Rush Limbaugh. Sean Hannity. Glenn Beck. Charles Krauthammer.
Stephen Colbert?
Oscar-winner George Clooney says running Vice President Kamala Harris at the top of the ticket last year was a Democratic boo-boo.
“The Late Show” host opened up in a new interview with GQ Magazine, the bible for liberal men who practice what Adam Carolla calls the “deep-crease” leg cross. Colbert talked on a range of issues, but one probably caught everyone by surprise.
Turns out he’s pretty conservative. Just ask him.
“People perceive me as this sort of lefty figure. ... I think I’m more conservative than people think. I just happen to be talking about a government in extremis.”
One, that’s funnier than anything Colbert has said in ages. Two, it’s part of an age-old practice where progressives insist they’re more fair ’n’ balanced than conservative yokels even realize.
Three? Show us the “Late Show” monologue that reflects a conservative viewpoint during his 10-year run on the program. We’ll wait ...
Now he tells us.
Oscar winner George Clooney says running Vice President Kamala Harris at the top of the ticket last year was a Democratic boo-boo.
Clooney, starring in the awards season drama “Jay Kelly,” told “CBS News Sunday Morning” that Democrats needed a rigorous primary process to pick a successor to the very healthy, not remotely unwell Joe Biden.
That’s not all, though.
“I think the mistake with it being Kamala is that she had to run against her own record. ... It’s very hard to do if the point of running is to say, ‘I’m not that person.’ It’s hard to do, and so she was given a very tough task. I think it was a mistake, quite honestly.”
Wait ... what’s wrong with the Biden-Harris record? Weren’t we talking about adding a fifth head to Mt. Rushmore for a spell, that of the magnificent Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.? Didn’t Harris’ border czaring save the planet?
It’s almost as if Clooney is lost without a script ...
RELATED: Kamala Harris pushes to lower voting age to 16 — in honor of 'climate anxiety'
Kristin Chenoweth breaks easily, apparently.
The film and Broadway star dared to share a human emotion following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
"Didn’t always agree but appreciated some perspectives. ... What a heartbreak. His young family. I know where he is now. Heaven. But still."
Right on cue, the far-far-left ghouls savaged her on social media. And instead of telling said ghouls to rhetorically “drop dead,” she quasi-retracted said human emotion on social media.
Now, reflecting on the matter, she shared how close she came to “breaking.”
“It was tough on me, but I’m not going to answer any questions about it because I dealt with it. It nearly broke me, and that’s all I’m going to say. You probably know my heart, so you probably know.”
Handle with care? She deserves the same warning label as that “Christmas Story” leg lamp — fragile ...
This just in — Spike Lee is mad.
The auteur has made being grumpy part of his brand. He’s a New York Knicks fan, so part of that crankiness comes naturally. He’s also constantly complaining about a certain president. And over the years, he’s whined about Hollywood robbing him early and often.
The poor guy has only two golden statuettes.
Now, he’s complaining that his latest film, “Highest 2 Lowest,” got buried by Apple.
The Denzel Washington film came and went in theaters (just 200 screens) in August, jumping quickly to Apple TV. He initially praised Team Apple for supporting the film, acknowledging how the industry was changing and he had to adjust along with it.
He’s had a change of heart.
“I am not happy,” he told the Wall Street Journal about the film’s blink-and-you-miss-it theatrical rollout.
This critic saw “Highest 2 Lowest,” and he’s not happy to have lost two hours of his valuable time ...
You can’t blame Hollywood for dragging our favorite Predator back in front of a camera. The industry just suffered a terrible, no-good month of box office woes, and audiences care more about existing properties than original stories.
Sad, but true.
So another “Predator” movie was, like Thanos, inevitable.
“Predator: Badlands” hits theaters this weekend, but with a twist. The creature that hunted Ah-nold and killed all his military buddies back in 1987 (spoiler alert?) returns, but this time he’s the good guy.
What?
Yup. He and his robot sidekick (Elle Fanning) are the heroes in the new film.
What’s next, a story making us care about Cruella de Vil and why she became the monster we saw in “101 Dalmatians”? Or a story sharing how the Wicked Witch of the West was actually just a misunderstood gal who suffered bullying in her peer group?
Oh, wait.
"Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed. Radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter. I am hereby making Nigeria a 'COUNTRY OF PARTICULAR CONCERN.'"
President Trump’s recent post to Trump Media-owned Truth Social focused attention on a crisis not known for being a priority of American foreign policy. But as much as the news out of Mexico and Ukraine may overshadow what’s happening in Nigeria, the situation there is no less severe. And it is indeed an “existential threat” that should especially concern Christians.
Just this past weekend, nine Christians — including a pastor — were killed by Fulani assailants in a terrorist attack.
Despite their well-observed decline in North America and Europe, the number of Christians worldwide is increasing, largely thanks to Asia and Africa. And in Africa, nowhere does the faith have a stronger presence than in Nigeria.
Africa’s most populous nation (238 million) is also its most Christian, with some 100 million believers — enough to rank Nigeria as the sixth-largest Christian population in the world. Concentrated in the country’s south, this population includes 21 million Catholics, 22 million Anglicans, 14 million Baptists, 6 million evangelicals, and 4.5 million Pentecostals, in the form of the Apostolic Church Nigeria.
Despite these numbers, Nigeria remains predominantly Muslim (53.5%), especially in the north, where Islamic terrorism is on the rise. According to a 2022 State Department report, groups like Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa — along with religiously unaffiliated criminal gangs — have killed thousands of Muslims and Christians, with both sides accusing the government of failing to intervene.
There continued to be frequent violent incidents, particularly in the northern part of the country, affecting both Muslims and Christians, resulting in numerous deaths. Kidnappings and armed robbery by criminal gangs increased in the South as well as the North West, the South South, and the South East. The international Christian organization Open Doors stated that terrorist groups, militant herdsmen, and criminal gangs were responsible for large numbers of fatalities, and Christians were particularly vulnerable.
In response to such persecution, the State Department listed Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” under the first Trump administration, in 2020; the Biden administration removed that designation in late 2021. This was despite protests from the independent U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which noted widespread "violence by militant Islamists and other non-state armed actors, as well as discrimination, arbitrary detentions, and capital blasphemy sentences by state authorities."
Since then, USCIRF has continued to call for Nigeria’s Country of Particular Concern designation to be restored, warning as recently as July that “religious communities are facing ongoing, systematic, and egregious violations of their ability to practice their faith freely.”
This year alone, Nigeria has seen multiple high-profile attacks against Christians, including massacres in April and June that killed 40 and more than 100, respectively. In August, 50 Muslims were killed in an attack on a mosque. Just this past weekend, nine Christians — including a pastor — were killed by Fulani assailants in a terrorist attack.
On Saturday Trump followed up his initial statement with another post threatening to halt humanitarian aid and assistance to Nigeria until the killings stop. He also hinted at the possibility of military intervention, stating that he was prepared to enter the country “guns-a-blazing” in order to “wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities.”
While aboard Air Force One on Sunday, Trump made no effort to walk back his comments, telling reporters that deploying troops to Nigeria was still very much on the table. “I envisage a lot of things. They’re killing record numbers of Christians in Nigeria ... and killing them in very large numbers. We’re not going to allow that to happen.”
Nigerian spokesman Daniel Bwala subsequently responded to Reuters with a statement following Trump’s comments, stating that U.S. assistance would be welcomed so long as the U.S. respected Nigeria’s “territorial integrity.” "I am sure by the time these two leaders meet and sit, there would be better outcomes in our joint resolve to fight terrorism." He similarly affirmed to the BBC that any anti-Jihadi efforts ought to be made jointly.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu also challenged Trump’s statements and defended Nigeria’s record on religious freedom in a post on X.
“Religious freedom and tolerance have been a core tenet of our collective identity and shall always remain so. Nigeria opposes religious persecution and does not encourage it.”
While acknowledging the realities of Nigeria’s ongoing security crisis, the mainstream media has disputed characterizations of the violence as a genocide against Christians.
Time magazine dismissed such claims as an idea “circulating in right-wing circles” and amplified by politicians like Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.V.). It also cited statistics from independent watchdog Armed Conflict Location and Event Data suggesting that of the 20,409 estimated civilian deaths in the past five years, just 417 deaths were Muslim and 317 deaths were Christian.
CNN called the genocide narrative an “oversimplication” that blames religion for the violence while ignoring factors such as ethnicity and resource scarcity.
The Guardian cast Trump’s remarks as an attempt to pander to “his right-wing, evangelical base,” reflecting “renewed domestic political pressure to appear tough on the marginalization or persecution of Christians abroad.”
While ACLED rejects the claim of a Christian genocide in Nigeria, arguing that most violence stems from ethnic rivalries and competition over land and resources rather than religion, it has previously acknowledged the difficulty of ruling out religious persecution. In a note on its general methodology, the group has acknowledged that "disentangling the ethnic, communal, political, and religious dimensions of specific events ... [proves] to be problematic — at times even impossible — and extremely time-consuming. As a result, religious repression and disorder ... may be underrepresented in the dataset."
Proponents of the genocide narrative say this could lead to systematic undercounting of Christian victims. In a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio last month, Rep. Moore countered with significantly larger figures: “More than 7,000 Christians have been killed in Nigeria in 2025 alone — an average of 35 per day — with hundreds more kidnapped, tortured, or displaced by extremist groups.”
Evangelical author, public speaker, and Christian apologist Dr. Alex McFarland agrees with Moore, noting that resistance to covering Christian persecution is the norm. Reached just prior to Trump's statements over the weekend, he told Align that he believes that claims of a Christian genocide are accurate.
In an age when so many champion human rights and social justice, Nigeria is something that should be talked about. What’s going on there is tragic on an unimaginable scale. This needs to stop, and I pray the United States of America will do what it can to stop the killing of Christians and advocate for their human rights.
American Christians who want to to help should be relentless in speaking up to elected officials, advises McFarland, making it clear that they “ask and expect them to take a stand on this issue, just as we expect our elected officials to take a positive stand for Israel and against anti-Semitism.”
Supporting organizations like Samaritan's Purse, Open Doors, and Voice of the Martyrs is also an option.
McFarland emphasizes that anti-Christian persecution extends well beyond Nigeria, pointing to similar ongoing persecutions in China, India, and Saudi Arabia. “We need to understand that Christians outside of the United States have a hard go of it.”
Finally, he cautions his fellow Christians not to overlook one of the most powerful ways they can effect change. “What Christians can do is pray,” he tells Align. “That might sound glib and easy to say, but prayer works and is quite significant.”
Our movement is at a crossroads, and the question before us is simple: What does it mean to be a conservative in America today?
For years, we have been told what we are against — against the left, against wokeism, against decline. But opposition alone does not define a movement, and it certainly does not define a moral vision.
We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.
The media, as usual, are eager to supply their own answer. The New York Times recently suggested that Nick Fuentes represents the “future” of conservatism. That’s nonsense — a distortion of both truth and tradition. Fuentes and those like him do not represent American conservatism. They represent its counterfeit.
Real conservatism is not rage. It is reverence. It does not treat the past as a museum, but as a teacher. America’s founders asked us to preserve their principles and improve upon their practice. That means understanding what we are conserving — a living covenant, not a relic.
In 2025, conservatism means stewardship — of a nation, a culture, and a moral inheritance too precious to abandon. To conserve is not to freeze history. It is to stand guard over what is essential. We are custodians of an experiment in liberty that rests on the belief that rights come not from kings or Congress, but from the Creator.
That belief built this country. It will be what saves it. The Constitution is a covenant between generations. Conservatism is the duty to keep that covenant alive — to preserve what works, correct what fails, and pass on both wisdom and freedom to those who come next.
Economics, culture, and morality are inseparable. Debt is not only fiscal; it is moral. Spending what belongs to the unborn is theft. Dependence is not compassion; it is weakness parading as virtue. A society that trades responsibility for comfort teaches citizens how to live as slaves.
Freedom without virtue is not freedom; it is chaos. A culture that mocks faith cannot defend liberty, and a nation that rejects truth cannot sustain justice. Conservatism must again become the moral compass of a disoriented people, reminding America that liberty survives only when anchored to virtue.
We cannot define ourselves by what we oppose. We must build families, communities, and institutions that endure. Government is broken because education is broken, and education is broken because we abandoned the formation of the mind and the soul. The work ahead is competence, not cynicism.
Conservatives should embrace innovation and technology while rejecting the chaos of Silicon Valley. Progress must not come at the expense of principle. Technology must strengthen people, not replace them. Artificial intelligence should remain a servant, never a master. The true strength of a nation is not measured by data or bureaucracy, but by the quiet webs of family, faith, and service that hold communities together. When Washington falters — and it will — those neighborhoods must stand.
RELATED: Evil never announces itself — it seduces the hearts of the blind
This is the real work of conservatism: to conserve what is good and true and to reform what has decayed. It is not about slogans; it is about stewardship — the patient labor of building a civilization that remembers what it stands for.
We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.
For the rising generation, conservatism cannot be nostalgia. It must be more than a memory of 9/11 or admiration for a Reagan era they never lived through. Many young Americans did not experience those moments — and they should not have to in order to grasp the lessons they taught and the truths they embodied. The next chapter is not about preserving relics but renewing purpose. It must speak to conviction, not cynicism; to moral clarity, not despair.
Young people are searching for meaning in a culture that mocks truth and empties life of purpose. Conservatism should be the moral compass that reminds them freedom is responsibility and that faith, family, and moral courage remain the surest rebellions against hopelessness.
To be a conservative in 2025 is to defend the enduring principles of American liberty while stewarding the culture, the economy, and the spirit of a free people. It is to stand for truth when truth is unfashionable and to guard moral order when the world celebrates chaos.
We are not merely holding the torch. We are relighting it.
In a recent appearance with Glenn Beck, Whitney Webb lays out her case that the Great Reset did not end with the election of Donald Trump. Elites, ever given to schemes involving central control, reallocation, and number-go-up, are planning to tokenize everything they possibly can, including natural resources.
Webb draws a connective line between BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, the World Economic Forum (not exactly a freedom-oriented outfit), digital ID, and this process of so-called tokenization. This term is new to many people. Essentially, tokenization refers to the process of placing a metric, a mark, an identifying code on an object. The identifying marker is then pumped into an aggregating and analytical machine.
There is, no doubt, some obscurantism in the tech community, intentional or otherwise, as well as some heavy cognitive dissonance playing out for the rest of us as we watch the real, actual economy withering at our feet. How does giving (or selling) rights to natural resources like water help you and your neighbors pay bills, raise families, live in some semblance of accord with God?
The coming system is intended to solve for the management of not just anything but everything.
Neither Larry Fink nor the WEF are working on our behalf by digitizing water. Then what are they up to? Dropping in recently on CNBC, Fink said, “I do believe we’re just at the beginning of the tokenization of all assets, from real estate to equities to bonds, across the board.”
Through the implementation of natural resource assets, the plan is to mark, meter, and digitize water, trees, air, and animals of every sort, then pin their existence, in the digital tokens' monetized form, to the shared economy. That unlocks foreign investment and, one imagines, perpetuates some modified version of the ever-unstable and unsatisfactory financial enclosure of benefits and retirement that has, so far, kept enough U.S. citizens satiated to keep it rolling.
Any and every AI is designed or able to adapt to the tokenization process. It needs be automatic and fast enough to keep up-to-the-minute record of millions or billions of transactions, sales, shorts, liquidations, and so forth. Rather than a system of streams or channels, the need is for computing to move like water itself. For Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies hoping to participate in the tokenization bonanza, that means their encryption and storing of information (through so-called hashes and ledgers) needs to flow at the speed of the global digital economy.
Indeed, we’ve seen for years that some lesser-known cryptocurrency companies, like Hashbar as one example, have been building their hash, as it were, to function within an AI-controlled global marketplace. These hash-products, not too dissimilar from Bitcoin in terms of their ledger-keeping properties, are meant, in a stupefying sense, to mark individual drops and tranches of liquid or digitally liquified assets.
RELATED: Can anyone save America from European-style digital ID?
It's hard to visualize such unnatural and invisible arrangements, so here's a real-world example: Say you have 10,000 board feet of Douglas fir trees on a lot in Washington state. If the Fink version of tokenization goes forward, you’ll be able to “digitize” those useful board feet of wood and sell portions, as opposed to the whole lot. Now picture that process for, well, anything you can imagine and much that you can't.
In simple terms, the likely outcome of all of this BlackRock-WEF-AI machination is immediate dissociation between the human and the trees, the fir needles, the smell of the soil. All of that, given enough backroom dealing, political sloth, and diabolical Wall Street ingenuity, will be erased.
Are we talking about selling public lands? Theoretically, yes. Although major legal, regulatory, and political hurdles remain, the principle of leaving at least some portions of the created world exempt from actionable financial valuation is already eroding away. The accelerating logic of digital terraforming has no conceptual limit. Granting the premise that tokenization is good, not only should private property be tokenized, but all water, all minerals, and every possible other item with unexploited value rooted in human experience. The coming AI, digital ID, hash-rated system is intended to solve for the management of not just anything but everything.
The disturbing undercurrent of plans, outcomes, and inertia around this improbable intersection of technologies gets more disturbing when you accept that it is, in fact, a long-term plan nearly realized.
In her chat with Beck, Webb outlines another piece of the puzzle, termed “natural asset corporations.” This is pitched to the mainstream as a way to invest in conservation, ensure biodiversity, and so forth. But if we recall the century-long technocratic play, the current AI inertia, and the bipartisan support for anything to keep the fiat economy limping along, it’s easy to see how those natural assets under ownership might be subject to changes in any legal stipulation barring sales to other corporate or government entities. Those interlocking directorships have a knack for change.
We haven’t even mentioned energy, but we must, because this scheme ultimately needs to take into account the sun itself! Who owns the sun? Well, BlackRock, of course. Or some quasi-tech giant/WEF version of BlackRock.
Actually, no one owns the sun but God, and we have to remember this fact. By way of the wholly God-given system, we see that the sun feeds the grass, grass feeds the animals, we eat the animals.
The technical details on the capture of energy are intense, involving data centers to run the AI, political control to rubber-stamp the terraforming for the electrical inputs, and, at some near point, the encrypting of energetic inputs into a digital (hashing) ledger to be monitored, metered, and controlled.
You can probably see here how necessary the personal digital ID is to the entire panopticon. But if not, consider it unlikely that your or my interests are going to be taken into consideration by third-country customer service agents employed by the electrical company to manage our dissatisfaction in the event that a neighborhood brown-out is required while grid power is shunted over to the local data center.
I do a lot of things for work. I take photos, I take videos, I write stories, I write columns, I write about style, and I write about life.
I also help guys dress better. Officially it’s called style advising, but down to brass tacks, it means me helping guys get clothes they are happy with. Helping them get rid of the junk that sits in their closet that they never wear and get into clothes that make them look, and feel, their best.
Exercising creative control in the physical space feels good in a way that’s deeper than exercising the same kind of creativity in the digital space.
It’s one of the most rewarding things I do. I know lots of guys dismiss the importance of clothes, but they do so at their peril. Our clothes really do have a huge impact on our psychological state. They can make us pretty unhappy or pretty happy.
Does that make us "superficial"? No. It’s an acknowledgment of the fact that what we wear represents who we are to others —and to ourselves. If you aren’t happy with how you present yourself, you aren’t going to be happy with yourself. It’s that simple.
So I take personal satisfaction from watching a guy transform his wardrobe over the course of a year or two. What's particularly satisfying is observing how his attitude toward clothing changes as he overhauls his closet.
The process usually starts with a pragmatic interest in not looking like a slob. Achieving a baseline presentability eliminates any negative attention slovenly dress attracts. From that point he may start to notice that looking a little more "put together" actually attracts positive attention. And once he starts to experience the fruits of dressing decently in public, he's ready to start enjoying his clothes.
This means he's comfortable and confident enough that he no longer sees dressing himself as a test to get "right," but as an opportunity for personal expression and creativity. Clothes finally become what they're meant to be: fun.
Or as a client deep into his own wardrobe revamp recently told me, “I’m just blown away by how fun this stuff can get.”
What a difference in attitude and mindset. A realization like that is generally a sign that a certain kind of psychological transformation has been completed.
RELATED: Corduroys: The perfect winter trousers
I'm aware that the word "fun" may connote something shallow or frivolous — and in some respects clothing can be both. But the pleasure we derive from clothing also derives from its deeper meaning: the way it reinforces the eternal forms of man and woman, emphasizes our dignity as human beings made in the image of God, and reflects our culture, values, and even religious beliefs.
Remember the pastel cars of the 1950s? It’s hard to believe it, but there was a time when when cars weren’t only black, gray, or white. There was a time when cars were fun. Well, it’s the same thing with clothes. If you really look at the stuff the guys were wearing back in those old movies, they were actually having much more fun than the guy who wears dark jeans, a black T-shirt, and a gray hoodie in 2025. Coming to the final realization that clothes should be fun is actually a kind of returning to tradition.
The thoughtfully designed, personal interior of your home feels more welcoming than an airport terminal. A carefully cultivated garden is more beautiful than an expanse of artificial turf. And a well-fitting and harmonious combination of shirt, jacket, and trousers is more flattering than a prison-like monochrome sweatsuit.
There’s also a peculiar psychological benefit to embracing clothes as a domain of fun. Exercising creative control in the physical space feels good in a way that’s deeper than exercising the same kind of creativity it in the digital space.
In our screen-dominant era, the experience of joyfully controlling your personal environment is humanizing and refreshing. It’s good to like how you look and know that you are the one responsible for it. It feels like we are actually doing something rather than just moving pixels around.
Of course, it goes without saying that not all fun is good fun. We know that’s true about all sorts of stuff in life. Many a bad decision sure was fun at the time. So it goes with the temporary thrill of donning stupid neon graphic T-shirts, grotesque Crocs, alien-green sweatpants printed with pizza motifs.
Many men today begin their style journey as overgrown children who have enjoyed this "bad" kind of fun for most of their lives: the dumb T-shirts and the stupid shoes. But then they decide to grow up, and after working through their wardrobe, they come to understand that these classic clothes are not just good for the soul or society. They are fun, and they are the right kind of fun, the kind of fun that edifies and enriches us.
It’s not too late for Ballerini or the countless other women dealing with the same dilemma to get hitched, settle down in the suburbs, and start a family. Doing so, however, requires sacrifice.
www.theblaze.com