Chargers star Ladd McConkey opens up about important role of Christian faith in his NFL success
Ladd McConkey opened up about how his Christian faith drives his NFL success with the Los Angeles Chargers, sharing insights on team culture and playing free.
Trump reflects on sports’ impact on life, says you have to keep fighting no matter the circumstance
President Donald Trump said that sports are a microcosm of life and explained how the highs and lows in football games can be seen in life, just on a larger scale.
Treasury Secretary Bessent torches MSNBC over Argentina ‘bailout’ claims
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent set the record straight when MSNBC claimed that the Trump administration is providing a “bailout” to Argentina.
‘In most bailouts, you don’t make money. The US government made money.’
News broke in October that the Trump administration would implement a $20 billion currency swap with Argentina, which legacy media outlets have repeatedly described as a “bailout” for the Latin American country. Democrats criticized the plan, arguing that the administration had strayed from its America First agenda and failed to prioritize American farmers, citing trade negotiations with China that led to China temporarily suspending purchases of U.S. soybeans.
During a Friday morning interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” correspondent Jonathan Lemire asked Bessent, “How does a $20 billion bailout of Argentina help Americans?”
“Do you know what a swap line is?” Bessent replied to Lemire.
“It’s a currency swap, yes,” Lemire responded.
“Yes, but what is that?” Bessent asked.
RELATED: Trump’s ‘chainsaw’ ally wins key election in South America
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
“You’re the treasury secretary,” Lemire stated.
“Yes, but why would you call it a bailout?” Bessent questioned. “In most bailouts, you don’t make money. The U.S. government made money. We used our financial balance sheet to stabilize the government, one of our great allies in Latin America, during an election.”
He reiterated that the U.S. would make money from the arrangement, adding that he “would rather use peace through economic strength than have to be shooting at narco boats coming offshore if the [Argentinian] government collapsed.” Bessent called the situation a “generational opportunity in Latin America to create allies.”
RELATED: Trump scores win for American farmers as China commits to ‘massive’ soybean purchases
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
“By stabilizing the economy there and making a profit, then that’s a very good deal for the American people,” Bessent continued. “There’s a lot we could have been doing for the American farmers, but Democrats closed the government.”
He clarified that the arrangement with Argentina was a $20 billion credit line and that the U.S. has already made a profit on the swap line, which involved exchanging U.S. dollars for pesos.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Maryland school district allegedly indoctrinates 7th graders about gender: ‘Girl, boy, both or neither’
A middle school lesson is reportedly promoting the idea of “gender identity” and being “assigned” sex at birth.
Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland allegedly has an assignment designed for grade-seven students that pulls directly from pro-transgender sources.
‘Embrace family diversity, create LGBTQ+ and gender inclusive schools.’
The alleged assignment, provided to Defending Education, asks students to match a list of terms with a list of possible definitions. The terms are “sex assigned at birth,” “gender identity,” “transgender,” “gender expression,” and “cisgender.”
One of the definitions allegedly given refers to a person’s “internal sense of being male, female, or transgender,” further explaining that is “how you feel. Girl, boy, both or neither.”
Another definition refers to an “individual’s presentation,” which includes appearance and clothing as they relate to how the individual communicates “aspects of gender or gender role,” according to a screenshot on Defending Education’s site.
A person’s sex is also referred to as what “doctors/midwives” assign to someone when they are born, while gender identity is “how you feel,” the alleged exercise indicated.
Four of the definitions directly cite a program from the Human Rights Campaign, an organization that promotes transgender surgery and hormone therapy for children.
The lesson references WelcomingSchools.org, which describes itself as the “most comprehensive bias-based bullying prevention program” in the United States, meant to provide “LGBTQ+ and gender inclusive professional development training, lesson plans, booklists and resources” for educators who have access to children.
“We uplift school communities with critical tools to embrace family diversity, create LGBTQ+ and gender inclusive schools, prevent bias-based bullying, and support transgender and non-binary students,” the website says.
Erika Sanzi, senior director of communications for Defending Education, told Blaze News in a statement that the apparent vocabulary lesson requires students to “buy into an ideology that many reject.”
“Does MCPS require that students subscribe to gender ideology in order to fulfill the district’s family life requirements for middle schoolers? Because if so, that seems like viewpoint discrimination in a public school,” Sanzi stated.
At the same time, MCPS recently introduced harsher penalties into its code of conduct, which include suspension and expulsion for incidents involving drug possession, for example.
At least one local activist group said the new rules were detrimental to “black and brown students.”
“When we talk about intersecting into experiences of these black and brown students, they intersect to then lead them to be out of the classrooms, which means less time with academic study,” said Dorien Rogers from Young People for Progress, a Maryland group.
As reported by WJLA-TV, Rogers was also disappointed that the code of conduct was written only in English. The school system told WJLA that the new rules would soon be available in six languages.
MCPS did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Blaze News.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
‘Clear example of judicial activism’: Judge gives Democrats a boost with congressional map in red state
As Republicans attempt to redraw districts to gain a cushion in their razor-thin majority in Congress ahead of the midterms next year, an unexpected setback in a reliably red state raises the stakes.
A redistricting case in Utah has potentially thrown a wrench in the nationwide redistricting battle.
‘Turns out, she was orchestrating it from the start.’
The AP reported that Judge Dianna Gibson has ordered the Utah congressional districts to be redrawn in conformity with a 2018 ballot initiative known as Proposition 4, which in effect could grant Democrats a seat in the House.
Proposition 4’s map was drawn by the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government, the plaintiffs of the redistricting case. That map largely keeps Salt Lake City intact in one district rather than breaking it apart, creating a reliably blue voter base that could flip one of the state’s four congressional seats to the Democrats.
Gibson rejected S.B. 200, a congressional map that was enacted by Republican lawmakers and that maintained four seats, on the grounds that it did not meet the rules against gerrymandering.
RELATED: Gov. Gavin Newsom threatens to redistrict California after Texas GOP drops new district map proposal
Photo by Matt Archer/Getty Images
Gibson’s decision was reportedly handed down just a few minutes before the clock struck midnight on Monday.
Republican Utah state Rep. Candice Pierucci called the redrawn map a “clear example of judicial activism.”
Pierucci added, “The Judge drove the entire process, set aggressive deadlines and refused an extension for map drawing by the legislature. We moved 104 lawmakers under those deadlines and she herself couldn’t be bothered to issue the decision before a quarter to midnight. We followed her direction every step of the way — turns out, she was orchestrating it from the start.”
All four Utah congressional seats are currently occupied by Republicans, and Republicans currently have a slim majority in the U.S. House, holding 219 seats to Democrats’ 213. Three seats are vacant following two deaths and one resignation.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Trump reveals what’s at stake if Supreme Court rules against his tariffs: ‘Devastating’
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday regarding President Donald Trump’s authority to impose reciprocal and fentanyl-related tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Given the skepticism expressed by liberal and conservative justices alike, there is cause to suspect that things may not go in the president’s favor.
Trump has since underscored in a series of posts on Truth Social that a loss for his administration in this case would prove to be a “catastrophe” for the economy and national security.
Skepticism on the high court
One day prior to the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments in the consolidated cases Trump v. V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the president noted that the outcome of the case could mean “LIFE OR DEATH for our Country. With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, Financial and National Security. Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other Countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us.”
‘The US Supreme Court was given the wrong numbers.’
While Justice Samuel Alito appeared sympathetic to some of the government’s arguments, his conservative colleagues didn’t come across as entirely convinced.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, for instance, joined his liberal colleagues last week in trying to poke holes in U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s defense of Trump’s tariffs, suggesting that the danger of too liberal a reading of the IEEPA in the president’s favor risks creating “a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives.”
RELATED: Trump’s SHOCKING 25% truck tariff: A matter of national security?
Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Chief Justice John Roberts, like some of the other justices on the high court, took issue with the absence of the word “tariffs” in the IEEPA, which empowers the president to regulate imports of “property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest” during a declared national emergency.
“You have a claimed source in IEEPA that had never before been used to justify tariffs. No one has argued that it does until this — this particular case,” said Robert.
Roberts, whose note on the unprecedented nature of the interpretation was also raised by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, added that tariffs amount to an “imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress.”
Concern in the White House
Trump, no doubt aware of how the oral arguments went, has emphasized in the days since what is at risk.
Hours after indicating that any money left over from his proposed $2,000 tariff dividend for American citizens “will be used to SUBSTANTIALLY PAY DOWN NATIONAL DEBT,” Trump suggested on Monday that the cost of the Supreme Court’s invalidation of his tariffs — which Barrett said would likely be “a mess” — could be far higher than previously suggested.
Trump noted in a Truth Social post on Monday, “The ‘Pay Back’ Numbers being quoted by the Radical Left Lunatics, who would love to see us lose on Tariffs because of how bad it would be for our Country, are much higher than those being stated by our Fake Opposition — Opposition mainly from Foreign Countries that would do anything to be allowed to charge us Tariffs without retribution.”
‘Possibly non-sustainable!’
“The actual Number we would have to pay back in Tariff Revenue and Investments would be in excess of $2 Trillion Dollars, and that, in itself, would be a National Security catastrophe,” added the president.
In a subsequent post, Trump wrote, “The U.S. Supreme Court was given the wrong numbers. The ‘unwind’ in the event of a negative decision on Tariffs, would be, including investments made, to be made, and return of funds, in excess of 3 Trillion Dollars.”
As all revenues from tariffs, including new and pre-existing ones, through September of this year had raised between $174 and $195 billion, Trump’s allusion to a figure over $3 trillion appears to refer to the potential tariff revenue lost over the next decade.
According to a recent Tax Foundation report, Trump’s tariffs “will raise $2.4 trillion in revenue over the next decade on a conventional basis and reduce US GDP by 0.6 percent, all before foreign retaliation.” Other estimates put potential revenue as high as $3 trillion.
The Congressional Budget Office released an estimate in August indicating that “increases in tariffs implemented during the period from January 6, 2025, to August 19 will decrease primary deficits (which exclude net outlays for interest) by $3.3 trillion if the higher tariffs persist for the 2025-2035 period.”
Trump suggested further that the loss of tariff revenue and return of funds “would truly become an insurmountable National Security Event, and devastating to the future of our Country — Possibly non-sustainable!”
U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer told “Mornings with Maria” last week that the reciprocal tariffs at issue have netted over $100 billion but less than $200 billion and noted further that if they are invalidated, specific plaintiffs might receive a refund, but it remains unclear what will happen to the remainder.
“As for the rest of it … I’ll hand that file to the secretary of the treasury,” said Greer.
“You’ll have all these importers and importing interests who are going to want that money back, and so, you know, we’ll have to figure out — probably with the court — what kind of a schedule might look like and what the rights are of these parties and what rights the government has to that money.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Protestant pastor says polygamy is biblical: ‘He divinely ordained it’
A protestant pastor is not backing down from his claim that he can have multiple wives.
Rich Tidwell, a pastor in Canton, Missouri, has sparked an online debate about the acceptance of polygamy in Christianity and whether or not it is biblically justifiable.
‘I have two beautiful wives.’
To the expected amount of backlash, Tidwell recently made an announcement on his Instagram page that his second wife is expecting his eighth child.
“I have two beautiful wives,” Tidwell wrote in a long entry. “We’re thrilled for what the Lord has done for our family,” he added, citing Bible passage Luke 18:29.
The pastor wrote about his justifications in an article called “Plural marriage,” labeling the practice as polygyny, which refers to one man being married to multiple women.
“In 2019, I discovered the surprising fact that God not only never prohibited polygyny throughout the entire biblical narrative (as He did with polyandry or homosexuality), He divinely ordained it in several cases,” Tidwell claimed.
He then cited more passages.
RELATED: Church-hopping: Confessions of an itinerant worshipper
Exodus 21:10 regulates but does not prohibit the practice, Tidwell claimed, when it says, “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.”
Tidwell also noted 2 Chronicles 24:2-3, which mentions that “Jehoiada took two wives for him, and he became the father of sons and daughters,” as well as 2 Samuel 12:7-8:
This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: “I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.”
The pastor continued with more citations and said that if God explicitly gave men more than one wife at any time in history, “Then it was not and is not sin.”
For those who argued that polygyny is not the original design for mankind, Tidwell countered, “Neither is death, nor clothing, nor eating meat.”
RELATED: This crisis in churches is real. Will Christians fight back?
In an article titled “Should polygamist families be welcome at church?” Tidwell shared a letter he wrote to an Anglican church in Missouri requesting to attend its worship services; he was soundly denied.
A priest replied, saying the bishop, clergy, and parish council “unanimously decided against” the family’s participation.
“On multiple levels, polygamy is forbidden in our convictions, interpretation of Scripture, and the Canons and Constitution of the [Anglican Church of North America],” the unknown representative wrote, citing the following: “Canon II.7: Of Christian Marriage, which defines marriage as a lifelong union of one man and one woman.”
“These convictions are non-negotiable,” the letter said. “If you ever repent and become functionally and theologically monogamous, you are welcome to participate.”
Tidwell is a pastor at the nondenominational Ormond Church in Canton, Missouri, according to Protestia.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
