There&#8217;s an <a href="https://www.facebook.com/TomCottonAR/videos/the-alliance-between-marxists-and-islamists-is-taking-over-the-democrat-party-no/1617106106672082/">emerging alliance</a> in American politics between the far Left and radical Islam. The only tangible thing that Marxists and Islamists have in common is their hatred for Western society. Liberalism, capitalism, and Judeo-Christian values run contrary to both groups. 
Of course, the values of Islamic society are, in practice, more offensive to the Left-wing vision than those of the West. Marxists value socioeconomic equity above all else. There is no metric by which Islam is remotely conducive to this. In traditional Western society, there are different cultural expectations for men and women. In Islamic society women are treated like property. In Western society there is a mobile meritocracy (even Marx did not deny this). In Islamic society there is a rigid aristocracy. Most notably, Western society lends itself to representative government while Islamic society does not.
Yet the Left views Islam as a natural ally in its fight against Western society. The reasons for this are manifold: naivete, delusions of grandeur, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/weekend-plans-with-gad-saad">suicidal empathy</a>. Most likely, it’s as simple as the West being the currently established order, while Islam (for the time being) comes from the fringe. Everything looks harmless on the fringe.
But this delusional self-sabotage is nothing new. We saw this before in pre-revolutionary Iran.
In the late 1970s, Iran’s communist Tudeh Party joined forces with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in his rebellion against the Shah. Both groups felt that the Shah was oppressive and wanted change. They worked together to overthrow him and install Khomeini in his place. Once Khomeini consolidated power around himself, he outlawed the Tudeh party and executed the Marxists en masse. In 1988, he issued a fatwa executing thousands of Iranian leftists, including those already imprisoned.
A common adage often applied here is, “When people tell you who they are, believe them.” This is good advice for many of the masses of mindless activists on the ground, but in the case of intellectual thought leaders, it is arrogance more than naivete that drives this mistake. 
Tudeh Secretary General Nureddin Kianuri said in a 1979 <a href="https://www.merip.org/1980/03/interview-with-tudehs-kianuri/">interview</a> that socialism in Iran “cannot have a Muslim content but will be achieved through the cooperation of Muslim forces.” By his own admission, he believed that he could use Islamism as a controlled weapon against the West and then simply turn it off when he was done with it. Nureddin Kianuri was arrested by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1983 and never saw freedom again.
Of course, the Marxists of today will never learn from the mistakes of the Marxists of the past. If they were capable of such a thing, they would not be Marxists in the first place.
Still, the lesson is an important one as coalition-building becomes necessary in the United States. You cannot control fundamentalist ideologies. The Marxists believed they could point jihadism at the Shah like a loaded gun. It wasn’t a gun. It was a plague. And once unleashed, it did not discriminate in who it destroyed.
When you are angry with the establishment, it can be tempting to look for support wherever you can find it. This phenomenon is not localized to the Red-Green alliance. It rears its head in every political movement that finds itself compromising with radicalism to achieve political goals.
Another group that can stand to take notes is the Left-wing establishment. The likes of Senator Chuck Schumer seem to believe that kowtowing to the socialists within his party will keep him in power. At its core, socialism is incompatible with the traditional Democratic Party. Democratic elites think they can accommodate it anyway and simply direct its radical destructionism toward their enemies.
There is no appeasing this group. First they came for the Republicans; next they’ll come for you, Chuck. You’ll be lucky if they even wait that long. It’s all the same to them. Of course, the Schumers of the world won&#8217;t wise up to this anytime soon. If they were capable of such a thing, the Democratic Socialists of America never would have made it this far in the party.
The Marxists believe they can use the Islamists just like the Democrats believed they could use the Marxists. They were wrong. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. 
In the conservative movement, we face a similar crossroads. The growing influence of radical influencers, especially among young Republicans, shares commonalities with the socialist takeover of the Democratic Party. We mustn’t make Democrats&#8217; mistake.
That is why there is no point in tiptoeing around conflict with the likes of Tucker Carlson. A great many on our side of the aisle have cautioned against direct conflict with them, especially as influencers such as Megyn Kelly and Piers Morgan become louder opponents of the conservative movement. We’re frequently told not to &#8220;alienate&#8221; these people. We should reject these calls.
If they end up voting the way we do, that’s great. But we cannot give an inch to ideologies that are incompatible with our values. Carlson’s anti-capitalist rhetoric, rampant antisemitism, and suggestion of a class revolution demonstrate where his values lie. If we legitimize him, even as a &#8220;calculated move” against our political adversaries, it will inevitably destroy us.
Whether it was arrogance or naivete that drove the Iranian leftists into the arms of the Ayatollah is ultimately irrelevant. We cannot afford either in the conservative movement. We must see our enemies for who they are. 
***
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream</a>, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

GettyImages-84535813

History Already Told Us How This Radical Alliance Ends

Chuck Schumer

Democratic Party

Iran

Islamists

Tucker Carlson

Upstream

The headline is troubling: &#8220;More Americans say they are living paycheck-to-paycheck,&#8221; CNBC <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/video/2026/07/21/more-americans-say-they-are-living-paycheck-to-paycheck.html">reported</a> on Tuesday. The report featured one of the most commonly cited statistics by economic pessimists: that 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. But this statistic is hugely misleading. 
For one, the <a href="https://econofact.org/factbrief/is-there-a-consensus-that-a-majority-of-americans-are-living-paycheck-to-paycheck">survey</a> was taken by LendingClub (an institution that offers personal financial loans), and the question was framed as “Do you need your next paycheck to cover monthly spending?” There&#8217;s a little bit of a sampling issue there.
The Federal Reserve, which used a much broader sampling, <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2025-economic-well-being-of-us-households-in-2024-overall-financial-well-being.htm">reported</a> that 37% would struggle to meet an unexpected expense (i.e. don&#8217;t have substantial savings), and Bank of America found that fewer than a quarter of the Americans reported “living paycheck to paycheck” when it was defined as spending 95% of their income on necessities. 
These numbers offer a far more realistic measure than the figures often cited. Even among this group, living paycheck to paycheck does not necessarily imply poverty or even financial hardship. It just means that you’re spending all the money you’re bringing in. It doesn’t mean that you’re spending it wisely or living within your means.
We’ve heard a great deal about prices on the rise. Also on the rise has been our expectation for quality. Let’s take a look at what those paychecks are actually buying. 
On average, houses have more than <a href="https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2011/demo/SEHSD-WP2011-18.pdf">doubled</a> in square footage since the 1950s (an often romanticized decade for economic stability). Cars now have airbags, collision avoidance, and cameras, and they last over 200,000 miles.
Fewer than 2% of American homes had air conditioning of any kind in the year 1950. <a href="https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2026/06/air-conditioning.html">Now</a> it’s up to 90%. To have ever been on a commercial flight in the 1950s was a sign of immeasurable status and wealth. Now nearly half of Americans <a href="https://www.airlines.org/dataset/air-travelers-in-america-annual-survey/">fly</a> at least once per year.
Healthcare is vastly superior to what it was. Everyone has a lot to say about ballooning costs, and while they are legitimate concerns, there is no denying that you are better off with the healthcare system of today than that of the 1950s. Vaccines have eradicated smallpox and nearly eradicated polio and measles, some of the most sweeping and deadly diseases in history. Cancer treatment has taken massive leaps such that certain types of cancer can be mitigated entirely. 
Most of all, there’s the internet. More than 95% of Americans regularly <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/">use</a> the internet. This <a href="https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/263601/internet-access-among-low-income-2019.pdf">includes</a> 83% of all Americans below the official poverty line. What’s on the internet? Google and all its services are entirely free to use. This means that any one of those people with regular access can tap into an incomprehensibly large database of information.
Lectures and papers from the top academics in the world are available for free. Typical “how-to” videos on YouTube save Americans the time and frustration of figuring out endless niche chores. Consider how much time (and opportunity cost) you’ve saved by outsourcing to the internet that which once required professionals.
There is virtually no topic you can’t master. Virtually no person on the planet that you can’t communicate with instantaneously. Entertainment is no longer limited to a few timed channels and the magazines you happen to own; you have the option to stream millions of movies, songs, videos, or whatever else you please from the comfort of your home.
And now, at the cusp of the AI Age, a free Google account entitles one to full access to Google Gemini and a free X account gives you Grok (some of the top AI models in the world). It is casually becoming an expectation of even poorer Americans to have access to the research capabilities and generative manpower that once required dozens of employees at the very least. Education and innovation have quite literally never been easier.
A lot of these progressions seem obvious when you say them out loud, but this is precisely the point. The newfound advantages of the 21st century are so ubiquitous that they’re taken for granted. A fish doesn’t know it swims in water.
These statistics offer a much-needed reminder that things are, in fact, getting better. Excepting a few truly impoverished individuals, everyone in the contemporary United States is enjoying access to luxuries that would dwarf even the wealthiest standards of living several decades ago. 
This is not to suggest that everything about our society is perfect. But to pretend like our material conditions have not improved over the past decades is just blatantly incorrect. 
While there do exist areas in which public life has shown signs of decline, they have nothing to do with this romanticized view of the past economy. The declining birth rates, rise in single-parent homes, and intensifying political polarization are all very serious issues. But contrary to what lots of people would have you believe, these are the products of culture — not economics. 
And cultural problems require cultural solutions. Reducing everything that is negative in society to economic anxiety is lazy and dishonest. It’s easy for Senator Bernie Sanders to tell you that if only you support his subsidies, life will get better. It won’t. Writing checks is not going to make people more likely to get married and have families. Going to church might.
Statistics like the one reported on CNBC are not entirely meaningless, but they are desperately lacking in proper context. Material conditions today are vastly better than they were in the 1950s. The state of the past was not some romantic ideal lost to history.
Chin up, America. Our best days lie ahead.
***
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream</a>, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

US $1 dollar bill in mid air melting, red gradated background

The Real Reason Americans Think Everything Is Getting Worse

Prices

Former CNN host Don Lemon is considering a presidential run in 2028.
After several months of teasing the idea, Lemon insisted he was “serious” in an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNccbHsqgWY">interview</a> last week. His statement comes at a time when the Democrats are scrambling for direction. So far, he isn’t looking like the answer.
Lemon made his career as a particularly harsh Trump critic during the first administration. He was eventually fired from CNN after “unprofessional behavior towards women” or, as it’s known when the subject in question is not a Democrat, being a world-class sleazebag. Since then, he’s gone independent, espousing ridiculous takes that somebody is probably bored enough to listen to. In January, he was <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/don-lemon-pleads-not-guilty-to-civil-rights-charges-in-anti-ice-minnesota-church-protest">arrested</a> for joining a mob in harassing a pastor over ICE deportations.
He’s louder since having gone independent, but his brand relies on cheap provocation, not political craftsmanship. A Candace Owens of the Left, in many respects.
Could Don Lemon stand a chance in the Democratic primary? He has the identity advantage of being black and gay. These characteristics make it harder for the progressives to slander his character and provide easy defenses to any attacks from the Right.
I’d be hard-pressed to say it’s impossible, but I’m skeptical. The fact that he considers himself a viable candidate speaks more to the spiraling priorities of the Democratic party than anything else. With no political experience or original vision, Lemon seems to be of the belief that sharp anti-Trumpism qualifies one for the highest political position on the planet.
Ironically, Lemon seems to be trying to channel Trump from 2016 in his political ambitions. Like Trump in the Obama years, he’s a hypercritical celebrity with a well-established ego who seems to have decided that he would be a gift to the world of politics at a time where his party is starved for leadership and direction.
His casual comment, “I actually think I would be a really good president of the United States” echoes Trump’s “I might do something” statements in the years leading up to 2016. He’s also recycling the anti-lobbying rhetoric by insisting that he’d run “without having to beg for money.”
He explicitly compares himself to the president by musing, “It seems in this day and age you don’t have to have a ton of political experience because our current president had none — that’s very obvious.”
The only problem is that, frankly, nobody cares about Don Lemon. Trump spent a lot of time teasing his run, and whenever he would, it would electrify his enthusiastic following. So far we’re yet to see anybody get excited by the prospect of President Don Lemon except for, well… Don Lemon. But he’s been tough on Trump! And that’s what matters. His delusions of grandeur show what the Left’s institutional Trump Derangement Syndrome can do to one’s own sense of self-importance, a hallmark of the Democrats today.
Though he wasn’t a politician, Trump energized a massive base that he had built through decades of critical commentary and tabloid fame. Merging the post-Tea Party populism with his own personal brand was far less of a stretch than starting essentially from scratch which is precisely what Lemon would have to do. Even when a Trump victory looked unlikely, nobody viewed his candidacy with disinterest.
In 2016, disgruntled populist voters had no real alternative to Trump. Of the 10 Republicans on the first debate stage in 2016, nine of them were pretty much saying the same thing. For better or for worse, Trump was saying something different. That made him the natural heir to any and all anti-establishment sentiment within the party.
The same cannot be said for today’s Democrats. While they’re not without their problems, very few things remain unsaid. If you’re a Democrat who’s mad about something, there’s damn well someone out there complaining on your behalf.
But it’s not like they&#8217;re swimming in great options for 2028, they don&#8217;t seem to care and Lemon might actually be a good fit for the vibes the Party is giving: unhinged, radical, still appealing to identity ideology of half a decade ago, and rampantly socialist.
Between California Governor Gavin Newsom’s establishment feel and the DSA’s <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/07/workers-of-the-world-arent-uniting-behind-the-dsa/">poor showing</a> with minorities, it’s likely that Lemon would be able to perform at least reasonably well with young black men. But even if he overperforms significantly with that demographic, it’s hard to see how he pulls together a winning coalition.
Ultimately, Lemon is not the representative of a powerful movement. He doesn’t have a unique charisma or entertainment factor. He has no political experience and no unique vision.
But then again, neither do the Democrats.

Don Lemon

Why Don Lemon Is The Perfect Vibes Candidate For 2028 Democrats

Democratic Socialists Of America

Democrats

Donald Trump

DW Opinion

Gavin Newsom

Yet another champion of the common man is raking in millions off his political brand.
Before President Trump’s first impeachment inquiry in 2019, nobody had ever heard of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman. His testimony made him a national celebrity and a hero of the self-described “Resistance,” a militantly anti-Trump collection of activists and personalities (that is, the group of people who have nothing better to do than cosplay as dissidents living in an authoritarian state).
Since then, Vindman has retired from the army, entered a very lucrative consulting business, published two books, and become a highly paid speaker. The obscure lieutenant colonel became a sought-after personality overnight. He is now attempting to convert that brand into a Senate seat.
His populist rhetoric is fairly boilerplate for the 2020s: “The people of Florida want a Senator who will use the power of the office to crush corruption and cut costs instead of using it to make millions for themselves and their billionaire backers.”
Hardline populists love to ask about incentives. Who has an incentive to support whom? Which politician benefits from a particular crisis? Which bureaucrat gains authority from declaring another emergency?
All good questions, but they always seem to exempt the very people asking them. Has it ever occurred to any of these rocket scientists that the fame and fortune of the Resistance movement may be an incentive to keep the Trump hysteria alive?
Vindman now campaigns against career politicians and the “political elite class.” It has become especially fashionable to ask whether politicians perpetuate conflict to stay in power. And these people have some legitimate points. There are certainly instances of corruption and shady incentives in Washington. Old news. What gets a lot less attention is the plethora of commentators who derive their power from perpetuating media conflicts and apocalyptic narratives.
<a href="https://x.com/ChuckRossDC/status/2079564268924514580">According</a> to Chuck Ross, an investigative reporter with the Washington Free Beacon, Vindman reported approximately $1.5 million in income from his consulting company, $240,000 from his personal Substack, $27,000 for a speech at a wealthy woman’s home, and quite a few other notable streams of income.
Perhaps most notably, Vindman’s Substack <a href="https://www.avindman.com/subscribe?next=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack.com%2F%40avindman&amp;utm_source=profile-page&amp;utm_medium=web&amp;utm_campaign=substack_profile&amp;just_signed_up=true">features</a> a “name the number” subscription option with a minimum contribution of $250 per year and no maximum. Individual Substack contributions do not have to be disclosed. In other words, Mr. Anti-Elite-Corruption has a personalized service through which you can send him large sums of money without having to reveal your identity to anyone except him. No risk of outside influence there.
Of the $240,000 in Substack income, it remains unclear how much came from ordinary subscriptions and how much was funneled through this feature.
Imagine a Republican politician collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars through a newsletter with this feature. We would be treated to an endless barrage of television monologues about “dark money,” the “billionaire class” (probably pertaining in some form or other to AIPAC) and the existential threat to our democracy.
Let us then question who benefits from an inflammatory narrative. Vindman has profited handsomely off the war of public opinion that he helped create.
And now, all of that fame has conveniently become a launchpad into those very same seats of power. Awfully convenient.
This is hardly uncommon for an anti-elite champion, of course. Bernie Sanders made millions off of his books — all fiery critiques of capitalism.
As in the case of Mr. Sanders, Vindman’s defenders will rush to argue, “But he earned that money! Aren’t you the proponents of earned wealth?” Yes, we are. The objection is not that Mr. Vindman earned a lot of money in commentary. It’s that he built a brand around criticizing people for profiting from political power, and then converted his own proximity to power into wealth and influence.
Public discourse can always benefit from a healthy dose of skepticism. The political commentariat is not a disinterested or unbiased third party. Now that Mr. Vindman has ensconced himself in the lucrative world of influencers, his judgement on what constitutes a disaster deserves some scrutiny.
If voters are really facing a crisis of credibility in politics, they ought to be wary of a man whose road to office is being paved with the gold of Resistance hysteria.

Impeachment Hearing

There’s Still Gold In The Resistance Hills

Alexander Vindman

Bernie Sanders

Resistance

Substack

The Trump administration has issued subpoenas for four New York Times journalists, requiring them to testify before a grand jury in a criminal investigation. 
The subpoenas come after the Times reported on security concerns involving Trump’s new presidential aircraft — a gift from Qatar. The purpose is to compel the journalists to reveal their confidential government sources in the investigation.
The media is, of course, outraged by Mr. Trump’s actions. Most leading outlets, including ABC, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press, have labeled the subpoenas “unprecedented” executive overreach. They are not.
Let’s examine the darling of the press: the Obama administration. President Obama prosecuted more leakers under the Espionage Act than any administration in history.
Mr. Trump’s actions are problematic. They raise genuine questions about press independence and government overreach. But let’s add some historical context.
As with so many things Mr. Trump does, the subpoenas are not actually a departure from the norm. They only look that way because everyone else did it in the shadows while he does it in broad daylight — and this largely has to do with a hostile media (toward Trump) versus a sympathetic one (toward any and all Democrats).
Much of the Obama surveillance was conducted in secret; the affected organizations learned about it later, after records had already been collected. In 2012, the Justice Department obtained two months of telephone records from the Associated Press without providing notice of any kind.
If anything, this secrecy is all the more troubling from a free-press standpoint. Trump obviously believes (in error) that he is fully legally justified in his actions — hence his pride and publicity in them. It’s harder to make that case about Obama, whose subterfuge implies at least a certain degree of doubt that he had the right to do what he did.
Even more notably, in 2009, Fox News reporter James Rosen published a story on North Korean nuclear weapons. The story was based on an intelligence report that had been leaked by an administration official.
In order to obtain a warrant for Rosen’s personal emails, phone contacts, and communications information, the affidavit baselessly characterized him as a possible “aider, abettor, or co-conspirator.” While Rosen was not charged, the criminal language allowed prosecutors to obtain his material with no advance notice.
Would someone like to explain to me how exactly that’s different, let alone milder, than Trump’s subpoenas?
When pressed with these facts, many Democrats will be quick to respond, “Sure, it was a problem when Obama did it, and it’s a problem now. Let’s bring it to a swift end.” I don’t disagree.
This response, however, is hugely disingenuous.
Only now that Obama is out of public office can it become an unforgivable action. You can tell me all you want that it&#8217;s a red line, but it never kept you from endorsing Obama. It doesn’t keep you from pining for the days when the president was an upstanding, humble citizen. What’s different this time?
While Obama did eventually draw the criticism of the mainstream media, it was far from a comparable reception. Obama’s abuse of the Espionage Act was treated as a mere footnote in his presidency. Meanwhile, Trump’s actions are an “unprecedented” threat to the democratic process.
This is selective memory at its finest. How many people, especially younger people, even know about the Obama scandals? It seems the media did such a good job running cover that they even forgot about them themselves.
To be clear: The Trump subpoenas are wrong. The Obama scandals were wrong. But the press is also wrong for its incessant fearmongering and selective crucifixion. If it wasn’t the end times then, it’s not the end times now.
You don’t get to pick and choose. This is another case where the press — and its blatant bias — has become the story rather than a pursuit of the truth.

Obama/Trump

Trump’s Subpoenas Are Not Unprecedented Despite The Media Hysteria

Barack Obama

First Amendment

Freedom of the Press

James Rosen

Media Bias

President Trump

subpoena

The Great American State Fair revived an age-old political controversy when a privately organized North Carolina booth <a href="https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article316503775.html">drew condemnation</a> for displaying a Confederate flag. It’s time for conservatives to have an honest conversation about the flag and its proponents. 
The Confederacy stood for slavery, secession, and an armed rejection of the American experiment. Its banner represents neither American conservatism nor respect for the constitutional order.
In 2025, the Mississippi Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans <a href="https://www.facebook.com/beauvoirms/posts/join-us-for-mississippis-confederate-memorial-day-at-beauvoir-april-26-2025the-m/1080581110771250/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">invited</a> supporters and those with Confederate ancestry to commemorate Confederate Memorial Day and “honor those who served.” Give me a break. You’re honoring your ancestors by flying the flag of our defeated enemy?
Of course our ancestors weren’t all evil. But some of our ancestors supported some things that were evil. There’s no need to play the false dichotomy game where we pretend that either our ancestors were unmitigated monsters or that they all walked on water and committed no sins.
It’s no different from someone of Russian descent flying the Soviet flag or German descent flying the Nazi flag. These were enemies of the United States. They stood for things we do not stand for. That doesn’t make you responsible for their sins. We’re all Americans now. Leave your ancestors’ bad ideas behind or hit the road. 
Before anybody gets all bent out of shape about government control and freedom of expression, let me be clear: Something can be disgraceful without needing to be illegal. I am not advocating for any bans or restrictions. Just some common sense and honesty.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans are hardly alone in their sympathies. Mississippi governors have a tradition of issuing Confederate Memorial Day proclamations. Alabama and Mississippi officially <a href="https://apnews.com/article/martin-luther-king-jr-holiday-alabama-mississippi-0f535594cf50af7103ca2d953e1bc9a1">observe</a> several Confederate holidays.
A lot of Republicans feel compelled to defend positions sympathetic to Confederatism since they have long been associated with self-proclaimed “conservatives.” But let’s examine it on its own merits for a moment.
If we look at the issue objectively, it actually reeks of leftist mentality. Once upon a time there was a group of people on this land who stood opposed to the United States. They fought a war over it and lost. But now we’re still going to privilege their antiquated symbols over American ones because anything else would be discriminatory against their indigenous culture. Sound familiar?
What are these people doing on our side?
Most ironically, these are the same people who will then <a href="https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/masked-men-with-confederate-flags-seen-chanting-marching-riding-metro-in-dc/4125936/">call themselves</a> “patriots” and claim to be fighting to “take back America.” No, actually, there’s nothing patriotic about backing secessionists. That’s the polar opposite of patriotism.
Nor can any compelling argument be made that Confederatism is deeply rooted in our nation’s history. It’s not. The moment the Confederacy was founded, it was identified as an enemy of foundational American values and crushed with sweeping force. This was not some misunderstood regional tradition later corrupted by outsiders. It was rejected by the United States from the beginning. 
There was never a time in American history when it was seriously regarded as remotely compatible with the American way of life, let alone a key element of it.
Those who would argue that the flag is paramount to the American South are also minimizing the rich Southern history that was positive and worth commemorating. The American South is responsible for a myriad of great music, literature, and traditions. The South was also the birthplace of some political movements that actually were in line with American values, such as the Civil Rights Movement.
If you believe that all of Southern culture amounts to a failed rebellion from over 150 years ago, you’re telling on yourself. 
Even stranger than the Southern Confederate flags are the ones that show up in states that weren’t even members of the Confederacy. There was a prolific <a href="https://www.wypr.org/the-baltimore-banner/2025-12-09/display-of-confederate-flags-at-north-east-christmas-parade-called-inexcusable">display</a> of them at last year’s Maryland North East Christmas Parade. Even in rural upstate New York — just about as Northern as it gets — it’s not uncommon to see them flying high. 
Congratulations, guys. You switched to the losing side that America pummeled. That’ll show &#8217;em just how much you love America.
No, we don’t need to ban the flag (or any other flags) from private property. If you want to fly a Chinese flag or an Aztec flag or whatever else, go right ahead. But don’t call yourself a patriot, and don’t expect others to call you a conservative. 
Real patriots fly Old Glory. Always have. Always will. 
***
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream</a>, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

Confederate Flag Displayed With Us Flag On Front Porch Near Window, Backroads Of Virginia, October 26, 2016

There’s Only One Flag Real Patriots Should Fly

The press spent years trying to frame the Trump administration as an existential threat to the country. Now that a real threat has emerged, they are nowhere to be found.
During the 2024 presidential race, we were told repeatedly that a Trump victory would mean the end of democracy as we know it. As soon as he won, he’d implement the “mysterious and sinister” (yes, they really <a href="https://time.com/7003383/trump-supercharged-project-2025-essay/">said</a> that) Project 2025 and overhaul the institutions that protect our freedoms.
Now, as the midterms approach, the Democratic Socialists of America has released a document of its own. Unlike Project 2025, the Workers Deserve More <a href="https://program.dsausa.org/#demand-a-real-democracy">platform</a> actually does call for the direct overhaul of our country’s foundational institutions. Yet there’s just a slight asymmetry in how the media is reacting.
Let’s examine the press coverage of the two proposals.
Two years ago, The Guardian <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/17/trump-project-2025-california">featured</a> an accusation during the campaign warning that Project 2025 was a “dystopian plot” that would “abolish checks and balances.” There was, of course, nothing in the document that could substantiate this claim in the slightest.
Now here’s a direct quote from the DSA platform: “Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.” Now I’m no Clarence Thomas, but I’m fairly certain that making two branches of government “subordinate” to the third is the very definition of abolishing checks and balances.
Still waiting on The Guardian to clear that one up for me.
In 2024, Time Magazine <a href="https://time.com/7003383/trump-supercharged-project-2025-essay/">wrote</a> that Project 2025 would grant President Trump “absolute power” and that its enactment would constitute “the shredding of the Constitution.”
The funny thing is, we’re halfway through the term and the Constitution is conspicuously unshredded. Not that Time was rushing to publish a retraction at any point over the past couple of years.
It’s especially odd that in 2025, the culminating year of right-wing autocracy, Zohran Mamdani won the mayoral election, kicking off a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/mamdanis-socialists-upset-incumbent-dems-in-house-primary-sweep">wave</a> of far-Left electoral victories.
But who can blame Time for the slight overreaction? After all, it’s the responsibility of the media to be vigilant against potential threats to our freedoms, no matter how subtle (or imaginary) they may be.
I’m sure they’ll be here any minute to rebuke the radical project of the DSA.
After all, the platform overtly promises to “draft a new constitution, and create a democratic socialist republic.”
Unlike in the case of Project 2025, where the accusations were based on some combination of  “implications,” “microaggressions,” and straight-up fantasy, the DSA has outlined its intentions for all to see. The preamble argues that “complete victory will require building a new society from the ground up.” They hate this country. They hate Western civilization. Ask them, they’ll tell you.
And yet despite this asymmetry, the media has consistently turned a blind eye to the threat that the DSA poses. This is not naivete — it’s malice. It is an insult to the American people and to the democracy they claim to love.
No more can the differentiator be made that these are not official Democratic positions. Project 2025 was created by the Heritage Foundation and a collection of independent conservative organizations. That didn’t stop the media from treating it as Trump’s personal passion project despite his repeatedly distancing himself from it.
By contrast, an increasingly large proportion of Democratic politicians are sworn members of the DSA. They are directly associated with this statement, yet not one notable DSA member has issued a condemnation of it. Perhaps even more troubling, the media has not asked any of them to issue a condemnation of it.
While President Trump was repeatedly bombarded with questions about Project 2025, nobody has asked Zohran Mamdani to comment on his own organization labeling the “entire structure of our society” as an “enemy.”
One day, every reporter in Washington will be the lone dissenter who was always opposed to the ideological mob. Well, I’m calling on all those reporters to take some action now, while it means something.
I’ll be saving the receipts.

NYC-DSA holds a rally to tax the rich

The Media Freaked Out Over Project 2025 – But They’re Purposefully Ignoring The DSA’s Plans

Bill Maher slammed NPR for its far-Left extremism in a recent interview.
He called out the Democratic Party at large for its Trump Derangement Syndrome, increasing support for Hamas sympathizers, and general intolerance of dissent.
It’s one thing to take shots at the “fringes on both sides” and localize criticism only to unpopular figures. That takes neither courage nor maturity — it’s just words. But Maher’s willingness to challenge NPR, one of the most revered outlets by the mainstream Left, for its extremism speaks to an important truth: conservatives take Maher seriously; do Democrats?
Just a couple of weeks ago, he told JD Vance, “If this is where [the Democrats] are going, my vote is in play.” He quickly conditioned this statement with a series of objections he has to the modern Right.
Maher has long been known for these kinds of criticisms. But if we take a look at what he’s actually saying, most of it is pretty hard to argue with. But Democrats, in their vociferous refusal to be receptive to anything pushing their ideology back to the realm of &#8220;normal&#8221; get hung up here.
One of the primary concerns he’s expressed with Trump has been his unwillingness to accept the results of elections that don’t go his way. He has been highly critical of Trump for his actions on January 6. He <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2-PD3zceYA">said</a> that if he’s going to consider voting Republican, “that sh*t has to stop.” He’s not wrong. There was nothing conservative or American about Trump’s behavior. It was disgraceful.
Of both Elon Musk’s DOGE and the Iran war, Maher <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUI2hLa7TQM">said</a> they were good ideas with poor execution. He’s absolutely right on both accounts. If the price of winning his vote is distancing ourselves from Trump’s failures, sign me up.
But a key difference between Maher and a lot of other pundits is that he doesn’t allow his disdain for Trump to dominate his entire political consciousness. And here is also where conservatives and progressives differ on their acceptance of Maher.
“When they say Trump is Hitler, that’s such a dumb thing to say. First of all, counterproductive. Also, he’s not Hitler. But this Fuentes kid, that’s Hitler,” Maher said. Right on, Bill.
The difference is that the DSA and other mainstream Left-wingers are a lot closer to the Hasan Piker camp than Trump is to the Nick Fuentes camp. Conservatives widely support Trump not because he’s a bastion of conservatism, but because he’s the lesser of two evils by a great degree.
If we’re going to survive, we need to start making that case to the people who are willing to listen. Conservatives are more willing to do this — and confront the radical views on their side — than the Left. Broadly so.
In 2024, Maher <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/4687798-bill-maher-democrats-changed-criticism-202/">told CNN</a> that he holds the same positions he’s had since the 1990s and that “the Left has changed.&#8221; This is not an uncommon journey of former leftists who now find themselves on the Right, or at least right of center. Ronald Reagan himself once said that he never left the Democratic Party — “They left me.”
Frankly, the administrations of John F. Kennedy and even Bill Clinton share quite a bit more ideology with much of the modern Republican base than they do with the increasingly radical Democratic Party.
But to the Left, it&#8217;s never a them problem.
Bill Maher is never going to be a conservative. But the unfortunate reality is that much of the Republican Party is more receptive to his frank analysis than the Democrats. They&#8217;re more obsessed with chasing the radicals of their side farther Left and silencing dissent among its ranks.
If hardline libertarians like Rand Paul can share a party with New Deal populists like JD Vance, then there’s room for Bill Maher under the tent too. We’ve all got bigger fish to fry than each other.
As always with big-tent logic, one must be careful not to bring in the crazies just because we share a common enemy. But the fight for Western civilization against barbarity is the most important.
Bill Maher is not, and never was, an enemy of Western civilization. Maybe there was a time when our greatest ideological adversaries were the likes of him, but that time has long since passed.
Let’s examine his record: Maher has unequivocally condemned socialism, the radical Left, and the DSA. He’s vocally pro-Israel. He opposes ridiculous wealth taxes, advocates for parental rights against transgender ideology, supports voter ID and common-sense immigration restrictions, consistently supports law enforcement, and is consistently pro-police. Sounds like a halfway decent ally to me.
We spend a lot of time on the Right pining for the golden days of the Republican Party. It’s easy to forget that those days were largely born of compromise and teamwork, not unequivocal triumph. It required the constant integration of a great many groups, many of whom had long been fighting one another. The Left is taking the opposite view, instituting ideological purity tests and making it a race to the Left, ignoring commonsense policies and public opinion — even when they are on the wrong side of polling, on such issues as voter ID and transgenderism.
Bill Maher’s vote is in play. We need to win it even as the Democrats dismiss it.

Larry King’s Toast to 50 Years in Broadcasting

Conservatives Take Bill Maher Seriously – Do Democrats?

Bill Maher

More and more adults are moving back in with their parents to save money, the Wall Street Journal recently <a href="https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/relationships/living-with-parents-finances-0c35530c">reported</a>. One of the subjects of the article remarks, “No one ever judges me. The conversation tends to be more like, ‘That’s awesome, and I bet you’re saving money.’” But it’s not awesome to be 33 years old and have no plans to move out of your parents’ house. 
This article speaks to one of the issues young Americans are facing as they progress into adulthood: a total lack of self-reliance. But home prices are higher than they used to be! That may be true, but it does not justify an attitude of apathy.
First of all, suck it up, buttercups. Rent an apartment until you can afford a house. Split the cost with some roommates. The challenges of today may be different from the challenges of the past, but that doesn’t mean they’re worse, and it certainly doesn&#8217;t mean they&#8217;re insurmountable. Your grandfather had problems too. He figured them out.
Secondly, the high-cost argument would be more understandable if living with one’s parents was seen as an absolute last-ditch option for somebody who truly couldn’t afford independent living. The article makes clear, however, that the subjects feel no shame about living at home. They view it as a smart or “savvy” way to save some money. 
This is where the problem lies. What young people should view as an unfortunate byproduct of a serious problem, they instead see as a perfectly reasonable solution. This is indicative of a culture that prioritizes material pleasure over pride and independence. 
This culture of shamelessness is a large part of what’s driving the popularity of a socialist handout culture among American youth. When you strip away the cultural stigma on freeloading, people will expect their hand-outs to be institutionalized.
“Not everybody has rich parents” no longer becomes a cause for living independently; it becomes a cause for manufacturing a state-sponsored “rich parent” for everyone else.
Shame, to be clear, does not mean cruelty. There is, at least for now, a social stigma around being unemployed. This is not a license to abuse or bully the unemployed, nor does it mean that the unemployed should be stripped of their basic dignity. There is, however, an understanding among both the unemployed person and his peers that he is in an inferior situation and should be actively working to remedy it. He receives a lesser degree of social respect and, for that reason, is motivated to find a job.
This type of shame should extend to broader situations, especially financial dependence. The entire concept of a welfare system requires a certain degree of shame in order to function. The difference between a social safety net and a nanny state is an inherent desire not to be the guy in the net. 
If the proponents of the welfare state gave it a moment’s thought, they would see that shame is actually their ideal motivator. So often left-wingers decry the binary choice of “you work or you starve.” One would think they would be delighted to have a motivator that does not use the threat of danger or physical harm to motivate work.
The objective has never been emergency support. It has been the destruction of the meritocracy. 
Let’s be clear about something. It is shameful to be an adult who is unable to provide for yourself and your family. Whether you’re taking handouts from the government, your parents, or any other third party, if you’re not the one putting food on your child’s plate, you should be embarrassed. 
That doesn’t mean that we should let your child starve, simply that we should differentiate between treating welfare as a safety valve whose necessity we all strive to eliminate and placing it on equal social footing with self-reliance. When we teach that there’s nothing shameful about failure, we naturally instill the lesson that there’s nothing prideful about success.
More and more, young people are becoming alienated from the connection between hard work and the comforts that it brings. Whether they rely on government handouts or parental handouts, they live in comfort through no struggle or effort of their own. Can we really be surprised that they keep electing socialists?
Conventional wisdom on the Right has always been that socialism looks attractive when you’re a kid living on Daddy’s credit card, but it becomes a lot less appealing once you’re out in the real world. Only nowadays are people living on Daddy’s (or the state’s) credit card well into adulthood. 
The life of a dependent is bound to beget dependence. Perhaps the trend of young people taking longer to mature than their parents comes from the incessant culture of infantilization. 
The epidemic of shamelessness is a failure on multiple fronts. It’s a failure of the grown men and women who see no issue with freeloading off their parents into adulthood. It’s a failure of the education system not to instill a sense of self-reliance. It’s also a failure on the part of the parents who never told their children it was time to move out. 
Living at home when you’re 23 and when you’re 33 are two very different things. By never placing the responsibilities of adulthood on your children, you enable them to stay children forever.
The sense of being owed handouts and the attitude that it is “thrifty” or “savvy” rather than pathetic to live on someone else’s dime is not localized to the Left. For far too many Republican populists, the question is not “Why are there so many handouts?” It’s “Where’s my piece of the pie?”
None of this is to say that our problems aren’t real. Housing costs are high, and living independently has certain new challenges attached to it. But the solutions lie in tenacity, self-respect, and the individualist values that built our country. Not in surrendering to laziness and hedonism. 
Young America, a little shame goes a long way. It’s time to grow up.
***
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

GettyImages-3377736

The Real Reason So Many Adults Refuse To Grow Up

Senator Lindsey Graham passed away a few days ago from an aortic dissection. He was 71.
The public reaction to his death echoes that of Charlie Kirk&#8217;s last year. There has certainly been a heartening display of sympathy from most of the Right and much of the prominent Left, praising his character and principles if not his politics.
There are also, however, the dregs of society who have dedicated the past few days of their lives towards doing what they do best — spreading misery and hatred.
Graham was a fighter his whole life. After the tragic death of his mother, Graham put himself and his younger sister through college with an ROTC scholarship and later an Air Force salary. He served his country proudly for decades before turning to politics.
It’s time his country returned the favor and protected his legacy from the barrage of disrespect.
In the Senate, he stood up for the West on every front. He was an unequivocal advocate for Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine in the halls of Congress, despite immense political pressure from both sides of the aisle. He died only hours after returning from a trip to Ukraine to secure a bipartisan Russian sanctions package. He was a powerful voice against authoritarianism and terrorism across the globe.
He crusaded against the smear campaign on Justice Kavanaugh and regularly called out the hypocrisy of the Left. He was a steadfast voice for our country’s most foundational values.
Graham was also known for his political 180 from a hardline Trump critic to one of his fiercest supporters. Some of his critics will have you believe that this is spinelessness. They’re wrong.
When exactly did it become spineless to admit your mistakes? Graham observed the administration&#8217;s actions and adjusted his judgment accordingly. Is that not the humility that we should look for in a representative?
He was a great man. Even those who disagree with his politics ought to express condolences. 
The contemptible reactions fit squarely into the same two camps. There are the ghouls who celebrate his death as great news, and the ghouls who try to use it to their own ends.
In the words of Mr. Graham himself, only days before he died: “Judge me by my enemies.”
Whenever you call out someone for celebrating political violence, you’re bound to get the usual protests, “But what if it were Hitler? Or Sinwar? Then it would be okay to celebrate his death!” True.
Here’s a little news flash, people: It isn’t Hitler or Sinwar. It’s a truly decent man and one of the greatest statesmen of the century. It’s okay to celebrate the death of vile mass murderers. It’s not okay to celebrate the death of Senators who didn’t vote the way you wanted.
Usually, the latter comes in the form of conspiracy theories.
Iran does not have the capacity to silently and subtly assassinate a sitting United States Senator. Furthermore, Graham devoted much of his life to combating the Iranian threat. If there were any credible chance that they really had assassinated him, it would be the public focus of his family, the President, and a few channels just slightly more official than the legion of online trolls. The same goes for the Russians.
It wasn’t the Jews either. If anyone hasn’t seen Candace in the past few days, it’s probably because she’s working out how the Mossad killed off Israel’s greatest ally in Congress. He was about to turn on Israel any minute now, guys. She has the sources.
No, Lindsey Graham was not assassinated. He died a tragic, but natural death.
Equally detestable are those mainstream political operatives who would use his passing for political angling.
The Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum, in her usual tastelessness, did not express any condolences for Graham or his family. Instead, she used his death as an opportunity to promote a recycled hit piece on him entitled <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/07/trumps-collaborators/612250/?gift=hVZeG3M9DnxL4CekrWGK3_RouLwI10rEYFfGKtdXD1Y&amp;utm_source=copy-link&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=share">“History Will Judge the Complicit.” </a>
History will judge Lindsey Graham for the hero that he was, Ms. Applebaum. You, on the other hand, will be forgotten altogether with the rest of the soulless vultures who have no regard for human life.
Lindsey Graham is dead. Decent people everywhere mourn him. There’s one less great man in Congress, and one less fighter for the West.
May God bless him, his family, and all that he stood for. That is all there is to say.

Senator Lindsey Graham Speaks On President Trump’s Announcement Of Troop Withdrawal In Syria

If You Have Nothing Nice To Say About Lindsey Graham, Get Your Head Examined

Lindsey Graham

It looks like we finally found something we can all agree on. Mitch McConnell’s time in politics has come to a close. Tragically, he is not fit to serve out the remainder of his term.
I’m not going to play the fool’s game of “but he’s only x years older than this or that competent politician.” Henry Kissinger and Thomas Sowell remained sharp well into their 90s. Most people do not. You don’t judge a person’s mental competency solely based on how many years they’ve been alive. You judge based on what you can see.
Everyone seems to understand that the empirical evidence reflects McConnell’s profound mental and physical decline.
But I wonder, where was all this agreement four years ago when Joe Biden, a veritable corpse, was running the entire country?
Behind closed doors, the president was reciting Shakespeare while juggling with his eyebrows. It was only when all the cameras showed up that he turned into a gaffe machine who couldn’t read a teleprompter. That&#8217;s a mean case of stage fright for a politician who&#8217;s been in the game for 53 years.
And, of course, our skeptical media bought that, no questions asked.
Alex Thompson, a White House correspondent for Politico during the Biden administration, recently co-authored a <a href="https://sites.prh.com/originalsin/">book</a> detailing the cover-up of Biden’s mental decline. Conveniently, this book comes long after the decline was obvious, and Biden is no longer running for office.
Thompson has <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2025-05-20/jake-tapper-defends-original-sin-biden-cover-up-media-role">insisted</a> that the media was simply “lied to” about the president&#8217;s mental state. News flash: if I can see the decline on my television, it shouldn’t take you five years to figure it out when it’s quite literally your entire job to track his affairs.
What kind of media waits for the White House&#8217;s permission before holding it accountable? But don&#8217;t worry, they’re here now to bravely stand for the truth. As usual, they&#8217;re a day late and a dollar short.
And then there was a cadre of Biden&#8217;s fellow Democrats. In a debate with Ron DeSantis, California Governor Gavin Newsom (one of the top Democratic contenders for president in 2028) insisted that the president was perfectly sharp and on top of everything.
Would — or should — an aspiring president take at face value that “behind closed doors,” Chinese President Xi Jinping has no plans to invade Taiwan, he’s simply looking to grab a beer with Lai Ching-te? And if not, which means he was lying, why should the American people place their trust in a man who lies through his teeth about something as consequential as the mental state of their own president?
So which is it? Is he too foolish to be president or too dishonest? Of course, nobody is asking this question. It’s much more interesting to keep beating the dead horse that is McConnell’s competency.
This is not a matter of respect for the statesman that Joe Biden used to be. The squirrely nature of that characterization aside, respect does not demand dishonesty.
Mitch McConnell was perhaps the most effective legislator of my lifetime. He played an instrumental role in seating a Republican majority on the court. He forced significant concessions from the Democratic majority during the Obama administration (including dropping the socialized insurance option) and blocked progressive climate legislation.
He guided the clown show that is the congressional Republicans into confirming three conservative Supreme Court Justices and 54 appeals court justices in a single presidential term, orchestrated the passage of 2017 tax reform, and spearheaded one of the only unanimous consequential legislative packages in modern history.
His legacy is unmatched.
Such is my tribute to his tremendous influence and my respect for the great man. But he&#8217;s too old to be in office. To pretend otherwise would not be an act of respect towards him, but an act of disrespect towards his constituency.
When I last saw Senator McConnell, he required the assistance of several men simply to move in and out of the chamber. He never spoke a word despite being addressed directly by several other Senators. This was shortly before his recent hospitalization.
But McConnell is taking hits left and right from the media. And therein lies the distinction: left and right. The conservative press never tried to run interference for the man, and they certainly never tried to invalidate legitimate depictions of his decline.
In 2023, MS NOW published an <a href="https://www.ms.now/opinion/msnbc-opinion/mitch-mcconnell-second-freeze-kentucky-rcna102599">op-ed</a> insisting that McConnell was unfit to serve and that he step down immediately. They were <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/08/mitch-mcconnell-needs-to-step-aside">joined in their concerns</a> by the National Review, one of the most prominent outlets on the American right, which called for McConnell to step down from leadership positions. 
Only when Biden decided to shoot himself in the foot on live television in front of the entire country did it start to become apparent that he was a lost cause, and the media started to turn on him. After years of lying to the American people, it was no longer taboo for Thompson to publish his book.
As members of the press, our first responsibility is to the American public. A press that shirks that responsibility for political gain disgraces the very people it’s meant to serve.

Mitch McConnell

Why Isn’t The Press Running Interference For Mitch McConnell?

Joe Biden

A federal appeals court <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/07/stop-woke-act-appeal-florida-desantis?">struck down</a> a key part of Florida’s law restricting race and gender discussions in public colleges and universities on Tuesday. 
The same people celebrating the ruling are also decrying a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/26/us/texas-schools-bible-curriculum-vote">recent decision</a> by the Texas State Board of Education that allowed biblical passages to appear on a secondary school reading list. The former is academic freedom, and the latter a violation of it. Naturally. 
It’s easy to reconcile these positions by arguing that one is a religious matter and the other is secular. Clearly, it&#8217;s wrong to push one&#8217;s religion in the classroom. Therefore, we can rely on “separation of church and state” to privilege the speech of Florida college professors over that of Texas secondary teachers. 
But for this distinction to matter, we require a clear definition of religion. What constitutes a religious belief as opposed to a philosophical opinion? Certainly not the mention of God — the Buddhist religion is staunchly atheist, yet it is held to the same standards as Christianity or Judaism in academia.
Religions have a number of key components. They tend to include, in one form or another, unquestionable dogmas, heresies, priesthoods, and rituals. 
Let’s consider the famous “is-ought” problem posed by philosopher David Hume. It is impossible to prove that one “ought” to do something using only descriptive statements. 
For example, just because you can prove that stealing from someone will upset him, or damage the legitimacy of anti-theft laws, or cause him to seek vengeance on you does not itself prove an imperative that you shouldn’t steal. Only if you consider his feelings, the legitimacy of the law, or your own safety to be intrinsically valuable does the imperative become binding. And while these considerations may come naturally, they are not the product of unassailable deductive reasoning.
In other words, when put to the incessant questioning of a two-year-old, “but why?” the answer must eventually become “because somebody said so” or “that’s just the way it is.” At least one moral postulate is necessary for the system to function. 
Religion provides a workable axiology. It’s the oldest form of intellectual value theory known to man. 
Everyone worships something; some of us just know it. 
Consider veganism, for example. Committed vegans accept the intrinsic value of all animal life as a moral postulate. They consider eating meat or animal products to be sinful behavior that violates their moral code. Someone else eating meat doesn’t affect vegans in the slightest, yet they consider it an insult to a higher moral truth that they have postulated. 
Imagine a Christian professor objecting in the classroom to the morality of same-sex marriage. He would be violating the separation of church and state. Yet when a professor asserts that veganism is morally superior to meat-eating, this is protected by academic freedom. 
Even the most clinical theoreticians who reject progressive dogmas (which few actually do) often find themselves speaking with reverence of The Science (capital S, of course) and what it tells us. Far be it for us to rise above our stations and question the anointed Experts and their wisdom. 
The problem is not the presence of value judgments in education. Had human education failed to privilege any one way of thinking over any other throughout history, we’d have never left the caves. 
What’s more, absolute neutrality toward social issues is not only a fiction, but it’s an undesirable one. I, for one, would not favor living in a society where children were taught that a set of values that leads them to Hitler is on equal footing with those that lead them to Martin Luther King Jr.
The extent to which religious practices should be allowed into the public sphere is a matter of debate. The trouble comes when educators try to play by a different set of rules by classifying their religious practices as different from religious practices they don’t like. 
While the Florida ruling allows educators to espouse their faith toward race and gender dogmas, the Texas ruling requires that the Bible be taught strictly from a neutral, historical perspective. The double standard here should be painfully obvious. 
The secular religion phenomenon has some clear benefits attached to it as well. It is most often through their religion that people find communities and become motivated to do good for the world. Atheists who wouldn’t be caught dead in a church might still be motivated to form groups and serve their communities by other commitments that fill the void of traditional faith (such as environmentalists cleaning up parks).
After all, the is-ought problem demonstrates why no amount of clinical analysis can tell us what is ultimately worth loving, protecting, or forbidding. If one must reject the Abrahamic faiths, better that he find another outlet through which to do good than abandon good altogether. 
The problem comes when “doing good” crosses the line from picking up trash in your neighborhood into blocking the roads because you didn’t get your way in the presidential election. Secular religions are seldom guided by ancient wisdom; they’re frequently guided by edgy teenagers on social media and ivory tower intellectuals who are safely insulated from the real world. For that reason, they often end up directing people’s religious zeal toward ends that are counterproductive. 
Secular religions, even when they are predicated on principles that nobody disputes, are still systems of faith. Whenever we give educators the power to impart their faith onto their students, we run the risk of indoctrination that the founders feared.
Taking God out of the equation does not erase this concern. If anything, it amplifies it.
***
This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.

Beautiful White Baptist Church in Crawfordville, George built in 1889

What’s Really Replacing Religion In America’s Schools?

Education

Religion

Menu

Zach Stark