Deliverance requires memory — and America is forgetting



Passover has just ended — a central story for Jews and Christians alike but also a defining narrative for America.

America’s founders drew heavily from the Exodus and the Hebrew prophets. They studied Hebrew. Some even proposed it as the official language of the United States. Benjamin Franklin, for his part, suggested that the national seal feature Moses crossing the parted Red Sea. The reverence for this story runs deep in our national DNA. It’s no accident that Hollywood — the most American of art forms — has returned again and again to retell it.

We rightly see Pharaoh as the villain of Exodus — but how many of us stop to honor the quiet heroism of Pharaoh’s daughter?

And yet, as a nation, we’ve let some of our oldest traditions fade. But that’s nothing new. God always finds a way to remind us.

Today, many Americans have begun to realize we needed the pain of 2020 and the years that followed. Without that nightmare, President Trump wouldn’t have returned with the mandate to truly save America. Without those four bitter years, the country might never have awakened to remember who we are.

This moment echoes the Exodus. Just as we needed four years of national affliction to witness Trump’s political deliverance, the Israelites needed to see God’s hand to remember His power. That’s why scripture says God “hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” Not only to punish Egypt — but to remind His people of His unmatched might. To declare, for all to see, “that there is none like unto the Lord our God.”

And yet, even after 10 plagues and a miraculous escape, the Israelites faltered. Jewish tradition teaches that only one in five left Egypt; the rest chose the false comfort of slavery. Many who did leave lost faith before stepping into the Red Sea. Others bowed before the golden calf while Moses ascended Sinai.

Even in the face of miracles, it was easier for some to forget God than to trust Him.

Americans had forgotten even before 2020 — and God gave us a hard reminder.

So ask yourself: If we forgot who we are, what else have we forgotten?

Look again to the story of Passover. The book of Exodus begins with a chilling line: “There arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.”

It wasn’t just that Pharaoh forgot Joseph. He chose not to know him. Acknowledging Joseph would have meant acknowledging the Israelites and all they had done for Egypt. Joseph saved the Egyptians from famine. His descendants helped build up the nation. So Pharaoh erased them. He enslaved them. He ordered their sons drowned in the Nile.

But not everyone forgot. Pharaoh’s own daughter remembered. She rescued Moses — the one who would lead the Israelites out of Egypt, receive the Ten Commandments at Sinai, and pass down a faith that would eventually give birth to Christianity.

That’s something worth remembering. We rightly see Pharaoh as the villain of Exodus — but how many of us stop to honor the quiet heroism of Pharaoh’s daughter?

She saved Moses when it was unpopular, even dangerous, to do so. She defied her father’s command, choosing righteousness over convenience. Her courage made everything that followed possible.

Christians have long understood the wisdom of Romans: “If the root is holy, so are the branches.” Like that olive tree, we must guard the roots to grow strong branches. We must remember.

So let us remember who we are. Americans are a people who remember God. Like Pharaoh’s daughter, we remember Joseph — even when the world forgets. Like the Israelites, we walk away from slavery and into the unknown, trusting the God who delivers.

We are that people.

I just pray we don’t forget.

'Anti-Christian activist' viciously attacks DOT Sec. Duffy for seeking return of Jesus painting at Merchant Marine Academy



A New York-based activist group successfully pushed in 2023 to have a historic painting depicting Jesus Christ covered up at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, where it had been proudly displayed for 76 years without incident. The alleged motivation behind this act of iconoclasm, which resulted in the painting's exile to the building's flood-prone basement, was to create "a welcoming environment."

When Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy signaled earlier this month that the painting might soon make a triumphant return, Mikey Weinstein, the head of the iconoclastic activist group, let his mask slip, revealing there might be some prejudices lurking behind his iconoclastic campaign.

Weinstein, the president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, whom Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) previously dubbed an "anti-Christian activist," viciously attacked Duffy, Trump supporters, and midshipmen supportive of the painting's return in a statement shared with the Christian Post and the Daily Kos.

"tRump's [sic] Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is clearly bereft of any semblance of morality, ethical standard, or constitutional legality (obviously required with all MAGA filthy, ignorant, hateful, bigoted scum) and is merely throwing rotting dripping, fetid, red meat to the Christian Nationalist MAGA fascists in America, who are clearly sprinkled among the USMVA midshipmen, staff and faculty," wrote Weinstein.

The activist, whose demand in 2023 USSMA Superintendent Vice Admiral Joanna Nunan apparently took seriously, added, "Duffy is simply a stray, feral dog, lifting his leg and urinating a rancid fundamentalist Christian fealty on what MAGA fascists now apparently view as a front yard lawn toy rather than an honored cornerstone of the defense of our constitutionally created secular democratic republic."

The painting

The painting that has Weinstein all bothered is a heritage asset under the U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration titled "Christ on the Water."

According to the USMMA, the 10'x19' painting "depicts an image of Jesus and merchant seamen adrift in a lifeboat, presumably after being torpedoed in the Indian Ocean during World War II."

'The painting is perfectly in keeping with the Establishment Clause.'

It was painted on sail canvas by Lt. Hunter Wood in 1944 as a tribute to all merchant seamen.

Wood joined the U.S. Coast Guard with the rank of chief boatswain's mate 10 days after the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. He saw action during the invasion of North Africa in late 1942. Wood subsequently served as an artist in the Coast Guard Combat Artist Unit. He later joined the U.S. Maritime Service, with which he remained until the end of the war, advancing to lieutenant commander.

Wood's painting hung for seven decades in the Elliot M. See Room of the USMMA's Wiley Hall, which served from 1942 to 1961 as an interfaith chapel.

The complaint

The academy indicated that in early January 2023, it received a complaint about "Christ on the Water," suggesting it somehow sent an "improper message of preferred faithin violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution."

Weinstein, claiming to represent 18 midshipmen, faculty, staff, and graduates at the academy, demanded in a Jan. 10 letter obtained by the Christian Post that Nunan "expeditiously remove a massive, sectarian painting illustrating the supremacy of Jesus Christ."

"The outrageousness of that Jesus painting's display is only further exacerbated by the fact that this room is also used regularly for USMMA Honor Code violation boards where midshipmen are literally fighting for their careers, and, often even more, as they face the shameful ignominy of potential expulsion with prejudice if found guilty of USMMA Honor Code violations," wrote the activist.

Initially, the academy decided to keep the painting up but discontinue use of the room for official business. Accordingly, members of the community interested in viewing the painting were free to do so. Those who shared Weinstein's hostility were free to avoid the painting altogether.

On Jan. 26, 2023, the academy — which supplies some officers to the U.S. military, at least 70% of which is Christian — announced that it had chosen to cover the painting with curtains and install a plaque describing the work's history.

"The curtains will remain closed when official Academy meetings and events are conducted," said the statement. "This solution balances legal requirements with the concerns of those who have an interest in the painting."

The decision to oblige the iconoclasts prompted a petition and letters to Nunan from various lawmakers, including Banks and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) demanding the painting's unveiling.

Cruz noted:

The relevant constitutional question is whether the Academy's display of the painting meets the requirements of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. As a long-standing display that is consistent with the history and tradition of the United States and its Maritime Service, it clearly does. Under the Supreme Court's standard for long-standing government displays, the painting is perfectly in keeping with the Establishment Clause.

Banks similarly underscored the lawfulness of hanging the painting in the academy, referring to a 2019 Supreme Court ruling that "historic displays with religious symbolism are not a violation of the Constitution."

'Let's let him out! Bring him up!'

Despite the backlash and indications that the removal was wholly unnecessary, multiple sources told Fox News Digital that the painting was moved to a chapel basement prone to flooding.

The return

During his April 4 visit to the academy, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy addressed a room full of midshipmen. During his speech, he signaled support for the painting's return, stating, "Can we bring Jesus up from the basement?"

The audience burst into cheers, while scores of midshipmen leaped to their feet, applauding.

Duffy, a devout Catholic, continued, "Let's not put Jesus in the basement. Let's let him out! Bring him up!"

Since the USMMA falls under Duffy's purview, he is apparently able to restore the painting to its rightful place in the academy — something his predecessor, Pete Buttigieg, proved unwilling to do.

The academy's Christian Fellowship Club launched a petition on April 7 to permanently move the painting into Ackerman Auditorium.

'I think we're returning to objective truth.'

The petition notes that "moving the painting to the Museum damns it. It declares, 'This is who the Merchant Marine used to be once upon a time long long ago.'"

"We declare to you, faculty and staff, that this painting represents the Regiment of Midshipmen today more so than ever before," said the petition. "Here us now: We identify with those sailors."

The tantrum

Unlike those gathered at the academy, Weinstein responded poorly to Duffy's remarks, going so far as to dehumanize midshipmen who dared signal support for the painting's return.

"To the cheering robustious throngs of Christian Nationalist midshipmen at the U.S. Merchant of Venice Academy, and to their dear MAGA fascist cheerleader Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, MRFF commands: 'Side Step HARCH!,' you stinking piece-of-s**t Christian Nationalist insects," wrote the activist.

Weinstein added in his statement that the return of the painting would "spark WORLD WAR 8."

The activist continued ranting in an unhinged YouTube video, where he suggested that midshipmen's cheering of Duffy was a "despicable, shameful disgrace of [their] oath to the U.S. Constitution" and characterized their support for the DOT secretary's remarks as cowardly.

"Jesus Christ represents ideals that are not specific to one group of people or another," Jackson Tolle, a midshipman in USMMA's class of 2026, told the Christian Post. "Ideals of sacrifice, ideals of love, compassion, and empathy; these are ideals and traits that we, as a culture, need to return to."

"Moral relativism has failed the country and the world, more so than any belief system ever really has," continued Tolle. "I think we're returning to objective truth."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

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



Worldview is destiny. That’s why I’ve always focused on it during my show — to explain how a powerful nation like ours can draw lessons from history’s triumphs and failures. Right now, I believe America faces three distinct paths forward, each emerging after years of abandoning the foundational values of our forefathers.

But before we can choose any path, we need to face a hard truth: Our current trajectory is unsustainable. We cannot continue pretending this is one nation when some states believe they have the right to seize your children if you don’t consent to irreversible medical procedures — something Colorado voters are considering right now.

Conservatives need to face a hard truth: There’s no political appetite in America for meaningful cuts to government if those cuts involve personal sacrifice or accountability.

Just as we couldn’t share a country with states that once sanctioned slavery, we cannot share one with states that reject basic parental rights. We lied to ourselves back then, too — until a civil war jarred us into reality. History doesn’t let us ignore deep moral divides forever.

We won’t nuance our way out of the three possible destinies we face. Nuance requires spiritual maturity — and we don’t have that. It’s the old question: “What’s the greatest commandment?” If you’re generally aligned with loving God and loving your neighbor, you’ve got room for nuance and a wider range of policy options. But when a nation turns godless — and news flash: We’re already there — nuance disappears. All that’s left is consequence.

The first path forward is spiritual revival. That’s the path of a humble people willing to repent of their foolishness and reorder their priorities. Revival would demand that we live within our means, stop printing money, and return to the principles of limited government.

It turns out that sound economic policy is inseparable from moral clarity. A moral people don’t justify redistributing other people’s money through welfare programs — that’s theft. They don’t dodge consequences by laying claim to what isn’t theirs — that’s covetousness. Strip away morality, and no economic system will save us.

Let’s be honest — we need to go back. Before America even became a nation, its foundation was laid by Puritans, church-chartered colonies, and multiple Great Awakenings. Back then, as now, spiritual revival wasn’t optional — it was essential. Without Christ, we don’t have the supernatural strength to restrain ourselves or sustain self-government. We just don’t.

That’s why one of the first acts of the U.S. Congress was to commission Geneva Bibles for public distribution. The Founders understood that a free people needed more than laws — they needed the fear of the Lord, which Scripture calls the beginning of wisdom. Without that, don’t even bother.

Even as a believer, I once might have tried to pitch you a more measured path back to sanity. But then I watched my fellow citizens wave the white flag — not just to gender ideologues and pandemic authoritarians, but to reality itself.

Instead of drawing lines in the sand, people leaned harder than ever on the same government that had just stripped them of their freedoms. We were made to be ruled — and without a moral foundation, we’ll always find someone else to do the ruling.

This also explains why politicians rarely lose elections by spending too much. Voters want it that way. We live under government by the consent of the governed — and what the governed want is more spending. You might see yourself as a victim of the system, but you’re also complicit in it.

That brings us to the second path: empire. This is the trajectory of a society that craves comfort and rejects consequences — the exact opposite of the humility demanded by spiritual revival. The math doesn’t lie. If we won’t cut spending, we’ll have to raise revenue. Forget fiscal restraint — bring on the second slice.

Conservatives need to face a hard truth: There’s no political appetite in America for meaningful cuts to government if those cuts involve personal sacrifice or accountability. Unless the DOGE saves us through divine crypto intervention, voters aren’t signing up to downsize the welfare state.

We worship our glittering idols of comfort and convenience. So unless someone pries them from our cold, dead hands, we’d better decide who’s going to foot the bill for our national appetite for gluttony and denial.

Democrats plan to bleed their own citizens dry to fund their agenda. The alternative is to make other countries pick up the tab — which is exactly what Red Caesar Trump is trying to do with his grand tariff gambit. Maybe it won’t work. We’ll know soon enough.

That’s why he’s eyeing Greenland. This is what empires do. They demand tribute from weaker nations in exchange for the privilege of doing business with them. I’d love to say we’re nobler than that. But let’s be honest: Nobility doesn’t exactly describe our national mood. We want what we want — and we don’t particularly care how we get it.

Even Ben Franklin — moral failings and all — warned that we could only remain a republic if we made the effort to keep it. But let’s stop pretending that preserving the republic has been a national priority for decades. We’ve chosen empire. That means more mergers, more acquisitions, more demands. That’s the terrain where Trump thrives. Whether we admit it or not, this is the road we’re on — and we chose it.

Unless we’ve simply lost all interest in acting like adults on any level, we’re headed straight for path three: death. But this isn’t just death in the traditional sense. It’s worse. It’s moral collapse. As John Daniel Davidson wrote in his book “Pagan America,” the endgame isn’t America ceasing to exist — it’s America becoming evil.

The real question isn’t whether tyranny will come — it’s who will bring it. Will it be the corporations aligned with the right? Or the communists dressed up as champions of democracy on the left? Call it whatever name you like — “sacred democracy” if you must — but don’t ignore the outcome.

And unlike other Western nations that have walked this path, America owns 300 million guns. So when this collapse hits home, it won’t look like Europe’s slow-motion slide into technocratic authoritarianism. It’ll be faster. Uglier. And bloodier.

That’s not hyperbole. That’s the math of human nature. I’m not offering a prophecy. I’m offering an equation. Our options are few, but we still have agency. We still have a choice.

This is a time for choosing, and what we choose will have consequences that stretch beyond policy or politics. We are staring into something deeper — something metaphysical. The clock is ticking. Everything is at stake.

The only question that matters now is: Who and what are we willing to become?

Blaze News investigates: ​Democrats attack parents and parental rights in Colorado



Democratic lawmakers in the Colorado Senate are poised to pass a controversial piece of legislation that would grossly undermine parental rights and compel speech.

House Bill 1312 would, specifically, classify "misgendering" and "deadnaming" as child abuse; define both perceived offenses as discriminatory acts under state law; force schools to honor students' "chosen names" for any reason; and prohibit educational institutions from enforcing sex-based dress codes.

Democrats in the state legislature not only invoked House Rule 16 to kill debate before passing HB 1312 in a party-line vote on April 6 but smeared parental rights organizations critical of the legislation as hate groups on par with the Ku Klux Klan, indicating they were undeserving of consultation by virtue of their opposition.

Leftist lawmakers' latest attack on parental rights in the Centennial State might have largely gone under the radar had they not also viciously attacked those parents who expressed concern. The rhetorical attack has, however, helped draw attention to the legislative attack.

Blaze News reached out to some of those parental groups that Democrats have smeared as hateful and apparently want to ignore as well as to other critics of the "unlawful" legislation.

It appears that what leftists regard as "hatred" is actually an admixture of Americans' fidelity to the U.S. Constitution and their concern over further encroachments on parental rights.

As for the legislation, critics made clear that it will be challenged in the courts if ratified — although Focus on the Family culture and policy analyst Jeff Johnson indicated there was hope yet as of Thursday that the bill could die before reaching Democratic Gov. Jared Polis' desk.

Hatred, redefined

When Republican state Rep. Jarvis Caldwell raised the matter last week of whether non-LGBT parent groups were consulted ahead of the bill's passage in the state House, Rep. Yara Zokaie stated, "A well-stakeholdered bill does not need to be discussed with hate groups," adding, "We don't ask someone passing civil rights legislation to go ask the KKK their opinion."

'Colorado parents should be concerned.'

State Rep. Javier Mabrey later noted, "There's no reason to go to the table with people who are echoing the hateful rhetoric going around about the trans community."

Caldwell told Blaze News in a statement that "equating caring and concerned parents to 'hate groups' and the KKK is typical Democrat propaganda."

"Colorado parents should be concerned," continued Caldwell. "It's not hateful to be outraged by their agenda. We have crossed the Rubicon for parental rights in this state."

Blaze News reached out to Zokaie and Mabrey as well to Colorado House Speaker Julie McCluskie (D), the office of Gov. Jared Polis (D), and the Colorado House Democratic Caucus about the Democratic smear of parents across the state. They did not respond by deadline.

The El Paso County chapter of Moms for Liberty is among the groups critical of the legislation that were not consulted and then smeared as hateful by the Democratic lawmakers.

Chapter chair Kristy Davis clarified to Blaze News that Moms for Liberty's opposition to HB 1312 isn't rooted in hatred but rather in the U.S. Constitution. After all, the Democratic bill "infringes on parental rights and compels speech."

"Our advocacy for parental rights is rooted in the U.S. Constitution and should never be labeled as 'hate,'" wrote Davis. "We strive to ensure that all parents' rights are protected, and we oppose HB25-1312, which seeks to use legislation to separate parents from their children."

"Sections 2 and 3 [of HB 1312] represent government overreach by mandating the judicial system to apply transgender ideology in custody cases, while Sections 4, 5, and 6 force policies that limit parental authority over their children's names and gender expression," wrote Davis. "This legislation appears to be anti-family, pushing an agenda that appeals to only a fraction of Colorado taxpayers. It is harmful to both parents and children, creating unnecessary stress, fear, and separation and negatively impacting their mental health."

Davis, who has faced apparent threats online in recent months, noted that "parents have every right to be concerned about policies that affect their children's well-being and their ability to make decisions for their families."

'We hate that children are getting sterilized and mutilated.'

Corey DeAngelis, senior fellow at the American Culture Project and executive director at the Educational Freedom Institute, told Blaze News that Zokaie "let the mask slip."

"She detests parents who disagree with her so much that she doubled down on comparing them to the KKK," said DeAngelis. "Colorado Democrats are control freaks trying to force their insane ideology onto the rest of society. Colorado Democrats want to punish parents who don't accept the delusions of a small child."

"They're stomping on the rights of parents and hoping no one notices," added DeAngelis.

Alvin Lui is the president of the parental rights advocacy group Courage Is a Habit — a group that has furnished some parents in the state and elsewhere with tools to tackle gender ideology and has, along with Moms for Liberty and Parents Defending Education, been designated an "extremist group" by the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center. Lui told Blaze News that his group has neutralized the "hate group" label in part by adopting it.

"I say, 'Absolutely we are a hate group. 100%. We hate what's happening to children. We hate the people that pass transgender trafficking bills, which is what this HB 1312 is, essentially. We hate that children are getting sterilized and mutilated before they can even get their driver's license,'" said Lui. "'We hate everything that you stand for. We want to run you out of schools. We want to run you out of any political office.'"

'Colorado Democrats just told Virginia's Terry McAuliffe "hold my beer."'

Regardless of what parent groups do with Democrats' "hate" label, its use in the first place is telling.

"What these assertions reveal is a troubling disconnect between some Democrats and the real, everyday concerns of parents," said Davis. "It feels as though they're dismissing the legitimate worries of moms and dads who simply want to have a say in their children's well-being. Parents are the ones who know their children best, and when they speak up, they should be heard — not labeled as radicals or adversaries."

Battle lost, war undecided

"Colorado Democrats just told Virginia's Terry McAuliffe 'hold my beer,'" DeAngelis told Blaze News. "Mr. McAuliffe, a Democrat, lost his race for governor after revealing he didn't want parents to have a say in their children's education."

McAuliffe was governor of Virginia from 2014 until 2018. He ran again for governor in 2021. Whereas his opponent, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R), championed parental rights — particularly parents' prime authority over their children's education — the former Democratic governor signaled a desire for a difference balance of power.

During a gubernatorial debate in September 2021, McAuliffe stated, "I'm not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decision."

At the time, the battle over critical race theory and LGBT propaganda in the classroom was a hot-button issue for Virginia parents.

"I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach," added McAuliffe.

Youngkin handily beat the critic of parental authority and remains governor of the state.

With McAuliffe's defeat in mind, DeAngelis told Blaze News, "Colorado Republicans should follow Glenn Youngkin's playbook and capitalize on this issue. They need to fight back to rescue parents from socialist takeover."

Numerous Republican lawmakers in the state Senate — where they are outnumbered 23-12 — have indicated they will oppose the legislation, which as of April 9 had not been assigned to a committee.

In a statement shared with Blaze News, Colorado Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen (R) noted that "HB25-1312 undermines one of the most sacred and time-honored principles of our society: the right of parents to raise their children in accordance with their values, beliefs, and faith."

"When government policies attempt to substitute the judgment of bureaucrats for that of parents, we risk eroding a foundational pillar of liberty and personal responsibility," added Lundeen.

'Colorado used to be very red.'

Lundeen insinuated that the legislation would not only undermine the "sacred right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children without unjust interference," but "pave the way for future intrusions into how families educate, discipline, or spiritually guide their children."

Lundeen vowed to "stand firmly" against the bill and comparable legislation.

While Republicans could, as DeAngelis suggested, capitalize on this issue, it will take time to gain ground in the state legislature.

Both Brittany Vessely, executive director of the Colorado Catholic Conference, and Jeff Johnson of Focus on the Family separately told Blaze News that Colorado's political capture by leftists was decades in the making, orchestrated in part by a cabal of billionaires who poured billions of dollars into the state to strategically flip local districts.

"Colorado used to be very red," Vessely told Blaze News. "It was more of a libertarian state — very rancher-dominated."

"But [entrepreneur] Tim Gill, Jared Polis, and a couple others poured money into the state and flipped these districts," said Johnson. "Once Democrats had control, they passed legislation that appealed to the left, to radicals."

The legalization of marijuana, the promise of other forms of social deregulation, and the state's general leftward shift apparently drew multitudes of radicals to the state, especially from California.

"So there's just been, in the last 10 years specifically, a huge move from Colorado being very red to purple for a while to now being dominated with majorities of progressive Democrats in both chambers and an LGBTQ progressive governor and very progressive courts," said Vessely. "So we have a trifecta in Colorado in the legislation where parental rights are being completely violated."

'HB 1312 is going to end up in litigation.'

The disconnect between leftist lawmakers and traditional Coloradans has been enough to drive majorities in numerous counties to vote either to break away and form their own state, "North Colorado," or to become part of Wyoming.

For the time being, they are stuck with lawmakers who are keen to undermine parental rights; to force them to fund abortion; to bar health benefit insurance plans from denying or limiting coverage for sex-change mutilations; and to keep up the lies about transvestites' sexes even after death.

From Polis' desk to the courts

Opponents of HB 1312 do not presently have sufficient time to change the state of play politically; hence the ongoing discussions of legal action.

Colorado state Rep. Brandi Bradley (R), for instance, vowed to sue and "keep suing" if the bill succeeds, stating, "I've birthed five children" and "will protect them to the Nth degree."

Brittany Vessely told Blaze News that "HB 1312 is going to end up in litigation because it directly impedes upon the religious freedom of conscience and expression for all Coloradans across the state but especially for the faith-based community."

Vessely explained that the public accommodation section of HB 1312 requiring compliance with gender ideology-based speech codes refers to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act — the law at issue in the case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis decided by the Supreme Court in 2023 — which was amended in 2021 to add the terms "gender expression" and "gender identity" to statutes prohibiting discrimination against members of a protected class.

While there is a religious exemption in the state anti-discrimination law, Vessely indicated it really protects only places like parishes and church halls — not diocesan offices, not Catholic schools, hospitals, homeless shelters, or cemeteries.

"These are areas where a lot of our Catholic ministries are going to be directly impacted by the effects of this bill," said Vessely, adding that Christian publications could similarly be impacted.

Jeff Johnson suggested to Blaze News that HB 1312 is clearly unconstitutional and fit for a challenge, adding that he has never seen a piece of legislation "try to do so many things at once."

"So you have the attack on parents' rights, which is unconstitutional," said Johnson. "The Supreme Court has said over and over again that parents have the right to raise their children — they're the ones in charge of their nurture and care and education — and this bill basically usurps that and says, 'No, it's abusive if a parent doesn't go along with the child's sexual identity confusion.'"

Johnson noted that while the bill presently targets court decisions in custody cases, once so-called "deadnaming and misgendering" have been "defined as abusive in this realm, it would be pretty easy for regulations to follow along saying, 'Hey, if you're not affirming your child's sexual identity confusion, that's abusive in any case. And [Child Protective Services] could step in and start taking children away."

In addition to standing on shaky ground because of the abuse classification, Johnson said that HB 1312 is vulnerable to legal challenges both because it tells the court to ignore other states' court mandates regarding parenting and because "it also coerces speech, requiring schools and businesses and employees to agree to the idea that a man can become a woman or a woman can become a man, and it forces people to use a person's 'chosen name' and pronouns rather than going by the biological sex."

'They're waking up to the agenda, and they're saying, "No."'

Courage Is a Habit's Lui suggested that besides legal challenges, Coloradans also have the choice of civil disobedience.

"They can arrest one or two people" for reality-affirming language, said Lui. "They're not going to arrest 1,000 people. They're not going to arrest 5,000 people for calling a man a man."

"It's not an easy answer once you get to this point," continued the parental rights advocate. "Once you make fear a habit, they keep pushing you until they've got you over a barrel. And that's why we always remind people: You got to make courage a habit."

Vesseley noted that while the pro-life cause is presently facing neglect, especially at the federal level, there is a "tremendous amount of momentum right now for the parents in those organizations that are fighting back against the LGBTQ narrative that's happening, especially in schools. We're seeing that across the nation."

Johnson suggested that Democrats have unwittingly awoken the sleeping giant by "trying to get every area of society in Colorado to comply with this agenda."

"I don't know if the pushback is from [the transgender agenda] or if it's the parental rights issue, but I think people are starting to wake up and say, 'A man can't become a woman, a boy can't become a girl, and vice versa.' They're waking up to the agenda, and they're saying, 'No, this is harmful to children and adults, and you can't force me to go along with this,'" said Johnson.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Georgia pro-life organization attacks bill that would classify abortion as homicide: 'Sad, but it is not a surprise'



Georgia state Rep. Emory Dunahoo (R) introduced legislation in February that would define life as beginning at conception and classify the act of abortion as homicide. House Bill 441, the Prenatal Equal Protection Act, is popular among state Republicans, having secured over 20 co-sponsors in the state legislature. It has also managed to enrage the usual suspects — those alternatively keen on stripping unborn babies of legal protections.

The pro-abortion advocacy group Reproductive Freedom for All, for instance, condemned HB 441, calling it "an extreme and politically motivated measure that would criminalize abortion at all stages of pregnancy by establishing legal personhood at fertilization."

Reproductive Freedom for All and similar radical organizations have found an unlikely ally in Georgia Life Alliance, an advocacy group that claims on its website to be "leading the fight for life in elections, policy, and education statewide."

Georgia Life Alliance recently raised eyebrows with a publicized March 19 letter to the state House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee asking that it refrain from holding its hearing on HB 411 or at least kill it in committee.

The pro-life group's executive director, Claire Bartlett, and its board chair, Bryan Tyson, noted in their letter that while the legislation "appears well-intentioned and partially aligns with Georgia Life Alliance Committee's mission," they "hold grave concerns with the impact, consequences, and outcomes of the bill which conflicts with our organizational mission."

'This is totally false.'

The duo suggested that women seeking to eliminate their babies "require compassionate support, not punitive measures"; criminalizing women "could deter them from seeking necessary medical care and support"; penalties for killing babies in the womb might lead to "unregulated abortions" or dissuade women from seeking medical or mental health care after the fact; and the recognition of the unborn child's personhood in criminal law "would add immeasurable stress to Georgia's already-existing mental health crisis."

While HB 441 clarifies that mothers who get abortions under coercion — where they reasonably believe that the execution of their child is the only way to prevent their own death or great bodily injury — would not be held guilty, Bartlett and Tyson suggested that coercion "extends to intense psychological abuse such as gaslighting, overt devaluation, control, manipulation, and oppression."

"HB 441 changes long-standing Georgia protections for women and does not address or hold accountable the abortionist, the pimp, the sex trafficker, and the irresponsible man who will face no consequence and continue to prey on women and girls for their own selfish gain," wrote Bartlett and Tyson.

Bradley Pierce, president of the Foundation to Abolish Abortion — a national pro-life nonprofit that has championed the legislation from the start — stated that "House Bill 441, the bill that Georgia Life Alliance is opposing in Georgia, would simply protect the lives of innocent preborn children with the same homicide and assault laws that protect the rest of us as born people. This is what God commands and the U.S. Constitution requires."

"[Georgia Life Alliance] claims that House Bill 441 criminalizes only women and exempts abortionists, pimps, and sex traffickers. This is totally false," continued Pierce, whose organization drew significant attention to the letter this week. "The truth is that current pro-life laws in Georgia protect a woman's 'right' to knowingly and willingly murder her preborn child by abortion. House Bill 441, on the other hand, is the only bill that is impartial and would treat everyone equally under the law."

In addition to recognizing the personhood of the unborn and applying the same penalties to the slaying of unborn babies to those on the books for killing a born person, the bill would enable the Georgia attorney general to prosecute baby slayings if local prosecutors fail to and enable parents to pursue legal action for the death of their unborn children.

Pierce added, "It was sad, but it is not a surprise to see a well-established Pro-Life lobby group oppose equal protection of the laws for preborn children in Georgia. We have seen this happen repeatedly across the country."

'Tens of thousands of babies, made in the image of God, continue to be murdered in our state every year.'

Ben Zeisloft, head of communications at the Foundation to Abolish Abortion, similarly blasted Georgia Life Alliance over its characterization of the bill, suggesting with a meme that the pro-life organization might be captive to feminism, secularism, and humanism.

Blaze News reached out to Georgia Life Alliance for comment but did not receive a response by deadline.

The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer reported that the state House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee hearing, which Georgia Life Alliance tried to torpedo, ultimately took place, but the bill did not clear the state House before day 30 of the legislative session. The bill is, however, not dead. It will remain active for reconsideration through the next legislative session.

Republican state Rep. Dunahoo said during the hearing, "Tens of thousands of babies, made in the image of God, continue to be murdered in our state every year, all within the bounds of the current law. That must be changed," reported the Georgia Recorder.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Tech elites warn ‘reality itself’ may not survive the AI revolution



When Elon Musk warns that money may soon lose its meaning and Dario Amodei speaks of an AI-driven class war, you might think the media would take notice. These aren’t fringe voices. Musk ranks among the world’s most recognizable tech leaders, and Amodei is the CEO of Anthropic, a leading artificial intelligence company developing advanced models that compete with OpenAI.

Together, they are two of the most influential figures shaping the AI revolution. And they’re warning that artificial intelligence will redefine everything — from work and value to meaning and even our grasp of reality.

But the public isn’t listening. Worse, many hear the warnings and choose to ignore them.

Warnings from inside the machine

At the 2025 Davos conference, hosted by the World Economic Forum, Amodei made a prediction that should have dominated headlines. Within a few years, he said, AI systems will outperform nearly all humans at almost every task — and eventually surpass us in everything.

“When that happens,” Amodei said, “we will need to have a conversation about how we organize our economy. How do humans find meaning?”

Either we begin serious conversations about protecting liberty and individual autonomy in an AI-driven world, or we allow a small group of global elites to shape the future for us.

The pace of change is alarming, but the scale may be even more so. Amodei warns that if 30% of human labor becomes fully automated, it could ignite a class war between the displaced and the privileged. Entire segments of the population could become economically “useless” in a system no longer designed for them.

Elon Musk, never one to shy away from bold predictions, recently said that AI-powered humanoid robots will eliminate all labor scarcity. “You can produce any product, provide any service. There’s really no limit to the economy at that point,” Musk said.

“Will money even be meaningful?” Musk mused. “I don’t know. It might not be.”

Old assumptions collapse

These tech leaders are not warning about some minor disruption. They’re predicting the collapse of the core systems that shape human life: labor, value, currency, and purpose. And they’re not alone.

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt has warned that AI could reshape personal identity, especially if children begin forming bonds with AI companions. Filmmaker James Cameron says reality already feels more frightening than “The Terminator” because AI now powers corporate systems that track our data, beliefs, and movements. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has raised alarms about large language models manipulating public opinion, setting trends, and shaping discourse without our awareness.

Geoffrey Hinton — one of the “Godfathers of AI” and a former Google executive — resigned in 2023 to speak more freely about the dangers of the technology he helped create. He warned that AI may soon outsmart humans, spread misinformation on a massive scale, and even threaten humanity’s survival. “It’s hard to see how you can prevent the bad actors from using [AI] for bad things,” he said.

These aren’t fringe voices. These are the people building the systems that will define the next century. And they’re warning us — loudly.

We must start the conversation

Despite repeated warnings, most politicians, media outlets, and the public remain disturbingly indifferent. As machines advance to outperform humans intellectually and physically, much of the attention remains fixed on AI-generated art and customer service chatbots — not the profound societal upheaval industry leaders say is coming.

The recklessness lies not only in developing this technology, but in ignoring the very people building it when they warn that it could upend society and redefine the human experience.

This moment calls for more than fascination or fear. It requires a collective awakening and urgent debate. How should society prepare for a future in which AI systems replace vast segments of the workforce? What happens when the economy deems millions of people economically “useless”? And how do we prevent unelected technocrats from seizing the power to decide those outcomes?

The path forward provides no room for neutrality. Either we begin serious conversations about protecting liberty and individual autonomy in an AI-driven world, or we allow a small group of global elites to shape the future for us.

The creators of AI are sounding the alarm. We’d better start listening.

The magazine they don’t want you to read



Frontier isn’t just another flimsy, kitschy magazine like the ones lining the checkout aisle of your local grocery store. It is a premium, handcrafted publication, telling you stories that actually matter — about people blazing new trails in technology, reviving forgotten architectural wonders, and forging new pathways for meaningful cultural change, just to name a few highlights from past and upcoming issues. Every page is curated with intention, offering a level of depth and substance that’s increasingly rare in today’s media landscape.

For the second issue, I welcomed Frontier’s team to my Idaho ranch for its feature, “The Architecture of Memory and Meaning.” My ranch is more than a home — it’s a testament to faith, family, and legacy. Every detail was designed with intention, and every artifact inside has a purpose. This piece shows how you too can turn your home into a space for legacy, beauty, and a testimony to things that really matter to you.

Frontier will set you apart from everyone else who doomscrolls through the same routine stories in the mainstream news cycle.

Frontier’s team also sat down with Michael Malice for an in-depth profile, “The Miseducation of Michael Malice.” Whether you love him, hate him, or are just trying to figure him out, Malice is one of the most fascinating voices in our culture today. This piece goes beyond the snark and the tweets, diving deep into what makes Malice tick.

For the late-night radio junkies, “Live From the High Desert” is a must-read. This piece is a tribute to Art Bell and the millions of late-night listeners who faithfully tuned in to his masterful storytelling as he unraveled the mysteries of the universe, inspiring an entire generation of truth-seekers. From government conspiracies and UFOs to the unexplained, Bell’s legacy is alive and well in these pages.

Readers of Frontier’s first issue are already familiar with the magazine’s caliber and quality. If you haven’t grabbed your copy, it’s not too late. The first 500 subscribers to Frontier’s second issue will also get a copy of the premiere issue.

Frontier is only available through Blaze Unlimited, which, in addition to Frontier’s trailblazing stories, includes VIP access to exclusive events, exclusive member-only content, and top-tier customer support. This membership will set you apart from everyone else who doomscrolls through the same routine stories in the mainstream news cycle. Blaze Unlimited gives you access to the stories that matter most — and the people and events who will challenge you to think bigger, probe deeper, and push the limits into new frontiers. Using promo code GLENN500 will give you $40 off your new Blaze Unlimited subscription.

This isn’t just about reading Frontier— it’s about living it. Don’t miss your chance to be part of it.

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.

The untold story of LA’s underground COVID-era speakeasies



“It’s closed. Let’s get out of here.”

My Israeli friend had picked me up from Woodland Hills and parked in the dimly lit back lot of a seedy hookah lounge in Canoga Park, a Los Angeles neighborhood where one doesn’t want to be caught on the wrong street at the wrong time.

These moments of frustration shattered trust in government and reignited a core American belief: Those in power should not live by a different set of rules than the people they govern.

It was June 2020. “Two weeks to flatten the curve” had overstayed its welcome by three months, and my friend was one of many Angelenos who refused to accept that empty streets, boarded-up businesses, and “parking lot hangouts” were the “new normal.” We were both in need of a hit of normalcy, and he said he knew a place.

“Just wait,” he assured me.

I was skeptical. Restaurants didn’t have the luxury of attempting to accommodate California’s stringent social distancing standards like Target, Walmart, and other big-name “essential” businesses. Opening their doors was illegal — and had been for months.

After we knocked on the side door, an enormous Lebanese bouncer poked his furrowed brow over the threshold.

“Welcome,” he said quickly, ushering us in.

Lockdown speakeasies

Lebanese, Israelis, and Jordanians packed the place front to back as menthol- and mango-scented smoke curled toward the dimly lit ceiling. Who knew a shared frustration over California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s lockdowns could forge such peaceful relations?

“My gosh,” I thought. “This is a legit speakeasy” — and it wasn’t the only one.

Newsom’s draconian lockdown orders forged a slew of COVID-era speakeasies, welcoming customers through word of mouth, usually via Signal groups created by other Angelenos who craved a return to routine.

This evening of blissful familiarity — albeit with a Middle Eastern twist — was interrupted by a visit from the police. Their visit lasted all of 30 seconds. “Hey, guys. Someone reported you, so we had to show up. You all have a wonderful evening.”

The degree to which law enforcement enforced Newsom’s COVID restrictions varied from county to county, even within the same departments. Thankfully, the police in Canoga Park refused to force small-business owners to choose between putting food on their families’ tables and obeying Newsom’s dictates.

The price of defiance

Other neighborhoods weren’t so lucky. Novo, an Italian restaurant just 10 minutes north in Westlake Village, had to choose between remaining closed under Newsom’s indefinite restrictions or shutting down permanently due to lack of revenue. The owners risked defying the former to avoid the latter. Every day they remained open, Los Angeles County slapped them with a hefty fine — but the community rallied around them. Every night, the restaurant was packed with locals risking fines themselves to keep the business afloat — refusing to watch another small business in their community go under.

Five miles up the road from the Italian restaurant, a local pastor, Rob McCoy, was held in contempt and fined for illegally holding a church service with fewer congregants than people frequenting the Target across the freeway.

Within this context, I got my first gig as a writer — five years ago this very week — interviewing small businesses in the service industry for a local newspaper in the months following their government’s broken promise that they needed to close their doors for only “two weeks to flatten the curve.”

Some, like the owners of a small deli in Dos Vientos, tried to toe the line by serving burritos to customers in their parking lot. Others, like a cigar lounge in Thousand Oaks, became a hub for police officers who refused to enforce Newsom’s restrictions.

Regardless of their posturing during lockdown, one-third of all restaurants in Los Angeles County met the same fate: permanently closing their doors.

A double standard

Business owners — from both sides of the political aisle — already felt cheated by their government. But government officials' partisan double standard for themselves rubbed salt in the wound.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti joined thousands of protesters against the death of George Floyd, marching through the streets of downtown during the height of lockdown — while his administration issued crippling fines for small businesses serving their clientele.

The protests turned violent during the infamous “Summer of Love.” National Guard troops patrolled the streets at night while the rest of Los Angeles County was under strict curfew. A family-owned Indian food store in Thousand Oaks boarded up the business with plywood ahead of an imminent Black Lives Matter protest, which had been the catalyst for mass looting and millions of dollars in damages in neighboring Los Angeles suburbs. A gym in Agoura Hills reopened after BLM-affiliated rioters stormed and looted stores across Santa Monica en masse.

“Does the virus skip over the rioters?” the gym owner asked, tongue in cheek.

Despite the chaos erupting out of California’s major city centers, the most scathing image to emerge during lockdown was Gavin Newsom and California’s Democratic elite dining — maskless — at the French Laundry, one of America’s most acclaimed restaurants.

“Let them eat cake” didn’t work for the French, and it certainly didn’t work for California’s small-business owners, even longtime Democratic loyalists.

Turning point in American politics

“Two weeks to flatten the curve” became arguably the most transformative cultural moment in modern American history. Partisan lines blurred — even in deep-blue Los Angeles County — uniting people around the definitively American sentiment: What gives you the right to tell me what to do?

These moments of frustration weren’t just passing irritations. They fundamentally shattered trust in government and reignited a core American belief: Those in power should not live by a different set of rules than the people they govern.

And now, five years later, Newsom wants the country to forget he was the man behind the lockdowns. Embarking on a desperate campaign to depict himself as a moderate — likely with eyes on the White House — Newsom has never once fessed up to his failed leadership during the pandemic.

But small-business owners haven’t forgotten. The families who lost everything haven’t forgotten. And voters shouldn’t either.

If history tells us anything, it’s that those who trample on freedom once will do it again — especially if they think no one is paying attention.

Covid Tyrants Were Perpetrators, Not Victims

The Covid 'experts' chose the unscientific tyranny of lockdowns, mandates, and petty, ineffective, legalistic rules, and they didn’t have to.

This Yale professor warns of Elon Musk’s ‘fascism’ — and misses the real threat



Timothy Snyder may not be well known in American conservative circles, but his European influence is substantial. I hadn’t heard of the Yale historian until I moved to Vienna, Austria, where he enjoys a kind of celebrity status. European leaders frequently refer to his ideas, whether they are criticizing Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency or comparing JD Vance’s criticism of censorship at the Munich Security Conference last month to the Holocaust. These talking points have crossed the Atlantic, reaching U.S. media through figures like CBS News moderator Margaret Brennan. Snyder’s influence among the American left continues to grow.

I recently attended Snyder’s “Making Sense of an Unsettling World” lecture at Vienna’s Institute for Human Sciences. His casual demeanor, paired with a Zelenskyy-style quarter-zip — a nod to the Ukrainian leader he has met and advised — reinforces his “rebel professor” image. This blend of defiance and intellect captivates and galvanizes college students, making Snyder both a compelling and polarizing figure.

Snyder’s call to 'defend institutions' fails to recognize that institutions can be corrupt, bloated, and unaccountable.

After the predictable barrage of ad hominem attacks on Trump — of which there were many — Snyder shifted his focus to the most controversial figure in the administration: Elon Musk. As Snyder spoke, I couldn’t help but notice the vast ideological divide between the left and the right. This gap felt particularly sobering, not just because of its seemingly unbridgeable nature but also because Snyder's perspective undermines the very foundation necessary to bridge such divides: dissent and dialogue enabled by free speech.

Snyder accuses Musk of building a privatized, fascistic government by dismantling America's institutions. According to Snyder, we common folk are mere pawns in Musk’s algorithmic “system,” which he claims is designed to predict and manipulate human behavior. The goal, Snyder argues, is clear: to destroy institutions, privatize government functions, and siphon taxpayer dollars into Musk’s pockets.

Negative vs. positive freedom

Snyder’s argument centers on a critique of the conservative notion of “negative freedom” — the idea that freedom is best preserved by minimizing external restraints on the individual. He dismisses this concept as “freedom against,” portraying it as a tool ripe for exploitation by figures like Elon Musk. In Snyder's view, Musk uses this version of freedom to turn the masses “against” institutions, only to privatize them for personal gain later.

In contrast, Snyder champions the left-leaning principle of “positive freedom,” or “freedom for.”This approach suggests that freedom is only legitimate when exercised in service of ideals codified and enforced through institutions. According to Snyder's 2016 manifesto, which evolved into his New York Times best-selling pamphlet "On Tyranny," institutions “preserve human decency” and serve as the greatest barriers to tyranny. In this framework, Musk emerges as Snyder’s villain, a modern-day figure following in the footsteps of 20th-century fascists who dismantled institutions to consolidate power.

Institutions need accountability

Snyder’s alarmism about Musk exposes the deep divide between the left and right on the nature of freedom and the role of institutions. While critiques of corporate and political power are valid, Snyder’s perspective assumes that institutions should be defended without question, a stance that conflicts with conservatives’ healthy skepticism of concentrated power — a skepticism the left once shared.

Positive freedom, as Snyder envisions it, relies on the belief that government can act as a benevolent force. This assumption contradicts James Madison’s warning that “if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” But angels don’t govern us. Washington bureaucrats are subject to the same ills and vices that make government over the masses necessary. Defending institutional authority without scrutiny undermines the conservative commitment to negative freedom — the principle that individual liberties should be checks against excessive power.

Snyder’s solution, then, is not just to oppose authoritarian figures but to resist decentralization itself. He cites Aristotle and Plato to argue that inequality leads to instability and that demagogues exploit free speech to seize power. In Snyder’s world, speech is only “free” when it supports institutional interests rather than challenges them. Yet his call to “defend institutions” fails to recognize that institutions can be corrupt, bloated, and unaccountable. Snyder assumes institutions are inherently legitimate, ignoring the need for them to be accountable to the people they serve.

Where Snyder falls short

Snyder’s argument falls apart here. The left's crusade against so-called oligarchs like Musk isn’t about returning power to the people — it’s about re-centralizing it under authorities leftists consider ideologically acceptable.

Negative freedom is dangerous to them because it allows individuals to dissent, challenge state-sanctioned narratives, and question institutional orthodoxy. Yet it is precisely this freedom that has protected human decency from the imposition of top-down tyranny.

Snyder is right that institutions should be defended when they uphold the people's dignity, rights, and liberties. But just as institutions act as a check on the whims of the populace, the dissent of the people serves as a vital check on the inherent corruptibility of institutions. As Madison argued, both safeguards are essential.

When Snyder and his growing following on the global left seek to suppress dissent for the sake of institutional authority, they don’t prevent tyranny — they empower it.