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

A classic. The post The song St Vincent wishes she had written: “Such a good song” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Since Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) first arrived in Congress five years ago, she has been portrayed by the Washington press corps as a comic figure. They routinely mocked her for questioning mask mandates and accused her of spreading QAnon conspiracy theories. During recent weeks, after her falling out with President Trump over the fabled Epstein files, the oracles of the corporate “news” media have had an epiphany concerning Greene’s importance to the Republican Party. Particularly since her announcement last Friday that she will resign from the House effective January 5, they now regard her as a serious political figure whose departure spells doom for MAGA. Why did she select Jan. 5, 2026?…. “That’s two days after she crosses the five-year threshold required to qualify for a lifetime congressional pension … with generous health care benefits.” The New York Times portentously opined, “Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s sudden resignation underscored the fragility of the G.O.P. majority, and exposed deep discontent on the right going into the midterm elections.” Her announcement was delivered in an X post and was essentially a catalogue of grievances about the Republican Party. To support the claim that Greene’s resignation exposed “deep discontent” throughout the GOP, the Times went to malcontents like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) for quotes like this: “There’s more honesty expressed in these four pages than most politicians will speak in a lifetime.” The Washington Post also declared Greene’s departure as very bad news for the GOP. It’s the most significant sign yet that the MAGA coalition, centered around one uniquely charismatic man, is showing cracks … The MAGA crack-up is playing out on several fronts. The business community loves tax cuts but is horrified by Trump’s shakedowns. Farmers clamor for a bailout because they have fewer markets to sell their crops. It’s slowly dawning on unions that backed Trump because they wanted tariffs that raising taxes on imports hurts workers more than it helps. Some previously august conservative institutions are allowing radical voices to crowd out the center. Trump’s instinct-first, transactional foreign policy has left every faction skeptical. This caricature of the GOP coalition and Trump’s policies bears no more resemblance to the truth than anything else the Post has printed about either during the last ten years. The reality is that Greene’s abrupt resignation is a sign that President Trump remains in control of the Republican Party. Greene has always been something of an embarrassment to thoughtful Republicans — particularly those of us who reside in Georgia. As far back as 2021, she was already notorious for saying stupid things like the following: “Vaccinated employees get a vaccination logo just like the Nazi’s forced Jewish people to wear a gold star.” The mask mandates were indeed idiotic, but her Holocaust analogy was even dumber and horribly inappropriate. Nor is she a team player in the House Republican Conference. In March of 2024, she tried to oust House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) after he pushed through a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown during an election year. Her motion to vacate was tabled in a bipartisan vote. She pulled the same stunt two months later, after Johnson advanced a foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. That time she was able to force a floor vote on her motion to vacate, but it was defeated 359-43. Neither of these efforts to get rid of Johnson had a prayer of succeeding, but they did garner Greene friendly coverage on CNN. And her failure to oust Johnson still rankles, as this excerpt from her official statement reveals: During the longest shutdown in our nation’s history, I raged against my own Speaker and my own party for refusing to proactively work diligently to pass a plan to save American healthcare and protect Americans from outrageous overpriced and unaffordable health insurance policies. The House should have been in session working everyday to fix this disaster, but instead America was forced fed disgusting political drama once again from both sides of the aisle … With that has brought years of nonstop never ending personal attacks, death threats, lawfare, ridiculous slander and lies about me, that most people could never withstand even for a day. Greene desperately wants her constituents in Georgia’s 14th District, and the American public at large, to see her as one of the few principled members of the House, but that pose is undermined by the effective date of her resignation. Why did she select Jan. 5, 2026? Why not leave immediately? As the Washington Post points out, “That’s two days after she crosses the five-year threshold required to qualify for a lifetime congressional pension, which comes with generous health care benefits.” Maybe she’s not so different from the politicians she detests.” That means, despite her largely ineffectual time in the House and the ridiculous antics to which we have all been subjected, she will continue to slurp at the taxpayer trough. That’s the Marjorie Taylor Greene New Deal: Your money for nothing and her checks for free. READ MORE from David Catron: SCOTUS Must Stop Mail-In Voting Madness Virginia Wild Card: Turnout Among Black Voters Is John Fetterman Running For President?

It’s been a rough year for me, particularly regarding family. The death of my mom, whom I was caring for, and my kid brother struggling with Alzheimer’s hit me really hard. So has the fact that I’m not blessed with a family of my own. This Thanksgiving, I’m grateful for leaders making America great again, after decades of those diminishing it. I’d broken up with several loving marriageable girls — one way or another — in my life because I wanted to be Raymond Chandler, both in quality of fiction and success. I always thought the right reward and woman was just ahead. But to quote what Chandler wrote for Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) in Double Indemnity, “I didn’t get the money and I didn’t get the woman. Pretty, isn’t it?” Both prizes remain in sight, though children far more distant. And I wished to be a great father like our dad was to us. Yet despite my setbacks, I’m a very lucky guy with plenty to be grateful for this Thanksgiving, personally and culturally. Personally, I’m thankful for my physical and mental health — having watched my mother lose the first and my brother some of the second. And having seen too many good friends depart this Earth, I can still run a 10-minute mile, do 10 pullups, and, best of all, write. Okay, so I haven’t written my The Big Sleep or Strangers on a Train yet, but I’m working on it. I’m proud of my four well reviewed and received novels — Jake for Mayor, Paper Tigers, The Christmas Spirit, The Washington Trail. And to have a script, Operation Cowboy: The Assassination of John Wayne, being considered by one of the top film producers outside of Hollywood. Culturally, I’m thankful to be on the right side of history when nearly all my former LA mates unfriended me for it. They did this from their left-wing industry towers while hailing Obama and Biden and mocking the hounded, then banished, Donald Trump. Until the very forces they championed turned against them for not being black, queer, or female enough. Then, their reemergent enemy Trump cut several of their lifelines like Late Night with Stephen Colbert and The Savant. Now they’re out of work and I’m on the functional — if way too desolate — right track. Having exiled actual artists, the screen art itself turned to rot. Some outcasts who’d made Hollywood entertaining earlier this century, like James Woods and Patricia Heaton, have long blasted the fatal woke mind virus. The newest convert is Charlie Sheen, the star of the highest rated sitcom of the 21st Century, Two and a Half Men (2003-2011), back when TV could be funny and sexy despite feminist shrieking. On The Megyn Kelly Show last week, Sheen spoke of how he deprogrammed himself out of the Hollywood liberal bubble. “The things that I discovered and the things I started to really unearth, you know, it was not just one of those moments. it’s like months of these moments of ‘Oh my gosh!’ And I felt really stupid. I don’t have a fancier way to describe it … Just some of the stuff I bought into, some other stuff I was worshipping, and some people I hated — because they told me that I was supposed to hate them.” Sheen’s “they” could describe my former friends. I’d feel bad for them except for one thing. Their side is evil, violent, destructive, anti-American, and now seditious. The Republicans can be unproductive fools, squabbling over the likes of Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, Jeffrey Epstein, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and other inanities. But not a single one of them would even think of putting out a video urging soldiers to disobey orders from the Commander-In-Chief, as six Democrats did last week. “Our laws are clear,” emoted unctuous Arizona Senator Mark Kelly. “You can refuse illegal orders.” “You can refuse illegal orders,” echoed Congresswomen Chrissy Houlahan and Maggie Goodlander. “You must refuse illegal orders,” repeated all six Democrats. No servicemember has to be told by fat cat wretches to disobey illegal orders. Nor has any such order been given. The Democrats made this video for only one reason — to sow military discord against a President they hate. And in so doing, crossed a line into the realm of sedition. Righteously accused of this, the named Democrats fell back on their usual whimper, whining about death threats and misinterpretation. But because he can see danger most Republicans cannot, Trump sounded the alarm Saturday on Truth Social, bypassing the blithering diplomatic niceties of his predecessors: THE TRAITORS THAT TOLD THE MILITARY TO DISOBEY MY ORDERS SHOULD BE IN JAIL RIGHT NOW, NOT ROAMING THE FAKE NEWS NETWORKS TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT WHAT THEY SAID WAS OK. It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand — We won’t have a Country anymore!!! SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH! Speaking of Trump’s predecessors, one of his greatest yet most unsung feats in the 2016 election was wiping out both the Bush and Clinton political dynasties. A UK Daily Telegraph article last week suggested George W. Bush plans to retake control of the GOP after Trump’s term ends. “We will never let this happen,” declared Donald Trump Jr. on X. George H. Bush was a great hero in World War II, and the third worst President of my lifetime. I loathed the man even before I watched him end the Reagan Revolution in one speech at the 1988 Republican Convention, gushing, “I want a kinder and gentler nation.” “Kinder and gentler than who?” Nancy Reagan asked her husband at the time. George W. Bush was a step up, but he went downhill after his 9-12 megaphone moment, as did the nation. This Thanksgiving, I’m grateful for leaders making America great again, after decades of those diminishing it. READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: The Wreck of Feminist Hollywood A Gut Punch in the Culture Fight Goodbye, Doctor Woke Have yourselves a romantic little Christmas. Get your love interest my Yuletide romance fantasy novel, The Christmas Spirit. Available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or wherever fine books are still sold.

Last week two senators and four congressmen — all Democrats — sent out a video that said members of the U.S. military shouldn’t obey illegal orders. In the video they said that, “Threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.” There is no simple legal answer to the questions that arise from the boat strikes. They didn’t say what orders the military shouldn’t obey but the timing of the video suggests that it was aimed at the military who are carrying out President Trump’s strikes on boats in the Caribbean and off the Pacific coast of Columbia that were allegedly carrying drugs being transported to the U.S. Those strikes have, so far, interdicted about 21 boats and killed about 80 alleged drug runners. The question of legality of the boat strikes is very complicated and may not be answerable absent an explanation by the Trump administration. All military members are bound to obey legal orders under Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 92. Orders are presumed to be legal and only those orders that are “manifestly illegal” — such as orders to kill civilians, to falsify documents, and orders to otherwise commit crimes under the UCMJ — can be readily disobeyed. Military members can be punished for violating legal orders under Articles 92 (failing to obey an order) and Article 94 (sedition). So where do the orders to destroy the drug boats and kill those aboard fall? It’s entirely unclear. We have to remember that, under former president Obama there were drone strikes that killed people, even U.S. citizens. Adam Gadahn, a U.S. citizen who was a spokesman and media adviser to al-Qaida, was killed in January 2015. Several commentators objected to the killings, saying that U.S. citizens couldn’t be killed without due process. But Obama had a perfect justification to kill Gadahn. Gadahn was a member of al-Qaida and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, enacted in 2002 in response to the 9-11 attacks, authorized military force to kill al-Qaida members. It said, in part, that military action was authorized against any of those who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.” A second AUMF, enacted prior to the Iraq War in 2002, also authorized war against al-Qaida members believed to be in Iraq. Trump’s orders for the boat strikes were made after Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared several organizations to be “foreign terrorist organizations.” The State Department designations included the hyper-violent gang known as Tren de Aragua as well as several drug cartels. At this point, we have to analyze the concept of due process of law. Everyone in U.S. custody is entitled to due process. Except, apparently, some terrorists. Terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — who are men such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged planner of the 9-11 attacks and al-Qaida small fry — have been ruled by the Supreme Court to be entitled to writs of habeas corpus (attempting to be released). The ruling didn’t include an allowance of full due process. Some have been released under habeas corpus and many have not. KSM, for example, was captured in 2003 and has been awaiting trial for 22 years. (The evidence against KSM was reportedly gained through torture and is thus inadmissible. A plea deal for KSM to avoid the death penalty was held invalid and is on the way to the Supreme Court.) So due process is limited to terrorists in U.S. custody who are inside the U.S. It doesn’t apply to the drug boats and their crews. What is the legal justification for summary executions of alleged drug smugglers? Neither the president nor Secretary of State Rubio has said. Several top military lawyers, including a top lawyer for the Marine Corps, Col. Paul Meagher, reportedly warned against the boat strikes. The UK government also reportedly stopped sharing intelligence which could lead to the boat strikes. On September 2, Trump said that, “Earlier this morning, on my Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists.” But he didn’t, then or since, outline the legal justification for the boat strikes. We must have substantial intelligence information that the boats which were hit had drugs on them and that they were coming to the U.S. to off-load the drugs. But the public is ignorant of those facts. Although the boat strikes are popular among Americans, we don’t have any evidence supporting them. No boats have been seized and the people on them have been killed rather than arrested. The president could still go to congress and ask for another AUMF to authorize strikes against the drug boats and the facilities from which they are launched. He could, instead, arrest the boats and their crews and bring them back to the U.S. for trial. But he hasn’t. Trump has positioned our latest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, off Venezuela to threaten the Maduro government. He has also accused the president of Columbia, Gustavo Petro, of being an illegal drug dealer. Petro has, in turn, accused the Trump administration of killing civilians. The 1973 War Powers Resolution was passed over President Nixon’s veto. It is of questionable constitutionality because Article 2 both vests emergency power in the president and makes him commander in chief of the armed forces. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to seek congressional approval of any troop deployment within sixty days or cease the use of military forces. That period has expired in regard to the boat strikes and will soon expire on deployment of the USS Gerald Ford. The question of the deployment of Ford is dependent on whether Trump orders attacks on Venezuela. There is no simple legal answer to the questions that arise from the boat strikes or to Trump’s positioning a carrier (and, presumably, its entire battle group) off Venezuela. Are they legal? If so, where is the legality found? Trump needs to answer those questions before he takes any further actions in regard to the drug boats or Venezuela or Columbia. READ MORE from Jed Babbin: William F. Buckley, Jr. and Tucker Carlson Happy Birthday, Marines The Ignoble, Ignorable UN        

Christians are not like Muslims. They have no record of acting for persecuted flock. They’ll pray, perhaps. But picket embassies, occupy piazzas, marshal the media into battle, take the UN by storm: never. Instead he prayed. Lord, he prayed hard. And then implored Christians the world over to pray. Turn the other cheek and seek forgiveness for your killers. The stoicism has begun to look like timidity. Reporting on violence against Christian minorities avoids the active case and favors the passive.  Some bodiless ghoul, inexplicably did the killing. Blame-shifting and resort to euphemism are the rule.  The following AI overview is typical. The examples are underscored. Iraqi Christians have faced a severe decline in their population due to persecution, particularly from extremist groups like ISIS, as well as increased sectarian violence, displacement, and economic hardship since the 2003 invasion. The Christian community has been reduced from over 1.4 million in 2003 to an estimated 150,000–250,000 today. After the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, violence including bombings, abductions, and killings surged. Testimony is censored as a matter of principle. For example: “When Christians take the risk of reaching out to local authorities, police sometimes rebuke them with, ‘you should not be in Iraq because it is Muslim territory.'” Or, “The government passed a law forcing Christian and other non-Muslim children to become Muslim.” Or, “Government school curricula present indigenous Christians as unwanted ‘foreigners,’ although Iraq was Christian land centuries before Muslims conquered it in the seventh century.” Or, “There’s almost nothing about Christians in our history books.” Or, “If Christian pupils in school say they believe in Jesus, they face beatings and scorn from teachers.” Or, “If he is Christian he has three choices: either convert to Islam or, if he refuses and wishes to remain Christian, then pay the jizya. But if they still refuse, then we fight them, and we abduct their women, and destroy their churches — this is Islam! … This is the word of Allah!” Tucker Carlson, a proudly aggressive Christian when he climbs into Israel and the “hummus eaters” who killed Christ, turned up his face at his MAGA President’s impulsive threat, headlined “Trump threatens to go into Nigeria ‘guns-a-blazing’ if slaughter of Christians doesn’t stop.”  He belittled Senator Ted Cruz for simplifying the murderous chaos in Africa’s largest Christian country. The cause, said Carlson, was probably more tribal than religion. More tribal? ISIS crucified his beloved brethren! “It’s tough to tell Nigerian Christians this isn’t a religious conflict since what they see are Fulani fighters clad entirely in black chanting ‘Allahu Akbar!’ and screaming ‘Death to Christians,” said Sister Monica Chikwe, who could have been thinking of Tucker Carlson, or Reuters for that matter. Open Doors USA lists countries that are bad news for Christians. Nigeria, home to some 107 million of that faith, is the 7th worst country on earth to be a Christian entreating God for peace and longevity. That prayer is unlikely to be answered if you live in Nigeria, where “very high or extreme levels of persecution” prevail. To hell with report stylistics — “persecution” too frequently ends in maiming or murder. And always Muslims do the maiming and murder while mostly Christians succumb to them. Since 2009 Nigeria’s Boko Haram Jihad group has murdered 125,000 Christians and destroyed 19,000 churches. The International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law discloses that Nigeria head-quarters and gives safe haven to no fewer than 22 Islamic terror groups seeking to obliterate or wipe out an estimated 112 million Christians and 13 million indigenous tribes people. The groups intend to obliterate Nigeria’s ethnic minorities which include the Igbo people whose record dates to 1450 B.C. Nigeria is but a microcosm of the global picture. No faith is more threatened than Christianity. Historian Tom Holland predicts its total extinction in the Middle East. He might equally have warned about the Indian sub-continent. In Lahore Easter celebrants in a play park were blasted to kingdom come. “Everyone is ignoring the growing danger to Christians in Muslim countries,” bewailed Bishop Mano Rumalshah of Peshawar. “European countries don’t give a damn about us.” Not quite. The disgraced head of the Anglican Church gave a damn. Though his words brought cold comfort to the bereaved and afflicted, they underscored cowardice and PC. Here’s what Archbishop Justin Welby had to say after paying his respects to the mass graves of latter day martyrs in Iraq. I have no illusions about this. But historically the right response of Christians to persecution and attack is — it’s the hardest thing we can ever say to people, but Jesus tells us to love our enemies. It’s the hardest thing when you’re violently attacked. It’s an indescribable challenge. But God gives grace so often for that — to love our enemies. And Pope Leo? He uttered hardly a peep. Instead he prayed. Lord, he prayed hard. And then implored Christians the world over to pray. Turn the other cheek and seek forgiveness for your killers. The previous Pope Francis was even more misguided. “I think of Gaza, of so much cruelty. I think of the children being machine-gunned, of the bombings of schools and hospitals. What cruelty!” The Pontiff coaxed a kangaroo court to waste no time and pronounce a guilty verdict on Israel. The Jews, a mere two generations after the Holocaust, had committed genocide. The only Woke Pope in 2,000 years could have settled the case for himself by demanding “discovery” papers, to use attorney lingo. He’d only to Google, “Plight of Christianity,” zoom onto the Middle East and click on, The Last Supper: The Plight of Christians in Arab Lands.  His Holiness directed “genocide” at the wrong actor, and wasted his time. All he had to do was consult normally anti-Zionist Wikipedia. Gallingly he would have discovered that, “Christians are on the verge of extinction in the Middle East,” though not in Israel, where the Christian population grew by 2 percent in 2022 and 0.6 percent in 2023.  The papal gut — and Carlson’s — would  have rebelled at this prickly sample of truth. Is the Muslim-shyness of Christian clerics and big podcasters like Tucker Carlson driven by self-preservation or by antisemitism? Definitely to save face for Muslims one can’t avoid hanging Christians out to dry. For now put aside popes and such while they console their flocks with prayer, to ask a  simple question. When last did a Jew kill a Christian for being one? Has a single Christian been converted to Judaism under pain of death? Yet churchmen aim their missiles where? The Rev David Kim, head of the World Evangelical Alliance, takes aim at the “impossible people.” “How to Deal with the Impossible People — A Biblical Perspective,” was the title of Kim’s paper at a Bethlehem conference. Ha — Muslims are pulling up two thousand years of Christian roots, you’d think. Think again. A banner in the hall elaborated. It had a church and a cross imposed over a menacing part of Israel’s “wall” against terror. Kim’s paper was about how to deal with Jews. Now that’s odd. In that one slick of land in a vast Christian graveyard, Christianity prospers mightily. In 1949 Israel had 34,000 people of that faith. Today they number some 180,000.  In this awkward Christian haven, freedom to practice religion is guaranteed. Access to holy sites has the force of law. And what draws more tourists than Holy Land tourism? Tiberius and Nazareth and Jerusalem practically live off pilgrim tours. Under the “impossible people” Christianity is alive and well. Men of the cloth, praying with Godly grace for your murderous enemy have you no love leftover for a friend? Only heed your imperiled flock, in “Palestine” and Nigeria, and save some Christian love for them. Can clerics square the circle of attacking Jews while having no time for Christendom exploding on their doorstep? Yes they can, by leaning back to a St. Augustine doctrine and forward to a modern trio. Put together, the modern doctrines do not measure up to St. Augustine’s. Actually they are more blind faith than doctrine, which is not to say they are treated less reverently than the Gospels. One doctrine is called Human Rights. A second doctrine goes by the trendy name, “Multiculturalism,” and the third and most inventive, turns Jesus into a Palestinian. READ MORE from Steve Apfel: Trump Puts the Squeeze on Antisemites. Don’t Let S. Africa Slide. Will the Crazies of Gaza Beat Swords Into Ploughshares? The Day Arafat Invented the Palestinians Steve Apfel is the author of several works and a contributor to a booklet on why and how some Christian denominations and clerics attack Israel the friend while protecting Islamists the enemy.  

Jeffrey Stevens is an aspiring theologian. He means well. He writes with the earnestness of a man convinced he’s warning America about a great spiritual danger. But his entire argument begins with a faulty premise: that Christian nationalism is some rogue ideology disconnected from Scripture, history, or common sense. In reality, it’s nothing more than the natural expression of Christian belief in public life. Stevens asks nothing of Islam. Not a word about its political aims, its legal demands, or its cultural self-assertion. “Christian nationalism” is just the latest label for something the Church once took for granted: the belief that a Christian people should shape a Christian culture. Before the critics start shrieking, convulsing, or calling for an exorcism, let me be clear. The Christian nationalism I’m talking about has nothing to do with violence, tribal rage, or the cartoon caricatures the activist class trots out on social media. It’s simply the recognition that American identity, in its traditional and authentic sense, is inseparable from Christianity. A nation reflects its roots. A culture mirrors its creed. Christian nationalism, properly understood, is the cultural expression of Christian belief. Not a call to smash windows or reenact Old Testament battles, no matter how much the professional handwringers wish it were. Stevens builds his case on the idea that Christian nationalism “is not a religion.” But no serious believer ever said it was. It isn’t meant to replace Christianity. It flows from it. The same way courage flows from faith, charity flows from grace, and — as Church history shows — social order flows from belief. Faith always spills into public life; the only question is whether it shapes society in healthy or harmful ways. Remove Christianity from the public square and you don’t get neutrality. Quite the opposite, in fact. You get the vacuum we see today. One shaped by power, money, identity politics, and a rising Islamic influence filling the space where Christian confidence collapses. That’s the real story here, and Stevens never touches it. He also insists that because 1 Peter 2:17 wasn’t written to Americans in 2025, it can’t support any civic vision today. This is biblical interpretation by way of bureaucracy: if the letter didn’t include your ZIP code, it must not apply. Christians have never thought this way. Scripture does not become irrelevant because Peter didn’t sign it “Sent from my iPhone.” His audience spans the centuries because Christ’s claims span the world. The Church didn’t plant monasteries, missions, and universities across continents by pretending Scripture expired with Nero. More importantly, Stevens treats the Great Commission as if it were a polite request to keep Christianity down to a whisper, just in case someone at the Department of Something takes offense. But the early Church didn’t hide. It evangelized nations, shaped laws, established moral norms, and built a civilizational conscience. Our ancestors weren’t ashamed of public faith; they knew a people’s beliefs always form their culture. The real innovation is the modern idea that public life should be scrubbed free of Christianity, as if secularism were somehow holier, cleaner, or more neutral. It isn’t. It simply substitutes Christian order with whatever ideology shouts loudest. And in America today, the loudest voices belong to movements openly hostile to the Church. Stevens never mentions the reality unfolding around us. Mosques grow as churches empty. Imams speak with certainty, even open hostility, while Christian clergy apologize for daring to sound sure of anything. Young men and women who once found purpose in Christianity now gravitate toward substitutes that promise meaning but rarely deliver it. Stevens also argues that Christian nationalism is dangerous because it dares to prioritize the well-being of one’s own citizens. Yet Scripture is filled with the language of covenant people, shared identity, and communal responsibility. Loving your neighbor doesn’t mean abandoning your household. St. Paul says plainly: “If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Nations are simply households at scale. Taking care of your own doesn’t prevent you from serving others. Charity expands outward; it doesn’t evaporate inward. His insistence that “Jesus came to build a church, not a government” sounds pious, but it ignores the obvious: governments always exist, and Christians always live under them. The question is whether believers will shape the character of their nation or surrender it to secular elites who think faith is fine — as long as it stays behind closed doors. Stevens claims that Christian nationalism puts American interests above all others. But most Christian nationalists aren’t preaching empire; they’re asking for a country where Christian values can survive. They’re responding to a time of nosediving faith, falling birth rates, broken families, and a cultural landscape increasingly hostile to Christianity itself. When the Church is pushed to the margins, Christians naturally begin to defend the ground beneath their feet. Call it patriotism. Call it stewardship. Call it Christian nationalism if you want. But don’t pretend it’s something alien to the faith. He dismisses border security, legal order, and national cohesion as un-Christian, as if Christ’s command to “love thy neighbor” means throwing open the gates and dissolving the nation. But love without boundaries isn’t love. In truth, it’s closer to self-harm — like giving your house keys to a burglar because you “believe in people,” or lending your car to someone who specializes in reversing into lampposts.  Charity requires order. Hospitality requires a home that hasn’t fallen into chaos. And prudence — an actual Christian virtue — requires protecting the vulnerable from systems that encourage trafficking, exploitation, and lawlessness. There’s nothing Christlike about policies that reward criminal cartels while leaving families unsafe. Stevens asks nothing of Islam. Not a word about its political aims, its legal demands, or its cultural self-assertion. He critiques Christians for being too public with their faith while saying nothing about a religion that openly seeks influence in every sphere of life. If Christians behaved with even half the confidence of American Muslim leaders, Stevens would probably write a sequel. Christian nationalism isn’t a threat to America. A faithless America is a threat to itself. A nation that loses its Christian roots will not float gently into secular harmony. It will drift toward whatever force fills the void. Today, that force is a mix of aggressive anti-Christian ideologies and a rising Islamic presence more united, more disciplined, and far more willing to shape the culture than we are. Christian nationalism is not the problem. It is, I contend, a reminder of what many of us seem to have forgotten. A reminder that Christianity built this country. That faith shaped its laws, its people, and its philosophies. And now, in an age of decline, Christians must decide whether public faith is something to retreat from, or something to defend before it disappears entirely. READ MORE from John Mac Ghlionn: The Slow Suffocation of Christian America God in the Age of Pronouns: Father, Mother, or Neither? Imagining a Post-Trump America Where Populism Magically Disappears

Government shutdowns carry with them many risks, both political and physical. One major risk comes from the air travel industry when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does not have funding and air traffic controllers don’t show up for work. There needs to be accountability for federal workers, especially those who hold people’s lives and livelihoods in their hands. Don’t get me wrong: being an air traffic controller is one of the most stressful jobs on the planet and one mistake can cost hundreds of lives. Still, I am of two minds: as a person, I can see why someone would opt not to show up to work if they are not getting paid, even if back pay is involved. However, when air travel continues through a government shutdown, air traffic controllers have a duty to show up to work and ensure their fellow citizens get to their destinations safely, even when it’s inconvenient. President Trump recently called on air traffic controllers to return to their jobs immediately or face pay repercussions while giving a $10,000 bonus to their colleagues who came into work regardless of the shutdown. This follows basic business principals and is a great move by the president. By docking pay for air traffic controllers who didn’t show up to work and giving bonuses to those who did, President Trump is sending a clear message that failing to do one’s critical job amid a shutdown will not fly. Now, of course President Trump’s demand did not come without criticism. Biden Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Pete Buttigieg came out of the woodwork to go after the president for his move, claiming that President Trump “wouldn’t last five minutes as an air traffic controller.” To give grace to both President Trump and former Secretary Buttigieg: they both have long resumes of stressful jobs. President Trump’s experience as a leader in the business world and former Secretary Buttigieg’s service as a Naval intelligence officer both offer their own stressors, but neither of them would be a good fit as an air traffic controller. Still, only one of the two — Buttigieg — has directly interfaced with air traffic controllers in his governmental role, and his record is horrendous. Per his successor Secretary Sean Duffy, former Secretary Buttigieg oversaw 85 near misses over the Potomac before the tragic crash over the Washington-Reagan National Airport in D.C. earlier this year. And that’s just D.C. Under former Secretary Buttigieg’s watch, there were 10 fatal plane crashes, seven serious non-fatal crashes, and seven crashes resulting in minor injuries in the first month of the Biden administration. In the same time period under the second Trump administration there were five fatal crashes and two with minor injuries while the first Trump administration saw 11 fatal crashes. Still, regardless of what the actual data says, there are plenty of current and former officials who will peddle objective lies to score political points and attempt to shift blame away from their own actions. For example, instead of working to address the system that could have seen hundreds of lives lost under his leadership, former Secretary Buttigieg chose to focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and other progressive causes. This was not lost on DOT employees, with a former air traffic controller calling out the former secretary over his record while she was at the department. Secretary Duffy rightly pointed out that FAA training standards were lowered on Buttigieg’s watch and the current leadership of the Transportation Department is having to clean up the mess. Now, I am aware that my job is incredibly different from that of an air traffic controller and does not carry as much (if any) life-or-death risks. However, many people in other professions that do share these risks, such as medical professionals and law enforcement officers, show up to work regardless of pay or not. They understand that there is a societal greater good that needs to be addressed regardless of any given situation and act accordingly. There needs to be accountability for federal workers, especially those who hold people’s lives and livelihoods in their hands. Now is not the time for lies and half-truths to advance a political agenda, nor is it the time to shirk one’s work as a public servant. To be a public servant means to serve, even when it’s inconvenient to your wallet. Anything less than that level of commitment should not be anywhere near critical jobs like being an air traffic controller. READ MORE from Houston Keene: Laid Off State Department Employees No Longer Have to Hide Their Resistance The Rise Up Legal Defense Network Is About Obstruction, Not Justice Houston Keene joined Democracy Restored after a career working in Congress and as a nationally syndicated journalist covering politics, including the executive branch and government ethics. Houston was born in Austin, Texas, and is a proud father, husband, and Baylor Bear.

Michael Knowles’ most recent podcast episode, Marjorie Taylor Greene Joins the Resistance, breaks down the sudden feud between the Congresswoman and Donald Trump as something that goes deeper than headlines about “RINOs,” CNN appearances, or MAGA drama. To Knowles, this moment isn’t about policy disagreements at all. It’s about something far older and far more fundamental: politics is about people forming coalitions — deciding who is in, who is out, and who can be trusted when the stakes are highest. The Trump–MTG feud is not about Epstein files, “kindness,” or tariffs. It’s about protecting coalition integrity. The catalyst was bizarre enough. MTG — long considered one of Trump’s fiercest loyalists — appeared on CNN delivering what amounted to a political confession, apologizing for “toxic rhetoric” and insisting America needs “kindness.” For the populist firebrand who built her brand on fighting the Left, the pivot was stunning. It became even more explosive when Trump responded by breaking out the R-card and labeling her a “RINO.” Knowles argues that the real story is not the apology, not the rhetoric, and not the optics — it’s the unmistakable sign of a coalition cracking. Knowles insists that politics, in its practical, day-to-day reality, is not primarily about ideas or ideology. Yes, ideas matter, and ideology matters. But in real political life, power is gained by teams of people working together, ideally to serve the common good, and in dysfunctional systems, to serve themselves. A successful movement depends on maintaining a coherent coalition — one that knows who belongs under the tent and who can be relied upon when everything is on the line. To illustrate this, Knowles points to Liz Cheney. Cheney voted with Trump and House Republicans on over 90 percent of policy issues — “probably more,” he says. But when it came to the vote that actually mattered, the vote that determined narrative power and political legitimacy — the January 6th committee — Cheney sided with Democrats. In Knowles’ framing, that vote revealed her true allegiance. All the “correct” policy votes in the world cannot outweigh the single decisive moment where a politician chooses the other coalition. That is the standard by which he judges political loyalty. Knowles now sees something similar happening with MTG. For years, she wasn’t just part of the MAGA coalition — she was one of its loudest champions. But recently, she has been needling Trump. Trump finally hit back. And just like that, Knowles says, they appear to be on different teams. Her CNN apology and use of left-wing rhetorical tropes were not evidence of personal growth in his eyes — they were signals of a potential coalitional shift, a Liz Cheney-style wobble away from the movement she once energized. This is where Knowles brings in Charlie Kirk. Kirk, he argues, understood political coalitions better than almost anyone. His unique talent was holding factions together, knowing whom to include, whom to exclude, and how to manage internal rivalries without letting them fracture the mission. Kirk recognized that without a coalition, no idea — no matter how principled — can ever become law. That’s the heart of Knowles’ analysis: The Trump–MTG feud is not about Epstein files, “kindness,” or tariffs. It’s about protecting coalition integrity. When movements turn inward, they rot. When they fracture, they lose power. And when they lose power, the country loses direction. The question ahead, Knowles suggests, is simple and ominous: Is Marjorie Taylor Greene merely wobbling — or switching teams? In politics, that distinction determines everything. READ MORE from Tyler Rowley: How Thomas Sowell Changed Coleman Hughes’s Mind About Human Nature The Right’s Nick Fuentes Problem — and Tucker Carlson’s Role in Mainstreaming It Tyler Rowley is a Catholic author and founder of Right Mic, a newsletter that curates the most recent and relevant conservative podcasts.

Some complain that “Orwellian” has become the most overused phrase in current political discourse, but I beg to disagree. Although George Orwell succumbed to tuberculosis — and perhaps political despair — at the age of 46, some 75 years ago, his characterizations of our political condition have never been more apposite — and more chilling. In a world in which violent fascists cloak themselves in the name Antifa, one can readily picture the pigs in Animal Farm, indistinguishable in the end from human tyrants. In a world in which the murders and rapes of October 7 are celebrated on American university campuses, or when young New York voters reject the memory of 9/11 to elect as mayor a radical Islamist, we see inversions of truth and decency that Orwell predicted throughout his mature work, most notably in 1984. (RELATED: Comrade With a Condo: The Mamdani Myth Exposed) “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.” “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.” Not far removed, then, from “women’s reproductive health” or “gender-affirming care,” to take only a handful from among dozens of contemporary leftist deceits. It’s not hard to imagine what Orwell would have made of Mamdani, AOC, and the so-called “Democratic” Socialists of America, and easier still to picture the contempt he would have had for the Schumers and Sanders and Newsoms. One suspects that Orwell might not have much cared for Trump, but he would have clearly seen through the humbuggery of the Democrats. (RELATED: The Mamdani Model: More Socialist Mayors to Come) None of Orwell’s insights, however, are as relevant to our present political moment as his construct, in 1984, of the “Two Minutes Hate.” In the novel’s dystopian universe, the citizens of Oceania are subjected on a daily basis to terrifying images of the countries enemies, transmitted into every home, office, and public place through “telescreens,” devices that combine the function of televisions with that of electronic surveillance devices, a disturbing anticipation of today’s various technologies (the extent to which our various monitors have become monitoring devices must be a subject for another essay). Central to this image bombardment is the figure of Goldstein, understood by all to be the traitorous figure behind every assault on every citizen’s well-being. In Goldstein, Orwell evokes not only the antisemitism of Hitler and the Nazis, but also that of Stalin’s regime in Soviet Russia. Still, the figures portrayed in the “Two-Minute Hate” go far beyond anti-Jewish tropes, embracing, from one day to the next, everything likely to stir fear and anger among the “everyman” audience. As Orwell describes it, the hate becomes irresistible, all-consuming, beyond immunity. As Orwell described it, “The horrible thing about the ‘Two-Minute Hate’ was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds, any pretense was unnecessary.” The hatred burned throughout the day, and then was stoked anew in the next day’s session, reinforced by “Hate Week,” when the whole nation took time off to participate in an unrelenting orgy of hatred directed at the regime’s enemies. The parallels with our present moment are insistent and, frankly, terrifying. The progressive regime that reached its apotheosis during the Obama years brought every international power center together: government, big business, the educational system, journalism, and the entertainment media. From Silicon Valley to Disney World, from Harvard to every HR department, in both the U.S. and the EU, the shared values of a globalist elite became dominant, and, worse, informed a drumbeat of cultural messaging reaching into every corner of society. Unsurprisingly, the messaging had its effect. You were either one of the “cool kids” or one of the deplorables. And while “cool kids” certainly encompassed huge swathes of the younger generations, it also captured an older crowd, most recently evident in the white-haired, blue-rinsed ranks of the “No-Kings” demonstrators. (RELATED: The Ridiculous No Kings Protest) As is always the case, hate must have a target, a face, and a name, something that Orwell understood with the character of Goldstein. And since 2016, that target has been Donald Trump. In the run-up to the 2016 election, the establishment tended to treat Trump with amused contempt, unwilling, indeed unable, to take him seriously. Then came election night, and the first glimmerings of an unimaginable catastrophe, reflected beautifully in the horror-struck faces of James Carville and legions of Democrat pundits as the election returns poured in. Momentarily stunned, the establishment soon reacted with vengeance, attempting to bury Trump under a cascade of calumnies. With the Biden victory in 2020, the powers that be breathed a sigh of relief, although the habit of Trump hatred never died. But Trump’s comeback in 2024 caused nothing less than a complete meltdown, a level of virulence rarely, if ever, seen in American politics. In Virginia, in spite of the occasional nod toward policy differences, the Democrats campaigned almost exclusively against Trump rather than the actual Republicans on the ballot. I live in Virginia and followed our recent state elections closely. In Virginia, in spite of the occasional nod toward policy differences, the Democrats campaigned almost exclusively against Trump rather than the actual Republicans on the ballot. Our small town in northern Virginia is almost equally divided between Republican and Democrat, with a slight edge to the former, but the signs — literally, the yard signs — told a story of Trump derangement. In one front yard, two adjacent signs stood out. One, a long-standing “hate has no home here” message, the other a campaign sign for the egregious Jay Jones, candidate for the chief law enforcement position in the state, and revealed in a series of e-mails to be capable of the vilest murderous fantasies. But as the yard signs suggested, and as the exit polling made clear, hatred for Trump brought Democrat success. One could spend hours and thousands of words exploring all the ways that the “progressive” establishment hates Donald Trump, but, more importantly, and regardless of any particular issues, the fact is that these people have a deep emotional need to hate Donald Trump. For years now, they‘ve been subjected by the media to the “Two Minutes Hate,” so much so that their hatred has become an unslakable thirst. Be it fantasies about the contents of the Epstein files, assumptions that the new White House ballroom trashes a national treasure, wants war with Venezuela, and has been bought by Qatari potentates, the craving for calumny expands by the day, fulfilling a need more pathological than rational. We’ve moved beyond policy differences, moved beyond even the ordinary “my team versus your team” flow of traditional politics. The daily dose of Trump hatred, whether fed by The View or any of a hundred other outlets, has become a kind of existential entertainment, providing emotional sustenance to what one suspects are some very empty lives. And it’s no wonder that, at the outermost extremes of this hatred, potential assassins lurk. The one thing that’s lacking is the final element in Orwell’s dark vision. At the conclusion of every “Two Minutes Hate,” as hatred for Goldstein climbed to its daily orgiastic peak, the hateful images dissolved into the benevolent smiling face of the all-knowing and all-loving “Big Brother.” Our current usage mistakes Orwell’s intent when it focuses on the fear-inducing “Big Brother is watching you.” At the end of every “Two Minutes Hate,” at the end of “Hate Week,” and at the end of protagonist Winston Smith’s journey through the narrative of 1984, the climax is not hatred for Goldstein, but rather a passionate declaration of love for “Big Brother.” The whole meaning of Democrat Party politics at this point can be summarized in its all-purpose and all-consuming hatred for Trump — and in its thus far fruitless search for someone capable of becoming “Big Brother,” even “Big Sister.” Hatred, after all, needs catharsis, and a personalized hatred can only be transformed through a personalized passionate admiration. The scary part of the next several years is that once the empty suits or dresses have been discarded, the Newsoms or the AOCs, someone will emerge who can win hearts as well as votes. Republicans can find candidates to successfully oppose the typical Democrat politician, but we should fear the emergence of a candidate who inspires passion. READ MORE from James H. McGee: Defending Nigeria’s Christians from Islamist Genocide Simple Decency Is on the Ballot in Virginia Remembering the True Victims of Injustice: Iryna, Logan, the Oltons James H. McGee retired in 2018 after nearly four decades as a national security and counter-terrorism professional, working primarily in the nuclear security field. Since retiring, he’s begun a second career as a thriller writer. He’s just published his new novel, The Zebras from Minsk, the sequel to his well-received 2022 thriller, Letter of Reprisal. The Zebras from Minsk find the Reprisal Team fighting against an alliance of Chinese and Russian-backed terrorists, brutal child traffickers, and a corrupt anti-American billionaire, racing against time to take down a conspiracy that ranges from the hills of West Virginia to the forests of Belarus. You can find The Zebras from Minsk (and Letter of Reprisal) on Amazon in Kindle and paperback editions.