John Stonestreet – Page 5

America Flirts with Democratic Socialism

Jul 16, 2026John StonestreetCurrent EventsCommunism, Socialism

Recently, in primary elections in both New York and Colorado, self-professed Communist and Democratic Socialist candidates beat even progressive-wing candidates to claim Democratic nominations for office. The political wave is moving through the States. Today on Breakpoint, Eric Patterson, president of the Victims of Communism Museum and Memorial Foundation, discusses how a Marxist worldview operates and why it matters that one of America’s political parties is being pushed in this direction. Here’s Dr. Patterson:

Today’s so-called Democratic Socialists like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani have recognized some real problems in the bureaucracy: things like inefficiency, red tape, lack of accountability, and other problems in urban environments such as in Baltimore, New York, and Chicago. But they fail to recognize that it was their own progressive party’s imposition of bigger and bigger government, restrictions on private property and innovation, and efforts to create a class of citizens dependent on government that has caused the problems of bad government and high prices.

Should Americans be worried, or is this all just youthful enthusiasm? True, there is a faddish “pop Marxism” among many young adults and teens. It is cool to “rage against the machine” and even cooler to have government subsidize your college degree, housing, groceries, and transportation.

But there is something much more sinister going on. Americans should always ask three questions when considering any political candidate, platform, or party: Do we want statism or individual liberty with limited government? Do we want to buttress American institutions or attack them? And can we justify or denounce political violence?

Considering the first question, are the policies that Democratic Socialists advocate for designed to protect religious freedom, freedom of conscience, private property, the family, and private enterprise? Or do they rely on increasing state power to regulate social, economic, and political life? Remember, Marx said that control of the economy (Socialism) was the first step toward control of everything (Communism). It’s noteworthy that Democratic Socialists attack private property, an innovative business environment, and often call freedoms of religion and conscience smokescreens for superstition and intolerance of their progressive agenda.

Second, do Democratic Socialists defend our American constitutional order and its institutions, or do they attack them? Look out for those who call into question our Constitution, who advocate Supreme Court packing, and those who call outdated or illegitimate our modes of government (federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, democratic processes).

Third, do they justify violence or advocate violence? Radical socialism is always an “ends justify the means” worldview. Look at the environment we are in with multiple assassination attempts against a sitting president, violence and threats targeting Supreme Court justices, and all the destructiveness, from Occupy Wall Street to Seattle’s “Capital Hill Autonomous Zone”to anti-Semitism on American college campuses. So often, Democratic Socialists like Mamdani, NY’s Andrea Ocasio-Cortez, Colorado’s Melat Kiros, and Seattle’s mayor have justified such extremism.

The official Democratic Socialists of America website suggests major taxation and redistribution of wealth by unaccountable government bureaucrats to fund “universal public systems for healthcare, college, and housing.” It undermines America’s constitutional order by calling for dramatic changes to the Supreme Court and Congress and the elimination of the Electoral College.

Perhaps even more stunning? DSA calls for full voting rights for non-citizens, punitive taxation on “the richest earners,” and statehood for the city of Washington, DC.

What most of the candidates who call themselves Democratic Socialists also have in common is a fealty not to ecological conservation, but to the philosophically radical, budget-busting, so-called Green New Deal. Moreover, since the grotesque attacks of October 7, many have squarely sided with Hamas’ murderers rather than the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel. This latter movement has produced the return of an ugly anti-Semitism to American public life from the hard Left.

This year, we celebrate America’s 250th birthday, best expressed in the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. As Martin Luther King, Jr. noted, the Declaration was not fully realized in 1776 but was a promissory note to future generations that we must all be working to fulfill. The great American story is one of scars and triumphs in the general motion toward greater individual liberty and the full recognition of our common human dignity.

The Founders knew that unrestrained government power was the first enemy of freedom. The British government kept changing the social contract by waving trial by jury, quartering troops in private homes, appropriating private land and businesses, revoking the colonial charters, etc. Then, after a decade of taking more and more rights away from the colonists, the British killed citizens at Lexington and Concord, marking the start of the American Revolutionary War.

So, the Founders were determined to buttress individual rights, our federal system, private property, and other fundamental liberties. Today, we too must be on the lookout for those who advocate for a massive, unaccountable state, undermine our fundamental rights and institutions, and are willing to justify violence.

That was Eric Patterson, president of the Victims of Communism Museum and Memorial Foundation, Learn more about their work at vocmuseum.org.

What Americans Really Believe about What’s Best for Children: Guest Column

Jun 30, 2026John StonestreetMarriageChild Welfare, Family, Marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges

As a recent Substack post from children’s rights advocacy group Them Before Us accurately summarized, the decision issued eleven years ago in Obergefell v. Hodges “did more than mandate marriage licenses for same-sex couples.”

It redefined marriage in law, and redefining marriage redefines parenthood. Once husbands and wives became optional in marriage, mothers and fathers became optional in parenthood, eroding the right every child has to their own mother and father.

Thus, the Obergefell decision marked a further stage in the evolution of one of the core ideas of the sexual revolution: that men and women are interchangeable, not only in rights but also in social roles and even in reality itself. A legal decision of this magnitude inevitably shapes the cultural imagination, defining down the essential differences between men and women, husbands and wives, and mothers and fathers as mere cultural constructs. And ever since, we’ve been served the narrative that the social innovation of same-sex “marriage” is settled, both in culture and in law.

But what if it isn’t?

A new poll conducted by The Decision Co., of 1200 conservative and moderate likely voters, found that a significant majority believe, “children matter, mothers matter, fathers matter, and children’s needs should come before adult desires.” According to the data, the narrative that even social and political conservatives want same-sex “marriage” and consider it “settled law” is unsubstantiated conjecture.

As Josh Hammer, Senior Editor-at-Large at Newsweek and host of The Josh Hammer Show, said:

“This poll exposes the growing disconnect between elite cultural narratives and the convictions of conservative and moderate voters. Despite years of messaging from the media, academia, and corporate America, these voters continue to affirm a fundamental belief: whenever possible, children should be raised by and connected to both their mother and father. At a time when the center-right is often portrayed as fractured, this survey reveals remarkable unity around a principle that should never have become controversial: the rights and needs of children deserve to come before adult desires.”

Among the findings from this survey,

96% of these voters say it is important for a child to be raised with both an involved mother and an involved father.
82% of those surveyed agree that no child should be deliberately denied a mother or a father.
78% agree that when a child’s needs conflict with an adult’s desires, the child’s needs should come first.
66% reject the claim that being raised by same-sex parents is no different for a child than being raised by an adoptive mother and father.
63% of those surveyed agree that children are harmed when they lose their mother or father to be raised in a same-sex household.

For the record, the best social science data supports the views that these voters have. While direct comparison studies between children raised by married mothers and fathers and those acquired by same-sex couples are often plagued by poor methodology, self-selective sample groups, and ideological bias, two social science findings are overwhelmingly clear. First, children raised in homes by biological, married mothers and fathers have a distinct advantage. And second, mothers and fathers parent differently, and those differences matter greatly.

Interestingly, church attendance is a major differentiator for what people believe about marriage, children, and parenting. “Among voters who attend church regularly, 72% agree that every child should be legally recognized as having a mother and father, but so do 43% of those who never attend church at all.” On one hand, the gap is sizeable. On the other hand, a significant portion of the population currently holds a counter-cultural view about children.

Of course, a lesson to be learned from over 50 years of pro-life activism, is that people do not always connect their beliefs with the implications of those beliefs. Often, consistency is disrupted by a population taught that moral beliefs must be kept personal and private and should be outweighed by a commitment to “tolerance” and “accepting everyone.” Here too, the heaviest work to be done by those of us hoping to protect children is worldview work.

But there’s another lesson to be learned from those who have fought so hard for so long to make abortion not merely illegal but also unthinkable. The Supreme Court cannot settle an issue that is so far upstream of its jurisdiction. Obergefell is not the first or only time the Court has gotten an important decision wrong.

Like in the past, the moral failure of Obergefell is an expression of bad anthropology. And, like the past, this is no theoretical mess we are in. For children everywhere, it’s personal. We owe it to them to tell the truth, oppose the lies, and convince as many people as we can.

Learn more about the study and how you can join the Greater Than Campaign at greaterthancampaign.com.

Guest Column: Spielberg Wants to “Mess With” Your Faith

Jun 24, 2026John StonestreetChristianityChristianity, Church Ambassador Network

Award winning film director Steven Spielberg said recently that his new film will likely “mess with” a lot of people’s theology. “Disclosure Day” is about what would happen if there were a sudden mass revelation about the existence of extraterrestrial life. According to Spielberg, it will force people, especially Christians, to rethink Who God is.

As he told CBS Sunday Morning,

What does this do to the fundamental beliefs that many of us have? … Is God our God only on this planet or is God a God for every system where there’s civilization, intelligent life, and even developing life?

It’s not unusual for celebrity artists to weigh in on things outside of their expertise, but this talented filmmaker is out of his depth. Even if there were a real life disclosure day, it would not alter anything about Christians’ fundamental beliefs. The God portrayed in the Bible created and oversees the entire universe. As the Psalmist said, “The Lord established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all.” That could easily include other worlds and other life forms. But of course, there is no evidence of that anyway. This is a film. Spielberg must think that Christianity is barely hanging on from falling into the dustbin of history.

If so, he’s certainly not the first. Expectations of Christian extinction go back to the beginning. According to the Gospel of John, the High Priest Caiaphas thought that killing Jesus would erase His influence. When He failed to stay dead, the Jerusalem authorities thought that bribes and rumors would stamp out the new Faith. Those same authorities hoped that beating and scolding the apostles would keep them quiet.

The Romans spent centuries trying to stamp out Christianity, from Nero who infamously burned believers in his gardens to Marcus Aurelius who believed he could mock them out of their faith. By the 200s, the Church had grown so much that Emperor Decius decreed an empire-wide assault on Christians. By the beginning of the fourth century, Diocletian instigated the Great Persecution. In the end, persecution set the stage for toleration. Eventually, under Theodosius I, the Roman Empire was Christianized.

Later, when the Western Empire fell to Germanic tribes, the Church did not fall with it. Instead, Christianity not only endured but the pagans were converted. Islam tried to take down the Church a few centuries later. After subjugating Christianity in the Middle East, Muslim raiders seemed poised to conquer Western Europe. They were stopped in the middle of what is France. Almost 1,000 years later, armies of the Turkish Sultan advanced to Vienna, twice, before being pushed back. The smart money would have been that Christianity would fall, but it did not.

During the Enlightenment, confidence that the Church would fall was at an all-time high. In the 1700s, the influential French thinker Voltaire claimed that he was “living in the twilight of Christianity.” In 1822, Thomas Jefferson added that, “I trust there is not a young man now living in the U.S. who will not die a Unitarian.” Voltaire’s home later housed a Bible society, and Jefferson’s generation was followed by religious awakenings and an explosion of missionaries sent around the world.

In the twentieth century, the Communists predicted the end of what Marx called the “opiate of the masses.” Everywhere they went, revolutionary groups assaulted religion, especially Christianity. In Russia, China, Cuba, and elsewhere, the first targets of the Communists were churches, pastors, priests, and other religious groups. Often the persecution worsened out of frustration that the Faith simply would not die. In the end, Christianity stood over Communism’s grave, after contributing to its demise.

Whether from internal failings or external threats, Christians can be discouraged. But, to borrow a quip from Mark Twain, predictions of the church’s demise are greatly exaggerated. If emperors and empires and armies haven’t stamped it out, Steven Spielberg doesn’t have a chance.