With the landmark ceasefire deal in Gaza, the Trump administration’s diplomats this week added another achievement to a growing list of international agreements, extending one of the most active and successful U.S. diplomatic streaks in decades. Hamas accepted the opening phase of Trump’s peace proposal Wednesday, agreeing to free all remaining hostages as Israeli forces […]

Human nature does not change, history is not over, and while we take peace for granted, ours is an increasingly violent age. The assassination of Charlie Kirk revealed the forming ranks in what looks to be an emerging war of religion. While many Americans and Westerners are considering Christianity for the first time or deepening their appreciation for historic, traditional faiths, others celebrated Kirk’s assassination and engaged in violence against churches. The divisions between the Left and the Right are creating strange bedfellows, where Protestants like me see conservative Catholics as more natural allies than many of my fellow Protestants. As a member of the Anglican Church in North America, I am part of the Anglican Communion, which recently installed a new archbishop of Canterbury. Dame Sarah Mullally is the first female archbishop of Canterbury, and she has endorsed blessings for same-sex couples in a step towards reversing the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. I think the church should extend a gospel welcome to all people, but it cannot reject the clear teaching of scripture. As it happens, my position on marriage aligns much more closely with the Catechism of the Catholic Church than it does with the nominal head of my own denomination. It also aligns with conservatives in other faith traditions outside of Christianity. Mullally represents just one symptom of the larger problem—the leftward lurch in religion and culture isn’t unique to Anglicanism. The line between leftist and conservative on abortion, immigration, and transgender ideology runs through nearly every religious institution. As a result, I see conservatives among Catholicism, Judaism, some strains of Islam, and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as more natural allies than many of my fellow Anglicans. Why do I see things this way? I compare our current moment to the “wars of religion” after the Protestant Reformation and before the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. In saying so, I don’t mean to predict that we will have religious wars in the near future—rather that our current cultural convulsions echo that historical period. In that time, the printing press spurred a massive growth in literacy and led many European Christians to question the existing order. Similarly, in our time, the internet has altered the way we see the world, making information even easier to obtain and eroding our trust in institutions. Populists like me would say those institutions squandered their authority by embracing Marxist positions that damage our good cultural heritage. The wars of religion ultimately ended in an uneasy truce between Protestants and Catholics, leaving lasting divisions that persist to this day, though Western societies like the United States have brought some peace by recognizing religious freedom and pluralism. Even a pluralist society needs a cultural bedrock, and one side of our modern debate is seeking to uproot our good foundation. The secular “Progressive” elites push as consensus a worldview I describe as “woke.” The driving heart of this worldview is a new form of Marxism that calls for the destruction of capitalism and America’s heritage in the name of justice for black people, for transgender people, and for other supposed “victims.” This worldview demonizes America’s heritage as oppressive and corrupt, and seeks to redefine basic reality on issues such as what makes a person male or female. On the opposite side, conservatives champion America’s heritage as imperfect but fundamentally a blessing. We reject the notion that our civilization needs an overhaul, and seek rather to defend what is good against the forces out to destroy it. Unfortunately, those forces have marched through our institutions, and that requires opposition to them to adopt a populist tone. Charlie Kirk became a standard bearer for this populist rejection of the woke consensus, and he has galvanized a return to America’s good heritage among young people. But let us make no mistake: The woke elites haven’t gone away, and Kirk’s assassination and the violence following it represent a backlash to this populist revolt. While most Democrats condemn political violence, there are troubling signs that they may not always oppose it. Jay Jones, the Democrat candidate for attorney general in Virginia, fantasized about shooting a Republican and suggested he would like to see a Republican politician’s young children die if that would change his political positions. When the scandal broke, Jones said he regretted the text messages and later added that he had called the Republican to apologize. Abigail Spanberger, the Democrat running for governor, condemned Jones’ texts but stopped short of calling for him to drop out of the race. Republicans have called the remarks disqualifying, but Democrats seem unwilling to state whether they agree. This reminds me of how the Southern Poverty Law Center will put conservatives on a “hate map” with the Ku Klux Klan. When deranged people use that map to find targets for terrorism, the SPLC condemns the terrorism, but keeps the conservatives on the map, anyway. The radicals on the Left aren’t just angry—they’re fighting for a worldview and that worldview puts itself in opposition to the good heritage I wish to defend. Americans from across the political and religious spectrum must unite to oppose the anti-American woke ideology, and that is the fundamental reason why I see natural allies across key religious dividing lines. The post Strange Bedfellows: The Forming Ranks in Our New ‘Wars of Religion’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Jason Miyares' Race for Virginia Attorney General Just Got More Compelling

Behold, the levitating frog.

October 5 to October 14 literally didn't exist in the year 1582.

The dead satellite is supposed to remain in the geostationary belt around 40° East, yet it’s mysteriously drifted from its expected position.

Editor-in-chief of The Atlantic and PBS host Jeffrey Goldberg joined former NBC and CBS anchor Katie Couric on her Next Question podcast on Thursday to discuss The Atlantic’s ‘“The Unfinished Revolution,’ a project exploring 250 years of the American experiment.” According to Goldberg, the Trump era proves that America never did settle the question of king-like power. Couric put the ball on the tee by claiming the timing of the nation’s 250th birthday is interesting given her thoughts on Trump, “Well, I'd love to hear about this intersection of the present with the past, because obviously, Jeff, you acknowledge that the American experiment is under extraordinary pressure at the moment, and I'm curious about the very, you know, strange and fascinating timing of looking at this whole American idea and the American experiment at this moment in history right now that we're witnessing.”     While America may no longer have kings that wear fancy clothes, Goldberg lamented the issue is supposedly still up for debate: Yeah, well, like I said, it's like, and I'm sure you felt this. There are questions that we thought were settled. That just aren't settled. I mean, there are questions about the durability and effectiveness of the separation of powers that I think is really interesting right now, you know, we—they—the Founders of this country, you know, victorious off the Revolution, were obviously most afraid of tyranny, right? Having just freed themselves from a tyrannical king, they were like, 'How do we present—how do we prevent another king or that or a monarchical view of how we should be run.' How do we prevent that from happening? And so there's separation of powers. There’s an executive branch, a legislative branch, a judicial branch, and those things have worked to check each other's power for 250 years. Obviously there've been crises. One would hope the party of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and never-ending COVID emergencies would have a moment of self-reflection before claiming Congressional Republicans are dishonoring the Founder’s intentions for Congress to check the executive. However, such introspection was not forthcoming from Goldberg, “We had a civil war, of course, where everything broke down. But it's more or less work and now we're in a moment when, oh, Congress, I mean, this is again, this is my view. It's not only my view, but my view, Congress is not fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities to check the power of the executive.” Not only that, Goldberg insisted, “The judicial branch is operating independently and has been in some ways manipulated by the executive branch.” Before anyone could ask, “What does ‘manipulated by the executive branch’ even mean?” Goldberg kept rolling: The executive branch is trying to seize as much power as possible. One of the most interesting questions, and again, we could discuss it at, you know, at length. One of the interesting questions that the executive branch is interested in accruing as much power for itself as possible right now, and the legislative branch, or the people who control the legislative branch, are interested in accruing for the executive branch as much power as possible. It doesn't make any sense. Like this, this system only works. The system that the Founders set up only works if everybody is checking each other's power. And so that's one, that's one subject that we wanted to try to understand. One imagines that the next time Democrats control the White House and Congress, liberals like Couric and Goldberg will not be demanding Democrats check the president. They will almost certainly be good team players imploring everyone to get in line. Here is a transcript for the October 9 show: Next Question with Katie Couric 10/9/2025 KATIE COURIC: Well, I'd love to hear about this intersection of the present with the past, because obviously, Jeff, you acknowledge that the American experiment is under extraordinary pressure at the moment, and I'm curious about the very, you know, strange and fascinating timing of looking at this whole American idea and the American experiment at this moment in history right now that we're witnessing. JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Yeah, well, like I said, it's like, and I'm sure you felt this. There are questions that we thought were settled. That just aren't settled. I mean, there are questions about the durability and effectiveness of the separation of powers that I think is really interesting right now, you know, we—they—the Founders of this country, you know, victorious off the Revolution, were obviously most afraid of tyranny, right? Having just freed themselves from a tyrannical king, they were like, “How do we present—how do we prevent another king or that or a monarchical view of how we should be run.” How do we prevent that from happening? And so there's separation of powers. There’s an executive branch, a legislative branch, a judicial branch, and those things have worked to check each other's power for 250 years. Obviously there've been crises. We had a civil war, of course, where everything broke down. But it's more or less work and now we're in a moment when, oh, Congress, I mean, this is again, this is my view. It's not only my view, but my view, Congress is not fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities to check the power of the executive. The judicial branch is operating independently and has been in some ways manipulated by the executive branch. The executive branch is trying to seize as much power as possible. One of the most interesting questions, and again, we could discuss it at, you know, at length. One of the interesting questions that the executive branch is interested in accruing as much power for itself as possible right now, and the legislative branch, or the people who control the legislative branch, are interested in accruing for the executive branch as much power as possible. It doesn't make any sense. Like this, this system only works. The system that the Founders set up only works if everybody is checking each other's power. And so that's one, that's one subject that we wanted to try to understand.

A “gigantic mental health catastrophe" began in 2012, and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt believes that overprotecting children in the real world — by not letting them out to play and develop independence — and under-protecting them online is to blame.Especially now that around every corner is an app fighting for your child’s attention.“We have all kinds of documents, leaks, docu reports that came out in lawsuits where we hear them talking about all the harm they’re causing and all the things they’re doing to cause addiction. These platforms are designed to grab our kids' attention and never let go because if they let go, it’s going to go to their competitor,” Haidt tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck on “The Glenn Beck Podcast.”“So I think now that the case is pretty much closed, the argument that ‘Oh well, we just don’t know, we need to gather more information,’ you know, that was the tobacco industry playbook decades ago,” he explains.Haidt calls it an “evil industry,” with TikTok, Meta, and Snapchat “harming children at an industrial scale.”“We’re not just talking like a few hundred kids. We’re talking literally tens of millions are harmed and thousands are dead. So I do think that this is having a very pernicious effect on society, on children,” he says.And it’s not only affecting their attention spans.“They need to make lots of mistakes and learn from them. And then especially during puberty ... when the brain is changing very, very fast. It’s rewiring from the child to the adult form. And so if in puberty, kids are not out there having adventures and flirting and getting embarrassed and getting in arguments ... if they’re not out there having real world experience, it’s going to prevent the neurons from wiring up in a healthy adult way,” Haidt explains.“In terms of what they’re going to be like in 30 years, here’s what we can say with some confidence just because these are the way the trends are. They’re going to be more anxious and more fragile,” he continues.“We never let them grow thick skin. We never let them have those toughening experiences,” he adds.But that’s not the biggest issue these children will face.“The biggest one I think is the destruction of the human capacity to pay attention. Young people, they find it very difficult to pay attention to anything for more than 10 or 15 minutes. They find it difficult to watch movies,” Haidt says.“They find it difficult to read a book, and they’re reading much, much less. Can you imagine Western civilization if we lose books? If it’s all just TikTok?” he asks, noting that while attention span might be the most common, it will also affect demographics.“The frequency of sex and marriage was already falling with the Millennials. It’s falling much faster with Gen Z. Boys raised on porn who have very poor social skills and play a lot of video games and don’t have really much practice flirting,” Haidt tells Glenn.“And that’s just on the boy side. The girls especially are more anxious and fragile, which is also a bad sign for marriage,” he adds.Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

With Beijing preparing to seize Taiwan and Washington bleeding resources in Ukraine, Americans are asking the question no one in the Pentagon wants to answer: Is the U.S. military ready for World War III? The truth is worse than most people realize.We’re not even close.America deserves a military led by warriors, not bureaucrats. The time for excuses is over.Under the last three Democratic presidents, the armed forces have been systematically weakened. Bill Clinton lowered physical fitness standards to shoehorn women into combat roles. Barack Obama elevated Marxist generals who smuggled diversity, equity, and inclusion into the ranks under the banner of “modernization.” Joe Biden went further, purging the unvaccinated, fixating on gender ideology and climate change, and leaving supply chains dangerously dependent on foreign — often Chinese — manufacturers.The result is a hollowed-out military that struggles to meet recruitment goals, maintain readiness, or inspire confidence. War Secretary Pete Hegseth has begun the long process of repair — firing the worst woke officers, reinstating real fitness standards, and banning DEI.But the rot runs deeper. Unless we reform the institutions that produce our officers, we’ll fail at the most important mission of all: restoring the warrior spirit.Academies in declineAs a West Point graduate, I know the academies’ first duty is to forge warrior-leaders. Everything else is secondary. Yet West Point Superintendent Steven Gilland has traded that mission for racial quotas and “whiteness” seminars that divide cadets and undermine cohesion. The dean even tried to install Biden’s “disinformation czar” as “distinguished chair” of the Social Studies Department — until the Trump administration intervened.The rot extends across all five service academies. At the Merchant Marine Academy, former Superintendent Joanna Nunan persecuted Christians and promoted transgender ideology until Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy fired her in June.Civilian faculty have made matters worse. At the Air Force Academy alone, nearly 200 professors push progressive politics in uniform. One mocked her students as “White Boy 1, 2, 3.” Another championed critical race theory and insisted America was “racist from the beginning.” This isn’t military education. It’s Berkeley activism in uniform. And it’s driving away the next generation of patriots.The Marxist march through the ranksROTC programs, which produce most of the Army’s officers, have followed the same Marxist path. Cadets can now major in grievance studies at universities like Wisconsin-Madison, then enter the officer corps unprepared for actual war-fighting. That’s not how you beat China.Postgraduate institutions such as the Naval and Army War Colleges, Air University, and the National Defense University have become bureaucratic echo chambers for climate activism and social justice rhetoric. Their accrediting agencies enforce DEI mandates and even filed briefs opposing the Supreme Court’s ruling against race-based admissions. Civilian faculty dominate the classrooms, feeding officers a steady diet of leftist ideology and contempt for the commander in chief.RELATED: Memo to Hegseth: Our military’s problem isn’t only fitness. It’s bad education. Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty ImagesThis didn’t happen overnight. It’s the product of cultural Marxism’s “long march through the institutions,” a decades-long campaign to hollow out American strength from within. From boot camp to the War College, officers now absorb ideology instead of discipline. The price of that indoctrination will be paid in blood if war comes.Reclaiming the warrior ethosThe tide is beginning to turn. For the first time in decades, the left is on defense. President Trump has given the military a mandate to purge Marxism and restore its fighting spirit. Patriots across the country are watching — and acting.Through RestoreTheMilitary.com, we’ve outlined a blueprint to rebuild the force: Fire ideological officers, overhaul the National Defense Authorization Act, remove civilian faculty from service academies, ban DEI, reward war-fighters who risk their lives, and end our dependence on foreign supply chains.The message to Congress couldn’t be clearer: Do your duty — or step aside. America deserves a military led by warriors, not bureaucrats. The time for excuses is over.