In his 1539 tour de force “The Institutes of the Christian Religion,” John Calvin wrote:

And it becomes us to remember that Satan has his miracles, which, although they are tricks rather than true wonders, are still such as to delude the ignorant and unwary.

That warning feels timely when Scripture is invoked not to illuminate truth, but to sanctify the spirit of the age.

American Christians increasingly encounter Scripture filtered through political frameworks that recast its central doctrines in therapeutic or ideological terms.

Pro-choice Jesus?

Texas Democrat state Rep. James Talarico recently argued on Joe Rogan’s podcast that the Bible affirms a woman’s right to abortion. His reasoning centers on the story of Mary in Luke 1. According to Talarico, before the Incarnation, God sought Mary’s consent. From that, he concludes that “creation has to be done with consent” and that forcing a woman to carry a child is inconsistent with the life and ministry of Jesus.

Specifically, Talarico asserted that the Bible — the inerrant and infallible word of God and the most important moral road map ever given to humanity — supports a woman’s right to kill her unborn child. On Rogan’s show, he grounded that claim in the story of Mary:

Before God comes over Mary, and we have the Incarnation, God asks for Mary’s consent. … The angel comes down and asks Mary if this is something she wants to do, and she says … let it be done. … To me that is an affirmation … that creation has to be done with consent. You cannot force someone to create. … It has to be done with freedom. … And to me that is absolutely consistent with the ministry and life and death of Jesus.

This is a remarkable interpretation, because it is not what Luke says.

Assent vs. consent

In Luke 1:26-38, Gabriel does not ask Mary a question or seek her permission. Across major English translations and historic Christian traditions alike, the text records no request for consent — only a declaration of what God will do. Gabriel announces: “Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.”

The only question in the entire exchange is Mary’s — after she is told what will happen: “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” Gabriel replies by pointing to God’s power: “For with God nothing shall be impossible.” Mary then responds, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.”

That is assent — humble submission to God’s revealed will — not consent in the modern, contractual sense. Assent is agreement; consent is permission. Mary was not asked for permission. She freely expressed obedience to what had been declared.

Throughout Scripture, when God acts to fulfill His redemptive purposes, He does not canvass human preferences. In Job 1, when Satan is permitted to test Job’s faith, God does not first consult Job. On the road to Damascus, the risen Christ does not ask Saul whether he is open to a career change. He confronts him, humbles him, and commissions him.

God’s sovereignty is not contingent upon human authorization.

Projecting politics

To read Luke 1 as a divine appeal for permission is to project modern autonomy backward into an ancient text. It is eisegesis dressed up as compassion. It reshapes the Incarnation — the central miracle of Christianity — into an endorsement of procedural self-determination. That move says more about contemporary politics than it does about first-century Judea.

Talarico is right about one thing: The conception of a child is a holy matter. But holiness in Scripture is not synonymous with personal autonomy. Holiness is what belongs to God and reflects His purposes.

Christians have historically distinguished between God’s unique act of creation ex nihilo and human procreation within creation. A child conceived by a man and a woman bears the image of God. That image is not a private possession to be revoked; it is a gift.

To ground abortion rights in the Annunciation is therefore doubly strained. First, because the text does not describe a request for consent. Second, because the child at the center of the story is not an abstraction but the incarnate Son of God — the clearest possible affirmation that life in the womb is not disposable.

RELATED: Is Trump targeting Talarico? Colbert’s lie exposed

Scott Kowalchyk/CBS/Getty Images

God’s justice, not class warfare

Talarico also invokes Mary’s Magnificat — her song in Luke 1:46-55 — emphasizing its language about scattering the proud and sending the rich away empty. This has long been read in some quarters as evidence that Jesus’ mission was primarily political: a revolutionary program of economic leveling.

Yet the Gospels resist that reduction. Jesus speaks often about wealth, but His warnings concern idolatry of the heart, not the mere possession of resources. In parable after parable, wealthy figures appear without blanket condemnation. The dividing line is not income but allegiance — whether one serves God or mammon.

The Magnificat celebrates God’s justice, not class warfare. It announces the reversal of human pride before divine authority. To turn it into a manifesto for contemporary policy debates is to flatten its theological depth.

There is a broader concern here than one legislator or one podcast appearance.

American Christians increasingly encounter Scripture filtered through political frameworks that recast its central doctrines in therapeutic or ideological terms. Words like “justice,” “freedom,” and “consent” are imported into passages that were written to reveal God’s character and His plan of redemption, not to ratify modern slogans.

When believers lack grounding in the text itself, such reinterpretations can sound persuasive. They appeal to familiar moral intuitions and baptize contemporary assumptions with biblical language.

But the authority of Scripture rests not in its adaptability to the spirit of the age, but in its resistance to it. When politics begins rewriting the Annunciation, Christians should recognize the warning signs.

False prophets

Jesus Himself warned of such distortions: “And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not: For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect” (Mark 13:21-22).

The danger is not always open hostility to the faith. It is the subtle refashioning of Christ in our own image.

The Annunciation is not a lesson in personal sovereignty. It is a revelation of divine initiative. God acts; Mary receives. Her greatness lies not in negotiating terms, but in faithful obedience: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord.”

That posture — humility before God’s word — is increasingly countercultural. It does not flatter our sense of autonomy. It does not place human choice at the center of the story.

Yet Christianity has always insisted that salvation begins with surrender, not self-assertion.

To know the Bible

James Talarico may fade from public attention. The temptation to refashion Scripture in the image of prevailing politics will not. The greater danger is not that politicians cite the Bible inaccurately. It is that Christians cease to know it well enough to recognize the difference.

A nation unfamiliar with its founding documents is vulnerable to distortion. A church unfamiliar with its Scriptures is vulnerable to something worse.

The more believers read, wrestle with, and internalize the Bible, the less susceptible they will be to interpretations that trade theological substance for cultural applause.

The Incarnation does not endorse a “gospel of consent.” It proclaims a sovereign God who enters history for the salvation of His people — and a young woman who responds not with negotiation, but with trust.

​James talarico, Abortion, Mary, Christianity, Bible, Scripture, Pro-life, Magnificat, Annunciation, Lifestyle, Culture, Faith 

President Donald Trump showered the United States men’s hockey team with praise Sunday for its historic victory at the 2026 Winter Olympic Games.

The men’s hockey team took home the gold for the first time in 46 years after Jack Hughes scored the winning goal over Canada in overtime. It was the first American gold-medal effort in men’s Olympic hockey since the “Miracle on Ice” squad improbably won it all in 1980. Trump himself hosted that iconic team at the White House in December.

‘I’m so proud to be American.’

“Congratulations to our great U.S.A. Ice Hockey team,” Trump said in a Truth Social Post. “THEY WON THE GOLD. WOW!”

“LOTS OF WINNING!!!” Trump added.

RELATED: ‘It’s the greatest country in the world’: USA hockey’s Quinn Hughes praises America after epic win

Photo by Elsa/Getty Images

A teary-eyed Hughes patriotically praised the United States moments after the historic win, saying how proud he is to be an American.

“This is all about our country right now,” Hughes said. “I love the U.S.A. I love my teammates. It’s unbelievable.”

He added that “the U.S.A. hockey brotherhood is so strong, and we had so much support from ex-players. I’m so proud to be American today.”

RELATED: NBC apologizes for calling female skier ‘she’

Photo by Bruce Bennett/Getty Images

“Unreal game by our team,” Hughes also noted. “Just a ballsy, gutsy win. That’s American hockey right there. That’s a great Canadian team, but we’re U.S.A. We’re so proud to be Americans. Tonight was all for the country.”

Hughes’ brother Quinn scored an overtime goal to beat Sweden 2-1 Wednesday, which advanced the U.S. men’s hockey team to the semifinals. Quinn Hughes remarked after the contest, “I love the U.S., and it’s the greatest country in the world. So [I’m] happy to represent it here with these guys.”

Adding to the theatrics, the U.S. women’s hockey team also won Olympic gold, also beating Canada in the finals — and also in overtime — by a 2-1 score Thursday.

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

​Sports, Donald trump, Trump, United states olympic hockey team, Gold medal, Winter olympics, Politics 

President Trump will deliver the first State of the Union of his second term on Tuesday, an address that lands near the 250th anniversary of a nation built on freedom and enterprise. He will likely highlight ending foreign conflicts, restoring border security, reasserting American strength, and advancing his legislative agenda. He will point to economic gains — growth returning, inflation easing, energy prices falling, tax relief delivered, and markets responding. He will argue that the Trump economy is putting Americans back in charge of their own prosperity.

But one success story may not make the headlines: Under pro-investment, pro-competition policies, America’s wireless market has delivered lower prices, better service, and more choice — without mandates, price controls, or government-run networks.

Wireless shows free markets still work when Washington lets them.

Since Trump took office, wireless prices are down 4%. The White House even lists it as Win No. 132 in “365 Wins in 365 Days.” Backed by Bureau of Labor Statistics data, wireless plans and smartphones cost less in real dollars today than they did decades ago — while delivering hundreds of times faster speeds and vastly more data.

Twenty years ago, wireless networks mostly carried voice calls. Today they power work, school, health care, navigation, banking, entertainment, and small business. A wireless subscription also takes a declining share of the household budget.

That didn’t happen by accident. Competition, private investment, and smart policy drove it.

Better service, more choice, lower cost

Plans now deliver more data, faster speeds, and wider coverage than most people imagined 20 years ago. What once required a wired connection at home now works almost anywhere.

Fixed wireless access has helped drive that shift — home internet delivered over wireless networks. Nearly 15 million households now use wireless service instead of a fixed line, giving families a new, often cheaper alternative.

Americans also benefit from real choice. Most people are covered by three or more national wireless networks, each offering multiple brands, including lower-cost and prepaid options for families, seniors, students, and budget-conscious users. Dozens of smaller carriers and resellers add even more price competition. Companies need to earn customers’ business.

Wireless saves families real money

Wireless doesn’t just connect people — it cuts costs.

Parents save time and fuel by working remotely. Seniors can use telehealth instead of driving long distances. Students can learn from anywhere. Small businesses can reach customers without expensive storefronts or phone systems.

No other essential service — housing, health care, food, or energy — has improved this much while becoming more affordable. Wireless quietly delivers more value every year.

America leads because America invests

None of this works without investment. U.S. wireless companies invest about $30 billion a year to build and upgrade networks. Per person, that’s nearly double what Europe invests.

As a result, the United States leads the world in wireless performance, coverage, and innovation. That leadership didn’t come from government-run networks or price controls. It came from letting companies compete, invest, and take risks.

President Trump’s first-term spectrum auction raised a record $90 billion and helped fuel today’s 5G networks. Now FCC Chairman Brendan Carr is moving quickly toward another auction to free up more airwaves — the raw material wireless networks need to grow.

The spectrum bottleneck is real

Wireless runs on spectrum, and America is running tight.

Large blocks of valuable spectrum remain locked up by federal agencies, even when lightly used. Other countries — China, South Korea, and Japan — have moved faster to free spectrum for commercial use.

More spectrum means better service, more competition, and lower costs. Without it, growth slows and prices rise. That makes unlocking spectrum a national priority.

RELATED: Phones and drones expose the cracks in America’s defenses

dikushin/Getty Images

The hidden fee on your phone bill

Another problem stays mostly invisible to consumers.

The Universal Service Fund is meant to support rural connectivity and essential communications. But instead of being funded broadly, it gets tacked onto phone bills, often as a separate line item. Seniors and working families pay about $9 a month without ever voting on it.

Meanwhile, the biggest users of America’s networks — massive internet platforms — pay little or nothing into the system. They generate enormous traffic, earn billions, and rely on wireless infrastructure built by others.

President Trump has argued that Big Tech should pay its own way when it comes to energy-hungry AI data centers. The same principle should apply here. If you benefit from the network, you should help pay for it.

The bottom line

Wireless shows free markets still work when Washington lets them. Competition pushed prices down. Private investment built world-leading networks. Smart spectrum policy unlocked innovation.

Now policymakers face a choice: Protect what’s working, or burden it with bureaucracy and political favoritism. Free up more spectrum. Preserve real competition. End Big Tech’s free ride on infrastructure funded by American consumers.

If President Trump wants a model of American strength and market-driven success in his State of the Union, he doesn’t have to look far. It’s already in the hands of nearly every American holding a cell phone.

​Smartphones, Wireless networks, Spectrum, Free market, Data, Wireless data, Affordability, Internet, Opinion & analysis, Donald trump, State of the union, Fcc, Brendan carr 

After 35 years, it appears that Disney Gay Days — the annual LGBTQ+ event where participants, their families, friends, and allies visit the Walt Disney World parks and wear red shirts for visibility — are on their last legs.

The group that organizes the event recently announced that shifting hotel agreements and the loss of key sponsors forced it to cancel the 2026 celebration. Although organizers are encouraging gay fans to visit the parks on the usual dates and wear themed attire, the coordinated celebration appears to be on its way to history’s ash heap.

Some people, particularly in Christian outlets, are claiming that boycotts are behind the sponsorship losses that led to the 2026 pause of the organized Gay Days events at Disney, but BlazeTV Auron MacIntyre disagrees.

“Evangelical Christians tried to cancel Gay Days with an on-again-off-again boycott for decades. What finally wounded the LGBTQ leviathan wasn’t conservative activism. It was cultural apathy,” he says.

“I remember the first wave of evangelical pushback as Disney began signaling support for homosexual lifestyles in the 1990s,” says Auron.

But it was a “strangely inconsistent boycott,” he says.

“One year, the Southern Baptist Convention urged members to avoid Disney. The next year, churches were showing up to the Night of Joy, Disney’s Christian music festival.”

As a result of this “sloppy, intermittent resistance,” Disney “leaned in harder” to its pro-homosexuality agenda, moving “from park celebrations and employee benefits” to “progressive messaging” in its cinematography.

“’The Little Mermaid’ became black, gay couples were kissing in ‘Star Wars,’ and diverse girlbosses dominated Marvel. As acceptance of gay marriage shifted from taboo to required corporate orthodoxy, Disney replaced entertainment with propaganda,” says Auron.

Thus the fading of Gay Days had nothing to do with either Christian resistance or a rolling back of support from Disney.

Auron says that “apathy” is why Gay Days “suddenly [fell] apart.”

“Apathy doesn’t mean that Americans suddenly disapproved of Disney’s agenda sadly. It just means that normal people stopped granting it the honor of a fight,” he explains.

“Many families quit watching new releases, not as part of a coordinated boycott, but because the product became preachy, weird, and dull. Others kept their subscriptions but tuned out of the messaging and rolled their eyes. Either way, the ritualized drama lost its electricity.”

“Corporate sponsors,” says Auron, “follow attention, and attention follows the next outrage.”

“A movement built on being shocking can’t survive once it becomes background noise.”

So what’s the lesson here?

Citing Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” Auron says, rulers must “leave opponents alone or crush them entirely. A complacent enemy might grumble, but they avoid taking risks; a crushed enemy can’t retaliate. The most dangerous enemy is one that has suffered a minor bloodying. He gains the motivation to fight and keeps the means to harm.”

“Conservatives gave the LGBTQ movement exactly that minor bloodying — outrage finger-wagging, but never any real consequences,” he explains.

The “LGBTQ leviathan” responsible for Disney Gay Days, he argues, “didn’t lose because the right defeated it; it lost because it exhausted its own cultural energy.”

“The lesson here is pretty simple,” says Auron. “If the right fights, it must pick battles carefully and commit fully to winning them. … If you fight, you must crush the enemy’s capacity to operate; otherwise, you invigorate his cause while draining your own. Clumsy half measures feed your foe, and you end up hoping he defeats himself.”

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Auron MacIntyre?

To enjoy more of this YouTuber and recovering journalist’s commentary on culture and politics, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The auron macintyre show, Auron macintyre, Disney, Disney gay days, Disney lgbtq, Blazetv, Blaze media, Blaze podcasts