The left's costume party: Virtue signaling as performance art



Protests are fashion statements.

In the 1960s, the hippie movement urged participants to wear their hair long and adorn themselves in bright colors that could be seen on color television newscasts. Today, the social media era has devolved into a new form of lunacy intended to be eye-catching for the sake of internet virality.

Communism has become the ultimate fashion statement.

The No Kings protests were a perfect example of how protests have become liberal runways.

Many attendees dressed in inflatable costumes while others sported the red cloaks from "A Handmaid's Tale." A quick internet search bears witness to countless other dramatic protest garbs, from Stormtroopers to Uncle Sam to circus clowns. Those who didn't make a stop at a Spirit Halloween store before attending the protest wore their outrage on too-clever T-shirts or by swinging homemade signs.

These recent protests were, relatively speaking, more geriatric than other protests of recent past, but even BLM and Antifa protesters have their own distinct style. They can be easily identified by their piercings, dyed hair, and Pride pins. They stick to dark clothing like ripped jeans and scuffed Doc Martens, much like 1990s high schoolers who just discovered grunge music. They often use satanic imagery, like skulls or pentagrams, pretending that their relationship with demonic symbols is ironic and, therefore, "wholesome."

Another symbol that these protestors cling to is the hammer and sickle. They wear it on T-shirts with a casual attitude. College students have it on their belt buckles, and grad students put stickers of it on their Apple computers.

If you knew nothing about the hammer and sickle, you might think it was a clothing brand. Removed from its context, it has morphed into something completely unrecognizable.

Communism has become the ultimate fashion statement. It's subversive and feigns intelligence, allowing contrarians to morph their love of punk rock into disdain for "the system." Their quirky personalities are not personal discrepancies but are instead indicators that they are victims of a normal, Christian society.

RELATED: ‘No Kings’ is the clown show covering for a coup

KEREM YUCEL/AFP via Getty Images

In the 1950s, the outcasts wore leather jackets and slicked their hair. In the 2000s, the outcasts wore choker necklaces and sneakers. In 2025, kids are wearing communism. It's an absurd get-out-of-jail-free card that justifies the behavior of people who feel they don't fit in.

The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, almost 35 years ago. For many young people, the fall of the USSR feels as distant as World War I or Napoleon. They didn't see Mikhail Gorbachev lose control or witness the Berlin Wall fall. Older generations understand that communism is a failed system because they saw its ramifications on television. They knew that tens of millions of Russians were killed by it. They saw Cuba be utterly destroyed by it. They saw their family members deployed to Korea and Vietnam to stop it.

For the modern rebel, communism has no consequences. It's a political theory, a thought experiment discussed in college safe spaces.

The Communist Party, unfortunately, is alive and growing in America.

The Revolutionary Communists of America are slated to host Marxist schools in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York this year. Membership in the Communist Party USA has jumped from 15,000 in 2023 to 20,000 in 2024. Many of these clubs offer tools and resources to learn about communism on their websites, with one even having a "Marxism IQ" test.

Their cancerous ideology is preying on disenfranchised young people, baiting them with the deadly promises of "equity."

Wearing a hammer and sickle pin or reading Lenin in public is a way for people to show just how much they care about the 'oppressed classes.'

At one No Kings protest, the "Denver Communists" had a tent with a sign that read, "Charlie Kirk had it coming." Workers at the tent posed beside it with thumbs-up, smiling and encouraging people to take photos. A slogan so utterly debauched is intended to get social media recognition. The Denver Communists are actively trying to be noticed for their inflammatory behavior.

It's the violent progression of a teenager swearing to make his parents angry.

There is a maturity problem in America. Young people are trying to extend their youth in a desperate attempt to circumvent responsibility. The length of time that Gen Z will hold onto one job has sharply declined. Marriage rates have been in a free fall for years. Less than 20% of young people are saving for retirement. College attendance has become the normalized experience of young adulthood, extending the length of schooling while sacrificing years meant for maturity.

This generation has been convinced that their success doesn't depend on their own work, but on the work of others. To them, communism is the solution they've been looking for.

Being a communist is the cool, empathetic thing for young people to support. Wearing a hammer and sickle pin or reading Lenin in public is a way for people to show just how much they care about the "oppressed classes." It's a new depth of virtue signaling.

No longer is it enough for radical leftists to support gay marriage or abortion — they must now object to the entire constitutional republic. It's all for the sake of being rebellious and relevant.

Some people buy expensive handbags. Some people buy rare watches. And today, some people join the Communist Party. After all, it's just about having the right look.

When did my local TV news become leftist propaganda?



Being a writer, I lived for many years in New York City. During that time, I always enjoyed watching the local news. I liked the tough, hard-nosed style of the local anchors. They didn’t mince words. Muggings, murder, mayhem: They gave you the news, and they gave it to you straight.

They also didn’t play favorites politically. They reported on conservative mayors like Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg the same way they covered liberal mayors like Bill de Blasio and Eric Adams.

Now, it’s common to see female reporters focusing on the psychological effects of news events. How do people 'feel' about the fire/robbery/bridge collapse?

The local TV broadcasters treated all politicians the same. There was a kind of disciplined professionalism in their coverage. You got the feeling if they showed any kind of consistent bias, the highly intelligent New York audience would cry foul.

The green, green grass of home

During my New York years, when I would travel home to my parents’ house in Portland, I would enjoy watching the local news there, since it was so different. Portland, being a low crime/high trust city for most of its existence, didn’t have much news to report.

And so I would sit and chuckle to myself as I watched stories about a bake sale at the senior center, or a feel-good piece about a disabled person who learned to ski, or maybe there was a fire and the local firemen rescued the neighborhood’s favorite cat.

And of course, the local newscasters were folksy and upbeat. This was the Pacific Northwest. There was always a hiking story. Or a fish story. Or the opening of a new artisanal coffee shop story.

In terms of politics, our TV news was always respectful of whoever was the governor or mayor, regardless of their political orientation. That was expected. It was the right thing to do.

Besides which, the only politicians anyone noticed in Portland were eccentric amateurs like Mayor Bud Clark, who was a popular tavern owner and made a famous poster of himself: “EXPOSE YOURSELF TO ART,” it said and showed him naked in a trench coat flashing a statue outside an art museum.

I sigh just thinking about it. Portland, when it had a sense of humor.

The winds of change

Now, in Portland, there is a firm and obvious left-wing bias in all the local TV news. When did that happen?

I remember when Trump was first elected, there was a big push by the national media to vilify the new president in every way possible. But Trump was such an unusual president, it seemed to come with the territory.

I assumed the hysteria would die down eventually and that Trump would get the same treatment as Ronald Reagan. Attacked as a crazed “authoritarian” at first, but eventually, the media and his detractors would see that he was just a normal conservative.

At the same time, I fully expected my local media to not take sides. Their beat wasn’t Washington, D.C. They would continue with their cat stories and their ski reports.

George Floyd did nothing wrong (or did he?)

It was the George Floyd incident that began the politicizing of the local news in Portland. When we were told that Floyd was murdered by an evil white policeman, the local media felt obligated to express some form of outrage.

This was no time for nuance or objectivity. George Floyd was the victim of horrible police abuse (supposedly). So even the local news people, who didn’t know anything about the case or what actually happened, felt obligated to join in, with emphatic denouncements of police brutality.

Who can be in favor of police brutality?

Interestingly, when the summer riots of 2020 began in Portland, the local news stations returned to a more objective perspective.

Every night, they would send reporters downtown to check on the wild skirmishes and nocturnal riot-subculture that dominated Portland during the “100 Nights of Protest.”

Much of this reporting was genuinely objective. What was odd though, was that these local newsrooms almost exclusively sent women downtown to report on the violence. That always seemed strange to me. Not that women can’t withstand tear gas and flash bombs and being hit by flying objects. I’m sure they can.

But I noticed this, because it was another example of progressive values permeating the local TV news establishment.

These outlets were so determined to demonstrate their belief in equity and equality, they were willing to send young, inexperienced female reporters into the midst of a professional riot.

RELATED: Portland police spark outrage after 'wrongful' arrest of journalist Nick Sortor, allegedly victimized by Antifa; DOJ to investigate

Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/Getty Images

Not your grandpa’s local news

Twenty years ago, the lineup of most local news programs was fairly uniform. A one-man/one-woman team of anchors, with a woman doing the weather and a man doing sports. Usually, it was men out in the field, covering crime, death, and car accidents.

Now though — at least in Portland — we are in an era of mostly female anchors, men doing the weather, sports being co-ed (we have a lot of women’s sports teams), and sending mostly female reporters into the field.

These female reporters are different from male reporters in that they tend to ask victims and eyewitnesses about their emotional response to whatever has happened to them.

The “emotionalization” of the news seems to have happened at all levels of the news business. Now, it’s common to see female reporters focusing on the psychological effects of news events. How do people “feel” about the fire/robbery/bridge collapse?

This new approach to news, emphasizing emotions over facts, also seems to suggest an increasingly leftist-oriented local media.

Trump’s invasion

Lately, Portland is in the news again, with Trump threatening to “send in the troops” if our local authorities can’t stop the attacks on ICE agents and clean up Portland’s dystopian streets.

Though our local news programs make half-hearted attempts to appear neutral, they are quick to amplify the idea that Trump’s plan to send troops is an “invasion."

They further promote their leftist version of the situation by never mentioning the presence of Antifa or even calling them by name. This creates the impression that the people harassing and attacking the ICE officers are just concerned citizens, though it is pretty obvious from the news footage that they are not.

And of course, for every one interview they show of people supporting Trump’s plan, they show three interviews of people denouncing him and claiming that Portland is doing just fine. (It’s not.)

No, in Portland the local news is now an appendage to our leftist establishment. And you know that in those newsrooms, in those studios, there are plenty of people who don’t agree with the continued destruction of Portland. But they have to go along with it, or they’ll lose their jobs.

'Portland Strong'

The craziest thing of all is that the new catchphrase being pushed by the left is “Portland Strong.” This is hilarious, considering Portland is the most touchy-feely, socialistic, nanny city in the country.

The last thing Portland is is “strong.” If we were strong, we wouldn’t have drug addicts, the homeless, and anarchist radicals in total control of our streets.

Why turning the other cheek won't stop the godless left



The image was unforgettable.

A grieving widow, standing before thousands, chose not to curse the darkness before her. Erika Kirk spoke words of grace instead of vengeance, forgiving the man who allegedly gunned down her husband. Days earlier in California, the family of slain pastor Felipe Ascencio had done the same, turning the other cheek even as sorrow filled the air.

This is not politics guided by conscience. It's ideology married to contempt, unmoored from God, and unashamed of evil.

Two funerals. Two acts of radical mercy. In an age of rage, such restraint is astonishing.

Forgive, but resist

This deserves respect. In a culture where cruelty passes for cleverness and malice poses as morality, forgiveness stands out like a candle in the night. It is not weakness but strength, drawn from God and lived in public. It recalls Saint Stephen praying for his killers and Christ forgiving from the cross.

To forgive when the mob demands fury is its own form of defiance. It unsettles a culture addicted to vengeance. But forgiveness is not a shield. Mercy eases the wound, but it does not stop the next bullet.

That's the truth conservatives must face.

We are not dealing with decent opponents who stumble now and then. We are dealing with a godless left that sees mercy as impotence. Leftists do not mourn their enemies; they mock them. Scroll through their comments after a killing — laughter, sneers, excuses. Watch their pundits explain why the victim had it coming.

This is not politics guided by conscience. It's ideology married to contempt, unmoored from God, and unashamed of evil.

Forgiveness is holy. But when it's met with ridicule, it signals that more blood can be spilled without cost. A movement that forgives but never fortifies will not survive. A church that turns the cheek but never guards the body will be broken. This age does not admire meekness; it exploits it. And those who delight in Charlie Kirk’s death will not be moved by hymns or prayers. They will be encouraged by them if nothing else follows.

So what next?

First, vigilance. Christians can no longer assume that sharing a country means sharing values. That illusion has been broken for years. Many Americans share a land, yet dream of different nations. In media, schools, and politics, hostility to faith, family, and country is open and unapologetic. The hatred is plain, and the influence is real.

To look away is to invite defeat.

Second, unity. The left thrives on division within the right, and too often it prevails. Grudges, disputes, and rivalries weaken those who should be standing shoulder to shoulder. A fractured right is an easy target.

RELATED: How Erika Kirk answered the hardest question of all

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Third, cultural strength. Politics follows culture, and culture is where the left has won most ground. Leftists control classrooms, newsrooms, and streaming services, the feeds in every young person’s pocket. They shape imaginations before ballots are ever cast. To counter this, those on the right cannot retreat into nostalgia. They must build schools that teach truth, create art that uplifts, and support media that speaks with honesty about faith, family, and country.

Culture shapes politics, and if culture is lost, the future is lost.

Fourth, law and governance. Forgiveness mends hearts, but law restrains hands. A society that refuses to punish evil guarantees more of it. Prayers for the dead are not enough. There must be laws that protect churches, policies that guard families, courts that resist ideological pressure. To love an enemy does not mean allowing him to wage war.

This is not a call to violence but a call to clarity.

Steadfast in mercy — and might

History shows that kindness alone cannot conquer wickedness. Rome admired the martyrs, yet still threw them to the lions. Emperors preached justice while crucifixions lined the roads. Popes spoke of humility while selling indulgences. Dictators praised virtue while locking believers in prisons. Across ages and empires, evil has never yielded to gentle words. It retreats only before courage, conviction, and steadfast resistance.

Forgive your enemy, but do not let him rule your household. Pray for his soul, but do not let his ideology shape your child’s classroom. Bless those who curse you, but do not hand them the levers of power they would use to curse your grandchildren.

Erika Kirk’s words lifted eyes to heaven and shamed a culture of retribution. But if her forgiveness is mistaken for a strategy, we will see more widows, more orphans, and more funerals. Forgiveness is a balm, not a barricade. The barricade must be built by all decent Americans — through faith, family, unity, vigilance, and cultural strength.

Two thousand years ago, Christ carried the cross and conquered death. Today, his followers are called to carry their own. Sometimes that means granting grace where none is earned. Sometimes it means resisting a culture sinking into decay.

Always, it means standing firm — steadfast in mercy, steady in might — until right overcomes wrong and heaven defeats hell.

Why progressives want to destroy Christianity — but spare Islam



In 1939, George Orwell coined the phrase "Judeo-Christian ethic" to include the values that formed the moral foundation of Western civilization.

This ethic influenced the American founders and helped shape their views on liberty, rights, and law. Post-Enlightenment philosophers have criticized the irrational aspects of religion and its role in the politics of state, but most have acknowledged the role that the Judeo-Christian ethic has served in preserving the fabric of society.

The idea that secular humanism is salvific for the individual or for society at large has been repeatedly discredited when Marxist ideology has been put into practice.

"Progressivism," on the other hand, is a political philosophy focused on social progress through systemic reforms. It demands a strong central government dedicated to countering societal inequality and injustice. The progressive movement historically shares roots in Christianity and secular humanism, although in recent decades it has emphasized a reliance on science and technology and antipathy toward any expression of religion in the public square.

Left-leaning since its inception in the 19th century, progressivism has, since the 1960s, adopted misotheistic Marxist ideology. Its proponents have focused primarily on discrediting Christian religious practice.

In the Biden administration, for example, both public and private expressions of Christianity came under attack by federal agencies despite First Amendment guarantees that Americans can practice their religion without government interference. These government transgressions are currently being reversed by the new faith-friendly Trump administration.

The big question

So why does progressivism target Christianity specifically?

The obvious answer is that Christianity has been the dominant religion in America since its founding, and at least until recently, most Americans continued to engage with its practice. But religious affiliation constitutes a challenge to the progressive secular state, as this state insists that there can be no greater authority than itself.

The emphasis on freedom of individual within Christianity also tends to resist the enforced conformity that is central to neo-Marxist ideology and identity politics. Progressivism is best viewed as a secular humanist civic religion that is engaged in a religious war with monotheistic faith.

RELATED: Christianity's real crisis isn't atheism — but a far more sinister deception

D-Keine/iStock/Getty Images Plus

As Bertrand Russell opined, Marxism is in many respects an atheistic restatement of Christianity, but unlike the Christian “kingdom of God,” its utopian goals can only be realized through the authority of the state.

For this reason, all Marxist states are openly antagonistic to theistic religion.

Cultural infiltration

Since the 1960s, Marxist ideologues, many having fled Nazi fascism in Europe, recognized that a revolution to install socialist and communist values was unlikely to succeed in America. Instead, they envisioned a less radical evolutionary strategy aimed at infiltrating the institutions that define American culture — including its educational systems, news media, entertainment industry, and corporations — with Marxist ideas.

But for this strategy to succeed, it would first have to transform the values of the Judeo-Christian ethic in the direction of Marxism.

A document in the 1963 "Congressional Record" outlines the plan of Marxists to undermine America by targeting the family unit, promoting deviant sexualities, and fostering criminal behavior. This strategy was aligned with neo-Marxist postmodern philosophies being taught in universities that questioned the possibility of objective truth and viewed virtually all societal transactions through the post-colonial polarized lens of “oppressors” and “oppressed.”

But in order to succeed, this strategy could not break radically with the past. Rather, it was necessary to retain those aspects of the Judeo-Christian ethic that had been established as part of the American “social imaginary.”

To this end, neo-Marxism adopts Judeo-Christian concerns with “social justice” but ignores its focus on law. This has allowed progressivism, in its current neo-Marxist “woke” avatar, to “stand for social justice” while simultaneously attacking white privilege, normative sexuality, law and order, and religion.

Although Christianity has been the primary focus of progressive vitriol, it stands to reason that the other source of the Judeo-Christian ethic would also be a target for hostility.

Following the October 7 terrorist attacks in Israel, anti-Israel protests led by progressives erupted on America’s college campuses and streets. Jews represent a small minority of Americans and, as such, do not represent a numerical challenge to progressive goals.

However, loyalty to religion and the state of Israel, as well as Judaism’s focus on law, elicited the age-old criticisms of Jewish particularism by Marxists.

Why not Islam?

Why, then, has Islam, a monotheistic religion, been spared the wrath of progressives? There are several likely reasons.

First, Islam is a newcomer to the American scene and, until recently, had little political influence and did not constitute a noticeable resistance to progressive goals.

Second, “woke” progressives imagine all Muslims as oppressed peoples of color who have suffered at the hands of imperial governments. Moreover, radical Islam, like Marxism, seeks to undermine the Judeo-Christian traditions of the West.

Radical Islam, like Marxism, seeks to undermine the Judeo-Christian traditions of the West.

Jihad against the West with the goal of restoring a theocratic caliphate has been a goal of fundamentalist Islam since its inception. Indeed, nowhere in Islamic countries have Christians or Jews ever enjoyed equitable freedom with Muslims, nor are women or the LGBTQ+ afforded equal freedoms with Muslim men, a fact that progressives assiduously avoid admitting.

Although Marxists and Islamists have banded together to undermine Judeo-Christian values in the West, theirs is an uncomfortable alliance, as the atheistic Marxist state is ultimately incompatible with an Islamic caliphate. Only in Muslim countries governed by secular strongmen has an alliance with Marxism achieved even a modicum of success.

Finally, one must always “follow the money.” And in recent years, Islamic governments have provided substantial financial resources to progressive causes because they share in common the goal of “transforming” America.

Faithful resistance

If the right to practice the Judeo-Christian traditions is to be preserved, it is incumbent upon America’s religious leaders to recognize that the goals of progressivism are antithetical to faith, and they must resist being co-opted by misotheistic ideology out of fear or ignorance.

The idea that secular humanism is salvific for the individual or for society at large has been repeatedly discredited when Marxist ideology has been put into practice.

Marxist ideology, therefore, should be seen in its true light, which is as the product of a destructive impulse within the human psyche that will only be fully extinguished in the messianic future.

Christianity's real crisis isn't atheism — but a far more sinister deception



When Baylor University returned a $1.65 million LGBTQ+ grant last month — one tied to DEI efforts and LGBTQ initiatives — it sent a ripple through the Christian world.

On the surface, it looked like a victory: a Christian institution backing down in the face of public pressure from believers. But as Allie Beth Stuckey and others rightly pointed out, this wasn’t a win born from spiritual conviction. It was a calculated retreat, one that exposed a much deeper problem than any single grant.

God’s word doesn’t change. His standards don’t evolve with the culture.

It exposed the growing danger of progressive Christianity.

This movement isn’t just a theological shift. It’s a spiritual counterfeit — one that keeps the language of Christianity but trades the authority of scripture for the approval of culture. And in my heart, I believe it’s more dangerous than atheism. At least an atheist is clear about what he believes. Progressive Christianity, on the other hand, deceives from the inside. It misleads under the banner of Jesus, offering a form of godliness but denying its power (2 Timothy 3:5).

And it’s costing people their salvation.

What is progressive Christianity, really?

Progressive Christianity isn’t just a more “open-minded” version of the faith — it’s a total redefinition of it.

At its core, progressive theology tends to:

  • Reject the authority and inerrancy of the Bible.
  • Reinterpret sin through the lens of human experience.
  • Emphasize love and inclusion over holiness and repentance.
  • Downplay the exclusivity of Christ for salvation.

It often affirms the cultural moment over the eternal word. In this view, truth is flexible. God’s commands are negotiable. And Jesus becomes more of a moral teacher than a Savior who calls us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him (Luke 9:23).

That’s not Christianity. That’s deception.

For anyone unfamiliar with this movement, here’s a biblical breakdown of progressive Christianity that explains how it departs from the true gospel.

Why progressive Christianity is more dangerous than atheism

It might sound extreme, but I truly believe this: Progressive Christianity is a greater threat to the gospel than atheism ever was.

Here’s why: Atheists make no pretense about their disbelief. You know where they stand. But progressive Christians use Christian language, scripture, and emotion to validate teachings that directly contradict the Bible. They redefine sin, affirm lifestyles that scripture calls us to repent from, and reduce salvation to a vague message of self-love.

In doing so, they lead others down a path that feels spiritual — but is ultimately separated from Christ.

RELATED: How JD Vance exposed the convenient theology of progressive Christians

PaoloGaetano/Getty Images Plus

Jesus warned about this kind of deception: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” (Matthew 7:15).

Progressive Christianity often wears that sheep’s clothing well. But it leaves people spiritually lost, thinking they’re saved while embracing a gospel that has no power to save.

Baylor is a symptom — not the disease

The Baylor grant controversy is just one example of a larger pattern. Christian institutions across America are slowly conforming to culture while keeping the appearance of faith.

Many churches and universities want the brand of Christianity without the cost of obedience.

Whether it’s "The Chosen" seemingly partnering with people that affirm sin, or seminaries quietly shifting their theological standards, the same compromise is at work: Affirming the feelings of man over the commands of God.

This isn’t about one issue. It’s about all of them. Whether it’s sexuality, gender, marriage, abortion, or even the exclusivity of the gospel, progressive Christianity molds faith to fit culture, rather than calling culture to repent and follow Christ.

A personal word on compassion and conviction

Let me say something from the heart: I have many friends who consider themselves Christians and also identify as gay. Some are even politically conservative. They love Jesus — or at least they think they do. But they’ve been taught, as I once believed, that God affirms their same-sex relationships as long as they’re “loving” and “monogamous.”

I understand the desire to reconcile faith and desire. I lived in that space for years, trying to convince myself that God was OK with what I wanted, as long as I was sincere.

But sincerity doesn’t save us. Jesus does. And He doesn’t just meet us where we are — He calls us to repentance, to holiness, to transformation. That’s not cruelty. That’s grace.

God always preserves a remnant. But it’s time to wake up.

So while I’m deeply compassionate toward those who are still working through these things, I cannot affirm a version of Christianity that leaves people where they are instead of leading them to the cross.

That’s what progressive Christianity does — and it’s why it’s so dangerous.

What the Bible really calls us to

True Christianity isn’t comfortable. It never has been.

Jesus said: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it” (Matthew 7:13).

The road of progressive Christianity is wide. It’s attractive. It’s affirming. But it does not save.

God’s word doesn’t change. His standards don’t evolve with the culture. The call to repentance, faith, and obedience is still the same today as it was 2,000 years ago. And anything less than that isn’t good news at all — it’s a lie with eternal consequences.

A call to courage

If you’re a believer who sees what’s happening in the church and feels discouraged — don’t be. God always preserves a remnant. But it’s time to wake up.

We cannot keep pretending that agreement equals love or that silence equals peace. True love tells the truth. And true peace only comes through Christ — not cultural affirmation.

The danger of progressive Christianity is that it speaks peace where there is no peace. It offers comfort without conviction and affirmation without transformation. That is not the gospel.

And it’s time we say so — with boldness, clarity, and compassion.

This article is adapted from an essay originally published at Arch Kennedy's blog.

CNN tried to smear this pastor — but exposes the truth about the left instead



The media's newest attempt to villainize Christianity proves why such attacks rarely — if ever — succeed. And in this case, the attempted smear revealed more about the attacker than the attacked.

Enter CNN and Idaho pastor Doug Wilson.

It's an uncomfortable truth for the gatekeepers of power. In this battle, conviction, honesty, and truth win.

CNN recently profiled Wilson and spotlighted his views on gender roles, sexual morality, and politics, cherry-picking his most provocative answers and stripping them of nuance.

But how CNN framed Wilson's ideas revealed the true motive for the profile: He's a "Christian nationalist" with "controversial views," and —gasp! — his influence is growing, therefore we must tar and feather him. The profile even went to great lengths to connect Wilson to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who praises Wilson and attended a Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches in Tennessee. Wilson co-founded the CREC, which recently planted a new church in Washington, D.C.

Reaction to the profile was dramatic and predictable.

But in trying to portray Wilson — and, by extension, conservative Christians — as dangerous, CNN accidentally exposed something far more telling: the fragility of the progressive worldview.

Moral amnesia

CNN didn't profile Wilson by accident.

The network specifically targeted him because he represents so much of what it opposes. And he is perfect for the role: the unapologetic patriarch who stands against the sexual revolution, envisions a Christian world, and refuses to bend his knee to the latest secular creed. The point of the profile wasn't to better understand Wilson or his theology, but to sound a warning that his worldview is a threat to the anti-God secularism that progressivism serves.

Here's the irony: The framing and subsequent outrage assumes that Wilson's views are some bizarre novelty. But they're not.

RELATED: Doug Wilson's CNN interview exposes the left's religious

For most of history, Wilson's views would be considered unremarkable.

A Christian who desires the entire world to know Christ and to follow Him? Of course. A Christian who preaches biblical sexual ethics? Wouldn't expect anything less. A Christian who affirms a traditional view of the family? It's exactly what you expect.

Whether or not you agree with Wilson, his views are hardly alien to America or Christianity.

This interview demonstrates the collision between the moral memory of the past and the progressive sensibilities of the present. Progressivism has moved the goal posts so far in such a short amount of time that views our recent ancestors held are now treated as existential threats.

Clarity wins

But why Wilson? And why now?

You don't need to agree with him to see what's happening here: The elite view Wilson and other Christians like him as a threat, so they give him a spotlight to "expose" him.

The implied question underneath the interview is: How can someone possibly believe this stuff?!

And that's why this interview is fascinating.

On one hand, progressives, the legacy media, and those entrenched in power look down upon Wilson for having "backward" and "outdated" views, which they would describe as a "threat to democracy." But there sits CNN reporter Pamela Brown across from Wilson asking her loaded questions — precisely because Americans are no longer buying what the left is selling.

You know this is true not because of what Wilson said but how he said it.

Wilson spoke with clarity — no flinching, PR-friendly slogans, or euphemisms. He didn't try to hide his views but spoke plainly. It's proof that progressivism is lacking answers, running out of influence, and grasping at villains because it can't defend its own failing moral vision.

Utopia's lies

The progressive project isn't collapsing because Christians like Wilson are attacking it (though he is). It's collapsing because people are seeing it for what it is.

For decades, the left promised liberation, enlightenment, and progress. People were told that if they abandoned the "oppression" of Christianity, rejected the "old" moral codes, and embraced the "right side of history," life would be utopia.

RELATED: The left's new anti-Christian smear backfires

DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

But the fruit of the progressive project speaks for itself. Instead of flourishing, Americans were handed confusion, division, and despair.

The evidence is everywhere.

The loneliness epidemic. The crises of mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual health. The breakdown of community. The sense that all of the "freedom" that progress promised has only left us less happy, less rooted, and less sure of who we are.

This is why Christianity is a threat to the progressive project. Christians speak with conviction about God, family, and moral order. It offers an alternative to the chaos of "progress," and the left cannot tolerate a rival vision for the good life.

Except, this one actually works — because it is true.

Progress on trial

CNN thought it was shining a spotlight on a fringe figure with alleged influence over the government. It was an attempt to fearmonger about "Christian nationalism."

But what is actually illuminated is the abject failure of the leftist worldview. The progressive narrative that dominated our culture for generations hasn't delivered on any of its promises. Instead, it has made our culture sick and eroded what is true and good. The progressive utopia, it turns out, is hell.

That's why this interview matters in a way CNN doesn't understand.

You don't have to agree with Wilson's theology, tone, or methods. But he and other Christians have something the left doesn't: a coherent moral vision that doesn't shift with the cultural winds, one that doesn't seek to uproot good in service of evil.

It's an uncomfortable truth for the gatekeepers of power. In this battle, conviction, honesty, and truth win. And in this case, it's why the attacker ends up attacked. The more they smear faithful Christians as extremists, the more obvious it becomes that progressivism has nothing good to offer — no map, no anchor, and no hope.

CNN tried to put Wilson on trial, but the real defendant was secular progressivism. And the verdict isn't just "guilty" — it's "failed beyond repair."

Democracy promotion is dead: Good riddance



What passes for intellectual heft at the Atlantic is any criticism of President Donald Trump. In the Atlantic’s pages and its digital fare, you can read the now-discredited musings of David Frum, who helped bring us the endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the inane foreign policy arguments of Max Boot; the interventionist prescriptions of Anne Applebaum; and now, the democracy promotion of political science professor Brian Klaas, who, in a recent article, blames President Trump for killing “American democracy promotion.”

If Klaas is correct, that is one more reason that Americans need to thank President Trump.

Klaas’ first priority is using American treasure and blood to promote his chimerical notions of global democracy and universal human rights.

One would have thought that the debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq would have humbled our nation’s democracy promoters — but they haven’t. One would have thought that the failed foreign policy of Jimmy Carter would have humbled those who wish to make “human rights” the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy — but it didn’t. One would have thought that the chaos facilitated by the so-called “Arab Spring” would engender prudence and introspection among the democracy promoters — but it is not so.

Professor Klaas wants the world to become democratic and for U.S. foreign policy to lead the effort in bringing the globe to the promised land.

Rewriting history

The Trump administration, Klaas writes, has “turn[ed] against a long-standing tradition of Western democracy promotion.”

Perhaps Klaas has never read George Washington’s Farewell Address, in which he counseled his countrymen to conduct foreign policy based solely on the nation’s interests. Or perhaps he missed John Quincy Adams’ July 4, 1821, address, in which he cautioned against going abroad in search of monsters to destroy and reminded his listeners that America is the well-wisher of freedom to all but the champion only of her own.

Perhaps Klaas believes that Wilsonianism is a “long-standing” American tradition, but in reality, it is mostly limited to starry-eyed liberal internationalists and neoconservatives.

Klaas mentions the “democracy boom” under President Bill Clinton, which was nothing more than a temporary consequence of America’s victory in the Cold War. Yet Klaas thinks it was the beginning of “shifting international norms” where freedom and democracy triumphed in “the ideological battle against rival models of governance” and “had become an inexorable force.”

Here, Klaas is likely referring to Francis Fukuyama’s discredited theory of the “end of history.” We have since discovered, however, that history didn’t die and that democracy is fragile, especially in places and among civilizations that have little democratic experience.

Fukuyama was wrong, but Samuel Huntington was right when he wrote about the coming “clash of civilizations.” One wonders if Klaas has read Huntington or Toynbee — or Spengler for that matter. Or, even more recently, Robert Kaplan’s “The Tragic Mind.”

Authoritarianism disguised as ‘democratic’

Klaas criticizes Trump for praising dictators, but President Woodrow Wilson praised Lenin and President Franklin Roosevelt praised Stalin. Klaas says that Trump is indifferent to democracy and human rights. No, Trump simply refuses to make them the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy, which is a “long-standing” tradition that stretches back long before Wilson to our founding fathers.

However, neither Wilson nor FDR wanted America to right every wrong in the world, as Klaas does. Klaas wants his “human rights” and democracy agenda “backed by weapons.” He laments that authoritarian regimes no longer need to fear the “condemnation” and the “bombs” of the American president.

Klaas’ leftism is revealed when he condemns the United States for helping to replace Mossaddegh with the pro-American shah of Iran, overthrowing the Marxist regime of Patrice Lumumba in Congo, helping to overthrow Allende in Chile, and cozying up to other authoritarian regimes.

RELATED: Vance makes one thing abundantly clear ahead of Trump's big ceasefire meeting with Putin

Bonnie Cash/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The professor also might want to read Jeane Kirkpatrick’s “Dictatorships and Double Standards” to learn that sometimes doing these things is in America’s national interests. Klaas’ leftism jumps off the page when he refers to the illegal aliens removed by the Trump administration — many with criminal records — as “foreign pilgrims.”

Some of those “foreign pilgrims” raped and killed Americans. But Klaas’ first priority is not America or its citizens; it is using American treasure and blood to promote his chimerical notions of global democracy and universal human rights. He is anti-Trump precisely because Trump’s foreign policy is America First. Let’s hope Klaas’ style of democracy promotion is dead.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

Is progressive Christianity really Christian? The truth may challenge you



An oxymoron is the combination of two contradictory terms to create a new meaning. For example, the words "deafening" and “silence” are sometimes paired to capture the uncomfortable sensation of an environment so quiet the silence rings like a loud noise in one’s ears.

Allie Beth Stuckey, BlazeTV host of “Relatable,” says “progressive Christianity” is an oxymoron because the terms are antithetical.

What meaning do these two words make when paired together? The answer, despite what many argue, is not a branch of Christianity, but a branch of heresy rooted in left-wing political activism.

“A progressive Christian is not a Christian because Christianity is not progressive. It is static,” Allie explains. “It is defined by a central fixed truth. This truth does not change. It doesn't progress. It doesn't evolve.”

That central and fixed truth is, of course, the gospel message: Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, atoned for the sins of mankind via his death, offering salvation for those who believe and follow Him.

Allie, citing multiple scriptures, says, “We read that Jesus is a savior from sin and death – spiritual death, which is separation from God in hell. That is the most fundamental defining belief of Christianity.”

However, “those who call themselves progressive Christians deny this central truth” because their definitions of savior, sin, and salvation oppose biblical definitions.

To the progressive Christian, Jesus is “a moral teacher,” “an activist,” “a justification for socialism,” and “a liberator from earthly systems of oppression.”

The Christian faith is seen as “a means by which we fight for the liberation of the oppressed and the marginalized.”

The oppressed and marginalized, as defined exclusively by modern Democrats, includes “the illegal immigrant, the non-white person, the LGBTQ person, and ... when it comes to abortion, the woman.” Essentially, anyone “not receiving taxpayer subsidized privileges” falls into this category, says Allie.

And so progressive “Christians” fight for these oppressed and marginalized people by “voting and advocating for a political system that prioritizes [their] needs and the desires ... above the needs of the privileged class of oppressors, which are made up of white people, straight men and the rich, and really anyone in any demographic who opposes progressive policies,” Allie explains.

“This is, to the so-called progressive Christian, salvation. This is the kingdom of heaven. This is the gospel in their world. Sin is collective, not personal. Salvation is political, not spiritual. The kingdom of heaven is earthly, not eternal. Jesus is a savior from conservatism, not condemnation," she adds.

But what does the Bible really teach?

“That there is a perfect holy God who created the world. Because He is holy, He cannot tolerate sin. That's bad news for us because all of us have sinned – every single one of us,” says Allie.

“But God, because He loves us, warts and all, sins and all, sent someone to reach His perfect standard on our behalf, and that was Jesus, His only son, who lived a perfectly sinless life and yet was executed like a brutal criminal.”

To hear more of Allie’s commentary, watch the episode above.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

Subscribe to Allie Beth Stuckey's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of her upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture and politics from a Christian, millennial perspective.

Exclusive: Vance on Mamdani: ‘Who the hell does he think that he is?’



Vice President JD Vance tore into the Democratic rising star Zohran Mamdani in a Sunday night speech over his apparent ingratitude and disregard for American tradition as he vies to helm the United States' largest city.

During his keynote speech for the Claremont Institute on Sunday, Vance methodically detailed how Mamdani's mayoral candidacy insults the very culture, history, and generosity of the country that allowed him to succeed, according to a transcript exclusively obtained by Blaze News. Mamdani, whose family fled political persecution in Uganda, won the Democratic mayoral primary in New York City and is shaping up to be the front-runner in the contested race against current NYC Mayor Eric Adams (independent).

"If our victory and President Trump's victory in 2024 was rooted in a broad, working- and middle-class coalition, Mamdani's coalition is almost the inverse of that," Vance said.

'Hatred ... this is the animating principle of the American far left.'

RELATED: 'White, well-educated' Democrats are demanding lawmakers 'get shot' to prove they're anti-Trump as deadly violence rises

Photo by Adam Gray/Getty Images

Although he campaigned on progressive policies that are typically targeted toward "underprivileged" and protected classes, Mamdani won high-income, college-educated voters. He also did particularly well in New York City's gentrified neighborhoods, like Ridgewood and Bushwick. At the same time, he struggled among black voters and voters without a college degree.

"That's an interesting coalition," Vance noted. "Maybe it works in the New York Democratic primary. I don't think it works particularly well in the United States at large."

"His victory was the product of a lot of young people who live reasonably comfortable lives but see that their elite degrees aren't really delivering what they expected," Vance added. "And I say that not to criticize them, because I think that we should care about all the people in our country. ... But we have to be honest about where its coalition is. It is not the downtrodden. It's not for Americans. It is not about dispossession. It's about the elite."

Vance describes Mamdani and his supporters' progressive worldview as ultimately paradoxical, uniquely motivated by a disdain for the American tradition.

"How could privileged whites march around with a straight face and decry white privilege?" Vance asked. "How could progressives pretend to love conservative Muslims despite their views on gender and sexuality? The answer is obvious. ... The radicals at the far left, they don't need a unifying ideology of what they're for, because they know very well what they're against."

"What unites Islamists; gender studies majors; socially liberal, white urbanites; and Big Pharma lobbyists? It isn't the ideas of Thomas Jefferson or even Karl Marx," Vance added. "It's hatred ... this is the animating principle of the American far left."

RELATED: Bombshell internal docs reveal the extent of Team Biden's political miscalculations

Photographer: Christian Monterrosa/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Vance takes issue with the progressives' disregard for American history and, by proxy, for American values. In Mamdani's case, Vance criticizes his ungrateful attitude toward the very country that welcomed him and allowed him to prosper.

"The person who wishes to lead our largest city had, according to multiple media reports, never once publicly mentioned America's independence today in earnest," Vance said. "But when he did so this year, this is what he said, an actual quote: 'America is beautiful, contradictory, unfinished. I am proud of our country, even as we constantly strive to make it better.' There is no gratitude in those words, no sense of owing something to this land and the people who turned its wilderness into the most powerful nation on Earth."

"I wonder, has he ever read the letters from boy soldiers in the Union army to parents and sweethearts that they'd never see again?" Vance asked. "Has he ever visited the grave site of a loved one who gave their life to build the kind of society where his family could escape racial theft and racial violence? Has he ever looked in the mirror and recognized that he might not be alive were it not for the generosity of a country he dares to assault on its most sacred day? Who the hell does he think that he is?"

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

In Latest Term, Supreme Court’s ‘Conservative Majority’ Plays By The Left’s Rules

The Supreme Court continues to grant legitimacy to the leftist revolution that has overtaken and transformed most aspects of our nation.