Putin’s interference in Armenia’s 2026 election threatens peace, democracy, and U.S. strategic interests.

Americans know how consequential elections can be for both domestic and foreign policy. Likewise, Armenia’s upcoming parliamentary election on June 7 is critical to the future of the country, the Caucasus, and a major Trump Administration initiative, the Trump Road for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). The stakes for Armenia could not be higher. This election will determine whether Armenia remains a Russian satellite advancing Moscow’s interests rather than its own, or becomes an independent, Westward-looking state approaching EU membership. A Westward trajectory serves the interests of both Armenia and America and would solidify one of the Trump Administration’s strategic achievements.

Naturally, Russia, which is already losing ground in both the Caucasus and Central Asia, is trying to subvert this election. Besides threatening that Armenia will suffer Ukraine’s fate if it continues growing closer to Europe, Moscow has organized influence operations that are standard fare coming from the Kremlin. Russia intervened in the U.S. 2016 and 2020 elections, as well as elections in Spain, Moldova, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria. Russia also subsidizes the populist right-wing parties Alternative for Germany and National Rally in France.  So, the stakes in Armenia are enormous—war or peace, illiberalism or democracy.

A final peace settlement with Azerbaijan can only happen if Armenia’s new legislature, empowered by the June 7 elections, is able to address the necessary constitutional changes. Equally importantly, Armenia has begun serious negotiations with Brussels about entering the EU. In an historic first, Yerevan just hosted the May 4 meeting of the European Political Community (EPC), and on May 5, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa held the first-ever EU-Armenia summit, issuing a joint declaration.  The EU reaffirmed its steadfast commitment to further strengthening relations with Armenia and its long-term development by bringing Armenia and its people closer to the European Union.  The EU likewise supported Armenia’s willingness to align with the EU’s Acquis (membership requirements).

Sadly, this program of peace, Europeanization, and democracy is anathema to Russia and its partisans in Armenia. As a Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center paper aptly noted, “Russia Won’t Give Up Its Influence in Armenia Without a Fight.” In 2024-25, Moscow, working with Armenian revanchists, the Armenian church, and the opposition, was caught planning a coup. Such efforts to exploit domestic cleavages led by pro-Moscow oligarchs and Russian agents typify Moscow’s modus operandi.  The present intervention against Pashinyan’s government is part of a broader Russian strategy to maintain control over the South Caucasus and Armenia, protect the bridge to Iran, and derail emerging peace in the region.

Ocampo even boasted that he can exert pressure on EU Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen,  “and in that way tweak European policy,” working through the Spanish politician and former High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, Josep Borrell. In the video of his leaked interview, Ocampo concludes, we’re getting onto a road that’s already been paved. We pile on more pressure, and I’m going to do it in combination with the Armenian lobby in the United States…I don’t have to break down the wall—the door is already open and we just push in.”

Stephen J. Blank | May 30, 2026

Source: Putin’s Efforts to Subvert Armenia’s Elections Can Harm US Interests

Every layer of modern life depends on encryption so deeply that most people never even think about it. Until it stops working.

Julio Rivera | May 29, 2026

Source: The Cyber Apocalypse Nobody’s Ready For: Why Q-Day Changes Everything – American Thinker

Monty Donohew | May 28, 2026

Source: Civility in an uncivil age: Why polite rhetoric cannot reform a corrupt system – American Thinker

In a move that could reshape how public services, businesses, and charities across Great Britain operate, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has released an updated Code of Practice. This guidance firmly anchors the definition of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 to biological reality, drawing a clear line after years of legal wrangling and institutional hesitation.

A New Dawn for Single-Sex Spaces

The revised code explicitly states that “sex” refers only to biological sex—not so-called “gender identity.” Private spaces such as bathrooms, changing rooms, and hospital wards must align with a person’s biological sex at birth—not their self-identified gender.

This clarification carries significant weight because, as the code emphasizes, allowing biological males in female-only spaces or vice versa effectively nullifies the purpose of single-sex provisions.

The code’s core conclusion cuts through the ambiguity that has lingered for years: “a person’s sex remains their biological sex” regardless of how they feel, and designated spaces should reflect that biological reality.

Strong Words from Government and Advocates

Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson welcomed the development as “an important step in ensuring that organizations across Great Britain have clear guidance regarding its implementation, protecting people’s rights across our country.”

She added: “At the heart of the Act is a simple principle: ‘sex’ means what it says—male and female. What people call themselves and how they dress doesn’t change their sex. Neither does getting updated paperwork.”

Phillipson warned that any “business, charity or public service provider” operating differently has taken “a wrong turn.” Policies that blur biological boundaries “must now urgently” be fixed.

She acknowledged that “the guidance could be clearer” in places but asserted that “it’s absurd to say that it is ‘unlikely to be either practical or appropriate’ to ask an individual what sex they are in relation to facilities such as toilets: on the contrary, if a man walks into a women’s space it will be not just appropriate to challenge him, but essential. Otherwise, women’s rights to single-sex spaces cannot be enforced.”

Voices from the Front Lines

Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, hailed the code as long-overdue confirmation of existing law: “This Code of Practice confirms what should never have been in doubt: the law has always required the protection of single-sex spaces. Public bodies, including the NHS, have had a legal duty to comply, yet many have failed to do so, choosing instead to hide behind ‘awaiting guidance’ while pursuing unlawful policies.”

Bethany Hutchison, a Darlington nurse and president of the Darlington Nursing Union, echoed the frustration: “The publication of the EHRC Code of Practice must mark the end of delay and denial. The NHS and other public bodies should have been following the law, and the Supreme Court’s ruling, all along.”

She highlighted how “waiting for guidance” became “a smokescreen to avoid making the necessary changes and to prolong the imposition of radical, Stonewall-influenced gender identity policies that have placed both staff and patients in deeply difficult situations. There are now no excuses, no more smoke and mirrors. The law must be followed.”

“Frontline nurses have paid a heavy price for speaking up,” Hutchison concluded. “We now need urgent, system-wide reform to restore confidence, protect patient dignity, and ensure staff can carry out their duties without fear of reprisal.”

Concerns Over Loopholes and Stronger Enforcement

Supporters of strong single-sex protections welcome the code. However, many remain concerned it still leaves room for loopholes that could weaken enforcement.

Critics highlight the risk of subjective interpretations that allow resistant organizations to continue prioritizing gender-identity policies under the guise of flexibility. Practical verification is another worry: updated official documents (such as birth certificates or driver’s licenses) and other constraints may leave providers without clear, reliable ways to confirm biological sex.

Many also fear the code doesn’t go far enough in mandating universal single-sex spaces, especially in high-risk settings like refuges, prisons and health care. Without stricter monitoring, mandatory training and tighter language to close interpretive gaps, some worry the “awaiting guidance” delays could simply evolve into new forms of evasion.

Nonetheless, the updated guidance has been widely embraced as a victory for common-sense gender policies. The guidance now sits before Parliament for a 40-day scrutiny period. If unchallenged, it will take full effect, offering what many hope will be the clarity needed to restore trust and safety in public life.

And as England takes this major step, many are watching to see if U.S. leaders follow suit in ensuring strict biological distinctions in both private spaces and women’s and girls’ sports—which has been a stated priority of the second Trump administration.

Decision Magazine, founded by Billy Graham in 1960, works through its website and monthly magazine to communicate the Gospel, as well as inform and challenge readers about key cultural and Biblical issues. Decision is also a Contributing Publisher to Harbinger’s Daily.

Source: After Years Of Legal Wrangling, Updated UK Guidance Draws A Clear Line Firmly Anchoring ‘Sex’ To Biological Reality – Harbinger’s Daily

The debt paid by America’s fallen is unpayable, but it is not unteachable; it is written in sacrifice, in folded flags, in names etched into stone.

Memorial Day compels Americans to confront a word we avoid: debt. Not the financial kind that Congress pretends will magically resolve itself, but the older, heavier meaning — the kind carved into headstones at Arlington and cemeteries across the country. It is the debt paid in full by those who gave their lives, so the rest of us could live free.

No interest rate can measure it. No budget line can contain it. It is final, irrevocable, and sacred.

Every year, we pause, as we should, to acknowledge that liberty is no accident. Its purchase price is steep. Many stood a post, walked point, climbed into a cockpit, or sailed into hostile waters so that we could enjoy the ordinary luxuries of American life: arguing about politics, grilling in the backyard, complaining about work, raising families in relative peace. The fallen paid the ultimate debt, while the rest of us live on the dividends of their courage.

There remains another debt that all Americans must face, one far less noble and far more self-inflicted: the national debt that at $39 trillion is growing faster than the economy and its current path is unsustainable with interest payments amounting to $1 trillion a year — a figure most cannot comprehend.

Unlike the solemn debt honored on Memorial Day, this one grows not from sacrifice but from avoidance, avarice and unaccountability. It is the bill we keep pushing onto future generations because those elected lack the discipline and forbearance to make the difficult choices.

The contrast is stark.

On one side are the young Americans who never hesitated when their country asked for everything. On the other, a political culture that bemoans over the smallest act of fiscal restraint. The fallen gave their lives, while Washington can’t forego a spending increase.

The laws of economics will not suspend themselves out of patriotic courtesy. We borrow to fund today’s comforts while expecting tomorrow’s citizens, many of whom are not yet born, to pay the bill.

The contrast is telling and that is the point.

If we truly want to honor their memory, we can start by adopting even a fraction of that discipline. We can demand leaders who treat the national debt as a real threat, not a distant abstraction. We can stop pretending that borrowing without limit is a harmless national pastime. And we can remember that the freedoms secured by the fallen are weakened when the nation they died for is weighed down by obligations it cannot meet.

The debt paid by America’s fallen is unpayable, but it is not unteachable. It is written in sacrifice, in folded flags, in names etched into stone.

One debt was paid in blood. The other is being charged to our children.

And if we forget the difference, then we have learned nothing from those who paid the first.

Greg Maresca | May 25, 2026

Source: Debt remembered and debt ignored – American Thinker

Americans who, in shocking numbers, hate America know nothing of the values that made us the kindest, most generous country in history.

As the United States celebrates its 250th anniversary, patriotism and pride in being an American have hit historic lows. Only 58% of citizens are extremely or very proud to be Americans, compared to 90% in 2004. Among those who identify as Democrats, only 36% are extremely or very proud to be Americans, compared to 88% in 2004.

On this Memorial Day, when the nation remembers those who made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve the freedoms that so many take for granted, it is a tragedy that the United States, a nation that has so advanced the welfare of mankind, is faced with such a stark reality while celebrating its milestone semiquincentennial anniversary.

The true account of America’s contribution to the world and its people is one of magnificent achievement, whether freeing millions from tyranny by force of arms or dramatically improving their standard of living by fostering global economic growth and new, ever-evolving technology.

Perhaps the one thing above all others that most United States citizens do not appreciate is the indispensable and unprecedented role this nation has played in giving hope and a real-life vision of the blessings of true freedom and liberty to countless millions throughout the world. Nothing this country has done in its history can compare to being what Ronald Reagan referred to as “The Shining City on the Hill.”

Befitting the true intent of Memorial Day, to the 20% of citizens who are only a little or not at all proud to be Americans, here is a story based on personal experience. It is emblematic of the strain of honor, bravery, and patriotism that permeates the American character, as well as this nation’s historical commitment to freedom and liberty for all mankind.

The soldier hears a faint stirring behind him and, wheeling around, rifle raised in anticipation of the worst, he sees instead a young girl, perhaps five or six years old, slowly walking towards him, her tattered clothes barely able to cover her emaciated frame. Their eyes meet as kindred spirits. In the cauldron that is unconditional war, the psyche of the soldier has been dulled by the weariness of unremitting death and destruction, and that of the child by the never-ending and soul-crushing struggle for survival.

Welcoming them into the group, the soldier, smiling gently, gives all his rations to the youngsters. For an hour or so, the children, some for the first time in their brief lives, revel in a sense of security and companionship as they gather around him. They sit and talk to each other as best they can while the young man’s thoughts gradually turn to the memory of his childhood and parents in a small town somewhere in the heartland of America, and of his high school sweetheart and their plans for a family when he returns from the war.

The following day, a sniper’s bullet found its mark, and the same young man, so full of hopes and dreams, lay dead beneath the gaunt image of a splintered and shattered oak tree silhouetted by the purple haze of the setting sun.

The country, the United States of America, whence this soldier came, is unique in the history of mankind. When attacked by foreign powers, America never viewed those incidents as a pretext to conquer and permanently subjugate other nations. Rather, in pursuit of self-defense, this country also aspired to the noble calling of freeing others from tyranny and allowing the people of those nations to establish their own freely elected governments.

The basic tenets in the founding of the United States—(1) that all men are endowed by God with certain inalienable rights, and (2) that the individual and not the state is paramount—enabled a society to evolve that fostered love and respect not only of country but of fellow man, regardless of race, ethnicity, or where he might live.

It is this distinctive trait among all global communities that has motivated countless American men and women over the years not only to willingly take up arms to defend a land they cherish but to expend blood and treasure so they and others can live in peace and freedom.

American military cemeteries, with their verdant fields of seemingly endless rows of monuments, crosses, and Stars of David marking the graves of those who made the ultimate sacrifice, dot the globe. The sons and daughters of the United States interred there now reside in the pantheon of the most noble and heroic in the history of mankind.

As the years march inexorably on, memories of the past, particularly the most unpleasant, are pushed into the recesses of daily consciousness. In the United States, with each new generation, the knowledge and experience of war, survival, and adversity are replaced with the demands of day-to-day living and an unfortunate tendency to fall prey not only to the false but fashionable proclivity of blaming America for all of mankind’s ills but also to the inexorable acceptance of the belief that a powerful central government is the source and arbiter of human rights and freedom.

I have lived among the people of the United States for seventy-five years after having been welcomed to its shores as a displaced war orphan from World War II. I have been privileged to get to know the magnificent citizens of this country from all walks of life, whether in the foothills of Appalachia, the farm fields of the Great Plains, the small towns and cities that dot the landscape, the imposing vistas of the West, or the streets of America’s major cities.

Their forebears created and molded the country that became the foremost nation on earth. That drive, determination, and above all patriotism still beat deep within the hearts of all who are proud to call this nation their home, and they will make certain that America’s best days are still ahead.

Steve McCann | May 25, 2026

Image created using AI.

Source: On Memorial Day, Unpatriotic Americans Know Nothing of America’s Greatness – American Thinker

Americans once associated the Southern Poverty Law Center with fighting the Ku Klux Klan during the civil rights era. That reputation gave the SPLC enormous moral credibility. But in November 2010, SPLC shifted its focus beyond violent groups and began targeting Christian organizations opposing efforts to redefine marriage and human sexuality. Family Research Council was among the most prominent of that first wave.

In August 2012, FRC joined Governor Mike Huckabee in supporting Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day after the company was boycotted because its leadership publicly affirmed natural marriage. Two weeks later, on August 15, LGBT activist Floyd Corkins entered FRC headquarters here in Washington carrying a 9mm pistol, 50 rounds of ammunition, and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches. According to his later confession, his intent was to kill as many as possible and stuff the sandwiches in our mouths.

As he entered the building and pulled his gun, our building manager, Leo Johnson, confronted him. Though seriously wounded, Leo stopped the attacker and prevented a mass casualty event. After multiple surgeries and rehabilitation, Leo returned to work and remains today, affectionately known as Leo the Hero.

The following day, investigators confirmed that Corkins confessed to selecting FRC because of the SPLC website and hate map.

Following the attack, FRC appealed to the SPLC to remove mainstream Christian organizations from its inflammatory classifications. Those requests were rejected.

The attack has cost FRC more than $6 million in security-related costs. But the costs extend beyond the one act of violence.

Over time, SPLC’s “hate” labels and Intelligence Project became deeply influential as banks, payment processors, and technology companies increasingly relied on SPLC classifications to decide which organizations could maintain accounts, process transactions, or operate online.

Around 2016, the SPLC began pressuring corporations and technology companies to de-platform and defund organizations it labeled extremist.

Then came Charlottesville in 2017.

According to the recent federal indictment of SPLC, a member of the online leadership that planned the “Unite the Right” rally at the direction of the SPLC, and helped coordinate transportation for attendees, was bankrolled by SPLC. Charlottesville was a catalytic event for SPLC, as major corporations like Apple and JPMorgan Chase aligned with SPLC, contributing millions of dollars.

Shortly afterward, the coalition known as “Change the Terms,” led by the SPLC and the Center for American Progress, established standards that would encourage technology and financial companies to deny digital access and financial infrastructure to organizations the SPLC labeled.

The timeline of Change the Terms closely parallels the acceleration of efforts to debank and deplatform conservative and Christian organizations. FRC experienced this from Truist Financial, Fidelity Investments, GuideStar, Mobile Cause, and other technology-related companies. SPLC officials openly acknowledged this strategy before Congress in January 2020. SPLC official Lecia Brooks stated: “We have lobbied internet companies, one by one… A key part of this strategy has been to target these organizations’ funding.”

Brooks continued to describe the coordinated effort to pressure technology companies and financial institutions to restrict access for organizations they opposed.

The issue before this committee is larger than FRC or any one organization.

In America, citizens should not lose access to banking services, digital platforms, public credibility, or physical safety because they believe in biblical teaching on marriage and human sexuality. When government-regulated institutions can apply ideological labels in a coordinated fashion to silence, isolate, or financially cripple opponents, we allow political targeting by proxy, and freedom is at risk.

SPLC was the hub, but there were many spokes that made up this wheel designed to crush Christians and conservatives — the congressional inquiry should not stop with SPLC.

Tony Perkins is the president of the Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand. He also served two terms as a member of the Louisiana House of Representatives, and served as Chair of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Source: SPLC Was The Hub, But Many Spokes Made Up The Wheel Designed To Crush Christians And Conservatives – Harbinger’s Daily

Police have dropped charges against a Christian pastor following a months-long investigation into his street preaching.

Dia Moodley, 58, was arrested on November 22 and detained on suspicion of “inciting religious hatred” after peacefully sharing his Christian views in Bristol city center. After four months of criminal investigation, police with Avon and Somerset informed him that “no further action will be taken,” according to a news release from Alliance Defending Freedom International, which defended him in the case.

“I’m glad Avon and Somerset Police decided to eventually do the right thing and drop their criminal investigation,” Moodley said in a statement. “This is a win for free speech, but I never should have been arrested, treated like a criminal, and investigated for months for peacefully sharing my faith in the public square.”

Moodley was accused of preaching against transgender ideology, comparing Christianity with Islam, and committing a Section 4A religiously aggravated public order offense under the Public Order Act of 1986. He was arrested after a bystander appeared to reach for the wire of his speaker, and he reportedly pushed her away.

He was held for eight hours in a police cell, interrogated by police, and initially placed under bail conditions that restricted him from entering Bristol city center over Christmas, said ADF International.

While the bail conditions were later dropped, the investigation into criminal investigation continued, resulting in what ADF called de facto censorship, as the pastor refrained from publicly preaching over Christmas and in the weeks leading up to Easter for fear of rearrest.

November was the second time Moodley has been arrested for commenting on Islam and transgender ideology while street preaching. In March 2024, he was arrested outside the University of Bristol after speaking on Islam and stating that sex is binary. Police dropped that investigation as well. Also, in 2021, police banned him from commenting on any other faith, and from delivering sermons without prior police approval.

The pastor has faced repeated violence and threats from bystanders while street preaching, ADF said, many of which the police have failed to adequately address. And he is now considering legal action against Avon & Somerset Police, for the violation of his free speech rights and for the police’s failure to promptly investigate serious crimes against him.

ADF legal counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole described the police’s decision to drop the November charges as a “vindication” of Moodley’s conduct. He said the case is a symptom of a wider pattern and called on Parliament to take action.

“The war of attrition against free speech in the U.K., demonstrated in Pastor Dia’s case, must end,” Igunnubole said. “Censorial laws need to be repealed urgently, and stronger protections, including a Free Speech Bill, are needed to reverse the growing culture of censorship within law enforcement.”

Meanwhile, Moodley will continue expressing his faith in the public square.

“I will continue to share my faith publicly, undeterred by the police’s censorship and the threats and violence I have faced, and will stand for free speech not just for myself, but for the rights of all people in the U.K.”

Source: Pastors In The Crosshairs: The War Of Attrition Against Free Speech In The UK Must End – Harbinger’s Daily

Explore American exceptionalism, free speech, and conservatism ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Perhaps there are those of you who remember the 1968 film starring Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood about a secret World War II mission to rescue an Allied General deep inside Germany at the fictitious Schloss Adler. The movie itself was fiction, but it was indeed an action thriller. I’m surprised Hollywood has not attempted to remake something of that genre. Then again, they should leave this classic alone. They already screwed up Ben-Hur. The motto of the British SAS is “Who Dares Wins,” and as we begin our trek to the 2026 midterm elections, that maxim is more applicable than ever.

This evening, I will be on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) to discuss topics of American exceptionalism, illegal immigration, and foreign policy. It is imperative that we do not stop bringing a constitutional conservative message to our American college and university campuses, as we cannot cede any ground to the Marxist left. Am I concerned about “protesters?” Nah, I am a combat veteran. As well, it would be quite interesting to have leftists seeking to shut down the free speech of a Black man who was born in a segregated hospital in Georgia 65 years ago.

Conservatives must indeed go where eagles dare, and challenge the most formidable bastions of Marxism. That was the essence of what Charlie Kirk did so very effectively. I recall meeting the young 19-year-old Kirk back in 2013 and being asked to be part of his Turning Point USA Board of Advisors as he was launching. His personal efforts will be missed, but we cannot focus on just a singular person. As in the movie Spartacus, we must all say, “I’m Charlie Kirk.” The message that our young people are receiving on college and university campuses is completely antithetical to the American ideal, that of individual sovereignty, rights, freedoms, and liberties. That is what America 250 is all about. However, when one ponders what we have devolved into since America 200, when I was fifteen years of age, it is quite telling.

Who in 1976 thought that we would have discussions about defining what a woman is? Or that we would be confused about two scientifically based sexes. Once upon a time, it would have been considered child abuse to recommend that minors undergo body-transforming surgeries and disturb their natural hormonal growth and adolescence. Let’s be real, little kids are not confused about whether they are a boy or a girl. Adults are injecting them with this poison. As a matter of fact, anyone under the age of eighteen is not allowed to have a tattoo, but we are supposed to believe that the removal of healthy body parts is normal?

I remember as a young fella the day when my Dad made his last house payment. It was a source of pride for the ol’ World War II Corporal, as well as for me. He gave me something to achieve: being a homeowner. We all know that our Declaration of Independence was built upon the Natural Rights theory of the English political philosopher, John Locke, called the father of classical liberalism. The three unalienable rights endowed, naturally, to all mankind are life, liberty, and property. Yes, we do need to ensure that the American dream of home ownership is attainable for current and future generations.

However, government-run housing and policies of rent control are not the answer. I got a unique opportunity to see what that looked like — not once but twice — when visiting East Berlin, and government-controlled transportation was ugly. The purpose of government is to protect our life, liberty, and property. French economist Frederic Bastiat wrote of such in his phenomenal essay of 1850 called The Law. It was an apparent direct response to a differing philosophy that was introduced in 1848, the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. In Marx’s work, he advocated for heavy progressive taxation and the elimination of private property rights, two things that the Marxist/Islamist mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, has made central to his policy.

I have no issue with those who say that they hate President Trump. I would suggest stopping shooting at him. Americans are free to have differing opinions. It was New York liberal Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who once asserted, “You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.” The same can be said about the absurdity of claiming one’s own truth, which is rooted in situational morality and ethics.

It is therefore imperative that we go where eagles dare, and not confine ourselves to our respective echo chambers of adoration. I will never forget the young lady on the campus of Northwestern University some eight to 10 years ago who asked me, “Do you identify as Black?” It was a truly shocking inquiry, but reflective of the low standards of academic rigor and critical thinking that exist on many college and university campuses. Northwestern University is one of the top academic institutions in our country, yet someone had filled this young lady’s mind with the folly that one’s skin color should dictate how they think, totally bypassing the brain that God gave to each of us. As my Mom and Dad would say, “some folks got a lot of book learning but ain’t got the common sense to come in outta the rain.”

One of the world’s great minds, Albert Einstein, advocated on behalf of socialism in his 1949 essay Why Socialism? He believed that socialism would quell the “predatory phase” of human development caused by capitalism. As opposed to economic minds like Mises, Hayek, Friedman, and Sowell, Einstein believed that capitalism brought about “economic anarchy” and that the pursuit of profit was less admirable for individuals than a government-planned economic system that ensured social welfare. That sounds a lot like Marx’s “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need,” wealth redistribution schemes.

America has a clear choice in this election cycle, and future ones as well: shall we choose the philosophy of economic servitude and enslavement and collectivism, or do we still believe in the indomitable individual spirit that yearns for freedom, economic empowerment, and yes, rugged individualism? I dare to choose the latter over the former. As history has proven, the former never works out well. As Sir Winston Churchill said, “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.” He also affirmed that “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of misery.” And we know that socialism is the economic model of Marxism.

Go where eagles dare, spread the message of individual entrepreneurial economic achievement.

Steadfast and Loyal.

Allen West | May 18, 2026

Source: Where Eagles Dare

Explore how belief in God anchors truth and moral order in society, crucial for civilization’s survival.

Next Thursday evening, Jews will celebrate the holiday of Shavuot. This holiday, which occurs seven weeks and one day after Passover (hence the name Shavuot, which literally means “weeks”), commemorates perhaps the most transformative event in all of human history: the revelation of the Word of God to the ancient Israelite nation. It was at Mount Sinai, congregated at the base of the smoking and trembling mountain, that God promised the Israelites they would be a “kingdom of princes and a holy nation” if they accepted and maintained fidelity to His covenant. In unison, before they had even received the Ten Commandments, the Israelites responded, “All that the Lord has spoken we shall do!”

Because of the breadth and depth of its impact and lasting influence, the Divine Revelation at Sinai was the logical starting point for what we now call Western civilization. Writing thousands of years later at another inflection point in human history, Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 31: “In disquisitions of every kind, there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasonings must depend.” In the United States specifically, and in Western civilization more generally, it was long obvious what those “primary truths” and “first principles” actually meant: the Word of God Himself. Such a properly anchored and oriented society is uniquely suited to improve mankind’s lot and advance human flourishing.

In a Washington Post op-ed earlier this month, Gregory Conti, a politics professor at perennially top-ranked Princeton University, lamented: “Several years ago, one of my colleagues at Princeton University hosted a lecture on religion and free speech. The talk didn’t seem to be landing with the students. Finally, he realized why: The speaker had made repeated reference to the Ten Commandments, and several students didn’t know what they were.” Conti noted that Princeton students are often smart and driven, but they lack basic religious literacy — even the difference between the Old and New Testaments. In short, many of America’s future leaders do not even recognize the “primary truths” and “first principles” upon which our civilization rests.

There is a clear casualty of this ignorance: our ability to accept reality and the truth. Consider, for example, the shocking inability to do precisely that among far too many members of America’s more avowedly secularist political party, the Democrats. A whopping 42% of Democrats believe the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania in July 2024 was staged. A similarly galling 34% of Democrats believe the same about the recent attempted assassination of Trump and his Cabinet members at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington, D.C. There is, of course, zero evidence to support either belief. One might as well believe in Bigfoot, or that Neil Armstrong’s moon landing was fake.

There can be nothing good down this road. Only a society that is rooted in, and oriented toward, the eternal and the transcendental can ever hope to cultivate decent, truth-seeking citizens. When a free people loses the ability to discern between truth and fiction, rightness and wrongness, justice and injustice, there can only be only misery, despair and destruction. We’re losing that because, for far too long, we’ve been missing God. There is no better time than the run-up to America’s semiquincentennial — when we will celebrate the assertion of the self-evident truths that birthed the nation — to find Him once again. Frankly, America’s survival for another 250 years depends on it.

        To find out more about Josh Hammer and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at http://www.creators.com.

Josh Hammer  5:00 PM | May 17, 2026

Source: A Society Without God Is a Society Without Truth – HotAir

Celebrate Andre the Giant’s 80th birthday, the legendary wrestler and greatest drinker in history – May 19 — would’ve been his 80th birthday.

By some estimates, about 117 billion humans have lived on Earth. That’s a lot of people.

Which means, out of all those billions of humans, someone was the tallest. Someone was the fattest. Someone was the best at this or the best at that.

And out of those 117 billion humans, someone could drink more booze than anyone else.

With apologies to Guinness, we might not know who the tallest or fattest human in history was — the B.C. era wasn’t exactly known for its meticulous record-keeping — but we have an excellent idea who our biggest drinker was.

That’s because distilled spirits are a relatively new invention. While its exact origins are unclear, it seems to have caught on in the Middle Ages. Wine, beer, and mead have been around for thousands of years, but higher-proof spirits haven’t.

Which clarifies our timeline for the world’s greatest alcoholic, because alcohol tolerance is driven by consumption. Nobody is born a great drinker: It takes years and years of pounding your liver into oblivion.

Seems reasonable to assume that someone who had access to distilled spirits — vodka, whiskey, tequila — could out-imbibe those who hadn’t.

So let’s exclude everyone who was born more than a thousand years ago. They lacked the “training tools” to compete. (It’d be like trying to be a bodybuilder before the invention of weights.)

Additionally, not all body types are conducive to heavy alcohol consumption. Purely for biological reasons, women usually can’t drink as much as men. (This removes about half of the population from our sample.) And larger people can consume far more booze than smaller people: “Since alcohol travels through the blood stream, the more someone weighs, the more alcohol it is going to take to get that person drunk,” explains Student Health and Counseling Services at UCDavis.

Therefore, we now have a template for the world’s greatest drinker:

Some of y’all have probably figured out his identity. But if you haven’t, here’s your final clue: Exactly one week from today — May 19 — would’ve been his 80th birthday.

If you want to drink like him, you better start drinking now!

Because we’re talking about a man who consumed 7,000 calories EACH DAY just from booze — and once drank 119 beers in six hours. Stories of his drinking prowess are legendary. Many defy comprehension.

When he stayed one month in an English hotel to film The Princess Bride, his bar bill was over $40,000.

André René Roussimoff was born in northern France on May 19, 1946. Better known by his pro wrestling name — Andre the Giant, a.k.a. “The Eighth Wonder of the World” — he was billed as standing 7-foot-5, weighing 520 pounds.

Whereas wrestling heights and weights are routinely embellished, Roussimoff was unquestionably an enormous man. (Photos of him standing next to 7-foot, 1-inch Wilt Chamberlain show them of similar height, albeit Andre was far heavier.)

https://x.com/Schwarzenegger/status/984478810400686080/photo/1

His fellow wrestlers — hardcore drinkers in their own right — were in awe of Andre’s liver. On the WWE’s Legends of Wrestling, Mike Graham and Dusty Rhodes claimed they watched Andre drink 156 16-ounce beers in a single sitting. The Fabulous Moolah wrote in her autobiography that Andre downed 127 beers in a Pennsylvania hotel and took an impromptu nap in the lobby — and because of his size, the hotel staff couldn’t move him.

Hours before Andre’s most famous match — his WrestleMania III showdown against Hulk Hogan — he allegedly drank 14 bottles of wine!

His size (and tolerance) also led to a medical breakthrough: When Andre needed back surgery, the anesthesiologist didn’t know what to do: He had never anesthetized someone of Andre’s immense proportions.

Modern Drunkard Magazine (yes, that’s a real publication) told the rest of this story:

Various experts were brought in but no solution presented itself until one of the doctors asked Andre if he was a drinker. Andre responded that, yes, he’d been known to tip a glass from time to time. The doctor then wanted to know how much Andre drank and how much it took to get him drunk.

“Well,” rumbled the Giant, “It usually takes two liters of vodka just to make me feel warm inside.”

And thus was a solution found. The gas-passer was able to extrapolate a correct mixture for Andre by analyzing his alcohol intake. It was a medical breakthrough, and the system is still used to this day.

Five months later, Andre the Giant wrestled a “body-slam” match against Hulk Hogan and brought down the house.

It’s tempting to applaud Andre’s unrivaled capacity to metabolize ethanol, but his drinking belied a darker, uglier truth: He suffered from gigantism (acromegaly) and was in chronic pain. His body never stopped growing, and eventually it killed him.

He died of heart failure on Jan. 28, 1993, in Paris, while visiting family for his father’s funeral. Andre the Giant was just 46.

But in his prime, he could outdrink any other human who’s ever lived.

It’s been said, “It’s not the years in your life that count, it’s the life in your years.” According to those closest to him, Andre was well aware of his mortality. Doctors told him his gigantism was a death sentence.

Andre refused medical treatment to alter it, deciding that God made him this way for a reason. His friend Jackie McAuley remembered him saying, “If this is the size God wants me to be, I’m going to be this size.”

So instead, he drank, he celebrated, he laughed — and oh, how he lived!

Happy 80th birthday, Andre. Cheers! We raise our glass in your honor.

Wish you were still here to celebrate with us.

Scott Pinsker  | 11:49 AM on May 12, 2026

Source: Happy 80th Birthday to the Greatest Alcoholic Who’s Ever Walked on Planet Earth! – PJ Media

Back in the day, not only did American children have our own moms in our homes, but we also had several lovely moms we watched on television.

Silvio Canto, Jr. | May 10, 2026

Source: The moms in our lives – American Thinker

While America currently has a dangerously low birthrate and too few traditional two-parent homes, a slow cultural reverse is occurring.

The West needs more mothers—with fathers—simply to sustain itself. The US birth rate is currently below 1.6 children per couple. (2.1 is needed to sustain the population).

Women are delaying marriage. Many are not having children and putting their careers first. Almost thirty percent of Gen Z women identify as LGBTQ+. There is also a current trend that sees women deciding to have children without fathers.

Over forty percent of births are paid for by Medicaid, which suggests that many are not just poor, but also single. One-quarter of American children are being raised in single-parent households. Divorce has become commonplace, as over 40% of first marriages end in divorce. The traditional family model is becoming the exception, as less than half of American children are being raised in a traditional, heterosexual, two-parent home.

Yet, with all that said, there are significant early trends and forces at work this Mother’s Day that are encouraging a return to the traditional family model.

Data show strong and increasing support for the traditional family in key religious sectors. Mormons, Evangelicals, and Orthodox Jews, for example, are marrying more frequently and are continuing to marry at younger ages than the national average. Many are also having more children than the national average. Additionally, the best defense against divorce appears to be marrying early without prior cohabitation and having the same religious path as one’s partner, which is often the case with these groups.

In terms of outcomes, children raised by both a mother and a father fare better across a variety of measures, both societal and academic. Children from traditional marriages are far less likely to have academic performance problems, anxiety, depression, obesity, and other issues than children raised by single parents or same-sex couples.

Traditional families seem to be emulating the biblical example. The role model family in the Bible almost always includes a father and a mother. “A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife” is a foundational biblical principle (Genesis 2:24), emphasizing that marriage creates a new family unit.

Quite a few organizations are now actively working to support traditional marriage and family. Under the “Greater Than“ campaign umbrella, forty-seven different organizations are working to return public consciousness to the critical need a child has for both a father and a mother, one aligned with biblical values, regardless of the sometimes-understandable desires among single or same-sex parents.

The percentage of observant Jews is growing significantly, in part thanks to the outreach efforts of Chabad and others. Birth rates in the Orthodox Jewish world are generally four or more per family. All of this, God willing, is just the beginning of a wave that will help the West culturally reset itself and begin building a bright future, one traditional family at a time.

Yehezkel Schiff | May 10, 2026

Source: The West needs more mothers—with fathers – American Thinker

Explore why God’s intentional family design matters for strong, stable, and flourishing societies.

One of the strangest things about modern America is watching people exhaust themselves trying to out-argue reality.

Men are women. Women are men. Mothers are optional. Fathers are interchangeable. Biology is negotiable. Family structure is oppressive. Commitment is confining. Children are somehow both impossibly fragile and fully capable of deciding life-altering truths before they can drive a car.

And then, after all of that, we stare at the wreckage.

Loneliness through the roof. Anxiety everywhere. Birthrates collapsing. Children confused. Families unstable.

And our cultural elites keep responding like a guy pouring gasoline on a kitchen fire, screaming, “Why isn’t this helping?”

At some point, honesty has to enter the conversation.

God’s design wasn’t accidental. And humanity keeps injuring itself trying to prove otherwise.

This week we’ve talked about the importance of mothers—not sentimentally, but structurally. We’ve talked about the science behind early childhood development, attachment, emotional security, language formation, and how the first years of life shape virtually everything that follows.

What’s fascinating is how often modern research arrives breathlessly at conclusions Scripture quietly established thousands of years ago.

Children need stability. Families matter. Nurture shapes identity. Love and discipline are not enemies.

None of this is new. It’s ancient. And maybe that’s what frustrates modern culture so much. We desperately want human flourishing without honoring the design that most consistently produces it. Because whether people like hearing it or not, healthy societies are almost always built on the same basic foundation: strong families, committed parents, mothers and fathers embracing responsibility, children raised with truth, consistency, and love.

When that foundation weakens, everything built on top of it eventually starts to shake.

That’s not religion talking. That’s history.

My own life is proof enough for me. My mother didn’t have a platform. She wasn’t famous. She didn’t spend her days trying to “find herself.” She spent them pouring herself into her children.

When the school system wasn’t working for me, she stepped in and educated me at home before homeschooling was remotely normal. She did it quietly, faithfully, without demanding applause from the culture for making sacrifices on behalf of her son.

And looking back now, decades later, I understand something I couldn’t have understood then: She wasn’t just teaching me math or reading. She was building me. My confidence. My discipline. My understanding of right and wrong. My faith. My resilience. The way I would eventually speak to people, lead people, love people.

All of that was being formed long before I realized it was happening.

And when I lost her at 17 after her battle with cancer, I didn’t suddenly lose those things. Because by then they were already rooted inside me.

That’s what mothers do.

The world talks endlessly about influence, but real influence usually looks a lot less glamorous than social media makes it seem. Real influence is repetitive. Quiet. Unseen.

It’s a thousand invisible moments that slowly become someone’s character.

And from a Christian worldview, that isn’t accidental labor. It’s sacred work.

Scripture never treats family as some side issue. It treats it as civilization’s training ground. Long before governments, corporations, universities, or political parties ever shape a person, a family does.

That’s where values begin. That’s where identity is first reinforced. That’s where children first learn whether love is stable or conditional, whether truth matters, whether sacrifice means anything. Which is why the modern attempt to erase distinctions between mothers and fathers feels so deeply disorienting to so many people—even people who aren’t religious. Because deep down, most human beings instinctively know design when they see it.

A mother nurtures differently from a father. A father protects differently from a mother. Neither role is inferior. Neither role is unnecessary. They are complementary. And children flourish most consistently when both are engaged and present.

That doesn’t mean life is always ideal. It isn’t.

Some mothers carry impossible burdens heroically. Some fathers disappear. Some grandparents step in and save entire generations. Some adoptive families display extraordinary love and sacrifice.

You cannot spend decades undermining family, minimizing motherhood, treating children like lifestyle accessories, severing sex from commitment and commitment from responsibility—and then act stunned when social trust collapses.

You can’t mock God’s design for generations and then wonder why people increasingly feel untethered, anxious, angry, and alone.

Reality eventually collects its debt. And we are living through that collection process right now.

But here’s the hopeful part. Truth has a way of surviving even when cultures try to bury it.

Young families are rediscovering the importance of home. More parents are questioning systems that promised fulfillment and delivered emptiness. More people are realizing that success without family feels strangely hollow. Because it is.

At the end of your life, no one is going to wish they had spent more time impressing strangers online while neglecting the people God entrusted to them at home.

The things that matter most have always been remarkably ordinary.

A mother kneeling beside a child’s bed at night praying over them may not trend on social media. But I suspect Heaven sees it differently.

God’s design wasn’t accidental. It was protective.

And every generation eventually has to decide whether it’s wise enough to live within it—or arrogant enough to keep trying to replace it.

Kevin McCullough | May 06, 2026

Source: God’s Design Wasn’t Accidental

Following the U.S. government’s long-delayed decision on designating the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliated networks as terrorist organizations, the Lebanese branch is now a Foreign Terrorist Organization, while the Egyptian and Jordanian branches are Specially Designated Global Terrorists, and the relevant sanctions have been implemented. Just recently, the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood was also added as a Special Designated Global Terrorist, with the “intent to designate” it as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Yet in two of these three countries, the Muslim Brotherhood is in any case banned – in Egypt since 2013 and in Jordan since April 2025 – as it is across the Arab and Muslim world: the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria, and, to some extent, Libya.

The U.S. move also appears to have prompted recent action across the West: In January 2026, Argentina declared the Lebanese, Egyptian, and Jordanian chapters terrorist. This month, the Dutch parliament approved a motion to ban the organization, and is now exploring how it can ban terrorist organizations more quickly. An Irish MP criticized the fact that the Brotherhood is not “the subject of a suppression order” in the Republic of Ireland. She added that “this is in stark contrast to the action taken by the U.S. Department of State” and called the Muslim Brotherhood “a lethal organization determined to cast the net of its poisonous ideological extremism as far as possible into the heart of Western democracies.” Prior to the U.S. move, Austria had banned the Brotherhood under 2021 anti-terrorism legislation; besides that, one city in Germany banned a single Brotherhood-affiliated organization in 2024 and France closed some mosques that support its ideology.

The Muslim Brotherhood threat was underlined in the 2026 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. intelligence community, released this month. It stated: “The spread of Islamist ideology – in some cases led by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood who have provided financial and other forms of material support to terrorist groups such as HAMAS and Hizballah – poses a fundamental threat to freedom and foundational principles that underpin Western Civilization. Violent networks, including supporters of Al-Qaeda and ISIS, often use appeals to Islamist identities and ideology to fuel recruiting and financial support for terrorist groups and individuals around the world. At the extreme end are groups that endorse the violent imposition of Sharia in governance, directly undermining fundamental Western freedoms of speech and religion, with the ultimate aim of establishing an Islamist caliphate. There are growing examples of this in various European countries such as Austria, Germany, and the UK. The designation of Muslim Brotherhood chapters that fund and promote violence as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) is a mechanism to secure Americans against this threat.”

The Brotherhood, whose ideology underpins and inspires terrorist organizations and leaders from Al-Qaeda to ISIS to Hamas, is not banned by the U.S. in Qatar or in Turkey. These are its global centers; its operations are run primarily from Istanbul and Doha via numerous organizations all over the world. Its official website presents its history along with press releases and historical information, but the U.S.-based Cloudflare blocks details about where the website is hosted and who owns it. President Trump’s designation leaves the issue of these two countries unaddressed, and allows the Muslim Brotherhood to continue to function.

In order to understand the threat of the Brotherhood in the U.S., we must understand its modus operandi: In the U.S., the Brotherhood exploits uniquely American vulnerabilities – among them First Amendment protections and an open nonprofit and civil-society infrastructure that allow its aligned organizations to operate legally. It pursues its strategy of Islamizing the West through legal frameworks such as charities, universities and educational bodies, religious organizations, advocacy groups, political activity, and media platforms – and it is continuing to gain ground thanks to massive Qatari funding.

Critics who point this out face lawfare, attacks on their reputations, and pressure. The Brotherhood’s defenders portray it as a moderate religious movement devoted to social reform – but it must be remembered who these defenders actually are and why they are supporting a terrorist organization.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s ultimate goal, expressed by the organization itself in the “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America,” a document entered as evidence in federal court, is achieving global Islamic dominance via “grand jihad” for “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” The Memorandum is part of a wealth of documents seized in a 2004 FBI raid in Virginia that has been described as “the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”

While the organization has long denied that the Memorandum and the plan were real, its existence was recently acknowledged in a lecture at the Islamic Association of Raleigh in North Carolina. Muslim Brotherhood supporters in the West work hard to shield these views from scrutiny and to obscure the movement’s ultimate objectives. But they are backed by equally explicit statements, by Brotherhood leaders.

Further proof of this plan is the PowerPoint presentation by Muslim Brotherhood leader Tareq Al-Suwaidan. Titled “Change Project – Towards the New Islamic Civilization – Ideas for Today and Tomorrow,” the “project,” which was published in 2011, is now in what he calls “Phase 4 (2025-2030)” – five years short of projected completion. It stresses that “today, we are far” from Islam’s previous “position of leadership in almost all aspects of civilization” and that “it is obvious that we need to change and regain our position.”

Defining the need for “military strength” for Muslims, it underlines the “number of nuclear warheads” as a vital part of “the process of transitioning from today’s reality to the desired future vision.” Al-Suwaidan himself has emphasized his focus on radicalizing Muslim youth in the West who, he says, have the dual power of Islamic identity alongside Western citizenship and professional training and can lead “the rise of the East” and the spread of Islam.

Over the past three decades, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) has documented and translated hundreds of sermons, speeches, writings, and official texts by Brotherhood leaders and senior figures, constituting a massive archive exposing the organization’s open embrace of jihad and predictions of the destruction of the U.S. It is only through these systematic translations, documentation, and analysis that the Brotherhood’s true goals, methods, and global coordination have been brought into the open.

Muhammad Badie, the Brotherhood’s General Guide who has been imprisoned in Egypt since 2017, has repeatedly declared jihad to be the only path forward, urging the raising of “a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.” He also sets out the Brotherhood’s long-term objective: establishing a “rightly guided Caliphate” that would achieve global “mastership.” In sermons, Badie calls the U.S. a “Zio-American” enemy of Islam, proclaiming that America is “heading toward its demise” and that it will be destroyed.

These views are not unique to Badie. His predecessor, Muhammad Mahdi Othman ‘Akef, similarly predicted that Islam would “invade Europe and America,” also expressing confidence that the U.S. was “heading toward its demise.” Such statements reflect the organization’s own stated objectives, articulated repeatedly by its most senior leadership.

The U.S.’s designation and sanctioning of three overseas branches of the Muslim Brotherhood may be a start – but only if it continues to deal with the serious, multifaceted threat and vital security concern it poses not only to the U.S. but to all Western democracies, using all legal means to protect against it. The Trump administration should next examine Brotherhood operations inside the U.S., demand transparency from affiliated U.S.-based Islamist organizations, and apply foreign influence laws. Instead of granting legitimacy to Brotherhood-aligned groups and activists posing as champions of civil rights, policymakers must expose the movement’s ideological goals and deny these networks the access that has allowed them to entrench themselves so deeply in American higher education and other institutions.

Steven Stalinsky Ph.D. is the Executive Director at MEMRI

Originally posted at MEMRI.

Source: The Muslim Brotherhood Threat to the United States | RealClearWorld

It has been 75 years since a young Yale graduate, William F. Buckley, indicted his alma mater in his masterful God and Man at Yale, arguing that Yale showed contempt for the traditional religious values inculcated in most new graduates during their formative youth. In the three generations since, Americans more generally have become far less religious, evidenced by a sharp drop in church attendance. But a few years ago, something happened in this march towards an agnostic, if not an atheistic society: young men started going back to church in impressive numbers.

A new Gallup poll says 42 percent of men in their 20s say religion is “very important” to them, up very sharply from only 28 percent in a poll conducted just three years earlier. By contrast, there is no similar spiritual upsurge among women, so now a far higher proportion of young men say that they are religious than women, a startling result since historically women have shown a stronger affinity for religion, and that still holds for older age groups. Speaking anecdotally from the vantage point of living in a college town, I have seen a marked upsurge in church attendance at my rather typical state university, concentrated among men, to be sure, with some occasionally bringing along their girlfriends. (Read “Catholic Converts and the Limits of the Trend” and “Why Are So Many Protestant Students Converting to Catholicism?“)

Why is this happening? I think it is because college-aged American males feel like they are part of an oppressed minority group, and that American collegiate society shows hostility and contempt for them. The secular world of the present has replaced a historic role of venerating men for their leadership in the evolution of Western civilization with a new one where males are portrayed for having caused most of the evil inflicted in modern society.

In the last decade, the federal government, namely the U.S. Department of Education, declared that male campus sexual molestation was a huge problem, beginning a period of Star Chamber justice directed against collegiate males and their alleged propensity for sexual violence. “Diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) initiatives were explicitly anti-male as well. Even TV commercials have sharply reduced the use of male actors, especially white ones. History was refashioned, with figures like Thomas Jefferson portrayed increasingly as wealthy, randy white guys who raped slaves when they were not otherwise mistreating them, as opposed to their earlier veneration for such things as authoring the Declaration of Independence or founding the University of Virginia.

The young U.S. male college student of, say, 1970 or even 2000 felt like they were part of a gender that had done many great things for society, like leading innovations in business that propelled the nation to unprecedented prosperity, as well as a host of positive advances such as ending slavery—the overwhelming majority of the over 600,000 Civil War deaths were among white males—and expanding life expectancy through scientific innovations. College-age guys were proud of their male heritage.

Even as late as 2010, men were generally proud of their important, even dominant, role in the positive evolution of our prosperous and largely peaceful society. But the Woke Revolution that came after 2010 changed all of that. In campus narratives, men were now part of the problem, not the solution. Men started searching for solace and relief from discriminatory oppression, especially notable on many campuses, where they were also now distinctly numerically in the minority.

Religion offered comfort. The dominant Christian religion venerated a male, Jesus Christ, while other religious perspectives, such as Islam, largely did the same thing. Venerated figures such as Jesus, Mohammed, and the Buddha were guys. The Roman Catholic and some Protestant denominations, even now, require priests and ministers to be men. In the religious world, men were not all bad; indeed, they were usually considered a force for good, for solace, prosperity, wisdom, and progress, and while imperfect morally, the Bible and other holy works suggested that their sins could be forgiven.

So, increasingly today, young men are seeking the solace that religion can provide. “The Collegiate War on Men” did not apply to women, who indeed increasingly were achieving new heights both on campuses and in the real world of business and politics. So while women far outnumber men in religious devotion in older age groups, they are very often a minority these days in church attendance among young Americans.

Upsurges in religious devotion are fairly common throughout American history, but this one is unique in its male emphasis. As the Woke Supremacy embodied in DEI programs continues to face mounting pushback on college campuses, it will be worth watching whether gender patterns in religious affiliation begin to return to their earlier historical norms.

Source: The Return of the Religious Male — Minding The Campus

The Founders’ dream of limited government ended when the Supreme Court ruled that enumerated powers were mere suggestions. We need to walk that back.

I read with pleasure Mike Tsichlis’ piece on the American Dream. It was a wonderful walk through history, written with a flowing pen and a musician’s ear. It almost reached the flowering heights of the Declaration of Independence or the powerful prose of The Federalist.

But the historical reality is that none of the huddled masses thought in that language. Yes, they heard the siren song of what Horace Greeley later put on paper, and gladly endured brutal conditions on small ships to get to America and seek their fortune. However, they only heard one word: “opportunity.”

Like so much of language, America as the “land of opportunity” sprang full-grown from the common mind, much as Athena sprang full-grown from the head of Zeus. It was an irresistible phrase describing an irresistible force pulling people away from truly oppressed lives on the (loosely described) treadmill of sweatshops and slaveholdings of one sort or another. This pull was so strong that they were willing to risk their lives to reach for the brass ring.

The “po-folk” saw a chance to work hard and get ahead in America. The problem with that view was simple. Lots of people left the sweatshops of European cities, only to end up in sweatshops in American cities. They lived in slums and did menial work with little hope of a better life. Many became desperate to make a leap and head for the frontier with little but the shirts on their backs. Some died, but others made it through, ultimately creating the place called “America.”

It was a simple idea that possessed that creative power. You could risk everything to bust your butt and make a better life. This was the American Dream. Period. Full stop.

The second half of the American Dream is the idea that once you produced something, it was yours. No one could take it from you. But that covered wagon you bought could be destroyed in a minute by flaming Indian arrows. The crop you brought in could be stolen by a more powerful landowner. So people banded together to protect themselves and their property. This eventually became governments. Unfortunately, the government itself failed.

Fully stated, the American Dream says this: The American Dream is the idea that you can bust your butt to make a better life, and not have it stolen from you by the government.

This full formulation is very important because it explains our problem in the US. We need the government to be the policeman who stops the thief. But the lure of easy money and power turns that officer into a dirty cop who runs the protection racket for his own benefit. And this ultimately happens at every level. The phenomenon of “regulatory capture” demonstrates it at the highest level.

Regulatory capture is a situation in which a government regulatory agency, created to protect the public interest, instead acts primarily in the interests of the industry or companies it is supposed to regulate. The agency was supposed to set basic “rules of the road” so that everyone “plays by the same rules.”

When the agency hires people from those big companies, it gets worse. And after a tour of duty with the government, the expert can then return to “private” industry and be paid well for his temporary duty in the government.

Our current situation presents the citizen with a bloated federal government that legislates willy-nilly on every vanity project that comes near the D.C. media echo chamber. This is based on the false idea, put forward by New Deal Justices Roberts and Cardozo, that the “enumerated powers” (particularly in Article I § 8) are merely “examples.”

Actually, the Framers were extremely cautious, with Anti-Federalists forcibly expressing a fear that a central government with unlimited powers would become the Swamp. No, they didn’t use that language, but that’s what they were afraid of. All the Federalists were united in explaining that the Constitution simply did not allow that level of central authority. The listed powers were all that the feds would be allowed to do.

We now know that their fears were fully justified. Lord Acton was right. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The Constitution allows nearly limitless taxation, but not limitless spending on projects not specifically enumerated. But with unchecked power after the New Deal, the grift was on. Congress could drain your wallet to support its habit, and there was no meaningful recourse. You don’t have “standing” to challenge anything.

CongressCritters and BureauRats love to hand out favors paid for with your tax dollars. The groups that get this filthy lucre are now loyal supporters of the thieves who stole your hard-earned money. They provide campaign finance money to re-elect their benefactors, who then answer the key question: “What have you done for me lately?” There is no end to the imagination of the Swamp.

And this brings us full circle. We saw that the American Dream implicitly understood by real Americans is “The idea that I’m free to bust my butt to make a better life, and NOT have it stolen by the government.” The Socialist Dream, constantly enacted by the Swamp, is: “The idea that the government should steal what real Americans busted their butts to create, and give it to people who won’t get off their own butts.”

James Madison was quite emphatic that competing interests placed in mutual opposition by the separation of powers would help protect the citizen. But since the New Deal Court decisions in Butler and Helvering, the incentives for the Legislative and Executive branches have aligned. Graft and corruption are now approved by the Supreme Court. Most of George III’s evils decried in the Declaration of Independence are now fair game in Mordor on the Potomac.

There’s only one real way to restore the American Dream at the federal level. We must rein in Congress by restoring the limits of enumerated powers, as the Framers intended. With real guardrails, the incentive to steal from hard-working taxpayers will be largely eliminated, and the American Dream will be resurrected.

Ted Noel is a retired physician who posts on social media as Doctor Ted, @Vidzette on X, and occasionally does Doctor Ted’s Prescription podcast on multiple podcast channels.

Source: Resurrecting The American Dream – American Thinker

Well, the associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota–Morris, P.Z. Myers, who has been obsessed with me and my ministry, Answers In Genesis, for years, recently wrote a blog about me titled, “Waiting for Another Creepy Old Man to Die.”

He ended the blog stating: “That’s a problem with authoritarian cults. They are ruled for life by unpleasant, weird people who alienate everyone around them, and maybe instill in them the ambition to be in charge on their own. I hope I outlive Ken Ham, because I’d really like to see the chaos that will follow on his death.”

As we know, God’s Word states that, “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die” (Ecclesiastes 3:1–2).

So when any one of us dies is not up to what some atheist professor wants. God is in control of both Myers’ life and ours.

But this pagan university professor, who has continually blasphemed and mocked God and Christians, needs to wake up and take note of God’s warning: “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

And if Myers continues in his willing ignorance and rebellion against God, he will suffer a second death after the first death: “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and sexually immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Revelation 21:8).

I would ask us to all pray for P.Z. Myers as he is well on his way to a Christless eternity. He is 68 years old (younger than me), but God could end his earthly life at any second.

I thought I would start off with this today, as I want to remind us all that we are in a spiritual war. And this war is raging about us even more aggressively now than we’ve experienced in the past here in the West.

Years ago, someone said to me, “If you stand on the devil’s toes, he reacts. You guys must be kicking him in the shins.”

Recently, I’ve seen a level of hate against us that seems to be growing. And really, we should expect this. As we see the enormous number of people saved through Answers in Genesis, including over 100,000 a year at the attractions alone, we know the devil will be active. Actually, I believe that because we are in a war, if we’re not getting opposition, we should ask ourselves what we are doing! As we move the battlefront forward, proclaiming God’s Word and the gospel, we expect the enemy to fight back.

Just to give you a sampling of the enemies of God lashing out (reminding us of this spiritual war we are in), I will include just a sampling of the 20,000+ comments on one of my Facebook posts. The post was short: “Man did not evolve from ape-like creatures; the first man was made from dust, and the first woman was made from the man’s rib.”

Now, there were over 20,000 comments on this post, the majority from enemies of God! Let me share some with you:

“Daily reminder that Christianity is the mentally ill belief that a mud-man and a rib woman got tricked by a talking snek into eating a magical apple that gave them a hereditary illness which can only be cured by joining a human-sacrificial blood-cult so you can forge a psychic connection with a 2000-year-dead Jewish zombie ON A STICK..” [sec]

“It’s a shame a dingo didn’t eat Ken as a baby”

“If you take a flashlight and put it against this dudes ear the full light bundle wil shine on the other side”

“COMPLETE NONSENSE All…ALL..ALL LIARS SHALL TAKE THEIR PLACE IN THE LAKE OF FIRE Instead of preaching the gospel of Jesus AS HE COMMANDED YOU You have chosen a subject YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT”

“Just another Fake Christian Inbred KKKlan nut. He’s upset because his Sister divorced him when she turned 13 years old”

“And lizard people run the government and little mice make the wheels in your head go round and round. Silly science denier. I bet you also think the world is flat”

“Your level of religious fanaticism is equal to Muslims who put suicide vests on children. Your delusions are yours. Do the sane demographic a solid ad keep it to yoyr whack self”

“With an intellect as sharp as your’s, perhaps stick to debating dustmites?”

Okay, you get the idea! There were thousands like this, many of which I would not put in this article because they are so perverse. But should we be shocked at such a response from the world? Actually, we shouldn’t. But this last one I’m including is extremely sad because it highlights the state of the majority of our Christian institutions:

Hey! Theologian here. Ken Ham – I used to respect you vision. Your belief that there are answers in Genesis. Then I went off to Bible college, studied the book for myself, then compared that to what science tells us. Why are we still fighting this? There was no contradiction. Nothing at all in the text that should make us fight science. Genesis 1 WAS A RETURN to science… and you have made Christianity worse off by pretending science presented some type of jedpordy to the Faith. All it really shows is that you believe God didn’t have the foresight to write a Bible built on truth. Or worse, you don’t think God wrote Scripture at all.

So many young people from the church have gone to a compromising Bible college/university and come out believing no different than those who posted the comments I included above. A sad state of affairs but a situation that has greatly contributed to a lukewarm church that is, by and large, not impacting the church and culture as it should.

We really are in a raging war. That’s why Apostle Paul uses so much war terminology, reminding us to put on the whole armor of God so we can fight in this battle.

Now we also need to be reminded that this is a religious war.

Consider the atheists and other secularists (and even some people who identify as Christians) who went “ape” over my post. Over 90% of the comments were negative and most of them were highly emotional in attacking me and what Scripture teaches about origins—blaspheming God, attacking the Bible, many mocking me with the worst kind of profanity, and questioning my intelligence (the word idiot was used hundreds of times!). The emotions on display exposed thousands of evolutionists passionately defending their belief system. So many were so profane or blasphemous that we hid their comments. Obviously for them, origins is more than a science issue. Their worldview is challenged by the Bible.

The evolutionary worldview is a religion, one that’s practiced by those who attack Christianity. They have a nontheistic religion; in fact, evolution fits one of the Merriam-Webster dictionary definitions of religion: “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” The dictionary definition of religion certainly describes the worldview of evolutionary naturalism. The beliefs of evolutionism purport to explain the entire world’s existence by means of evolutionary naturalism, and thus, it is an all-encompassing faith—a religious worldview.

Furthermore, the secularists who publicly argue against biblical Christianity (like the thousands on my Facebook post) have their own religious cause to promote as they zealously defend their belief in a naturalistic system of origins. What else would you call what they practice but a religion?

And following the definition above, because zealous evolutionists hold their beliefs with “ardor” and “faith,” they can be described as evangelists for their worldview—defending a belief system that informs how they wish to lead a life apart from God. So by this definition and what we saw from the zealous, angry evolutionists on my Facebook page, evolution is a religious faith. And thus, its avid proponents are religious.

As I say in my talks, in an ultimate sense, there are only two religions in the world—one based on God’s Word and the other based on man’s word.

Ken Ham is an author, speaker, and Founder and CEO of Answers in Genesis and its two popular interests: the acclaimed Creation Museum and the internationally known Ark Encounter.

Source: We Really Are In A Raging War: University Professor Says He Is Waiting For Me To Die – Harbinger’s Daily

Gov. Bill Lee Signs Resolution Declaring June ‘Nuclear Family Month’ in Tennessee

This June, Tennessee is saying goodbye to LGBT pride month and hello to “Nuclear Family Month.”

On April 9, Gov. Bill Lee signed a joint resolution enacted by the Tennessee Legislature designating June 2026 “Nuclear Family Month” – a counter to pride month when individuals, companies, governments and celebrities often proclaim themselves “allies” of LGBT pride and family redefinition.

The resolution defines the nuclear family as consisting of “one husband, one wife, and any biological, adopted, or fostered children” that is “God’s design for familial structure and has been the bedrock of society since the creation of the world.”

The Tennessee House passed House Joint Resolution 182 in a 72-18 vote; the state Senate approved the resolution in a 26-4 vote. While the resolution was originally intended for June 2025, the state Senate did not pass the bill until this year. An amendment changed the resolution to take effect for June 2026.

The resolution highlights the harms that result when the nuclear family is ruptured:

• Fatherless families are four times more likely to live in poverty than married-couple families.
• Children without fathers are 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
• Children from fatherless homes are more likely to have mental health and behavioral issues.
• Sixty percent of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.
• Seventy-one percent of high school dropouts are from fatherless homes.
• Fatherless youths are 20 times more likely to be incarcerated.
• Eighty-five percent of youths in prison come from fatherless homes.
• Eighty-two percent of school shooters are raised in unstable family environments or without both biological parents together.

The resolution rejects the “humanistic, globalist ideologies of the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and like-minded organizations that fight for population control through the means of promoting sterilization and abortion practices.”

“The nuclear family is God’s perfect design for humanity and is aligned with the long-held traditional values of Tennessee,” the resolution continues. “The nuclear family is under attack in our beloved State and nation, and it is our responsibility to uplift, protect, and support values that help Tennessee prosper.”

While the resolution doesn’t have any substantial legal effect, it does express the will and mind of the Tennessee Legislature on a very crucial matter.

Tennessee’s courageous and bold effort to replace pride month with “Nuclear Family Month” rightfully draws attention to the institution responsible for building societies: the nuclear family – married men and women and the children they create. Every other state in the union should follow Tennessee’s lead.

This June, pride month may still garner more attention with cultural elites, large corporations, the media, influencers and celebrities in their attempt to be “inclusive” and appease LGBT activists. Christians know that the God-ordained institution of the nuclear family is what deserves positive praise and attention.

Source: Gov. Bill Lee Signs Resolution Declaring June ‘Nuclear Family Month’ in Tennessee – Daily Citizen

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration “zealously” investigated, penalized, and engaged in “aggressive prosecutions” of Christians “with traditional biblical views” — ignoring their conscientious objections and even secretly keeping tabs on Catholic priests, a Department of Justice task force found.

The DOJ-led Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias released 14 findings Thursday, confirming the 46th president’s officials “forc[ed] Christians with traditional biblical views to choose whether to live in accordance with their faith or risk violating federal law.”

In a 200-page report, the task force concluded: “The Biden Administration generally tolerated religious beliefs that were privately held but zealously pursued actions to limit Christians’ ability to act in accordance with their faith.”

That included prosecutions of pro-life Christians who were given longer sentences than their pro-abortion peers for violations of a federal law protecting access to abortion clinics or pregnancy resource centers.

The report also unearthed new details about a January 2023 FBI memo sent to multiple field offices that called for the targeting of “radical-traditionalist” Catholics as a result of “baseless allegations” from the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center.

The FBI’s Richmond, Va., Field Office, which first compiled the memo, later probed a “priest and an entire Catholic sect” as a result of learning that a “career criminal” — who was stocking up on weapons and explosive materials — regularly attended a certain church in the commonwealth’s capital.

Agents who interviewed the repeat offender, Xavier Louis Lopez, noted that he was a self-described “radical traditional Catholic Clerical Fascist” — and, as a result of his professed beliefs, began tracking the priest of his onetime parish, as well as the cleric’s family.

“Lopez had attended Our Lady of Fatima Catholic Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) Chapel for approximately seven months and participated in three or four catechism classes as part of the process to become baptized,” a Jan. 5, 2023, email from an unnamed FBI employee stated.

“FBI Richmond attempted to interview the priest … who was not cooperative. Additionally, he has been to see Lopez six times in jail,” the email also read. “According to [redacted] he frequently flies back to Kentucky. It appears that his uncle is key people [sic] in the SSPX-MC organization.”

“We would be very interested in any information that you have on the organization, the [sic] set up a conference call tomorrow or a day next week that works for you to discuss further,” the FBI employee added.

The Society of Saint Pius X is a traditionalist Catholic organization that rejects many of the reforms imposed on the church following the Second Vatican Council in the mid-1960s. The group is best known for its support of the Traditional Latin Mass.

In February 2025, a judge sentenced Lopez to eight years and one month in prison for possessing destructive devices. While his arrested was unquestionably “lawful,” the Trump administration task force faulted the Biden-era FBI for using Lopez’s statement — as well as the SPLC-inspired memo — “as justification to launch a two-pronged attack against traditional Catholics.”

“The Richmond Field Office opened a law enforcement profile, known as a Guardian profile, on Our Lady of Fatima Catholic Society SSPX Chapel, a church that played no role whatsoever in Lopez’s acquisition or possession of the destructive devices,” the task force report noted.

“They interviewed Lopez’s priest … who was uncomfortable and noted that he would need to speak with the church’s attorneys before providing any additional information about his congregant,” it also stated.

Although the priest’s response “was reasonable, the Richmond Field Office viewed it as suspicious and used their suspicion as cover for conducting a broader evaluation” of the priest and other traditional Catholics.

After the Richmond memo drew backlash — and public apologies from then-FBI Director Christopher Wray and then-Attorney General Merrick Garland — senior FBI employees privately stood by the policy of targeting “radical-traditionalist” Christians.

Stanley Meador, then the special agent in charge of the Richmond field office, told a colleague who authored the now-recalled FBI memo: “No apology needed.”

“Keep that head up, this too shall pass. Will make for a great chapter in your memoirs some day!” he wrote in a July 8, 2023, email.

Wray told members of the House Judiciary Committee in a hearing the same month that the memo was “appalling” and “as far as what we can tell, did not result in any investigative action, none.”

The task force report also found that the Biden DOJ and Department of Health and Human Services reversed efforts under the first Trump administration “to vindicate conscience rights” — including for “a Christian nurse” who was “coerced … into participating in an abortion despite her religious objections.”

Additionally, the Biden administration fined Christian universities at exorbitant rates and penalized other religious institutions over issues involving girls’ athletics and vaccine mandates.

“The Biden Administration’s policies regularly clashed with a Christian worldview and burdened traditional religious practices,” the report concluded.

“These conflicts frequently arose over abortion, gender ideology, and sexual orientation. Ultimately, the Biden Administration penalized Christians who lived in accordance with their beliefs.”

“No American should live in fear that the federal government will punish them for their faith,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who chairs the task force, in a statement.

“As our report lays out, the Biden Administration’s actions devastated the lives of many Christian Americans. That devastation ended with President Trump,” he added.

“The Department of Justice will continue to expose bad actors who targeted Christians and work tirelessly to restore religious liberty for all Americans of faith.”

The report followed Trump’s February 2025 executive order on eradicating anti-Christian bias in the federal government.

Link to Report

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1438506/dl?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery