can this officer protect me and my loved ones when they can’t even resist the magnetic pull of a McDonald’s drive-thru?”

While we can debate the fairness of such biases, they are deeply rooted in human psychology and social conditioning. In other words, they exist — and they’re not going anywhere anytime soon. An obese officer might struggle to convey that same sense of preparedness or capability in the eyes of the public, regardless of their actual skills or expertise.

Tough love

To be clear, this isn’t an attack on officers themselves. They perform an invaluable service, often risking their lives to maintain the delicate balance of order and security in our communities. Without their dedication, society would descend into chaos.

But in a profession where lives hang in the balance, anything less than the highest standard is a dangerous compromise. Officers, like everyone else, must take responsibility for their own physical fitness — a point so basic it shouldn’t even be controversial.

I sympathize with officers, who are often victims of systemic failures that leave them woefully unprepared for the intense demands of their roles. Law enforcement professionals operate under immense pressure, but the lack of meaningful support for their physical and mental health only deepens the challenges they face every day.

One of my closest friends, a member of the NYPD, has shared with me the unbelievable nonsense that has unfolded in the post-George Floyd years — stories that reveal just how dire the situation has become. Officers are drowning in pointless training sessions and mountains of paperwork, distractions that keep them from doing the job they were hired to do: protecting the people of America.

99 problems

The police force problem begins with woefully inadequate training systems. As McPhee observed, police academies often obsess over bureaucratic trivialities while neglecting essential real-world preparation.

Officers step into the field ill-equipped to handle life-or-death situations with the nuance and skill required. Training in critical areas such as de-escalation, hand-to-hand combat, and tactical decision-making is often minimal, leaving officers to navigate high-stakes encounters without the necessary tools.

Compounding the issue is the rigid structure of police departments. Unlike the military, which assigns roles based on individual strengths, law enforcement clings to a one-size-fits-all model. Officers with widely varying abilities are tasked with the same duties, whether patrolling neighborhoods or responding to active threats.

Why not assign the fitter, stronger, sharper officers to patrol the streets while those less mobile focus on desk work where they can still contribute effectively?

McPhee believes that, with proper training, the need for specialized SWAT teams could be eliminated entirely.

He told Rogan that, if trained correctly, every officer would possess the fitness, tactical precision, and decision-making skills typically reserved for elite units.

Today’s reliance on SWAT teams is a symptom of broader systemic failure. Regular officers are so poorly prepared that specialists are required for situations that should fall within the scope of standard policing. Proper training would empower officers to handle everything from high-stakes emergencies to routine calls with the same level of professionalism.

A need for change

Reform isn’t just possible; it’s already being implemented successfully in other countries. Finland and Norway set the gold standard with rigorous training programs that span years and emphasize legal knowledge, physical fitness, and de-escalation techniques. These nations produce officers who are not only better equipped but also earn greater trust from their communities. Even Australia has embraced reform, focusing on fitness, tactical readiness, and ongoing professional development.

Yes, some may argue, “America is not Australia, and it’s certainly not Finland.” True enough.

But like Australia and Finland, America’s police force is made up of humans — individuals entrusted with the critical duty of protecting and serving the public. The path to a better, faster, sharper, stronger police force isn’t rocket science. It’s about prioritizing smart training, embracing reform, and holding the system — not just the individuals within it — to a higher standard. Anything less is an abdication of responsibility to both the officers and the communities they serve.

It’s time to MAGA — “Make Authority Great Again.”

​Culture, Police, Obesity, John mac ghlionn, Law and order, Health, Fitness 

You’ve probably seen the slogan “love is love” (or a variation of it) on a T-shirt, bumper sticker, or poster, or in an advertisement or social media post by a corporate giant like Facebook, Coke, Vans, or Nordstrom.

On its face, it sounds to many like an undeniable axiom. Who would be so backward as to try to put limitations on love? Corporations that remind us of this maxim take on the air of moral teachers. How could we feel comfortable purchasing a product unless we know that its maker is on the right side of history?

Rather than the self-centered love that comes naturally to the aesthete, biblical love is other-centered.

But since “love is love” is so prevalent and so well captures some of the wrongheadedness of our culture, I want to examine what this slogan means and some of its implications and contrast it with the Christian view of love that is much richer and deeper and leads to human flourishing rather than detriment.

Although anyone who is culturally aware likely knows what “love is love” intends to convey, the following is a typical elaboration: “The phrase ‘love is love’ is often used to express the belief that love is a universal human experience and that all forms of love are valid and equal. The phrase also implies that love should not be restricted or judged based on factors such as gender, sexual orientation … or any other social category.”

What is love?

Our culture is awash in ideas about “love.” Popular songs of all musical genres are devoted to it, and it’s the theme of innumerable TV shows, movies, articles, and books.

The outlook on love of most people in the West has been shaped by understandings of human nature that arose out of the Enlightenment that have come to be called “expressive individualism” and the “autonomous self.” As a result, most in the West now view the goal of their lives as personal self-expression and the fulfillment of their unique identity. Unlike in previous eras when identity was primarily defined by one’s community and faith, identity today focuses on individual desires and self-expression.

Right at the start, the kind of love being envisioned in “love is love” is primarily romantic feelings and a delight in what another person can contribute to our personal desires, goals, and tastes.

Think of almost every popular love song for the past several decades, almost every rom-com, most every romance novel, and this is the implicit view of love.

As we’ll see, compared to the biblical view of love, this is a thin and hollowed-out version focused on self-actualization.

As the late Timothy Keller insightfully observed, drawing on Søren Kierkegaard, this modern understanding of love is the one that comes naturally to what Kierkegaard called the aesthete (which all of us naturally are, apart from rebirth in Christ).

Keller explains in his book “The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God”:

The aesthete doesn’t really ask whether something is good or bad but only whether it is interesting. Everything is judged as to whether it is fascinating, thrilling, exciting, and entertaining. … An aesthete often claims to be a free individual. Life should be thrilling, full of “beauty and sparkle,” he says. And that means often casting off the shackles of society’s expectations and community ties. But Kierkegaard says that this is a very mistaken idea of what freedom is. The person living the aesthetic life is not master of himself at all; in fact, he is leading an accidental life. His temperament, tastes, feelings, and impulses completely drive him.

The tragedy of this approach to love is that “if a wife loses her beautiful skin and countenance or a husband puts on the pounds, the aesthete begins to look around for someone more beautiful. If a spouse develops a debilitating illness, the aesthete begins to feel that life is pointless.”

This is because, as Keller writes, the “aesthete does not really love the person; he or she loves the feelings, thrills, ego rush, and experiences that the other person brings. The proof of that is that when those things are gone, the aesthete has no abiding care or concern for the other.”

‘Love’ without boundaries?

Even apart from a diminished view of love, should we accept the proposition that “all forms of [romantic or sexual] love are valid and equal”? Even committed secularists will balk at some of the implications of this purported principle.

What about love between a father and a daughter? Or love between an adult and a minor? Is love between humans and animals OK? What about multiple wives or husbands (i.e., polygamy)? What if causing or experiencing physical pain is part of one’s love life? What if a man or woman prefers to love an AI avatar rather than a real human being?

Are we really prepared to say that each of these forms of “love” is just as valid as a traditional husband-wife relationship? Even if the individuals in these kinds of relationships consent, are we ready to normalize and celebrate them?

A better story

Clearly, not all “love” is acceptable love, even when strong feelings and desires are involved.

Humans across all cultures, past and present, have recognized and established boundaries when it comes to sexual relationships. Sexuality has never been unconstrained. This stems from the moral law God has written on the hearts of all human beings (Romans 2:14-15).

Given the naturalism that pervades the West, it’s not surprising that issues like love and sexuality are viewed as personal choices that have no moral consequence. Yet, the God who made us and knows what helps and harms us has revealed his will concerning relationships and sexuality in his word.

Consequently, as Glynn Harrison points out in the book “A Better Story: God, Sex and Human Flourishing”:

We flourish as human beings when we work in harmony with God’s reality. When we [do this], we are on the road to becoming fully human. And so the road to human flourishing … is to work with the grain of God’s reality, not to try to manufacture a reality of our own.

While we may chafe at what seem like restrictions on our freedom, God has established marriage between a natal man and a natal woman as the only appropriate relationship for sexual expression because this is the way he designed us to function and flourish.

This also means embracing the kind of love God displays and commands in scripture. Rather than the self-centered love that comes naturally to the aesthete, biblical love is other-centered.

As one scholar relates in the “New Dictionary of Theology,” this love “is based neither on a felt need in the loving person nor on a desire called forth by some attractive feature(s) in the one loved. … It rather proceeds from a heart of love and is directed to the other person to bless him or her and to seek that person’s highest good.”

This divine love the apostle Paul describes as patient, kind, not boastful, not proud, not self-seeking, not easily angered, and forgiving. “It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (1 Corinthians 13:7).

It’s a sacrificial love.

Keller observes that our culture “makes individual freedom, autonomy, and fulfillment the very highest values”; yet, “thoughtful people know deep down that any love relationship at all means the loss of all three.”

C.S. Lewis acknowledged in “The Four Loves” that if we desire to keep our heart safe from the vulnerability divine love might bring, we can lock it up “in the casket or coffin” of our selfishness. “But in that casket — safe, dark, motionless, airless — it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable.”

This is the end result of the self-serving love of the world. The love of God, on the other hand, is glorious, bountiful, and life-giving.

This article is adapted from a post that originally appeared on the Worldview Bulletin Substack.

​Christians, Love, Christianity, Lgbt, Lgbt agenda, Faith 

Perfection. We pretend to love it, but we despise it.

It’s the most miserable state: inhuman, unforgiving, untouchable. There is only one way for it to go from that point. How can something perfect become more perfect than perfect? It cannot. But it can become imperfect.

The perfect human body, the perfect night’s sleep, the purest diet: living not for life, but living for perfection.

And it will, make no mistake. And so we teeter at that terrifying point where we wait in anticipation of the fall, knowing that sooner or later the perfection that we hate — but pretend to love — will die.

Table talk

But oh, thank God for that moment. That first scratch on the table. That first blemish. That first tear. That first problem. All those mistakes release us from that awful vise, that wretched conundrum of hopelessly hoping for perfection. Dying to keep everything just right. Giving anything to make sure it all stays just as it should be.

We may pretend to mourn the mistake, but deep down we thank God for the blemish. We thank God for releasing us from that prison of perfection.

This isn’t really about a table. This is about life. It’s about everything. We, in our era, are stuck in this futile pursuit of perfection.

It’s part of consumerism, of course. When something gets dinged up, we can just go buy another one. If we don’t have the cash, we can bust out the card. We can’t have that ding, can we? It would look so much nicer if it weren’t there. We need a new one, and a perfect one is just within reach.

It’s also about social media. We look at our phones and see perfection. We see beautiful beaches and beautiful people. We see lives that we wish were ours. And my, how ours are so imperfect.

“Look at how clean that house is in that reel. Ours is a wreck.” Now we are unhappy. We thought we had enough, but we don’t. We thought it was nice, but it isn’t. We need it to be perfect.

Off-camera chaos

And of course, it’s all a facade. In social media, we never see what’s off camera. The clothes on the floor, the pile on the couch, the dust in the corner, the garbage bags next to the door. We are all part of the problem, too. See? Perpetrators and victims at the same time.

It’s also about the quest to live forever. Extended life spans. Health monitoring and obsessive testing. If I get all the numbers just right, I can live forever. No one really says that last part, but there is some implication there. The perfect human body, the perfect night’s sleep, the purest diet: living not for life, but living for perfection. Worship and fear. That hated perfection.

How many people never live the life they wish to live because they are afraid of failure? How many don’t take the chance? Make the move? Ask the girl? Do the thing?

How many people live their lives perpetually hedging every last bet? Only the safest option is the smart option. Best to live with fewer mistakes. Yes. That’s closer to perfection.

Bless this mess

What a prison. What a terrible thing. It is the anti-life, the anti-action. Benjamin Franklin said, “In this world, nothing is certain except death and taxes.” I say, “In this world, nothing is certain but chaos and drama.” Or, to put it another way, “In this world, nothing is certain but imperfection.”

Coming to grips with this — accepting this as reality — is the first step to actually living. Living not in fear of mistakes, but living in pursuit of a life that is yours. We only have one, after all.

I know that sounds trite, but it’s true. It’s not going to be perfect; it’s going to be messy, there are going to be ups and downs, twists and turns, and that’s okay. It’s all a part of it. And that’s the beauty of it.

Overcoming the modern addiction to perfection is key to taking control of one’s life. It’s strange that letting go (of perfection) is key to taking control (of what matters). It’s about properly ordering things. It’s about coming to accept the reality of life.

In the past, this reality was much harder to avoid. Perfection? Try survival. But for many of us in our technologically coddled society, it might take a conscious effort to see through the illusion.

That new table and that first scratch. It’s hard before the blemish, but it’s easy after that. And it only gets easier. With every scratch, perfection fades, far off in the distance. It’s there in the rearview mirror, getting smaller and smaller now. Soon you can’t see it any more. Goodbye.

Finally, we are left with life. Beautifully imperfect life.

​O.w. root, Men’s style, Perfection, Lifestyle, New year’s resolution 

Glenn Beck was recently invited to Mar-a-Lago to give a history speech in front of Donald Trump at a PragerU event. When he was planning what he would say, Glenn decided his speech would benefit from the addition of two odd props: William Wallace’s sword from “Braveheart” and a World War II-era rat with a bomb in its butt.

He didn’t, however, consider the implications of bringing these weapons to one of the most secure places in the country. The ordeal ended in a hilarious story that put down Glenn in the history books as a Secret Service legend.

“I don’t write my speeches, I just kind of go through the vault, and I’m like, I want to tell that story and that story and that story. So I grabbed a bunch of stuff and didn’t really put a lot of thought into it until we started approaching Mar-a-Lago,” says Glenn, recounting the story.

From multiple security clearances to fleets of Secret Service trucks to “old school buses” surrounding Trump’s airplane, Glenn describes getting into the estate as “a nightmare.”

“The security around him now is absolutely incredible,” he tells co-host Stu Burguiere.

At one security checkpoint, Secret Service agents asked Glenn if he had any weapons in his vehicle. He said no (the reality that his speech props were in fact weapons having slipped his mind).

When he got to another security checkpoint, agents opened the hood and all the doors of the car, brought the dogs out, and started in on their questions. That’s when Glenn realized he had misspoken. When he explained to the agent, who luckily recognized Glenn, that his speech props were technically weapons, he was waved through to the next security checkpoint, where the entire process began again.

When an agent asked again if Glenn had any weapons, this time his answer was “well, kind of” before explaining that he was carrying a broadsword from “Braveheart” and a WWII-era bomb.

The agents, thankfully, thought the situation was hilarious.

“They were taking pictures of everything; they were laughing; they were like, ‘This is now lore,’” laughs Glenn.

Regardless of the humorous nature of the situation, they still had a job to do.

“They were like, ‘OK, the rat — let’s X-ray the rat.”’ After finding that the rat was full of wires, “The head guy comes over, and he said, ‘We really don’t know what to do here,”’ Glenn recounts.

Finally, Glenn was told that the agents would keep both the sword and the rat bomb until 30 minutes prior to his scheduled speech, at which time they would have a decision.

When it came time for Glenn’s speech, an agent told Glenn that they would need to “remain with the sword and the rat” but that the event was nonetheless “legendary.”

To hear Glenn’s much funnier retelling of the event, 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.

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, Mar a lago, Braveheart’s sword, Wwii, Blazetv, Blaze media 

Former Toto bassist Shem von Schroeck takes a deep breath. “This is the first time I’ve ever talked about this publicly,” he tells Blaze News’ Steve Baker.

Baker has just asked Schroeck — who toured with Toto from 2017 to its breakup in 2019 — for his perspective on the inner turmoil that led to a final rift between founding guitarist Steve Lukather and keyboardist Steve Porcaro in 2019.

‘This is a person who can go from laughing at the funniest, silliest joke to tearing someone’s head off.’

While Lukather continues to tour under the Toto name, the break with Porcaro severed the last remaining link with the founding Porcaro brothers. Drummer Jeff died in 1992, while bassist Mike succumbed to ALS in 2015.

Legal woes

The rift had its roots in a 2018 lawsuit filed by Jeff Porcaro’s widow, Susan Porcaro-Goings, accusing the band (owned by Lukather and founding keyboardist and vocalist David Paich) of holding back revenue owed to her late husband’s estate. Toto lost the suit — and at an October 2019 show in Philadelphia, Lukather announced the end of the band.

While the announcement came as a surprise to fans, for Schroeck, the writing was on the wall. “The last year of my time with them, the infighting in the band just got toxic,” he says.

“I certainly wasn’t hired in the band to have an opinion about anything,” he continues. “I was there to play bass and sing and show up on time with a smile on my face. But there was just hate and animosity.”

Father figure

Schroeck traces some of that animosity to the departure of Paich, who in some ways held the band together.

“The first year [2017] with David Paich in the band, it was golden. Everybody loved everybody,” recalls Schroeck. “The band was playing great. It just was a big family on the road.”

And in his way, Paich was the father figure who inspired everyone to get along, says Schroeck. “When he left, I watched a wheel come off the truck. When that presence was gone, it got a little ‘Lord of the Flies.’ … A lot of immaturity for men in their sixties.”

It got so tense that Schroeck tried to leave the band in March 2019. “It was basically a cry for help.”

While Schroeck hoped his would-be resignation letter to Lukather would prompt some discussion about how to ease tensions within the band, instead, the response was what amounted to a threat that if he didn’t finish out the year, his professional reputation would suffer.

Never meet your heroes

Schroeck stuck it out. He was a longtime Toto fan, and the gig was a dream come true. And Lukather was always one of his “top three guys who I want to play with someday.”

Today, Schroeck ruefully acknowledges that the experience had an element of “never meet your heroes” to it. Lukather, he reports, can be volatile. “This is a person who can go from laughing at the funniest, silliest joke to tearing someone’s head off.”

Eventually, Schroeck attracted his ire. While he admits his mistakes, he says the reactions tended to be overblown. “When I would see people’s heads get bitten off, every time I would walk away going, the situation wasn’t worthy of that type of anger or reaction.”

A misunderstanding on social media only exacerbated things; Lukather ended up posting a note addressing Schroeck as “by far the worst musician in the band” and claiming “nobody wants to work with you, your career is over.”

‘Divine inspiration’

Schroeck chose not to retaliate in kind. He’s quick to remember a different side of his former bandmate.

“I have stacks of emails [and] screenshots of text messages of him heaping praise on me; like bring-tears-to-your-eyes kind of stuff,” he says.

One message in particular stands out. “After a near-disaster on stage, my music director head went off and I kind of got everybody back on track. And I’m going to say this verbatim, because this meant a lot to me at the time. [Lukather] goes, ‘I believe there was divine inspiration upstairs from Jeff and Mike. They guided their brother, Steve, to bring you into this band.'”

Schroeck marvels at the memory. “From him. Wow. You save stuff like that.”

Why talk about this now?

“It’s been five years,” says Schroeck. “I’ve been out of the band longer than I was in it. … Nothing I’m saying here is meant to disparage. Fans like yourself have been curious.”

While Schroeck has moved on to composing for film, he doesn’t completely rule out working with Lukather again. “Anything’s possible. So I’m not going to say never. If it came across my my bow, I’d entertain it.”

For more Toto talk — as well as highlights from Schroeck’s more than 40 years in the music biz — check out his full interview with Steve Baker below.

​Rock, Music, Toto, Blaze tv, Steve lukether, Shem von schroeck, Jeff pocaro, Steve pocaro, Mike pocaro, Dave paich, Steve baker, Culture