Paul Random

President Trump, Heaven and Our Father’s Greatest Gift

During an interview Tuesday on Fox & Friends, President Donald Trump spoke at length about Monday’s historic White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders.

Sharing his burden over the rising death toll suffered on both sides in eastern Europe, President Trump then offered, with a seeming smile in his voice, another motivation for trying to help broker a peace deal.

“I want to try and get to heaven, if possible,” he explained. “I’m hearing I’m not doing well. I am really at the bottom of the totem pole. But if I can get to heaven, this will be one of the reasons.”

For Shawn McCreesh of the New York Times, President Trump’s comments were quite shocking. From the Old Grey Lady’s White House beat writer:

This would have been a highly unusual admission from any president, but it seemed especially out of character coming from this one. The man who is regarded as a messiah by many of his own supporters — a belief he has encouraged at every turn — says now that he knows he’s no saint.

This fear of perdition raised some questions. Chief among them: Who, exactly, has been informing the president that he is “not doing well” with regard to kingdom come? Did Michael the Archangel somehow get Mr. Trump’s cellphone number?

Heaven comes up a lot in popular cultural conversation, and even with people who may not even consider themselves “religious.” There are people who mistakenly believe “all roads” lead there, and then there are those who discuss it in Hollywood-esque terms, a vague place populated with angels and harps.

It’s actually not unusual for politicians, journalists and even the general public to talk about somehow earning their way into Heaven. Ask a room full of people, many of whom might even profess belief in God, whether they’re going to Heaven when they die, and you’ll inevitably hear answers comparable to President Trump’s self-evaluation.

At a campaign rally last October, President Trump told the crowd, “I know my mother’s in Heaven. I’m not 100 percent sure about my father, but it’s close.”

One of the thrilling and overwhelmingly reassuring aspects of Christianity is that admission to Heaven isn’t merit based. There is no totem pole to climb, no boxes to check – no way to earn our way by being great or even good enough. Whether you make it to Heaven won’t be decided like a photo finish of a race. Close won’t be close enough.

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them,” said Jesus (John 3:36). We later read in John’s Gospel another declarative promise from the Lord: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (14:6).

As Christians, we don’t have to wring our hands in worry or frustration. We don’t have to wonder about our eternal destiny.

Believe and be saved – simple, and yet so beautifully profound.

Image from Getty.

Necessities Versus Luxuries When Raising a Family

Writing for our friends at the Institute for Family Studies, Erica Komisar, a psychoanalyst and author, makes an interesting observation about two recent major articles involving motherhood in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

It seems that the pieces, both of which focused on conservative women, spent the vast majority of attention on the mother’s point of view and very little centered on what’s best for their children

Komisar writes, “I’ve spent decades listening to what children tell us — through their behavior, emotional health, and resilience, about what they need most. I’ve witnessed firsthand in the adults that I see in my practice what happens when those needs aren’t met. The research is clear: in the first three years of life, children require consistent, predictable, and emotionally attuned care, ideally from a parent — most often the mother.”

Only Komisar notes most of the talk from the “political left” revolves around personal fulfillment. On the “political right,” she believes there’s too little talk about the economic conditions that “force most mothers into the workforce well before they or their babies are ready.”

There’s no denying that it’s expensive to raise children. Earlier this year, U.S. News and World Report compared current household costs with what the average American home managed back in 1925. A lot can change in a hundred years.

Back in 1925, the average household income was $5,425. In current dollars, that would be the equivalent of $98,968. Not surprisingly, those 1925 dollars went a long way, unlike today’s paychecks. The average new house back in 1925 cost $11,600 – or $211,619 today. In the second quarter of 2025, the average sale price of a house in the United States was $410,800. Back in 1925, a Model T Ford cost $260 or $4,743 in today’s dollars.

It could be argued, though, that relatively speaking, stretching dollars has always been a challenge – though some generations have undoubtedly faced unique circumstances. In recent years, the cost of basic household expenses has soared for a variety of reasons, including a consequence of bad economic policy, inflation and an ever-evolving understanding and expansion of what’s a necessity versus what is a luxury.

Today’s families face a slew of expenses that weren’t even imagined or considered generations ago, including various technologically based costs: Cellphones, cable, computers, and streaming services. Over the years, lifestyle expectations have skyrocketed – juiced by the power of suggestion communicated via those technological mediums. Everything from housecleaning, home maintenance, traveling sports leagues for kids, and dining out are all impacting the bottom line.

Are any or all of those expenses necessities or luxuries?

Financial guru and talk show host Dave Ramsey has long distinguished between what expenses are critical versus what’s optional by defining and prioritizing what he calls the “Four Walls” – food, utilities, shelter, and transportation.

Of course, there can be plenty of luxuries within those walls, too. We need food, but not excessive amounts or costly processed options. Eating out is often a luxury. We need utilities, but does everyone need air conditioning? We need somewhere to live, but the trend to larger homes raises the question of whether as much space as many now enjoy is needed. Transportation is a necessity, but would a used car suffice? Is a massive new truck a critical purchase? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Vacations are luxuries, as are travel sports teams, stops at Starbucks, and landscaping services – especially when able-bodied young people live in the home. College may or may not be for everyone, but many families are recognizing and appreciating the economic savings that can be found in nearby community or state colleges. Many who feel led to Christian colleges have enthusiastically pursued scholarship opportunities.

It would be wise, helpful and appropriate to acknowledge the impact and influence economic policy has on family economics. But it would also be wise to expand and pivot the conversation and consider what role individual choice and prioritization also has on the economic pressures many families are currently facing.

Image from Shutterstock.

The NFL Should Stencil These 3 Slogans in Endzones

Fans of the National Football League can expect to see a series of “social justice” messages once again emblazoned on the back of endzones this season.

It’s all part of the NFL’s “Inspire Change” initiative that’s “aimed at reducing barriers to opportunity, particularly in communities of color, and showcasing how the NFL family is working together to create positive change.” 

The phrase, “It Takes All of Us” will be displayed in one of the endzones of every game. Home teams will then have the option of stenciling one of the following four statements at the opposite end of the field:

“End Racism,” “Stop Hate,” “Choose Love” or “Inspire Change.”

These are the same messages the program featured last year, with the exception of the last one, which was originally “Vote Change.”

The “Inspire Change” initiative was first launched in 2019. It grew out of various controversies, including former San Francisco 49er quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s claims of “systemic racism” in both the league and elsewhere. In response, the NFL pledged hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to several organizations that were perceived to be helpful in addressing areas of concern.

The endzone messages are just one high profile manifestation of the campaign – but a controversial one that may well not only fail to accomplish its objectives, but maybe even do more harm than good.

There’s evidence fans have grown weary over being lectured to when it comes to specious claims, especially the insinuation that racism or hatred are running rampant in the NFL or the culture at large. The empty, bumper-sticker-type slogans ring hollow.

For Christians, especially, there is no tolerance for animus towards anyone over skin color, sexual confusion or other differences. Setting aside the occasional bad actor and behavior, where is the evidence that such broad declarations are even needed or would be effective?

To whom is the NFL directing their messages? It’s a shallow, token public relations stunt that understandably offends the sensibilities of fans – and turns off the very people they presumably want to entertain.

If the NFL is serious about addressing widespread issues in the league and elsewhere, they could do a lot better than the slogans they’re currently peddling.

May we suggest two:

“End Domestic Violence.”

“All Life is Sacred”

In recent years, the NFL has made changes to its personal conduct policy after dozens of its players were being arrested each year for domestic violence. Last fall, the league announced they had seen arrests drop in half from an average of 69 per year to 34.

This is a positive trajectory, but it still represents an enormous amount of hurt and heartache. To date, there has been no such onslaught of incidents of racism or hatred. So why has the NFL chosen to turn over the endzone space to vacuous slogans instead?

While the NFL saw viewership drop by 2% last year, the sport still commands a massive weekly audience. Surrendering its real estate to patronizing phrases will do little, if anything, to solve social problems – and likely further drive away viewers fed up with its lectures.

But if the league is open to reconsidering its current campaign, we might also suggest one more slogan for the endzone that is sure to stem the backlash that erupted this past week in Minnesota. This past weekend, the Vikings debuted a male dancer who joined the females, pompoms and all:

“No More Male Cheerleaders.”

Image from Getty.

We Need More Crying Children in Tennis Stadiums, Homes and Churches

On Monday, Great Britain’s Emma Raducanu wasn’t happy when the sound of a crying child could be heard during her tennis match against Aryna Sabalenka at the Cincinnati Open.

So, the 22 year-old, who is ranked number 10 in the world, complained to the umpire, claiming the crying was a distraction and had been going on for ten minutes.

“It’s a child, do you want me to send a child out of the stadium?” asked the official.

Several fans sitting within earshot of the umpire responded by shouting, “Yes!” Others cheered.

It’s always been a bit curious why a baseball player is expected to hit a 95-plus-mile-per-hour fastball with upwards of 50,000 fans screaming – and a tennis player can’t serve a tennis ball that’s in their hand unless it’s perfectly quiet all around them?

Ditto for golfers hitting a sedentary ball off a tee or putting on a green. Some golf courses are quieter than most churches. 

Call it tradition or something else, but cheering for the removal of a crying child from a tennis stadium points to a sobering sickness.

Culture is increasingly cheering the childless. The birth rate in the United States continues to decline. Now at 1.6 children per woman, it’s well below the replacement rate of 2.1.

In a society where voluntary childlessness is increasingly accepted or even celebrated, we see a greater value placed on possessions than people. Whether it’s the big house or the second house, newer cars, world travel or any other physical trophy or toy, it’s the accumulation of wealth rather than the large gaggle of children that’s championed.

It’s true that children can introduce new frustrations, but those children can also divide our sorrows and multiply our joys. 

Intentional childlessness can have a way of shrinking one’s world and turning the person selfishly inward.

Oprah Winfrey, who never married and never had children, once observed:

“If I had kids, my kids would hate me. They would have ended up on the equivalent of the Oprah show talking about me; because something [in my life] would have had to suffer and it would’ve probably been them.”

Did you catch that? Is Winfrey suggesting she would have been frustrated having to sacrifice for her children and then taken out frustrations on her children?

What we saw in the stands in Cincinnati is also a product of many adults choosing to forgo having children. Any mother or father knows well the challenges of a crying child. Having been in a similar situation somewhere else, it’s the parent who has empathy. Conversely, someone who has never navigated a similar situation is more likely to be agitated and aggrieved – and cheering the prospect of the crying child’s removal.

We need more crying children in tennis stadiums. 

Most importantly, we need more crying children in America’s homes and churches. 

As the old pastor said of his congregation, “If there aren’t children crying in our church, we’re a dying church.”

The same is true as a nation. 

Image from Getty.

The Increasing Irrelevance of Howard Stern and Why Christians Should Pray for Him

News of the looming “cancellation” of radio shock jock Howard Stern’s SiriusXM show made headlines last week, reports that were possibly either premature, exaggerated or contractually strategic – or maybe a lit bit of all three.

Since hitting the radio airwaves in the 1970s, Stern has been a magnet for controversy and a master at garnering publicity for all the wrong and offensive reasons.

Over the years, radio stations and networks who have employed and aired the radio deejay have been fined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for his repeated violations of broadcast decency standards. They’ve even decried his foul-mouthed antics, and yet at the same time exploited it for promotional purposes.

During his tenure on WNBC radio in New York, a station that also employed Don Imus, the vulgar pair were advertised with the slogan, “If we weren’t so bad, we wouldn’t be so good.”

Hypocrisy has long been alive and well. Wrote William Shakespeare, “God has given you one face, and you make yourself another.”

It’s been twenty years since Howard Stern left terrestrial radio for satellite, a move that liberated him from the few traditional broadcast standards he grudgingly honored. Some doubted whether the experiment would work, but the host’s draw proved extremely profitable for the fledgling medium. During the first year of Stern’s employment at Sirius, the company grew its subscriber rolls from 600,000 to six million.

SiriusXM now boasts 33 million total subscribers.

Howard Stern is now 71 years-old, reportedly broadcasts his show most of the time from his home in the Hamptons on Long Island, and has seen his listenership crater from a high of twenty million per week to 125,000. In recent years, he’s been accused of going “woke” in the wake of several politically charged outbursts, including his support for the sexually confused Dylan Mulvaney of Bud Light infamy.

A self-described germaphobe, Stern was known to isolate himself for years following the COVID-19 pandemic.

On Wednesday, Sirius and Stern began teasing audiences with an ad stating, “All the questions will be answered, all the truths will be told by the one man truly on the inside on Tuesday September 2.”

Few men in media have been viler and cruder for so many years than Howard Stern. Some have even credited him with helping to normalize the abnormal. That’s the progressive nature of filth. What shocks one generation rarely surprises the next.

In recent years, Stern has expressed regret for the way he’s treated co-workers, guests and even family members. He’s acknowledged his narcissism. Despite being an avowed atheist, there have even been gentle and sweet public moments. Back in 2015, as a judge on “America’s Got Talent,” Stern complimented a five-year-old girl by saying, “I think Shirley Temple is living somewhere inside of you.” The little one responded, “Not Shirley Temple. Jesus!”

“There you go,” Stern replied. “Now you’re talking.”

Transitions in life can be poignant, emotional and perspective altering. With an annual salary of over $100 million a year, industry watchers are suggesting SiriusXM won’t be able to pay Stern that kind of money anymore. But at this stage of his career, it’s unlikely that money is motivating the radio jock.

Is he looking for meaning, purpose, lasting significance? Whether he renews a contract or retires, it would be good to pray for Howard Stern. His efforts have done much to harm and pollute America’s airwaves and fill people’s minds with unspeakable trash. It’s impossible to know what he believes these days – or in whom he might be placing his hope and trust.

One of the many incredible aspects of Christianity is that God has made clear He will meet anyone anywhere regardless of anything they’ve done if they’re repentant and seek a relationship with Him.

Nobody this side of eternity is irredeemable, including Howard Stern.

Image from Getty.