These Two Hyped-Up Things Definitely Don’t Matter In The ‘Cornell 7’ Allegations
Just because Doe's attorney wants to make every detail a scandal doesn't make it one. A lot of it doesn't matter at all.Just because Doe's attorney wants to make every detail a scandal doesn't make it one. A lot of it doesn't matter at all.Big Law Is Backing The Climate Adversaries Of Their Energy Clients
Neither the law firms nor their massive energy clients responded to requests for comment on the potential conflict of interest, except one.The right is building its own lawfare defense machine — finally
For years, the right has rented legal capacity by the hour. This week, the Oversight Project is changing that.
We are launching a new law firm led by Jeff Clark and backed by a multi-million-dollar investment from philanthropist Tom Klingenstein. Its job will be straightforward: provide rapid-response representation to people we believe are being hit with politically motivated subpoenas, investigations, lawsuits, and professional disciplinary actions — and pursue lawful remedies against those who abuse those processes.
The next time one of ours gets the subpoena, the bar complaint, the investigation, or the lawsuit, someone will be there to answer it.
In practical terms, we are building something the right has long lacked: a public-defender-style legal network for our side.
With Klingenstein’s help, the project aims to raise $10 million over two years and hire at least 15 lawyers. Clark already has a small legal team at the Oversight Project. The new firm will expand that capacity, pair it with our investigators, and build specialized expertise in constitutional, administrative, ethics, and First Amendment law.
That’s the news. The reason for it is simpler.
You are not going to get the politics and policy you want if your political allies are in jail, tied up in frivolous proceedings, fighting for their professional licenses, or going broke paying lawyers. You certainly will not get durable policy wins if people who might otherwise enter public life decide the personal price is too high.
Politics does not require everyone to become a political actor, and it should not. Most people should be able to focus on faith, family, work, and community. But some people choose to step into the public fight on everyone else’s behalf. They need a fair chance to survive it.
Lawfare threatens that. The left has learned to move political disputes from the ballot box and public square into criminal cases, civil litigation, bar proceedings, subpoenas, and investigations. It also has a much larger institutional legal ecosystem — major firms, nonprofit litigators, advocacy organizations, and in-house lawyers — capable of imposing costs and absorbing them.
The right is better positioned than it used to be. Conservative legal groups have built sophisticated litigation shops. Investigative organizations have become more aggressive. Procedural challenges, public-records suits, and constitutional litigation are no longer unusual.
But one hole remains: institutionalized capacity to represent individuals at little or no cost when the process itself becomes the punishment.
The right’s usual answer has been a legal-defense fund: raise money and pass it through to private firms billing hundreds or even thousands of dollars an hour. A few prominent figures get help. Plenty of staffers, lawyers, activists, and public servants do not.
I have seen that firsthand. A friend of mine, a young White House official, received a subpoena from the January 6 Committee and an unfriendly call from the FBI. The quotes he received merely to respond to the investigation were far beyond his means. I represented him pro bono.
RELATED: Inside Jack Smith’s Trump dragnet
Most people in his position do not happen to have a friend who can do that. We are renting legal capacity we should own.
Jeff Clark understands the cost personally. He was arrested and indicted in Fulton County’s 2020 election case; those charges were later dismissed. He was swept into the federal investigation that became special counsel Jack Smith’s election case. He was subpoenaed by the January 6 Committee. And his D.C. Bar disciplinary case remains pending.
Clark knows what it costs to spend years inside criminal, congressional, and professional-disciplinary machinery. That’s one reason he is the right person to build this.
The new firm will defend clients when subpoenas, bar complaints, investigations, or lawsuits land. Salaried, mission-driven lawyers inside a nonprofit can represent far more people for far less money than a model that depends entirely on outside counsel.
Defense, however, is only half the plan.
Pairing the lawyers with Oversight Project investigators means we can also find the records behind abusive conduct and pursue damages, fees, sanctions, and other lawful consequences where the facts support them. A movement that only absorbs blows will eventually be outspent and worn down. The goal is to change the cost calculation for anyone who believes legal process can be weaponized without consequence.
That distinction is critical. This is not a license to manufacture cases against political opponents. If we become what we say we oppose, we have built nothing worth defending. The answer to abusive legal process is aggressive, lawful representation backed by evidence.
RELATED: The right needs a public defender network for lawfare
The firm will also build the next generation. We want young, hungry lawyers to get real responsibility early, work beside experienced counsel, and learn how to run cases rather than spend years carrying bags for partners. Lawyers who choose public duty over careerism should have a path to leadership.
For too long, much of the conservative legal movement has focused on commercial and regulatory questions important to major institutions. Other organizations have done strong work on the First and Second Amendments, education, abortion, and religious liberty.
We need that work. We also need lawyers ready to represent people fighting over election law, immigration, executive power, administrative government, and the emerging legal fights around populist and nationalist policy.
The left built a legal machine because it understood that legal infrastructure is political infrastructure. The right cannot keep renting lawyers by the hour and hoping donor generosity arrives after the damage is done.
That era is ending.
Jeff Clark and the Oversight Project are building a permanent institution to defend our allies and make abusive legal tactics more expensive to use. Judge us by the work.
But the next time one of ours gets the subpoena, the bar complaint, the investigation, or the lawsuit, someone will be there to answer it.
American Bar Association repeals its DEI policy, bends knee to Trump administration
America’s preeminent legal accreditation cartel has shelved its diversity, equity, and inclusion standards after a months-long pressure campaign by President Donald Trump’s Department of Education.
On Tuesday, the American Bar Association Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar voted 10-6 with one abstention to repeal Standard 206. The move comes just before a scheduled National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity review of the ABA’s status as a federally recognized law school accreditor.
‘Federal recognition will not be provided to accreditors engaging in unlawful discrimination in violation of Federal law.’
The ABA has maintained a strict monopoly on law school accreditations since 1952. Since the 1990s, the ABA has embraced leftist positions on everything from abortion and speech rules to DEI mandates and lawsuits against the Trump administration.
With the NACIQI review scheduled for September 23 and 24, ABA leadership signaled that the DEI repeal was now necessary for the institution’s survival.
The ABA referred Blaze News to a Tuesday statement when reached for comment.
"The council believes that national accreditation of law schools is in the best interests of law students, the legal profession, and the public, and we can best serve in this role with continued recognition by state supreme courts and the Department of Education," Council Chair Melissa Hart said in that statement. "Repealing Standard 206 was necessary to preserve recognition by a growing number of state courts as well as the [Education] Department."
RELATED: The establishment strikes back in New Hampshire Senate primary
The repeal comes after a lengthy back-and-forth between the ABA’s various governing bodies and the Trump administration. The DEI rule itself has been suspended since February 2025.
President Trump’s April 2025 executive order “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education” directed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to review the ABA’s status as the government’s accreditor on account of its diversity requirements.
“Federal recognition will not be provided to accreditors engaging in unlawful discrimination in violation of Federal law,” the order reads.
Republican states like Texas, Florida, and Alabama began ditching the ABA as their sole accreditor around that same time.
The ABA council first voted to repeal Standard 206 and sent the proposal to its House of Delegates in May. That vote did not repeal the standard, but set the stage for Tuesday’s final vote.
The ball is now in the government's court. The hearing later this month will determine whether the ABA’s last-minute DEI reversal will be enough to save its federal accreditor status.
The Department of Education did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
California regulates everything — except the trial lawyers exploiting it
California has perfected the art of regulating productive industries into oblivion while giving bad actors with the right political connections a free pass.
With more than 395,000 regulatory restrictions, the nation’s eighth-highest corporate tax rate, and an overzealous bureaucracy, Sacramento has driven hundreds of major employers — including Tesla, Oracle, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise — to business-friendly states like Texas.
California was once the crown jewel of American opportunity, but Sacramento’s progressive priorities have turned it into a cautionary tale.
Yet, while Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) micromanages everything from Hollywood film permits to brush-clearing fees, Sacramento looks the other way as an unchecked plaintiffs’ bar undermines local communities and distorts the justice system.
The latest investigative reporting out of Los Angeles County shows how far this racket has gone. Predatory personal-injury law firms have turned an environmental remediation challenge at the Chiquita Canyon Landfill into an unregulated gold rush, illustrating why the Trump administration and federal authorities must step in before those in Sacramento make the situation worse.
For years, the foothill community of Val Verde has dealt with noxious odors caused by an inactive portion of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill. The landfill operator tried to act as a responsible partner: complying with environmental guidelines, coordinating with multi-agency response teams, and providing nearly $25 million directly to affected local residents through a community relief fund.
Rather than encouraging a constructive resolution, a chaotic web of overlapping state regulators — including South Coast Air Quality Management District, L.A. County Public Works, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board — paralyzed the site with conflicting mandates, ultimately forcing the critical facility to halt waste intake.
Rather than protecting residents, progressive governance turned Val Verde into what locals described as the "Val Verde Hunger Games.” Text messages uncovered in court filings revealed Downtown L.A. Group boasting "PackemRackemStackem" and demanding recruiters "Get em for me ... all of them," leading to thousands of dubious claims that the landfill’s attorneys have flagged as infected with misconduct.
This dynamic is emblematic of California’s broader livability and business environment crisis. Sacramento imposes the nation’s highest income tax and an annual $800 LLC fee on entrepreneurs, yet allows predatory litigation mills to exploit vulnerable, non-English-speaking residents for 40% to 45% contingency fees.
Overregulation does not stop trash from being generated; it merely shifts waste to distant facilities, spikes consumer hauling costs, and enriches opportunistic trial lawyers.
RELATED: ‘Expert witness’ humiliated in $61 million lawsuit after lawyers discover one insane detail
When state and local bureaucracy paralyzed debris removal following Southern California’s wildfires, the Trump administration took decisive action. Under Executive Order 14181, federal authorities expedited cleanup operations and completed in just 28 days what state bureaucrats estimated would take over a year.
The Trump administration and the Environmental Protection Agency under Administrator Lee Zeldin must apply that same standard of execution to Chiquita Canyon. The EPA must supersede Sacramento’s overlapping alphabet-soup agencies, streamline the process under unified federal oversight, and ensure actual technical remediation takes precedence over regulatory extortion and predatory lawsuits.
California was once the crown jewel of American opportunity, but Sacramento’s progressive priorities have turned it into a cautionary tale where critical infrastructure is strangled and legal grift thrives.
If Sacramento refuses to rein in its rogue plaintiffs’ bar and fix its broken regulatory state, the federal government must remind Californians to restore that which Newsom destroyed: common sense.
Your recovery may depend on the pharmacist down the street
As a physical therapist, I have seen the same problem countless times. A patient makes steady progress for months, then suddenly plateaus. The exercises have not changed. The injury has not worsened. The patient is doing everything right, yet lingering pain or weakness will not budge.
After some investigation, we often find the cause: a medication problem. A prescription changed. A refill was delayed. A side effect went unrecognized. The patient’s body began responding differently, and the rehabilitation plan stalled.
Protecting pharmacy access is not a favor to one industry. It is part of protecting the patient’s path back to health.
Physical therapy, prescribing, and pharmacy cannot operate as separate worlds. Most patients who enter my clinic have at least one chronic condition, one prescription, or both. Medication can affect pain, balance, fatigue, inflammation, and healing. The pharmacist who understands a patient’s history and drug regimen belongs on the care team, not outside it.
Physical therapy can often reduce pain and restore movement without long-term reliance on medication. But after surgery or during a complicated recovery, pharmaceutical support may play an essential role. Patients do best when movement, hands-on care, and medication work together deliberately rather than through guesswork.
Recovery already asks a great deal of patients. A death in the family, an unexpected bill, or a difficult work schedule can disrupt appointments and home exercise. Those obstacles are hard, but patients can usually manage them with planning and support.
A collapsing pharmacy network is different. Patients cannot will a closed counter back into service, reach an unavailable pharmacist, or fill a prescription that remains trapped in a broken system.
Look at San Francisco, which now faces a “pharmacy crisis.” National chains have closed locations, while independent pharmacies struggle to survive. In Missouri, state officials are suing CVS and other pharmacy benefit managers over insulin pricing. Lawmakers may intend to lower costs, but poorly designed interventions can destabilize the same pharmacy networks patients depend on.
The ownership model is secondary. A national chain and a neighborhood independent may operate differently, but either can provide essential access. When either disappears, patients lose timely refills, answers about side effects, and help resolving dosing questions. In physical therapy, that can mean slower progress, cautious loading, missed sessions, and avoidable setbacks.
A short-staffed pharmacy creates similar problems. Patients struggle to reach prescribers and may wait days for guidance. Pharmacists often serve as the most accessible medication experts in the health care system, but accessibility requires someone behind the counter with enough time to listen.
When those questions go unanswered, therapists are left working around uncertainty. We may not know whether dizziness comes from the exercise program, the underlying condition, or a new medication. We may have to delay progress because safe rehabilitation does not permit guessing.
RELATED: Joy Behar’s TrumpRx rant shows how elites think
I see the opposite when pharmacy access works. Sometimes a pharmacist’s clarification or a small medication adjustment helps a patient move past the last trace of a limp. Sometimes it allows a musician to use his fingers comfortably again. When the pharmacy side of the plan aligns with physical therapy, patients can recover faster without adding unnecessary costs or complications.
The care I provide is important, but recovery succeeds through cooperation. Physical therapists restore movement. Prescribers diagnose and choose treatments. Pharmacists catch interactions, explain side effects, and help patients use medications safely. Large chains and local independents both employ professionals who perform that work every day.
Pharmacists have become “integral to chronic disease management.” Policymakers should treat them that way. Any reform aimed at drug prices, corporate practices, or pharmacy benefit managers should begin with a basic test: Will patients retain reliable access to a pharmacist?
When the answer is no, the consequences reach far beyond the pharmacy counter. They appear in rehabilitation clinics, physician offices, emergency rooms, and patients’ homes.
Good rehabilitation depends on movement expertise and medication expertise working together. Protecting pharmacy access is not a favor to one industry. It is part of protecting the patient’s path back to health.
Rural health is the next MAHA frontier
As a Virginia farmer, I have spent years fighting regulatory overreach and corporate consolidation that hollow out rural America.
So when Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) recently led the effort to remove a pesticide-liability shield from the House farm bill, rural families had reason to cheer.
If we are serious about children’s health in rural America, we should examine whether newer technologies can reduce toxic exposures.
The provision would have given pesticide manufacturers such as Bayer broad protection from “failure to warn” lawsuits brought by Americans who allege glyphosate caused their cancer. It also would have limited the ability of states and local communities to establish no-spray zones near schools and weakened protections for waterways.
In other words, it was top-down federal overreach and a corporate handout disguised as “regulatory uniformity.” It had no place in legislation meant to serve farmers and rural families.
Luna’s amendment passed 280-142, with more than 70 House Republicans joining all but six Democrats.
Republicans such as Luna deserve credit for refusing to grant blanket immunity to corporations at the expense of American families. They also showed that Make America Healthy Again can become a governing philosophy — one that puts children, families, and farmers ahead of well-connected industries.
More than three years after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced his presidential campaign and later joined forces with President Donald Trump, the MAHA movement continues to secure policy victories with consequences that families may feel for decades.
The pesticide fight is only one part of a much larger question. Once policymakers begin examining preventable chemical exposures, the issue does not stop at the edge of the field.
Former Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), a nurse and Tea Party leader, has noted that many of the same rural children whose schools and waterways Luna’s amendment would protect also spend hours each week riding older diesel school buses. Exposure to diesel exhaust has been linked to pediatric asthma, ADHD, and other health and developmental concerns.
If we are serious about children’s health in rural America, we should examine whether newer technologies can reduce those exposures.
That does not mean Washington should dictate transportation choices to rural districts. It means farmers and small-town families should have a seat at the table and access to resources when cleaner options, including electric school buses, become practical.
RELATED: Big Pharma’s miracle drugs have a nasty side effect
The American Lung Association projects more than $43,000 in health savings per electric bus through reductions in asthma attacks and respiratory illness. Electric buses are also substantially quieter than diesel models, which could benefit students with autism or sensory sensitivities.
Each community should weigh the costs and benefits for itself. But the issue deserves serious local consideration.
Rural water quality deserves the same attention.
A recent national analysis found that more than one in five Americans receive drinking water from systems with elevated nitrate levels associated with cancer and birth defects. Many of the hardest-hit communities are in agricultural regions.
Researchers and public health advocates have also raised concerns about PFAS “forever chemicals” contaminating farmland and groundwater, sometimes forcing farming operations to shut down.
Farmers understand better than anyone that stewardship has consequences. The land, water, and infrastructure we pass to the next generation will shape rural health long after today’s political battles are forgotten.
Reducing unnecessary exposures and modernizing aging infrastructure where it makes sense are practical, pro-family goals that fit squarely within the MAHA vision.
Luna and her colleagues showed that Congress can still deliver for rural American families when lawmakers put them ahead of corporate interests.
They should keep going.
Yes, smart TVs are spying on you — and one state is finally fighting back
Smart TVs operating on behalf of foreign entities have alarming capabilities.
The TVs are capable of capturing screenshots of a user's TV display every 500 milliseconds and sending that data back to their home country.
'The days of Chinese tech companies spying on Americans' televisions are over.'
Consumer data is then allegedly sold, in the same way online browsing data is, so companies can bolster their ad targeting capabilities. This not only puts sensitive user information at risk, but serves as a massive profit generator for TV manufacturers.
Until recently, there was no pushback against these major manufacturers, but in December, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton lined up lawsuits against Sony, Samsung, LG, Hisense, and TCL, directly accusing them of spying.
Definitely not 'spying'
Through its lawsuits, Texas secured an agreement from South Korean manufacturer Samsung in February to stop collecting "Automated Content Recognition" data without user consent.
The settlement also compelled Samsung to implement disclosures and consent screens that are easy to understand by the user.
RELATED: Texas sues five TV manufacturers for secretly 'spying' on owners
Paxton commended Samsung for its changes and said the company "promptly implement[ed] important safeguards for consumers," while other smart TV companies have instead "chosen to illegally spy on Texans and act as digital invaders in their homes."
Samsung rejected the idea that it was spying, however, and said the settlement "affirms what Samsung has said since this lawsuit was filed — Samsung TVs do not spy on consumers."
"In fact, Samsung allows you to control your privacy — and change your privacy settings at any time," the company added, per BleepingComputer.
The Texas AG also made some ground against Hisense, a Chinese manufacturer.
A first of its kind temporary restraining order was granted against Hisense, which stopped the company from using its ACR technology to collect, use, sell, share, disclose, or transfer Texans' data.
RELATED: States should work with AI, not against it
"The days of Chinese tech companies spying on Americans' televisions are over," Paxton declared. He has since vowed to bring the other companies, including Chinese brand TCL Technology, to court for "illegally spying on Texans," stating that legal actions will "move forward."
Tech billionaire and defense contractor Palmer Luckey recently called the intrusions a "growing problem for American national security" with an unbelievable amount of "sensitive and classified" information getting collected by foreign nations.
"Users have no idea. Nobody expects that their TV or monitor is a surveillance tool," Luckey wrote on X. "When I have joked that Smart TVs should be illegal, I am only half-joking."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Civil courts check the powerful. This Republican wants them weaker.
A new bill before Congress claims it will curb lawsuit abuse. It won’t. In reality, it will limit ordinary Americans’ access to civil courts.
The Protect Third Party Litigation Funding from Abuse Act, sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), would force plaintiffs in “any civil action” to disclose “the identity of any person (other than counsel of record) that has a legal right to receive any payment or thing of value” from the case.
Third-party funding is not clogging courts. It expands access to justice.
Plaintiffs would need to provide that information to defendants and the court. Anyone with a functioning brain can see what will happen next: The names leak, activists and corporate PR shops pick targets, and the people financing the lawsuit get punished for it.
If that sounds like a blackmail scheme, it is. And it would be perfectly legal.
Third-party litigation funding works like this: An individual, company, or organization advances money to a plaintiff or law firm to cover the costs of a lawsuit. In exchange, the funder receives a share of any judgment or settlement. If the plaintiff loses, the funder gets nothing.
The arrangement exists for a reason. Lawsuits can be expensive. Complex cases require investigators, expert witnesses, depositions, document review, and months or years of legal work. Deep-pocketed defendants know they can bury a plaintiff under delays, discovery fights, and endless motions while the meter runs at hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars an hour.
Litigation funding helps level that field. It gives plaintiffs a fighting chance against defendants who can afford to grind them down.
Issa calls this “abuse” because hedge funds and speculators sometimes fund cases in hopes of a return. “We believe that if a third-party investor is financing a lawsuit in federal court, it should be disclosed rather than hidden from the world,” Issa said when he announced the bill.
That sounds reasonable only if you ignore what trials are for.
A civil trial asks three questions: Did the defendant do what the plaintiff alleges? Did the defendant’s actions cause harm? If so, what were the damages (if any)? The identity of a funder does not help a jury answer any of them. If anything, it distracts from the merits and invites a side show: the defendant arguing the plaintiff is a puppet and the case is illegitimate because someone with money helped pay the bills. That argument deserves no special protection.
What counts is what the defendant did or didn’t do and whether it hurt the plaintiff. Who finances the plaintiff’s lawyers doesn’t change the facts of the case.
RELATED: A one-way national divorce: Anarchy for them, coercion for us
A successful plaintiff also has the right to spend an award as he or she chooses, including paying debts and obligations incurred to bring the case. Issa’s bill would chill that option by scaring off funders through forced disclosure. The bill doesn’t touch defendants, who can hire every white-shoe law firm on the planet. It targets the side that usually needs help.
Issa’s bill also pretends it’s solving a crisis that doesn’t exist. The number of lawsuits filed each year in the United States, at both state and federal levels, has fallen by roughly one-third since 2012, according to Consumer Shield. Meanwhile fewer than 1% of state civil cases go to trial, and fewer than 2% of federal civil cases do. Most settle or get dismissed. Third-party funding is not clogging courts. It expands access to justice.
The bill also reaches far beyond any plausible federal interest. Federal cases account for only about 1.4% of civil litigation nationwide. States already have authority to regulate litigation funding — and some have. As of July 2025, seven states — Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wisconsin — had regulations governing litigation funding, according to the Washington Legal Foundation. The fact that most states haven’t bothered tells you what lawmakers think: This isn’t a pressing problem.
The broader claim — that litigation funding drives frivolous suits — fails under scrutiny. A 2022 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found funders vet cases carefully and avoid interfering in litigation. They do that for a simple reason: They get paid only if the claim succeeds. The report put it plainly: “Funders select the most meritorious cases to fund because they only receive returns when claims are successful.”
Economic reality imposes its own discipline. Third-party funding does not “abuse” the system. It democratizes access to it.
Issa’s bill would do the opposite. By threatening people who finance lawsuits, it would tilt the playing field further toward big corporations and the ultra-wealthy — the parties most able to outspend and outlast everyone else.
Like it or not, civil suits help keep a free society free. They allow ordinary people to hold powerful actors accountable for harm. Restricting access to courts doesn’t stop abuse. It increases it — by giving the powerful more insulation from consequences. That’s the kind of “reform” Americans don’t need.
How Christians honored a truce the left never accepted
It’s Christmastime, and you can feel the shift in the air.
Something has changed in the nation’s mood. People smile more easily. Familiar music returns. And — quietly but unmistakably — you can say “Merry Christmas” again without apologizing for it. The president of the United States quotes the Gospel of John when he speaks about Jesus.
Christians need to face a hard truth: The truce was a mistake.
For a few short weeks, Americans remember what this season is actually about. Not a generic winter festival. Not a vague celebration of “light” or “togetherness.” But the birth of Jesus Christ — a real event in history that changed everything.
For centuries, Christians have marked this season to reflect on the incarnation of the Son of God. “Christ is the reason for the season” is not a slogan; it is a confession. God entered history. He took on flesh. He came to save sinners. Christianity is not built on myth or metaphor but on eyewitness testimony to what actually happened.
America is now remembering — haltingly, imperfectly — the central role of Christ in its own history. That recovery follows decades of effort by atheists and secular ideologues to banish Christ from the public square. Unfortunately, Christians largely agreed to the truce that made this possible. They kept their faith private while Marxists were happy to occupy public education.
In the 1960s, American Christians accepted what amounted to a truce. I half-jokingly call it the Madalyn Murray O’Hair deal. The now largely forgotten atheist activist sued to remove prayer and biblical instruction from public schools. Christians acquiesced. Public education, they were told, would be “neutral.” Religion would be kept out. Faith would be private.
Christians kept their side of the deal.
The Marxists did not — because they never agreed to one. They announced their intentions openly. They promised to march through the institutions, and they did. Universities filled with faculty who identify as left or far left and who teach Marxist frameworks as settled truth.
Today, it is easier to find a committed Marxist on campus than a practicing Christian.
For 60 years, Marxist philosophy crept into K-12 education and then saturated higher education. What was once smuggled in under euphemism is now proudly declared. Professors announce their ideology on syllabi and use taxpayer dollars to teach students that America is structurally racist and that “whiteness” is a form of oppression.
There was never neutrality. There was only a vacuum — and Marxism rushed in to fill it.
I saw this emptiness firsthand on my own campus at Arizona State University.
At ASU’s West Valley campus, administrators recently installed a “winter wonderland” display. Not Christmas lights — “winter” lights. Decorations carefully stripped of any reference to Christ. The existential meaninglessness was almost overwhelming.
Lights were strung up to flicker briefly in the darkness before being taken down and discarded. What did it mean? What did it point to beyond itself?
Or, as Hemingway wrote, was it simply nada y pues nada y pues nada — nothing, and then nothing, and then nothing?
This is what happens when you preserve form while evacuating content. Ritual without meaning. Celebration without hope. Light without truth.
Christmas is the opposite of that.
Christmas does not offer a vague lesson about darkness giving way to light. It proclaims that Jesus Christ is the light of the world. It is not a symbolic story to be endlessly reinterpreted but a declaration that Christ was born in history, of a virgin, in fulfillment of prophecy, to redeem a fallen world.
That is why efforts to drain Christmas of its meaning always feel strained. When leftists substitute “winter celebrations” and “seasonal observances,” they do not offer neutrality. They offer emptiness — sometimes dressed up as inclusion, sometimes as bureaucracy, sometimes as pagan revivalism. Light shows without the Logos. Rituals without redemption.
Christians need to face a hard truth: The truce was a mistake.
There is no neutral education. There never has been. Every curriculum conveys values. Every institution forms souls. The only question is whether students will be formed in the light of Christ or in the ideology of those who openly despise Him.
RELATED: The truth about Christmas: Debunking the pagan origin myth once and for all
Christmas exposes the lie of neutrality. It reminds us that history has meaning, that truth entered the world, and that human beings answer to something higher than administrative guidelines or ideological fashion.
So this year, I am not whispering, “Happy Holidays.” I am saying, “Merry Christmas” — to students, to colleagues, to anyone who will hear it.
Parents and students should remember something crucial: Universities answer to you. You are not passive consumers. You set expectations. You decide what kind of formation is acceptable.
When you see your professors, say, “Merry Christmas.” Say it cheerfully. Say it unapologetically. What you are affirming is not sentiment but truth: that Christ came into the world, and no amount of bureaucratic rebranding can erase Him.
The lights will flicker and fade. Christ will not.
Merry Christmas.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com