America now looks like a marriage headed for divorce — with no exit



Marriages rarely end over one argument. They fall apart through a long breakdown in communication, a growing inability to resolve disagreements, and the slow realization that two people no longer walk toward the same future.

Healthy marriages don’t require full agreement on every subject. They require compromise on the decisions that shape daily life: money, children, priorities, responsibilities. They also require shared goals.

No tidy divorce court exists for a nation-state. We share one flag, one legal framework, and one public square.

When those goals diverge — and neither side will realign — the relationship becomes unsustainable. The law calls the condition “irreconcilable differences.”

America now lives in that condition.

We remain bound under one nation, one Constitution, and one civic home. But we no longer share a common purpose. We no longer share a common story about what the country is, why it exists, or whether it deserves to endure.

This conflict no longer turns on tax rates or regulatory policy. It turns on the legitimacy and direction of the American experiment itself.

The modern left no longer argues about how to preserve the American system. It treats the system as the problem. Democratic leaders and activists call for “fundamental transformation,” flirt with socialism, and talk about the founding less as a flawed but noble legacy than as a moral failure that demands replacement. In that worldview, America doesn’t need reform. America needs erasure.

The right still believes the country can be repaired and preserved. The left increasingly treats the country as something to dismantle.

This rupture shows up in concrete ways. In 2021, the National Archives placed a “harmful language” warning on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence — the documents that define the nation. That doesn’t signal ordinary partisan dispute. It signals contempt for the country’s moral foundation.

Socialism sits at the center of this divide. It contradicts the American system at its roots. America rests on the premise that rights come from God, not government. Socialism elevates the state over the individual and makes rights conditional on political approval. It centralizes power in the name of enforced equality — “equity.”

RELATED: Americans aren’t arguing any more — we’re speaking different languages

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

America protects private property as an extension of liberty. It channels ambition into innovation and prosperity. Socialism treats success as a social offense and demands equality of outcome. When people refuse to surrender the fruits of their labor, socialism turns to coercion. Coercion requires centralized authority. Centralized authority punishes dissent.

The pattern repeats: less freedom, greater dependency, and a governing model incompatible with constitutional self-rule.

The irony remains hard to miss. The left calls Donald Trump “Hitler” while cheering figures like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, an avowed socialist. Yet the Nazi Party sold itself as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — a collectivist project built on centralized power and state control.

The same left often excuses Antifa, a movement built on intimidation, street violence, and political enforcement designed to silence opposition. Those tactics don’t belong to liberal democracy. They belong to regimes that fear debate.

Even basic reality has become contested. The left and right can’t agree on something as elemental as what a man or a woman is. The Supreme Court recently showcased the collapse when ACLU attorneys arguing sex-based discrimination refused to define “woman.” When a society refuses to name biological facts that every civilization once treated as obvious, compromise collapses with it.

This crisis goes deeper than polarization. It reaches the level of knowledge itself. The left increasingly treats biology, history, and moral limits as malleable social constructs. The right still believes objective reality binds us all.

These aren’t normal disagreements. They describe incompatible worldviews. And incompatibility carries consequences.

During the COVID era, polls found majorities of Democrats willing to endorse coercive measures against the unvaccinated, including house arrest. Nearly half supported imprisoning people who questioned vaccine efficacy. Those numbers didn’t represent a fringe. They revealed a growing comfort with state force in service of ideological conformity.

After Trump’s 2016 election, many friendships survived political conflict. By 2020, after years of dehumanization — after constant accusations of “Nazism” aimed at ordinary voters — many of those relationships broke. The political battle stopped sounding like disagreement and started sounding like moral extermination.

RELATED: Washington, DC, has become a hostile city-state

Photo by Astrid Riecken For The Washington Post via Getty Images

In September 2025, someone assassinated Charlie Kirk. Large segments of the left didn’t just rationalize the killing. Many celebrated it.

After Scott Adams died following a long fight with cancer, prominent voices responded with mockery instead of decency. People magazine ran a headline labeling him “disgraced.” Even death became a political verdict.

This is what irreconcilable differences look like at a national scale.

A country cannot endure when one side believes the nation stands as fundamentally good — worthy of preservation and reform — while the other believes it stands as irredeemably evil and must be dismantled. Marriages end when partners stop seeing each other as allies and start treating each other as enemies.

Nations fracture for the same reason.

America cannot solve this the way a couple dissolves a marriage. The Constitution binds us to one civic order. No clean separation awaits. No tidy divorce court exists for a nation-state. We share one flag, one legal framework, and one public square.

When irreconcilable differences exist but separation remains impossible, the danger grows.

Only three paths remain: recommitment to constitutional principles, enforced coexistence through expanding coercion, or escalation into open conflict as dehumanization becomes normal.

Pretending this amounts to another election cycle, another policy dispute, or another cable-news food fight invites catastrophe. A nation cannot survive when its people no longer agree on what it is, why it exists, or whether it deserves to continue.

Unlike a failed marriage, America can’t walk away.

American Identity Isn’t Just A ‘Creed,’ It’s A People And A Place

If America is to survive, we must stop defending a 'proposition' and start defending a home.

Our forefathers prayed on Thanksgiving. We scroll.



There was a time when Thanksgiving pointed toward something higher than stampedes for electronics or a long weekend of football. At its root, Thanksgiving was a public reminder that faith, family, and country are inseparable — and that a free people must recognize the source of their blessings.

Long before Congress fixed the holiday to the end of November, colonies and early states observed floating days of thanksgiving, prayer, and fasting. These were civic acts as much as religious ones: moments when communities asked God to protect them from calamity and guide their families and their nation.

Grounded in gratitude

The Continental Congress issued the first national Thanksgiving proclamation in 1777, drafted by Samuel Adams. The delegates called on Americans to acknowledge God’s providence “with Gratitude” and to implore “such farther Blessings as they stand in Need of.”

Twelve years later, President George Washington proclaimed the first federal day of thanksgiving under the Constitution. He asked citizens to gather in public and private worship, to seek forgiveness for “national and other transgressions,” and to pray for the growth of “true religion and virtue.”

Our problems — social, fiscal, and moral — are immense. But they are not greater than the God our ancestors trusted.

Other presidents followed suit. During rising tensions with France in 1798, John Adams declared a national day of “solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer,” arguing that only a virtuous people could sustain liberty. The next year he called for another day of thanksgiving, urging citizens to set aside work, confess national sins, and recommit themselves to God.

For generations, this was the American understanding: national strength flowed from moral character, and moral character flowed from religious conviction.

The evolution of a holiday

In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln — responding to years of lobbying by Sarah Josepha Hale — established the last Thursday in November as a permanent national Thanksgiving. Hale saw the holiday as a unifying civic ritual that strengthened families and reminded Americans of their shared heritage.

Calvin Coolidge echoed this tradition in 1924, observing that Thanksgiving revealed “the spiritual strength of the nation.” Even as technology transformed daily life, he insisted that the meaning of the day remain unchanged.

But as the country drifted from an agricultural rhythm and from public expressions of faith, the holiday’s original purpose faded. The deeper meaning — gratitude, repentance, unity — gave way to distraction.

When a nation forgets

Today, America marks Thanksgiving with a national character far removed from the one our forebears envisioned. The founders believed public acknowledgment of God’s authority anchored liberty. Modern institutions increasingly treat religious conviction as an obstacle.

Court rulings have redefined marriage, narrowed the space for religious conscience, and removed long-standing religious symbols from public grounds. Citizens have been fined, penalized, or jailed for refusing to violate their beliefs. The very freedoms early Americans prayed to preserve are now treated as negotiable.

At the same time, other pillars of national life — family stability, civic order, border security, self-government — erode under cultural and political pressure. As faith recedes, government fills the void. The founders warned that a people who lose their internal moral compass invite external control.

Former House Speaker Robert Winthrop (Whig-Mass.) put it plainly in 1849: A society will be governed “either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man.”

A lesson from history

The collapse of religious conviction in much of Europe created a vacuum quickly filled by ideologies hostile to Western values. America resisted this trend longer, but the rising influence of secularism and identity ideology pushes our society toward the same drift: a nation less confident in its heritage, less united by a common purpose.

Ronald Reagan saw the warning signs decades ago. In his 1989 farewell, he lamented that younger generations were no longer taught to love their country or understand why the Pilgrims came here. Patriotism, once absorbed through family, school, and culture, had been replaced by fashionable cynicism.

Thanksgiving offers the antidote Reagan urged: a return to gratitude, history, and shared purpose.

RELATED: Why we need God’s blessing more than ever

Photo by Barney Burstein/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images

Thanksgiving was meant to be the clearest expression of a nation united by faith, family, and patriotism. It rooted liberty in gratitude and gratitude in God’s providence.

Reagan captured that spirit in 1986, writing that Thanksgiving “underscores our unshakable belief in God as the foundation of our Nation.” That conviction made possible the prosperity and freedom Americans inherited.

Today’s constitutional conservatives must lead in restoring that heritage — not by nostalgia, but by example. Families who teach gratitude, faith, and national purpose build the civic strength the founders believed essential.

A return to gratitude

Thanksgiving calls each of us to humility: to recognize that national renewal begins with personal renewal. Our problems — social, fiscal, and moral — are immense. But they are not greater than the God our ancestors trusted.

That confidence is the heart of Thanksgiving. It is why the Pilgrims prayed, why Congress proclaimed days of fasting and praise, why Lincoln unified the holiday, and why generations of Americans pause each November to give thanks.

Editor’s note: A version of this article first appeared at Conservative Review in 2015.

The radical nonprofit that is destroying state education



For decades, U.S. education has been dominated by the American left. Its stranglehold was highly visible during the Biden administration, with countless stories about wildly inappropriate books in school libraries, critical race theory being taught in classrooms, and national associations calling for parents to be designated domestic terrorists.

How did our public school systems — including those in red states, from Iowa to Alaska — become infected with radical leftist ideology? The answer is education consulting groups.

As long as Republicans continue to outsource their governance and expertise to thinly veiled activist groups, nothing will change.

Most Americans don’t realize that every aspect of governance, from parks and wildlife departments to the curriculum in kids’ schools, has been outsourced to a coalition of nameless, faceless NGO consulting groups that are funded by millions of taxpayer dollars funneled through the government. One of the worst offenders is the American Institutes for Research.

AIR is currently under contract with at least 25 states, with the majority involving contracts to develop state standards. For those unfamiliar with education policy, standards determine what students need to learn and when they need to learn it. Lesson plans, curriculum, and textbooks are required by law to be aligned with standards.

AIR’s tentacles stretch from D.C. into health care and counseling policy — and education. It has long been entrenched in most red-state education departments to “facilitate” standards revisions. Take its influence in Alaska as a recent example.

Alaska has had multiple contracts with the nonprofit, including the School Climate and Connectedness Survey, which focuses on social-emotional learning and adult education content standards. AIR is also cited as a teaching resource for curriculum implementation.

On the Alaska Department of Education’s social studies website, AIR is listed as a source multiple times, including in the HQIM Rubric and in a PowerPoint presentation that was given to the state board, which was co-presented with an AIR employee. The presenters insisted that standards must have an equity focus and touted a shift from learning about social studies to student activism, or “action civics.”

These standards were implemented in Alaska’s new social studies curriculum, and the results are predictably a mess. Developed by a panel selected by race rather than merit, the standards are chock-full of land acknowledgments and other progressive claptrap. Alaska is now training its kids to be activists rather than teaching them about the American founding.

Worse yet, Alaska is also a partner with AIR for its Indigenous Student Identification Project, headed by Nara Nayar. On her LinkedIn account, she proudly lists her work “on comprehensive sexuality education for elementary and middle school students.”

This is where Alaskan taxpayer dollars are going: equity education, activism training, and filling the pockets of far-left education consultants who teach sex ed to elementary students.

Turning to the Midwest, Iowa’s social studies overhaul is in consultation with Stefanie Wager, a former AIR employee who is a glorified activist. She lists “racial justice, equity, and inclusion” as top priorities. Wager has an extensive list of extremist views that influence her work as an education consultant.

Wager was once president of the National Association for the Social Studies, a left-wing outfit that has shaped red-state history instruction. She has also worked as the education partner manager for Bill Gates’ personal office. Wager began as an AIR employee embedded within the Iowa Department of Education. When news broke about her involvement, she left AIR and joined the Iowa Department of Education full-time.

These aren’t just one-off examples — they are emblematic of the reach and influence of shadow consultant organizations that control public education. Peruse nearly any state department of education, and you will find rubrics with equity focuses, social studies curriculum full of progressive ideology, and AIR-linked content on state websites. Nebraska, for example, contracted AIR for a social studies report that is spotlighted on AIR’s website.

RELATED: Trump admin takes major step toward dismantling the Department of Education

Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The worst part is that state taxpayers are unknowingly funding all of this. South Dakota signed a nearly quarter-million-dollar contract with AIR to facilitate work-group meetings to revise the state’s social studies standards, which produced standards laced with wokeness. The blowback was so swift that then-Gov. Kristi Noem (R) had to intervene and force South Dakota’s Education Department to restart its standards revision work from scratch.

The result was some of the best standards in the country.

Alaska has likely paid millions for its various studies and surveys, but the cost of only one project, at $350,000, is publicly available. Iowa awarded AIR a $31 million contract for testing assessments. This is a patronage scheme using taxpayer dollars to fund pet leftist programs. To make matters worse, most red states keep all of this hidden. In Alaska, you have to pay the state for a contract to be disclosed.

As long as Republicans continue to outsource their governance and expertise to thinly veiled activist groups, nothing will change. Schools will continue to be breeding grounds for left-wing extremism, school libraries will be filled with radical propaganda — and taxpayers will keep funding all of it.

Red-state legislatures and governors need to look to trusted alternative providers that reflect their states’ values. They should create and fund parallel structures that put outcomes above partisan dogma and properly vet each person to whom they give their constituents’ money. This is the only way to begin countering the efforts of the shadow government in our states.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

Is a tariff a tax?



Is a tariff a tax? Many Americans have forgotten that this question, which has been in the news more or less all year, was fundamental to the American Revolution. And among American Patriots, or Whigs, meaning those who supported the colonists’ claims against Parliament, there was almost universal consensus that they were different things, constitutionally speaking.

Throughout the Imperial Crisis of 1763 to 1776, the consensus among the colonists was that Parliament had the right to regulate trade in the British Empire but had no right to tax the colonists. And they recognized that a regulation of trade might take the form of a duty imposed upon, for example, molasses imported from French colonies to favor molasses imported from British colonies.

The founding generation believed in the separation of powers.

In the colonists’ view, the Sugar Act of 1764 was an unconstitutional innovation. The Act was quite explicit, stating at the top that it was passed for the purpose of “applying the produce of such duties, and of the duties to arise by virtue of the said act, towards defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the said colonies and plantations.” It was the first trade act to do that.

Townshend’s overreach

The Stamp Act of 1765, and the reaction to it, made the protest against the 1764 Sugar Act less conspicuous. The result of the actions taken against the Stamp Act was that many in Parliament did not grasp the American argument against the Sugar Act. Hence, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts in 1767, imposing duties on lead, glass, paper, paint, and tea to raise revenue. When the colonists complained, many in Parliament accused the colonists of moving the goalposts.

The charge was not accurate, but it did reflect what they believed. And, like many today, many members of Parliament were unable to grasp the difference between a duty imposed for the purpose of trade regulation and a duty imposed for the purpose of raising revenue.

The most famous criticism of the Townshend Acts, and the most popular writing of the era until Thomas Paine published “Common Sense” in January 1776, was John Dickinson’s “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.” In the second letter, Dickinson made the consensus Patriot argument logically, clearly, and eloquently.

There is another late act of parliament, which appears to me to be unconstitutional, and as destructive to the liberty of these colonies, as that mentioned in my last letter; that is, the act for granting the duties on paper, glass, etc.

The parliament unquestionably possesses a legal authority to regulate the trade of Great Britain, and all her colonies. Such an authority is essential to the relation between a mother country and her colonies; and necessary for the common good of all ...

I have looked over every statute relating to these colonies, from their first settlement to this time; and I find every one of them founded on this principle, till the Stamp Act administration.* All before, are calculated to regulate trade, and preserve or promote a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire. ... The raising of a revenue thereby was never intended. ... Never did the British parliament, till the period above mentioned, think of imposing duties in America for the purpose of raising a revenue. ...

Here we may observe an authority expressly claimed and exerted to impose duties on these colonies; not for the regulation of trade; not for the preservation or promotion of a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire, heretofore the sole objects of parliamentary institutions; but for the single purpose of levying money upon us.

This I call an innovation; and a most dangerous innovation.* It may perhaps be objected, that Great Britain has a right to lay what duties she pleases upon her exports.

That so many people today don’t seem to understand this distinction is a sign that the American bar seems to have gone Tory. The founding generation’s way of thinking about tariffs, and perhaps law in general, is in danger of being rendered foreign to our public policy discussion, perhaps even to constitutional discussion, even among people who mistakenly think of themselves as originalists.

This way of thinking, of course, says little about the current case, as the purpose of the law itself must be understood in light of the thinking of the men who passed it. But it is also true that the way of thinking that Dickinson represented, and which was broadly shared in the founding generation, might have something to say here.

Delegation’s limits

The founding generation believed in the separation of powers. The founders recognized, as “The Federalist” notes, that in practice the powers will inevitably overlap and sometimes clash. But they did operate within a way of legal and constitutional thinking that took it as a given that in order to guard the separation of powers, any delegation of legislative powers to the executive had to be limited and focused.

There is a difference between a reasonable and an unreasonable delegation of powers, just as there is between a tax and a regulation of trade, even if, in both cases, money is raised at customs houses. The kind of delegation the Trump administration is asserting in this case is difficult, perhaps impossible, to reconcile with the practice of separation of powers. Congress has no right to abdicate its obligation to set trade policy via legislation.

RELATED: Read it and weep: Tariffs work, and the numbers prove it

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The Trump administration’s assertion that it has the right to set tariffs worldwide, claiming unlimited emergency power based on a law designed to delegate to the president a narrow emergency power, resembles the kind of expansive, arbitrary interpretation that the founders’ legal heroes fought.

In the 1630s, King Charles claimed the right to collect “ship money” throughout England. By tradition, the king had the right to raise money, without Parliament’s consent, in port towns in time of war, or if war was imminent.

King Charles asserted a living constitution interpretation: Given modern circumstances, he claimed a general right to raise taxes if a war emergency was imminent. Dickinson mentioned the case in the first Farmer’s Letters, suggesting there was a connection between the logic of the one argument and the other.

Our difficulty recognizing the limits of the nondelegation doctrine — and our confusion about the difference between a duty imposed to raise revenue and one imposed to regulate trade — shows how much work remains if we want to understand the Constitution as the framers did. That understanding requires grappling with the ideas about human nature, government, and law that justified ratification in the first place and that still anchor our constitutional order.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

How The Declaration Of Independence Gave America Life, Liberty, And Happiness

With The Making of the American Mind, Hillsdale's Matthew Spalding has written a much needed and highly accessible intellectual history of the Declaration of Independence.

The American Revolution Is About To Experience The ‘Ken Burns Effect’

As our nation nears its 250th birthday, Ken Burns’ miniseries should give us a newfound appreciation for the sacrifices of our ancestors.

Bring God back to schools — before it’s too late



The abrupt assassination of a young husband and father — who joyfully invited strangers from all walks of life to debate him in public forums —was a barbaric assault on all Americans and our shared foundational values, free speech, and religious liberty.

I was deeply disturbed by the deranged sickness of morally bankrupt Americans rejoicing at Charlie Kirk’s reprehensible murder. I’ve unceasingly prayed and wept for his family and friends as though they were my own.

It's time to get the Bible back into schools to revitalize the true meaning of liberty and respect for your neighbor.

Yet as a mom and a Christian, I know I must not despair. The Bible likens despair to a refusal of hope, justice, and goodness.

At Kirk’s historic memorial, President Donald Trump mentioned a renewed urgency to including the holy Bible in public life. Erika Kirk modeled positive, convicted fortitude through motherhood — with grit, grace, and gospel — that I have never before witnessed in a publicly broadcasted forum. “Be an Erika Kirk in a Kardashian world” commentaries flood my social media feeds.

But an exasperating and lingering question remains: “How did America get here?” Guns? Social media? Absent parenting? Ignorant education? A desensitizing news cycle?

A root cause is expelling God from public schools.

Foundation shattered

Charlie Kirk was wrongly labeled as a “hateful extremist” because millions of students have been brainwashed, for decades, to dissociate America’s foundation from God.

Young people have been conditioned to be offended by truth and context and now automatically treat neighbors like garbage and claim that “words are violence” when they disagree.

Historically, educators partnered with parents to reinforce our shared American values as they were rooted in the Bible. Through the 1800s, schools and colleges often included the Bible as a textbook. Our founding fathers stressed the importance of morals and religious knowledge for a functioning republic.

In a 1798 statement, John Adams himself wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

But here’s where we are now:

  • Most fifth-graders don’t learn that the 13 colonies required a declaration of faith to hold a public office.
  • Very few eighth-graders are taught that our Declaration of Independence mentions God four times — a majority of the 56 signers were Bible-believing Christians.
  • A majority of high-school students have zero knowledge that our Liberty Bell, as well as countless government landmarks, including our Capitol, Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument, and more, are inscribed with biblical verses.
  • Non-denominational prayer, Bible stories, the Ten Commandments, and the mere words “one nation under God” are disputed, degraded, and often prohibited from public gatherings at elementary schools through universities.
  • Schools used to teach biblical principles like the Golden Rule to promote good character and conduct, but now secular-driven “restorative discipline” dictates that right, wrong, good, evil, truth, and lies are relative.

Moral education begins at home, but what happens if that falls short?

Chaos reigns

Without reinforcement in schools, we evidently get a generation of morally ignorant citizens unable to function in a republic. Kirk himself once explained that the way our government was set up is no longer compatible with our current, faith-rejecting citizenry and public institutions. I agree.

Absent parents and the exclusion of 3,000-year-old wisdom from our school systems bear the blame.

Now, students are actively taught that God is not and never was part of our nation’s founding, that there is no safety alongside someone who thinks differently from you, and that words are violence. Smartphone worship, disrespect for parents and teachers without consequence, and the abandonment of rules and order have infected our nation.

Notwithstanding our rightful religious differences as Americans, it’s time to get the Bible back into schools — as a historical work that helped establish our nation and laws — to revitalize the true meaning of liberty and respect for your neighbor.

Teaching students to understand our U.S. Constitution gets much easier if students are knowledgeable about the biblical ideals that shaped it. The Bible also provides practical order, like the Golden Rule, that chaotic classrooms can certainly benefit from today.

Myth exposed

But what about Thomas Jefferson’s “separation of church and state”? It’s a stretched fabrication that I’m ashamed to admit I once believed.

Five years ago, I supported keeping biblical mentions out of public schools and forums. As a baptized, lifelong Christian — active in church as a child and now a Sunday School teacher as an adult — even I was brainwashed and miseducated.

RELATED: Why Trump's religious liberty agenda terrifies the left — but tells the truth

plherrera/Getty Images

In 1947, the Supreme Court case of Everson v. Board of Education ruled that neither a state nor the federal government could "pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." For the first time in American history, the First Amendment was now not only about the prohibition of establishing a national religion; it was also about not giving any encouragement to any religion. The modern “strict separation” view was born.

The five justices drafted their decision not based on the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, but on a brief letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, citing his personal conviction that religious belief should include “building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

In 1962, the Supreme Court further ruled in Engel v. Vitale that a generic school prayer violated the Court’s new definition of the First Amendment. “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country."

The prayer was not specific to Christianity or any religion and was reminiscent of the language of the Declaration of Independence. Yet it was still deemed unconstitutional.

Since then, the "separation of church and state" language has been used to remove God and appreciation for our foundational morality from public life and, most tragically, from our schools.

Do we have happier or better-educated student citizens because of this?

Dismal test scores, school shootings, record numbers of mentally ill teens, campus violence, increasingly anti-American curriculum, and depraved TikToks celebrating the public execution of an innocent man exercising peaceful free speech in a public forum prove otherwise.

Bring God back

Is it possible that those Supreme Court decisions were misguided and wrong for our society?

This sickness is destroying each of us — and our country — in real time. This is why we do what we do at PragerU Kids.

Parents and teachers, now is the time to bravely support and include:

  • the Bible in academic historical discussions.
  • non-denominational prayer at school events.
  • the Ten Commandments as they relate to America’s founding values for freedom.
  • saying God’s name at your child’s school … no matter who may be irrationally triggered.

Don’t let anyone trick you into thinking these things are hateful. The life, liberty, and happiness of our republic literally depend on it.

I'm grateful for the White House’s nationwide “America Prays” initiative, as well as state leaders in Oklahoma, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, and more who are taking action to get Bibles and/or the Ten Commandments included in public school classrooms again.

I’m not suggesting a mandated belief in the theology of the Bible, but rather a general and practical K-12 education and inclusion of how the Bible’s rules, order, and tenets were foundational to our nation.

Just as kids should learn that slavery is abhorrent (as the Bible teaches), it's imperative that young Americans learn how our founders’ vision of limited government, through faith-based values of blind justice and truthful morality, only works when citizens have a mutually respected moral compass. Countless historical writings, works, and landmarks prove that America’s hard-fought liberty is contingent on ethical citizens.

Get God — and the goodness, hope, virtue, and equality taught in the Bible — back into our schools and communities now, because what we’ve been doing for the last 75 years isn’t working. And time’s running out.

Truth is whatever Hillary says today



If you’ve spent any time in politics, you know progressives contradict themselves so often that exposing their double-talk could keep conservative commentators busy for several lifetimes.

At first, young conservatives may find it thrilling to point out those blunders and imagine that the liberal across from them will be persuaded. But here’s the hard lesson: Only people with integrity change their minds when they find contradictions in their own thinking.

The goal isn’t to win the argument but lose your integrity. It’s to speak truth with courage and charity.

Progressives don’t stumble into incoherence by accident. They wield it like a smokescreen. The confusion keeps conscientious conservatives chasing their own tails. Conservatives, by temperament, want coherence, so they expect others to want it, too. But the record shows otherwise.

Take Hillary Clinton. Last week on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” she urged Americans to stop finger-pointing — before immediately blaming Republicans for the country’s problems. A Yale degree didn’t inoculate her against incoherence. As Charlie Kirk once observed at Cambridge, high IQ is no guarantee of wisdom. Clinton didn’t notice the contradiction, and even if she did, it wouldn’t matter. She is paid handsomely to talk, and truth never slows her down.

Moments later in the same appearance, she called for a return to “truth-based reality,” insisting that facts and evidence must matter again. This from the same woman who affirms that a man can become a woman. Truth wasn’t invited to that party. Now, she tells us it must rule the day.

The effect is dizzying, and that is the point.

What should concern us isn’t simply the logic game. It’s the condition of her soul. What happens to a soul shaped for decades by falsehood and injustice?

Clinton also revealed her deepest fear. She does not fear God. She fears the people of God — especially white, male Christians. She said so on national television just weeks after Kirk was assassinated by a trans-supporting terrorist who bought into rhetoric spewed by politicians like her. And yet, here she is again, pouring fuel on the fire.

The irony didn’t stop there. She wondered aloud how today’s politics could be “so contrary to the founding principles and values this country was built on.” This from the same politician who treats the Constitution as a “living document” to be reshaped whenever it confounds her political prejudices. She wasn’t concerned with founding principles when Donald Trump was banned from Twitter or prosecuted by the Biden Justice Department.

But pointing out contradictions only goes so far. The deeper warning is this: Hillary Clinton is what happens when you spend a lifetime saying whatever advances your career. She is willing to contradict herself publicly — and attack Christians — for money and applause. My own university, Arizona State, paid her $500,000 to host the Clinton Global Initiative.

Socrates put it best: The true philosopher, the lover of the good, doesn’t chase political power, money, or fame. He wants only this — that when he leaves this life, his soul is not defiled by injustice.

RELATED: Charlie Kirk thrived on truth and virtue over grievance-mongering

Photo by Jon Putman/Anadolu via Getty Images

That’s the lesson for young conservatives. Exposing contradictions is fine. It can even be fun. But don’t forget what matters more: Never let your soul become like Hillary Clinton’s.

G.K. Chesterton once wrote that the modern mind cuts down the signposts and then complains no one knows the way home. That is the progressive project in our time: Deny first principles, denounce those who keep them, and demand the comforts those principles once secured.

So take this counsel seriously:

  • Guard your soul more than your timeline. Social media glory is cheap; a clean conscience is priceless.
  • Pursue coherence because it is true, not because it is clever. Wit is garnish; truth is the meal.
  • Fear God more than fashion. Today’s trends are tomorrow’s embarrassments; the fear of the Lord endures.

The goal isn’t to win the argument but lose your integrity. It’s to speak truth with courage and charity, to resist compromise with evil for the sake of applause, and to leave this world with a soul unstained by injustice.

That victory is higher than anything Hillary Clinton will ever claim — and it is the only victory that lasts.

America’s rights come from God — not from Tim Kaine’s government



Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

RELATED: If Tim Kaine’s right, America’s founders were wrong

Photo by John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.