The current demonstrations on college campuses against Israel remind some of the unrest on college campuses during the 1960s.  But the comparison is not a good one.   The unrest of the 1960s was defined by the war in Vietnam and by the Civil Rights Movement. Both had practical, personal impact on young Americans in their own country.  American soldiers were fighting and dying in Vietnam. There was real, life-and-death impact on all Americans, and certainly on young Americans.  The military draft was still operative then. Despite various deferments, including for university attendance, the draft was still a reality and was a looming presence for all college-age Americans. They knew they could be drafted and had friends and friends of friends who were.  The official number of American soldiers killed in Vietnam stands at 58,220.   Although there were legitimate moral concerns about American involvement in this war, the moral concerns were accompanied by young Americans having real skin in this game.  The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s also had real personal moral impact on all Americans. And youth are always highly sensitive to the moral failings around them.  The reality of segregation and Jim Crow started getting national attention with the Civil Rights Movement, the activism of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and other, sometimes violent groups.   In contrast to the woke activism of today, which is totally political in character, the movement was led by a charismatic and articulate black pastor and had a religious, moral tone rooted in the Christian church.  Anyone that questions this should read, or reread, King’s “I Have a Dream” speech from 1963.  But King’s moral appeal was to an America very different than today.  In 1965, per Gallup, 70% of Americans said religion was personally “very important” to them. In 2023, by contrast, only 45% of Americans say religion is “very important.”  In 1962, per Gallup, 46% of Americans said they attended religious services over the last seven days. In 2023, this was down to 32%.  During this period there were two major wars involving Israel and the surrounding Arab states.   In 1967, Israel prevailed in the Six-Day War, which began with preemptive action by Israel against the Egyptian army mobilized for attack, and subsequent aggression by Syria in the North and Jordan in the East. In 1973, Israel again prevailed against attacks on these same fronts.  In 1967, per Gallup, 45% of Americans supported Israel against 4% who supported the Arab states, with 26% with no opinion. In 1973, 48% of Americans expressed support for Israel versus 6% expressing support for the Arab states and 24% with no opinion.  Support for Israel among Americans during this period was one-sided and clear.  But, again, America today is very, very different.   Our young people in the 1960s understood what personal responsibility is about.  On a national level, in the 1960s, all young Americans faced the reality of military conscription. Today, regarding national obligation and service, there are virtually no demands on our youth.   Now President Joe Biden is even erasing their student loan obligations.  On a religious, moral level, religion then had a much stronger hold on the nation. Religion teaches and inspires a culture where individuals have a sense they belong to and have obligation to something beyond their own egotistical inclinations.   Nature abhors a vacuum, and as religion has weakened and disappeared from our culture, it has been replaced by politics and the welfare state.  The end of it all is we now have a generation of youth insulated from all sense of national and religious and moral personal responsibility.  So now they demonstrate in support of terrorists and against the only free country in the Middle East that shares the very values that made our own country great.  COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM  The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.  The post What’s Different From 1960s About Today’s Student Demonstrations appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A West Virginia judge granted a preliminary injunction allowing several middle school girls to compete after the school district banned them from competition after refusing to play against a biological male, according to 12 WBOY, a local media outlet. Five middle school female athletes forfeited their positions at a track meet in April after they were informed that they would have to compete against a biological male, prompting the school district to allegedly bar the girls from future competitions, according to WDTV News. The students sued and Republican Attorney General Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia filed an amicus brief in support of the students. A Harrison County judge ordered that the school’s decision be temporarily halted while the lawsuit plays out, according to 12 WBOY. “I want to say to these students and their parents: I have your backs,” Morrisey said in a press release. “You saw unfairness and you expressed your disappointment and sacrificed your personal performances in a sport that you love; exercised your constitutionally protected freedom of speech and expression.” BREAKING: The WV AG issued the a statement after a judge on Thursday heard a case involving the female middle school students who protested a recent appeals court ruling against West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act.READ MORE: https://t.co/nPQMelHXDc pic.twitter.com/Mqj9DLyylk— WV Attorney General (@WestVirginiaAG) May 2, 2024 The Harrison County Board of Education argued during the injunction hearing Thursday that it had not targeted the female students but that the district’s rules dictate that athletes who voluntarily remove themselves from a meet will also have to skip the following competition, according to 12 WBOY News. The board reiterated this in a statement following the judge’s decision. “The students were permitted to engage in their selected form of protest without issue,” the board said in a statement, according to a press release. “In fact, the coaches and principal were aware of the likelihood of the protests and permitted the students to remain on the roster for their events. Those students, like all of the other students on the team, however, were subject to a team rule that any player who scratches in an event cannot participate in that event at the next track meet. This neutral, school-specific rule was in place before the students’ protests and has nothing to do with those protests in any way.” Two of the students claimed, however, that they had never been made aware of the rule and that they had been made to do additional drills at the following practice as punishment, according to 12 WBOY News. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post Judge Blocks Suspensions of Middle School Female Athletes Who Refused to Compete Against Male Student appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Americans are watching as hordes of anti-American and anti-Israel activists have seized public spaces, occupied university buildings, denied access to reporters, and clashed with police and counterprotesters (all while demanding free food). Reporter grills Columbia student after she demands the university help feed protestors occupying Hamilton Hall:"It seems like you're saying, 'we want to be revolutionaries, we want to take over this building, now would you please bring us some food'." pic.twitter.com/vNczSAM4T1— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) April 30, 2024 The latest wave of often anti-Western and antisemitic protests is more intense than the initial wave of activity during the fall in part because warm spring weather attracts bored students looking for excitement. However, the root cause is the culture of leftist radicalism that grips educational institutions across the country. It’s vital for taxpayers to know that the federal government feeds that radicalism with billions of dollars in direct and indirect subsidies every year, much of which is wrongly labeled as promoting “science.” But it doesn’t have to be that way. Led by Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA., House Republicans are shining a spotlight on wayward universities, including with hearings and investigations by several committees. House Science Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., noted that the National Science Foundation provides significant financial support for research activity. Federal rules require that schools receiving research grants must protect students from harassment and intimidation, such as what is being done today by masked ideological mobs. "It's time we review whether universities that allow the harassment, assault, or intimidation of their Jewish students are in compliance with their federal obligations. We'll be looking to conduct oversight on this issue very soon." – @housescience Chairman @RepFrankLucas. pic.twitter.com/LMDqtP3WnW— House Republicans (@HouseGOP) April 30, 2024 The scale of federal grants for scientific research is enormous—tens of billions of dollars per year. In addition, schools receive massive and excessive add-ons for “indirect” (overhead) costs. Coupled with federally supported student loans that inflate tuition prices, colleges and universities have a taxpayer-funded financial cushion. This enables schools to hire legions of diversity bureaucrats and host academically dubious race- and gender-studies departments whose central purpose is indoctrinating students in support of radical ideologies. Federal funding provides more than mere passive support to leftism. Agencies such as the National Science Foundation readily approve grants that openly seek to inject critical theory and similar far-left concepts into a variety of subjects. The goal is to bend academic disciplines to the whims of grievance-based identity politics. Examples include: A $343,000 grant to Colorado State University for “multiculturally inclusive” chemistry based on a fact-free claim that racial minorities are “excluded” from chemistry. A $1.5 million grant to the University of South Florida to combat “anti-black racism” in engineering, based on the assumption that teaching must adhere to extreme “anti-racist” ideology to avoid being racist. A $299,000 grant to the American Geophysical Union to train scientists to be “justice-centered.” This training calls for scientists to water down their work by embracing “other ways of knowing.” A $250,000 grant to Occidental College for teaching children that difficulty they have learning science and math subjects is due to “structural racism.” Encouraging teachers and students to view the world primarily through the lens of identity politics and racial grievance is a recipe for exactly the sort of discord that is playing out at prominent universities. Many members of Congress have issued statements condemning disorder and antisemitic incidents on campuses. Unfortunately, few legislators have shown an interest in addressing the roots of the problem by stopping the flow of tax dollars in support of radical leftists. Every year, Congress funds federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation. Through the “power of the purse,” legislation can directly reduce or eliminate support to specific agencies and programs. In addition, Congress can block funding for certain types of activities. Over the next several months, Congress will debate how to fund the federal government in fiscal year 2025. At a time when Americans struggle with elevated inflation due to excessive deficit spending, there is an urgent need to find savings. Legislators can lower inflation and defang campus radicals at the same time by cutting off federal grants and subsidies for academic institutions captured by the Left. The alternative—maintaining or increasing funding levels—guarantees more academic insanity for years to come. The post How Federal ‘Science’ Spending Helps Radicalize College Students appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Boy Scouts of America is changing its name.   Beginning in February the 114-year-old organization, launched to develop skills and character in boys and young men, will be known as Scouting America. The name change reflects the “organization’s ongoing commitment to welcome every youth and family in America to experience the benefits of scouting,” the group said Tuesday in announcing the name change. “Though our name will be new, our mission remains unchanged: we are committed to teaching young people to be prepared—for life,” Roger A. Krone, president and chief executive officer of the organization, said. “This will be a simple but very important evolution as we seek to ensure that everyone feels welcome in scouting.”   The name change comes about five years after Boy Scouts of America began accepting girls into the program.   Scouting America, formerly Boy Scouts of America, “currently serves more than 176,000 girls and young women across all programs, including over 6,000 who have earned the rank of Eagle Scout,” the organization said.   Traditionally, younger boys first became Cub Scouts before graduating to Boy Scouts, while girls became Brownies before graduating to Girl Scouts. Boy Scouts began allowing openly gay youth to participate in 2013, then openly gay leaders in 2015.   “Scouting America provides a welcoming, safe environment where youth can become the best version of themselves by learning from and respecting each other,” Krone said in Tuesday’s statement. “I encourage everyone to join us and experience the benefits of scouting.”    The rebranding of the Boy Scouts to Scouting America follows the organization’s challenges in participation during and following the COVID-19 pandemic.   “I hope that men who benefited from the Boy Scouts in their childhood will now recognize that the organization they loved has ceased to exist,” Jay Richards, director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal on Wednesday. (Heritage founded The Daily Signal in 2014.) “The Boy Scouts have a long and proud history, but the organization lost its way 20 years ago when it surrendered to sexual revolutionaries,” Richards said. “No doubt the leaders who made that compromise thought they were saving the organization. Instead, they set it on a pathway to destruction. That pathway led, inevitably, to this moment, where even the difference between female and male, girl and boy, must be dissolved.” In 2021, The Associated Press reported that membership in Boy Scouts of America programs fell from 1.9 million in 2019 to 1.1 million in 2020 and continued to fall in 2021. Today, according to the group’s website, the scouting organization has over 1 million members ranging in age from 5 to 21.   Scouting America is intentionally branding itself as an organization for all youth. By contrast, Girl Scouts of the USA maintains that although its organization is aimed at girls, it allows transgender youth to participate.   In 2018, a year after the Boy Scouts began admitting girls, the Girl Scouts filed a lawsuit claiming the Boy Scouts was damaging its recruiting efforts and had created branding confusion. The case ultimately ended in a settlement.   The rebranding for the Boy Scouts comes as more than 130 million Americans have participated in the organization’s programs since its founding in 1910.   This report was updated within 24 hours of publication to include the comments from Jay Richards. The post Boy Scouts Announce Name Change appeared first on The Daily Signal.

I doubt that there is any national or religious group that produces the percentage of people who aid those who wish to hurt, let alone kill, that group as do Jews. When one observes Jews who defend those whose raison d’etre is the annihilation of the one Jewish country on Earth, you have to ask: Why are there no others like them? Were there blacks who defended slavery? Were there Armenians who defended the Turkish mass murder of fellow Armenians during World War I? It is true that every nation has produced people who work against their nation—particularly during time of war. Vidkun Quisling, the Norwegian leader who collaborated with the Nazi occupiers of Norway, is perhaps the best known: The very name “Quisling” is widely used as a synonym for traitor. But even Quisling identified more with fellow Norwegians than Israel-hating Jews identify with fellow Jews. It turns out that the Jews who side with those who wish to eradicate the one Jewish state and slaughter as many Jews as possible are truly unique. It is this uniqueness that makes these Jews difficult to explain. Nevertheless, it is important to at least attempt to do so. Here are two explanations. 1. Psychological Explanations As a result of the Holocaust, virtually every Jew—whether or not they had family members who were murdered by the Nazis and their non-German collaborators—suffers from a form of PTSD. Few non-Jews know this, and even fewer can identify with this condition. So, let me explain. Between 1941 and 1945, one of the most civilized nations in the world—the nation that gave the world the greatest music ever written; the greatest single national source of great scientists; the nation that produced Protestant Christianity, the mother of modern liberal democracies, the primary source (along with the Hebrew Bible) of the American experiment in freedom and of the anti-slavery movement—murdered two out of every three Jews in Europe. Jewish women, babies, and elderly Jews were slated for death just as much as were young men. Jews were not merely persecuted or enslaved; they were targeted for death in the largest and most systematic genocide in recorded history. And with very few exceptions, the world’s nations did nothing to help the Jews of Europe. Even those who managed to flee were, in too many cases, denied safe harbor in other countries, a fact that continues to underlie the need for one Jewish state in the world. Inevitably, this has had a profound impact on the Jewish psyche. Virtually every Jew since 1945 has, consciously or subconsciously, feared another Holocaust. In fact, long before the Holocaust, at the Passover Seder Jews recited (and still do): “In every generation they arise to annihilate us.” Note that the words are not “to persecute us” or “to enslave us” but “to annihilate us.” Jew-hatred has always been unique in that it is an annihilationist hatred. Given this reality, some Jews have always sought to assimilate wherever and whenever possible. Some changed their names, some baptized their children (as Karl Marx’s Jewish parents did), and some simply chose not to raise their children as Jews. Today, there are Jews who choose to identify with the Jews’ enemies. More than a few young Jews on college campuses, for example, undoubtedly believe—consciously or not—that they will be more secure if they align themselves with the Jews’ enemies. To those who seek to annihilate Israel and its Jews, there is no one as valuable as a Jew who sides with them—and many young Jews know, or at least sense, this. By aligning themselves with today’s Nazis—and lest you think that is too strong a term, vis-a-vis the Jews there is no difference between the Nazis and the Iranian regime, Hezbollah, and Hamas—they go from being hated by Israel-haters to being loved by them (for now). 2. Ideological Explanations Not all Jews side with the would-be exterminators of the Jewish people for psychological reasons. Many Jews who are in the pro-Palestinian, Israel-hating camp are there for ideological reasons: They are leftists (not liberals, who generally remain what they have always been: pro-Israel). And leftism is one of the two primary sources of Israel-hatred and Jew-hatred today. The other is fundamentalist Islam. This is true around the world. The most anti-Israel leaders outside of the Muslim world are leftists.The president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, described by The New York Times as “Colombia’s first leftist president,” has severed his country’s relations with Israel and not only used the “genocide” libel against Israel but accused Israel of engaging in “the extermination of an entire people.” (As I have noted for decades, truth is a liberal and conservative value; but it is not, and has never been, a left-wing value.) The leftist president of Bolivia, Luis Arce, severed his country’s relations with Israel less than three weeks after Oct. 7. Bolivia perfectly illustrates the universal left-wing hatred of Israel: Bolivia’s previous left-wing president, Evo Morales, severed Bolivia’s relations with Israel in 2009; and Morales’ conservative successor, Jeanine Anez, restored relations with Israel in 2020. Meanwhile, the most pro-Israel leader in the world today is the conservative president of Argentina, Javier Milei. Most American Jews are liberal, but many are leftist, and they embrace the anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian/pro-Hamas line. (At this time, “pro-Palestinian” means “pro-Hamas” just as, during World War II, “pro-German” meant “pro-Nazi.”) For many Jews who abandon belief in the Torah, leftism fills the religious hole created by that abandonment. This is equally true for many non-Jews, but there is a major difference: Christians who abandon Christian faith do not still call themselves Christian, nor does anyone else; but Jews who abandon Jewish faith often continue to call themselves Jews (especially when attacking Israel), and so do others. Psychopathology and left-wing ideology are the two primary explanations for why Jews such as those in groups like “Jewish Voice for Peace” and “IfNotNow” willingly serve as useful idiots for those who wish to exterminate the Jewish state and the Jewish people. Including them. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation. The post Sick Jews appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A House subcommittee on Wednesday discussed the increasing left-wing bias at National Public Radio, a taxpayer-funded news and features network. The hearing stemmed from a debate sparked by an online essay a month ago in The Free Press by longtime NPR editor Uri Berliner, who alleged that the network was both extremely biased and had abandoned its commitment to quality journalism.  Berliner, who considers himself a liberal, wrote in his essay that NPR had become deeply biased and that its news coverage had alienated all but a narrow, left-wing audience. He said the network needed to change or it would erode not only its own credibility, but the credibility of media in general. Berliner resigned about a week after the controversy erupted. NPR’s CEO, Katherine Maher, was asked to appear before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Wednesday. However, the day before, she said she couldn’t make it because she didn’t have enough time to prepare. Maher also said that she had an NPR board meeting to attend. “NPR respects the Committee and its request, and has offered to testify on a date in the near future that works for the Committee and Maher,” an NPR spokesperson said, according to Fox News. A spokesperson for the committee responded to Maher’s absence. “It speaks volumes that Ms. Maher has chosen not to appear [Wednesday] to answer for how her taxpayer-funded news outlet discriminates against the viewpoints of millions of Americans,” the committee spokesperson said, according to Fox News. Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., who was to chair the hearing, said in his opening statement that the committee was investigating whether allegations of ideological bias and censorship of conservative and moderate voices were true. Griffith said that the subcommittee had invited Maher and that he hoped she would appear before the committee in the near future. “The only reason not to appear in front of this committee at some point in the near future is if the allegations are both true and NPR doesn’t care,” the Virginia lawmaker said. Democrats on the committee were dismissive of the hearing, and said that allegations of NPR’s bias are baseless. Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., said that NPR isn’t biased at all, that its reporting is valuable and objective, and that Republicans listen to too much conservative media. “Despite the clear benefits of public radio, Republicans have brought us here to discuss an alleged bias at NPR,” she said. “Republicans say that NPR is biased against conservatives, but what they point to are examples of objective journalism. Disagreeing with reporting does not mean that the information is biased.” Democrat Rep. Kathy Castor seriously believes NPR is unbiased journalism."Republicans say NPR is biased against conservatives, but what they point to are examples of objective journalism." pic.twitter.com/ENUsE6UjIf— Media Research Center (@theMRC) May 8, 2024 The Florida Democrat suggested that the committee should instead focus on covering the gun deaths of children, preparing for the next pandemic, what she said were the successes of the Biden administration-backed Inflation Reduction Act, or climate change. “Members may want to step out of the right-wing echo chambers, which have routinely peddled lies and conspiracy theories,” Castor said. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., said that it was crucial to conduct oversight of NPR, which receives taxpayer dollars, and that there is no free-speech right to get taxpayers’ money to fund a media organization. “It is a fundamental principle under the First Amendment for news agencies to report on stories however they see fit,” she said. “It is not, however, a fundamental principle for news organizations to receive public funding to express their viewpoint.” McMorris Rodgers said that the hearing was to be about discussing accusations from within NPR that the news network is “actively censoring viewpoints” while taking taxpayer money. “Note for the record that we invited NPR CEO Ms. Maher to participate in today’s hearing,” McMorris Rodgers said. “She declined to do so, stating that she needed more time to prepare and that she had a conflict with an NPR board meeting.” The Washington congresswoman said that it was “especially troubling” that an organization funded with taxpayer money has “mocked, ridiculed, and attacked the people who fund their organization.” McMorris Rodgers pointed to the Berliner essay and said that it was telling that NPR declined to report stories that could help President Donald Trump in the 2020 election, no matter “how true and important to the public conversation they were.” She cited how Berliner wrote that an editor at NPR thought the news network shouldn’t report on the Hunter Biden laptop story in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election because it could help Trump. It was also revealing, she said, that Berliner said he found 87 editors registered as Democrats, but no Republicans. “Today’s NPR has strayed from their core mission,” McMorris Rodgers said. “When an entity that was created by Congress and receives taxpayer funding strays from their core mission, there needs to be accountability and oversight.” Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said that the hearing was a waste of time. He said that it was unfair for Republicans on the committee to call in the NPR CEO to testify, given that she only had a week to prepare and that she had a board meeting scheduled at the same time. The New Jersey Democrat also said that, given that Maher had only been the CEO for six weeks, she shouldn’t have to answer for a “former, disgruntled employee,” referring to Berliner. Pallone said that NPR plays a “vital role in democracy” in providing information. He said that public funding for the network goes to support mostly local programming that provides the last line of defense in “news deserts.” He said that instead of investigating the publicly funded NPR, Congress should investigate “the vast landscape of right-wing media” that he said promotes “misinformation.” Pallone said that investigating NPR hearkens back to the days of “McCarthyism.” Howard Husock, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who had served on the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, testified that he wanted to remind the committee of where public broadcasting began.  The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is the organization that oversees NPR. It began with the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, he said, and of particular relevance is the mandate from Congress that “public broadcasting from radio and television should, it says, be ‘responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities and throughout the United States.’” Husock said that that’s where he has concerns about NPR. He pointed to a poll by the Pew Research Center that found “87% of NPR listeners describe themselves as Democrats, 12% as Republicans.” He said that contrasts sharply with commercial television newscasts, “which are close to 50/50.” The AEI fellow said that NPR doesn’t act like a “national taxpayer-supported service.” NPR’s audience is not the product of limited reach, he said, “instead, it produces a product which seems not to attract a broad swath of America.” That’s largely because of the selection of stories NPR reports. He suggested that changing the outdated Public Broadcasting Act would help alleviate the crisis of the decline of local newspapers. Husock said that direct funding does not account for most of the taxpayer dollars NPR receives. Instead, “31% of revenues” come from fees charged to local affiliates. That means, he said, that federal money sent through grants to local NPR affiliates is recycled back to the national network. Media Research Center Executive Editor Tim Graham said in his testimony that bias at NPR isn’t a recent phenomenon and that reporters at the network have intentionally tried, for instance, to derail Republican presidents’ Supreme Court nominees going back decades and that they continued that with the 2018 nomination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “In March, between ‘Morning Edition’ and ‘Fresh Air,’ Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford was granted an hour of taxpayer-funded airtime to reiterate her unproven charges of teenage sexual assault,” Graham said. Yet, the network has failed to cover stories that might damage Democrats. He cited the case of Hunter Biden’s laptop, the salacious contents of which were dismissed by many “so-called mainstream media” outlets as “Russian disinformation.” Graham said that many media outlets were biased when it came to covering that story, but “NPR stood out.” NPR’s public editor dismissed the story as a “politically driven event,” even though the network gave extensive coverage to Blasey Ford’s unproven allegations. The MRC editor pointed to other examples of what he called bias at the network. “NPR covered the [former House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi-picked House Jan. 6 Committee live for every minute, and then it couldn’t do a two-minute story on the Biden impeachment inquiry,” he said. NPR has also “encouraged chaos and disorder in society,” Graham said: In 2020, NPR’s blog ‘Code Switch,’ with the slogan ‘Race in Your Face,’ posted an interview promoting a new book titled ‘In Defense of Looting.’ On ‘The NPR Politics Podcast’ in 2021, they promoted a book by Yale law professor Elizabeth Hinton saying that protests against policy shouldn’t be called riots; they should be called ‘rebellions.’ On NPR’s ‘Fresh Air’ on April 15, 2023, the movie critic John Powers praised the movie ‘How to Blow Up a Pipeline,’ hailing it as ‘hugely timely.’ You know, this is what NPR is doing. That’s what NPR is doing with taxpayer dollars, Graham said, “getting behind looting, rioting, and blowing up pipelines. And yet, NPR represents the Republicans as uniquely extreme.” The post NPR’s CEO Is a No-Show at Hearing Looking Into Bias at Taxpayer-Funded Network appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Dwight L. Moody, an 1800s American evangelist, once said, “I thought when I became a Christian I had nothing to do but just to lay my oars in the bottom of the boat and float along. But I soon found out I would have to go against the current.” And...

The late Rev. Billy Graham once said, "Forgiveness is one of the most beautiful words in the human vocabulary." One Pennsylvania pastor recently showed that he truly knows the beauty of the word when he offered instant forgiveness and love to someone who had just tried to murder him. Glenn...

The ladies of "The View" were practically giddy with excitement on Tuesday as they fantasized about what could happen to former President Donald Trump if he continued to defy a gag order imposed by the judge overseeing his criminal hush money trial. On Monday, Trump made defiant remarks to reporters...