Gold Star grief never ends — remember the fallen this Memorial Day



Your son has been a Marine for what feels like an eternity. Only those who have watched their children deploy into war zones can truly understand why time seems to freeze in worry. What begins as concern turns to panic, then helplessness. You live suspended in a silent winter, where days blur and dread becomes your constant companion.

Then, in an instant, it happens. What you don’t know yet is that your child — your most precious gift — fell in combat 60 seconds ago.

This is a day for sacred remembrance, for honoring those who laid down their lives.

While you go about your day, unaware, military protocol kicks into motion. Notification must happen within eight hours. Officers are dispatched. A chaplain joins them. A medic may accompany them in case the grief is too much to bear.

Three figures arrive at your door. One asks your name. Then, by protocol, they ask to enter your home. You already know what’s coming. You sit down. He looks you in the eye and says:

The commandant of the Marine Corps has entrusted me to express his deep regret that your son John was killed in action on Friday, March 28. The commandant and the United States Marine Corps extend their deepest sympathy to you and your family in your loss.

This moment has played out thousands of times across American soil. In 2003 alone — just two years after 9/11 — 312 families endured it. In 2007, 847 American service members died in combat. In 2008, 352. In 2009, 346. The list goes on. And with every name, a family became a Gold Star family.

Honor the fallen

For most Americans, Memorial Day means backyard barbecues, family gatherings, maybe a trip to the lake or a sweet Airbnb. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying these things. But we must never forget why we can.

Ask any veteran who lived when others did not, and you’ll understand: Memorial Day is not just another holiday. It is a solemn day set apart for reverence.

So this weekend, reach out to a Gold Star family. Acknowledge their pain. Ask about their son or daughter. Let them know they’re not alone.

This is a day for sacred remembrance, for honoring those who laid down their lives — not for accolades but for love of country and the preservation of liberty. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

They died for the Constitution, for our shared American ideals, and the worst thing we could do now would be to betray those ideals in a spirit of rage or division.

We cannot dishonor their sacrifice by abandoning the very principles they died to protect — equal justice, the rule of law, the enduring promise of liberty.

This Memorial Day, let us remember the fallen. Let us honor their families. Let us recommit ourselves to the cause they gave everything for: the American way of life.

They are the best of us.

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.

A Marine’s Memorial Day message: Don’t forget the price



This weekend, we observe Memorial Day, a national day of remembrance first established by General John A. Logan’s “General Order No. 11,” issued on May 5, 1868, by the Grand Army of the Republic. The order declared:

The 30th day of May 1868 is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers and otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies lie in almost every city, village and hamlet churchyard in the land.

Logan’s order codified a practice that was already widespread across the country. In the years following the Civil War, Americans from both the North and South began gathering to honor the fallen. Logan provided that instinct with formal significance and established a national calendar.

In 1998, while serving as a professor at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, I had the honor of delivering the city’s annual Memorial Day address at City Hall. In those remarks, I warned that the true meaning of the holiday was slipping away.

Memorial Day permits us to enlarge the individual soldier’s view — giving broader meaning to the sacrifice that was accepted by some but offered by all.

Memorial Day had become little more than a three-day weekend. For many, it marked the start of summer — just another excuse for a cookout. But that was never the intent.

The holiday was established to solemnly reflect on the lives lost in service to the country. It offered catharsis for those who fought and survived. And it served as a national promise to remember those who gave everything so that the republic — and the principles that sustain it — might live.

A long history of sacrifice

I argued that Americans have forgotten how to honor their war heroes and remember their war dead. My friend and fellow Marine “Bing” West made the point forcefully in his powerful book on Fallujah, “No True Glory.” Stories of battlefield courage, he wrote, must “be recorded and read by the next generation. Unsung, the noblest deed will die.”

During my remarks, I recalled acts of heroism from the Civil War, World War II, and Vietnam. I spoke about a grieving mother who had written to me after her son — one of my Marines — was killed in Vietnam in May 1969. I asked, rhetorically: Why do men like those Marines under my command willingly fight and die?

Glen Gray offered one answer in “The Warriors: Reflections on Men in Battle”:

Numberless soldiers have died, more or less willingly, not for country or honor or religious faith or for any other abstract good, but because they realized that by fleeing their posts and rescuing themselves, they would expose their companions to greater danger. Such loyalty to the group is the essence of fighting morale.

Gray’s insight matches my experience. In the heat of combat, soldiers don’t talk about ideology. They think about each other. They fight to protect their brothers.

And yet, while the individual soldier’s focus narrows to survival and loyalty, Memorial Day offers us the chance to widen that lens. It helps us see the larger meaning of sacrifice — accepted by some but offered by all.

Memorial Day gives the nation a chance to recognize those sacrifices and validate them through the only lens that matters: the founding principles of the American republic.

‘Mystic chords of memory’

I noted in 1998 that Pericles, in his famous funeral oration during the Peloponnesian War, gave meaning to the Athenian dead by praising the excellence of Athens. He honored their sacrifice by affirming the civilization they died defending.

President Abraham Lincoln did something similar four months after the Battle of Gettysburg. At the dedication of the cemetery there, he expanded on what he had previously called the “mystic chords of memory” in his first inaugural address — those chords stretching “from every battlefield and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land.”

Lincoln gave universal meaning to the particular deaths on that hallowed ground. He allowed Americans to understand Memorial Day through the lens of Independence Day — to see the end of those soldiers’ lives in light of the nation’s beginning and the purpose of the American republic.

I argued that the deaths at Gettysburg, throughout the Civil War, and in all of America’s wars must be understood in relation to the founding principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence. Throughout history, countless brave soldiers have died fighting for causes that were unjust. Americans, by contrast, are fortunate. We can anchor the sacrifice of our fallen to a moral proposition: that all men are created equal.

Some critics accused me of glorifying war — of sentimentalizing conflict, justifying unjust campaigns, and trivializing death. But that critique misses the point. Soldiers enlist for many reasons. But almost all are motivated, at least in part, by a sense of duty, honor, and love of country.

That love of country — patriotism — is under constant attack. Critical race theory and the 1619 Project insist that America’s founding was corrupt and its principles invalid. But they’re wrong. A country built on decent principles, however imperfect its journey, remains a cause worth defending — and, if necessary, dying for.

My intention was never to trivialize individual loss. The death of a soldier marks the end of youth, promise, and joy. No speech or philosophy can console the family left behind. The mother who wrote to me after losing her Marine son in Vietnam carried a grief no words could ease.

Her anguish reminded me of Kipling’s “Epitaphs of the War,” especially the fourth verse, “An Only Son”:

“I have slain none but my mother;
She (blessing her slayer) died of grief for me.”

Kipling, too, lost his only son in World War I.

But as Oliver Wendell Holmes said in his Memorial Day address of 1884:

Grief is not the end of all. I seem to hear the funeral march become a paean. I see beyond the forest the moving banners of a hidden column. Our dead brothers still live for us and bid us think of life, not death — of life to which in their youth they lent the passion and joy of the spring. As I listen, the great chorus of life and joy begins again, and amid the awful orchestra of seen and unseen powers and destinies of good and evil, our trumpets sound once more a note of daring, hope, and will.

So by all means, have that burger this weekend. Enjoy the cookout. Go to the beach. But also take some time to remember to honor those who died to make your weekend possible.

JD Vance Throws Lead Down Range With US Marines During Quantico Visit

Vance was seen firing a M240B medium machine gun

‘I’m A Pogue’: Fox News Contributor Lights Into Ex-Marine Dem Rep Who Called JD Vance ‘Pogue’

'It’s a very intentional word'

Marine Corps ‘On Track’ To Hit 2025 Recruiting Targets, Official Says

Signaling another prospective win for the new Trump administration, the U.S. Marine Corps is on pace to hit its fiscal year 2025 recruiting goals, The Federalist has learned. Speaking with The Federalist, Marine Corps Recruiting Command spokesman Jim Edwards revealed that the branch is “on track” to meet its total force accession mission for this […]

NY Jury Acquits Daniel Penny in Death of Deranged Man on Subway

A New York jury found Daniel Penny not guilty for the death of Jordan Neely, a homeless Michael Jackson impersonator whom Penny put in a chokehold on a Manhattan subway car last year.

The post NY Jury Acquits Daniel Penny in Death of Deranged Man on Subway appeared first on .

Daniel Penny may receive congressional honor thanks to Rep. Eli Crane



Republican Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona introduced a resolution on Friday to give Daniel Penny the Congressional Gold Medal. The medal is Congress' highest civilian honor.

Penny is currently on trial following the death of 30-year-old Jordan Neely, who was allegedly threatening bystanders on a New York City subway in May 2023. Neely, who had schizophrenia, was allegedly making threats to passengers and behaving erratically, prompting Penny to retrain him in a chokehold.

'The courageous actions taken in response to the threat to his community by Daniel Penny, a decorated U.S. Marine Corps veteran, went beyond the civilian call of duty.'

As of this writing, the jury deadlocked over the manslaughter charge against Penny, which was then dropped. The jury will continue deliberating on the lesser charges.

"Daniel Penny's actions exemplify what it means to stand against the grain to do right in a world that rewards moral cowardice," Crane said in a Friday post on X. "I'm immensely proud to introduce this resolution to award him with the Congressional Gold Medal to recognize his heroism."

The resolution not only praises Penny's actions but also criticizes the Biden administration and various Democratic policies that have produced rampant crime across American cities.

"Throughout President Biden’s term as President, local governments across various cities and States failed to adequately protect residents and their property from violent criminals," the resolution reads.

"The courageous actions taken in response to the threat to his community by Daniel Penny, a decorated U.S. Marine Corps veteran, went beyond the civilian call of duty," the resolution continued.

The resolution dubbed Penny a hero who deserves commemoration regardless of his pending verdict.

"It is the sense of the Congress that Daniel Penny, with integrity and honor that is characteristic of who he is and of his honorable service in the United States Marine Corps, stepped in to protect women and children from an individual who was threatening to kill innocent bystanders, and he is a hero," the resolution reads.

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

The left can’t handle Hegseth’s combat stance



Motherhood is the foundation of all civilization. A movement determined to dismantle society would inevitably target women’s femininity to disrupt the natural male-female dynamic, leaving behind an androgynous, gender-blurring culture that struggles to reproduce itself. In other words, the culture we largely see today. This explains why the far left is so fixated on advancing the “women in combat” agenda and why Trump’s nomination of Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense has left leftists furious and discombobulated.

The media’s predictable criticism of Hegseth’s credentials, persona, and ideology began the moment Trump selected him to lead the Pentagon. However, the most surprising aspect of the backlash was the intense outrage directed at one of Hegseth’s less prominent beliefs. NBC News published a dramatic headline that read: “Pete Hegseth’s remarks about women in combat are met with disgust and dissent.”

As society debates protecting female-only spaces from male intrusion, perhaps it’s also time to re-evaluate the invasion of women into traditionally male spaces.

The “disgusting” comments came up during a podcast Hegseth appeared on last week. During the episode, he made what the left apparently considers the most scandalous claim imaginable. Hegseth said the military “should not have women in combat roles” and argued that “men in those positions are more capable.”

Pass the smelling salts.

It’s astonishing that, of all the “controversial” opinions Hegseth has expressed over years of cable news appearances, his opposition to sending women into the most grueling and physically punishing roles has drawn the most outrage. Dozens of hit pieces and angry responses from Democrats have focused on this position.

Follow the science

In today’s post-truth society, it might shock some to hear that women’s bodies are not designed to endure the physical demands of jobs that permanently injure even the strongest men. While debates about the physical toll of military roles often fixate on upper-body strength, the anatomical differences between men and women extend far beyond muscle mass and genitals.

Women’s wider thigh bone angles align their legs — from the knees to the ankles — in a way that makes them more vulnerable to stress and injury. This structural difference subjects women’s knees to more pressure, contributing to significantly higher rates of ACL tears among female athletes compared to their male counterparts. Additionally, women’s ACLs are not only smaller, but the intercondylar notch in the femur, where the ACL passes through, is also narrower, further increasing their susceptibility to injury.

Why would national policy automatically treat men and women as equals in combat roles? While popular culture may glorify “girlbosses” who strive to prove a point and criticize those who oppose “their right to serve,” the reality remains unchanged: Women face a greater risk of injuries, which can compromise their performance and unnecessarily endanger combat units. This is not speculation but established science.

In 2015, as the Obama administration pressured military branches to open all combat roles to women, the Marine Corps, under Gen. Joseph Dunford, conducted an extensive study to evaluate the impact of mixed-gender infantry units. The months-long study, which cost $36 million, compared the performance of all-male units to mixed-gender units. Unsurprisingly to those outside elitist political circles, the study found that mixed-gender units were not just a net liability — they were an absolute liability.

Here are some key findings, according to a summary of the report:

  • All-male teams outperformed mixed-gender teams in 69% of tasks, excelling in 94 out of 134 assignments.
  • In every tactical movement, all-male teams moved faster than mixed-gender teams, particularly when carrying heavy crew-served weapons. This trend was consistent across all military operational specialties.
  • All-male teams demonstrated superior accuracy across all weapons systems, including male Marines trained as infantrymen and those from non-infantry MOS roles participating in the testing.
  • Male teams outperformed integrated teams in routine combat tasks. For example, male Marines easily tossed their packs over an eight-foot wall, while female Marines frequently needed assistance. During mock casualty evacuations, all-male teams worked significantly faster unless using a fireman’s carry, where male Marines often carried the evacuee.
  • The study found major differences in anaerobic power and capacity. The top 25% of female Marines overlapped with the bottom 25% of males for anaerobic power, and the top 10% of females matched the bottom 50% of males for anaerobic capacity.
  • Female participants experienced notably higher injury rates and fatigue levels compared to their male counterparts. In the Infantry Training Battalion, women sustained injuries at six times the rate of men.

The Marine Corps report highlighted that even the strongest and most skilled female Marines, all graduates of the Infantry Training Battalion, struggled to match the performance of their male counterparts. Combat requires the most resilient and physically capable individuals, which is why placing women in infantry units defies logic.

The results revealed that while a few exceptional women might possess the ability to serve in infantry roles, they would still lag their male peers. This disparity could slow down units or create unnecessary risks for themselves and others.

Unfortunately, military leaders ignored these findings. As efforts to integrate women into combat roles intensified, reality began to catch up. By 2021, the Army faced significant challenges, including a staggering 65% failure rate among female recruits on its gender-neutral Army Combat Fitness Test.

None of this should come as a surprise. As a 1992 report from the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces correctly observed:

Unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.

Why is the left so obsessed with women in combat?

At first glance, the left’s obsession with placing women in combat seems uncanny, given its general disdain for military service and criticism of so-called toxic masculinity. Social engineering to promote women over men in professional settings might align with their goals, but brute warfare?

When viewed through the lens of the transgender agenda — which seeks to unravel the natural distinctions between masculinity in men and femininity in women — the push for women in combat begins to make sense. This agenda aims to extinguish feminine energy in a generation of young women, fostering a childless, confused society where men no longer understand how to approach or regard women. Hyper-masculinizing women has stifled their innate nurturing tendencies over the past two generations.

The left has groomed an entire generation to believe it’s normal to idolize women cosplaying as warriors. But this is no less absurd than men competing in beauty pageants. In both cases, some individuals might blend in at first glance, but closer inspection reveals the disconnect. Neither scenario aligns with biological realities, and both ignore the long-term consequences for a society that has lost sight of what it means to be a woman.

This context explains why the loudest criticism of Pete Hegseth isn’t about his broader political views, his stance on Ukraine, his military strategy, or even his position on abortion. Instead, critics focus on his belief, shaped by his combat experience, that women should be protected and cherished as nurturers of future generations — not thrown into the blood-soaked chaos of the battlefield. As society debates protecting female-only spaces from male intrusion, perhaps it’s also time to re-evaluate the invasion of women into traditionally male spaces.

Marine Who Guarded Kabul Airport: ‘Somebody Should Have Held Somebody Accountable’

Cpl. Greg Whalen said he did not know who made the decisions, but someone along the line 'completely failed in the planning process.'

Biden and Harris 'Never Once Reached Out' to Relatives of Soldiers Killed in Bungled Afghanistan Withdrawal, Families Say

The families of U.S. service members killed at Abbey Gate in Afghanistan said they have never been contacted by President Joe Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris, three years after the administration’s rushed withdrawal that left 13 Americans dead and hundreds stranded.

The post Biden and Harris 'Never Once Reached Out' to Relatives of Soldiers Killed in Bungled Afghanistan Withdrawal, Families Say appeared first on .