Are miracles real? And do they still happen today?

These questions have dominated my life over the past two years as I’ve traversed America exploring some of the most compelling claims of miraculous healing — stories that seem too bombastic to be believable.

The scenarios I was confronted with were mind-bending.

Yet the evidence in the cases I encountered while making my new documentary, “Investigating the Supernatural: Miracles,” was so compelling that it absolutely demanded a pertinent exploration as well as a verdict.

And if I’m honest, the determination I came to at the conclusion of filming will likely make the heads of some of the staunchest secularists implode.

It’s no secret that the vast majority of Americans believe miracles still happen today. In 2010, the Pew Forum on Religion found that 80% of Americans embraced miracles, and more recent data shows such beliefs continue to be prevalent among the general populace.

There’s a primary reason so many people persist in believing in the miraculous: their personal and lived experiences.

These individuals and their friends and loved ones have undoubtedly encountered inexplicable events and happenings throughout their lives — occurrences that have come to shape and enhance their openness to the supernatural.

Frankly, most people have seen happenings they simply cannot explain. Some have endured even more elevated experiences, including shocking medical healings and other incidents that have led them to definitively believe the divine is actively at work.

But my job in producing and hosting this film wasn’t to take these anecdotal examples of miracle claims at face value. Instead, it was to skeptically explore some of the supposedly ironclad miracle healing stories in a way that left absolutely no room for whims or personal opinion.

My primary task alongside Emmy-nominated director Jarrod Anderson was to examine the evidence and allow viewers to determine whether there truly are credible cases of medical healings that defy skeptics’ penchant for hole-poking.

Despite my staunchest efforts to approach the topic with skepticism and intense questioning, the scenarios I was confronted with were mind-bending, to say the least.

First, I met neuroscientist Dr. Joshua Brown, who was diagnosed with a terminal brain tumor, a condition for which there was no medical treatment. With no viable interventions, he and his wife turned to prayer — and his tumor vanished.

Again, it sounds unbelievable. But the medical documentation and experience speak for themselves, all details we unpack in “Investigating the Supernatural: Miracles,” allowing viewers to weigh all of the evidence at hand and decide for themselves what they believe led to Brown’s healing.

Some might seek to dismiss such an experience, but skeptics face an uphill battle, as the neuroscientist isn’t alone in his radical healing journey. In the film, you’ll also meet Bryan Lapooh, a former police officer in New Jersey who was paralyzed in a work accident and embarked on a horrific, 10-year period of paralysis that included excruciating pain and suffering.

During that time, Lapooh and his wife ventured on a monumental prayer and healing quest — but, at first, to no avail. After a decade of praying for healing, his wife, Meg, asked him to attend a Christian conference to try one final time.

At that event, Bryan made his way to the stage, where he was prayed for, received healing, and walked out of the building on his own — something that was deemed medically impossible. It’s a case that shocked his doctors as he, even today, remains out of his brace and fully functional.

The cases only intensify from there, with another man, Jeff Markin, suffering a massive heart attack. After being pronounced dead and remaining clinically deceased for 40 minutes, he came back to life with no brain damage.

Again, these cases seem otherworldly and almost incomprehensible, but our investigation led us to an ultimate realization: Something inexplicable was afoot.

Beyond this obvious conclusion, we were left with the most natural of questions: If tumors disappeared, paralysis was vanquished, and a man came back from the dead, what, exactly, sparked these incredible events?

And if miracles are real, what does that mean for our faith and how do we process the moments when healings don’t unfold, even despite our most fervent prayers?

Exploring these questions through the eyes of those who claim to have experienced miracles was eye-opening, convicting, and transformational, as it challenged everything I thought I knew about faith and miracles and left me with a renewed perspective.

“Investigating the Supernatural: Miracles” will do the same for those who watch. You can stream the film right now here.

The reign of Christ represents the ultimate standard of truth, justice, and righteousness.

However, throughout history, various ideologies, practices, and worldviews have emerged as counterfeits of His rule. These counterfeits often appear to address societal needs but ultimately deviate from biblical truth, undermining God’s design for humanity and creation.

Below are 10 prominent counterfeits of the reign of Christ, structured to highlight their biblical contradictions and societal implications.

1. Socialism as opposed to meritocracy based on sowing and reaping

The Bible affirms the principle of sowing and reaping, as outlined in Galatians 6:7: “A man reaps what he sows.”

This principle underpins a meritocratic system where individuals are rewarded for their labor, diligence, and stewardship. Socialism, by contrast, redistributes resources regardless of effort, undermining personal responsibility and the biblical work ethic. While Scripture calls for generosity and care for the poor, these are voluntary acts of worship, not enforced governmental mandates.

Socialism’s overreach becomes a counterfeit of Christ’s reign by placing the state, not God, as the provider and sustainer of life.

2. Binary image of God vs. gender fluidity

Genesis 1:27 states, “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

This binary distinction reflects God’s image and is integral to humanity’s ability to exercise dominion over creation. The rise of gender fluidity undermines this divine design, reducing the image of God to a subjective construct. Transgender ideologies fail to fully express the complementary nature of male and female in reflecting God’s glory.

This counterfeit challenges the lordship of Christ, as it distorts the foundational aspect of humanity’s role as God’s image-bearers.

3. Man-centered tyranny vs. Christo-centric justice

Human history is rife with examples of man-centered tyranny, from the Roman emperors to modern authoritarian regimes.

These governments often exalt human leaders as ultimate authorities, disregarding God’s justice and righteousness. Psalm 72 provides a stark contrast, portraying the reign of Christ as a rule of justice for the poor, deliverance for the oppressed, and flourishing for all people.

Tyranny is a counterfeit to Christ’s reign because it subjugates people for selfish gain rather than uplifting them under God’s righteous rule.

4. Civic sovereignty vs. Christ-centered republican democracy

Since the days of Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-12), humankind has sought to centralize power in defiance of God’s laws.

The Tower of Babel is a clear example of civic sovereignty gone wrong. Modern forms of centralized national or global governance that contradict biblical values are counterfeits to Christ’s reign. A Christ-centered republic acknowledges God’s sovereignty, upholds justice, and limits human power, ensuring that no government becomes an idol that replaces God’s rule.

5. Human autonomy vs. the law of the Lord

The rejection of divine law in favor of human autonomy has led to chaos and moral decay.

Ecclesiastes 8:11 warns, “When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, people’s hearts are filled with schemes to do wrong.” Modern movements to decriminalize theft, drug possession, and other crimes reflect a rejection of law and order. This lawlessness is a counterfeit to the reign of Christ, whose law brings peace and order.

Without submission to God’s law, societies cannot flourish under His justice and righteousness.

6. Same-sex marriage vs. biblical marriage

The apostle Paul described marriage as a profound mystery that reflects Christ’s love for the church (Ephesians 5:31-32). Biblical marriage between one man and one woman points to this eternal reality. Same-sex marriage, as a counterfeit, distorts this divine institution, replacing God’s design with human preferences.

By undermining the covenantal nature of marriage, this counterfeit challenges the reign of Christ, who established marriage as a picture of His sacrificial love for humanity.

7. One-generation narcissism vs. multi-generational blessing

Western culture often prioritizes individual pleasure and comfort over the biblical mandate to raise godly offspring. This one-generation mindset results in declining birth rates and a loss of vision for the future.

Psalm 78:4-7 calls for parents to teach God’s ways to their children, ensuring a multi-generational blessing. Narcissistic individualism is a counterfeit to the reign of Christ, as it neglects the importance of generational faithfulness and the perpetuation of God’s covenant through families.

8. Workaholism vs. Sabbath-keeping

The French Revolution’s attempt to abolish the seven-day week in favor of a ten-day calendar exemplified humanity’s rebellion against God’s design. Sabbath-keeping is a sign of God’s covenant with His people, reminding us that He is the ultimate sovereign (Exodus 31:13). Workaholism, by contrast, places trust in human effort rather than God’s provision.

This counterfeit denies the reign of Christ by rejecting the rest and worship that acknowledge His Lordship over time and resources.

9. ‘My body, my choice’ vs. the sanctity of life

The mantra “my body, my choice” epitomizes the rejection of God’s authority over life.

Psalm 139:13-16 declares that God forms each person in the womb, and Jeremiah 1:5 affirms that He knows individuals even before birth. Abortion, as a counterfeit, denies the sanctity of life and challenges the reign of Christ, who is the Creator and sustainer of all life. This ideology exalts human autonomy over God’s sovereignty, leading to the devaluation of human life.

10. State rights over children vs. parental stewardship

Psalm 127:3 states, “Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him.”

God entrusts parents with the responsibility of raising and discipling their children according to His ways (Deuteronomy 6:6-9). The growing trend of state intervention in parental rights, from education to health care, is a counterfeit to Christ’s reign. When the state assumes the role of primary caregiver, it usurps the God-ordained authority of parents and undermines the biblical model of family stewardship.

Each of these 10 counterfeits reflects humanity’s rebellion against Christ’s reign and the divine order established in Scripture. While they promise progress or freedom, they ultimately lead to chaos, oppression, and brokenness.

As followers of Christ, we are called to discern these counterfeits and uphold His reign in every area of life. By aligning our lives with biblical truth, we bear witness to His kingdom’s justice, mercy, and righteousness, both now and in the age to come.

This article was originally published on Joseph Mattera’s website.

What we call “science” in Western culture has been weaponized for many decades to legitimize whatever narrative the powerful want to push.

This should be self-evident after the COVID-19 debacle, where nearly everything that was labeled a “conspiracy theory” turned out to be true, and nearly everything the powerful told us turned out to be false. Remember President Biden threatening us with a “winter of death” or promising that the shot would prevent contracting COVID?

Christianity is a complete, evidence-based worldview that stands on its own

But it goes back much further than that, and it isn’t always about following the money, although that’s a pretty reliable measure of who’s benefitting from any particular research study.

Now, in the “I didn’t see that coming” department, there was a recently published peer-reviewed medical journal article that criticizes corrupt medical journals and their corrupt peer-reviewed studies. Um, what?

Since virtually all the “science” that gets reported in the media — the “science” on which public policy is made and the “science” that subsequently affects our everyday lives in countless ways — tends to stem from peer-reviewed research in medical journals, this is a significant admission.

Obviously, our mainstream media has not reported it, but we can come back to that another day. For now, I want to focus on the result of the faulty assumption that “science” provides unassailable answers to any questions — much less life’s biggest searches for truth. Because for many decades now, the most unquestionable, absolutely carved-in-solid-rock “truth” from “science” is this: Everything evolved from something else, and we are all a product of nothing but random chance.

But that is simply not true.

God’s word isn’t fooling around

When Moses, the author of Genesis, wrote the first five books of the Bible, he was not writing metaphorically.

Moses recorded history in great detail, beginning with the origin of time all the way through Israel’s exodus from Egypt to God’s faithfulness in the wilderness. But what I want you to see is how Moses records the first seven days of creation.

At the end of every divine act of creation, Moses records God uttering a holy declaration over His finished work: “And God saw that it was good,” and in the case of humans, “very good.” The reality is that until the Fall, described in Genesis 3, there was no death in the world God had created.

This is where the theory of evolution crumbles, according to scripture.

The theory of evolution requires death — and a lot of it — before humans even come on the scene. But if death had been part of God’s original creation, He would not have described it as “good.” The Bible, therefore, easily discredits the “science” of secularism’s evolutionary golden calf.

Our uniqueness in God’s creation

But Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 both teach that God made humans in His image. In fact, He made us with His own hands and breathed into us His spirit to bring us to life. In contrast, all of the other creatures and the rest of natural creation were simply spoken into existence.

It bears repeating: God made humans in His image. Animals are not equivalent to humans. Nature is not equivalent to humans. Each and every human being is a precious creature made in the image of God. This is why believers must be pro-life and opposed to any philosophy that places any other creature or creation above human life.

This, of course, has political ramifications.

We are not going to support, for example, protecting a tiny fish with a policy that puts human life at risk (looking at you, California). Of course, if you think you are just an advanced form of a monkey, you don’t really have any grounds on which to say you’re more important than the little fish. And many people in the world put themselves in that category according to their worldview.

But the scriptural worldview — that God created the world and He specially designed humans — is just one of the preliminary arguments that explain why believers must not try to fit the “evolution square peg” in the “creation round hole.”

Do people have to understand and believe in biblical creation to be saved? No, they do not. But once we place faith in Jesus, we want to learn as much as we can about Him, and that means understanding the beginning of creation.

We should not acquiesce to a theory that has never and can never be proven; a theory that tells us we are random cogs in a wheel with no greater meaning; a theory that is presented as “the science” without the evidence to back it up.

I’m confident stating this: Christianity is a complete, evidence-based worldview that stands on its own — and the whole Bible, including the opening chapters, supports that big picture.

This article was adapted from an essay originally published on Diane Schrader’s Substack, She Speaks Truth.

It should go without saying: Don’t tune into “The View” for lessons on God and theology.

But that didn’t stop the progressive talk show from recently veering into theology while interviewing transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, using the assertion that “God doesn’t make mistakes” to defend and promote transgender ideology.

First, Mulvaney claimed “God doesn’t make mistakes” while explaining that his “conservative Catholic” family has come to terms with his decision to be transgender after he allegedly discovered his transgender identity at age 4. Later, while discussing transgender athletes, Whoopi Goldberg doubled down on the astounding theological claim.

• Mulvaney: “I think my mom said something along the lines of, ‘God doesn’t make mistakes.’ … I don’t think God sees me as a mistake, and I actually am still really trying to keep a relationship with the higher power because I think that, you know, trans and queer people are entitled to that if that’s what they’re looking for.”
• Goldberg: “I’m not sure what’s going on or why this is an issue. The same for me as when people say, ‘Oh, you know, I don’t know how I feel about you.’ You do. God doesn’t make mistakes. And the challenge is not to the trans people. It’s to the people who are not trans. That’s what God is looking to see, how you treat people.”

Not so fast

On the surface, their claim about God is true.

Make no mistake about it: God doesn’t make “mistakes.” God creates every human being in His image with inherent worth, dignity, and purpose. This is an elementary understanding of Christian theology in general, and with regard to human bodies specifically, the basic claim of Christian anthropology.

Instead of defending trans ideology, they showed how God’s perfect design and the trans agenda cannot coexist.

But a closer examination of their assertion reveals a blinding contradiction: affirming trans ideology stipulates that God does make mistakes. That’s because the framework of trans ideology is built on the idea that a trans-identifying person is “born in the wrong body” and that their “true” self is distinct (and different) from the truth of their biological body.

Not only does trans ideology assume that God makes mistakes, but the ideology necessarily affirms the idea that human intervention is required to remedy God’s “mistakes.”

Trans ideology attempts to overturn divine sovereignty and replace it with the secular god of human self-perception, a principle of our post-truth age.

But here is the truth: Our biological sex is not an accident, and our bodies are not mistakes that require human intervention to “correct.” And because God is sovereign and because He doesn’t make mistakes, it is our responsibility and duty to trust Him — especially when we don’t understand or when our internal perception about our identity (and biological sex) is confused.

Every human is fearfully and wonderfully made, crafted by the hand of a loving God.

Commandment, broken

What Mulvaney and Goldberg claimed about God, when analyzed in its context, is a clear violation of the second law of the Ten Commandments.

“You shall not bear the name of the Lord your God in a vain and empty manner,” Exodus 20:7 declares.

The command is not limited to our speech acts about God but certainly includes them. To use God’s authority, as Mulvaney and Goldberg did, to defend an ideology contrary to God’s design is a clear violation of the commandment because they are promoting a lie about God Himself (i.e., that transgenderism is congruent with His will and His plan for humanity).

Saying that “God doesn’t make mistakes” in defense of trans ideology is a clear misrepresentation of God. They twisted a divine truth for their own means, ultimately using God as a rhetorical prop for the pro-trans agenda.

In other words, they bore the Lord’s name in a vain and empty manner.

Irony alert

Claiming that “God doesn’t make mistakes” to defend and promote trans ideology actually undermines the trans agenda.

If God’s creation is without mistake, then the core idea of trans ideology — that a trans-identifying person was “born in the wrong body” and requires human intervention to correct the “mistake” — is wrong. If God doesn’t make mistakes, then He did not mistakingly put anyone in the “wrong body.”

The irony is strong.

Mulvaney and Goldberg want to use God’s authority and His perfection to defend trans ideology, but they instead expose a flaw in their own worldview: If God’s design of each human is intentional and without mistake, then the idea that a trans-identifying person needs to “correct” their body is an admission that trans ideology is built on a false premise, a lie. If God doesn’t make mistakes, then there is no need for trans “corrective” measures.

The weight of the contradiction dismantles their argument.

In the end, their attempt at theology failed and backfired. Instead of defending trans ideology, they showed how God’s perfect design and the trans agenda cannot coexist.

The only mistake here is the ideology that demands humans “correct” God’s mistake-free design.

The coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef is as expansive now as it has ever been recorded, with coverage nearing 40%. In fact, the coral cover has nearly tripled in the past dozen years. Despite this record expanse of coral off the coast of Australia, the climate community and mainstream media outlets unrelentingly push the narrative that the Great Barrier Reef is dying.

For example, CBS News ran one of its periodic pieces on the reef a few months ago with this terrifying headline: “Parts of Great Barrier Reef dying at record rate, alarmed researchers say; ‘worst fears’ confirmed.”

Reports of the Great Barrier Reef dying or being in peril are false, dishonest, and deliberately misleading.

The Guardian has been relentless in its apocalyptic coverage of the reef’s supposed imminent demise. More than a decade ago, the outlet essentially delivered the reef’s last rites, insisting that only a drastic reduction in carbon emissions could save it. A 2014 article, headlined “Great Barrier Reef damage ‘irreversible’ unless radical action taken,” warned: “The Great Barrier Reef will suffer irreversible damage by 2030 unless radical action is taken to lower carbon emissions.” Since that article was published, global carbon dioxide emissions have risen roughly 30%.

A coral apocalypse?

Despite the Great Barrier Reef doubling in size since then, the Guardian has doubled down on its doomsday narrative. Since the coral has not died as predicted, “coral bleaching” has emerged as the new man-made catastrophe in its reporting. These stories get distributed throughout the climate community and widely disseminated throughout its advocacy networks.

In January, the Guardian published this headline: “Catastrophic: Great Barrier Reef hit by its most widespread coral bleaching, study finds.” Just a few days ago, it followed up with, “Ningaloo and Great Barrier Reef hit by ‘profoundly distressing’ simultaneous coral bleaching events.”

From these headlines, one might assume the reef is dying. However, bleaching does not equate to death. Coral bleaching does not create a chunk of white, dead coral sold at a beach town shell shop. Instead, it occurs when the coral has lost the algae living on it, often due to a variety of stressors, including fluctuations in light or changes in water temperature. This process causes the living coral to turn white but does not necessarily kill it.

Misleading statistics

With record-high coral cover, it is mathematically probable that there will be more instances of bleaching simply because there is more coral overall. If a farmer triples the size of his apple orchard from 100 to 300 trees, and the number of trees suffering from blight triples from five to 15, that does not indicate a catastrophic increase in blight. Blaming climate change for an expected proportional increase in blight would be misleading. Yet, when it comes to coral, the media and climate activists ignore this logical correlation.

It is worth noting that when “the imminent death of the Great Barrier Reef” became a major climate story a dozen years ago, the reef had indeed shrunk dramatically. Some areas saw up to 85% of the coral cover disappear — not due to overheated ocean waters or excessive CO2, but rather due to a natural occurrence: a tropical cyclone.

A Queensland, Australia, map shows that the Great Barrier Reef runs parallel to the northeast coast. In 2009, Tropical Cyclone Hamish took a path parallel to the coastline. Instead of crossing the reef perpendicularly, it churned directly over it, causing immense damage. A few months after Hamish, the Australian Institute of Marine Science published research on the extent of the damage:

Damage ranged from “exfoliation,” where the reef matrix was removed along with all that grew on it, leaving bare limestone, to “scouring” that essentially stripped all living tissue from living corals, to coral breakage in which massive coral heads as well as more delicate branching corals broke off.

Nature’s recovery

That 2009 analysis stated that it could take up to 15 years for the Great Barrier Reef to regrow to its pre-Hamish level of cover. The climate community dishonestly blamed the loss of coral cover following the cyclone on global warming, predicting a continued decline and an inevitable death. Fortunately, the reef has avoided any significant cyclone damage since 2009 and has not only returned to its prior coverage level but has continued to grow.

Reports of the Great Barrier Reef dying or being in peril are false, dishonest, and deliberately misleading.

As the people here grow colder
I turn to my computer
And spend my evenings with it
Like a friend
— Kate Bush, “Deeper Understanding”

The lyrics above are from a song that’s nearly 30 years old.

Just as relying on a calculator for 30 years will degrade our ability to do mental arithmetic, so will ‘connecting’ with an inert machine soften our emotional muscles.

Kate Bush sings of a character who’s retreated from the world in favor of a relationship with an online, and apparently sentient, computer program.

The implicit warning in her song was probably called “hysterical” and “exaggerated” when it first came out. The world, newly bedazzled by computers and the dawn of the internet, was not used to seeing sophisticated computing technology as anything but a blessing from heaven.

Childhood cartoons promised us a robotic future, one that everyone could get behind. The Jetsons’ Rosie the housekeeper wore a maid’s apron and beep-whirred around the house with a cheerful demeanor, fixing breakfast and cleaning up the dishes in about five seconds.

Sure, she had that tonally restricted “robot voice,” and that was a little creepy. But overall? Swell gal. Jane could trust her with Elroy and Judy. Rosie wasn’t going to go HAL-9000 and refuse to open the podbay doors.

The return of ‘Mr. Roboto’

The rock band Styx had a darker view of our robotic helpers. The concept album “Kilroy Was Here” rested on the hit single and groundbreaking lead video “Mr. Roboto.”

A rock opera compressed to the length of a long-playing album, the record’s lead song told of a political prisoner watched over by “Roboto” guards — Japanese-made humanoid robots. Creepy robots. Dark robots. Kilroy overpowered one and put its humanoid shell over his face to escape prison in disguise.

“Thank you very much, Mr. Roboto,” he sings with double meaning.

Mr. Roboto scared the living daylights out of me as a child; it was my first exposure to the “uncanny valley” phenomenon. But today, as artificial intelligence is forced on us anew, daily, with pop-ups offering to “polish” our email, to “summarize” our grocery list (really?), it’s not the AI robots I fear so much as the lonely and desperate humans who answer their siren call.

Connection failure

Westerners, especially the young, are more disconnected from actual reality than any other population in known history.

If you’re about 45 or older, you know what I mean. Late teenagers, young adults in their 20s, have almost no idea about anything that existed culturally before they were born. No, it’s not the usual and universal shifting of tastes that happens with every generational turnover.

Today’s young people recognize so little of the world that their own parents grew up in that you can be forgiven for suspecting they don’t actually believe it existed before their birth. What they think they know of it is a distorted pastiche of technologies, songs, and vocabulary stuck together randomly in their minds like a mismatched Lego project.

Stick shift — what’s that, and how could anyone, like, actually learn anything so hard? Who’s Madonna? Oh, the 1980s, that’s when everyone wore poodle skirts and went out for an egg cream after the sock hop, right?

Raised on screens

Authors Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff have been the loudest voices pointing out the dire handicaps that beset the youngest generations. Raised with smartphones and screen time from sunup to sundown, adults have shielded children from direct encounters with the real world.

In two generations, we’ve gone from seeing most kids walk to school or take the bus to near-universal parental chauffeuring. “It’s too dangerous!” parents say when queried about this strange behavior. It’s not. That’s just not objectively true, but they won’t hear it.

We have “raised” two generations of children who are so anxious, neurotic, and unskilled that they cannot read at grade level, they cannot do the simplest arithmetic (not mentally, not on paper either), and they experience phone calls and face-to-face conversations as “anxiety-producing.”

You think I’m exaggerating, but I’m not. There’s even a word for it. “Telephobia.”

‘Trauma’ junkies

Soft characters and soft minds are ripe for exploitation. I’ve shuddered at the ads I see for alleged psychotherapy from a company called “Better Help” that pop up frequently online. There is no way that a consultation with a random “professional,” picked for you by algorithm, a person you’ll never see in the same room, can constitute effective psychotherapy.

Worse, companies like this have a vested interest in convincing people that they need this service. American children are already over-therapized. They are already convinced that they’re incapable of facing the world without a mental health professional to help them through their “trauma.”

‘I bring you love’

AI is going to make it much worse. Every day, I see more articles, more posts, about AI “friends.” AI “lovers.” If we don’t have AI “therapists” yet, we absolutely will see these before year 2025 ends. I hear Kate Bush:

“Hello — I know that you’ve been feeling tired,” the robot character sings to the human. “I bring you love and deeper understanding.”

This morning I read a social media post about a young man who got an AI “girlfriend.” This man’s friend recounted the story of how this man’s life had been improved in every way. He regained motivation, he was calmer, he embarked on a new career, and now he’s making more money than he knows what to do with.

“The AI girlfriend made it all possible,” alleges the reporting friend.

Whether this particular story actually occurred is irrelevant. If it didn’t, there will be thousands of other stories reported just like this from people who are telling the truth and who really believe what they’re writing.

It’s possible, but highly unlikely, that talking to a nonconscious not-being could turn a failure to launch into a thriving success. What’s more likely is that more of us will turn away from life and real people to retreat into “conversation” with algorithms that reflect the world we wish were real. Just as relying on a calculator for 30 years will degrade our ability to do mental arithmetic, so will “connecting” with an inert machine soften our emotional muscles.

Our relationship to technology has weakened our physical and mental muscles, and the AI girlfriend/best friend/psychotherapist will do the same to our emotional character. Because psychological jargon — “trauma,” “attachment,” “adjustment disorder” — has infected every domain of conversation even when it’s out of place, it’s become harder to use psychological concepts when they’re actually relevant. This is one of those cases.

In a word, we are addicted. We are dependent. We are addicted to technology just as plainly and literally as heroin junkies are addicted to and dependent on their opiate.

Well, I’ve never felt such pleasure
Nothing else seemed to matter
I neglected my bodily needs
I did not eat, I did not sleep
The intensity increasing
Till my family found me and intervened

That’s Kate Bush again, calling to us from 1989 through an artistic pop song that has the rare quality of being aesthetically beautiful, disturbing, and truthful all at once.

But our families won’t intervene. We’re too far gone for that. Why would they intervene in something that’s just … normal?

Congress is actively debating defunding PBS and NPR — and thank goodness. The networks are leftist propaganda mills.

On Wednesday, the House Oversight Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, chaired by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), held a contentious hearing, during which the panel grilled NPR CEO Katherine Maher and PBS CEO Paula Kerger over bias and federal funding.

Maher’s hearing was particularly heated, as various committee members skewered her for the network’s failure to cover certain topics and Maher’s past tweets.

Glenn Beck and co-host of “The Glenn Beck Program” Stu Burguiere were glad to see Maher finally being forced to reckon with her troubling past.

To say Maher has an “interesting work history” is an understatement. Before she was the CEO of NPR, Maher worked for the U.S. State Department and the National Democratic Institute, “one of the main branches of the National Endowment for Democracy.”

Maher was specifically employed at the NDI “during the Arab Spring” when the agency was actively “promoting” the movement.

From 2014 to 2021, she served as the chief communications officer and then the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that runs Wikipedia. During her stint at the company, Wikipedia “changed” and “started controlling information.”

Journalist Christopher Rufo “all but called her a CIA agent,” says Glenn, adding that he’s long known “she’s part of this whole deep state revolutionary thing.”

The fact that Maher is “currently on the board of [the Signal Foundation]” — the organization that oversees Signal, an encrypted communication platform — is further evidence that she’s a deep stater, he says.

“What she has done is not just work in these places and not just have influence in these stories that keep coming up over and over again,” says Stu. Maher has “explicitly [stated] her crazy positions over and over and over and over again on Twitter.”

During the hearing, she was questioned about these tweets by Texas Rep. Bandon Gill (R).

In January 2020, Maher, quoting Ta-Nehisi Coates’ article “The Case for Reparations,” tweeted: “‘America begins in black plunder and white democracy.’ I appreciate the day off today to finally fully read The Case for Reparations.”

When Gill read this tweet, Maher said she didn’t recall ever posting the statement and claimed she never read “The Case for Reparations.”

Even if that’s true, then “she was just being a shill to promote this point of view,” says Glenn.

Gill also referred to a tweet Maher posted in May 2020: “So! America is addicted to white supremacy and that’s the real issue.”

Her response was to claim that her position has “evolved” since then.

To hear more about Maher’s history, watch the clip above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

That big Nissan and Honda merger might get another chance.

As I wrote here, the deal fell apart last month. This was especially bad news for Nissan. Thanks to falling sales and high debt, the automaker is in desperate need of a turnaround.

Honda — much like President Trump in his recent negotiations with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy — holds all the cards here.

It was also bad news for Nissan CEO Makoto Uchida, who took the blame for the stalled talks. He is now out. New boss Ivan Espinosa — a real car guy, by the way — may very well revive the merger.

A Nissan veteran to the rescue

Espinosa joined Nissan in 2003 as a product planner in the brand’s Mexican division. He’s held a dozen positions within the brand since, so he brings a massive amount of experience to the CEO’s office, but the problems that he will need to solve are massive as well.

We recently talked about Nissan’s challenges and that insiders admitted that the company had “12 to 14 months to survive” if it didn’t find an investor, as executives announced plans to slash 9,000 jobs and reduce the group’s global production capacity by 20%. Nissan is facing headwinds in the United States and China, two of the biggest markets in the world.

In China, Nissan is among the many global carmakers that have lost ground amid a cutthroat price war and consumers’ shift away from conventional gas-powered vehicles. Its global sales in January fell 5.9% from a year earlier.

A year to live

The merger with Honda blew up, and it still hasn’t found an investor. In theory, Nissan now has less than a year to live. So what’s next?

What Uchida’s resignation means for the canceled merger with Honda isn’t clear yet. Talks could continue after April 1 when Espinosa steps in. The original merger or alliance would have placed Honda and Nissan on equal footing in spite of the vast differences in size and revenue that separate them.

Mitsubishi, which Nissan has a 24% stake in, had decided not to get into the merger. No word if it will reconsider should talks start back up.

Ghosn but not forgotten

Let’s reflect on Nissan for a moment.

In 1999, the ailing company turned to a non-Japanese chief — Carlos Ghosn — for a cure. Ghosn, who was born in Brazil and grew up in Lebanon, went on to serve as chief executive and chairman before he was arrested in Japan in November 2018 and charged with financial crimes that he continues to deny.

Jailed for months, Ghosn eventually fled Japan a little more than a year after his arrest.

The company’s stock price and global sales sank during the whole affair and haven’t recovered since.

Pride goeth before … a comeback?

I believe that the Japanese government put pressure on Honda to make this merger work in order to save face. Japanese culture is very proud, and the government would prefer a merger versus a potential failure. The impact of such a failure would be a blow to the Japanese economy — and could have a global impact.

On the other hand, a Honda and Nissan merger would farm the world’s third-largest carmaker, behind Toyota and Volkswagen. Toyota has a partnership with Mazda and Subaru, which are Japanese brands.

Honda — much like President Trump in his recent negotiations with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy — holds all the cards here. It can make or break this possible merger, and Nissan is in no place to make any demands. If Nissan wants to survive, it needs Honda’s money and business guidance.

Staying afloat

How would that look?

It’s not terribly far-fetched to imagine that Nissan could use Honda’s technology to fast-track hybrids and plug-in hybrids, or that Honda might get some truck experience from Nissan. But this is speculation — at this point, the merger is the life preserver Nissan needs to stay afloat.

Insiders familiar with the past negotiations reported that what started as a merger of equals turned into a full-on takeover by Honda, which is worth nearly five times more than Nissan and in much better financial shape.

Nissan refused to become a Honda subsidiary, quickly ending the conversations. Since then, Taiwanese company Foxconn — best known for building iPhones for Apple — has been circling the company. But so far, its interest hasn’t amounted to much.

With Nissan’s situation only getting more dire, it may not be so proud this time if it gets another shot with Honda.

We’ll be watching to see how Espinosa handles this.

The Paris climate agreement was doomed to fail from its inception. It is long past time for all parties involved, as well as the media, to acknowledge this fact.

The mainstream media has lamented the Paris agreement’s fate since President Donald Trump’s re-election. Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement during his first term and vowed to do so again after Joe Biden rejoined it. While Trump’s withdrawal was a public rebuke that undermined the pact’s “effectiveness,” the agreement was effectively dead before the ink on the last signature was dry.

China’s rising emissions since 2015 all but guarantee that global CO2 levels will continue climbing through 2030 and beyond, no matter what other nations do.

The structure of the agreement itself ensured that it would be ineffective in preventing greenhouse gas emissions from rising.

As I noted shortly after its completion in 2015, even the architects of the Paris agreement quietly admitted that the emissions pledges made by signatory countries would fall short of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. At the time, their own estimates showed that if every nation fulfilled its commitment, the combined result would still account for less than half the greenhouse gas reductions needed to meet the 2-degree goal.

By 2017, the United Nations confirmed this shortfall. Its report projected that even if every country fully complied with its Paris agreement targets — an optimistic scenario — global temperatures would still rise by 3 degrees Celsius by 2100.

The agreement’s prospects have only worsened since. As the BBC has reported, several countries openly acknowledge that they will not meet their commitments. Nations such as Argentina, Indonesia, South Africa, and South Korea — all signatories that previously pledged to curb fossil fuel use — now plan to increase the production of coal, natural gas, and oil. Many also hope to import additional fuel from the United States.

These nations are now blaming Trump for their decision, but the data shows that every single country now seeking more fossil fuels had already increased its use long before Trump was re-elected and withdrew from the Paris agreement. In fact, no country that set specific emissions reduction targets in the first Paris commitment period has made significant progress toward meeting its goals.

What’s more, of the nearly 200 countries that signed the agreement, only 10 submitted their updated carbon reduction commitments by the deadline — meaning 190 nations failed to comply. Even the 10 countries that submitted their updated commitments failed to meet their previous targets.

Two of the world’s three largest carbon dioxide emitters — China and India — have made no firm commitments under the Paris agreement. Instead of pledging to reduce emissions, both countries offered vague assurances that they expect emissions to peak eventually. If carbon dioxide truly drives climate change, China’s rising emissions since 2015 all but guarantee that global CO2 levels will continue climbing through 2030 and the 2050, no matter what other nations do.

As Thomas Hobbes wrote, “Covenants, without the sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.” Every climate agreement to date has embodied that idea — unenforceable promises with no mechanism to guarantee compliance.

The fact is that the Paris agreement was never a binding treaty. Countries set their own emissions targets, but the agreement included no international enforcement. Unless countries pass laws domestically to formalize their pledges, those goals remain legally meaningless — even within their own borders.

Ultimately, the Paris agreement demands long-term sacrifice without any clear or measurable benefit. Politicians focused on re-election hesitate to adopt policies that visibly harm their constituents today in exchange for hypothetical rewards decades after they’ve left office. That political reality is why the Paris climate agreement was doomed from the start. Now is the time to acknowledge its failure — without regret. The trillions already spent are sunk costs, but at the very least, we can stop wasting more.

TikTok is full of disturbing content, but something called SkinnyTok currently takes the cake for the hottest new trend — and potentially the most dangerous.

“SkinnyTok is essentially this whole genre of TikTok where these influencers, they call themselves ‘skinny influencers,’ are taking to TikTok to help other people get skinny. But I think what they’re promoting is kind of unhealthy,” Blaze Media social media coordinator Phoenix Painter tells Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable.”

“I don’t want to shame anyone, but I still feel like it’s important to draw a line as to what is healthy behavior and what seems to be more along the lines of obsession leading to disordered thoughts and patterns,” Painter adds.

One of these influencers, Liv Schmidt, is one of the more “infamous SkinnyTok influencers,” and she takes a harsh approach to her advice.

“A lot of you love to ask me what I eat in a day, and the second I tell you or even hint at it, it’s shock, it’s horror, it’s panic, like, ‘That’s barely any food.’ Yeah, no, what do you think I’m eating? A ton of donuts, pizza, and McDonald’s every day? Babe, be serious, be so for real. I don’t eat like that because I don’t want to look like that,” Schmidt said in a video while walking on a treadmill.

“I eat in portions. I eat with intention. If I ate like garbage, I would feel like garbage and I wouldn’t look the way I do. I chose to be skinny, I chose to be disciplined, and if that makes you uncomfortable, that’s not my problem,” she added.

“Eating disorders are competitive,” Painter says, commenting on Schmidt’s online persona. “Liv Schmidt, she says all the time, ‘Eat small, be small,’ or she also says, ‘You’re not a dog; don’t reward yourself with food.’”

“Which I feel like is so telling of where her mindset actually is,” she adds.

Stuckey, who also dealt with disordered eating in her college years, is all too familiar with this mindset.

“I had a friend who recommended a book in college, and it was called ‘The Skinny Girl Method.’ And it was literally like, ‘Never eat a full banana, just eat half of it, and then put it away,’” Stuckey recalls.

And in the earlier 2000s, when Stuckey was in college, this skinny-girl phenomenon was the norm. Now, it’s clearly making a resurgence on the back of the “body positivity movement.”

“The only thing that I really feel like the body positivity movement got right was that we shouldn’t be shaming people for how they look. Like that kind of early 2000s tabloid thing where they would blow up images of celebrities literally just trying to have a vacation and be like, ‘Oh my God, look at her cellulite, she’s gained five pounds,’” Painter tells Stuckey.

“The body positivity movement absolutely hit it on the nose when they said, ‘No, we shouldn’t be doing that,’ and this is kind of reverting back to that mindset, like ’90s, early 2000s,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.