To See Why Democrat Rule Would Ruin America, Just Look At Canada
If the United States embraces an ethos of postnationalism, it will render itself impotent.If the United States embraces an ethos of postnationalism, it will render itself impotent.Steve Deace: The TRUTH about why men have become so passive
Men have always found reasons to avoid difficult fights — but today this has gotten worse, and it’s not exactly their fault.
The biggest problem with men these days, Todd Erzen of the “Steve Deace Show” explains, is that “they keep finding reasons not to fight in a culture where there are fights everywhere.”
“You’re not supposed to just randomly do it because it’s your style, your thing. You’re supposed to do it because the Lord identifies good and evil, and you are a servant of the good,” he continues.
“You must, as a man, vanquish evil,” he adds.
However, BlazeTV host Steve Deace points out that even in Genesis 3, “There’s not a whole bunch of guys preemptively looking to take on evil.”
“The opposite is often true. We wait until we’re cornered. We wait until we’ve suffered enough,” he explains.
“So that’s not new. That’s not unique,” he adds.
And even the founding fathers were not prepared to attack the “first time their God-given rights were violated.”
“They spent 10 years thinking about it, talking about it, negotiating it. Then when the redcoats start putting armed soldiers in their homes and calling it the ‘Quartering Act,’ they’re like, ‘You know, guys, we might be at a point of no return here,’” Deace says.
“I promise you, we’re not the first generation of men late to the party. That’s been every generation of men. Every single one,” he continues.
“We’re sinners,” he adds.
What is new, however, Deace explains, are the phones that never leave our hands.
“It’s these phones. We have never had at our instant disposal more opportunities to dissuade us from our priorities than the current technology of this world provides,” he says, adding, “Now that is what is new.”
Want more from Steve Deace?
To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Why 'Israel derangement syndrome' is a direct attack on the roots of your faith
As anti-Jewish rhetoric gains traction in some corners of the political right, BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey says the church can no longer afford to stay silent about what she calls “Israel derangement syndrome.”
“The Israel derangement syndrome, the Jewish derangement syndrome that has infected the minds of so many people, that they see Jewish people behind every closed door, that they’re behind every conspiracy, that they’re pulling the strings of power in every single direction, and that everything, somehow every tragedy, every injustice comes back to Israel, that is just beyond the pale,” Stuckey says.
“That is beyond logic. That is beyond reason. I think that there is something spiritual there because we see that same pattern over and over again in so many cultures throughout history and that is anti-Christian,” she continues.
This “Jewish derangement syndrome,” Stuckey says, has “blinded them to reality.”
“Scripture gives us no reason whatsoever to sever Christianity from its Jewish roots. Jesus came as Israel’s Messiah, the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. And the gospel came, according to Romans 1:16, to the Jew first and also to the Greek,” she explains.
“Christianity, it is absolutely true and inarguable, is rooted in God’s covenant with Israel, which Christ fulfilled,” she continues.
“Jesus was born under the Jewish law given to Moses in the Old Testament and came to those who were under the law, to Jews. That was His primary mission field. That’s what He reiterated over and over again,” she adds.
What those with “Israel derangement syndrome” are attempting to do is separate Christianity from Judaism when the Bible makes clear that it’s impossible.
“You cannot when you serve a Jewish savior and a God who does not go back on His promises,” Stuckey says.
“One plan of salvation through Jesus Christ for Jews and Gentiles and every single person. That does not negate the very real Jewish context, Jewish history, Jewish principles that are shared because of the biblical canon, because of the history of who God actually is,” she explains.
Stuckey also points out that many detractors claim that we don’t have Judeo-Christian roots because our founding fathers were not Jewish.
“A lot of the people I see saying that are what you call ‘trad Cath.’ A lot of the people I see pushing back against this Judeo-Christian terminology moniker are Catholic themselves. So if we are going to say we can’t call it Judeo-Christian because the founders weren’t Jewish ... we’re also not going to call it Catholic Christian because the founders weren’t Catholic,” she says.
“When people are saying Judeo-Christian, they’re not saying that some of the founders were Jewish. They were saying, ‘We have these shared principles of people being made by a God whose power and knowledge transcends ours,’” she adds.
Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Revolutionary America Documentary Helps Americans Understand Our Great Inheritance
Don’t miss the chance to reconnect with the essence of America’s legacy. Watch this documentary today.Revolutionary America Helps Today’s Americans Understand Our Great Inheritance
Revolutionary America gives viewers a chance to learn about American exceptionalism from the men who fought, bled, and died so that our nation might exist.Young Washington Biopic Highlights Early American Grit
In an age where Americans are ill-informed about their nation’s founding, 'Young Washington' highlights the obstacles of the colonial period and the resilient spirit that overcame them.George Washington was no deist: Exposing the modern myth about America’s founding
Bestselling author and cultural commentator Eric Metaxas set out with the intention to tell the true story of the American Revolution.
“I said, ‘I just want to write a very compelling, very readable, fun, gallop-through-our-history [book],’” he tells Glenn Beck.
But as Metaxas researched, he kept coming across details from our history that “astonished” him.
One of those details had to do with none other than America’s first president. Many modern historians have labeled Washington a deist — that is, one who believes in a distant God who created the world but does not intervene in human affairs. These are generally the same people who argue that America was not founded as a Christian nation.
Metaxas calls the claim that Washington was a deist "baloney."
“Washington was no deist. What a joke. What a lie,” he exclaims.
“These were men of profound Christian faith who set about doing something that had never been done since the Israelites were in the Sinai wilderness, where they left Pharaoh and left Egypt and looked directly to God without an earthly king. ... This is what the founders were trying to do,” he explains.
All of the founders, he argues, understood that the goal was to “bring the Bible into government.”
“I was so overwhelmed by the explicitly Christian nature of what was going on. ... Everywhere you look, this narrative comes out. It is inescapable,” Metaxas tells Glenn, noting that his book is not “a Christian book” but “a book of American history.”
For years, Glenn has been trying to debunk the same misleading narrative.
“In this one letter [George Washington wrote], I think it’s 24 different scriptures are quoted without him quoting it. It’s just part of his language,” he says.
Glenn notes that there are numerous accounts of the founders, including Washington, speaking about miracles.
“A deist cannot believe in miracles,” he remarks.
Agreeing, Metaxas says, “It is our duty to know this.”
But he could never find a book that told the full truth about America’s birth.
This gap is what inspired him to write “Revolution: The Birth of the Greatest Nation in the History of the World,” which just released last month.
“This is our 250th,” he says. “This is our last exit before the toll. We the people need to understand how our government works, ... that all of our founders understood our liberties come from God.”
To hear more about Metaxas’ new book, watch the video above.
Want more from Glenn Beck?
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Big challenges facing the Declaration of Independence 250 years later
With the signing of the Declaration of Independence 250 years ago, America’s founders accomplished something new under the sun: They brought into existence a nation rooted in the belief that individuals are by nature free and equal.
This year marks another achievement for the Declaration: Never before has a nation dedicated to securing its citizens’ unalienable rights — the rights inherent in all human beings — persevered for 250 years. Notwithstanding the social and political turmoil currently roiling the nation, America has done much more than persevere.
The American journey from 1776 to 2026 has been marked by the struggle to honor more fully the Declaration’s promise of equality in fundamental rights.
No multireligious, multiracial, and multiethnic nation-state in history has more successfully established freedom and equality under law, promoted economic prosperity, and developed the capabilities to defend itself by projecting military power around the world.
America’s perseverance and flourishing — as presidents including Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt have affirmed and as venerable reformers such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Frederick Douglass, and Martin Luther King Jr. have demonstrated — owe much to the nation’s founding on universal principles and to its enduring dedication to them.
Unchanging principles
The self-evident truths proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence start with the conviction that human beings are by nature free and equally endowed with unalienable rights. They include the belief that government’s first purpose is to secure citizens’ unalienable rights, that just power stems from the consent of the governed, and that citizens by right may replace a government that destroys the conditions for securing their unalienable rights.
These universal principles inform the 27 grievances — abuses of executive power, lawless legislation, and acts of war — that the Declaration spells out against King George III and the British Parliament. Some argue that the Declaration’s primary significance lies in these grievances and downplay the historic document’s opening paragraphs about universal principles as Enlightenment commonplaces. But it was revolutionary for a people to claim the authority of unalienable rights to throw off one form of government and institute another.
Indeed, according to the Declaration’s logic, American colonists’ specific grievances justified their break with Britain and the establishment of free and independent states because taken together the grievances violated rights that the colonists shared equally with all persons.
In recent years, critics on both left and right have subjected the truths that the Declaration holds to be self-evident to harsh criticism. Eminent figures associated with the postmodern-progressive left accuse these principles of obscuring if not empowering the evil institution of slavery. Prominent members of the postliberal right charge that the Declaration’s self-evident truths are neither true nor beneficial but rather constitute the chief source of the multifarious maladies afflicting the nation.
RELATED: 1776, not 1608: What the Supreme Court got wrong on birthright citizenship
Whereas postmodern progressives blame those principles for the perpetuation of systemic racism, postliberals condemn them for the systemic degradation of men and women of all religions, races, and ethnicities.
Both find in the Declaration’s affirmation of universal rights a baleful pretext for colonizing foreign countries and imposing America’s ways and rules on other peoples and nations. And both indulge extravagant speculations about establishing new forms of government in the United States untainted by the basic rights and fundamental freedoms promised by the Declaration.
The American journey from 1776 to 2026 has been marked by the struggle to honor more fully the Declaration’s promise of equality in fundamental rights. America has benefited from a common language; abundant natural resources; vast, protective oceans to the east and west; peaceful and stable borders to the north and south for much of its history; and a moral and political heritage entwining biblical faith, classical thought, and the modern tradition of freedom.
At the same time, America has been compelled to grapple with the legal institutionalization of slavery and, after the Union’s victory in the Civil War and the subsequent ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, slavery’s poisonous legacy; to wage war abroad repeatedly; and to reckon with the constant churn and turbulence generated by free peoples and free markets.
The decline of patriotism
American citizens’ appreciation of this complex, rocky, and inspiring journey is waning. The nation’s educational system bears heavy responsibility for the diminished understanding of the American experiment in ordered liberty and for the popularity of extreme criticism emerging from both sides of the political spectrum. All levels of the American educational system have been derelict in their duties. But higher education is especially to blame because it also trains K-12 teachers.
American colleges and universities advance the public interest in a variety of ways. They furnish pre-professional and professional education. They provide a credentialing service for employers. They train scholars. They conduct vital scientific research. And, not least, they offer liberal education.
Liberal education is the least successful part of higher education. In recent years, reformers have justly focused on colleges’ and universities’ impairment of free speech and imposition of ideological monocultures. The corruption of the curriculum also deserves scrutiny.
In most cases, colleges and universities believe themselves to comply with the imperatives of liberal education by requiring students to fulfill distribution requirements. Rarely do the nation’s leading institutions of higher education mandate courses that all students must complete or identify substantive bodies of knowledge that all students must master.
The application of a method designed to account for matter in motion has been decidedly less successful in illuminating the moral and political world.
Instead, students meet their obligations by taking a few courses in the humanities, the social sciences, and the sciences, often picking and choosing among dozens of offerings if not more in each of the three main divisions. Two students can fulfill their distribution requirements without reading a single book in common. This, from our colleges’ and universities’ point of view, is not a problem but rather a source of pride.
They believe that they demonstrate concern for students’ individuality by allowing them to choose their own courses and design their own curricula. At the same time, by exposing students to a variety of disciplines and approaches to knowledge, institutions of higher education claim to produce open-minded and well-rounded graduates expertly trained to lead in changing the world.
The traditional aim of liberal education is to cultivate students capable of thoughtfully exercising the rights and discharging the responsibilities of freedom. However, far from exemplifying liberal education at its finest, colleges and universities typically betray it by failing to structure the curriculum coherently, to give it suitable content, and to ensure that students master contending arguments.
Few students these days receive an organized, historically informed introduction to American ideas and institutions: the nation’s religious and political inheritance, founding principles, constitutional traditions, cultural crosscurrents, economic arrangements, and diplomatic and national-security requirements. Few students examine the great books and seminal events of the larger Western tradition out of which the United States emerged and to which it has made a decisive contribution.
Few students undertake the serious study of other peoples and nations, which is essential to a proper assessment of America’s achievements and failings. And few students have impressed upon them the importance in studying morality and politics of appreciating the strong points of the arguments with which they disagree.
The problem of higher education
America’s colleges and universities have debased liberal education under the compulsion of three ideals. One is political. A second is methodological. A third is professional. When suitably refined, each is worthy. However, contemporary academic life has radicalized all three to the great detriment of liberal education.
First, contrary to liberal education’s imperatives, many faculty members believe that their job is to instill correct views about the pursuit of social justice and enlist students in the cause of progressive political transformation.
Liberal education in America should not be neutral toward fundamental political principles: It assumes the goodness of individual freedom and human equality. But to prepare students for freedom and democratic self-government, liberal education must both refrain from treating partisan political views as academic orthodoxies and foster appreciation of contending opinions and competing ideas.
Yet many of today’s classroom crusaders recognize no pedagogical duty to present fairly the other side of the argument. Some believe themselves obliged to ignore, dismiss, or deride views — often despite little conscientious exploration of them and regardless of their historical significance and relevance to contemporary politics — that they deem distasteful, demeaning, or destructive.
They are unaware of or unmoved by John Stuart Mill’s indispensable observation in “On Liberty” that a person “who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.”
RELATED: America’s classrooms are feeding the red wave — socialist red
Second, contrary to liberal education’s imperatives, many faculty members in the social sciences believe that the scientific method represents the one true approach to understanding. While the application of the scientific method to the natural world since the 17th century has produced astounding increases in knowledge and know-how, the application of a method designed to account for matter in motion has been decidedly less successful in illuminating the moral and political world inhabited by self-interpreting human beings.
The conduct of moral and political animals, whose beliefs are shaped by custom, experience, reason, interests, and passions and whose actions are informed by fallible judgments about right and wrong, cannot be fully captured by methods designed to describe matter in motion.
Nevertheless, setbacks in illuminating morality and politics have only driven many social scientists to double down on the study of method. Mesmerized by techniques for counting, measuring, and weighing and transfixed by elegant theories for describing rational conduct, they churn out mounds of research that shroud the substance and texture of human affairs.
Political scientists’ bewitchment by method produces disciplines that have less and less to say to citizens about self-government and justice as they elaborate more and more mathematically sophisticated approaches to the study of moral and political life.
And third, contrary to the imperatives of liberal education, many professors operate on the assumption that the purpose of educating undergraduates is to train the next generation of scholars.
Instead of transmitting to students the knowledge about America, the West, and the world needed for good citizenship, professors commonly provide intellectual tools and socialization into the sensibility required to succeed in the professoriate, though the vast majority of students have no intention of pursuing the scholarly life.
Curricula that honored the imperatives of liberal education would put the Declaration of Independence at the core. They would expose students to serious study of the constitutional system that institutionalized the Declaration’s fundamental principles and of the nation-defining political struggles to realize them. They would explore the seminal ideas and major events of Western civilization of which the American experiment in ordered liberty forms a crucial chapter. And they would examine the culture, economic system, language, politics, and religious beliefs of other civilizations, without which a well-rounded assessment of the United States is impossible.
Not least among the costs of colleges’ and universities’ betrayal of liberal education is that it produces graduates ignorant of the Declaration of Independence’s enduring principles and inspiring legacy and oblivious to the costs of that ignorance to themselves and the nation.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com