Here’s How The Great American State Fair Is Creating Little Patriots
Despite criticism, the Great American State Fair is doing exactly what it was intended to do: create lifelong memories in little patriots.Despite criticism, the Great American State Fair is doing exactly what it was intended to do: create lifelong memories in little patriots.The forgotten July 4th story: Betrayal, assassination plots, and the true birth of America
While millions of Americans participate in Fourth of July festivities, many don’t know what exactly it is they’re celebrating; others may vaguely know, but the complete history of the United States is something they’ve long forgotten or were never taught.
On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn revisits a powerful but largely forgotten story about America’s dramatic birth — the hidden plots, betrayals, and extraordinary character that defined the days right before July 4.
“All of us celebrate Fourth of July — everybody does. But nobody knows what's happening the days before the Fourth of July. ... This is when this country was being born in two cities at the same time and on two completely different tracks,” says Glenn, “and those two tracks slam together on one morning.”
“Because while [Thomas] Jefferson is writing ... what kind of men we could be [in the Declaration of Independence], George Washington is discovering the kind of men that we already have among us. The British fleet are coming,” he continues.
But a bloody war wasn’t the only plot to foil America. While the British fleet sat in the harbor awaiting the signal to invade New York, British Crown-appointed New York Governor William Tryon and New York City Mayor David Mathews were scheming to assassinate or kidnap George Washington.
“[Tryon and Matthews] are quietly buying off Continental soldiers, paying them to switch sides the moment the British land. ... The minute the British land, they're to turn their guns around and blow the powder magazines, seize the bridge at the north end of Manhattan, so Washington's whole army is trapped on that island like fish in a barrel,” Glenn recounts.
One of the men in Washington’s personal “lifeguard” (secret service) — Thomas Hickey — was in on this plot.
“Hickey gets himself thrown in jail for passing counterfeit money, and he couldn't keep his mouth shut. He bragged to another prisoner about the conspiracy ... well, that prisoner talked, and it landed in front of a secret committee tasked with sniffing out exactly this kind of treason committee led by a young New Yorker named John Jay,” says Glenn, highlighting Jay’s contributions from writing the famous Federalist Papers to becoming the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Jay’s task force, he says, is often described by historians as “the first American intelligence agency.”
Hickey’s trial for treason happened at the same time Jefferson was penning the Declaration of Independence — two “tracks” Glenn says “come together” in a remarkable way.
On Monday, June 28, 1776, Hickey was publicly hanged for treason, making him “the first soldier this country ever executed for treason before we were a country,” Glenn explains.
At that same time, Jefferson went to Independence Hall with the finished draft of the Declaration of Independence in tow.
“One single morning, in one young nation that didn't legally even exist yet, in one city, the words of who we wanted to become were first being read into the record. And another city just up the road, a man was being hung by a rope for trying to strangle that nation in its cradle,” Glenn summarizes. “The promise and the betrayal in the same hour — 90 miles apart.”
Four days later on July 2, Congress voted to approve a resolution for independence.
“The ink isn't even dry and the enemy is already in the water,” says Glenn.
“It would have been so easy in that moment of terror — invasion coming, traitors in the ranks, the mayor himself in on it — for Washington to become the very thing that they were fighting.”
Instead he refused to become a tyrant, choosing to uphold the rule of law and the ideals of the revolution even when it was risky and difficult.
“In the middle of the most dangerous month of their life, with a knife already at the Republic's throat, they chose process over panic, law over vengeance. And in the same breath, in the same week, they put their names down on this document that said power has to answer to something higher than its own power,” says Glenn.
“That's who we are. That's who we were. That's who we can be every day going forward.”
To hear more, 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.
Supernanny calls out modern parents: ‘We are slowly disabling our children’
“Supernanny” Jo Frost has been looked to as a guiding light for all things child-rearing since her hit television show, which featured her helping parents with their unruly children — and now she’s sounding the alarm.
“We are slowly disabling our children,” she said in a post on social media. “And I don’t say that lightly. I say that because I work with families continuously, every day, and I’m seeing a pattern that’s growing.”
That pattern is “children who are capable but not being taught.”
“Every time we step in and do it for them or avoid teaching because it’s slower, messier, or inconvenient, we take away an opportunity for them to become capable, and children want to feel capable,” she said, explaining that parents need to “go back to basics.”
“We teach the bike riding with support, then without. We remove the dummy when it’s no longer needed. We show them how to brush their teeth properly, not rely on this electric tool. We sit at the table, and we teach them how to eat properly,” she continued.
“We guide, we repeat, we expect — not perfectly, consistently, because independence isn’t something that just happens. It’s taught, parents, and if we don’t teach it, we can’t be surprised when it’s missing,” she added.
BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey agrees.
“I think she makes some really good points,” Stuckey says, calling those that Frost is describing “permissive” parents.
These parents “really just believe that your only job is to be your kid’s pal and to be their friend and to help them do what they want and to just comply with whatever their desires are.”
“I think there are some parents like that who might have some good intentions, and they just think that that’s what you’re supposed to do as a parent. And then I also think it has a lot to do with parents being overly busy, overly controlled, and consumed by their phones, and just tired,” she explains.
“And so, they’re lazy, and so they outsource their parenting to tablets, to social media, to different devices that kind of work as a long-term pacifier for their kids so they don’t have to do the hard and energy-taking work of actually disciplining their child, instructing their child, training their child, and all of that,” she continues.
And a recent study by EdWeek Research Center only amplifies Frost’s point.
“Kids today in pre-K are doing a lot worse when it comes to these developmental milestones than kids have in the past,” Stuckey explains.
According to the study, 52% of preschool educators “reported that their current students had more difficulty tying their shoes than children the same age two years ago.”
Fifty-four percent said that potty training had become increasingly difficult for pre-K students, 56% said they were more likely to need assistance putting on a coat, 59% reported that behavioral issues were up over the past two years, and 72% said students were worse at following directions.
“I think screens,” Stuckey says. “I think the overstimulation of parents. I think just this phenomenon of parents thinking that any form of discipline or boundary-setting or punishment is wrong or mean.”
“So, anyway,” she continues, “I just thought that that was really good and probably the people who didn’t like to hear it need to hear it the most. And I just love people who are willing to say hard truths, especially when it comes to things that are for the sake of our kids and future generations.”
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.
Canadian province makes major move for independence — and it's not Quebec
Ottawa and members of the eastern ruling class of Canada have made no secret of their contempt for Canada's resource-rich prairie provinces and their inhabitants, proving time and again their willingness to simultaneously exploit the West's wealth and hinder its progress.
'Albertans are engaged and this is an issue people want to have a say on.'
While the powers that be might not be losing sleep over alienating the residents of these provinces, they could soon lose something far more precious: a province roughly 1.56 times bigger than California that's home to over 5 million people, vast natural beauty, the fourth-largest proven oil reserves in the world, a large variety of valuable metallic and industrial minerals, and Atlanta's former NHL franchise.
How it started
Canadians — not so much those in the 18-to-34 age bracket, who largely voted Conservative, but those over the age of 55 — decided last year to award another four years to the Liberal government that in the preceding years oversaw a historic growth of the federal deficit, numerous tax hikes, an unprecedented influx of immigrants, a spike in illegal immigration, rising crime, unanswered church burnings, a worsening housing crisis, and the rise of state-facilitated suicide as a leading cause of death nationally.
Unlike certain progressive regions that got what they wanted in the form of another Liberal government, the Province of Alberta flatly rejected World Economic Forum regular and self-identified "European" Mark Carney and his woke party.
The Conservatives netted 91.9% of the vote in Alberta, the province with the youngest population. The Liberals alternatively brought in a measly 5.4%.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith acknowledged her fellows' frustration at the time, stating, "A large majority of Albertans are deeply frustrated that the same government that overtly attacked our provincial economy almost unabated for the past 10 years has been returned to government."
RELATED: Priest breaks hip — now Canada apparently wants him dead
While there has long been chatter about Alberta possibly separating from Canada, the 2025 federal election energized the secessionist movement.
Proponents of Albertan sovereignty were further emboldened after the provincial legislature passed amendments to the Citizen Initiative Act, which make it easier to start a referendum, including one on separating from Canada.
On Jan. 2, Alberta's chief electoral officer issued the separatist group Stay Free Alberta's citizen initiative petition, kicking off a 120-day signature collection period and setting the stage for a possible referendum in the event the group could secure at least 177,732 signatures, which amounts to 10% of eligible voters.
How it's going
Stay Free Alberta petitioners, accompanied by hundreds of supporters, delivered the goods to Elections Alberta's Edmonton office on Monday.
The separatists claim to have collected 301,620 signatures, state media reported. Another 1,500 signatures were allegedly late in coming owing to problems with Canada Post, the nation's strike-happy, government-owned postal delivery service.
Stay Free Alberta leader Mitch Sylvestre told the crowd, "This process shows that Albertans are engaged and this is an issue people want to have a say on."
Elections Alberta confirmed that Chief Electoral Officer Gordon McClure has received the petition and signature sheets from Sylvestre.
The verification is, however, on hold until Justice Shaina Leonard — an appointee of the Trudeau Liberal government — rules on a legal challenge advanced by a pair of Indian tribes that claim the petition process threatens treaty rights. Her decision is expected later this month.
Should the Indians' legal challenge fail, the province will have 21 days to verify the petition.
If deemed successful, the petition will be submitted to provincial officials, who will then decide whether to sign off on a province-wide referendum, which could take place as soon as Oct. 19. Premier Smith previously indicated that if the requisite number of signatures were collected, she would put the question to a referendum.
RELATED: 'AMERICAN INVASION': Flailing Canada PM Mark Carney invokes historical grudge in latest lob at Trump
An Abacus Data survey of 1,000 Alberta adults conducted in late February found that 26% of respondents support Alberta ceasing to be a Canadian province and becoming a sovereign country. Sixty-four percent of respondents signaled opposition, and 9% said they were undecided. The idea of regional independence was apparently most intolerable to those in the 60+ age cohort, 71% of whom signaled opposition.
A poll conducted last month by Canadian state media, whose coverage has largely been critical of the independence movement, said that 57% of United Conservative Party voters — those who back Alberta's current ruling party — would vote for separation. Supporters of the province's socialist New Democrat Party were almost unanimous in their opposition to breaking from the federation and Canada's leftist central power, with 98% saying they would vote against the initiative.
When asked on Tuesday how he would prevent Albertan separatists from succeeding in a possible referendum, Prime Minister Carney said that "there's the rule of law — there's the Clarity Act which has been opined upon by the Supreme Court," and "any referenda in any part of Canada need to be consistent with that."
The Clarity Act sets out the conditions under which the federal government would negotiate the separation of a province.
Carney, who also appears hopeful that the Indian tribes' legal challenge might prevail, added that Ottawa will in the meantime act "in the spirit of cooperative federalism, making the country work, making it work for Albertans, making it work for indigenous peoples, making it work for all Canadians."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Ken Burns’ The American Revolution Kicks Off the Quarter-Millennial Celebrations
The famed documentarian takes on the American founding, and the result is an inspiring reminder that we have much to be grateful for.Jerome Powell proves the Fed’s ‘independence’ is a myth
One of the least understood but most consequential aspects of American government is the United States Federal Reserve System. Bankers, investors, and even the president sit with bated breath, waiting to see how the Fed will manage interest rates.
The Fed is so important to the world economy that the president sometimes may feel the need to voice his administration’s position and hope the chairman of the Federal Reserve will acquiesce to his wishes. Sometimes, however, he may point out issues with the chairman’s performance, puncturing the claim of central bank independence. President Donald Trump recently accused Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell of being too late with interest rate cuts “except when it came to the Election period when he lowered [interest rates] in order to help Sleepy Joe Biden, later Kamala, get elected.”
Powell was clearly willing to play political games that cost Americans their businesses and their ability to feed their children.
Americans had suffered through continued elevated inflation, in part, because Jerome Powell wanted to keep his job.
With the president’s attempted firing of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, Powell has jockeyed himself a position as the white knight of central bank independence. He alleges that tariffs, which have no connection with monetary policy on their own, are the cause of an increase in inflation. He seems intent on keeping interest rates high.
Whether that is a good decision is a different subject altogether (the Mises Institute’s Ryan McMaken takes on that idea). But what is clear is that Jerome Powell is not the principled opponent to Trump he claims to be; he is just as much a political actor as the president and Congress.
Powell’s politicization
Powell’s politicization is clear in how the Fed functions today. Economists and political scientists stress the importance of central bank independence as a hedge against what is called “political business cycles.” These cycles occur when monetary authorities pump the economy full of easy money to suppress employment problems and create an illusion of prosperity. This eventually results in higher inflation. Politicians reap the benefits of this illusion and blame inflation on something else: energy shocks, supply shocks, disasters, tariffs, etc.
The root of the problem is when new money is created to push down interest rates. Politicians who have control over the monetary authorities are incentivized to push for easier monetary policy to relieve unemployment in the face of elections. If they lose, their opponents reap the consequences; if they win, rates might be allowed to rise to fight inflation, and the illusion is dispelled.
By insulating the central bank from political pressure, the Fed is supposed to be able to pursue its mandates such as low and stable inflation or low unemployment. While this appears sound at first glance, reality shows that the Federal Reserve has never truly been independent.
A history of faux independence
The crowning moment that defines U.S. central bank independence is the Treasury-Fed Accord of 1951, which severed the support the Fed had given the Treasury Department in financing World War II and the Marshall Plan. But as Jonathan Newman has uncovered, this accord was a declaration of independence in name only.
The chairman of the board of governors, Thomas McCabe, by all accounts did appear to favor the separation of the Federal Reserve’s functions from that of the Treasury’s. Yet McCabe was not present at the Accord meetings. Moreover, McCabe resigned in protest soon after they concluded.
Treasury stooge William McChesney Martin Jr. was then appointed Fed chairman. Martin paid lip service to the idea of an independent Fed but ultimately revealed his cooperation with the Treasury Department in a 1955 interview. President Kennedy even renominated him for having “cooperated effectively in the economic policies of [his] administration.”
The Treasury and the Fed have had a revolving door ever since. Martin had chaired the Export-Import Bank in addition to serving as assistant treasury secretary. G. William Miller left his role as Fed chairman to serve as the secretary of the treasury. Paul Volcker served in Nixon’s Treasury Department before joining the Fed.
Particularly egregious was Janet Yellen, who served on President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers and then was appointed to the Federal Reserve by both Clinton and later President Barack Obama. She ultimately would become secretary of the treasury under President Joe Biden. Even Jerome Powell served in President George H.W. Bush’s Treasury Department before returning to the private sector. Barack Obama appointed Powell to the Federal Reserve Board, and President Trump later nominated him as Fed chairman.
The constant revolving door between the CEA, the Treasury Department, and the Federal Reserve is no different from agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control, and Department of Energy. It reeks of corruption and political influence and certainly proves the Federal Reserve is not truly independent.
Playing political games
Examining Jerome Powell’s own actions when his job was on the line shatters the illusion of so-called central bank independence.
In 2021, as inflation began to climb, Powell dubbed the phenomenon “transitory.” The Biden administration had just taken office a few months prior, and rampant inflation was likely to stick around for the midterm elections. Thus, blame had to be cast elsewhere. It’s also noteworthy that Powell’s four-year term was set to expire in 2022. If you are up for a performance review, you might choose to kiss up to your boss so that you aren’t fired. Central bankers are no different.
Inflation continued to rise through November, climbing to 7% year over year. Americans demanding relief could not turn to Jerome Powell, who kept the Federal Funds Rate at 0%, attempting to hide the real state of the economy for Biden, who renominated him that same month. It was only then that Powell dropped the term “transitory” to describe inflation.
The first rate hike of 0.5% happened in May 2022, after the Senate Banking Committee had advanced Powell’s nomination. Soon after, with rates still low, Powell was confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate. Only two months after his confirmation, the Fed finally began to hike interest rates at historic speed. Inflation had peaked in June at 9% year over year. Americans had suffered through continued elevated inflation, in part, because Jerome Powell wanted to keep his job.
RELATED: Ron Paul exposes how the Federal Reserve keeps up its scam
A Fed that was hawkish on inflation would have raised interest rates higher and faster than Powell did, not allowing inflation to run rampant. Powell was clearly willing to play political games that cost Americans their businesses and their ability to feed their children.
The Fed has never been independent — it has always been political. Economists would do well to admit this and argue their case rather than pussyfoot around the question of what interest rates should be or if interest rates should be set at all.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published at the American Mind.
This Independence Day, Ditch The DNA Test And Learn More About Your American Ancestors
In a frustratingly divided nation, we need stories that unite us to a shared American vision of the good life based on our nation’s founding principles.America’s Southwest was conquered fair and square
The most striking images from the recent anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement riots in Los Angeles depicted protesters defiantly waving the Mexican flag. Some commentators noted the irony: Why carry the flag of the very country you don’t want to be deported to? Others offered a darker interpretation — the flag wasn’t just a symbol of heritage but a claim. The message: California rightfully belongs to Mexico.
That sentiment echoes the increasingly common ritual of “land acknowledgements” on college campuses. Event organizers now routinely recite statements recognizing that a school sits on land once claimed by this or that Indian tribe. But such cheap virtue signaling skips over a key point: Tribes seized land from each other long before Europeans arrived.
The United States had offered to purchase the disputed territories. Mexico treated the offer as an insult and indignantly refused. And the war came.
Do the descendants of the Aztecs have a claim to California and the rest of the American Southwest? The answer is a simple and emphatic no. The United States holds that territory by treaty, by financial compensation, and, yes, by conquest. But the full story is worth examining — because it explains why Spain and later Mexico failed to hold what the United States would eventually claim.
The rise and fall of the Spanish empire
Spain launched its exploration and conquest of the Americas in the 15th century and eventually defeated the Aztec empire in Mexico. But by the 18th century, Spanish control began to wane. The empire’s model of rule — exploitative, inefficient, and layered with class resentment — proved unsustainable.
At the top were the peninsulares, Spaniards born in Europe who ran colonial affairs from Havana and Mexico City. They had little connection to the land or the people they governed — and often returned to Spain when their service ended.
Below them stood the creoles, locally born Spaniards who could rise in power but never fully displace the peninsulares.
Then came the mestizos — mixed-race descendants of Spaniards and natives — and, finally, the native peoples themselves, descendants of the once-dominant Aztecs, who lived in state of peonage.
Inspired by the American Revolution, Mexico declared itself a republic in 1824. But it lacked the civic traditions and institutional structure to sustain self-government. Political chaos followed. Factionalism gave way to the dictatorship of Antonio López de Santa Anna, who brutally suppressed a rebellion in Coahuila y Tejas.
Texas had long been a trouble spot. Even before independence from Spain, Mexican officials encouraged American settlement to create a buffer against Comanche raids. The Comanche — superb horsemen — dominated the Southern Plains, displacing rival tribes and launching deep raids into Mexican territory. During the “Comanche moon,” their war parties could cover 70 miles in a day. They were a geopolitical power unto themselves.
RELATED: Flipping cars for ‘justice’ — then back to poli-sci class
Anglo settlers in Texas brought their own ideas of decentralized government. When tensions escalated, they declared independence. Santa Anna responded with massacres at Goliad and the Alamo. But after his defeat and capture at San Jacinto, he granted Texas independence in exchange for his life. Mexico’s government refused to honor the deal — and continued to claim Texas, insisting that the border lay at the Nueces River, not the Rio Grande.
How the Southwest was won
After the United States annexed Texas in 1845, conflict became inevitable. Mexican forces crossed the Rio Grande and clashed with U.S. troops. President James Polk requested a declaration of war in 1846.
The Mexican-American War remains one of the most decisive — and underappreciated — conflicts in U.S. history. The small but capable U.S. Army, bolstered by state volunteers, outclassed Mexican forces at every turn. American troops seized Santa Fe and Los Angeles.
General Zachary Taylor pushed south, winning battles at Resaca de la Palma and Monterrey. General Winfield Scott launched a bold amphibious assault at Veracruz, then cut inland — without supply lines — to capture Mexico City. The Duke of Wellington called the campaign “unsurpassed in military annals.”
The war served as a proving ground for a generation of officers who would later lead armies in the Civil War.
Diplomatically, the war might have been avoided. The United States had offered to purchase the disputed territories. Mexico treated the offer as an insult and indignantly refused. And the war came.
Territory bought and paid for
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, ended the conflict. Mexico ceded California and a vast swath of land that now includes Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Wyoming. Mexico also gave up its claim to Texas and accepted the Rio Grande as the southern border.
In return, the United States paid Mexico $15 million “in consideration of the extension acquired by the boundaries of the United States” and assumed certain debts owed to American citizens. Mexicans living in the newly acquired territory could either relocate within Mexico’s new borders or become U.S. citizens with full civil rights. The Gadsden Purchase added even more land.
The United States gained enormously from the war at the expense of Mexico. Critics of the expansionist policy known as “manifest destiny,” including the Whigs and Ulysses S. Grant, called the result unjust. Some Southerners wanted to annex all of Mexico to expand slavery. That plan was wisely rejected, though the “law of conquest” made it a possibility.
Still, the U.S. paid for the land, offered citizenship to the inhabitants, and declined to claim more than necessary. In the rough world of 19th-century geopolitics, that counted as a just outcome.
The Constitution Vindicates Trump’s Firing Of 17 Inspectors General
Accountability requires the power to remove. Without it, the president cannot control who wields his own executive power and how.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com