The President has had enough. Many of us have had enough. Enough of the fake MAGA grifters who absurdly sought to hijack the political movement he created and, having failed miserably, now plot to destroy it. I don&#8217;t call them Woke Right because they are not Right, if by that we mean conservative. Indeed, their rantings and ravings, written screeds (to the extent they write), and platforming of preposterous and vile guests — when they&#8217;re not interviewing each other to reinforce their cackle-laced bigoted theories and crackpot conspiracies — are every bit as repulsive and foul as the racist and antisemitic poison spewed by the Klan and neo-Nazis. Hence, it&#8217;s more accurate to label them Woke Reich. Indeed, they have more in common with newly arrived Islamist insurgents, Trotskyite and Maoist college faculty, and present-day Democrat Party officialdom than anything akin to MAGA patriots.
We are familiar with some of these individuals from their past broadcasting careers, which typically ended in public humiliation and abrupt firings. Others were largely unknown comics, backbencher politicians, or basement-dwelling recluses. Most have no real accomplishments or proficiencies, shallow experiences, and depthless knowledge. There is simply nothing profound or compelling about the Woke Reich, especially the biggest, loudest, and nastiest among them. In fact, the most memorable part of their daily diatribes is the many applications of their favorite word: f*ck. They use it so often that it&#8217;s as if they have a medical condition, like an uncontrollable tic or disorder.  They use it as a noun, pronoun, verb, and adverb, all in one spittle-fuming daily rant.
Of course, there are those who try to deliver their sordid dingbat and Jewish conspiracy theories with high-toned, pseudo-sophistication, which can be extremely difficult when plagiarizing thoughts and ideas from Mein Kampf or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And still others seek to present themselves as Socrates, always inquisitive and asking questions in the supposed pursuit of truth and facts when they are nothing more than thuggish, incoherent buffoons rewriting history and babbling incoherencies about the news, politics, or the culture, as if unwittingly imitating <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Corey">Professor Irwin Corey</a>.  From time to time, they lurch into unhinged invectives about President Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, Erika Kirk, or more rational and unneurotic broadcasters and podcasters.
You wouldn&#8217;t think that this cabal could draw a crowd, other than curious rubberneckers. Yet, they do, albeit inclusive of foreign government-generated bots and assorted overseas American-hating audiences. But there are also those who are attracted to the cult of personality created by some of these grifters. Indeed, a word has been invented to describe them: “influencers.” Who do they influence? Poll after poll suggests they don&#8217;t actually influence anybody. It appears to be a word generated by the liberal media to exploit and promote the worst of them as foils against the president, MAGA, and the GOP, intended to create the false impression that these reprobates and miscreants hold enormous power over all of them. They don&#8217;t.
For example, the Woke Reich podcasters almost uniformly oppose the president’s decision to preemptively attack the Iranian terrorist regime and eliminate its nuclear capabilities and 47-year history of murder and terrorism against our country. They are zealously opposed to virtually any American military action, stridently insisting on an unwavering adherence to an absolute pacifism and, hence, rote isolationism. America, they chant, is colonialist, imperialist, the geniture of immoral forever wars, and so forth, as if they are mouthpieces for Vladimir Putin or some other anti-American fascist or Marxist despot. They insist the president campaigned on that platform, ignoring his repeatedly stated &#8220;Peace Through Strength&#8221; foreign policy doctrine and first-term actions. Today, several of them have joined numerous congressional Democrats, leftist manipulators, and Islamist agitators in openly rooting for the genocidal Iranian regime against our own armed forces, despite the fact that it has killed and maimed thousands of Americans. And, of course, the Israelis — that is, the Jews — dragged us into this war, as they have manipulated all of our foreign policy decisions.
The internet junkies and podcast fanatics who do swallow this up, as opposed to the mere onlookers and oddly entertained, seem to think these are the only forms of communication worth digesting. For many, this is their entire communications diet. It&#8217;s not part of their world but all of it. They live in this bubble. All day long. Every day. It’s not a way to get information, communicate, and socialize. It’s a myopic existence. Cult followings develop. Many business models are developed around it. Many of the most successful are essentially grifters who are the best at manipulation — not persuasion — through communication techniques developed and honed by past propagandists. This is one reason foreign governments, particularly the most heinous governments, spend time and resources on the internet. There are no limits to what they can do. One of the best ways to demonstrate this is to look at the comments certain posts and posters attract. It doesn&#8217;t tell you everything, but it tells you a lot.
It also explains how some of the biggest podcasters are among the least accomplished outside the internet environment, and even more succeed in preaching like old-time bigots, antisemites, and demagogues. Draw a crowd by any means, grow it, and maintain it. For too many, the more repulsive and cancerous, the more successful.
The Woke Reich are the useful idiots of the Left, the Democrat Party, and even foreign adversaries. They have nothing in common with MAGA, the GOP, or conservatives.
***
Mark Levin is a legal and constitutional scholar, host of The Mark Levin Show on the radio and Life, Liberty &amp; Levin on the Fox News Channel, and the author of 10 New York Times bestselling books.

American Media Control

Mark Levin: Woke Right ‘Influencers’ Are Poisoning The Country With Anti-American Rhetoric

Conservatism

DW Opinion

Influencers

Social Media

Woke Right

A book questioning the benefits of mass immigration is shooting to the top of the Amazon bestseller list after going viral when it was yanked from the site April 17.
All the leftists who shriek about book bans were notably silent when “The Camp of the Saints,” a 1973 dystopian novel written by French author Jean Raspail, became unavailable at the largest bookseller in the world. 
The work of fiction depicts the collapse of Western civilization after a horde of third-world migrants overtakes the country. The book’s publisher, Vauban Books, released a statement following the book being removed from Amazon on April 17.
An X post from Vauban Books on April 20 said, “On Friday, April 17th, Amazon US removed the paperback listing for our edition of Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints (at this writing, the book remains available for purchase in Kindle and audiobook formats).” 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Our statement on Amazon&#8217;s suppression of The Camp of the Saints in the United States: <a href="https://t.co/JDTE5i4XbH">pic.twitter.com/JDTE5i4XbH</a>
— Vauban Books (@VaubanBooks) <a href="https://twitter.com/VaubanBooks/status/2046262858904641889?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 20, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“We have since been informed by Amazon that the book is in violation of the company’s ‘offensive content’ policy,” the statement continued. “Amazon has supplied no information as to which portions of the book are offensive nor to whom.”
Vauban Books also noted that the book had been selling well after first being listed on Amazon in July 2025. “In the eight months since, Amazon has sold roughly 20,000 paperback copies of it.”
“The Camp of the Saints” was also said to have been “extensively reviewed in the American and international press” and found that its reviewers &#8220;have been unanimous in their assessment of its abiding importance and relevance to contemporary debates.”
“While we cannot say for certain has taken this extraordinary step, it may be no coincidence that the listing was removed one day after New York Magazine published a critical article on Vice President Vance that referenced the book.”
Following public outcry, Amazon reportedly <a href="https://x.com/VaubanBooks/status/2046621879574688215">shared a response</a> with Vauban Books courtesy of their media contact, stating, “We’ve resolved an error that briefly affected the availability of a paperback listing of The Camp of the Saints, and the title is now restored.'&#8221; 
The publisher said that Amazon &#8220;appears to be in damage control mode,&#8221; and again confirmed that the book was originally taken off the website due to their &#8220;offensive content policy.&#8221;

Amazon

Amazon Yanks Anti-Immigration Novel, Accidentally Sends It Rocketing Up The Charts

anti-immigration

Books

Censorship

Entertainment

Fiction

On Friday, Allie Beth Stuckey’s “Relatable” podcast featured a <a href="https://youtu.be/KYPlrX8qfHE?si=DsY47h65mwqjhMyC">debate</a> between her and New York Times columnist David French. What was significant about the debate was French’s willingness to confront one of his sharpest critics head-on. What is doubly significant is why they were even debating to begin with: Over the last several years, French, who bills himself as an evangelical Christian and conservative, has staked out positions at serious odds with the constituency he purports to represent.
The pair debated a number of topics, among them “toxic empathy,” gender ideology and pronouns, why David French voted for Kamala Harris, and his praise of progressive Christian James Talarico.
While I cannot rehearse every facet of the debate in a single essay, the main takeaway was that all the topics centered on what I will call a “truth-emotion continuum.” By that, I mean Stuckey and French seemed to emphasize different priorities in how they communicate and what they communicate. On virtually every topic, French kept returning to the need to show compassion and kindness and to extend empathy to those across the political aisle. Those are all valuable, noble, and necessary. The question is whether, on their own, they are sufficient to advance Christian witness in the public square. Stuckey, in contrast, questioned French about whether the emphasis on kindness and empathy can lead persons to adopt a posture of inoffensiveness and non-judgmentalism to the point that biblical clarity is forfeited.
Stuckey came out ahead in the debate for one main reason that colored every issue: She grounds her understanding of emotion and empathy in a biblical axis, whereas French elevates emotion and empathy to a disproportionate degree, subordinating biblical clarity to assuage the offended. The consequence of this approach leads, in the long run, to untethering emotions from truth. But here’s what needs to be said: Emotions need to be regulated by truth. Emotions are not self-regulating, nor should they be embraced without questioning their veracity.
Also clear were the rhetorical differences in their respective approaches to the truth-emotion continuum. In rhetoric, speakers tend to focus on either logos (reason) or pathos (emotion) to make their case. In the debate, Stuckey focuses more on logos; French, on pathos.
Stuckey succeeded by bringing in the missing element in rhetorical theory: ethos, the idea of the speaker’s credibility. Credibility refers to the ability to speak with authority on a given subject. In my view, Stuckey offers a more credible witness because her approach is more biblical and just as compassionate, whereas French’s view is all compassion but little clarity.
In debates over “toxic empathy,” truth gets pitted against compassion. But Stuckey demonstrated ethos by refusing to play the game of pitting love against truth (1 Cor. 13:6; Eph. 4:15). She’s obviously no less interested in kindness or empathy than French, but she is properly grounded in Scripture.
French’s focus on catering to emotional equilibria (and thus hewing to progressive niceties) results in him blurring biblical categories. We saw this, for example, in his unwillingness to call James Talarico a non-Christian despite Talarico abandoning core Christian doctrines. It’s ironic that outspoken atheists who at least know what Christianity teaches (but reject it) are better at assessing whether someone is a Christian than some Christians are. The avowed atheist Friedrich Nietzsche would have no problem calling Talarico a non-Christian because of the orthodox doctrines that Talarico rejects. Why can’t David French?
In truth, biblical cultural engagement requires both logos and pathos undergirded by ethos, but our engagement must be ordered and governed with a proper foundation in Scripture. And notably, French’s outsized empathy leads him to extend that empathy more typically in one direction, toward those to his left. While French emphasizes the need for all sides to listen to one another, it struck me how much more empathy was extended to the Left. They deserve the benefit of the doubt, while “MAGA Christianity” deserves only generalization and ridicule. As I scored the debate, Stuckey focused on objectivity, reason, and right and wrong as the grounds of what constitutes love and kindness, whereas French’s instinct was to defer to emotion and the unpleasant aesthetics of culture war.
But another element of the debate requires attention, namely, French’s somewhat dismissive relegation of Stuckey’s concerns to matters of triviality. In offering his own commentary on the debate, Baylor sociologist George Yancey (who sided more with French) argued that Stuckey seems unhelpfully preoccupied with topics like homosexuality and transgender issues, whereas French focused on issues of greater global significance, such as foreign policy. He writes that “it became clear to me that these issues are deeply linked to her theological framework and this makes them priority issues.”
While I generally appreciate Yancey’s work and perspective, I think he fails to understand what motivates Stuckey and the significance of these issues. There was one key phrase she used in her discussion that demonstrates why she is so concerned about issues of life, gender, and sexuality. She named these “creation order” issues. “Creation order” is Christian parlance for “natural law.” In particular, it speaks to the foundational principles necessary to ground society’s coherence, stability, and flourishing. What Stuckey is concerned about is not only one’s eternal state and biblical fidelity, but also what is true about human nature being reflected in law and upheld by broader society. In her thinking (and mine), if civilization fails to respect human beings at all stages of life, it undermines society as a whole. Human dignity, in principle, is jeopardized. If human civilization cannot lay out definitions and expectations for what it means to be male and female, it robs society of the most basic facet of our existence. And if civilization fails to uphold the sexual arrangements and familial arrangements that optimize human flourishing, we are sawing off the branch that makes society possible.
Far from abortion, homosexuality, and transgenderism being niche culture war topics, they are building blocks that speak to the most essential foundations of human civilization.
Regardless of how one scores this debate, the fact that figures like Allie Beth Stuckey and David French had this important conversation in person rather than online underscores the importance of individuals in different silos speaking to one another. While French’s and Stuckey’s disagreements remain stark, it was also apparent that they had much in common as they sought mutual understanding and clarity over one another’s views. And in this perpetually online age, we’re all better off for seeing an intense debate modeled with civility and charity.
***
Andrew T. Walker is associate professor of Christian Ethics and Public Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and managing editor of WORLD Opinions. He is a fellow at The Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Bible On Top Of Rainbow Flag

Allie Beth Stuckey-David French Debate Is A Study In Biblical Truth Against Toxic Empathy

Christianity

Toxic Empathy

Woke Culture

About a year ago, I stumbled across this Theo Von character — a seemingly young podcaster, recovered addict, and chill comedian who blew up after interviewing <a href="https://www.theovon.com/tpw/episodes">regular people</a> and, eventually, not-so-regular people like JD Vance and President Donald Trump. My Theo phase lasted a few weeks until I discovered that the funny man in colorful sunglasses, who speaks like a surfer dude for a living, was 46 years old. 46 years old? Why the hell am I listening to an unmarried, silly, slightly stupid 46-year-old? That realization sent me straight to the unsubscribe button. I have nothing against unmarried, silly, slightly stupid podcasters — I just think that particular combination only flies in your 20s or early 30s.
I digress. 
The real problem with one Theodor Capitani von Kurnatowski III isn&#8217;t his age or his mental acumen. It&#8217;s that he is confidently broadcasting half-baked ideas to millions of listeners every single day — and our vice president <a href="https://x.com/MaryMargOlohan/status/2044182073477361828">just encouraged</a> young conservatives to tune in. I don&#8217;t buy it. Young people should not be taking Von at his word. It&#8217;s time we take stock of who we actually spend our attention on, weigh the pros and cons, and direct our energy toward voices that sharpen our thinking, inspire us to build something, and don&#8217;t leave us spiritually hollow.
First, the genocide thing. We shouldn’t take seriously those who casually misuse one of the most legally and morally weighted words in the English language. Von has repeatedly described Israel&#8217;s military campaign in Gaza as a &#8220;genocide&#8221; — a favorite progressive talking point deployed to muddy a complicated war. It is not a genocide, and the word has a definition. The 1948 UN Genocide Convention requires specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such — not high civilian casualties in wartime. The systematic slaughter of 800,000 to 1 million Tutsi men, women, and children by Hutu extremist forces in Rwanda is genocide. Targeting Hamas militants in direct response to the massacre of 1,200+ Israelis, while achieving one of the lowest civilian-to-combatant death ratios in modern warfare is <a href="https://www.ajc.org/news/5-reasons-why-the-events-in-gaza-are-not-genocide">not genocide</a>.
Von bought into Hamas’s debunked propaganda war faster than he could pop a Zyn.
Then there&#8217;s the money. Von emotionally lambasts Israel for stealing &#8220;all of our money.&#8221; Sigh. This is a crowd favorite among the perpetually aggrieved — and it has never made any sense. There is a 10-year, $38 billion agreement committing roughly $3.8 billion per year to Israel — signed by President Barack Obama, for the record. Total aid this year will come in just north of $4 billion, funding U.S. weapons purchases, joint missile defense development, military training, and shared programs that benefit us too. That sounds enormous in a vacuum — until you remember that the federal government spends $7.1 trillion annually. Israel&#8217;s aid represents roughly 0.05% of the federal budget. Foreign aid as a whole is about 1% of the budget. Israel is a slice of that slice.
Stop ignoring basic math, Voners. Read a book.
Then there&#8217;s the increasingly anti-Trump drift. Von has called bombing Iran a &#8220;horrible idea,&#8221; aligns himself with Senator Bernie Sanders regarding elites and class grievances, and regularly performs his working-class-versus-the-rich routine for an audience that eats it up. The truth is that bombing Iran was a last resort — they were months away from possessing 11 nuclear warheads and left us no other option. Bernie Sanders is a man who has never produced a single thing of value in his life, yet somehow owns three luxurious homes — the world&#8217;s most on-the-nose argument against his own ideology. And the class grievance act? If Von&#8217;s crowd truly despises a two-tiered society, they should stop cheering for policies that manufacture one. America has the most productive economy in human history, among the highest class mobility in the developed world, and every income bracket is doing better than it ever has. That&#8217;s not a system to resent — it&#8217;s one to defend.
It would also behoove Von to acknowledge what this administration has actually accomplished, rather than reflexively griping from the sidelines. Net migration is negative for the first time in 50 years. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act permanently extended the 2017 tax cuts. The federal workforce has been cut by hundreds of thousands. We&#8217;re seeing record energy production and the largest single-year decline in homicides in U.S. history. Von’s preferred alternative would have delivered DEI mandates, inflationary spending, a nuclear-armed Iran, an emboldened China, and more tax dollars funneled toward the surgical mutilation of children. The contrast isn&#8217;t subtle.
Theo Von isn’t just complain-maxxing to the void, his pessimism is doing measurable damage. Only 13% of Americans aged <a href="https://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/51st-edition-fall-2025">18–29</a> say the country is &#8220;generally headed in the right direction,&#8221; with over half saying it&#8217;s on the wrong track. That is Theo&#8217;s primary audience. Young men — and increasingly young women — are feeling hopeless about their futures, and it makes sense that they&#8217;d seek out a sympathetic ear in the chaos. But solidarity in despair is still despair. Wallowing in the system&#8217;s failures has never once fixed a problem.
We deserve better. I want voices that level with us and hold us accountable. They should come from people who acknowledge the struggle and then tell us to stop whining and get to work. Ben Shapiro, Nick Freitas, Matt Fradd: in. Political Theo Von, Tucker Carlson, Andrew Tate: out. The latter group has left us weaker in our convictions, mush-brained, and spiritually absent. 
Sorry, Theo. Stick to comedy.

Monster Energy Supercross Nashville VIP Event

No, Theo Von is Not The Voice Of Young Conservatives

influencer

Theo Von

When Donald Trump first ran for president, many of us on the Right reveled in the thrill of the brazen businessman swinging a chainsaw at the bureaucratic beast that had spent years grinding down conservatives, families, and young men.
In the years that followed, we often felt vindicated. The Left had lied for years. Institutions failed us. COVID “experts” betrayed the public, Russiagate was a horrific hoax, and 2020’s summer of riots confirmed that rules only applied to the non-woke. Distrust was earned.
But recently, young conservatives — especially men — have traded righteous anger at the Left for a toxic victimhood that mirrors everything we once fought against. They parrot conspiracies and insist that everything — America, young men, the world — is doomed and the cards are stacked against them, no matter what.
This isn’t anti-establishment courage. It’s the same grievance politics the Left perfected, now wearing a red hat. As Daily Wire editor emeritus Ben Shapiro warned during his recent <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ben-shapiro-talks-truth-problem-solving-and-true-conservatism-on-uncommon-knowledge?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Drew+Berkemeyer&amp;category=Analysis&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=Ben+Shapiro+Talks+Truth%2C+Problem-Solving%2C+And+True+Conservatism+On+%E2%80%98Uncommon+Knowledge%E2%80%99">appearance</a> on the Hoover Institution’s “Uncommon Knowledge” podcast, this internal rot — conspiracy culture, corrosive cynicism, and a Marxist-style obsession with exploding “the system” instead of fixing our own lives — is how conservatism loses its soul.
Shapiro warns that the Right’s biggest threat isn’t the Left anymore. It’s us falling into the same victimhood trap.
“You don’t want to solve your problems,” he told host Peter Robinson, “because you say, they’re not my problems, they’re society’s problems and I can’t solve those problems unless society is exploded. It’s almost a Marxist vision of history.”
This turns the Right away from traditional American ideals of individual agency and toward emotional, anti-institutional rage. I see this with my friends: it’s hurting relationships, crushing success, and handicapping personal ambition.
Young men specifically are suffering, and the Left bears real blame. Male <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/facts/data.html#:~:text=6.5-,Download%20Data%20(CSV),data%20for%20the%20chart%20figure.">suicide</a> rates remain four times higher than women’s. For men ages 15-24, rates jumped 26% between 2010 and 2023. Millions of young men are falling behind in education, struggling to launch careers, and checking out of relationships. The Left’s oppressor-oppressed matrix, its war on masculinity, its celebration of broken families, and its assault on merit have left a generation of boys, and more and more females, feeling like the villain in their own country. That pain is legitimate.
But wallowing in it, embracing black-and-white “they all lie” thinking, and letting resentment replace agency, is surrender. 
Shapiro calls this “depixelation” — the collapse of nuance after three trust-shattering blows happened near-simultaneously: the media’s Russiagate lies, COVID’s contradictory mandates, and the Black Lives Matter double standard that let cities burn while the rest of us were locked down. Suddenly, everything became binary. No evidence needed; just rage. That’s dangerous.
Shapiro illustrates this perfectly using an episode of  Joe Rogan’s podcast. In it, Michael Shellenberger debunked Jeffrey Epstein blackmail claims against Trump. Rogan’s response? “Just because there’s no evidence doesn’t mean they won’t find it later.”
Ben Shapiro’s apt reply: “The moon is made of cheese? Well, have you been to the moon? Do you trust the people who went?”
Herein lies the danger. Once you are in that logical framework, accepting unfalsifiable logic — the same kind <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability">Karl Popper</a> warned destroys real inquiry — you can be sold anything. Conspiracy theorizing without evidence isn’t just wrong; it’s a grift that turns people into marks for clicks, bile, and personalities over principles.
Ask yourself if these voices have strengthened the conservative movement or improved society. The answer is no. Instead, they’ve left a trail of anger, resentment, bitterness, and hopelessness. They raise questions but never offer answers. They push dark narratives instead of teaching what actually works. The end result is paralysis — a generation left stagnant and vulnerable.  
This is the horseshoe theory in action: The far Left and the grievance Right meet in the same dead end of inertia and despair. It’s why so many young men I know are single and sluggish. Ambition is crushed. Relationships die. Society gets weaker. The evidence is all around us; dating apps are flooded with it.
The problem with today’s populace is that too many of us no longer know how to defend an idea. We follow personalities — blindly, willingly — because we like the way they speak and the anger they validate. But when asked why we believe what we believe, or the logic behind it, we fall silent. This is the trap of following people instead of ideas.
Shapiro’s solution — and what I’ve been echoing — is a return to true conservatism: personal responsibility, evidence-based thinking, and relentless problem-solving. We must return to our foundational principles and place reason over raw emotion. We need to read, learn, and embrace a coherent set of values rather than a rotating cast of influencers.
But none of that yearning for knowledge and truth can happen until we first reclaim autonomy over our own lives. As Shapiro puts it, “Individual responsibility is the lodestar of a successful society.”
He’s right. Yes, institutions have failed many people — especially young men. But the answer is not to burn everything down or retreat into conspiracy. The answer is to rebuild on principle, agency, and honest analysis. Pure anti-Left reactionism or personality cults will never save conservatism.
We won’t save conservatism by worshiping personalities or “owning the libs.” We can defend it by knowing why it’s right — by reading the Founders, studying evidence, and choosing reason over emotion.
Institutions failed us, yes. But the solution isn’t burning them down. It’s rebuilding.

Man reading fake news on cell phone

The Grievance Party is Killing Conservatism — And We Need Our Men Back

Masculinity

Victimhood

In politics, it&#8217;s never too early to start looking ahead. For Republicans today, that means thinking about who will lead their party after Trump leaves the scene.
Legal and political analyst Frank DeVito believes Vice President JD Vance is the man for the job, a case he lays out in the new book, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GHF4L24Y?ref=cm_sw_r_ffobk_cso_cp_apin_dp_JPP9MYR69NK8ZJSEVTPT&amp;ref_=cm_sw_r_ffobk_cso_cp_apin_dp_JPP9MYR69NK8ZJSEVTPT&amp;social_share=cm_sw_r_ffobk_cso_cp_apin_dp_JPP9MYR69NK8ZJSEVTPT&amp;bestFormat=true">JD Vance and the Future of the Republican Party</a>.” 
“I think there&#8217;s a pretty good argument that [Trump] chose somebody who has the potential to be a post-Trump leader of the Republican Party and the MAGA movement,” DeVito told The Daily Wire. 
To say not every Republican agrees with that assessment is an understatement. While Vance has become a central figure in the Trump coalition, critics on both the populist right and the GOP&#8217;s more traditional conservative wing question whether his relatively short tenure in national office and shifting political positions make him the natural heir to the movement.
DeVito makes the case that Vance isn’t simply riding the Trump wave, but represents a deeper shift inside the GOP. He says Vance’s focus on family, faith, practicality, and a willingness to confront institutions that have clearly stopped working for normal people are a huge part of the appeal. 
“One of the priorities that he is clearly focused on,&#8221; DeVito says, &#8220;is how do we provide a world where as many people as possible can get married, have stable marriages, and raise children.&#8221;
That emphasis has landed Vance in hot water before, especially when he criticized the Left’s open hostility toward the family. But DeVito said he agrees with Vance’s stance.
“How does any civilization function?” he asked. “You have parents who have children, they raise those children as best they can … You can’t really have civilization without that.”
He points out how normalized it’s become to dismiss those foundations entirely, which leads to civilizational collapse. “If kids are being raised by institutions instead of stable parents … who exactly do we think is going to be running the country in 30 years?” he asked. 
That’s also the context behind one of Vance’s most controversial remarks about how world leaders without children may lack the long-term perspective required to govern well. The backlash was extreme, but DeVito claims the point Vance was making is just obvious. “I would hope leaders are thinking not just about the next election or their stock portfolio, but about what kind of country their grandchildren are going to inherit,” he said.
The comments were criticized not only by Democrats but by some Republicans, who warned that this kind of rhetoric could be politically damaging in a general election.
But it does help to explain Vance’s political evolution, especially his highly scrutinized shift from Trump skeptic to Trump’s running mate. While some conservatives rightly question this about face, DeVito argues it wasn’t opportunism, but a reflection of Vance reassessing Trump’s role in confronting institutional power. 
“If you think American institutions are basically healthy and just need minor corrections, then of course Trump looks insane,” he said. “But what Vance came to believe is that he was wrong about how broken those institutions really are.”
Once Vance figured out the depth of the rot, he pivoted. “They’re actually so co-opted that it might take dropping some dynamite into the system to recover a sane America,” DeVito explained. In that light, Trump isn’t wrecking things for fun, he’s doing what needs to be done to reshape the culture.
What gives Vance credibility here, DeVito insists, is his unique experience going from a broken home to running in elite circles. “How do we create an America where normal people can get married, raise kids, and have meaningful work?” DeVito said. “That question animates everything Vance does.”
Vance grew up amid addiction and instability, then passed through Yale Law and into the upper echelons of society. What he found, DeVito said, was a stunning disconnect. “The elites think things are great and getting better,” he said. “Meanwhile, in the communities Vance came from, it’s addiction, joblessness, broken families, and despair.” 
Faith, again, plays a role here. DeVito argues that Vance’s Catholicism isn’t political branding, but is just more proof that the politician is willing to embrace a truth even when it could hurt his popularity. “There&#8217;s really nothing advantageous to your political career about becoming a Catholic in 2026 or when he converted … So I don&#8217;t think he would do it unless it was genuine,” the author said.
DeVito said in the book that Vance is uniquely positioned to unify the Republican Party.
“The Republican Party in 2015 when Trump went down the escalator was something very different than it is now,” he said, noting how that change hinged on the charisma and force of one person over the last decade. 
Whether that unity is achievable remains an open question, particularly as factions within the party continue to debate the future of MAGA itself.
DeVito also mentioned that the person on deck doesn’t have an easy job. “It&#8217;s a hard dance,&#8221; he observed. &#8220;Nobody&#8217;s going to be Donald Trump.&#8221;

JD Vance

Is JD Vance The GOP’s Post-Trump Future? One Author Makes The Case.

Is JD Vance the GOP’s Post-Trump Future? One Author Makes The Case

Politics

Republican Party

Charlie Kirk was an alt-right extremist.
Certainly, that’s what many in the so-called mainstream conclude from the collection of carefully culled remarks we are being fed by algorithms designed to maximally outrage us. These preternaturally powerful algos are fueled by bot armies, bad faith domestic players, sociopathic social media business practices, and hostile foreign regimes that seek to divide America.
How many hours of original Charlie Kirk footage do the algos have from which to select? An AI breakdown of Mr. Kirk’s content between podcasts, radio shows, YouTube videos, speeches, debates, and interviews estimates the total time somewhere between 5,000 and 8,000 hours.
If we put this in the context of a job, assuming an eight-hour workday with no breaks, that translates to 625 to 1,000 consecutive work days.
At the upper end, that is two years and nine months of talking.
How many moments of this man’s life have people watched before making up their minds that his assassination must be qualified or even celebrated?
Suppose deep machine learning cast its all-powerful eye on the last 8,000 hours that any of us spoke to find out-of-context moments to maximally denigrate, vilify, and dehumanize us. Do we really believe our character couldn’t be assassinated just as readily?
Do we really believe anyone’s reputation could survive that level of scrutiny and cherry picking?
Yours? Mine? Our family members? Classmates and colleagues? The leaders we support? The athletes and musicians we admire?
Of course not.
But this is the world that we’ve built and allowed. And now it is clearer than ever: Ours is a radicalized culture.
A culture that reduces people to their mistakes, jokes, stupid remarks, contradictions, hypocrisies, blind spots, and contentious assertions is a culture that allows zero tolerance for being human.
A culture that views legitimate political disagreement as an us-versus-them battle with existential stakes, that demonizes the opposition and views them not as factions and individuals but as a monolith.
Why is it radical? Because it remains ossified and immovable, allowing neither nuance nor learning.
A quick online spin shows us the ways that Charlie Kirk, a complex and good man, imperfect like every last one of us, has been hammered flat and dehumanized.
He’s racist… despite running a Young Black Leadership Summit for years, despite his avowed and articulate admiration of black luminaries like Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and Thomas Sowell, despite his mentoring of many young black activists and leaders, and despite his voter mobilization efforts for the black community.
He’s anti-gay… despite welcoming gays into the conservative movement with love and grace, despite his taking fire from actual homophobes and arguing to persuade them, despite his deep friendships with many gay people.
He’s transphobic… despite his multiple kind and respectful discussions with trans students in which he welcomed them and encouraged them toward health and meaning.
He’s a misogynist… despite the fact that he ran a Young Women’s Leadership Summit, elevated women on his podcasts and events, encouraged women to engage politically, uplifted female chapter leaders and ambassadors, and spoke to podcast audiences, which at times skewed 60-65% female.
He’s a violent extremist… despite his countless denunciations of violence and coercion, despite his refusal to fight when challenged, despite his exemplification of debate and discourse.
He’s alt-right… despite the fact that his opinions are not far from average Catholic and Christian views from a single generation ago, despite the fact that he was a bulwark against extremism on his own side, despite the reality that he was hated by Groypers, Nazis, terrorists, and white supremacists.
There seems to be a genuine belief among many that everything Charlie Kirk did was for power, manipulation, and control. A belief that his movement is all grift and corruption. A belief that for him and everyone in his orbit — and what an orbit it was — there was no wisdom, no grace, no care for people or the nation. Nothing genuine, only Machiavellian plans for an evil takeover.
How does this happen?
Our radicalizing media, social and otherwise, has strangled our curiosity, forbidding exploration of opposing notions, ideas, and thinkers. It tells us that we cannot risk contamination with information that might provide nuance and context. It tells us that anyone seeking to offer a different perspective is captured, brainwashed, not to be trusted. It tells us that if we modify our position, we will be outcast as a traitor, despised, one of “them.”
We all know the feeling. A stubborn ping in the chest, a compulsion at the back of our lizard brain that whispers: I’m on the right side of this issue, I just know it. I’m on the right side of history, I just know it. He’s a bad guy, I just know it. I don’t need to see or hear anything else that might disprove or alter my opinion, I just know it.
I just know it. And won’t be told otherwise.
That is what radicalization sounds like.
Terrifying to see in the mirror. Terrifying and shameful.
And it prevents many from gazing with open eyes and an open heart on a tableau that can only be described as biblical. A husband and father shot before his wife and young children at a free speech event on a college campus beneath a sign that says, Prove Me Wrong, in front of 3,000 kids, live-streamed to tens of thousands more. Terrified by the gunshot, his three-year-old daughter ran to him, crying, “Daddy.”
What would have been our overwhelming national reaction to this moment in a time before social media and cable news?
Not moral confusion, equivocation, political expediency — certainly not gleeful malice.
The difference between then and now is our widespread radicalization from being fed selective information 24-7.
This is what it looks like.
It looks like us.
And it will destroy America if we don’t stop it.
Because when we are blinded by radicalization, we are also blind to who our real enemies are.
Our foreign adversaries are feeding this division. Profiteering social media companies with teams of addiction specialists are laser-focused on exploiting our kids. Nihilists who wish only chaos, pain, and destruction.
There are alt-right extremists. Charlie Kirk was not one of them. 

He was the embodiment of how you teach conservative young men and women not to become alt-right extremists.
When challenged to fight by a grown man in front of 2,000 kids, Mr. Kirk said, “The only thing that is preventing us in this country from going to civil war is debate and dialogue… In fact, a mark of civilization is that we don’t have to go to blows and bullets, that we can have discourse and debate… We are going to remain peaceful.”
Again and again this week, I have been told:
Charlie was part of the problem. 
He was a peddler of hate.
He said some horrendous things.
Do you really want to defend him?
That is not a good hill for you to die on.
Is it?
For a man I never met?
For a thinker I considered to be, on many topics, a beneficial adversary?
For the principles he evinced — debate not fists, discussion not bullets, gratitude not grievance, love not hate?
Yes.
It is.
This is a hill for us to die on.
Just like he did.
* * *
Gregg Hurwitz is the New York Times #1 internationally bestselling author of 26 thrillers including the Orphan X series. His novels have won numerous literary awards and have been published in 33 languages. Gregg currently serves as the Co-President of International Thriller Writers (ITW). Additionally, he’s written screenplays and television scripts for many of the major studios and networks, and is an award-winning documentary producer. Gregg also wrote comics for AWA (including the critically acclaimed anthology NewThink), DC, and Marvel, and poetry. Currently, Gregg is working against polarization in politics and culture. To that end, he&#8217;s penned dozens of Op/Eds and pieces for The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Bulwark, Salon, and others, and pieces of creative content which have won numerous industry awards and achieved several hundred million views on digital TV platforms. He also helped write the opening ceremony of the 2022 World Cup.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Digital silhouette iot technology pixel glitch man

‘Do You Really Want To Defend Him?’ Algorithms, Outrage, And The Death Of Charlie Kirk

algorithm

assassination

Big Tech

Charlie Kirk

Democrats

Leftists

Racism

Silicon Valley

Dr. James Dobson, the influential Christian psychologist and Focus on the Family founder, died Thursday at age 89. The Dr. James Dobson Family Institute announced that Dobson had passed away in Colorado Springs following a brief illness.
A seminal proponent of family values in the 1980s and 90s who served as advisor to five Presidents, Dobson helped mobilize a conservative movement on issues like abortion, pornography, and gay marriage.
Born on April 21, 1936, in Shreveport, Louisiana, Dobson was the son of Myrtle Georgia and James Clayton Dobson Sr., both of whom were prominent figures in the Nazarene Church. Raised in a devout Christian household, he developed an early passion for understanding human behavior and faith. Dobson earned a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology from Pasadena College (now Point Loma Nazarene University) in 1958 and later a PhD in Child Development from the University of Southern California in 1967, laying the foundation for his influential career.
Dobson’s national breakthrough came in 1970 with his best-selling book, Dare to Discipline, which offered biblical parenting advice in an era when many secular psychologists were championing a more permissive approach. The more than 70 books he would go on to author and co-author, including The Strong-Willed Child (1978), Love for a Lifetime (1987), and Bringing Up Boys (2001), cemented his reputation as America’s premier Christian family expert, selling millions of copies worldwide.
But Dobson’s influence mainly emerged with the founding of Focus on the Family in 1977. What started as a small radio ministry featuring biblical advice on parenting and marriage grew into a global organization, airing on more than 4,000 stations in North America alone. The ministry would later expand to include film series and a popular children’s radio theater program, Adventures in Odyssey.
In the 1980s, Dobson’s advocacy for traditional family values also led him to become a leader in the conservative movement alongside Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority and Pat Robertson of the Christian Coalition. In 1981, he founded the Family Research Council to promote public policies aligned with Christian morality. His firm stance on issues like parental discipline and opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage sparked debates. Yet, despite fierce criticism in the secular media, his commitment to his convictions remained unwavering. He would eventually go on to serve on President Donald Trump’s advisory board for evangelical affairs.
Tributes poured in for Dobson on the announcement of his death, with Samaritan’s Purse President, Franklin Graham, calling him a “staunch defender of the family” who stood for “morality and Biblical values as much as any person in our country’s history.” Bestselling Christian author and radio personality Eric Metaxas called him “a hero” and said Dobson was not afraid to bring his faith into the public sphere for God’s purposes.”
Dobson is survived by his wife of 65 years, Shirley Deere Dobson, and their two children, Danae and Ryan.

James Dobson Portrait Session

Focus On The Family Founder James Dobson Is Dead At 89

Family Values

Focus on the Family

Obituaries

The following excerpt is taken from “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Persistence-Ideological-Lie-Daniel-Mahoney/dp/1641773731">The Persistence of the Ideological Lie: The Totalitarian Impulse Then and Now</a>,” by Daniel J. Mahoney (Encounter Books).
* * *
<h3>The Crisis Of The West Reconsidered</h3>
From Sydney to London to untold numbers of American college campuses, we hear incendiary cries for destroying the Jewish state, for a new Jihad or global intifada, all in the name of a purportedly noble and just “anticolonialist” struggle. Tens of thousands march in major European cities and with frenzied glee defend the indefensible. “From the river to the sea,” cry the mobs of Islamists, Palestinians, activists, and radicals, shamelessly announcing their own genocidal sympathies and intent.
The so-called crisis of the West is nothing new. In 1949, the political philosopher Leo Strauss lamented that the main currents of social science in the United States, and in the Western world more broadly, could not understand tyranny for what it was since they were blindly committed to the absurd position that “facts” had nothing to do with “values.” He added that a social science that could not speak reasonably — and forcefully — about the evil that is tyranny (especially in its modern ideological forms) was no better than a medical science that could not name and describe cancer. In the following decade, Raymond Aron and Hannah Arendt brought the full arsenal of political philosophy to bear on the “novel” form of tyranny that was totalitarianism and, in the process, mourned the indulgence of so many intellectuals toward it.
In 1964, James Burnham published a still-potent and relevant book called “The Suicide of the West,” where he took aim at Western self-hatred, romanticism about what would soon be called the Third World (some of which came to resemble “Caliban’s kingdoms,” in the striking and provocative words of Paul Johnson), and the degeneration of a once-noble and hardy liberalism into rank sentimentality, free-floating compassion, and a suicidal preference for our murderous and tyrannical enemies over our sometimes-imperfect friends and even our own country and civilization.
<div id="attachment_953015" style="width: 394px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Persistence-Ideological-Lie-Daniel-Mahoney/dp/1641773731"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-953015" class="wp-image-953015 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-28-Jul-2025-10-13-AM-1245-384x576.jpg" alt="Credit: Encounter Books/Studio Dixon" width="384" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-28-Jul-2025-10-13-AM-1245-384x576.jpg 384w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-28-Jul-2025-10-13-AM-1245-200x300.jpg 200w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-28-Jul-2025-10-13-AM-1245-768x1152.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-28-Jul-2025-10-13-AM-1245-1024x1536.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-28-Jul-2025-10-13-AM-1245-1365x2048.jpg 1365w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-28-Jul-2025-10-13-AM-1245-1360x2040.jpg 1360w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-28-Jul-2025-10-13-AM-1245-scaled.jpg 1707w" sizes=" (max-width: 384px) 100vw, 384px" /></a>Credit: Encounter Books/Studio Dixon</div>
By 1970, the great English writer and journalist Malcolm Muggeridge wrote with eloquence and biting wit about “The Great Liberal Death Wish” in a seminal 1970 essay by that same name in Esquire. Muggeridge saw in the decayed liberal mind a perverse preference for nihilistic self-flagellation that led to the systematic “depreciating and deprecating” of “every aspect of our Western way of life.” God and all moral certitudes were dethroned even as a “Praetorian Guard of ribald students, maintained at the public expense,” were “ready at the drop of a hat to go into action, not only against their own weak-kneed bemused academic authorities, but also against any institution or organ for the maintenance of law and order still capable of functioning, especially the police.” These words could have been written in the summer of 2020 amidst the violence, mayhem, and ritualistic self-flagellation that followed the death of George Floyd, or in the hours and days after the savage Hamas assault on Israeli innocents on October 7, 2023. Muggeridge went on to opine that if and when the West falls, it will not be the result of a barbarian invasion nor the murderous enmity of Communists, fascists, and Nazis, but because of the suicidal death wish of a liberalism gone badly awry. It is hard to say that Muggeridge was wrong.
The better liberals, humane and decent people, are rightly shocked by professors, students, and activists who celebrate or apologize for the savage nihilism of Hamas or who think that these cruel ideologues and terrorists, heedless to the lives of their own people, whose deaths they relish for the propaganda value, somehow represent the legitimate interests of the Palestinian people. But what reason do we have for being surprised? English departments everywhere have given up teaching literature and humane letters and now specialize in the hate-filled jargon that defines “postcolonial” studies and discourse (more on this to come). “Intersectionality” is the order of the day — everyone who desires to be ideologically correct must unthinkingly parrot demands for CRT, gender ideology, abortion on demand, environmental extremism, sympathy and support for radical regimes and ideologies, contempt for religion and traditional morality, and a hatred of the West — above all for Israel, which is freely and ludicrously compared to apartheid South Africa and, most obscenely of all, Nazi Germany. DEI departments on most campuses enforce this new regime in a totalitarian spirit that is hardly “soft” or benign. For too long, economistic and anti-intellectual conservatives thought this had little to do with the “real world” and still proudly sent their children to utterly corrupt but still-prestigious universities and liberal-arts colleges. But as the journalist Andrew Sullivan likes to say, “We are all living on campus now.”
Political correctness has been omnipresent for many years now, but somehow former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, the quintessentially “moderate” politician, just noticed: after witnessing the temerity of the University of Pennsylvania’s response to its mob of anti-Semitic agitators, he decided he could no longer be a benefactor of the corrupt institution. He is a decent human being, and I am glad he is appalled by the fact that UPenn was incapable of truly, unequivocally condemning what Hamas so brutally did to innocents on October 7, 2023. But why precisely was he surprised? UPenn was only being itself when it shamelessly indulged the enemies of Israel — and Western civilization. This is a university that took down, as if in a parody of political correctness, a picture of William Shakespeare in its English department. It regularly encourages every manifestation of crude, ritualistic anti-Western and “anticolonial” ideology.
The institution has long hounded conservative and other independent-minded faculty (and students) for not toeing the party line. Progressive ideology requires absolute fealty to the cause. To be sure, many Arabs and Palestinians (and their Western sympathizers) casually give way to Jew-hatred. But progressives hate Israel mainly because they hate themselves and the Western world of which they are a part, though that self-loathing has quickly given way to fierce and crude anti-Jewish rhetoric and behavior. A figure long at the head of this charge, the radical intellectual and celebrated linguist Noam Chomsky, once accused Cambodian refugees of exaggerating the “excesses” of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge and wrote a foreword to a book by the French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. Chomsky had no real deep affinity for monstrous regimes, but he was adamantly committed, and remains committed, to the view that the United States, and the Western world more broadly, is the primary author of evil in the world. Chomsky embodies the reductio ad absurdum of self-flagellating radicalism. On the left, he is still perversely celebrated as a courageous truth teller.
Writing in “The Abolition of Man” in 1943, the Christian apologist and man of letters C. S. Lewis wondered why our contemporary “men without chests,” who had abandoned both reason and faith, who confused moral judgment with mere emotivism, and who belittled the virile virtues and the essential connections between reason and a spirited regard for liberty and civilization, were surprised by the inevitably destructive consequences of their doctrines. In words that stick to memory and that are as relevant as ever, Lewis writes:
<blockquote>In a sort of ghastly simplicity, we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.</blockquote>
Those false liberals who actively supported the progressivist degradation of our colleges and universities ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Those who marched with the totalitarian Marxists and Maoists of BLM (and who now predictably cheer Hamas on) in the summer of 2020 — including foolish white progressives such as Senator Mitt Romney — are complicit in the madness that has taken hold of our political culture. They are also fools, naïfs.
As the Russianist Gary Saul Morson argued in a powerful piece that appeared in The Wall Street Journal (“Dostoevsky Knew: It Can Happen Here,” October 18, 2023), those ideologues and intellectuals who justify the unjustifiable would do it to us if they had the chance. As Morson argues, the militant “anticolonialism” that is regnant today on our campuses and in bien-pensant intellectual circles is only the latest totalitarian ideology to justify the destruction of their “designated enemies.” And the soft leftists — the naïve fellow travelers — always go first. One thinks of the politically correct bourgeoisie in Saint Petersburg, as described so vividly in Solzhenitsyn’s “The Red Wheel” (March 1917), who proudly wore red and waved red flags (for two hundred years the color of the radical Left) to display their fine feelings and progressive leanings. They were the first to be condemned as class enemies and marched off to the camps in Lenin’s new totalitarian dispensation. It is high time for their American counterparts to be mugged by reality before it is too late for them — and for the rest of us.
* * *
This excerpt from “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Persistence-Ideological-Lie-Daniel-Mahoney/dp/1641773731">The Persistence of the Ideological Lie</a>” is published by permission from Encounter Books.
Daniel J. Mahoney is professor emeritus at Assumption University (where he taught from 1986 until 2021), senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, and senior writer at Law and Liberty. He has written extensively on statesmanship, French political thought, the art and political thought of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, conservatism, religion and politics, and various themes in political philosophy. His 2022 book, “The Statesman as Thinker: Portraits of Greatness, Courage, And Moderation” (Encounter Book was awarded the Paolucci Prize for Conservative Book of the Year by ISI in 2023.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

TOPSHOT-US-PALESTINIAN-ISRAEL-CONFLICT-EDUCATION-DEMONSTRATION

How The Liberal Death Wish Birthed A New Totalitarianism

Liberalism

Universities

Western Civilization

Here’s something you won’t hear often in mainstream media — but the data keeps backing it up:
Conservative men are, on average, healthier, happier, and more optimistic about the future than their progressive counterparts.
In 2023, The Wall Street Journal and NORC at the University of Chicago <a href="https://www.norc.org/content/dam/norc-org/pdf2024/wsj-norc-topline-march2023.pdf">reported</a> a striking divide: self-identified conservatives were significantly more likely to report high levels of happiness, purpose, and personal satisfaction. Meanwhile, progressive men under 40 showed the lowest mental health scores of any demographic group.
And it&#8217;s not just psychological.
<a href="https://equityresearch.tufts.edu/why-being-conservative-is-correlated-with-higher-happiness/">Multiple studies</a> show conservative men are more likely to exercise, less likely to abuse substances, and more likely to have strong support systems through marriage, faith, and community. That trifecta — physical discipline, mental resilience, and social grounding — turns out to be a major health advantage.
So what does that tell us?
At a cultural level, mindset matters.
It turns out that believing in personal responsibility, discipline, and building something greater than yourself doesn’t just make you feel good — it’s tied to how you actually live. And in a world constantly pulling men toward comfort, numbing, and passivity, those who resist are standing taller, living longer, and staying stronger.
That strength doesn’t happen by accident. It’s built one decision at a time. From hitting the gym to staying grounded in your values, daily disciplines are the edge. And one of the most overlooked? Getting your body the nutrients it actually needs.
Even men who eat fairly well <a href="https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/micronutrient-inadequacies/overview">often fall short on key vitamins and minerals</a> that support energy, focus, and long-term health. And with most modern diets leaning heavy on convenience and low on substance, it&#8217;s no wonder many guys feel tired, foggy, or off their game.
That’s why <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK597352/">simple, consistent supplementation matters</a> — not as a silver bullet, but as a reliable baseline. A smart foundation. A way to keep things simple and start taking your health seriously without overcomplicating it. That’s exactly why a growing number of men are turning to Emerson — a premium daily multivitamin built specifically for men.
Just two capsules a day deliver:
<ul>
<li>Vitamin D3 (50 mcg) &amp; Zinc (15 mg) to support immune strength and hormone balance</li>
<li> Full-spectrum B-complex (B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B12, Folate) for clean energy, 
cardiovascular health, and focus</li>
<li>CoQ10, Curcumin, and Alpha Lipoic Acid to support recovery and reduce 
inflammation</li>
<li>Resveratrol, Quercetin, Green Tea Extract, and Myricetin for cognitive protection and 
clarity</li>
</ul>
Premium quality. Ships today.
Use code DAILYWIRE for $10.23 off your first month’s shipment [<a href="https://responsibleman.com/products/resilience-premium-mens-multivitamin?selling_plan=1143570497">Start Now</a>].
Because becoming the man you’re meant to be starts with taking care of yourself.
Responsible Man shares common ownership with The Daily Wire.

American flag at the Grand Canyon

Why Conservative Men Are Healthier And Happier — And What That Reveals About The Culture

Health

The conservative movement lost one of its founding fathers this week.
Dr. Edwin J. Feulner built the intellectual foundation upon which modern conservatism stands, and gave us the institutions — like the Heritage Foundation and the Republican Study Committee — that work tirelessly to defend it.
As the Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, I stand on the shoulders of this giant. Ed Feulner didn&#8217;t just participate in the conservative revolution — he engineered it, fundamentally transforming how conservative ideas reach the halls of power and become the policies that strengthen families and communities across America.
Ed understood something that too many in Washington forget: people are policy. This was more than just a phrase to him, it was at the center of everything he built. He knew that lasting change doesn&#8217;t come from eloquent speeches but from developing principled leaders who will fight for American values year after year.
The Republican Study Committee exists today because Ed saw what was needed before anyone else did. Working as a congressional aide in the early 1970s, he recognized that conservative members of Congress needed an organizational home. A place to develop policy, coordinate strategy, and advance the principles that make America exceptional. As the Republican Study Committee’s founder, Ed created what became the largest caucus in Congress and the intellectual engine of the House conservative movement.
His influence on the Republican Study Committee and Capitol Hill at large cannot be overstated. Every bill we produce, every strategy session we hold, and every fight we wage bears his fingerprints. The Study Committee’s current membership of 189 House Republicans stands as a testament to his vision.
But Ed&#8217;s vision reached far beyond Congress. When he founded the Heritage Foundation in 1973, he built a beacon for truth in a city too often corrupted by power. Under his leadership, Heritage rapidly evolved into the strategic braintrust that would fuel Ronald Reagan&#8217;s conservative revolution. Ed transformed how conservative ideas move from theory to reality, creating an intellectual machine that could produce policy solutions at the speed of politics rather than the pace of academia.
What made Ed truly exceptional wasn&#8217;t just his strategic brilliance. It was his unwavering optimism and absolute refusal to be discouraged. He lived by another favorite saying: &#8220;In Washington, there are no permanent victories and no permanent defeats.&#8221; This recognition that the fight for freedom requires constant vigilance drove everything he did.
Ed embodied the best of American conservatism: principled without being rigid, strategic without being calculating, and always focused on mission over personal glory. He understood that our movement wins through multiplication and addition, not division and subtraction. He brought together diverse voices around shared principles, building lasting coalitions that could govern.
The bond between the Republican Study Committee and the Heritage Foundation remains strong today because of the foundations Ed laid. Both institutions continue advancing the conservative principles he championed, working hand-in-hand to develop policy solutions and train the next generation of leaders. The Republican Study Committee’s members regularly benefit from Heritage research, just as Heritage benefits from the committee’s legislative expertise. This is precisely the kind of mutually-beneficial relationship Ed envisioned.
Even in his later years, Ed remained actively engaged in the conservative cause. His continued involvement in preparing conservative policy blueprints demonstrated that his commitment never wavered. He understood that each generation must be equipped to carry the torch of freedom forward.
The institutions Ed built will endure, but more importantly, the leaders he mentored will continue his work. From the Republican Study Committee to the Heritage Foundation, from state capitals to corporate boardrooms, the men and women Ed influenced are advancing conservative principles with the same courage and determination he modeled.
As President Reagan once stated, Ed was &#8220;a combination of many things: intellectual, administrator, politician, diplomat, but most of all, dreamer and darer.&#8221; That combination of the ability to dream big and dare to make those dreams reality is what made Ed irreplaceable to our movement.
Ed&#8217;s legacy extends far beyond any accomplishment. He was a devoted husband to his wife, Linda, and a beloved father and grandfather. In his life and work, he showed us that devotion to limited government and freedom can build institutions that outlast any single generation.
The conservative movement will honor Ed&#8217;s memory by advancing his vision with unwavering commitment to the founding ideals that make America exceptional. The Republican Study Committee will continue the work he started, developing conservative policy and leaders for generations to come.
Feulner’s work lives on in all of us who believe America&#8217;s best days lie ahead. We will continue to fight for the values he espoused and the movement he built. As he was so fond of saying:
&#8220;Onward. Always.&#8221;
Congressman August Pfluger represents Texas&#8217;s 11th district in the House of Representatives, where he chairs the Republican Study Committee.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

AP-FEULNER

A Tribute To Ed Feulner, Founding Father Of American Conservatism

Congress

Heritage Foundation

House Republicans

NASHVILLE — Daily Wire host Matt Walsh said during a keynote address on Friday night that conservatives “are called to courage in these times” to stand up to the deadly progression of leftist ideology.
Walsh’s speech at the “Courage Under Fire” event in Nashville was preceded by an address from Chiefs star kicker <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-chiefs-kicker-harrison-butker-breaks-silence-says-he-will-continue-to-be-unapologetic-catholic?topStoryPosition=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Harrison Butker</a>, who made his first public remarks on Friday night following his viral commencement speech at a Catholic university that caused a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/leftists-melt-down-over-nfl-kickers-speech-slamming-biden-lgbtq-pride-petition-demands-team-dismiss-him" target="_blank" rel="noopener">leftist meltdown</a>. In his speech, Butker said that the “shocking level of hate” he has received will not deter him from being “unapologetic” about his faith.
During Walsh’s speech, the Daily Wire host addressed the dangerous ideology of progressivism, which he said “progresses in the way that cancer progresses,” and told those in the audience that leftism can be fought against with “just enough courage.”
“All that matters to the progressive woke person is the individual ego, the individual&#8217;s desire,” Walsh said. “Everything in the world exists to service that and whatever stands in the way of his immediate pleasure and satisfaction, or whatever he perceives to be standing in its way, must be annihilated. It must not exist. It has no right to exist.”
Walsh added that he is regularly asked by conservatives what the woke progressives&#8217; end goal is when they try to redefine words, history, and basic biological reality.
“Well, there is no plan,” he said. “You can tear down the statues. You redefine the words, you bring the institutions crumbling down, sever the bonds of the family. And when that&#8217;s done, keep doing it in an endless cycle of destruction. See, there is no step two to this plan.”
The Left’s hatred for conservative family values was made evident in the past week as highlighted by Walsh’s fellow speaker, Butker. The three-time Super Bowl champion said during his speech on Friday, “If it wasn’t clear that the timeless Catholic values are hated by many, it is now.”
“In my seven years in the NFL, I’ve become familiar with positive and negative comments. But the majority of them revolve around my performance on the field,” Butker added. “But, as to be expected, the more I’ve talked about what I value most, my Catholic faith, the more polarizing I’ve become. It’s a decision I’ve consciously made, and one I do not regret at all.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
BREAKING: In first public remarks since his commencement speech sparked a liberal meltdown, Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker makes very clear he’s not backing down from his faith. <a href="https://twitter.com/buttkicker7?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@buttkicker7</a> <a href="https://t.co/q3Vh0KpvTg">pic.twitter.com/q3Vh0KpvTg</a>
— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1794170364903444683?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 25, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> 
Butker’s unapologetic stand for his faith and traditional values was applauded by those in attendance at the gala, which was put on by Regina Caeli Academy, a classical homeschool hybrid academy for Catholic families. Butker serves on the board of directors for Regina Caeli Academy.
The room gave the Chiefs kicker a standing ovation when he walked on stage to make his first public remarks since his viral commencement speech. Butker has also been publicly supported by his head coach <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/chiefs-head-coach-andy-reid-and-qb-patrick-mahomes-defend-teammate-harrison-butker" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Andy Reid</a>, as well as star teammates Patrick Mahomes, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/a-great-person-travis-kelce-finally-breaks-silence-on-harrison-butker-amid-backlash" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Travis Kelce</a>, and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/chiefs-star-chris-jones-defends-harrison-butker-amid-backlash-and-hes-not-alone" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Chris Jones</a>.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1716730524635000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2rcSnHCHsVr0OjSFEWd-Kf">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Other speakers at the gala included pro-life advocate Abby Johnson, actor Nick Searcy, and Father Donald Calloway. The “Courage Under Fire” event, which was put on by Regina Caeli Academy and sponsored by The Daily Wire’s kids entertainment company Bentkey, was attended by numerous influential figures in politics and conservative media, including Tennessee Republican Governor Bill Lee, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Daily Wire co-founder Jeremy Boreing, and Daily Wire host Michael Knowles. Walsh and Knowles were also presented with “Courage Under Fire Honorees in the Culture” awards at the gala.
“Courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is being afraid and then acting in spite of it,” Walsh said in his speech. “And we are called to courage in these times — not very much courage, really not a lot actually. Nobody&#8217;s being asked to risk their lives at this point. I mean, we are all sitting here in this wonderful event and having a great time.”
“It&#8217;s actually not a lot of courage that we need. Shame on us all the more for failing to show it,” he added. “We just need enough courage. Just enough to speak the truth. And then just let the chips fall where they may. To stand up and say, ‘here&#8217;s what&#8217;s right.’ And then, let the consequences come — whatever they are.”

Matt Walsh/Harrison Butker

Matt Walsh Says Conservatives ‘Are Called To Courage In These Times’ In Keynote Address After Butker Stands Up To Left-Wing Mob

Catholic

Harrison Butker

Leftism

Matt Walsh

Menu