Stembridge News Digest

  • Nicole Shanahan’s ‘Back to the People’ is coming to Blaze Media Mon, 28 Apr 2025 01:44:11 +0000


    Blaze Media and Nicole Shanahan, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s former vice presidential running mate, have teamed up to bring her podcast, “Back to the People,” to Blaze Media. Starting soon, the podcast will be available to BlazeTV+ subscribers on BlazeTV.

    “Back to the People” features in-depth interviews and candid conversations with thought leaders, cultural critics, and the voices shaping the future of the country. Shanahan has a particular focus on the Make America Healthy Again movement and has been working tirelessly to help Americans live healthier lives.

    Blaze Media CEO Tyler Cardon is excited that Shanahan is joining the network. “Nicole brings a unique perspective and a growing audience of Americans who are hungry for real dialogue outside the filter of legacy media.” He added, “We’re proud to support her vision and help her reach even more people who care about raising healthy families and Making America Healthy Again.”

    Shanahan wants the Blaze Media audience to know that “we’re living through a time when trust in the mainstream media has collapsed — and for good reason. People want to hear real conversations that challenge the status quo, that speak to our values, our families, and our future.” She added, “Partnering with Blaze Media gives ‘Back to the People’ the platform to grow into exactly that — a home for truth-seekers, free thinkers, and those who still believe in the strength, wisdom, and resilience of the human spirit.”

    “Back to the People” will be available on BlazeTV, YouTube, Spotify, BlazeLive, X, Apple Podcasts, and wherever else you may get your podcasts.

  • How California’s crisis could lead to a big political shift Mon, 28 Apr 2025 01:00:00 +0000

  • No choice for Canadian voters when it comes to sending billions to Ukraine Sun, 27 Apr 2025 23:00:00 +0000


    Say what you will about Donald Trump — he knows how to drum up publicity. He's even managed to interest Americans in Canada’s upcoming federal election, now less than a week away.

    The president's influence on the contest was all but guaranteed last month, when he made good on his threats to levy a 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum — with further duties on lumber and pharmaceuticals a possibility.

    Despite his ostensible Canada-first outlook, Pierre Poilievre has been in lockstep with the Liberal government policy on Ukraine for over three years.

    Prior to this movie, Pierre Poilievre's Conservative Party was strongly favored to unseat the reigning Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau successor Mark Carney.

    Not so today.

    Agreeing to agree

    The Liberals have benefited from a surge of Canadian antipathy toward Trump, to the extent that they now seem to be running more against the American president than the opposition Conservative Party — something that the American media has not failed to notice. For his part, Trump has actually endorsed Carney.

    With the April 28 election looming, what has become a two-party race between Liberals and Conservatives remains close.

    While the vote may serve as a referendum on Trump's economic policy, another issue has proven depressingly uncontroversial: support for Ukraine. For all of their differences, Canada's four major political parties all share a turgid and demented determination to continue to pour billions of dollars into the black hole of Kyiv.

    This despite Trump’s repeated pledge to end the Russia-Ukraine war. While saying he could do it in a mere 24 hours may have been typical Trumpian hyperbole, it's clear that securing peace remains a priority for the president.

    Biden's folly

    One need only look at what happened under the previous administration to understand why. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was a regular visitor to the Biden White House, always clad in his odd mixture of combat gear and activewear — and never leaving empty handed.

    The engagement of U.S. and NATO military personnel alongside Ukrainian soldiers, as well as the use of American and British missiles to strike the Russian heartland, brought America perilously close to nuclear war with Russia. Seeing the horrible potential for a third world war, both Trump and then-Senator JD Vance urged caution and encouraged peace.

    Incredibly, Canada seems not to have taken the hint.

    Alone and outgunned

    Even as Trump slowly but surely extricates the U.S. from supporting Ukraine and distances itself from NATO members who delusionally believe they can either take on Russia in a conventional war or somehow survive a nuclear one, Canadian political leaders talk about going it alone against Russia without America.

    This is beyond ludicrous. Canada does not have a single operational tank left after giving all of its working Leopard models to Ukraine. It has yet to replenished the vast quantities of armaments it has given Ukraine; in fact, it is unable to do so. The U.K.’s military is also a shell of what it was, say, in 1982, when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went to war over the Falkland Islands.

    Besides, the war is effectively over. Ukraine cannot continue to furnish more troops for the battlefield even if it continues to abduct recruits from the streets and bars. Anyone who advocates the continuation of the war is, knowingly or not, arguing for the killing of an entire generation of Ukrainians. It is a consummation that might have already occurred.

    Not up for debate?

    Canadians should demand to know why all four party leaders at the English-language leaders’ debate in Montreal last Thursday stood foursquare behind that policy.

    Yes, such painful pandering should be expected from Carney, as well as Bloc Quebecois (separatist) chief Yves-Francois Blanchet and New Democratic Party boss Jagmeet Singh. But Poilievre?

    Despite his ostensible Canada-first outlook, the politician has been in lockstep with the Liberal government policy on Ukraine for over three years.

    When asked how a Conservative government would respond to Zelenskyy’s continued demands for money and armaments, Poilievre responded, “I believe we should continue to support Ukraine. Our party supported donating missiles that the Canadian military was decommissioning. We supported funds and other armaments to back the Ukrainians in the defense of their sovereignty.”

    Knowing full well how unpopular this view is with his conservative base, Poilievre quickly tried to change the subject, emphasizing the need “to rebuild our own Canadian military, because the Russians want to make incursions into our waters."

    "We'll be buying four massive Arctic ice breakers," Poilievre continued. "I'll be opening the first Arctic base since the Cold War in Canada, CFB, Iqaluit.”

    Fleshing it out

    That wasn’t good enough for the debate moderator, who pressed Poilievre to “put a little more flesh on the bone of what you think Canada could do for Ukraine.” His response:

    My answer is that we should continue to support Ukraine. We don't need to follow the Americans in everything they do when they're wrong, then we will stand on our own and with other allies and with respect to Ukraine, that includes support with intelligence equipment, armaments, but it also includes defunding Putin. Right now, Vladimir Putin has a monopoly on the European energy market because, frankly, the liberals blocked exports of Canadian natural gas off the Atlantic coast. They blocked multiple projects. I would rapidly approve those projects on national security grounds, so that we can, we can actually ship Canadian natural gas over to Europe, break European dependence on Putin, defund the war, and turn dollars for dictators back into paychecks for our people.

    Nice try, but it still adds up to flaky policy based on a perceived need to appease the Ukrainian-Canadian vote that is preponderant in many key constituencies across Canada — a vote that generally goes to the Liberals.

    Poilievre's words may also alienate Conservatives to the point that they decide not to vote at all — or to give their vote to the one Canadian party that opposes aid to Ukraine: Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada.

    Maxime effort

    People's Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier campaigns in Edmonton April 18. NurPhoto/Getty Images

    A libertarian alternative that has fielded candidates in every Canadian riding and could actually capture one or two this election, the PPC lacked the 5% share of national voters necessary to participate in the debate.

    Nevertheless, Bernier continues to speak for all Canadians fed up with their country's involvement in this endless and expensive quagmire.

    As he told Align:

    The war in Ukraine is not a conflict between good and evil, or autocracy versus democracy. It’s a longstanding conflict over border territories between these two countries that has been amplified and turned into a proxy war by NATO and the imperialist warmongers in Washington and other western capitals.

    It doesn’t concern Canada and we should have nothing to do with it. Russia is not our enemy. The only reason Canada is so involved is that the establishment parties are pandering to Canadians of Ukrainian descent.

    It's a message that deserves a wider hearing and could resonate with Canadians fed up with the endless and expensive quagmire.

  • Holy shot: Did Trump's assassination attempt survival prove miracles are real? Sun, 27 Apr 2025 21:00:00 +0000


    The world collectively gasped last July when Donald Trump — a then-candidate vying for a historic second presidential term — was nearly assassinated on live television.

    In a series of events too shocking to seem impromptu, Trump turned his head just slightly, enough to inadvertently prevent a bullet from entering his skull.

    One of the most remarkable facets of miracles is the corroborative proof they provide for the existence of a loving God.

    The bizarre incident took place while he was speaking at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. It was a moment that left many pondering whether the hand of God had protected Trump, a boisterous billionaire who suffered little more than a surface injury when the bullet merely grazed his ear.

    “The world saw a miracle before their eyes,” conservative activist Rocío Cleveland said at the time — and other spectators agreed. Then, when a second purported assassination attempt was thwarted not long after, miracle claims once again mounted.

    Even first lady Melania Trump jumped into the mix, telling Fox News that “both of the events, they were really miracles, if you really think about it.”

    “July 13th, it was a miracle like that much,” she added. “And he could, you know, he could not be with us.”

    Not everyone bought in to the miracle narrative, though. Media outlets quickly seized upon those making such claims, with the Guardian publishing a essay titled “Christian right see God’s hand in Trump rally shooting: ‘The world saw a miracle.’”

    And Politico added its own flare into the collective with this headline: “Republicans embrace ‘divine intervention’ for Trump’s near-miss into martyrdom.”

    But while some headlines seemed to be near-mocking or at least dismissing the idea that Trump’s shocking survival somehow had divine elements, even the president’s former doctor felt the scenario qualified as a miracle.

    Dr. Ronny L. Jackson, who served as a White House doctor for Trump and other presidents, stressed in a statement that the would-be assassin’s bullet came less than a quarter of an inch from entering Trump’s head.

    “I am extremely thankful his life was spared,” Jackson said. “It is an absolute miracle he wasn't killed.”

    Regardless of whether Americans believe Trump’s survival was God-ordained or contend the claim is an absurdity, there are some factors worth unpacking. The moment came during a contentious and confounding time in America — an era during which moral confusion and a stunning turn back to faith seem to be coexisting.

    At a time when people increasingly realize moral relativism is nonsensical and that something eternal is worthy of consideration, Trump’s Butler moment offered fodder for those who believe miracles are real and that God is still operating in the world.

    And it provided something worthwhile to contemplate for those open to the eternal.

    Even if people reject this miracle narrative in Trump’s case, there are other examples of healing and radical lifesaving events that simply can’t be ignored.

    I’ve spent the past year and a half working on my new Christian Broadcasting Network documentary, “Investigating the Supernatural: Miracles,” a film exploring miraculous claims that would leave even the most skeptical among us questioning if something more might be afoot.

    Here’s why all of this matters: One of the most remarkable facets of miracles is the corroborative proof they provide for the existence of a loving God. If it’s true that people are being healed in inexplicable ways — and if those healings are being guided by the Lord — then that evidence must be taken into account.

    Of course, most Americans have no problem with miracles. A Pew Research Center poll from 2010 found that 80% of adults believe in miracles, with other subsequent polls coming to similar conclusions. In 2016, a Barna poll found that 66% of Americans “believe people can be physically healed supernaturally by God.”

    So miracles are widely accepted, yet many of us still want provable evidence that they’re real. That’s why I’ve traveled the nation exploring stunning claims of miraculous medical healings for “Investigating the Supernatural: Miracles.”

    The Trump debate aside, I discovered many ironclad cases of medical healings that leave little room for doubt that God is more than active in our world today.

    Take Dr. Chauncey Crandall, for example — a respected cardiologist and internist who has witnessed extraordinary recoveries in his medical work. One of the most jaw-dropping? A man who was declared clinically dead for 40 minutes — only to come back to life.

    As wild as it sounds, the case is thoroughly recorded and backed by evidence.

    Then there’s Bryan Lapooh, a former police officer from New Jersey who spent 10 years paralyzed following a freak fall on ice. But after attending a prayer gathering, something inexplicable happened: He walked out of the building and has been fine ever since.

    Those are just two examples. The accounts featured in “Investigating the Supernatural: Miracles” aren’t flimsy or hearsay — they’re medically documented, rigorously defended, and absolutely astonishing.

    But just like Trump’s case — one in which innocent victim Corey Comperatore was tragically killed — there are tough questions that must be explored: Why do some get miracles and not others? How do miracles work in the modern era? And what, if anything, dictates who receives a miracle and who doesn’t?

    We were forced to grapple with these queries as we traveled the nation to analyze and examine these remarkable stories, and what we found transformed us.

    Watch “Investigating the Supernatural: Miracles” today to discover a truly powerful narrative that will leave you thinking differently about faith, prayer, and the meaning of modern-day miracles.

  • Forget service with a smile — these days I'd settle for service from a human Sun, 27 Apr 2025 20:00:00 +0000


    After a week of dealing with service calls to my internet company and having to go to many more stores than usual, I suspect there’s a coordinated campaign to prevent humans from talking to each other.

    I’m not entirely kidding. Have you noticed, especially since the “pandemic,” that it’s becoming the new-normal to be stopped from speaking to other people? We’re now directed to “interface” with machines. It happens on the phone, at gas stations, at grocery stores, at restaurants.

    There’s something so off about walking up to the register while one lone employee stands in front of the cigarette case and monitors you while you do his job.

    Have you been handed a piece of paper with a QR code on it when you’re seated at a restaurant and told to “scan this for the menu”? Have you been told (not “asked”) to scan your own groceries, bag them, and punch your payment into the register?

    How about the robotic phone tree lady that prevents you from speaking to a person at the gas company, the bank, or any other business you call?

    Phoning it in

    People have been complaining about the decline in customer service since at least as far back as the 1980s. The worst of it was the then-recently invented phone tree.

    Phone trees have always been irritating, but they’re out of control now: There is no human staffed department to which you can be directed. Worse, companies deliberately restrict the subjects you can “ask” about by leaving them off the menu options, and the systems hang up on you if you try to get a human agent.

    It’s getting infinitely worse with the overnight adoption of shiny, glittery-new AI technology. In the past month, I finally stopped doing business with my old internet company — a huge multinational company that you have heard of and not in fond terms — because it has programmed its AI “customer service rep” to blatantly refuse to connect customers with a human.

    Call waiting (and waiting)

    Here’s how these online chats go:

    AI agent: Please choose from billing, technical support, or new sales.

    Me: Need more options. Need agent.

    AI: Please choose from billing, technical support, or new sales.

    Me: Agent.

    AI: I’m sorry, please choose from ...

    Me: Agent! I need an agent! My question is not listed!

    AI: I’m sorry, but I cannot connect you to an agent until you follow the suggested steps above. Goodbye.

    And then the chat window closes, or the call disconnects.

    Yes, I’m serious. The robots now brazenly hang up on you if you don’t obey their commands. How did customers suddenly end up having to take orders from company devices instead of the other way around?

    Inconvenience store

    It’s no better in person, and I’m sorry to say that human behavior is just as bad as robotic misconduct. This week, I needed a five-gallon jug of kerosene. I heat and light my home in cold weather with restored antique kerosene lamps. These aren’t the small "Little House on the Prairie" oil lamps you’re thinking of; they’re big thirsty bad boys that put out major light and heat.

    So I go to the farm store, where they sell kerosene in large jugs at 40% less than other stores. When I walk over to the shelf, there’s nothing there. Damn. Now, I have to weigh whether or not to talk to a staff member.

    Fifteen years ago, this wasn’t a hard decision — in fact, it wasn’t a decision at all. But today? The most common response I get from store staff when asking for help is a facial expression that communicates irritation and an attitude meant to express, “You, customer, are inconveniencing me.”

    It’s most pronounced in anyone under 40, as Millennials and Gen Zers were not taught things like “doing your job” or “not being awful to the people who pay your wage through their customers.”

    I chance it and ask the frazzled 22-year-old at the register. He won’t make eye contact with me, of course. “Hi there. I see that the kerosene isn’t in its usual spot. Could you please tell me if you have it in stock, or when you will have it in stock again?”

    Without looking at me, he replies, “I don’t know.” What am I supposed to say to this? Wouldn’t you take that as another way of saying, “I’m not going to answer your question, and I want you to go away?”

    So I say, “Right. Could you please tell me who might know or how I will be able to find out whether I will be able to buy kerosene here and when that might be?”

    Annoyed, the cashier makes an exasperated noise and says, “They don’t tell us what’s coming on the truck. All I know is that it comes on Tuesdays and Thursdays — check back then.”

    When I worked retail, had my boss observed me speak to a patron like this, I would have been fired on the spot.

    No talking

    My last stop on this outing is to grab some lunch. There’s a brand-new gas station/convenience store/truck stop that just opened two miles up the road from where I live in Vermont. It’s sort of like a northern version of the famous Bucc-ee’s truck stop “malls” you see in the South. You can get hot and cold food, soft drinks, beer, liquor, small electronics accessories, motor oil, and toys to keep the kids quiet.

    Sadly, “make the customer do the store’s job” has metastasized to the corner store, too.

    This place is all self-checkout. There’s something so off about walking up to the register, while one lone employee stands in front of the cigarette case and monitors you while you do his job. There’s no etiquette for it. The employees don’t greet you, leaving you wondering if they’re afraid you’ll ask them to do something if they signal that they’re aware of your presence.

    I am prepared for that. I am not prepared for having to do the same thing for a sandwich.

    I stand at the deli counter for about two minutes, while two employees stand behind the counter 20 feet away chatting with each other as if I were not there. Then, it dawns on me. There is that bank of iPads blazing out saturated color. I, the customer, am forced to punch a touchscreen on the machine to put in my order. There is to be no talking to other humans.

    The device has every annoyance, starting with the fact that the customer is forced to learn a new, company-bespoke set of “buttons” and software, adding frustration and time to what ought to be a simple request.

    Employees won’t talk to you, of course, even when they know you’re having trouble. After finally (I think) placing my order, dramatic pipe organ music starts blaring from a hidden speaker. It’s playing a plagal cadence, the part at the end of a church hymn that goes “aaaaa-men.” Apparently, this signals that one’s order has been sent to St. Peter and will be delivered shortly.

    The younger of the two counter staffers looks at me briefly while the fanfare echoes against the tile walls. I say, “Am I allowed to talk to you?”

    She just stares at me.

  • Top 3 behind-the-scenes moments from Glenn Beck’s interview with President Trump Sun, 27 Apr 2025 20:00:00 +0000


    Glenn Beck just got back from Washington, D.C., where he became the first member of the media to interview President Trump about his first 100 days in office. Their conversation was expansive, jumping from one hot topic to the next.

    However, off camera, there were just as many exciting things going on. On a recent episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn shared the best behind-the-scenes moments he shared with President Trump.

    1. Solo in the Oval Office

    “[President Trump] left me alone with my wife in the Oval Office for like five minutes,” he tells co-host Stu Burguiere. “I was alone with the Declaration of Independence. I mean it was incredible.”

    “He said, ‘Nobody sits in here without the president,’” and “I said, 'I'm aware of that,’ and he said, ‘But I knew you'd want to look at everything, so I thought you'd be more comfortable if you were here by yourself,”’ Glenn recounts, calling the experience “fantastic.”

    2. Personal White House tour

    Even though Glenn was allotted a strict 40 minutes for the interview, as President Trump had a meeting with the National Security Council to get to, that didn’t stop the president from taking Glenn on a personal tour of the White House.

    Just as White House aides were trying to usher Trump out of the interview and into the meeting, where high-ranking officials were waiting for him, he said, “Let them wait.”

    “He takes us through the entire White House room by room, shows us all of the meanings behind things — all the amazing things that nobody knows about the White House,” says Glenn.

    The tour even included a trip to the Lincoln Bedroom, which can only be given by the president of the United States.

    Glenn says the room was “a time capsule,” complete with the famous massive rosewood bed, a spooky painting of Lincoln said to be his favorite portrait of himself, an enormous mirror, eight feet by four feet, and a writing desk where one of four copies of the Gettysburg Address resides.

    3. The REAL Trump

    While the media goes to great lengths to paint him in every negative light it can conjure up, the truth is that Donald Trump is “always energized,” personable and caring, a brilliant historian, and, most importantly, “still humble,” says Glenn.

    At one point, President Trump said to him, “Every day, Glenn, I wake up and I say to myself, 'I can't believe I'm in this house.'"

    To hear more of Glenn’s behind-the-scenes stories from his time at the White House with President Trump, including a story about Hillary Clinton allegedly stealing doorknobs, 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.

  • Francis was my pope, right or wrong Sun, 27 Apr 2025 19:00:00 +0000


    On Monday, April 21, Pope Francis passed away at his residence in the Vatican.

    Formerly the Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio ascended to the papal throne on March 13, 2013. He took the name Francis after St. Francis of Assisi, the medieval founder of the Franciscan Order. Francis’s reign as supreme pontif lasted 12 years.

  • Michelle Obama claims black women need permission to 'articulate pain' Sun, 27 Apr 2025 17:00:00 +0000


    Michelle Obama has taken the uncommon path of a former first lady and started a podcast where she talks about the important issues like how black women think they need permission to express pain.

    And it’s every bit as insufferable as one might expect.

    “We grew up with women who weren’t voicing the pain and the burden,” Obama told her brother, Craig Robinson, and Taraji P. Henson. “They made it look easy. And when you make stuff look easy, people assume that you must like this, it’s okay with you.”

    “We don’t articulate as black women — our pain — because it’s almost like nobody ever gave us permission to do that,” she continued, before Henson interrupted, asking, “And does anyone care?”


    “If we knew, I think we would care,” Robinson answered, before Obama continued waxing poetic.

    “We have to ask ourselves, the men in our lives, is ‘Why wait to be asked?’ It seems like what we go through is pretty obvious. I mean, maybe we’re not complaining, but we’re actually living life out loud.”

    Obama went on to lament that black women are “so easily labeled as angry and bitter” while white women are viewed as “lightness” and have “an ability to be in this world and see what’s going on.”

    “Are black women struggling to talk about their pain? Are they not free to do that in America?” Jason Whitlock of “Jason Whitlock Harmony” asks co-host Shemeka Michelle.

    “Initially I thought, ‘This is so stupid,’ because that’s all we hear and see is the pain of black women. That’s all they talk about. And I found it ironic that she was sitting there talking to Taraji P. Henson, who has complained over and over again. She pretty much tanked ‘The Color Purple’ because all she was doing was complaining,” Michelle says.

    “Maybe black women aren’t articulating ‘their pain’ in the correct way, because everytime I turn around I’m seeing some type of video where they’re tearing up the McDonald's, or trying to run over their baby daddy, or fighting in a Walmart in their pajama pants and their bonnets,” Michelle continues.

    “So maybe she has a point that they don’t ‘articulate’ their pain, because they’re busy showing out and acting like untamed gorillas,” she adds.

    Want more from Jason Whitlock?

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

  • The art of prayer: How to unleash its power Sun, 27 Apr 2025 17:00:00 +0000


    As Christians, we should know what we owe to our fellow Jesus followers — “one another” as the Bible calls us.

    Before we can effectively love our neighbor — “neighbor” in this context meaning those not yet a part of the family of God — we need to understand the importance of how we interact with our brethren in Christ.

    Paul’s prayers center on one thing: that believers may become more and more like Christ, growing into spiritual powerhouses.

    Obviously, we are to love one another. We are to model the early church as it is described to us in Acts. We are to mindfully learn and apply all the “one anothers” the Bible gives us. We are to speak truth in love to one another (and others, as well).

    One of the most powerful ways to love one another is to diligently pray for one another (James 5:16). And one of the most powerful ways to accomplish that is to pray scripture for them.

    This is nothing new. After all, many of us have been praying the Lord’s Prayer, which is straight out of scripture, for much of our lives. Many psalms also lend themselves to prayer and worship. Much scripture has been set to music so that we can pray in song, as well.

    But when it comes to powerfully praying for our brethren, the apostle Paul was a master. In God-breathed letters to at least three churches — the Colossians, the Philippians, and the Ephesians — he tells his flock exactly how he’s praying for them.

    Paul’s prayer for the Colossians

    Colossians 1:9-12:

    For this reason also, since the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the full knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you may walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and multiplying in the full knowledge of God; being strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; joyously giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.

    What a magnificent prayer! In a few short lines, Paul asked God that the Colossians might:

    • Be filled with the knowledge of God’s will, in all spiritual wisdom and understanding: This is a wonderful starting place for praying for your fellow believers — that they understand and wisely follow God’s will for their lives.
    • Walk worthy of God, pleasing Him in every way

    And then he prayed specifically for how they could do that:

    • Bear fruit in every good work and increase in the knowledge of God: These two categories are what should comprise our day-to-day existence! Knowing Him and making Him known. Sitting at His feet daily, and serving Him wholeheartedly.
    • Be strengthened with all power, according to God’s glorious might, to attain perseverance and patience: Paul recognized that persevering and being patient only come through the mighty power of the Holy Spirit within us and are important enough to merit their own mention in his prayer.
    • Joyously thank the Father, who has qualified us to share in His inheritance of our fellow saints in light: Here, he prays for his fellow believers to be filled with joy and gratitude, looking up to what lies ahead.

    If you’re praying for the believers in your life to understand God’s will, walk worthy and please Him, bear fruit and know Him better, be strengthened In God’s power, and joyously give thanks — you’re on target.

    Again, this was a prayer for a specific group of people from Paul. But because it is recorded in holy scripture, we know this prayer is God-breathed. What a privilege to be able to pray this exact prayer for our brothers and sisters in Christ. We can do that in general, praying for all our fellow disciples this way.

    But it is perhaps more meaningful to actually write out this prayer for a specific brother or sister, by name.

    For example:

    Lord, I continually ask You to fill Anna with the knowledge of Your will in spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that she will walk worthy of You and please You in every way — bearing fruit in every good work and growing in her knowledge of You. Please strengthen her with all power, according to Your glorious might, so she may obtain great perseverance and patience. And help her joyfully thank You, who has qualified us both to share in the inheritance of Your saints in the kingdom of light.

    Praying this way ignites my spirit. We know that when we pray in alignment with God’s will, He acts. How amazing that He’s given us scripture like this that demonstrates, in a very practical way, how He would have us pray for the “one anothers” with whom He has blessed us.

    Bonus question: How might you adapt this prayer for your unbelieving friends?

    Paul’s prayer for the Philippians

    Another rich prayer is recorded for us in Philippians 1:3-6:

    I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always offering prayer with joy in my every prayer for you all, in view of your participation in the gospel from the first day until now. For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work among you will complete it by the day of Christ Jesus.

    This is a good reminder to thank God for the Jesus followers He’s brought into our lives — and to start any prayer for them by expressing our gratitude for the blessings they bring to us.

    Note also the attitude he brings to his prayer time for them. He is mindful of their “participation in the gospel” — he is mindful that they are walking the same path as he is — and this brings him joy.

    His next thought is a verse we often quote as a reminder that “God isn’t finished with us yet.” Isn’t it interesting that he put it right here in a prayer for them? Almost like he wanted to remind himself that no matter what mistakes and stumbles he might have to address, these beloved friends were a work in progress, in the process of being sanctified.

    In other words, they were people deserving of his grace, too. Another good reminder.

    But the real meat of his prayer for them is found in verses 9-11:

    And this I pray, that your love may overflow still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may discover the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and blameless for the day of Christ; having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, for the glory and praise of God.

    That our love may overflow ... in real knowledge and discernment. What do those two things have to do with love?

    As for knowledge: Our agape love for our brothers and sisters does not spring from some sort of flowery sentimentality. It springs from scriptural truth. Scripture is what defines love, so we can’t love well without that knowledge. Again, we speak the truth in love and love others well with truth — always.

    As for discernment: It turns out love is not blind, after all. The Greek word used here for "discernment" is where we get our English word “aesthetic,” which as John MacArthur notes, speaks of moral perception, insight, and practical application of knowledge. “Love is not blind,” he says, “but perceptive, and it carefully scrutinizes to distinguish between right and wrong.”

    That biblical, perceptive love is what Paul wants overflowing in believers. Why?

    So that we can discover what things are excellent. This is about developing keen perception, distinguishing between which things are worthy of our time and which are hindrances. And what does this pursuit of excellent things net us?

    It means we are sincere and blameless as we transition out of this world and into our heavenly reward in glory with Jesus. It means that in this life, we are filled with the fruit of righteousness, again as a result of Jesus’ work. And what is the purpose of those results? The glory and praise of God.

    Don’t we all want someone praying these things for us? So let us pray them for one another — wholeheartedly and personally.

    Paul’s prayer for the Ephesians

    Ephesians 1 is a magnificent chapter, and I encourage you to read it right now. Paul’s first prayer for the Ephesians comes toward the end of that chapter:

    Ephesians 1:15-19a:

    For this reason I too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you and your love for all the saints, do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers; that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the boundless greatness of His power toward us who believe.

    This is such a rich passage. Paul is telling the Ephesians that when he mentions them in his prayers, he does so with continuous gratitude for them — due to their exemplary faith, evidenced by their love for one another.

    And then he goes on to tell them what he asks God for, on their behalf:

    • Wisdom: The ability to take knowledge and put it into action, or in other words, how to live well in God’s world. This is an attribute we should diligently seek always. The first nine chapters of Proverbs make a powerful argument for this pursuit.
    • Revelation in the knowledge of Him: This is the continuing learning process (“revelation”) that we undergo as we learn more about God through immersion in His Word.
    • Enlightened “eyes of the heart”

    That last one means seeing God clearly with a spiritually enlightened mind, which results in knowledge of three life-changing truths:

    • The truth of the hope of His calling: a confident understanding of the hope He provides His children, and a grasp of what awaits us.
    • The truth of the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints: again, starting to grasp the immense and glorious riches that are ours as His saints.
    • The truth of the boundless power of His greatness toward us who believe.

    I love what John MacArthur says about this last point:

    God’s great power, that very power which raised Jesus from the dead and lifted Him by ascension back to glory to take His seat at God’s right hand, is given to every believer at the time of salvation and is always available. Paul therefore did not pray that God’s power be given to believers, but that they be aware of the power they already possessed in Christ and use it. — MacArthur Study Bible (notes)

    That’s really the point of Paul’s prayer for enlightened eyes of the heart: that we be aware of what God in Christ has already given us — and then we use it.

    This is indeed an immensely powerful prayer that we can personalize for our brothers and sisters. And there’s nothing wrong with asking our brothers and sisters to pray this for us, too.

    But Paul had one more spectacular prayer for his beloved Ephesian church. It is one of the most beautiful passages in all his letters (and there are a lot of beautiful passages, to be sure):

    Ephesians 3:14-19:

    For this reason I bend my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner self, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled to all the fullness of God.

    Praying this sublime language is an act of worship in itself, since it includes such a marvelous depiction of God’s unquestioned authority.

    But let’s look at what Paul is asking God to grant the Ephesians here “according to the riches of His glory,” which again are available to every Christ-follower:

    • That God would grant them strength, derived from the power of the Holy Spirit within each individual, so that Christ dwells in their hearts through faith. In other words, that we would please Him by keeping our hearts clean through the power of His Spirit as we submit to His lordship.
    • That God would grant them the state of being rooted and grounded in love — the self-sacrificial agape love given for us by Him, that we are to freely share.
    • That God would grant them comprehension (awareness and understanding), along with all the other saints, of the vast immensity of the love of Christ, which surpasses simple head knowledge. We can’t know this kind of love without being His children.

    Knowing all of this leads to being filled with the fullness of God. It leads to spiritual strength as we discipline our minds and spirits to study, understand, and live by God’s word through His Spirit’s power — increasingly, as we mature in Him.

    Quoting my friend Dr. MacArthur one more time:

    Although the outer, physical person becomes weaker with age, the inner, spiritual person should grow stronger through the Holy Spirit, who will energize, revitalize, and empower the obedient, committed Christian.

    But wait — there’s more

    Here are a few more of Paul’s prayers that you can personalize for those you are bringing to God’s throne room:

    Paul’s prayers center on one thing: that believers may become more and more like Christ, growing into spiritual powerhouses. That is why these passages are so powerful when we pray them for each other, by name, specifically.

    Let’s love one another by praying this way.

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

  • The good news about hypocritical Christians Sun, 27 Apr 2025 15:00:00 +0000


    I grew up around the evangelical Christian subculture. My sister and I were the only kids our age at our church, so I ended up visiting various other youth groups, going to the pizza parties, lock-ins, concerts, and mission trips.

    My first-ever concert was Amy Grant with Michael W. Smith as the opener. A few years later, Smith was the headliner with a dynamic up-and-coming opening act called DC Talk that electrified a crowd of teenage Christian kids. Hearing “Flood” by Jars of Clay on secular radio was so exciting that I almost thought the millennial reign of Christ had arrived. I remember seeing my first episode of "VeggieTales" while on a retreat, which is also where I heard “Big House” by Audio Adrenaline for the first time. I was a big fan of Caedmon’s Call in college, particularly enjoying Derek Webb’s gravelly vocals and edgy songwriting.

    We are not faced with a binary choice between authenticity and hypocrisy.

    As the years have gone by, some of these people have turned out to be hypocrites. Lots of kids looked to them as spiritual role models, not knowing they weren’t who they seemed to be. I hear reports that the contemporary Christian music industry is pretty messed up. Artists whose CDs I purchased now identify as LGBTQ in some way. Some have abandoned all semblance of orthodox Christianity, while others have rejected Christ outright.

    The fallout caused by all these defections from the true faith is often blamed on cultural Christianity, which enabled talented people to get paid for entertaining Christian kids. Now that their hypocrisy has been exposed, some have become openly hostile to cultural Christianity altogether.

    What a difference a year makes

    Here’s a recent example from the last two Easter Holidays.

    Last week, the White House issued a number of pro-Christian, Easter-themed posts and videos from President Donald Trump, who openly celebrated the “Resurrection of Jesus Christ" and proclaimed in his hallmark all-caps style, “HE IS RISEN!!”

    Last year, Easter happened to coincide with “Transgender Day of Visibility,” which was celebrated by a White House press release. The White House's Easter acknowledgement was quite muted in comparison.

    The administration denied any deliberate attempt to subvert Easter with transgenderism, but the graphic design department must not have gotten the memo. The transgender statement had an Easter bunny in the White House logo.

    Two Easters, one year apart. What a difference a year makes.

    This Easter felt like living in another world compared to last year. Why? Because last year, it felt like the entire culture and our government were hostile to Christianity. This year, Trump proclaimed the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ through the world’s biggest microphone.

    Two different White House occupants were leveraging their influence to promote two different visions of “the good” for our society. Whichever vision of “the good” our society adopts can have a great impact on the church and her mission.

    Simply put: A society that broadly believes “Transgender Day of Visibility” is worth celebrating will inevitably persecute the faith that condemns it as sin. A society that broadly believes “HE IS RISEN!!” will not.

    The hypocrisy of cultural Christianity

    I’m sure some people would object that Trump didn’t really mean what he said and was just pandering to his Christian base. They’d say, “He’s not a real Christian! That’s just cultural Christianity! It encourages nominal Christianity and hypocrisy!” For this reason, some say, cultural Christianity is just a celebration of hypocrisy. Thus, insincere overtures celebrating Christianity are wrong and harmful.

    Pastor Ray Ortlund, for example, openly celebrated the decline of cultural Christianity in a since-deleted tweet which said, “I rejoice at the decline of Bible Belt Religion. It made bad people worse — in the name of Jesus. Now may we actually believe in Him, so that our churches stand out with both the truth of gospel doctrine and the beauty of gospel culture. To that end, I gladly devote my life.”

    In other words, Ortlund presented the issue as a binary choice: You can either have the hypocrisy of “Bible Belt Religion” or you can have “the truth of gospel doctrine.”

    Given these options, the choice is clear: We must “rejoice at the decline” of cultural Christianity because that gives rise to “the beauty of gospel culture.”

    Hypocrisy vs. persecution

    This is a false dichotomy. We are not faced with a binary choice between authenticity or hypocrisy. Rather, we are faced with a different kind of binary: hypocrisy or persecution.

    True Christianity can thrive in either condition, but one is better than the other. Let me explain.

    Have you noticed that Jesus condemned the sin of hypocrisy far more frequently than the rest of the New Testament? Why is this? The disparity can be explained by the divergent contexts of Jesus’ Jewish-focused ministry and the later church’s Gentile-focused ministry.

    The Pharisees feigned godliness as a kind of insincere performance. Hypocrisy is playacting for an audience, and Jesus called them out for it. They were fake. Posers. Insincere. They didn’t really follow God; they had their own agenda. But their personal agendas were enabled by the expectations of the Jewish community they belonged to. They wanted to enjoy the benefits of being Jewish leaders within the Jewish subculture that rewarded them and gave them power.

    In other words, hypocrisy only works when there’s an audience that values the genuine faith you’re counterfeiting. Said in another way: Hypocrisy is a byproduct of gospel influence.

    When persecution broke out in the early church, Christians fled Jerusalem and scattered into pagan, idol-filled Gentile areas that were more hostile to the gospel (Acts 16:16-23, Acts 19:21-41). Thus, persecution became a major concern that moved more prominently into focus of apostolic teaching.

    In other words, persecution is a byproduct of gospel decline.

    When Christians are constantly harassed and threatened by hostile forces, faithfulness under persecution replaces hypocrisy as the greater discipleship concern (1 Peter 4:12-14). When everyone hates Christianity, there is no reward for being a fake one. God uses persecution to purify and strengthen his church.

    Persecution is not a sacrament

    This brings me to a modern tension. Christians are divided as to which is the preferred state of affairs.

    Is it better for us to adopt a strict “exile” mentality, where we prefer being a persecuted yet faithful minority? Or is it better to assume Christianity and the culture it produces as a normative good, despite the hypocrisy that inevitably accompanies it?

    The “victorious Christian” favors strong, public assertions of Christian truth and morality, knowing that some will parrot the pro-Jesus talking points insincerely.

    The “Christian in exile” favors persecution as a purifying agent to rid the church of hypocrisy and all other vestiges of insincerity.

    Here's the thing: Hypocrisy is a sin, but it’s not so uniquely intractable that it demands dismantling cultural Christianity and embracing secular hostility as the sole remedy. Put another way, persecution is not a sacrament. We need not seek it as a good in and of itself.

    Christians can thrive under persecution, but scripture does not require persecution in order to thrive. That’s a big difference.

    Some Christians are afraid that the inevitable hypocrisy that would result from a victorious Christianity is so bad as to spoil any positive good that might come from cultural Christianity. Thus, the church should adopt an embattled minority posture, in which believers are few but true. Persecution is a necessary condition to prove their devotion. Christianity on the whole must lose to prove they’re the ones who really mean it.

    I’ve known many people who romanticize the genuineness of the early church that faithfully endured great persecution, or the hardships of third-world missionaries in faraway hostile lands. Those are the real Christians.

    What a miserable way to live!

    Many Christians face this conundrum with tortured consciences and irrational moral standards while consoling themselves with gospel platitudes. They tell themselves “this is the way of the cross,” “true Christian power often looks like defeat,” and “this is the power and wisdom of God.” Of course, when we lose, we can take comfort in those truths.

    But the Bible does not require that we live this way.

    Persecution is intended to slow, stop, or reverse the advance of the gospel. It happens because it works. It is very difficult for the gospel seed to bear fruit when it is constantly being choked by thorny soil. People don’t seem to realize that many of our pioneering missionary heroes labored under grueling conditions for years before winning a single convert.

    Celebrating persecution as a cure for hypocrisy is like gargling bleach to cure bad breath. Less extreme remedies are preferable.

    The blessing of cultural Christianity

    Hypocrisy is a sin “in the camp,” so to speak. It is the kind of sin that arises when Christianity is culturally dominant, forming everyone’s expectations, norms, and behaviors, such that it exerts social pressure to conform to Christian standards. The exhortation to a hypocritical person is to be more Christian, not less. Jesus corrected the hypocritical Pharisees by calling them to live more in line with the faith they outwardly professed.

    Any gospel field will yield wheat and tares. The most fertile soil for gospel seed is a field already pre-tilled with cultural Christianity. As we have seen in recent decades, some people will present the “appearance of godliness but denying its power” (2 Timothy 3:5), but others will authentically accept Christ as savior and Lord. When insincere people want to enjoy the social benefits of pretending to be Christian, they can be corrected of their hypocrisy and called to live more gospel-aligned lives (Galatian 2:11-14).

    Cultural Christianity creates upward pressure that encourages people to outwardly conform to Christian expectations, which is a way of preaching law through social standards that can highlight their sin and need for Christ. Like a zero-entry pool, cultural Christianity helps newer believers observe the Christian life within a community, framing spiritual realities in familiar terms, and pre-evangelizing them in ways that may later produce true faith.

    Don’t get me wrong: Cultural Christianity doesn’t save anyone. It can even produce false converts. But many false converts are simply pre-converts who have yet to fully apprehend and apply, by faith, the teaching they’ve received. The Bible Belt religion of the American South, for example, has produced both hypocrisy and spiritual fruit.

    In other words, persecution is not the only remedy for hypocrisy. Christianized cultures can amplify gospel impact, and hypocrisy will always be a fruit of thriving Christian communities.

    Hypocrisy is inevitable. It will always exist anywhere authentic faith thrives. However, persecution is not inevitable. Cultural Christianity may even be the means God uses to prevent persecution from arising in our society that would threaten to destroy our faithful churches.

    Conclusion

    As I’ve reflected on the vivid contrast between Biden and Trump’s Easter Week statements the past two years, I’ve found myself being grateful for the political cover of having a president openly celebrating the “crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.” It’s good to see the faith that I teach and uphold as a pastor being loudly affirmed in our nation’s highest office.

    Ultimately, cultural Christianity is a double-edged sword. It can breed hypocrisy when one’s faith turns performative, yet it can also lay a foundation for the gospel to flourish.

    Persecution may be a refining fire, but Christians never celebrate it as an opportunity to demonstrate our Christian sincerity. Persecution is not God’s only tool to correct hypocrisy. Christianity has its own tools of ongoing reform, such as teaching, reproof, correction, and training in the word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

    We need not wring our hands about hypocrisy evident in cultural Christianity. We certainly need not pine after persecution as the sole remedy. We faithfully endure persecution, if it comes. Otherwise, we work like crazy to prevent it as much as possible.

  • Here's the proof: Trump makes good on promise to defend Christians Sun, 27 Apr 2025 13:00:00 +0000


    President Donald Trump is taking more action on behalf of Christians, making good on his promise to defend the faith.

    On Tuesday, prominent Christians and members of the Trump administration convened for the first meeting of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias. Trump established the task force to correct the "egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians, while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses" that he said occurred in the Biden administration.

    The Trump administration is exposing the rotten fruit of the negative world.

    Shocking evidence to prove those allegations was presented at this week's meeting.

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio, for example, presented evidence of bias against Christian foreign service officers who homeschool their children. Rubio said the Biden administration threatened the officers with allegations of child abuse or IRS investigations if they insisted on homeschooling. He also said Christians in the Biden administration were discriminated against for opposing DEI and LGBTQ ideology, stigmatized for opposing the COVID-19 shot, and had their religious holidays downplayed while non-Christian holidays were openly celebrated.

    This is what other officials testified to:

    • FBI Director Kash Patel spoke about the anti-Catholic memo the FBI, under then-President Joe Biden, issued.
    • HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spoke about how the Biden administration targeted a Catholic hospital and exposed "progressive rules" the administration enacted against Christians hoping to become foster parents.
    • Education Secretary Linda McMahon spoke about discrimination against Christians who oppose the LGBTQ agenda in education policy.
    • Deputy Treasury Secretary Michael Faulkender discussed "financial surveillance" of Christian organizations under the Biden administration, which allegedly included weaponization of tax classification statuses, de-banking, and labeling certain organizations as "hate groups."
    • Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins revealed how the Biden administration allegedly punished a chaplain for preaching from the Bible.
    • Domestic Policy Council Director Vince Haley spoke about the Biden administration's campaign to advance anti-Christian gender ideology on children.
    But that's not all.

    The task force also heard allegations that the IRS under Biden targeted churches under the guise of the Johnson Amendment and claims that Liberty University and Grand Canyon University were targeted for fines over their Christian worldview.

    "As shown by our victims' stories today, Biden's Department of Justice abused and targeted peaceful Christians while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses," Attorney General Pam Bondi said.

    Michael Farris, a celebrated attorney, said he thought the meeting would be "small" and "informal." But he was surprised when he learned just how serious the Trump administration is about defending Christians.

    "I have been in a lot of high ranking meetings in my 40+ years in DC but this was over the top," Farris said.

    "I was absolutely blown away. We heard frank stories of terrible treatment of Christians by the prior administration. In the military, by the FBI, by the State Department, by the Justice Department, the Education Department and more. And the solutions were swift, real, and incredibly inspiring," he continued.

    "I have chaired meetings in the past where the top Christian litigators shared our most outrageous cases and where we were making plans to fight back," Farris explained. "Today’s meeting had that same spirit but with one major difference. These people actually run our government and were swiftly taken the kind of action that for a long time Christians have believed were demanded by justice. I was amazed and encouraged deeply in my soul."

    The task force, Farris added, is proof that the Trump administration is following through on campaign promises "quickly" and "vigorously."

    "If every believer could have seen this in person their hearts would be overflowing tonight," Farris said.

    Not only is the Trump administration exposing instances of anti-Christian bias that happened in the Biden administration, but it is taking proactive measures to prevent such discrimination from continuing.

    Earlier this month, the State Department and VA deployed memos to employees asking them to report incidents of anti-Christian bias. The goal is to completely eliminate all forms of anti-Christian discrimination from the federal government.

    For a generation, American Christians have existed in a "negative world." Aaron Renn, who coined the phrase, explains:

    Society has come to have a negative view of Christianity. Being known as a Christian is a social negative, particularly in the elite domains of society. Christian morality is expressly repudiated and seen as a threat to the public good and the new public moral order. Subscribing to Christian moral views or violating the secular moral order brings negative consequences.

    Our faith has been mocked. Our values have been eroded and stigmatized. In a progressive world, faithful Christians have increasingly become an "other," the target of scorn and public ridicule.

    But now, the Trump administration is exposing the rotten fruit of the negative world.

    Clearly, Trump means business. The task force is more than a nod or gesture; it's a signal that anti-Christian bias will no longer be tolerated in the federal government. More importantly, Trump is sending a message to Christians everywhere: I see you. I hear you. I am willing to fight and to defend you.

    Christians should celebrate this moment. Not because our hope is found in Washington, but because faithful Christians and biblical values have increasingly become stigmatized in the halls of powerful institutions. And now, that is changing.

    Perhaps we are finally witnessing a reversal of the negative world.

  • America’s faith in ‘free trade’ empowered China’s apartheid machine Sun, 27 Apr 2025 01:00:00 +0000


    Like the “Free Tibet” campaign of the late 1990s, concern for China’s Uyghur population has faded into the background. In the mid-2010s, Beijing faced a short-lived wave of international criticism after General Secretary Xi Jinping created a vast network of internment camps. Nearly three million Uyghurs have been detained and subjected to brutal conditions.

    Republicans looking to push back against anti-tariff Democrats should take note. This humanitarian catastrophe continues today, yet receives little sustained attention. It ranks among the most severe human-rights abuses on the planet — and American free-trade policies may have helped enable it. For decades, U.S. leaders embraced open commerce with China while ignoring the costs. That strategic blindness now carries a moral price.

    Has our refusal to implement strong tariffs created a monster?

    Beijing has long portrayed Xinjiang separatists as Islamic terrorists. This year marks a decade since their last major act of violence — a brutal knife attack at a coal mine that left 50 people dead, mostly Han Chinese workers and police. Horrific as it was, critics argue the assault, like previous incidents, reflected a desperate backlash against the Chinese state’s colonial-style repression.

    Since Xi Jinping’s crackdown, no similar attacks have occurred. But the sheer scale of the regime’s response pushes China into apartheid territory — arguably beyond.

    Reports estimate that up to three million of China’s 10-million-strong Uyghur population are now detained in so-called re-education camps. These camps aim to strip the Sunni Muslim minority of its identity and recast them as loyal subjects of the Chinese Communist Party.

    Other reports indicate that many Uyghurs held in China’s re-education camps are forced to work in factories under conditions tantamount to slavery. Even more disturbing, some evidence suggests that, after “re-education,” Uyghurs are sold online in batches to employers across the country. Xinjiang produces one-fifth of the world’s cotton, and estimates say half a million Uyghurs are forced to pick it. That “free labor” gives Chinese manufacturers a competitive edge — one reportedly tied to the bankruptcy of major U.S. retailer Forever 21.

    Democrats may oppose forced labor in theory, but where is the push to penalize what amounts to a 21st-century plantation economy? Would they stay silent if Russia did the same?

    One of the most chilling aspects of Beijing’s ethnic campaign is its attempt to re-engineer Xinjiang’s population. This isn’t new. Seventy years ago, Mao Zedong launched a mass migration project to dilute the region’s Uyghur majority. The “Great Leap West,” introduced in 2000, revived the strategy — this time using financial incentives to bring Han Chinese into Xinjiang and offering jobs reserved for Han applicants outside the region. The policy remains in effect, along with forced out-migration of Uyghurs to other parts of China.

    Even Western media outlets — usually quick to denounce any effort to reduce immigration — have expressed alarm over Beijing’s demographic engineering in Xinjiang. Many now acknowledge the regime’s mass Han migration into the region as a deliberate attempt to dilute the Uyghur population and strip the minority of any political influence.

    More disturbing still are reports of mass sterilization campaigns. Chinese authorities have allegedly targeted Uyghur women to suppress birth rates. In 1990, hundreds of Uyghur men stormed a government building to protest forced abortions — a clash that ended with nearly 20 people dead.

    The demographic consequences are staggering. In 1955, Uyghurs made up 90% of Xinjiang’s population. Today, they account for less than half.

    Pro-Trump conservatives should grasp the strategic value of highlighting China’s use of migration as a political weapon. Doing so forces the left to confront a reality it usually denies: replacement-level immigration exists, and it carries consequences. Group identity rights don’t just apply to favored minorities — they apply to everyone, including the West.

    Consider the demographic parallels. America’s historic, European-descended majority has dropped from 90% after World War II to 57% today. The left has openly — and at times grotesquely — celebrated that decline.

    Like Beijing, the Democratic Party understands that demography is destiny. China aims to dominate its non-Han regions. Democrats aim to secure permanent political dominance over what they call “our democracy.”

    By exposing the left’s selective outrage — condemning China’s demographic manipulation while applauding similar trends in the West — conservatives can force a reckoning. If it’s wrong in Xinjiang, it’s wrong here, too. And no amount of rhetorical gymnastics can cover up the left’s inconsistency, arbitrariness, and odious bigotry.

    China’s mass enslavement of millions should spark outrage at least equal to what the West once directed at apartheid South Africa. That regime was boycotted into submission. Why shouldn’t the same standard apply to Beijing?

    As President Trump has rightly asked: Why did we admit China into the World Trade Organization in 2001? What made anyone believe it would ever play by WTO rules — rules it had already vowed to ignore behind closed doors? Was George W. Bush’s administration, along with the now-defunct neoconservative GOP, truly naïve enough to think trade would transform China into a democracy?

    More to the point, have we — not just our leaders, but the American people — enabled this? By enriching China through free trade, have we given it the means to carry out apartheid-level abuses against its Turkic Muslim minority?

    And has our refusal to implement strong tariffs created a monster?

    The anti-Trump, anti-tariff chorus must answer these questions. Its blind faith in globalization didn’t just cost us factories and jobs. It helped fund a regime that builds camps, crushes dissent, and rewrites humanity in its own image.

  • Why California’s ‘model state’ is a warning, not a goal Sun, 27 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0000

  • AM radio still saves lives — but will automakers listen? Sat, 26 Apr 2025 23:00:00 +0000


    Your new car has all the usual shiny new entertainment tech, but you're in the mood for an old favorite. You skip past the buttons for satellite radio and Bluetooth connectivity to tune in to your ever-reliable source of news, sports, and even lifesaving alerts in a crisis.

    That's when it hits you: There's no AM radio.

    Think back to the 1960s, when seatbelts weren’t standard. Automakers fought mandates then, too, calling them costly and unnecessary — until lives saved proved them wrong.

    As I've reported here before, carmakers like Tesla, Ford, and BMW have been quietly dropping in-vehicle AM radios for years, claiming it's no longer practical or financially viable to include it.

    But don't turn that dial just yet.

    Poor reception

    The AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act is heading toward a Senate vote after clearing the Commerce Committee back on February 5. With bipartisan support and an endorsement from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, this bill could ensure that AM radio stays in every new car.

    But why is this even a fight?

    It starts with cost. Adding an AM receiver might only run a few dollars per vehicle, but multiply that by millions of cars and it’s a hit to the bottom line.

    Then there’s the tech angle — electric vehicles dominate the future (for now), and AM signals can get scrambled by the electromagnetic hum of EV batteries and motors, creating annoying static.

    Plus, with dashboards turning into touchscreens and younger buyers streaming music or podcasts via Bluetooth, they argue that AM is outdated and unnecessary.

    Automakers would rather upsell you on satellite radio subscriptions or internet-connected infotainment systems — options that pad their profits but leave you without an AM signal when you want or need it.

    The trouble is that rural roads and disaster zones don’t care about your Wi-Fi plan, and that’s where AM comes in.

    Last resort

    I’ve been tracking this on Congress.gov. Senate Bill 315 moved out of committee for a floor vote this month. It’s described as a push “to require the Secretary of Transportation to issue a rule ensuring access to AM broadcast stations in passenger motor vehicles.”

    If passed, it would mandate that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to require automakers to include AM radio in all vehicles sold in the U.S. — at no extra cost. Until that rule kicks in, any cars without it must be clearly labeled.

    The National Association of Broadcasters cheered the progress, pointing to disasters like the Los Angeles wildfires and Hurricane Helene, where AM’s reach delivered evacuation orders and recovery info when cell networks crumbled. Over 125 groups, from the American Farm Bureau to the AARP, back it, citing safety and community access.

    Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) of the Commerce Committee teamed up across the aisle, saying, “Today’s vote broadcasts a clear message to car manufacturers that AM radio is an essential tool for millions. From emergency response to entertainment and news, it’s a lifeline we must protect.”

    FCC Chairman Brendan Carr added, “I saw it firsthand after Hurricane Helene — people relied on AM for lifesaving updates when everything else was down. Unlike streaming apps that need a signal or a subscription, AM is free, far-reaching, and works when nothing else does.”

    Audio seatbelt

    This bill is bigger than just radios — it’s about innovation, safety, and government’s role in the auto industry. Think back to the 1960s when seatbelts weren’t standard. Automakers fought mandates then, too, calling them costly and unnecessary — until lives saved proved them wrong. Today, AM radio is the seatbelt of communication: low-tech, sure, but a proven lifesaver.

    If it passes the Senate, it could set a precedent for regulators to prioritize public good over corporate trends, maybe even nudging carmakers to rethink other cuts — like physical buttons that were swapped for slow screens.

    It’s a signal that tech’s march forward doesn’t have to leave reliability behind, especially as disasters make resilient tools more crucial than ever.

    Static from lobbyists

    Unfortunately, this bill has some hurdles to get over. Automakers aren’t accepting this quietly; they’ve got deep pockets and powerful lobbyists, and groups like the Alliance for Automotive Innovation could lean on senators to water it down or kill it. They might argue it’s unfair to force a feature not every buyer wants or that EVs need exemptions for technical reasons.

    Then there’s the Senate itself — gridlock is normal, and with budget battles and post-election-year posturing, a floor vote could easily be delayed. Even supporters admit it’s faced delays before; earlier versions never passed in Congress despite broad support. The difference now? High-profile disasters and bipartisan unity might just tip the scales.

    AM remains the backbone of the Emergency Alert System, a resilient lifeline delivering local news, diverse voices, and critical info when it counts. Now that this bill’s racing through, it’s a sign that it could soon be law — unless the opposition shifts gears.

  • Elon Musk takes his child to work — and away from the woke mind virus Sat, 26 Apr 2025 21:00:00 +0000


    The media collectively clutched its pearls when Elon Musk showed up at the Senate with his young son, X, perched on his shoulders. He was headed to meetings on the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency. Critics pounced. The BBC quoted American University professor Kurt Braddock, who called it “a political move to make him seem more personable.” Harvard professor and political strategist Jon Haber dismissed it as inviting “chaos” and distraction.

    But strip away the media’s reflexive cynicism, and Musk’s decision makes perfect sense. After publicly condemning gender ideology for destroying another one of his children, it’s hardly surprising that he wants to keep his family close.

    Elon Musk knows firsthand what happens when the culture takes too much control. He lost a child to the woke mind virus and now seeks to eradicate it.

    Maybe Musk recognizes that protecting one’s children — not outsourcing their values to a broken system — is a fundamental duty. Maybe he sees the cultural rot in American schools and wants no part of it. Or maybe he just loves his kids, which used to be considered normal.

    Musk bringing his children to work — even to meetings with world leaders like the prime minister of India — doesn’t signal chaos. It signals commitment. It embodies the essence of home education: personal, practical, and profoundly traditional.

    Education vs. schooling

    Education trains the mind to recognize truth, emulate goodness, and appreciate beauty. It equips children to think independently, search for meaning, and pursue wisdom. Schooling does the opposite. It programs children to conform, accept whatever “experts” tell them, and obey the dominant ideology without question.

    Education liberates. Schooling enslaves. Today’s school systems manipulate children into believing that self-harm is self-care — gaslighting rebranded as guidance.

    That institutional hostility toward children now stands fully exposed. Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, abortion numbers have surged, fueled by the widespread availability of abortion pills and Planned Parenthood’s marketing campaign assuring the public they’re “safe” and “effective.” They’re safe for no one. They end lives. Meanwhile, activists now push for legal protection of gender-transition surgeries for minors — procedures that mutilate healthy bodies and bind children to pharmaceutical dependency for life.

    The rot runs deeper. According to the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, the American Federation of Teachers, led by Randi Weingarten, played a central role in shaping harmful COVID-era school policies. The AFT lobbied the CDC to keep schools closed, not based on science or evidence, but to strengthen bargaining leverage. The union's aim wasn’t safety — it was higher compensation. The result: long-term psychological, developmental, academic, and economic damage to millions of children.

    Teachers’ unions, long portrayed as champions of children, proved themselves anything but. The report makes it plain: “Any public health response that warrants closing schools should face the highest levels of scrutiny. School closure policy should be informed by science and data, not fear and politics.” Yet no one in power will face consequences.

    Homeschooling is better

    Does a system that gets worse for children every year while bleeding taxpayers dry deserve the label “education”?

    No serious evidence suggests it benefits kids. With their well-being on the line, we should return to what worked for millennia before the 20th century’s great school experiment: parent-led education.

    After generations of institutional schooling, we’ve forgotten a basic truth: Children need parents to become healthy, capable adults. In outsourcing education to the state, we’ve sacrificed much. Home education introduces children to more than rote academics. It builds life skills, strengthens family ties, and helps children understand their place in the world.

    Compare that with schools today. Age-segregated classrooms teach narrow content in isolated bubbles, infantilizing students while cutting them off from meaningful interaction with older generations. The results speak for themselves: young adults who now need a word — "adulting" — to describe basic responsibilities.

    Would anyone argue that Elon Musk has less to offer a child than a Harvard graduate who took a seminar titled “Queering Education”? That class, by the way, trains future teachers to combat “heteronormativity” and “cisnormativity” in the classroom. These so-called experts claim that “negotiating gender and sexuality norms,” including transitioning minors, boosts academic performance.

    Musk wouldn’t buy it. No sane person should.

    Retaking control

    Mocking gender theory isn’t just common sense — it’s starting to look a lot like home education.

    Elon Musk made a statement: World leaders matter, but his children matter more. He showed that balancing both is not only possible — it’s commendable. Rather than scoffing, we should applaud it.

    Maybe Musk could redefine the DOGE as the “Department of Good Education” and revive a “take your child to work” ethic in American life. Pair that with some math and classic literature, and we’d raise better students — and make better citizens.

    Musk knows firsthand what happens when the culture takes too much control. He lost a child to the “woke mind virus” and now seeks to eradicate it. The man who carried a sink into Twitter headquarters on day one understands symbolism. “Let that sink in,” he said.

    Then he hoisted his young son onto his shoulders and onto his list of priorities. It’s time we let that sink in, too — and follow his lead.

News Web Sites

Columnist/Blog Web Sites


This page has been visited 19 times today and 78,120 times since May 11, 2015.