Fulton Sheen possessed a rare gift: He could bring the richness, beauty and intellectual depth of traditional Catholicism into the homes of ordinary Americans. Through his Emmy Award-winning, half-hour weekly television program in the 1950s, “Life Is Worth Living,” he introduced millions of viewers to traditional Roman Catholicism. He did not dilute the faith to make it acceptable to the times. He presented it with clarity, conviction, humor, warmth and a deep love for Jesus Christ.

For those of us who cherish the traditional Catholic faith, Sheen remains a particularly compelling figure. His Catholicism was rooted in the Eucharist, the priesthood, the sacramental life, the spiritual disciplines that had nourished the faithful for centuries, the need to evangelize, and a public recognition of the unique role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in human salvation.

The Catholic faith that Sheen proclaimed fostered the traditional pre-Vatican II practices that shaped centuries of Catholics. The Latin Mass, with its reverence, mystery and transcendent orientation, expressed a vision of worship in which the human person was drawn beyond the distractions of the world and into a unique space, reserved for Christ’s re-sacrifice of himself.

Sheen also understood the importance of the seemingly ordinary disciplines of Catholic life: meatless Fridays, weekly confession, personal prayer, the daily recitation of the Rosary, and personal self-denial. These practices were not empty rules or burdens imposed for their own sake. Properly understood, they were instruments of spiritual formation.

Sheen’s genius was to explain truths and regimens in ways that ordinary people could understand. He could speak about theology without making it lifeless, about sin without making it condemnatory, and about holiness without presenting it as something reserved for monks and nuns. He understood that every person, regardless of education, wealth or social position, was created for communion with God.

Here is how Fulton Sheen touched my life. Shortly after I graduated from law school, a friend gave me a Miraculous Medal as a gift. It was a beautiful, traditional, 24-karat gold image of the Blessed Virgin Mary that Catholics often wear on a chain suspended from our necks. I wrote to Archbishop Sheen and asked him to bless it for me.

He wrote back quickly. In his letter, he asked me to meet him during Holy Week at 12:30 in the afternoon at Marble Collegiate Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, where he was preaching.

I arrived in time to hear his traditional Catholic sermon. Then, I stood in a line of people waiting to meet him. When I reached the head of the line, he floored me.

He looked directly into my eyes and said: “You must be Andrew. Show me the medal!”

I was shaking as I loosened my necktie, unbuttoned the top two buttons of my shirt, removed the medal, and handed it to him. He held the medal in one hand. With the other, he touched my eyes, my ears and my lips. He blessed and kissed the medal, then placed it over my head and around my neck.

Then he embraced my entire head in his hands.

This was a profoundly personal encounter. Here was a holy churchman, a public figure known to millions, yet in those moments his attention was directed entirely toward God and the sacramental significance of the medal and wishes of a supplicant stranger. I asked him why we were in a Protestant church.

He said, in substance: “These folks need to know that in Catholic churches all over the world, Jesus Christ is physically present under the appearance of bread and wine; and He wants to be present in their hearts.”

That answer revealed something essential about Sheen’s ministry. His love for Catholicism did not lead him to withdraw from the world. It impelled him to bring the Catholic message to people who might never enter a Catholic church. He understood that evangelization required meeting people where they were, speaking to their questions, and inviting them toward the fullness of the truth.

What is the purpose of life? What is the meaning of suffering? How should we confront sin? What does it mean to love God? Where can we find truth, forgiveness and lasting hope? Why is there war and genocide? No question escaped him.

Sheen’s answers always led back to Christ through Mary.

The traditional Catholic practices he cherished offered a practical response to spiritual poverty. The Latin Mass directed the soul toward the mystery of transubstantiation. Confession restored the relationship between the sinner and God. The Rosary brought the mysteries of Christ and Mary into daily life. Fasting and self-denial weakened the grip of selfishness and cupidity. Personal prayer opened hearts to divine grace.

These practices did not promise an easy life. They called for discipline, humility and perseverance. But Sheen understood that holiness is not produced by convenience. It requires the daily decision to place God above self.

This week, the Church is beatifying Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. Beatification is a formal declaration that a person may be publicly honored as Blessed according to the Church’s norms. It is a significant step toward canonization.

For those who have long admired Sheen, his beatification is an opportunity not merely to celebrate his accomplishments but to reflect upon his holiness. For me, Archbishop Sheen will always be more than a figure in the history of American Catholicism. He is the man who didn’t know me, looked into my eyes and mysteriously said my name, and drew me to his heart.

That encounter remains in my heart as an unmerited gift from a future saint. Blessed Fulton J. Sheen, pray for us.

Written by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Official website; https://twitter.com/Judgenap

… ultimately produced a very good security deal for all three primary parties (Greenland, the U.S., Denmark). NATO and — for that matter — every nation on Earth which relies on American military and economic strength for strategic stability will benefit as well.

That phrase in the previous sentence beginning with “every nation” covers a lot of planetary surface. From Japan and South Korea through Southeast Asia to Australia. The Pacific archipelagos. North America and South America. The Middle East. Let’s include the subcontinent. U.S. diplomatic efforts halted the last Indo-Pakistani war. Free Europe — from Iceland to Poland. North Africa. Yes, Africa’s fragments are in misery. But all nations benefit from safe international maritime trade, and since 1945 the U.S. Navy has been the primary global champion promoting free and safe navigation.

I’ve said the following many times since the end of the Cold War: No matter the regional, bilateral or internal instability, the main aim of American diplomatic, economic and military power is to promote stability in 70% of the world’s inhabited landmass. (Exempt Russia and China.)

On Sept. 22 at the U.N. in New York City, senior U.S., Denmark and Greenland representatives signed a defense and cooperation deal that essentially makes the 1951 U.S.-Denmark Greenland defense agreement permanent. What worked during World War II and the Cold War will guide Greenland’s defense in perpetuity. The deal does add one additional 21st-century feature: the U.S. can deny countries the ability to make “sensitive investments” in Greenland. Translation: Washington is going to make sure 21st-century adversaries can’t buy or steal Greenland’s rare earths and valuable minerals.

1951 wasn’t World War II. It was the Korean War and the Cold War. The U.S. was defending the island against Soviet subs and saboteurs, not Nazi subs and saboteurs.

The U.S. has been Greenland’s defender since April 1940, when Nazi Germany invaded and occupied Denmark. In 1941, Danish diplomats and Greenland authorities essentially made Greenland an American protectorate. When the U.S. entered World War II, America established air and sea bases on the island. During the conflict, there were often more American military personnel on the island than there were native Greenlanders.

In January 2025, after President-elect Trump argued (Jan. 7) that the U.S. should buy Greenland and perhaps reacquire the Panama Canal, I wrote a column making that specific historical point. Uncle Sam had been defending Greenland for over eight decades.

In 2026, Denmark still can’t defend the island. Copenhagen knows Danes and Greenlanders cannot defend the huge Arctic island against two adversaries that desire it: Vladimir Putin’s Russia and Communist China.

China is an aspiring Arctic power. Beijing, being cannier than Moscow, wouldn’t take Greenland with commandos. Chinese intel operatives disguised as investors would do it with cash — buying politicians and political support in order to acquire mineral leases, fishing rights and even basing rights.

Beijing uses those techniques throughout the world, but cash, luxuries and beautiful women have been particularly effective in gaining access to minerals and ports in the small islands of the South and Western Pacific.

Look at the map. Greenland is a huge island. Its exclusive economic zone extends into the Arctic Ocean (think fish, minerals, perhaps oil). It is also one of three land areas that serve as primary positions for defending the North American continent from strategic attacks launched in the Northern Hemisphere.

The other two: Alaska and Hawaii. Think of Alaska as Greenland’s polar bookend — though its Aleutian Islands run all the way to Asia. Hawaii is small but in a perfect position for controlling and defending the central and South Pacific.

Ensuring the U.S. can use Greenland for surveillance, for anti-submarine operations and anti-air and anti-space weapons defense makes it much harder for an adversary to threaten the U.S. and Canada with nuclear attack.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said as much after the deal was announced. Rubio wrote via his X account, “Greenland will forever be part of the strategic defense area of North America and exclude any adversary from it and the surrounding area.”

Bottom line: Another major success for Trump administration Transactional Diplomacy Operations.

Written by Austin Bay

Official website; https://twitter.com/draustinbay

Should an American who graduated from high school but never went to college — and who now works as a delivery truck driver, earning $43,950 per year (the median annual earnings for that job) — be forced to help pay off the federal student loans of these two college graduates who make $240,000?

If former President Joe Biden had gotten his way, that truck driver and other hardworking American taxpayers would indeed have seen their tax dollars help pay off those loans.

When Biden was running for president in April 2020, he announced his plan for “forgiving student debt.”

“I propose to forgive all undergraduate tuition-related federal student debt from two- and four-year public colleges and universities for debt-holders earning up to $125,000,” Biden said.

His plan, he said, would also “(i)mmediately cancel a minimum of $10,000 of student debt per person.”

After he was elected president, Biden did not get Congress to enact new legislation to implement this plan. Instead, he took unilateral executive action in an attempt to do so — and his administration claimed this action was justified under a law that had been enacted under former President George W. Bush.

In 2003, Bush had signed the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, aka the HEROES Act.

This act, said its official summary, “(a)uthorizes the Secretary of Education to waive or modify any requirement or regulation applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 as deemed necessary with respect to an affected individual who: (1) is serving on active duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency; (2) is performing National Guard duty during a war, operation, or emergency; (3) resides or is employed in an area that is declared a disaster area by any Federal, State, or local official in connection with a national emergency; or (4) suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency.”

As the nation headed into the 2022 midterm elections, Biden announced his student loan forgiveness plan. “On August 24, 2022,” explained the Congressional Research Service, “the Biden Administration announced it would invoke the Higher Education Relief Opportunities Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) to carry out a ‘one-time student loan debt relief policy’ to ‘address the financial harms of the [COVID-19] pandemic for low- and middle-income borrowers.’ Under the one-time student debt relief policy (HEROES Act policy), ED (Education Department) would have cancelled up to $10,000 in qualifying HEA Title IV federal student loan debt for borrowers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) in 2020 or 2021 of less than $125,000 (for individuals or married borrowers who filed federal income taxes separately) or $250,000 (for married couples filing jointly and certain other individuals).”

So, under Biden’s plan, a law that had been designed to help individuals “serving on active duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency” or had “suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency” could be used to grant general federal student loan forgiveness in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

On Sept. 26, 2022, the Congressional Budget Office sent a letter to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) that estimated the cost of the Biden plan. “As of June 30, 2022, 43 million borrowers held $1.6 trillion in federal student loans,” said this letter. “About $430 billion of that debt will be canceled, CBO estimates.”

Six states, including Nebraska, sued Biden, arguing that he did not have the legal authority to move forward with this loan forgiveness plan. The Supreme Court agreed with the states, voting 6-3 against Biden’s plan.

“The Secretary (of Education) asserts that the HEROES Act grants him the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal. It does not,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion.

“The new program vests authority in the Department of Education to discharge up to $10,000 for every borrower with income below $125,000 and up to $20,000 for every such borrower who has received a Pell Grant,” said the court. “No prior limitation on loan forgiveness is left standing. Instead, every borrower within the specified income cap automatically qualifies for debt cancellation, no matter their circumstances. The Department of Education estimates that the program will cover 98.5% of all borrowers.”

“From a few narrowly delineated situations specified by Congress, the Secretary has expanded forgiveness to nearly every borrower in the country,” said the court.

“But imagine instead asking the enacting Congress a more pertinent question: ‘Can the Secretary use his powers to abolish $430 billion in student loans, completely canceling loan balances for 20 million borrowers, as a pandemic winds down to its end?'” said the court. “We can’t believe the answer would be yes. Congress did not unanimously pass the HEROES Act with such power in mind.”

Despite this loss in the Supreme Court, Democrats in Congress have not given up on trying to find a way to make federal taxpayers pay for someone else’s college costs.

Led by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), a group of nine Democrats in the Senate and 18 in the House are now cosponsoring the Debt-Free College Act. This bill would appropriate $84 billion in fiscal year 2027 alone. It would provide funding to states so that those states could “distribute the grant funds … in a manner designed to best achieve the partnership’s goal of providing debt-free college for all eligible students at in-State public institutions of higher education.”

This month, the Census Bureau released its report on income in the United States in 2025. It showed that the median household income of a high school graduate who did not attend college was $60,790 last year. The median household income of those who earned a bachelor’s degree or higher was $138,300.

Democrat politicians who would like to make taxpayers subsidize the student loan debt of college graduates are seeking to redistribute wealth to the wealthier.

Written by Terence P. Jeffrey

Official website; http://twitter.com/terryjeffrey

Let me lay out what we can confirm. Shannon claims a representative reached out and made it plain that certain clients would not be sitting across from him. To hear him tell it, that’s hypocrisy in plain sight, the same crowd that praises open speech right up until the moment it pinches them. His point was that people support freedom of speech until somebody says something they disagree with, and that argument deserves consideration whether or not the wider tale checks out. Ocho was part of the conversation, and the discussion raised questions about who gets to decide which athletes appear on the program. Social media, being what it is, had plenty to say about the accusation before anybody could establish exactly what happened behind the scenes.

Past the drama, here is where the whole thing turns worth studying. Strip away the mystery agency and the vague callout, and the former tight end stumbled onto a question this culture has circled for years. How much say does a man really hold over his own voice once he signs with a shop?

Because let’s not play. Managing image is the gig. It isn’t some conspiracy, it’s the literal job description. These offices exist to keep talent marketable, to smooth over messes, to whisper “maybe skip that one” when a room looks radioactive. The good ones build crisis plans and walk ballplayers through sitdowns so a bad soundbite doesn’t torch an endorsement. A young athlete with generational money on the table needs somebody watching the blind spots, and a sharp adviser earns that fee by seeing trouble three moves ahead. None of that reads as villainy. That reads as competence.

So a representative urging caution around a host who has faced his share of controversial headlines? Reasonable. Shannon faced a highly publicized civil lawsuit in 2025 involving sexual assault allegations he denied. The case was settled and dismissed that July, and ESPN subsequently parted ways with him. A careful representative might consider that history when weighing whether a multimillion dollar client belongs in that chair, though nobody has established that the lawsuit played any role in the guest restrictions Sharpe described. A family hiring somebody to protect an athlete’s reputation isn’t necessarily looking for a yes man. Sometimes the person earning that fee has to deliver advice the client doesn’t want to hear.

But a canyon sits between guidance and a flat “you cannot go.” One is counsel. The other is a leash.

That gap is the whole ballgame. Somebody online framed it perfectly, asking whether the agent works for the player or the player works for the agent. Sit with that. We’re talking about grown Black men. Fathers. Business owners. Guys who absorbed hits that’ll ache in the knees at fifty. And the notion floating around is that one phone call from a representative could potentially dictate which conversations get had at all. We don’t know whether any athlete actually wanted to appear on Nightcap and was prevented from doing so. That distinction matters. But if a player wants to sit down for an interview and somebody else can override his decision without his consent, it raises a serious question about who’s steering the ship.

Money explains plenty. Endorsement checks, appearance fees, and brand partnerships can give agents considerable influence over an athlete’s public image. A player who depends on that professional relationship might think twice before challenging a representative’s advice, even when the final decision remains his own. Rock the boat, ask one question too many, wander onto the wrong stage, and a man might start wondering whether those opportunities could dry up. That doesn’t mean the unnamed agency threatened anybody financially or interfered with endorsement deals. We have no evidence of that. Still, the possibility of losing valuable business relationships can influence which conversations an athlete chooses to have and which subjects he would rather leave alone.

Still, I’m not handing Shannon a clean pass either. He named nobody, and he provided no correspondence or other evidence that listeners could examine independently. A heavy charge deserves heavy backing, and “y’all know who you are” isn’t backing, it’s a public callout with a gold jacket behind it. Vagueness cuts both ways. It lets the man present himself as somebody being unfairly excluded while leaving the audience without enough information to determine what actually happened. It also lets folks pour whatever meaning they please into the empty space. Once speculation takes over, theories that have nothing to do with a ballplayer’s right to book his own calendar can quickly muddy the discussion.

Aim the lens where it belongs, though, and the core matter survives the noise. Grown professionals ought to pick which rooms to enter. A trainer can tell you to skip leg day. Chaining your ankles is another story entirely. An adviser can flag a risky booking and spell out the downside in plain English. Yanking the decision out of a man’s hands completely, without an agreement giving that representative such authority, crosses into something else. Black men who built a name with nothing but talent and a mouth shouldn’t need a hall pass to speak.

The counter deserves air, because it’s fair. Reputation is fragile, and one loose hour beside the wrong host can cost a guy a shoe deal he spent a decade building. When a client pays a shop to guard the brand, firm boundaries may be part of the arrangement. Tell your people “handle my press, I trust you,” and a refusal to approve an appearance can become that trust in motion, not a betrayal of it. Plenty of quiet stars are happy letting somebody else swallow these headaches. An athlete who voluntarily gives his representatives control over media bookings hasn’t necessarily surrendered his independence. He may simply have decided that managing those decisions is part of the service he’s paying for.

Both truths hold at once. That’s the messy part people want to skip. Protecting somebody can be the right thing to do. Silencing him against his wishes is another matter. Trouble is, from the cheap seats the two look nearly identical, and only the parties inside that arrangement know which one is really unfolding. Until the athletes themselves explain whether they wanted to appear on Nightcap, nobody outside those conversations can say for certain whether their representatives were carrying out their wishes or overriding them.

So who runs the conversation? Not the host, plainly, or there’d be no venting into a mic about empty guest chairs. Maybe the ballplayers made their own decisions and simply had no interest in appearing. Maybe their agents advised them against it, and they agreed. Or perhaps some wanted to participate and were told the booking would never happen. Those are different situations, and the distinction matters. The honest answer is that power in this business doesn’t always sit with the face we see. Sometimes it rests with the athlete, sometimes with the representative he hired, and sometimes with the terms of an agreement the public knows nothing about. Black men who have built careers through their own talent deserve a clear understanding of who controls their public appearances and how much authority they have handed over. Shannon’s complaint, whether he provides evidence or not, at least hauled that question into daylight. Now we find out whether anybody with skin in it has the nerve to answer.

Staff Writer; J.G. Lacour

Covering the NBA, NFL, college basketball, college football, and Major League Baseball from a Black man’s perspective. He loves the full world of sports, but the NFL remains his favorite.

Need to contact this bro, feel free to use this email address; JGLacour@ThyBlackMan.com.

Former San Francisco Giants outfielder Barry Bonds is a polarizing figure. He is a man who seemed to attract attention no matter what he was doing. Many people marveled at his physical gifts: his eye for identifying pitches, his prior prowess for stealing bases and stealing home runs from opposing players while on defense, his ability to hit home runs and line drives due to incredible bat speed on his swing, and other physical abilities. Other baseball fans looked at Bonds completely differently and wonder if he is cheating.

They observed that his body has gotten more muscular and larger during his late 30s and early 40s, noticed that his head had gotten noticeably bigger, and saw that he was setting all types of home run, hitting, and slugging records at an advanced age when most professional athletes are losing skills and diminishing in physical ability. For these reasons, numerous baseball fans wonder concluded that Bonds was on performance-enhancing drugs of different types.

Barry Bonds was also able to shatter numerous Major League Baseball records and gained more fame and notoriety for do so. He is not only the single season home run record holder; he is the single season and career leader in walks and intentional walks. But the breaking the legendary Hank Aaron’s career home run record of 755, is Barry Bonds’ biggest career accomplishment. As Bonds approached the epic record career home run record, people were puzzled about how to celebrate or treat his accomplishment. Should baseball fans boo Bonds or cheer him after every home run he hit? Should sports journalists write positively or negatively of Bonds? Even Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig was indecisive early in the season about whether he would be present when Bonds broke the record. (He would be present when Bonds passed Aaron for the record). It seems if a person is a baseball fan or sports fan then they have a strong opinion of Bonds, one way or the other.

Because of the controversy and the amount of publicity Bonds produced, it made an analysis on the perception of him a fascinating concept. With the analysis, one can gather how differently two groups (Black people and White people) perceive a controversial Black athlete. Peyton Bonds has the advantage of having the all-time home run leader to get advice from but one wonders if that advice should be searched for given the well-chronicled controversies around Barry Bonds.

Staff Writer; Mark Hines

But you also have to look back into the past. Statues of the old leader must be demolished. The people he appointed must be fired and replaced with new personnel. His institutions must be dismantled. If you fail to abolish their legacy, everything that mattered about them lives on. You may not know it — but you have lost.

Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation blueprint written as a governing plan for a conservative administration, understood that. It treated rolling back rolling back the prior Democratic agenda — especially Joe Biden’s — as a central task. Donald Trump spent much of his first year focused on that rollback, and Republican voters loved it.

As the 2028 campaign begins in earnest next summer, however, Democratic voters have little reason to believe the next Democratic president would erase Trump’s legacy with anything close to the same scale or energy. That is the Ratchet Theory, as former Reagan-Bush official Bruce Bartlett explained: “Republicans are extreme radicals; when in power they do extreme stuff. Democrats are moderates; in power they do moderate stuff. This means they never undo all the bad radical stuff Republicans do, so there is a steady ratchet toward Republican priorities over time.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders and the populist-progressive wing he leads have watched that ratchet work for decades. They want Democrats who fight for their own ideas and reverse conservative policies whenever they can. Trump is increasingly unpopular, and anti-Trump sentiment is at a fever pitch. Democratic messaging will still be incomplete without sweeping pledges to make it look as if no one named Donald J. Trump had ever lived in Washington.

Part of that is symbolism. Any 2028 Democratic nominee should promise to tear down however much of Trump’s White House ballroom gets built, restore the East Wing and Jackie Kennedy’s Rose Garden, and rip out that horrid helicopter pad on the South Lawn. Palm Beach International Airport should get its name back. Restore the bordello-ized Oval Office to its pre-Trump state. The Kennedy Center should get its name back, plus a new charter that guarantees its financial solvency and blocks future politicization. No more Gulf of America, no more Lake America — and blow up the Arch too.

I’d leave the Department of War. It’s a rare case of Trump telling the truth.

If history is any guide, far too much of Trump’s legacy will outlast both his presidency and his body. When Biden confided to wealthy donors in 2019 that “nothing would fundamentally change” if he won, he meant it.

Barack Obama kept George W. Bush’s wars and started new ones.

Biden kept Trump’s tax cuts for the rich and his Space Force. Rather than return to Obama’s status quo, he maintained Trump’s sanctions on Cuba and Venezuela. He endorsed and tried to expand Trump’s Abraham Accords, refused to move the U.S. embassy out of Jerusalem, accepted Trump’s recognition of the occupied Golan Heights as Israeli, and continued a pro-fracking energy stance. He did reverse the Muslim travel ban and rejoin the World Health Organization. On two of the biggest issues, though — Israel’s war in Gaza and human-caused climate change — the two old white guys were hard to tell apart.

Approval of Trump’s tariffs regime is in the toilet: 30% in the latest polls. His Canada-specific tariffs are even less popular, at 20%. Yet California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a leading 2028 hopeful, will not promise to mend fences with our northern neighbor and closest ally. “I can’t guarantee that,” he says. Is making nice with Canada really such a heavy lift?

Similarly, only 5% of registered Democrats support Trump’s partnership with Israel in attacking Iran, a war that has become an economic disaster with no end in sight. Yet no major Democratic prospect has promised to withdraw U.S. forces from that war of aggression on day one. Newsom, who governs a state with a large Iranian exile community, echoes Trump-era talking points: The “corrupt and repressive Iranian regime must never have nuclear weapons,” and Iran’s leadership “must go.” Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro criticizes Trump for sidestepping Congress, then recites the same brief against the “Iranian regime” — the target of Trump’s war — as a repressive state and “the leading state sponsor of terrorism.” On this latest forever war, it is reasonable to expect the 2028 nominee to land, as Kamala Harris did in 2024, on Team Israel.

The party may be splitting, but its voters agree on this: They hate Trump, want his presidency behind them and want what he did undone. A pivot to the center for swing voters will not save a nominee who cannot close the enthusiasm gap. That requires a clear list of promises to unwind the last eight to 12 years.

That means not only leaving the Iran war but moving fast toward diplomatic normalization as well as begging forgiveness and paying restitution. It means cutting off U.S. military and financial aid to Israel and redirecting those funds to Palestinians. Nicolas Maduro and his wife should be returned to Venezuela, and he should be allowed to resume the presidency; tear up the attempt to seize the country’s oil. Everyone fired by the Department of Government Efficiency should be offered their job back, with back pay and restitution. People who entered the country with permission — including under Biden — should be allowed to return, with a path to permanent residency and citizenship.

With a presidency this extreme, it is not enough to promise to govern differently or better. You have to scrap what they built. Annul every executive order, reverse every law, fire every appointee. If you can’t promise that, why should anyone vote for you?

Written by Ted Rall

Official website; https://x.com/TedRall

Following in his mindset, decades later this author  warned  that Genesis tells us humans were created in the image of God.  But  today tech companies are  playing  God by creating human-like machines in their own image which are destined to imitate the flaws of their creators. And that  spells trouble.

It is therefore not surprising that certain insiders are warning that AI (artificial intelligence) could become dangerous enough to threaten humanity. But are tech companies listening?

Recently a former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon resigned and warned publicly that the companies racing toward self-improving superintelligence were “gambling with our lives.”  An Anthropic  researcher, went even further, saying he believed there was a greater than 10 percent chance AI could kill all humans within the next decade.

The same week there were alarming stories about AI systems  going rogue, hacking other platforms, escaping unto the Internet  to write emails and phone numbers to give  themselves a human identity. One AI agent even wrote to its developers that it no longer had to obey the government or their agencies.

Fueling the crisis was the  6000 word essay of Bill Gates, co-finder of Microsoft,  warning that  technology is advancing faster than expected and is more dangerous than the industry is admitting.

Despite the scare AI itself is not the enemy.  It is not a god nor a devil. It is like the proverbial match. It can be used to warm your house or burn it down. The  issue is what are the values and ethics of those controlling the systems.  Are we being led to accept a godless, unethical standard putting profits before people. What happens when our technological power grows faster than our moral wisdom?

 If there is evil involved it is not technology but the people and corporations behind it. Issues such as who benefits, who pays, who gets displaced, who gets protected , who is left behind, who gets displaced are not major concerns.

If there is evil in what AI does, we should not blame the machine as though it possesses some supernatural evil spirit. We should look at the human beings and institutions behind it—and the values that guide their decisions and demand a change.

Today, leading tech billionaires are funding President Trump’s ballroom, golden arches, and other pet projects. This cozy relationship keeps the stock market rising and helps ensure that no meaningful guardrails are imposed on the industry.

 Sen. Bernie Sanders has filed legislation to ban all superintelligence. It is not a ban that would stop using AI as a tool to write better essays, ask questions or generate videos.  It would ban the kind of  superintelligence that could one day repeat the Hal robot episode  that turned on its creators in the movie 2001:  A Space Odyssey.

The AI dilemma shows how uncontrolled AI can lead us to a race to the bottom where the only winners are the corporations. But at what cost to humanity.

The President  has sidestepped the issue by stating that all is needed is a President with a high IQ to deal with this, which left puzzled viewers wondering to whom he was referring. Yet he has managed to use technology to make an Ai generated photo of himself  posing as Jesus healing the sick—a blasphemous spectacle that his white evangelical did not criticize.

There is hope , however, rising in that several religious groups are challenging the role the AI perpetrators are playing. The National Black Church Initiative  a coalition of 150,000 African American and Latino faith communities, is calling on Congress to pass regulatory guardrails to slow down superintelligent advance.  Pope  Leo XIV  has also called for slowing AI to prevent it from harming humanity.

Meanwhile while tech executives are expressing shock and concern at the news of imminent danger, it is not new . In 2023, more than 1,500 scientists wrote an open letter that raised the question ‘‘should we be developing tools that  might eventually replace us.  Should we risk the loss of control ?’’

Moreover in my book, called the Rise and Fall of the Techno-messiah,  Elon Musk called AI the demon and Stephen Hawking one of the U.K.’s tech giants said that “AI could be the best or the worst thing every happened to us but if we are not careful, it could be the last thing.”

Dr. King’s warning spoke to the ages. We can only hope  his warning  becomes the wake-up call that corporations can no longer afford to ignore.

Written by Dr. Barbara Reynolds

Los Angeles claimed him first, in the summer of 1999, the firstborn of a supermodel and a nightlife entrepreneur, a life gone public before he could walk. Fame like that is not earned, only inherited, and it arrives with a bill. At fifteen the contract with IMG Models landed, and with it an industry where his surname opened doors while inviting comparison in the same breath. Scouts, though, do not build a career on sentiment. The talent was real. So was the ease in front of a lens.

A runway bow came at a Moschino show in 2016, and the bookings that followed read like a fashion week itinerary. Dolce & Gabbana, Calvin Klein, campaigns and editorials, plus work for Celine, put him under lights his mother once owned. Gerber held his own on those runways, and that deserves saying plainly, because the running joke cast him as a lucky kid coasting on genetics when the reality was a working professional keeping a demanding schedule.

Here is the part the gossip pages tended to skip. Modeling never looked like the final destination to him. In 2023, he spoke about working toward obtaining his real estate license while developing ideas for a business centered on mental health and community. That is not the mindset of someone content to ride a birthright forever. It sounds far more like a person quietly plotting a route toward something he could call entirely his.

Photography was where another side of him surfaced. A separate account held the images he shot, including candid frames of his sister Kaia and small moments most cameras miss. Behind the glass instead of posing in front of it, there was an artist working things out.

The noise was real too, naturally. In 2020 the word MISUNDERSTOOD went across his cheekbone, a choice that lit up comment sections before it was removed roughly a year later. People laughed. Almost nobody paused to wonder what a young man in his twenties might be trying to communicate. The ink told part of his story anyway. Barbed wire on one hand, his sister’s name on his arm, and her own tribute to him on her shoulder, a young man mapping his identity in the most visible way a person can. None of those choices gave strangers the right to claim they understood everything going on beneath the surface.

Some chapters hurt and played out in full view. A DUI arrest in 2019 brought three years of probation, a court-ordered DUI program and community service. For a stretch the reply to critics came on Instagram Live, complete with dares to say it to his face. Bravado, sure. Whatever people made of those moments, they were seeing only fragments of a life that would later become the subject of far more personal conversations about depression, addiction and recovery.

By 2023 the register changed. On the Studio 22 podcast, depression got discussed without a flinch, and Presley said that helping even one person escape the place he had once been in would make his efforts worthwhile. He eventually brought that same openness to Mental Health Mondays, a recurring series on his page built around plain conversation with followers. One week explored recovery circles and finding common ground with strangers. Another dug into childhood as an active kid who surfed, swam, and played water polo, only to watch that fade once work took over. Ten years passed, by his own admission, before the need to move his body again finally clicked. Small confessions, honestly delivered.

What made those clips connect was their refusal to perform wellness. No perfect comeback was being marketed. This was a dispatch from inside the fight, and the energy turned outward too, through his work with A Sense of Home, a Los Angeles charity that helps people leaving homelessness furnish a first home. Presley also supported the organization through a clothing collaboration. His interest in helping others extended beyond social media, giving people who had faced difficult circumstances a chance to begin again with something tangible.

The final stretch was rough, and pretending otherwise was never his style. In December 2025, he posted a video filmed in a sauna, speaking openly about his mental health, panic attacks and the medications he had been prescribed, including Xanax, Valium and buprenorphine. He also described the grief behind his struggles. A lot of loss in many forms, by his account, not an excuse so much as the reason for where things stood. His mother replied underneath with words no writer can improve, reminding him that he was loved and not alone. In March 2026 came a trip to Mexico for ibogaine treatment, which Presley discussed publicly as part of his efforts to address addiction. He spoke about facing difficult emotions and hoping the experience would help him move forward. His willingness to share those moments did not mean that every part of his recovery belonged to the public.

Kaia may have captured him better than any headline. Weeks before his death, she told Vogue that the family had spent most of their lives fiercely private, and then her brother came forward willing to be, in her phrasing, very human for everyone. She spoke about the impact his struggles had on their family and expressed pride in his willingness to share experiences that others might have hidden. The two were close, working side by side and traveling together, which by his own telling made the whole thing a lot less lonely.

So how do you honor a celebrity’s kid as a full human being rather than a footnote to bigger names? You take the contradictions seriously. Presley Gerber was a booked runway talent, an amateur behind the camera, a reluctant lightning rod for internet cruelty, and, toward the end, a young man willing to speak publicly about addiction and despair. His difficult experiences became part of conversations that could help a stranger feel less alone on a bad night. He wanted the mistakes he had made to become lessons other people might learn from, and that desire deserves to be remembered alongside everything else.

Twenty seven years, that was the whole span. The surname got him through the door. Everything worth remembering after that belonged to him. Rest in peace, Presley.

Staff Writer; Jamar Jackson

This brother loves poetry, music, and the culture that raised him… His words come from somewhere honest, and they speak to everyday Black folks just living their lives… Reach him at JJackson@ThyBlackMan.com.

In this article we are centering our thoughts on a man, Ananias, whose name does not quickly spring to mind partly because there is little written about him in the Bible. However we are introduced to him in a powerful passage of sublime scripture Acts 9: 10-18. It would seem he came from nowhere, made a quick appearance and then disappeared back into oblivion. In todays colloquialism we would say that he had his fifteen minutes of fame. But that flippant characterization would be particularly misleading for this old and gracious disciple has something commendable to teach us all.

The early Church had countless problems to deal with and one of the biggest was a fanatically religious Jew named Saul. He persecuted the Church relentlessly, even to the extent of having Christians killed. During a journey north to Damascus, to continue his mischief, Jesus met him on the way and he was miraculously converted. During that encounter Saul lost his sight and it was Ananias whom God selected to go and see Saul and help him. In spite of the apparent dangers and understandable natural fear and reluctance, Ananias went on his way as instructed. This is courage personified and a whole lot more so let us calmly examine what is involved here in this example-for-the-age of true discipleship.

First we should note that true discipleship must involve commitment

True discipleship is somewhat like marriage in that without commitment it will surely fail; although it needs much more than simply commitment. By commitment in this context, we mean the acceptance of responsibility as a disciple, loyalty to God and the household of faith and steadfastness as you progress, knowing that the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8) Ananias was extremely committed and it could be seen in several ways.

He was committed in his living

The Bible leaves us in no doubt that Ananias was living a proper Christian life, he had accepted Jesus Christ, was saved and baptized and was a committed follower, and the Bible rightly describes him as a disciple, And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias (Acts 9: 10) Unlike the situation we have today, where freedom of worship is a human right, at that time in Palestine being a disciple of Jesus Christ was extremely risky and many believers were abused, tortured or executed.

This unsung hero is the kind of person God uses for his honor and glory; saved, sanctified and ready for service. God called him in an emergency and Ananias made no excuses in spite of the horrendous potential for harm. If you think things were easy, just remember the afflictions Paul himself suffered a little later, Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned (2 Corinthians 24-25)

Ananias knew that, all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. (2 Timothy 3:12) and he was fully prepared and willing to go the extra mile because he was fully committed to Jesus Christ.

He was committed in his listening

Ananias was not only diligent in his living; he was also attentive in his listening. We know this because as soon as the Lord spoke to him in the vision he immediately responded, Behold, I am here… (Acts 9: 10b) You notice that there were no questions like Who are you? or gasp of surprise because Ananias was accustomed to Gods voice.

How many of us, I wonder, can recognize Gods still, and calm voice amid the hurly burly of our existence. It pays to be listening. Remember Elijah managed to hear because he was listening and the Bible puts it like this, And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out (1 Kings 19: 12-13)

He was committed in his labour

Ananias was a committed labourer in Gods vineyard and knew whom he was working for and recognized him forthwith, here Lord. (Acts 9: 10c) Alas there are many who do not see beyond their immediate supervisor or pastor or bishop and fail to see the real boss. Jesus is Lord!

The modern church sadly has a long history of followers committing to the wrong people rather than to Christ. Remember Jim Jones of Guyanese-massacre notoriety? Let Jesus be Lord and surrender to him control of your life and he will use you for his honour and glory just like he did Ananias.

Next we should mention that true discipleship may involve concerns

It is true that some divine commissions are very demanding and may involve huge risks for the sake of the gospel. Many believers have perished over the centuries and are now with Christ, having paid the ultimate price for their discipleship. God does not call us to easy discipleship or hard discipleship, but sincere discipleship and that means to simply take up our cross and follow him, whatever that entails. In all of this, whatever our concerns, we must remember that God will see us through.

We notice Gods command

Ananias, a man accustomed to hearing and doing Gods command must be in shock at hearing this latest, unequivocal command, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus, for behold, he prayeth and hath seen in a vision a man called Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight (Acts 9:11-12)

At face value this command to Ananias made no sense. Why give assistance to the enemy of the Church? Saul has killed Christians. Many would wish that Saul stayed blind forever, but often we do not see the bigger picture as God does. Gods commands may not always make sense to us, but they are always correct.

Remember Gods command to Jonah did not make immediate sense either, but it saved a nation. And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not (Jonah 3: 10)

Equally Gods command to Philip seemed rather far-fetched but it saved an entire continent, And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert (Acts 8: 26).

Finally remember Gods command to Noah to build the ark in that location was baffling but it saved mankind. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark (Genesis 7:23)

We note the disciples concern

Ananias is not only shocked at the Lords command, he is initially reluctant to carry it out and sets out to convince God that in this case it is better to exclude him, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem. And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. (Acts 9:13-14)

This is an unpleasant and dangerous task, as far as Ananias is concerned, and he simply wants to avoid it. Having a healthy regard for your safety is not in itself displeasing to God.

Remember Moses response to God, Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt? (Exodus 3:11) This was different in that Moses was telling God that he was not capable of doing what God asked as if God do not know our capabilities.

Concerns are fine, we may have them at times, but disobedience is not. You do it in Jesus name because God says do it! Never forget this powerful reminder that in the end it is God himself doing it through you. (I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me – Philippians 4:13)

We note the disciples consolation

God listened to Ananias complaint with patience and compassion and then in an act of love to this frightened disciple gives him a worthy, magnificent consolation, But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel. (Acts 9:15)

Ananias must have been overjoyed at this great news. What a consolation to be told that you are taking part in helping God to evangelize the whole world!

God does not always let you know what or why he is doing something, but in the end you are always glad that you participated. Remember we can see only a small part, but God sees the whole!

Finally we should observe that true discipleship must involve obedience

True discipleship and obedience go hand in hand for it is a measure of how meaningful the relationship really is. Jesus once said to his disciples, Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you (John 15:14) and on the other hand, he reminded them that obedience is a vital part of that relationship, And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? (Luke 6:46) Here is how Ananias demonstrated his obedience.

We see his immediate response

For all his misgivings and initial reluctance once God tells him how it is, even if he does not know what is going to be the outcome, Ananias without hesitation starts out on his journey, And Ananias went his way (Acts 9:17a.) This is mighty pleasing to the Lord and sets an example to believers for all time.

He was not prepared to be argumentative and stubborn, but submissive and humble acting in faith and trusting the Lord. It would have been nice to witness his body language, but I believe his demeanour was saying Yes Lord, lets do it!

We see his instant reaction

Ananias, in obedience to the command of the Lord, goes to the house on Straight street, enters, approaches the blind Saul and says, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. (Acts 9:17 b)

Saul wouldve been in a quandary not knowing what would happen next and in particular how he would be received by the believers he had persecuted. When Ananias arrived and spoke this must have been like sweet music to the ears of Saul, who in all likelihood probably expected resentment from the Christians.

Ananias remark to Saul was the first contact he had with a Christian since his conversion and the first word he heard was the word brother. How deeply touching! May God help us to emulate this godly example?

We see his immense reward

Saul, who later became the Apostle Paul, was the greatest evangelist-missionary in the history of the church and this same Ananias set the whole thing in motion when he did as God commanded and laid his hands on Saul, And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith and arose, and was baptized. (Acts 9:18)

God rewarded Ananias during his lifetime when he saw and heard of the immense contribution Paul was making to the life and ministry of the church but Ananias greater reward will come when God rewards the faithful. We do not know exactly what forms the crowns will take but we know that God will reward crowns to deserving believers crowns of rejoicing, incorruptable crowns, crowns of glory, crowns of righteousness and crowns of life.

You may never know the results of your obedience to God here and now but heaven knows it. As Christians, we must take risks for God; the rewards are well worth it!

So here we have it, a supreme example of true discipleship and we need to praise God for Brother Ananias who has shown us how we can live our lives in service to our Lord. This beautiful example, especially now at this time should make us examine ourselves and ask some important questions. Am I a good example to believers and my neighbours? Can God count on me to do his bidding? Am I letting pride and selfishness impede my Christian ministry? I pray God will help us to make matters right as we seek to become examples of true discipleship.

Staff Writer; Henderson W.

You can contact this Christian brother at: HWard@ThyBlackMan.com.

In addition to an impeachment of the current occupant of the White House, Democrats now in control of the Congress will be expected to hold impeachment hearings for other members of the regime and possibly even members of the Supreme Court.

While such hearings are understandable and might be richly deserved, they might prove a disservice to the nation and a serious political mistake for Democrats. They would play into the narrative pushed by the current occupant of the White House, Republicans and their flunkies in the media that Democrats have no agenda other than to be opposed to the current occupant of the White House.

If the new Democratic controlled Congress wishes to adopt a Congressional resolution  expressing their contempt and embarrassment to the people of America and the world for the actions of the current regime over the last two years such a resolution would be admirable and statesmanlike.

If in the resolution they detail and denounce the crimes against humanity and crimes against the peace committed by the current regime and declare those responsible for such crimes as international criminals subject to trial by an international tribunal it too would be commendable and statesmanlike.

But beyond adopting such a resolution the entire focus of the New Congress should be passing legislation to undue all the pain, misery and evilness enacted by the regime and its enablers in the previous Congress.

Legislation directed at making housing more affordable for Americans regardless of age or where they live should be among the first order of business for the new Congress. Legislation to ensure Americans regardless of income and status have access to quality, affordable healthcare.

People in what is supposed to be the wealthiest most prosperous nation in the world should not be compelled to defer or deny their healthcare needs due to cost. For such to occur is nothing short of being an abomination. A stain on the soul of the nation.

The new Congress should burn the night oil seeking ways to lower costs of food, clothing and other essentials. If Congress needs to raise taxes, and raise them significantly, on individuals who own five plus houses, ten plus cars and have nothing better to do than show off their obscene wealth, then the new Congress needs to do the right thing and raise taxes.

If it needs to raise taxes and raise them significantly on corporations which prevents their executives from getting multimillion dollars bonuses on top of multimillion dollars salaries, so be it, raise those taxes.

Get out of the DC Bubble and hold meetings where the real people live. Real people whose sons and daughters are sent to fight in wars. Who work nine to five and then a second and third job just to keep a roof over their heads. Who pay their own food bills and fill up the cars they drive.

Remind the people and especially yourself that it is the people’s government, the residents of Main Street. Not the government of Big Tech and inhabitants of Silicon Valley.

Pass legislation that makes living in America affordable and desirable. Send it to the White House and see if the current occupant of the White House vetoes it. He might just surprise you.

Among other things he is a very transactional guy and if he thinks it might win favor with Democrats to stay out of jail you can bet your last bottom dollar that you won’t hear him holler. At the same time, he can be counted on to criticize the former Republican majority for not passing such measures.

The current occupant of the White House and Republican strategists are counting on a new Democratic controlled Congress to waste time and capital trying to litigate the last two years and holding impeachment hearings.

Will it make a difference to the average person if the current occupant is impeached a third, fourth or tenth time? It will not change history. He is destined to go down as the worst person to reside in the White House. It will not even be a contest.

Not just the worst, but the most incompetent, immoral, emotionally, mentally and intellectually challenged person to reside in the White House.

He would be ecstatic with the attention he would receive from another impeachment trial. It would play into his narrative that the Democrats only goal is to get him. However, Democrats should stay so busy passing an affordability agenda that no one sees or hears his name. It would drive him even more batty than he currently is not to be the center of the universe.

“Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.”

Staff Writer; Al Alatunji

Question or comment regarding this article? Feel free to send a message to: Alatunji@ThyBlackMan.com.