Biden Stumbled So That Trump Could Soar: Happy One-Year Anniversary to the Debate That Saved America

Exactly one year ago today, President Joe Biden wandered onto a CNN debate stage in Atlanta. Democrats were oozing confidence ahead of the showdown against Donald Trump. They had managed to persuade most mainstream journalists that all the video clips of Biden bumbling around like a demented geezer were dangerously misleading "cheap fakes." Former Hillary Clinton strategist Zac Petkanas argued Biden had "already won" so long as he wasn't "wheeled out on stage in a hospital bed." Biden's campaign team posted a photo of the president "feeling pretty jacked up" and holding a can of "Dark Brandon" water.

The post Biden Stumbled So That Trump Could Soar: Happy One-Year Anniversary to the Debate That Saved America appeared first on .

The MAGA divide over Israel is a test of maturity



The recent clash between Tucker Carlson and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) over the Israel-Iran conflict isn’t just a Twitter skirmish. It’s a proxy battle highlighting a deeper divide within the MAGA movement. That divide cuts to the heart of competing worldviews, and I’ve spent much of this week on my show trying to make sense of it through a biblical lens.

This internal debate isn’t a problem. In fact, it’s a strength. You’ll see it across Blaze Media on a wide variety of questions. Glenn Beck champions critical thinking and challenging assumptions. We don’t all walk in lockstep — nor should we. On this issue alone, you’ll hear wildly different takes across the network. That diversity makes us better.

We live in a time that punishes discernment. Critical thinking doesn’t just get ignored — it gets attacked. And yet I’ve never seen so many people hungry for truth.

We’re also better off when we allow that debate to happen within ourselves.

When I first became a Christian, I devoured everything I could find about church history and theology. I loved Augustine. Then I read Calvin and agreed with him — even where he contradicted Augustine. Then I read Luther, who opposed both of them — and I agreed with him, too. What now?

That tension never goes away. Pick up a Tim Keller book, and the same thing happens. If he wrote it before 2005, it’s probably excellent. If he wrote it after, it probably isn’t. So is Keller good or bad? Right or wrong?

I care about truth more than just about anyone I know. But early in my journey, I learned a hard lesson — delivered, oddly enough, by one of my favorite childhood films “WarGames”: “The only winning move is not to play.”

So do I have to pick Tucker or Cruz? Do I have to vote someone off the island?

Nope. If someone’s right in the moment, I’m with them. If they’re wrong — even if they were right 10 times before — I’m not. It’s not personal. It’s principled. That’s the only way I’ve found to avoid losing my mind, becoming a tribalist, or slipping into flat-out idolatry.

We live in a time that punishes discernment. Critical thinking doesn’t just get ignored — it gets attacked. And yet, I’ve never seen so many people hungry for truth.

That hunger forces us to work with unlikely allies.

Take Naomi Wolf. For three decades, she belonged to a political world I deeply opposed. She worked for the Clintons and trafficked in feminist nonsense. But during COVID, when the lies were thickest, she told the truth. She fought the right fight, at the right time, on the right side. That mattered more than her résumé. That’s what discernment looks like. Personality cults don’t interest me.

RELATED: Which will it be, America? God, greed — or the grave?

KvitaJan via iStock/Getty Images

Same with Donald Trump. In 2015, his campaign tried everything to hire me. I almost said yes. But then I did everything I could to stop him from winning. Yet the morning after his victory, I said something on my show that might be the most important thing I’ve ever said on-air: “The country has spoken. NeverTrump is dead and never coming back.”

I wanted what was best for the country. And at that moment, that meant helping Trump succeed. How could I help?

You won’t think that way if you’re obsessed with defending your narrative at all costs — especially if that narrative floats untethered from the Word of God.

You won’t love your neighbor. You’ll straw-man your opponents. You’ll never consider the possibility you’re wrong.

Look around. Just days ago, Israel versus Iran wasn’t on our radar. Now, people have already retreated to their corners and locked in their positions — on a conflict that could reshape the lives of millions.

Maybe we should stop. Breathe. Listen.

Maybe, before we harden into another round of generational mistakes, we should consult God — and one another.

Let’s reason together. It’s not weakness. It’s wisdom. And we need more of it.

There’s No Point In Arguing With Democrats About Trump

There is not a single fact, much less a body of them, that you and a lefty can agree upon to start a conversation about The Orange Man.

What Went Wrong in ‘Jordan Peterson vs 20 Atheists’

Jordan Peterson professes to be an expert on Christianity but doesn't believe in Jesus — in fact, the only higher authority he seems to recognize is himself.

Charlie Kirk exposes the moral rot at Cambridge in a devastating exchange



Charlie Kirk has done something few public figures attempt: For the past decade, he has toured American university campuses and taken unscripted questions from students. In the process, he has exposed the intellectual rot at the heart of the modern academy. Most students come prepared not with arguments but with slogans — recycled from gender studies lectures and Ibram X. Kendi reading groups. What’s missing is actual critical thinking, the very trait these institutions pretend to cultivate.

Kirk recently brought his project to the United Kingdom, with similarly revealing results. At the storied Cambridge Union on May 19, he debated students and fielded questions from the audience. The encounter didn’t showcase the vitality of one of Christendom’s oldest universities. It exposed its decline. What stood out wasn’t the strength of Cambridge’s intellectual tradition but its weakness — the spectacle of a self-assured student, brimming with elite self-regard, being outmatched by an American who never earned a degree.

Kirk delivered the mortal blow: A child has more wisdom than a Cambridge student.

Once upon a time, the Cambridge student who wanted to “challenge the system” or “speak truth to power” might have supported William Tyndale in translating the Bible into English — an act that cost him his life. Or perhaps he would have taken pride in the legacy of John Eliot, a fellow Cambridge alumnus who crossed the Atlantic, entered the wilderness, and ministered to the Algonquin. Eliot invented a written form of their language, translated the Bible into it, and sent a copy back to Cambridge — confident the university would take pride in such a feat. His was the first Bible printed in the American colonies.

Those days are gone.

No God, no goodness

In the recent debate, former Cambridge Union President Sammy McDonald didn’t use his platform to pursue truth. He used it to mock the Christian faith. While Kirk’s Christianity is no secret, McDonald’s contempt was likely aimed at specific claims Kirk made during the event — that life begins at conception and that monogamous, heterosexual marriage benefits society. In today’s academic climate, such positions qualify as heresy. The punishment is no longer martyrdom (not yet) but smug derision.

In that context, Kirk performed a public service for Cambridge and the world. McDonald stands as a warning of what students too often become when shaped by today’s academic regime: clever but foolish, hostile to God, Christ, and Christianity, and armed with a brittle moral confidence unsupported by any coherent view of good and evil.

One of the most painful moments of the debate came when McDonald revealed he didn’t know what “genocide” or “ethnic cleansing” meant. His tactic was simple and dishonest: accuse Charlie Kirk of endorsing atrocities without a shred of evidence, then use the rest of his time to condemn those atrocities as evil. It’s a lazy maneuver — a rhetorical sleight of hand — and emblematic of the intellectual decay at the Cambridge Union.

Worse, McDonald offered no coherent explanation for why anything is evil. His only moral compass seemed to be a vague intuition that suffering is bad. But where did that intuition come from? He professed concern for innocent children killed in Gaza, yet never acknowledged the mass slaughter of unborn children in his own country. That’s not moral reasoning. That’s hypocrisy. And one wonders why a Cambridge education failed to help him see it.

The problem of abundance

Kirk, by contrast, praised Great Britain for its civilizational legacy and urged students to reclaim it. When asked why wealthy societies tend to abandon monogamous marriage, Kirk’s answer cut to the heart of the issue: Once a society stops needing to delay gratification — once comfort becomes the norm and abundance replaces sacrifice — moral decay follows. Without a transcendent order grounded in the creator, collapse becomes not just possible but likely. Even before collapse, citizens lose their footing. Anxiety and misery take hold.

It was an odd question, really, since the dominant theme among leftist students is that wealth corrupts and the rich are inherently evil. And yet they seem eager to imitate the decadence of affluent societies rather than return to the moral clarity of more modest times.

McDonald’s moral confidence boils down to a single assertion: Suffering is bad. He has hollowed out anything transcendent. When Kirk affirmed that there are good guys and there are bad guys, McDonald scoffed, accusing him of holding childish morality.

Then, Kirk delivered the mortal blow: A child has more wisdom than a Cambridge student. And that’s what Kirk puts on display time and again: University students do not know what is clear.

RELATED: Charlie Kirk is not wrong about birth control

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

When Kirk spoke of truth, beauty, and goodness, the students stared blankly, as if they had heard ancient words but had forgotten what they meant. To borrow from Johnny Cash, “They say they want the kingdom, but they don’t want God in it.” Like Richard Dawkins, such students want the benefits of Christian culture but without Christ.

That tells us nearly everything. Students like McDonald study among the crumbling stones of a university built on Christian foundations — a place that once trained minds in piety, theology and the Great Commission. The Physics Department at Cambridge still bears the words of Psalm 111:2 above its door: “The works of the Lord are great; sought out of all them that have pleasure therein.” But reverence has given way to signaling, posturing, and progressive clichés. Today’s mission is not to spread the gospel but to promote the sexual politics of Alfred Kinsey — and to call that “progress.”

In his final moments, McDonald grasped for a rhetorical flourish and accused Kirk of having betrayed America — a country McDonald, bizarrely, claimed to admire. After the applause, Kirk delivered the final blow: “The difference is, when we get our way, we’ll still have a country. You’ll be living in a third-world hellhole.”

It was a moment of historical symmetry: the smug redcoat realizing, too late, that the ragtag colonials had just won.

A call to return

If “loving America” means gutting its Christian foundation and moral clarity, young Mr. McDonald can keep his affection to himself. No means no.

Cambridge should reclaim its former glory. As Kirk rightly observed, the United Kingdom has become a husk of what it once was. This was once the land of Bible translators, of scholars who believed every reader deserved Scripture in their own language — and the education to understand it and live by it. On that foundation, England abolished slavery and carried Christian morality across the globe in pursuit of the Great Commission.

Short of revival, Kirk has performed a necessary service. Just as he has done for American families, he has now done for English ones: exposed the ignorance of the modern university. He’s held up a mirror so that every parent might ask, honestly and urgently, whether a diploma is worth the price of their child’s soul.

Silence isn’t peace — it’s just surrender in slow motion



Blaze Media recently published my opinion piece “Agree to disagree? More like surrender to the script.” In the days that followed, readers left thoughtful and reasonable comments.

But when the Christian Post republished the same article, the comment section there sparked a firestorm.

If God the Father had been willing to 'agree to disagree' with humanity about sin, He wouldn’t have sent His Son to die in our place.

If you don’t have time to read the article or browse the responses, here’s the short version:

The piece centers on a conversation I had with my friend Jeffrey, who strongly dislikes President Trump. Over the four years of the Biden administration, Jeffrey never once criticized Biden or his team — no matter how egregious their actions. Yet, barely two months into Trump’s return to office, Jeffrey was already taking shots at him. And he did so during what had been, until that moment, a relatively uneventful phone call.

To be clear, I didn’t bring up the topic of the president. I knew it was a sensitive subject for Jeffrey. But during a conversation about a recent movie, he found a way to insert his objection to Trump’s deportation policy, calling those deported “asylum seekers.” He also declared that Trump was “bad for democracy.”

I pushed back gently, noting that America is not a democracy but a constitutional republic. Jeffrey agreed.

When I pointed out that an open border has led to sex trafficking, fentanyl deaths, and violent criminals infiltrating small towns, he said he didn’t support any of that. But then he quickly ended the conversation with, “Let’s just agree to disagree.”

Trump broke the truce

I found that well-worn phrase — “agree to disagree” — strange in this context. It suggests any disagreement, no matter how serious, can be casually brushed aside. Sure, my wife prefers chocolate ice cream, and I prefer vanilla. On that — and countless other minor things — we can “agree to disagree.” But when the stakes are higher? When lives are at risk — even the future of the nation? People should articulate and defend their positions.

After my “agree to disagree” article appeared in the Christian Post, commenters there came after me. Apparently, I wasn’t being a good Christian because I stirred the pot by bringing up Donald Trump — “the great divider,” as some called him. Never mind that I didn’t bring up his name. My friend did. But I wasn’t about to let his cheap shots go unchallenged.

In the original piece, I asked whether my friend — a faithful Christian — also sees his allegiance to the Democratic Party as an “agree to disagree” matter. Can a Christian’s loyalty to any political party cloud his judgment on what’s clearly right or wrong?

Jeffrey said he opposes sex changes for kids and drag queen story hours. But when it comes to deportation, he sees Trump’s second-term policies as domineering and out of bounds.

Disagreeing isn’t a sin

On critical issues — like the devastating effects of open borders — silence is complicity. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer warned, “Silence in the face of evil is evil. Not to speak is to speak.” When others looked the other way — or “agreed to disagree” — during the Nazi rise in 1930s Germany, Bonhoeffer stood firm. He was one of the few pastors who refused to be silent.

Today, the American left censors, cancels, and silences anyone who disagrees. Leftists expect us to “agree to disagree” but only if we’re the ones doing the agreeing — and the disagreeing. That demand for submission is part of why the country now finds itself in such dangerous and unstable times.

In my earlier article, one line struck a nerve:

It’s hard to imagine these days that the words ‘Christian’ and ‘Democrat’ can be mentioned in the same sentence.

That line sparked outrage. One commenter at the Christian Post wrote: “Nothing ends discussions — or even friendships — faster than questioning someone’s salvation over their political party.”

But here’s the problem: That’s not what I said. That commenter assumed I questioned my friend’s salvation. I didn’t. Within the context of the article, it’s clear I questioned his wisdom — something entirely different.

Jesus didn’t flinch

A few years ago, it was trendy to wear wristbands with the initials “WWJD?” — short for “What Would Jesus Do?”

But I always thought the better question was “WDJD?” — “What Did Jesus Do?”

Without knowing the Gospels, we risk projecting our own preferences onto Christ. We imagine He would act just like us in any given situation. But if we read scripture and study His words, we begin to understand how He actually responded — and how we should, too.

Nowhere in the four Gospels does Jesus “agree to disagree.” He never split the difference. He never wavered. He always led from a position of authority.

Take His encounter in the Temple. Jesus didn’t debate the moneychangers. He didn’t issue a polite warning. He flipped their tables and drove them out (Matthew 21:12-13). He didn’t scold them and promise to check in again next Sabbath for a follow-up heart-to-heart.

Jesus didn’t agree to disagree. He made it unmistakably clear: God’s house would not be defiled.

Oswald Chambers, in his classic devotional “My Utmost for His Highest,” ends the March 24 entry with this piercing line: “You may often see Jesus Christ wreck a life before He saves it.”

He cites Matthew 10:34, where Jesus says, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

That doesn’t sound like someone looking to “agree to disagree.”

Debate or dodge

One commenter tried to compare disagreement to a hung jury — where jurors can’t reach a unanimous verdict. But that analogy falls apart under scrutiny. Hung juries don’t arise from casual disagreement or an early vote. They happen only after jurors rigorously examine the evidence, debate the facts, and dig into every detail.

A jury doesn’t begin deliberations by taking a straw poll and calling it quits. It doesn’t return to the judge after a 7-5 split and declare, “Let’s just agree to disagree.”

A fair trial demands serious discussion — so should any conversation where truth and justice are at stake.

If God the Father had been willing to “agree to disagree” with humanity about sin, He wouldn’t have sent His Son to die in our place. We could have gone on living however we pleased — hurting others, being hurt, and suffering the consequences. Jesus might have shown up just to stand on the sidelines, shaking His head as we destroyed ourselves.

Consider the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11. The Pharisees reminded Jesus that the law required her to be stoned. He could have done what Pontius Pilate would do later — wash His hands of the situation. He could have said, “The law is the law,” and let the crowd do as it pleased. Agree to disagree, right?

But Jesus didn’t do that. Instead, He delivered a mic-drop moment that spared her life. Then, He told her, “Go and sin no more.”

Compare that to what happened when Jesus stood before Pilate. Pilate, faced with the mob, knew Jesus was innocent. But instead of standing up to the crowd, he caved. He agreed to disagree — and sent Christ to the cross.

When it comes to sin and judgment, “agree to disagree” is just cowardice dressed up as compromise. Jesus never did that.

You posted, didn’t you?

Some readers of my original article accused me of sounding self-righteous for taking a firm stance with Jeffrey. But I don’t believe we should compromise — or “agree to disagree” — on matters of real consequence. That’s why I laid out the facts clearly, whether Jeffrey knew them or not.

There’s more to be said, but let me end with this:

A surprising number of commenters on the Christian Post insisted that we should always “agree to disagree,” even on major issues. But every one of those comments proved my point. Not a single person “agreed to disagree” with me. Instead, they made sure their dissenting views were heard — some twisting my words, others going straight for personal attacks.

If they truly believed in “agreeing to disagree,” they wouldn’t have commented at all.

So who’s right about the value of “agree to disagree”?

Well, it appears it's debatable, after all.

WATCH: Biden Dozed Near Pool During Debate Prep, Author Says

Former president Joe Biden fell asleep poolside during a prep session ahead of his disastrous June debate with Donald Trump, according to the author of a new book on the 2024 election.

The post WATCH: Biden Dozed Near Pool During Debate Prep, Author Says appeared first on .

Biden Chief of Staff Ron Klain Was 'Startled' by Octogenarian's Mental Decline Before Trump Debate: New Book

In the days leading up to his disastrous June debate with Donald Trump, then-president Joe Biden appeared "extremely exhausted" and "unaware of what was happening in his own campaign," longtime Biden aide Ron Klain reveals in a new book.

The post Biden Chief of Staff Ron Klain Was 'Startled' by Octogenarian's Mental Decline Before Trump Debate: New Book appeared first on .

Is AOC scared to debate the Great One?



Earlier this year, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) kicked off a “Fighting Oligarchy: Where We Go from Here” tour targeting areas with Republican influence to rally progressive support. The tour is yet another anti-Trump movement designed to villainize President Trump, Elon Musk, and every GOP policy they spearhead.

Since AOC is so keen on visiting red states, Mark Levin invited her onto his show for a debate. It's a perfect opportunity if her goal is to reach into corners of conservative influence.

“I said, ‘Hey, I've got a national town hall meeting here three hours a day, five days a week. We reach into every single one of those Republican districts and yours — Democrat districts. Come on for an hour,”’ he says.

After multiple calls and emails to her office, he “heard nothing.” He’s also reached out to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and even some RINOs. None of them will respond to his invitations.

So when people ask him, “Why don't you ever have one of these big Democrats on?” it’s because “they won't come.”

According to Stephen A. Smith, a friend of Levin’s, “nobody wants to debate [him].”

But the invitation remains open.

“I'll debate any of them on any of these platforms for an entire hour,” says Levin.

But so far, none of these Dems or RINOS will risk being humiliated by the Great One. Can you blame them?

Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Era Of Presuming Liberal Moral Superiority Is Over

Kids have figured out that America's failing liberal institutions have left them surrounded by a harmful cultural and political order that can't justify itself.