Taxpayer-Funded Schools Can’t Prohibit Prayer And Promote Witchcraft
What looks like harmless exploration of 'different beliefs' is reprogramming the moral compass of the next generation.What looks like harmless exploration of 'different beliefs' is reprogramming the moral compass of the next generation.‘No Kings’ is the clown show covering for a coup
In June, the left launched its “No Kings” protest to denounce the horrific “authoritarian dictatorship” of Donald Trump. Deporting illegal alien gang members, preventing the mutilation of children, and punishing criminals all became proof of Trump’s incipient “fascism.”
Now that Trump has deployed National Guard troops to stop violent leftist mobs from attacking ICE officers, Democrats and the left have decided to stage a sequel on Saturday. The whole thing will look like farce — clever signs, bad folk music, and stale slogans — but behind the clown show, the left is radicalizing shock troops preparing to do real violence.
The ‘No Kings’ spectacle will fill news segments and late-night monologues, but it’s just camouflage.
No myth runs deeper in American life than the idea that peaceful protest drives reform. Boomers grew up believing that singing folk songs, waving witty signs, and smoking pot were powerful tools of change. The media sanctified the calm resolve of civil rights marches and the flower-child theatrics of the anti-war movement as the true engines of progress. As usual, Hollywood left out the ugly parts.
Those movements also produced riots, rapes, arson, bombings, and murders. The violence was so widespread that Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign ran one of the most famous ads in political history promising to restore law and order. The peaceful demonstrators made for good television, but it was the violence that moved the needle. No one likes to say it aloud, but the violence worked.
The first round of “No Kings” protests had respectable turnout but achieved nothing. Leftists filled the streets to mock Trump and chant about freedom, but no policies changed, and no momentum followed. Trump’s approval may have slipped to the mid-40s, but Democrats still wallow in the low-30s. Americans may be weary, but the protests haven’t persuaded them that the Democrats can govern.
Violence has been far more effective. The assassination of Charlie Kirk has made conservative campus events nearly impossible. Universities now demand absurd security fees or simply cancel appearances outright, citing “safety concerns.” The threat doesn’t come from the speaker — it comes from the activists university officials refuse to restrain. Several conservative commentators are stepping in to finish Kirk’s tour, but the assassin’s veto has reshaped the landscape.
Violence also brought Jimmy Kimmel back to late-night television. After he lied about Kirk’s assassination, sponsors complained, and two major affiliates refused to run his show. Sinclair Broadcasting even planned to air a Kirk tribute in his slot. Then came bomb threats, followed by gunfire targeting an ABC station in California. Sinclair folded, scrapped the tribute, and restored Kimmel to the lineup. Terrorism works. It succeeds where boycotts fail.
RELATED: Evil unchecked always spreads — and Democrats are proof
Mob action has disrupted immigration enforcement too. Leftists have assaulted ICE officers, blocked arrests, surrounded vehicles, and tried to plant explosives. One would-be assassin aimed for agents but only killed detainees. Trump’s Justice Department has begun cracking down, but the left keeps escalating. They’ve learned that violence yields results.
It’s hard to take Democrats seriously when they wail about “authoritarianism.” They jailed Trump officials, abortion protesters, meme-makers, and even the president himself. They don’t fear power — they crave it. What they hate is losing it.
Organizers claim that more than 2,000 “No Kings” protests are set for the weekend. The biggest ones will draw crowds, mostly aging Boomers reliving their youth. They’ll march, sing, and pretend to matter. But the real movement isn’t in the drum circles. It’s with people like Jay Jones, the Virginia attorney general candidate who still enjoys Democratic support despite texting fantasies about murdering the children of conservatives. That’s the true face of the modern left. They’re not waving signs — they’re plotting.
The “No Kings” spectacle will fill news segments and late-night monologues, but it’s just camouflage. Behind it stands an organized, violent movement convinced that terror is legitimate politics. These people don’t want debate. They want obedience — and they’re willing to bleed us for it.
Statement On Department Of War Media Access Guidelines From The Federalist CEO Sean Davis And Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway
When other credentialed outlets and journalists spread lies about the Russia collusion hoax, or the Covington kids hoax, or the Kavanaugh rape hoax, or the Ukraine impeachment hoax, or the COVID-19 natural origin hoax, or the peaceful BLM riots hoax, or the suckers and losers hoax, or the Hunter Biden laptop hoax, or the Biden’s-brain-is-totally-fine-you-guys […]Court upholds school's ban of 'Let's Go Brandon' clothing in free speech dispute
On Tuesday, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling that a Michigan school district did not violate two students' rights when the administration forced them to remove clothing with the words "Let's Go Brandon."
The case involved two brothers who wore sweatshirts with the phrase to school in 2022. The students, both then of middle-school age, were asked to remove the clothing "since the phrase 'means the F-word,'" the opinion related, quoting assistant principal of Tri County Middle School Andrew Buikema.
'It contains no sexual content, no graphic imagery, and no actual profanity.'
Specifically, the opinion affirmed the district court's understanding that the school "reasonably understood the slogan 'Let's Go Brandon' to be vulgar."
The court decision explained in detail the provenance of the well-known expression, which originates from a 2021 NASCAR event in Alabama.
RELATED: 'Let's go, lawsuit': Students sue after school forces them to remove 'Let's Go Brandon' sweatshirts
In a video of the NASCAR event, the crowd can be heard chanting, "F**k Joe Biden," but a reporter misreports the chant during her interview with professional race car driver Brandon Brown. She says the crowd is chanting, "Let's go, Brandon."
The misreported phrase quickly became popular as an outlet for criticism of then-President Joe Biden.
The opinion from the appeals court stated that the reporter either misheard the chant or was "simply trying to put a fig leaf over the chant's vulgarity."
"The school administrators reasonably interpreted the 'Let’s Go Brandon' slogan as being vulgar speech that 'a school may categorically prohibit' despite its political message. Requesting that students remove clothing with that slogan didn't violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments," the opinion of the court concluded.
The court split two to one in the decision. Judge John Bush dissented from the opinion of Judges John Nalbandian and Karen Nelson Moore.
Bush wrote in his dissent that wearing clothing with political messaging is "the first point of entry to civic engagement." The school's intervention thus "quickly ended" the boys' "civic engagement."
Getting to the core of the issue, Bush added, "The phrase at issue here is a euphemism for political criticism. It contains no sexual content, no graphic imagery, and no actual profanity. To the extent that it implies an offensive phrase, it does so obliquely — by design."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The Medal Of Freedom Was Created For People Exactly Like Charlie Kirk
For years, the Presidential Medal of Freedom has been awarded to celebrities and political allies. But on Tuesday, President Donald Trump will posthumously award Charlie Kirk the highest civilian honor, reviving the medal’s original intent of recognizing those who have made extraordinary contributions to the security, ideals, and freedoms of the country. Kirk was assassinated […]Why America needs faithful Christians now more than ever
As America approaches its 250th anniversary, urgent questions arise about the role Christianity should play in public life.
In recent months, the unapologetic, personal Christian witness of public officials — and their open collaboration with pastors, priests, and other faith leaders — has drawn new attention. For me, these moments have been deeply moving and inspiring.
The founders were clear: Free institutions depend on moral citizens, and morality is nurtured by religion.
For many in the mainstream media, however, this has been profoundly unsettling, prompting warnings that the nation is sliding toward a form of “Christian nationalism.”
Are they right?
The question may be something of a red herring, but it’s worth addressing. Faith has always shaped American life. The founders never intended to build a secular vacuum; they expected religion to cultivate the virtues that a free people need. At the same time, they knew that belief cannot be imposed. True liberty demands space for religion to flourish — and restraint against coercion.
Living authentically as believers in public life is not the same as enforcing religion on others. The former honors conscience and its freedom while allowing faith to enrich society; the latter distorts faith and undermines pluralism.
Charlie Kirk’s memorial service last month highlighted the power of Christian witness in public life. His widow, Erika, speaking through grief, declared, “I forgive him because it was what Christ did and is what Charlie would do.” Her words reminded a nation mired in resentment that Christianity’s strength lies in free, authentic witness. Much has been made of President Trump’s off-message remark, “I hate my opponent, and I don’t want the best for them.”
But rather than dwell on it, we should note that he later suggested Erika’s example might move him toward forgiveness — a sign of the quiet influence of authentic faith.
Other public officials like Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary Marco Rubio spoke from the heart and leaned on their Christian faith.
It’s here that we must remain careful: If religious witness is perceived as a partisan tool, its power is weakened. The church’s mission is not political victory but the salvation of souls, offered freely to hearts and minds.
RELATED: Charlie Kirk's legacy exposes a corrosive lie — and now it's time to choose
Christianity’s very public witness in our nation extends beyond Charlie’s memorial. The members of the presidential Religious Liberty Commission include influential evangelical and Catholic leaders as well as a prominent Jewish rabbi. They have spoken openly about their beliefs and their conviction that faith will heal many of our nation’s divisions.
At the Commission’s third hearing held last week, testimony highlighted ongoing pressures faced by people of faith working to educate our nation’s youth. Catholic Fr. Robert Sirico described relentless targeting by state officials of Sacred Heart Academy, a private, Catholic parochial school in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Sirico deftly clarified the line between faith and power during Q&A: “I’m not advocating the creation of a theocracy. I’m very happy to have a cultural competition of ideas.”
Sirico’s words remind us that resisting coercion is not the same as desiring the control of the public square; it is the defense of the right to live one’s faith fully and contribute accordingly.
Contrast this with the temptation of adherents of Christian nationalism to weaponize the faith for worldly power and control. Such ideologies blur the necessary distinction between the spiritual and temporal, collapsing them into one.
When that happens, both church and state are diminished. Christ himself made this clear when He told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).
Professor Russell Hittinger, executive director of the Institute for Human Ecology at the Catholic University of America, has observed that Jesus’ words set apart the heavenly and temporal orders. To confuse them, Hittinger warned, not only misrepresents the mission of the church but also humiliates it because the gospel cannot be reduced to the ambitions of civil power.
Rejecting such ideologies, of course, does not mean ignoring hostility toward Christianity. Believers today are often dismissed as intolerant or branded as bigots.
Yet, the founders were clear: Free institutions depend on moral citizens, and morality is nurtured by religion.
George Washington called religion and morality “indispensable supports” of political prosperity. John Adams warned that the Constitution was made for a “moral and religious people” and is inadequate for any other. At the same time, they recognized that belief must never be forced.
This is why religious pluralism and freedom matter so deeply. The Catholic Church affirmed this in “Dignitatis Humanae,” the Second Vatican Council’s declaration on religious liberty. It teaches that safeguarding religious freedom benefits both individuals and the Church, while respecting the God-given free will of every person.
America’s constitutional commitment to religious liberty reflects this wisdom, ensuring that Christianity and other faiths can flourish.
The divisions before us are real — but not irreparable. As the nation looks to its semiquincentennial, Christians should reflect on how faith has shaped civic life and be confident that it can help us confront today’s challenges. At the same time, we must resist the temptation to wield political power to impose Christianity.
We are called instead to live our faith visibly, guide others toward justice and mercy, and bear witness to truth through example, persuasion, and love — not through coercion or abuse of authority.
‘Must Stay Gay’ laws face their overdue reckoning
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that could reshape counseling freedom across America. The law at issue is one of several so-called “conversion therapy bans” that restrict what therapists may say to their clients.
The Ruth Institute calls them what they are: “Must Stay Gay” laws.
The fight for counseling freedom isn’t about forcing anyone to change. It’s about defending every person’s right to seek help aligned with their own beliefs and goals.
These laws silence counselors and harm families, especially young people struggling with trauma, anxiety, and sexual confusion. The question before the court is simple: Does the First Amendment allow a state to dictate which viewpoints a licensed therapist may express?
A strong signal from the court
The central issue in Chiles is viewpoint discrimination. Colorado’s law allows therapists to affirm a child’s same-sex attraction or gender confusion — but forbids them from helping a client resist or change those feelings.
Justice Samuel Alito captured the absurdity in one hypothetical, which I paraphrase (the whole argument is here):
An adolescent male comes to a licensed therapist; he feels uneasy and guilty about feeling attracted to other boys. He asks the therapist to help him feel better as a gay man. Colorado law permits this. Another adolescent male goes to a licensed therapist and asks him to help him feel less attracted to other boys. Colorado law forbids this.
That’s government picking sides in a moral debate, not equality under the law.
When pressed, Colorado’s attorney stumbled badly. Alito then asked whether “medical consensus” has ever been wrong. She hesitated, and he reminded her of Buck v. Bell,the notorious 1927 decision that upheld forced sterilization based on “progressive” science. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed the common progressive opinion at the time: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
In closing, Alliance Defending Freedom attorney James Campbell, who represents therapist Kaley Chiles, delivered the knockout line:
The state of Colorado allows a 12-year-old girl to seek counseling to affirm her so-called gender identity as a boy without parental consent — but forbids her, even with her parents, from seeking help to accept herself as female.
That’s blatant viewpoint discrimination. On this point, the justices seemed receptive.
Junk science and the ‘born this way’ myth
The state also claimed that no one has ever changed their sexual attractions — a claim as false as it is arrogant. One counterexample disproves it, and there are thousands. Our amicus brief cites studies and testimonies from men and women who experienced real change, often through talk therapy.
Colorado’s attorney dug herself in deeper, asserting that all theories linking abuse or family dynamics to sexual identity have been “debunked.” They haven’t. The research she relies on doesn’t distinguish between minors and adults, licensed and unlicensed therapists, or talk therapy and coercive “aversion” practices.
That’s ideology, not science. And the justices noticed.
RELATED: Christian counselors fight for freedom of speech before the Supreme Court
The state’s lawyer also leaned on the claim that being gay is innate and immutable. She presented no evidence for that assertion, only the assumption that it must be true. But twin and genetic studies contradict it. Many people once identified as LGBT and no longer do. They exist, they matter, and they expose the lie behind the “born this way” narrative.
What comes next
The court offered no hints about how it will rule on the immutability question. But the justices heard enough to know that Colorado’s law enforces one approved orthodoxy and punishes dissent. That’s unconstitutional — and morally indefensible.
The fight for counseling freedom isn’t about forcing anyone to change. It’s about defending every person’s right to seek help aligned with their own beliefs and goals.
Here at the Ruth Institute, we’ll keep pressing the truth: “Must Stay Gay” is not OK.
SCOTUS To Decide If Free Speech Applies To Biology-Affirming Therapists And Their Clients
Colorado’s law bans counselors like Kaley Chiles from helping minors realign their thoughts and feelings with their biological sex — even when that is the young person’s counseling goal.Christian counselors fight for freedom of speech before the Supreme Court
This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.
The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.
The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.
The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.
Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?
One‑sided freedom
Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.
Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.
Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?
If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.
Censored belief
I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.
I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.
I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.
And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.
Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.
Faith on trial
In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.
RELATED: Free speech is a core American value
That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.
The real test
No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.
Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?
If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.
The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.
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.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com