Texans, hide your kids—or else they’ll be forced to hear that “love is patient, love is kind.” Yes, the radicals on the Texas State Board of Education have decided that public school students in the Lone Star State should become just a little familiar with the work that arguably influenced American history and Western literature more than any other. How dare they. On Friday, the state education board approved a new list of mandated readings for students. The list, which was passed with a 9-5 vote and included classic works as well as the Bible, will start to be implemented in 2030. “We’re going to stop watering down American history. We’re going to teach the truth. Our nation was founded as a Christian nation, and Texas is a Christian state,” said board member Brandon Hall, a Republican and a pastor, according to CNN. Two-thirds of Texans are Christian, and about 6% practice other religions, including Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, according to Pew Research Center. Besides the oh-so-controversial 13th Chapter of First Corinthians, students will also be expected to read the Beatitudes, Psalm 23, the Parable of the Prodigal Son, two chapters from Exodus, and several chapters from the Book of Job, according to a draft circulated before the vote. Fourth graders will have to wrestle with Luke 14:7-11, where Jesus recommends people not start by sitting in the highest-status seat. (Perhaps the school cafeteria social scenes will never be the same.) Sixth graders, in an era where adolescent mental health seems more fragile than ever, will have to cope with Matthew 6:25-34, which pushes the radical message that God will take care of people and worrying is unnecessary. Yet, of course, there is still outrage from the expected quarters. “A mandatory public school reading list should never function as a Bible lesson,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, in a statement. “Texas is telling millions of children that one religion deserves the government’s seal of approval, while everyone else is an afterthought.” Never mind, apparently, that American history is dominated by figures highly influenced by Christianity, from the Founding Fathers to Martin Luther King Jr. You simply can’t understand our nation’s history without some grasp of Christianity—but you can grasp our nation’s history without an understanding of Islam or atheism or Hinduism. Gaylor’s view is also an outlier in Texas. A 2024 Texas Public Policy Foundation poll found that 64% of Texans approved of putting religious stories into the public school curriculum. Of course, reading the Bible doesn’t mean that public school students have to assent to Christianity. In high school, when I was homeschooled and using a Catholic Great Books program, I read portions of the Quran. I was reading to try to understand where Muslims came from and how this book had shaped their history, not because I believed the Quran. Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, etc., can do the same when it comes to reading the Bible in Texas. Ultimately, reading the Bible will help give Texas students a deeper understanding of the ideas that form the foundation of our culture. As Julie Pickren, a Republican on the education board, told The Texas Tribune, the readings will give “important insight into the moral and philosophical traditions that have shaped Western civilization.” A draft of the readings included classics such as William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet,” Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice,” Anne Frank’s “Diary of a Young Girl,” and C.S. Lewis’ “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.” “A classical approach to education, one that emphasizes the careful study of primary historical documents, plays a vital role in developing strong critical thinking skills in students,” Pickren added. “When students engage directly with original writings, speeches, sermons, and foundational texts, they can evaluate ideas and develop a deeper understanding of the principles that have shaped the USA and Texas.” Preach it. In the TikTok era, where students are far more likely to spend hours watching inane reels than poring over a tome that changed the course of history, it’s critical that students be forced in school to actually engage with ideas. And by ideas, I don’t mean some emotional rant in a 30-second video, but a reasoned argument that has resonated for decades or centuries or millennia. Students should read the Bible—and the Founding Fathers, and Shakespeare, and Plato, and so many of the thinkers that profoundly affected the course of Western civilization. Some young Americans may still decide to reject the values of their ancestors. But at least it will be done after actually having some understanding of those values and ideas’ origins, not just seeing a few social media posts talking up socialism or atheism and arguing against straw men. Thankfully, Texas isn’t the only state to realize students need to engage more deeply with the works that influenced America. “Utah students will be required to analyze specific Bible passages referenced or ‘alluded to’ in U.S. historical documents,” in the future, thanks to legislation passed earlier this year, reported The Salt Lake Tribune. “Oftentimes, where Texas goes, other states will follow, right? So, this is a pretty substantial move that I could imagine other states picking up and moving forward with as a possibility,” Antero Garcia, a Stanford University professor and the president of the National Council of Teachers of English, told ABC News. Hopefully, more states and districts will follow—and provide future voters with a better understanding of the history of the country they live in.

In this year that we celebrate 250 years since the Declaration of Independence—and the ensuing U.S. Constitution and unprecedented national prosperity—it is vital that Americans understand the evil roots of the communist movement that is seeking to supplant our nation’s birthright of liberty. The biblical account of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4 provides a profound archetype for the destructive power of envy—the emotional and spiritual engine behind revolutionary ideologies. The biblical warning remains as relevant in 2026 as it was in the beginning: rule over the sin crouching at the door, or it will rule over you. Cain, a tiller of the ground, grew resentful when God accepted Abel’s offering of the firstborn of his flock but not Cain’s produce from the soil. Rather than examining his own heart or effort, Cain allowed jealousy to fester. God warned him: “sin is crouching at your door; its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” Cain did not. He murdered his brother in the field. The story is not primarily about material inequality or “unfair favor”; it is about the refusal to accept another’s legitimate success or divine blessing and the turn to violence and destruction that follows. Cain’s envy is the oldest recorded instance of what later became systematized in communist and socialist thought: the transformation of personal resentment into a moral justification for seizing what belongs to others. Abel had done nothing wrong; he had simply offered his best in faith. Cain’s response was not reform or greater effort—it was elimination of the one who had more favor. This pattern repeats across history whenever movements frame achievement as illegitimate exploitation and demand redistribution through coercion. Historical Parallels in Revolutionary Movements The French Revolution began with Enlightenment abstractions about equality but quickly descended into the Reign of Terror, where resentment against the aristocracy justified mass executions and property confiscations. The guillotine became the instrument of “equity.” In Russia, Bolshevik ideology explicitly weaponized class envy. Lenin and Stalin targeted “kulaks”—successful peasant farmers who had improved their lot through effort—as class enemies. Dekulakization involved confiscation, exile, and execution. The result was the Holodomor famine in Ukraine and the broader collectivization disasters that killed millions. Property was seized not because of individual crime but because its owners had achieved more. Mao’s China followed the same script on a larger scale. Land reform campaigns executed or persecuted landlords and “rich peasants.” The Cultural Revolution mobilized youth to attack anyone perceived as having more status, education, or success. “Capitalist roaders” were purged based on resentment dressed up as revolutionary justice. Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge took it to its logical extreme under Pol Pot: Year Zero abolished private property, money, and most distinctions of achievement, resulting in roughly a quarter of the population murdered or starved in the name of erasing “unequal” outcomes. These were not aberrations. They flowed directly from the core Marxist premise that unequal outcomes stem from exploitation rather than differences in talent, effort, culture, family structure, or providence. The “justification of violence and property seizure on the basis of resentment toward those who achieve more through their own effort” is not a bug of communism—it is the feature. Philosophers from Edmund Burke onward warned that abstract demands for perfect equality, untethered from tradition, law, and human nature, produce tyranny. Biblical values provide the moral dimension: the 10th Commandment explicitly forbids coveting what belongs to your neighbor. Envy is treated as a serious sin precisely because it corrodes the soul and society. Proven economic theory, drawing from thinkers like Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman, emphasizes that wealth creation is not zero-sum. When property rights are secure and effort is rewarded, the rising tide lifts far more boats than redistribution schemes ever have. Socialist experiments consistently produce the opposite: shared poverty, capital flight, and the empowerment of resentful elites who control the redistribution apparatus. The Modern Example of Zohran Mamdani New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani fits this pattern with striking precision. Elected in 2025 and sworn in January 2026, Mamdani—a democratic socialist and DSA member—campaigned on and later advanced policies that explicitly invoked racial and neighborhood demographics to justify shifting tax burdens. During his campaign, he proposed reforming New York’s property tax system to “shift the burden” from overtaxed homeowners in outer boroughs to “more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.” The language was not accidental. It framed success and property ownership in predominantly white or higher-wealth areas as an inequity requiring correction through higher taxation. When confronted on camera as mayor-elect—“So you intend to tax the white neighborhoods more?”—Mamdani deflected by claiming the reference to “whiter” neighborhoods was merely a neutral description of current geography and assessment patterns, not an expression of racial intent: “the use of the term was a description of neighborhoods, not a description of intent.” He insisted the goal was simply a “fair property tax system.” This rhetorical move—stating a racially charged policy, then retreating to colorblind language when challenged—is a classic example of the same ideological sleight of hand that allows resentment to operate under the cover of “equity.” As mayor, Mamdani released a Preliminary Citywide Racial Equity Plan that cited stark wealth disparities (median white household wealth over $200,000 vs. under $20,000 for Black households) and attributed them primarily to “systemic racism.” This was used to justify expanded DEI initiatives, higher taxes on wealthier residents and corporations, and even proposed cuts to NYPD positions. This warped belief system represents the migration of classic communist class envy into identity-based form. Instead of “bourgeoisie vs. proletariat,” it is reframed as historical “oppressor” groups (often white or Asian Americans who have achieved through effort, culture, and family stability) vs. designated victim groups—pure identity politics. The Marxist remedy remains the same: use state power to seize or redistribute resources on the basis of group identity rather than individual conduct or neutral rules. This tyranny violates core constitutional principles—equal protection under the law, colorblind governance, and the sanctity of private property. Conservatives rightly note that such policies are themselves divisive and unconstitutional. They ignore cultural and behavioral factors that drive outcome gaps (two-parent households, educational attainment, work ethic, time preference) in favor of perpetual grievance. They disincentivize the very behaviors—saving, investing, maintaining property—that create wealth in the first place. New York has seen repeated cycles of high-tax, high-regulation policies driving businesses and productive residents outward; accelerating this through explicitly demographic targeting risks accelerating capital flight and fiscal strain. The Enduring Historical Critique From Cain’s field to the guillotine, the gulag, the killing fields, and contemporary identity-driven redistributionism, the straight line of human envy connects the dots. The impulse is the same: resentment toward those who have more—whether through divine favor, personal effort, or cultural inheritance—is elevated into a political program that justifies coercion and violence. American constitutional philosophy counters this destructive human impulse with ordered liberty: secure property rights, rule of law applied equally, personal responsibility, and a moral framework that treats envy as a vice to be mastered rather than a credential for power. History shows that societies built on resentment and redistribution eventually consume their own productive capacity. Societies that channel human ambition through secure rights and cultural norms that celebrate achievement rather than punish it generate unprecedented prosperity. These are the enduring lessons that every American must rediscover in this year that we celebrate 250 years of true freedom, if we are to continue to be the greatest and most prosperous nation in the history of God’s earth.

Before Gen. George Washington crossed the Delaware, a band of hardened fishermen rewrote the rules of the American military—and history nearly forgot them.  But Wedgwood Circle, a collective of investors, patrons, and creative talent in the entertainment industry, did not.  With the help of a $50,000 Heritage Foundation America’s 250th Innovation Prize grant, Wedgwood Circle is producing “Marblehead: The Untold Story of the Men in the Boat,” a 120-page graphic novel that brings to life the story of the Marblehead regiment—the first racially integrated unit in the American military during the American Revolution. They were involved in several critical conflicts during the Revolutionary War, including Washington’s iconic crossing of the Delaware River.   The regiment was responsible for many heroic acts throughout their time in the war, including when they provided Washington’s initial bodyguard when conspiracies to assassinate him arose in the early years of the war.  The project was developed in partnership with MORE Productions and a team of experienced graphic novelists, educational consultants, publication experts, and promotional strategists to ensure broad distribution and impact.   Mandi Hart, filmmaker and attorney who collaborated on the project through MORE Productions, told the Daily Signal in an interview at the time of the award:  The Marbleheaders epitomized E Pluribus Unum—out of many, one. Their brotherhood was forged by necessity on the dangerous Grand Banks and solidified in combat during the grueling years of the Revolutionary War. We hope their example inspires current and future generations of Americans to pursue the same spirit of connection across distinctions. Told through rich visuals and narrative, the graphic novel aims to make this historically significant yet little-known story accessible to a wide audience of readers and to inspire interest in America’s revolutionary heritage.  The Marblehead regiment is an inspirational tale that deserves to be told. Their courage and brotherhood show a necessary unity that, although uncommon, is desperately needed in America.  “Creating content can be a lonely and risky exercise,” Hart said. “The opportunity to be with other recipients (upon receiving the award) allowed us to encourage one another, create a community of cause, and possibly collaborate in the future. Up to now, the Marblehead story has been largely unknown, but we look forward to sharing this amazing true story with the nation in December 2026,” which coincides with the 250th anniversary of Washington’s crossing of the Delaware.  The project plans to have a special release, which will distribute “Marblehead” to schools, libraries, and homeschool families.  “We will develop educational resources and activity materials that coincide with the graphic novel to increase its impact and audience engagement,” Hart continued. “We also hope to exhibit in person at a handful of librarian events, comic cons, and homeschool conferences.”  All of which predicts an exciting future for the story of the Marbleheaders.  Wedgwood Circle’s award-winning work joins other America’s 250th Innovation Prize recipients whose projects use education, storytelling, competition, and media to promote civic engagement, constitutional understanding, and patriotism as part of the nation’s semiquincentennial celebration. Additional Round Two winners are: Harlan Institute Mountain States Policy Center The Moving Picture Institute.  Constituting America Round One winners of the America’s 250th Innovation Prize: Creative Studio to Release Video Series for America’s 250th Anniversary  Faith Group Wins Innovation Prize for America’s 250th Celebration ‘A First of Its Kind’: Bestselling Author Crafts American Fable Collection Catholic Nonprofit Develops Resources to Inspire Patriotism Virginia Nonprofit Wins Prize to Create US History Documentaries for Nation’s 250th Anniversary

Viewers of “Fox & Friends” have watched the show’s co-host, Steve Doocy, travel across the country in recent months ahead of America’s 250th anniversary celebration. Today, Doocy joined his co-hosts at Liberty State Park in New Jersey to wrap up the “For All America” road trip with a live giveaway of a Camping World RV. “The best part about crisscrossing the country for our RV trip is the excitement for this national moment,” Doocy wrote for the New York Post this week. “There’s so much news right now—a lot of it good, a lot of it bad. But running up to the 4th of July, I hear a lot of people talk about America for a change.” Six couples joined Doocy and his “Fox & Friends” co-hosts for Wednesday’s grand-prize presentation. While one lucky couple went home with the RV, the other five finalists were surprised with free travel trailers of their own. An All-American Road Trip Over the past two months, Doocy crisscrossed the country collecting entries from viewers at stops in Jekyll Island, Georgia; Destin, Florida; Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; the Jersey Shore; Houston; and the Kansas City area. Six finalists—one from each stop—were flown to New York for a live showdown Wednesday to see who would drive off with the RV. Alongside Doocy, co-hosts Ainsley Earhardt, Brian Kilmeade, and Lawrence Jones ran the contestants through the elimination round, handing each finalist a key and having them try to start the RV one at a time. After four of the couples failed to start the RV, Doocy turned to the final two in anticipation of who might win. When it was time for Linda Cutruzzula and her husband, the engine started and the show’s hosts erupted in cheers. ‘The Most Incredible Country’ “This whole adventure has been amazing,” she told the hosts. “I just want you to know that we live in the most incredible country that there ever has been or ever will be.” Camping World CEO Matthew Wagner joined the broadcast to hand over the keys and described the prize as a Class A motor home, with a retail price north of $90,000. Fox News and Camping World covered the taxes on the prize. Wagner told the finalists who didn’t win that they wouldn’t be going home empty-handed. Camping World had a second RV—a travel trailer—waiting on set, and every one of the five runner-up families was awarded one on the spot. “Everybody wins a camper,” Doocy told the crowd.

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—The current conservative Supreme Court rarely gets it wrong when it comes to election administration. But in this week’s ruling in Watson v. RNC, that reliable majority flipped on its head with Justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett siding with the liberals by holding that, despite plain language in federal law dictating one clear federal election day, states are free to hold federal elections that go days, weeks, or even months into an overtime period for absentee and mail ballot collection. Now, it’s up to the 14 states that allow for post-Election Day ballot receipt to inject confidence in Election Day by reaffirming—as required by federal law—that Election Day does not somehow mean “Election Week” or even “Election Month.” In a 5-4 decision that saw Barrett siding with the likes of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court upheld a Mississippi law that allowed for ballots that were only postmarked by Election Day, but received by election officials days later, to be counted in the regularly tabulated totals for an election. In arriving at this conclusion, the court followed contorted logic that an election could be deemed to be concluded despite states being permitted to actively collect—and solicit the receipt of—new absentee ballots. And it summarily discounted the fact that, since first-class mail may be recalled, a voter’s choice is not final until that ballot gets delivered to the election official, meaning that for voters who vote by mail, that choice isn’t finalized until the mail is actually delivered. O.J. Simpson famously published a book called “If I Did It,” in which he explained that while he didn’t kill his wife, he laid out the way in which he would have done it. In his dissent, Justice Alito didn’t need to refer to such hypotheticals to show how someone could undermine—even steal—an election, he instead cited five very real, very recent instances in which absentee ballot fraud resulted in a new election, including one in which “Georgia courts had voided an election after finding ‘widespread’ absentee-ballot fraud involving vote buying, vote selling, multiple voting, felon voting, and deceased-person voting.” Many states also permit harvested absentee ballots or even ballots without a postmark altogether to be delivered after Election Day. However, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion simply ignored the policy arguments that a mandated stop time for ballot receipt would prevent fraud and restore confidence in the elections. Instead, they said that those arguments are better directed at state legislatures. On that point, we agree: States could and should take any number of actions that would bolster confidence in the election process, including implementing photo voter ID, implementing proof of citizenship requirements on voter registration, commonsense safeguards in the casting and counting of ballots, as well as transparency in the procedures by which federal agencies and regular citizens can meaningfully audit those processes. Now, the 14 states that still allow ballots to be received after Election Day could start by doing what the Supreme Court would not – mandating that the prescribed day on which the election is held means the ballot receipt deadline. Late last year, the State of Ohio saw an opportunity to instill even more confidence in its elections by passing and signing a bill that would take bold action even before this Supreme Court holding and end the state’s four-day period after an election during which absentee ballots could still be received and counted towards the election tallies. Other states should follow Ohio’s lead and give their voters the right to know that ballots being tallied in the days and even weeks following Election Day are not the result of some ballot drop or ballot harvesting operation in a way that nullifies the legitimate, validly-cast votes on or before Election Day. Election Day means Election Day for a reason, even if the majority of SCOTUS disagrees. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.