September 3, 2025, marks the 78th anniversary of the publication of Goodnight Moon, one of the best-selling picture books of all time (more than 50 million copies sold). Author Margaret Wise Brown (1910–52), who wrote more than 100 picture books, never saw the book’s massive success. But her influence, and Goodnight Moon’s unexpected popularity after her untimely death, are at the epicenter of what one historian called the “shapeshifting influence of American progressive educators on the invention of books for children” in the 20th century. Writer of Songs and Nonsense Amy Gary’s biography of Brown, In the Great Green Room: The Brilliant and Bold Life of Margaret Wise Brown, depicts not merely a life of literary giftedness and ambition but a restless soul whose search for love and meaning ended tragically early. Brown wrote unceasingly for children, including children’s music. In her will, she requested her tombstone be etched with the simple epitaph “Margaret Wise Brown. Writer of Songs and Nonsense.” This single phrase encapsulates the tension of her life—a life dedicated to creating imaginative worlds for children while grappling with a deep sense of autonomy and personal meaninglessness. She never married or had children, instead living a bohemian life in New York City filled with myriad affairs with both men and women. Story of ‘Goodnight Moon’ The idea for Goodnight Moon came to Brown in a dream. She was experimenting with “the sleep-inducing qualities of words and poetry” for bedtime. Brown was dedicated to creating imaginative worlds for children while grappling with a deep sense of autonomy and personal meaninglessness. Goodnight Moon was a follow-up to the successful The Runaway Bunny (1942), but when Goodnight Moon was released in 1947,  it barely registered an audience. In 1953, a year after Brown’s death, it sold just 1,500 copies. By 1970, however, it was selling 20,000 copies a year. By 2007, sales had skyrocketed to 800,000 annually. Today, various editions sell more than 1 million copies every single year. The book’s delayed success is hard to explain, but I find it interesting that its rise in popularity coincided with a decrease in Christian faith and practice. Secular Prayer In Christian communities for generations, children have been encouraged to find comfort in the routines of bedtime prayers to a God whose transcendent presence holds all things together. Bedtime prayers reassure children they can rest in God. When children feel scared and alone, they can remember that “he who keeps watch over Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep” (Ps. 121:4). Goodnight Moon, on the other hand, is “less a story than an incantation”—an end-of-day liturgy without transcendence. The simple, gentle text and repetitive structure riff on the ritual and reassurances of bedtime, but the objects in the room (mice, mittens, kittens, etc.) are bereft of transcendent significance. It’s a soothing alternative to traditional Christian bedtime prayers: a secular “prayer” that finds peace in the eclectic wonders of immanence, in the rhythmic cycles of nature (the moon’s nightly illumination) rather than in the love and sovereignty of God. Instead of appealing to a God who holds all things together in his ordered creation, the liturgy of Goodnight Moon simply observes the randomness of an inexplicable universe: Goodnight nobody. Goodnight mush. Wounded, Restless Heart Brown’s longest romantic relationship was with Blanche Oelrichs, an older woman who wrote under the pen name Michael Strange. It was a secret affair that ended in a heartbreaking rupture. As Gary notes in In the Great Green Room, Oelrichs, facing the onset of leukemia, “decided her attraction to Margaret was a sin. . . . If they were really Christians [as they both professed to be] then they should be able to fight their desire to be together physically.” Oelrichs cut off the relationship with Brown, who “grew angry” and “wrote letter after letter . . . defending the nature of their love.” The pain of this rejection left Brown wounded—a wound she’d seek to heal in a final, short-lived romance. In 1952, just months before her death, Brown fell in love with James “Pebble” Rockefeller Jr., a recent college graduate 20 years her junior. Their engagement marked a new chapter, but her existential despair was far from settled. Pebble would later recall a moment when she turned to him, eyes gazing far off, and said, “We are born alone. We go through life alone. And we go out alone.” This sense of isolation echoes in what was Brown’s final (and autobiographical) children’s book, Mister Dog, which tells the story of Crispin’s Crispian, a dog who “belonged to himself.” The book’s moral: Autonomy is the highest good. Sudden Death of a Secular Saint In a bizarre twist of poetic tragedy, Brown’s life came to an abrupt end while alone in France at the age of 42. Brown was on her way to a rendezvous with Pebble when she was rushed to a Catholic hospital, staffed by nuns, for an emergency appendectomy. After the procedure, a nurse asked her how she was feeling. As she answered, Brown kicked up her leg in a carefree cancan gesture. The act dislodged a blood clot that led to a fatal pulmonary embolism. In a final act of nonsense, Brown made a theatrical exit from a life lived on her own terms. Goodnight Moon simply observes the randomness of an inexplicable universe. Today, Brown is lionized as a secular saint. She’s remembered as a restless, rebellious radical, whose New York City writing studio is considered an LGBT+ historic site. Goodnight Moon’s lonely child motif matches Brown’s life. Her final words to her last lover (“We go out alone”) reflect a life lived outside the lines. Point for Christian Parents Here’s the point for Christian parents. Goodnight Moon reads like a bedtime prayer for a reason. Brown’s experimental writing was part of a modernist movement to shape an alternative moral ecology for children. Many of her books are, perhaps unwittingly, examples of what Philip Rieff memorably coined “deathworks”—objects of art intended to make the moral imaginary of traditional values look unimportant, even ridiculous. The next time you read Goodnight Moon with your kids at bedtime, don’t stop at “goodnight noises everywhere.” End your routine with bedtime prayers. Observing the diverse wonders of the wide world—even the small world of a green bedroom—is a good practice. But observing these wonders should lead us to worship the God who created it all, sustains it, and gives it meaning. As for the runaway sheep in that French hospital room, I hope that in her last minutes of life, a kind nun spoke gospel truth to her restless heart. What Brown needed was not a quiet old lady whispering “hush” but a slumberless Shepherd whispering “mine.”

Trump Derangement Syndrome has led the legacy media to take a myriad of weird positions. In recent weeks, they’ve seemingly advocated for illegal alien criminals, and stood against fighting crime in big cities such as Washington, D.C. Now, they’ve been reduced to running puff pieces spotlighting communist China. Watch the report in its entirety, as aired on ABC’s World News Tonight on Tuesday, September 2nd, 2025: DAVID MUIR: Tonight, just weeks after President Trump rolled out the red carpet on U.S. soil for Vladimir Putin, tonight, Putin is now in China, joining China's president Xi, and North Korea's Kim Jong-un, who is also now in China, as well. The message they're sending to the U.S. and the world. And here's our chief foreign correspondent Ian Pannell now. IAN PANNELL: Tonight, just hours before a massive military parade, three of America's top adversaries gather in Beijing, sending a strong message that there's an alternative world order now competing with U.S. domination. Chinese president Xi Jinping welcoming Vladimir Putin. The Russian president calling Xi a dear friend. And Kim Jong-un making a rare trip outside North Korea, arriving on his bullet-proof train. The parade will commemorate the end of World War II. China's growing military might on display, with more than 25 world leaders attending. Satellite images showing military equipment already lining up. Our Britt Clennett in Tiananmen Square. BRITT CLENNETT: We are expecting China to showcase its new weapons, including hypersonic missiles, drones, stealth fighters, and it’s a chance for China to showcase power on the world stage, but also to showcase its upgraded military. PANNELL: It comes 2 1/2 weeks after President Trump welcomed Putin to Alaska, rolling out the red carpet, shaking Putin's hand. A stark contrast, as Putin, Xi, and India's prime minister Modi stand shoulder to shoulder.  David, this is a remarkable change of imagery, from Putin and Trump meeting in Alaska, to the scenes now playing out in Beijing, with so many of America's adversaries lining up together, united and strong. David? MUIR: All right, Ian Pannell and Britt Clennett in China for us. Ian, thank you. So Trump-deranged are the media that there is gleeful bleating over a “new world order” wherein China is the dominant power. As if to reinforce this point, there is time devoted to Kim Jong-Un’s arrival aboard an armored train. Compare that to the time the media lost their minds over Trump sending him a letter. Here’s the tell that this was a “friendly” report to these dictators: I challenge you to run a word search for “authoritarian” or “dictator” anywhere within that transcript. Which is wild, given that the report repeatedly mentions Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong Un. You won’t find one anywhere, even as the media seek to depict President Donald Trump. When compared to coverage of the parade commemorating the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary, ABC’s preview of the ChiCom parade is downright obsequious- perhaps celebrity level. And perhaps, with Pannell’s evocations of “New World Order’, that was the point. So it is that Trump derangement led ABC News to fangirl about dictators they would otherwise condemn.  

[View Article at Source]Conservative career officials are fighting to break the globalist-woke mindset that is deeply ingrained in the U.S. foreign affairs bureaucracy. The post The Ben Franklin Fellowship’s…

[View Article at Source]Misleading Israeli narratives could push Washington toward war. The post The U.S. Should Be Skeptical about ‘Iran-Backed’ Militants appeared first on The American Conservative.…

[View Article at Source]Here are five steps its leaders can take to help end the war. The post Europe Must Get Real on Russia–Ukraine appeared first on The American Conservative.

Stein-Erik Soelberg killed his mother and himself in Connecticut earlier this month, with the Wall Street Journal reporting that ChatGPT fuelled his irrational fears about her. Meanwhile, a couple in…

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Foreign Affairs Europe Must Get Real on Russia–Ukraine Here are five steps its leaders can take to help end the war. MAGA’s had it with Europe. That’s nothing new, of course. America First conservatives have long regarded the European Union as a woke, socialist superstate and lamented member-state crackdowns on right-wing parties, traditional values, and national identity. But the acceleration of U.S. diplomacy on Russia–Ukraine last month led to greater irritation with the old continent. Many American conservatives and foreign-policy realists believe European leaders are slow-walking if not obstructing the peace process.  The Trump administration agrees, judging by an Axios report published this weekend entitled, “Scoop: White House believes Europe secretly undoing Ukraine war’s end.” For MAGA conservatives, the story was yet more evidence that European intransigence was prolonging a brutal and unnecessary war. As the resident Europhile here at The American Conservative, it pains me to admit: These MAGA critics of Europe are right.  Though not in every detail. The Axios report struck me (and the pro-Ukraine journalist Christopher Miller) as a blame-shifting exercise by the Trump administration. The PR campaign generated a strong headline, but one criticism leveled against (unnamed) European leaders was that they weren’t hawkish enough on Russia—the opposite of what MAGA believes. Moreover, the quoted White House officials conceded that Britain and France—in this context, the most important countries—are working constructively with the U.S. Still, the Europeans really do seem to be throwing obstacles onto the road to peace. Consider, for example, the tragicomedy of Europe’s push to provide Ukraine with postwar “security guarantees.” Since at least February, Britain and France have floated a deployment of European soldiers to Ukraine. But, they added, this “reassurance force” would itself need an American “backstop” in the form of air support. The Kremlin opposes the stationing of NATO troops in Ukraine, and the White House has resisted U.S. military involvement, so the “peace proposal” looked to many analysts more like a poison pill. Nevertheless, President Donald Trump relented, offering last month to support European peacekeepers “by air” and claiming Moscow was open to Western-provided guarantees. And yet, as European officials prepare to meet this week in Paris to discuss the Ukraine war, all signs suggest growing division over whether their nations should, or even can, deploy enough troops to deter Russia. As word spread in August that Washington would help with security guarantees, London scaled back its plans to send troops, and Berlin said it likely couldn’t send any, since the deployment of a single brigade in Lithuania had strained the German military.  This is embarrassing stuff. Fortunately, there’s a better way forward. Here are five steps European capitals can take to help Washington bring this war closer to a resolution.  First, and most importantly, the Europeans must take a more realistic view of the conflict and of its belligerents’ relative military capabilities. The grim reality is that Russia is winning the war. The sooner it ends, the better for Ukraine.  The Axios report had said the Europeans were pushing Kiev to hold out for a “better deal” than what Trump has helped get on the table, rather than make territorial concessions to Moscow. The sources for that claim were U.S. officials disgruntled with Europe, but it aligns with the public rhetoric of European leaders.  It’s dreadful advice. If Kiev wants to retain a sovereign, albeit truncated, state after the war, then it should embrace the imperfect deal that Trump is trying to secure. The likely alternative is more fighting, more Ukrainian losses, and a much worse deal, if not total capitulation. The next couple steps pertain to security guarantees that would be more credible than promises of European troops: 2) inviting Ukraine to join the European Union as part of a peace settlement, and 3) lobbying for Ukraine to maintain and indeed grow its own military deterrent to the greatest extent that Moscow will tolerate. The EU’s founding charter includes a mutual defense clause, which obligates all member nations, when one of them is attacked, to “aid and assist it by all the means in their power.” Unlike NATO’s Article 5, this clause has not been (mis)understood to require that members directly fight the aggressor, but merely support the attacked nation. Over the last three years, the Europeans have amply demonstrated their willingness to send military aid to Ukraine in the event of a Russian invasion, so such a commitment would be credible. Whether Russia’s President Vladimir Putin would permit Ukraine to participate in the EU’s mutual defense regime isn’t clear, though he has warmed to the idea of Kiev’s joining the Union. Nor is it clear that the EU would agree to admit Ukraine, with several members wary and Hungary vocally opposed. Trump is rightly prodding Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban to reconsider that stance. European leaders should also use their diplomatic leverage to curb the “demilitarization” of Ukraine, a Russian war aim that comes with enough wiggle room for productive negotiation. And they should commit to bankrolling Ukrainian rearmament after the war. Moscow will almost certainly demand caps on Ukraine’s military, such as range restrictions on missiles and artillery, and compromises will need to be made. But the Europeans will achieve more diplomatically if they focus on this issue, rather than harebrained schemes of a “reassurance force.” Step number four: European leaders should deploy some diplomatic carrots to complement the sticks. Throughout the war, they have tended to propose ever-harsher measures on Moscow to force Putin to the negotiating table, and invariably that means yet another package of sanctions (they’re currently prepping number 19). At this point, the carrot of sanctions relief would be more effective. Ukraine’s supporters are hoping that the Russian economy, which shows signs of strain, will enter a recession, but a sharp downturn wouldn’t automatically lead to peace. The Europeans should offer Moscow a chance at economic reintegration, providing an attractive off-ramp for its spluttering war economy. Lastly, European leaders need to lay the groundwork for some kind of modus vivendi with Russia for after the war ends. The Ukraine war is, at root, a conflict between Russia and the West, and any stable settlement will need to put relations between them on a more stable footing.  Western journalists and analysts who talk to Russian security elites can attest to the extreme antipathy they presently feel toward Europe and the deleterious effects of that antipathy on peace talks. “In our view, the Europeans play a significantly negative role, often acting irrationally and against their own economic interests,” a senior researcher at a strategic policy institute in Russia told me last week. “I do not exclude the possibility that at the first convenient opportunity, they will try to revise all the achievements that have already been made on the negotiation track.” Recent statements by European leaders that Putin is an “ogre at our gates,” that the Russians are “Huns,” and that the Ukraine war is a symptom of an underlying Russian “cancer” do not help matters. Indeed, such pronouncements are grotesque and plainly counterproductive. Russians are a proud European people whose cultural contributions have enriched us all. The Western world must learn to accommodate the Eastern half of what I have called the “Global North.” As the era of American hegemony recedes and China’s rise continues, the West will want to repair ties with Russia and peel it away from Beijing. Trump has wisely pursued that aim as a component of ending the Ukraine war. It’s time for Europe to join the effort. The post Europe Must Get Real on Russia–Ukraine appeared first on The American Conservative.