From its earliest days, the United States saw itself as a nation with intense purpose. Not a static country, not a museum of inherited customs, but a project. Alexander Hamilton envisioned a commercial republic that would rival the great powers of Europe. The doctrine of manifest destiny pushed that ambition across a continent. After World War II, the same impulse extended outward into global leadership.

America, in other words, has always kept its eyes on the horizon.

But once the frontier had been settled, the U.S. seemed to turn inward, focusing its boundless energy and notion of destiny toward a social crusade. The progressive civil rights movement became the story Americans told about themselves more than any other. A nation built on outward expansion turned inward. The energy that once drove settlers westward and engineers skyward was redirected into a different kind of project: a moral and social crusade at home.

This narrative is so powerful that it now dominates both the conservative and liberal mind. This means that the U.S. no longer really has a conservative movement, but rather two competing versions of the same progressive teleology that only disagree about the pace at which the social revolution should be pursued.

Restless people settled the US; we barely complete the conquest of one challenge before some group splinters off to brave the next frontier.

The philosopher Aristotle is famous for his discussion of telos — the end or purpose of a thing. Many modern thinkers have discarded this notion of ultimate purpose in favor of a more materialistic understanding of the world, but Aristotle is right, and they are wrong. America was always a nation in tension, recognizing the need to solidify its identity as the first true product of the New World even as it was immediately compelled forward by ambition. Restless people settled the U.S.; we barely complete the conquest of one challenge before some group splinters off to brave the next frontier. The American advance has always been relentless. Our nation is one of great purpose and great energy that will be directed toward whatever end we put our minds to.

For most of its history, America’s telos was expansion. Not merely territorial, but civilizational. A restless people moved outward, solved one problem, then immediately sought the next. This produced enormous dynamism. It also produced tension. The country had to define itself even as it constantly outgrew its previous definitions.

The civil rights myth

North America is the natural domain of the United States, but once the West had been truly settled, there was nowhere left for that pioneering spirit to expand. World War II proved to be the nation’s most radical period of transformation, during which it emerged as one of only two real superpowers dominating the globe. There were attempts to redirect that impulse. The space race briefly reopened the horizon. The competition with the Soviet Union offered a global stage. But these proved temporary. The deeper shift was happening at home.

The civil rights movement had begun as a reasonable request for legal equality, but was quickly merging with hippie culture and anti-Vietnam protests into a full-blown revolutionary deconstruction of America. The story of the civil rights movement was no longer the effort to seek a temporary solution for a wrong done to a specific group. Instead the movement fully embraced the progressive and Marxist themes of its contemporaries. America was no longer a great nation that needed to make some adjustments to integrate black citizens better; it was an eternal oppressor that had to be entirely reconstructed.

That shift matters because it supplied a new telos. If the old purpose had been expansion, the new one was equality, understood not as a condition to be achieved, but as a process without end. Every disparity became evidence of unfinished work. Every institution became suspect. The project could not conclude because its logic required constant renewal.

Conservatives initially stood against the civil rights revolution. Barry Goldwater famously opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not because he supported Jim Crow, but because he understood the legislation as a revolutionary attack on states’ rights. Many conservatives initially objected to Ronald Reagan enshrining the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday into law because they still remembered that King was a communist sympathizer and serial adulterer who supported what we would later call DEI.

It was very clear that the CRA had already mutated well beyond its initial purpose and that civil rights law was expanding to consume every area of American life. But every movie, television show, novel, and news broadcast was selling the civil rights revolution as the new story of America. Conservatives never stood a chance.

The new telos of America was one of equality. The framers had written that “all men were created equal,” and it was now the purpose of the U.S. to make that a reality. While Thomas Jefferson may have penned those famous words, it is very clear that neither he nor most of the founding generation meant them in the way modern Americans do today. The continuation of slavery is the obvious example, but early American immigration laws restricted naturalization to whites of good character.

Alexis de Tocqueville, author of “Democracy in America,” famously argued that American blacks and Anglos were incompatible and that a race war would likely come before any national civil war. Even Abraham Lincoln was not optimistic about the integration of black and white America, with plans to send former slaves back to Africa once the Civil War was concluded. Whatever previous generations meant by that famous phrase, they obviously did not believe in a never-ending quest to remake society in the name of equality.

Predictably, leftists took the revolution as far and as fast as they could. America’s original sin was slavery, and the country’s entire purpose was now a never-ending mission to atone for this great evil. The suppression of black Americans was systemic, so the United States had to deconstruct all previous hierarchies to avoid oppression. First race, then gender roles, then marriage, then religion, then the concept of biological sex itself. No matter how absurd the exercise proved itself to be, the hunt for one new oppressed minority to grant civil rights to became the telos of America.

Conservatives are the Washington Generals

Conservatives assumed their classic position as beautiful losers. They rejected the speed and intensity of the revolution but accepted the premise. Republicans went from rejecting MLK Day to worshiping the communist as some moderate paragon of the civil rights revolution. The conservative movement rapidly came to believe much of what the left was already asserting, but wanted the revolutionaries to drive the speed limit. Yes, the founders were racist. Yes, they had failed in their promise. Yes, the story of America was its eternal reinvention to achieve social equality. But also, the military and baseball are good, and maybe we can keep some of the Christianity because that also seems important.

This created a strange phenomenon: two competing progressive teleologies, one extreme and one more moderate, came to dominate the American mind. The conservatives began to manifest this ideology in areas of life where they held power. American foreign policy became one of eternal liberation, where our country would conquer the world in the name of liberal democracy.

Despite theoretically opposing feminism or gay rights in the U.S., conservatives would also cite violations of these civil rights as reasons to invade and control other countries. American churches, even conservative ones, began to center their message on race relations, liberation of the oppressed, and care for illegal immigrants. A real right wing no longer existed in America; the new frontier was the eternal civil rights revolution, and the only question was how far and how fast it should go.

This dynamic has created something of an identity crisis for the American right. On one hand, conservatives want to limit the excesses of the left; on the other, they have bought entirely into the progressive premise. American conservatives do not really want to return to the intention of the racist, sexist, and homophobic beliefs of the founders. They like the progress, they approve of the revolution, and they are ashamed of their past.

This subversion of the American vision is unfortunate, but it does not have to remain permanent. Instead of wasting our blood and treasure trying to turn every authoritarian backwater into a flourishing Jeffersonian republic, we could once again turn our eyes to the stars. Instead of trying to stamp out every form of inequality in our society, we could embrace hierarchy and the pursuit of greatness.

Instead of being ashamed of our founders, conservatives could follow manifest destiny to Mars and beyond. That requires rejecting the idea that the nation’s highest purpose is to endlessly remake itself in pursuit of abstract equality. It means accepting that hierarchy, excellence, and difference are not pathologies to be erased, but features of any functioning civilization. Before we can pursue the frontier once more, we must believe that we are a people with a purpose, a nation that deserves not just to survive, but to thrive.

​Auron macintyre, Civil rights, Constitution, Mlk, Mlk day, Thomas jefferson, Space, Opinion & analysis 

“Saturday Night Live” cast member Chloe Fineman is facing intense backlash after she admitted in a Vanity Fair game show video that she was fired as a teenage camp counselor for “pantsing” a 6-year-old boy as a prank.

“I was fired as a camp counselor. I pantsed a boy, and he wasn’t wearing underpants, and then a giant school bus drove by,” she recounted, noting that the boy was “6” when this incident happened.

When her fellow cast members reacted in shock, Fineman continued, “No, it was a different time! Like he would be like, ‘Hey, can I have a hug?’ and I’d go to hug him and then he’d like lift my shirt like a d**k. And then I was like, ‘I’m going to get back at you,’ and so we were on a hike, and I was like, ‘Hey, Ollie, go look over there, it’s a hawk,’ and then I yanked his pants down. He wasn’t wearing underwear. His little ding-a-ling was out.”

Although Vanity Fair has since edited out some of Fineman’s most controversial statements — specifically her admission that the boy was 6 and her use of the term “ding-a-ling” — Sara Gonzales has the fully intact clip. On a recent episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” she played the unedited video and reacted to it.

“Chloe [Fineman] thought that she was being funny when she admitted to sexually assaulting a child,” says Sara, lamenting the devolution of “SNL” from genuinely good comedy into woke, preachy politics.

“It wasn’t a ‘different time’ then. There was not a time where adult camp counselors could pants 6-year-olds,” she continues.

Sara notes that there’s been unsurprising silence from the left on Fineman’s disturbing comments.

“Not a peep. The same people who were like, ‘The Epstein files, we hate child predators, release the files’ — but nothing to say about this woman admitting that she sexually assaulted a 6-year-old. This is crazy,” she condemns.

“Is she going to be removed from ‘SNL’? Are the cast members going to continue to work with a sexual predator?” she asks. “Probably, because the left has no morals and no values. They only wish to use those morals and values against you.”

To watch the original, unedited Vanity Fair clip and hear more of Sara’s commentary, watch the video above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

​Sara gonzales, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Blazetv, Blaze media, Snl, Saturday night live, Vanity fair, Chloe fineman 

There was a time when James Carville was one of the sharpest political minds in the country — quick, blunt, and effective. He could take a complicated moment and reduce it to something people could carry. That skill is what makes watching him now so unsettling.

Sitting alone, looking into a camera, and unleashing a stream of profanity and rage, it feels less like strategy and more like something unraveling in public. The volume is high, the emotion even higher. It’s completely out of proportion to the moment.

Someone willing to torch his career, his reputation, or even his freedom is not waiting around for your argument.

There’s a sadness to that. Somewhere along the way, he decided this was necessary. You can almost trace the descent, step by step, to a place where that kind of display felt reasonable.

But this isn’t just about one man.

We used to have a line. Not perfection or agreement, but a shared understanding that how we conduct ourselves matters.

That line has eroded, and most people can feel it. This didn’t start yesterday. We’ve been coarsening for a long time.

Years ago, if you were furious, you wrote it out, read it, said it out loud, and then burned it.

Now we broadcast what used to be processed privately. And once it’s out there, it multiplies.

Some people don’t just brush up against this behavior. They live in orbit around it.

Family caregivers know this terrain in a way most people don’t, not because they’re wiser, but because they’re required to learn. Addiction. Dementia. Chronic pain. They discover that not every situation can be reasoned through.

And those lessons transfer.

What you learn sitting across from someone in addiction or confusion applies when you’re standing in front of someone screaming in a parking lot or filming themselves in a rage they can’t govern.

There is a moment where something crosses a line. The defensiveness sharpens. The aggression follows. The reaction no longer fits the moment.

And in that moment, you realize you are no longer dealing with the issue in front of you. You are dealing with something underneath it.

There’s a story behind it, which is why, if it’s hysterical, it’s historical. At that point, you are not in a conversation. You are standing in front of something that will not respond to reason.

Someone willing to torch his career, his reputation, or even his freedom is not waiting around for your argument.

It is a tug of war.

If you win, you end up on your back. If you lose, you end up on your face. Either way, you are in the dirt.

So do not pick up the rope.

That runs against our instincts. We want to engage, correct, and win. But if you take hold, you are no longer engaging a person. You are engaging the disorder or the wound. That is a fight you cannot win.

I have learned this lesson the hard way. I have leaned in, pressed harder, and tried to force clarity into moments that could not hold it. All it did was pull me deeper into the chaos.

So you learn to do something different. You slow down, take a breath, and create space.

RELATED: How the DC media machine actually works

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Sometimes that space is physical. Sometimes it is emotional. Sometimes it is simply refusing to engage. You do not have to comment, respond, or show up for every fight you’re invited to.

Scripture speaks to this. The apostle Paul wrote, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (Romans 12:18).

If possible.

Sometimes it is not. Sometimes the other person has already decided otherwise. But you do get a vote on how you conduct yourself. That is where self-control comes in.

Self-control is not passivity or cowardice. There are times to confront and times when authority must be exercised, even forcefully. But even then, you are not called to function out of rage. You are called to do what is necessary.

And we are seeing more and more people choose escalation. A routine traffic stop becomes a standoff. A disagreement on a plane becomes removal from the aircraft. A minor infraction becomes handcuffs.

Crazy doesn’t let go, but that does not mean you have to hold on.

You don’t have to pick up the rope. You don’t have to match the volume. You don’t have to join the unraveling.

In a culture that rewards outrage, the rarest strength is self-control. And self-control may be the only thing that allows you to walk through chaos without joining it.

​James carville, Political discourse, Trump, Politics, Escalation, Opinion & analysis 

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana is going to allow federal funding to flow once again to Planned Parenthood after a one-year ban, according to the Washington Examiner.

Pro-life groups are trying to keep the ban on Medicaid funds to the abortion provider when it expires on July 4.

‘Defending the right to life is fundamental and something all Republicans should fight for.’

Johnson passed a two-year ban on funds through the House last year, but it was reduced in reconciliation to one year in order to pass the Senate.

Now it appears that the reconciliation process will kill the ban altogether.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) responded on social media by calling on Johnson and other Republicans to reconsider the decision.

“I strongly supported defunding Planned Parenthood in the Working Families Tax Cuts Act and have championed provisions to ensure federal tax dollars aren’t funding abortions throughout my career,” he wrote. “Defending the right to life is fundamental and something all Republicans should fight for.”

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri also registered his disappointment.

“This would be a massive betrayal,” he wrote on social media. “Under no circumstance can Planned Parenthood be allowed to get taxpayer money for their abortions and gender transition insanity. Period.”

RELATED: ‘Fraud … for abortion’? Vance announces probe into Planned Parenthood’s $88M taxpayer-funded loans at March for Life

A Planned Parenthood report said it provided 434,450 abortions last year, the highest number recorded for the organization.

The Live Action pro-life organization said that worked out to about one child aborted every 73 seconds in the U.S.

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

​Ban on planned parenthood funding, Mike johnson planned parenthood, Mike johnson abortion, Johnson betrayal, Politics 

The attorney who represented an adult film actress who tried to take down President Donald Trump has been released from prison after serving time for defrauding his clients.

Michael Avenatti, nicknamed the “creepy porn lawyer” by Tucker Carlson, was convicted of trying to extort up to $25 million from the Nike shoe company and stealing from actress Stormy Daniels as well as others. In June, he was resentenced to serve 11 years and three months in prison in connection with some of the charges.

He reportedly cried in court before sentencing.

Avenatti once was considered one of Trump’s most potent foes and even said he was considering running for president but fell far short of taking down his opponent.

Daniels accused Trump of paying her hush money ahead of the 2016 election to keep her from speaking out about their alleged extramarital affair. Critics said the payment amounted to election interference.

Avenatti served about four years in prison and is ordered to report to a halfway house in Hollywood, where he will stay until Sept. 2028, according to TMZ. He is also ordered to stay away from unlawful controlled substances and has to participate in mental health treatment.

Fox News reported that he got early release after some of the sentences were allowed to run concurrently.

At the apex of the media circus propping up Avenatti’s celebrity, he was compared to one of the persons in the Holy Trinity by “The View” co-host Ana Navarro.

“Lately to me, you’re like the Holy Spirit,” she said in Aug. 2018. “You are all places at all times. Right? I mean, I see you all over cable news. … There’s a seat available if you want to be a co-host at ‘The View.’ There’s people here you can pitch!”

“He’s out here saving the country!” Joy Behar responded at the time.

Only a few months later, Daniels publicly accused Avenatti of ignoring her calls and starting a crowdfund campaign to raise money for her legal defense without permission. He was later convicted of stealing $300,000 from her and sentenced to four years in prison.

In 2021, he was sentenced to two and a half years for a conviction related to an extortion scheme he attempted against Nike. He reportedly cried in court before sentencing.

RELATED: MSNBC anchor makes stunning admissions about interview with Kavanaugh accuser

The next year, he was sentenced to 14 years in federal prison for stealing from his clients and obstructing the IRS. He was resentenced last June.

Avenatti was ordered to pay nearly $6 million in restitution.

He was also accused of domestic abuse by a former girlfriend, but he vehemently denied those claims and was never criminally charged.

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

​Michael avenatti prison release, Avenatti vs trump, Avenatti vs stormy daniels, Stormy daniels hush money, Politics 

A Federalist article published yesterday revealed that the government-funded Global Engagement Center assured the State Department its censorship “test bed” platform would not target U.S. audiences, yet it proceeded to fund a trial specifically aimed at Blaze Media.

“Let me break it down simply,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says.

“Back in 2011, Obama signed an executive order to establish the State Department’s Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications … to support ‘agencies in government-wide public communications activities targeted against violent extremism and terrorist organizations,’” she recounts.

This was the “seed,” she explains, that would eventually sprout and bloom into a domestic censorship apparatus.

In 2016, Obama then signed an executive order, renaming the existing Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications the Global Engagement Center and tasking it with coordinating U.S. government-wide counterterrorism communications activities directed at foreign audiences abroad to counter terrorist messaging.

“Pay attention to these dates. 2016, [Obama] is out the door,” Sara says.

In the waning days of President Trump’s first term (December 14, 2020, to January 7, 2021), however, a GEC-funded test-bed trial diverted from its stated mission to target foreign disinformation when it set its sights on Blaze Media.

Its other target was Sputnik News, a Russian state-owned news agency and radio service.

“Why would we be as big of a target as a Russian state news agency?” Sara asks. “Is the deep state that threatened by what we talk about?”

“The answer is yes — the deep state actually is that threatened by what we talk about,” she answers definitively.

When Secretary of State Marco Rubio shut down the GEC and its successor office, the Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference, in 2025, the New York Times and other left-wing outlets lamented it.

Sara mocks the coverage the story received: “He closed down the State Department office on foreign disinformation. Why would we want to have disinformation? That’s bad!”

“No, it was just being used to suppress and censor actual American media,” she explains. “Sorry, I’m saying American media like it was plural — like it was like this big venture. … No, it was just us.”

Why Blaze Media specifically?

Sara believes it’s tied to Blaze Media’s COVID coverage.

“We were one of the only (actually the only) alternative media outlet that was telling the truth during COVID, myself included,” she says. “We were getting demonetized left and right because we were actually telling the truth.”

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

​Sara gonzales, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Blazetv, Blaze media, The federalist, Gec, Obama, Covid censorship, The blaze, The blaze censored, Global engagement center, Counterterrorism