Final Entry!

Fellow bloggers and readers, I am moving my site to my webpage: SamSorbo.com.

Please join me there for further updates, and tune in to the Sam Sorbo Show on TalkStreamLive.com or listen in with the Sam Sorbo Show app!

You can check out my new book at SamSorbo.com as well.

Thank you for your continued support!





Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush recently proclaimed that we are at war with “radical Islam,” but Hillary Clinton assures us that “Islam is not our adversary.” She goes so far as to refuse to use the very words, “radical Islam,” because that “… sounds like a declaration of war.” Labeling people now equates to a declaration of war? That’s crazy.

In light of the media’s response to the recent San Bernardino attack, the president’s corresponding reluctance to call it terror, and his attorney general Loretta Lynch’s strange pledge to take aggressive action against anyone who uses “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence,” (where is that happening?), this is a war we are determined to lose, and at great cost, apparently. Even at the cost of our first amendment, and perhaps the second one also. That’s, well, crazy.

Loretta Lynch declares action against something that doesn’t exist, while France just closed three mosques, citing their close ties to radical language and jihadist propaganda, with plans to close up to 160 more. Vienna, Austria is moving to close 75% of Muslim kindergartens, because they are fomenting racial hatred and radicalizing children. Those countries are taking concrete steps to combat terrorism, in stark contrast to the vague, insincere, defensive blathering our feeble leader just made last night. Even his advisors admit there is no new strategy to replace his previous lack of strategy.

The president’s address was blessedly short, which emphasized his particular lack of interest for the subject of terrorism in general and the safety of Americans in particular.

He said we would overcome the terrorism threat “… by being strong and smart…” Such comforting words, though lacking in both specificity and authenticity. He told us the Islamic State does not speak for Islam, and lamented the existence of an “interpretation of Islam that calls for war against the US,” leaving a thinking person to question the source of his proficiency in and knowledge of Islam. He is a constitutional expert, granted, but from where does he gleam his incredible mastery of Islam? And regardless of his own feelings about it, we are clearly under attack, while his answer is platitudes and overall inaction. Following are his four disappointingly hollow strategy points and promises concerning addressing the threat of terrorism:

  1. We will hunt them down. (How’s that working so far?)
  2. We will provide training to localized forces on the ground. ($500 million spent in Syria and a handful of trainees to show for it.)
  3. We will work with friends and allies, including Muslim communities in the US, to prevent current plots and disrupt worldwide efforts. (uh… it’s about time?)
  4. We will establish processes to pursue an end to the Syrian war in order to focus on the common goal to destroy ISIL. (Still trying that old line.)

Obviously, this is all just smoke and mirrors that the American public might just be crazy or traumatized enough to choose to believe. Not only was there nothing new in this, but there was no real identification of the threat, no clear understanding of jihad or the enemy’s tactics, nothing related to the ideology that encourages killing. Obama assured us that there was no evidence of a connection between the San Bernardino terrorists and IS. What’s he need, membership cards on the dead bodies? These two terrorists had both professed their allegiance to the Islamic State. If that doesn’t count as affiliation to IS, we are left to surmise they are simply taking their cues from the book, general Islam, and not the ‘radical version of Islam.’ Which is the more frightening proposition?

In an appeasement play, Obama also mentioned Ft. Hood (still classified as ‘workplace violence’), and the shooting in Chattanooga as examples of this type of ‘general’ radicalization (i.e. not Islamic State). For heavenly days, there he goes again, impugning all Muslims, while imploring the citizens of this great nation not to turn against one another, that there is no war between America and Islam.

The messaging has gotten so convoluted, mainly because of the incredible lies that permeate main stream media and so much of what emerges from  the White House (and elsewhere in politics, today.) “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is replaced by “If you see something, say something.” Yet, Clock Boy is suing the city and schoolfor fifteen million dollars, simply because a teacher saw something, namely a clock that was made to look like a bomb, and said something.

The outcome is guilt, no matter what the truth. The person who reports is guilty of profiling, the person who doesn’t is now an accomplice. It used to be, in saner days, that profiling was simply good law enforcement practice. Now, the message is profile, but don’t profile, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

The double-standard is enough to drive a country crazy, and perhaps that’s the point. The left’s tactics are to divide and conquer: pit people against each other. The poor versus the wealthy, the legal versus the illegal, one color against another. Sanity against insanity. But the brilliance here is to subsequently blame people for turning on one another. It is a strategy as clever and diabolical as the Soviets’, who, while depriving Ukrainians of food, posting signs imploring the starving populous not to eat their own children (while secretly hoping they would?)

Why did it take so long for the media and the president to identify what nearly everyone else knew immediately about the attack, namely that it was terrorism? Because of political correctness, and the president pulling ‘facts’ out of thin air, and the politeness of society not to call him on his falsehoods: “you can keep your doctor” and twenty-five hundred dollars in savings, per family; ISIL was contained, until it wasn’t; we were completely safe from terrorists, except we weren’t. Oh, and the vetting process of refugees will be fool-proof, meaning, unfortunately, that we are the fools for permitting it to proceed.

After all, Malik, the San Bernardino terrorist, was thoroughly vetted for her visa. It simply depends on Obama’s definition of “vetting.”

This shell game with the truth is enough to drive us all crazy. Straight jackets for everyone!



On July 22nd, Glenn Beck is having a Common Core educational event at 600 theaters around the country called, “We Will Not Conform.” It’s very exciting to think that individuals across the US will be brought together in an interactive event where they can learn and share and even strategize about how to defeat the evil that is currently invading our schools.

My friend, who is extremely knowledgeable about Common Core on US education in general, is refusing to go to this event, because she knows they will be supportive of charter schools, of which she is not.

This is the eternal (it seems) debate. Whether to support a half-way solution as a method to achieve a better version of corruption. I struggle with this myself, because I am very drawn to black-white and not so much into gray. I think in terms of ‘thumbs up’ or ‘thumbs down’. But radical change is a tough move, and so… baby steps. Is rejecting Common Core and promoting school choice, including charters, better than status quo? Certainly. Is this the best option? No, but that option is not available at this time.

I support Beck’s event simply for its attempt to start the dialog, or raise the volume. I don’t support charters because they are tax-money-for-no-accountability. But as an alternative to no-account public schools, I choose door number “C” for charter. We must engage in any reasonable dialog that is offered, in this case by Beck himself, or there is no discussion at all.

BTW, it turns out that Huckabee has completely walked back his position on CCore. You might recall that initially he proposed changing the name of Common Core (I myself suggested Commune-Core), to fool all those home school zealots out there, but it turns out the home school zealots are not that easily fooled! (Not as easily as Huckabee had been. But he can be excused because, having been present almost at the creation of the standards, or at least the idea to have standards, he simply was unaware of how things had morphed.) Now he’s come to realize the entire initiative was hijacked by the left in an attempt, as per usual, to create a working class of little marxist laborers. Huckabee still believes standards are a good idea. The argument to that is, of course, not if they can be (and were so easily) subverted by nefarious agents.

The most secure solution is for parents to involve themselves more in their kids lives and education, take back the tax payments and relieve the government of a responsibility to which it clearly cannot aspire. That will take a reformation on a grander scale. For the time being, however, discussion is a great place to start, because people cannot effect change in education if they are unaware that change is even necessary. It turns out that education is the antidote to conformity, just as it is to the Common Core.

God by any Other Name

This morning, I woke up and checked the news for any report on the box office of my husband’s most recent film, God’s Not Dead, which opened last night. Imagine my surprise to find that, not only is it tracking to earn better than 50% more than initially expected, but the article in Variety failed to even mention one of the stars of the film. This is tremendously odd, because this same actor played the title role of at one time the most-watched television show in the world, and a pivotal supporting role in the smash hit Soul Surfer, and is a man who is recognized by people on the street, by name, world-wide. Of course, it’s

Kevin Sorbo

There, I wrote it – it’s not a swear word or a “banned” word (like Sheryl Sandberg’s “bossy”), it’s the name of the actor in the film that is “co-starring Shane Harper,” as Variety reports. The Variety article also mentions that Willie Robertson appears in the film, but of my hubby, who does an outstanding job portraying an angry atheist, Variety says nothing. Nada. Bupkiss. Zip.

Actor Kevin Sorbo plays (Image source: "God's Not Dead"/YouTube)

Actor Kevin Sorbo plays Professor Radisson in “God’s Not Dead.” (Image source: “God’s Not Dead”/YouTube)

I wondered, could there be an agenda driving this lack of commentary (ignorance, in the truest sense of the word)?

The second sentence of the article gives it away. “Shailene Woodley’s “Divergent” might be the No. 1 film in America but faith-based audiences are once again proving to be anything but conservative at the U.S. box office.” (Emphasis mine.)

Observe, if you are going to see Christian films, you simply must be a leftist! (You must be one of us!) Apparently, at Variety, at least, conservative is the new liberal. That’s the same kind of logic that gave us “job-locked” and “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

It’s clear, from Bill Maher’s recent rant against God to the reviews of God’s Not Dead, that Hollywood doesn’t like Christianity. The Hollywood Reporter’s reviewer, Steven Farber, actually criticizes the film on the basis that, “It cheapens the issues to suggest that anyone who doubts the existence of God came to that conclusion because of a personal trauma.” Farber believes, apparently, that all atheists simply evolved, lazily coming to the assumption there is no God, from no particular causation, similar to the  atheistic belief that the entire world came about by pure accident.

I tried to ignore his swiss-cheese logic, but as a co-author of The Answer: Proof of God in Heaven, a book based on the incredible logic of the universe, I cannot. For instance, when Farber says of the subplot, “a Muslim girl who defies her overbearing father by embracing Christianity… is seriously offensive in suggesting that Muslims are the only religious group intolerant of other faiths.” Does he believe that every Hollywood movie in which the priest or the cop turns out to be the bad-guy intends to portray ALL priests and cops as bad-guys? (Or does he believe they all are, and therefore is goes unremarked?)

Farber continues: “As the title and the producing entity suggest, the film is clearly designed as propaganda to counter Hollywood’s more typical ‘godless’ efforts.” While accusing the filmmakers, Farber reveals he is not above propagandizing, himself. He unwittingly exposes his abject bias by reporting, “On the first day of class, the haughty Professor Radisson (Kevin Sorbo) asks that all students sign a paper affirming that ‘God Is Dead,’ so that he will not have to spend time arguing with traditional believers. Josh refuses to sign, and the professor reluctantly offers to let him have a portion of three classes to try to win the other students over to his devout point of view.” (Emphasis mine.)

In fact, the professor happily goads Josh, demanding, insisting and requiring that the student present his own argument, saying, “I’m going to enjoy failing you!” This atheist professor is anything but “reluctant.” Neither was Bill Maher, who haughtily said, “No one can blame me when I say this is a stupid country. When 60 percent of the adults in it think the Noah’s Ark story is literally true.”

Bill Maher may make his arrogant comments and court of public opinion will issue judgement, pending the final one, of course. Kevin Sorbo is a also man who stands resolutely in defense of his faith and his freedom to express it. Having survived a major health crisis at the age of thirty-eight, he understands the value of faith. He told TheBlaze he hopes the film shows skeptics that “there might be something greater out there.” Sorbo is neither reluctant nor haughty.

Many atheists, and apparently many Hollywood types, are reluctant.  They don’t want to be bothered:  to think about God,  to defend their positions, to speak of any of this. And it bothers them that a film, the very name of which they find outrageously offensive, is performing exceedingly well. Perhaps they see too much of themselves in the professor’s character. So, just like the nasty professor, who started his class by ending the discussion, they intend to do that in the media surrounding this film as well. The difference is, the professor accused his adversary by name. But in more cowardly fashion, Variety begins their discussion of the success of God’s Not Dead by not deigning to mention KEVIN SORBO by name.

*** Since our posting this article, Variety has stealthily modified the content of their article to include Sorbo’s name at the very end. They have just perfected the Gaslighting Technique.


Sometimes it takes a while for the right message to spread, especially through a complacent, distracted populous, but the message is there waiting when they are ready.

Last week I was invited to come on The Dana Loesch Show for The Blaze TV, to speak about home schooling. I’ve been an advocate for years, but with the advent of Common Core, the stakes are higher and the debate has intensified, so I will grasp any opportunity to get my message to those who need to hear it.

Earlier in the week, I was questioned directly after church by another church-goer as to why I advocate so strongly for home schooling. It was crowded and noisy after the service, and I had to come up with a succinct, to-the-point answer for my curious friend. “I don’t believe an institution is the best place for any child,” I answered. This crystalized my passion for children better than I had ever done previously, and the timing for my epiphany was impeccable.

On Dana’s show, I managed to expound more on that analysis. It boils down to the fact that our society has been brainwashed to believe that teachers have cornered the market on education, that institutional education is the best way to accomplish – what, exactly? Conformity and indoctrination, of course. Progressive, liberal, ideological indoctrination, masquerading as the government’s  care and consideration for your children. The government doesn’t care, and the sooner you disabuse yourself of patently false notions, the better off you and your children will be. This government doesn’t even care enough about its bottom line to encourage people to work, even for its own tax revenues. Witness the outrageous job-loss concordant with the implementation of Obamacare and the invention of the phrase “job-locked” to excuse it away. And we are supposed to trust these people with our precious children?

I got an email from an acquaintance, asking to speak to me about her daughter. We had met briefly a few years ago at a social event. She found my number through a mutual friend. Her daughter, Jane, was rebelling against going to school. Jane would cry and find excuses to avoid going to junior high each day, and her grades reflected her frustration. A superintendent-type at the school had suggested taking Jane out of the system, doing a kind of public school home study with her. This way, the school could retain the child’s funds, but be absolved of responsibility. Clever plan. Unfortunately, or rather, fortunately for the girl, that program was full and the mom was seeking alternate options.

Mom began our phone call saying she could never home school her daughter. Inside, I crumpled. But I am an eternal optimist. We chatted for a while about the situation. She divulged that when she told Jane to study for social studies, for instance, the girl would answer, “I don’t know how to study!” Imagine that! They don’t actually teach them how to study in an institution designed for that purpose! I confided that as a public schooled youngster, it took me until my first year at Duke to learn how to study (from a fellow classmate, mind you). I explained that the system – the institution – had failed Jane, and I believed the worst thing for Jane would be to dump her in another institution. “But I haven’t a clue about how to home school,” was Mom’s answer. 

I pursue a classical Christian education for my kids, but there are a plethora of other options out there for parents, and resources for those new to schooling. We explored options for her, and she finally realized that she was not as impotent as our system wanted her to believe. As I educated her on what her best choices might be, a shift came over her and she brightened. She said, “Wow, I think this might be the best thing for our relationship, actually. I can take her out of school, cover the basics, and teach her how to enjoy learning again.” I smiled. Sure, it had been two years since I had first blabbed to her about home schooling, but sometime it takes that long for the message to hit home.

Ultimately, the goal of education is to show the child how to teach themselves, to equip them so they can satisfy their innate love of learning – for the rest of their lives. Too often we see that brick and mortar schools ‘teach’ quite the opposite. With the advent of the internet, great educational materials are mere clicks away – even the classics are all at the library.

My message is resonating with people more now because the battle has intensified. Common Core is awakening parents in ways I couldn’t have dreamed. They are now positioning for defense of their children. It’s high time.

Dear Mr. David Silverman,
Thank you for the recent debate you and my co-author engaged in on Fox, regarding your placement of a billboard in Times Square announcing “Take the Christ out of Christmas.” It was interesting to hear your point of view, which boils down to you protecting others from their religion. “Christmas is fun, except for the church stuff, so just leave that out of it.”
Having been raised an atheist Jew, much like yourself, I can completely understand your position and your erroneous interpretation of religion – Christianity, to be precise – as punitive and destructive, something to rescue others from. I also know that once I proved to myself the existence of a Holy and Righteous Creator, my fear dissipated and I became a much happier person. Religion, far from being constricting and burdensome, as you believe, set me free to enjoy my life.
Sadly, you admit to never having attended church, so you couldn’t possibly know. How many professionals did you speak to before concluding the entire profession was wrong? In any case we know you are not alone. We all know people who are disappointed in God and Church, like you. You represent them, childishly daring an omnipotent God, who graciously endowed his creation, humankind, with free choice, to make a believer of you.
After I prayed for you, I began to wonder if God wasn’t actually simply working through you, in His attempt to reach you and many more. I’ve concluded that we believers owe you a debt of gratitude. You are serving God in placing that billboard, which, by denigrating both Christ and anyone who worships Christ, proves only the opposite – that there would be no Christmas without Christ, and that after 2000 years, Christ is still stirring hearts and minds.
Marius mentioned that Christmas is like the celebration of a friend’s birthday, but He isn’t just any friend. We celebrate the life of a hero who died, a Savior who sacrificed His life for us, to whom we owe our very freedom in this Judeo-Christian country. Your billboard spits on His grave, His memory. To that end, you are bringing great attention to Him who saved us, and you were chosen especially by God to do this work. You represent and speak to the rebellious, scared and unhappy (the atheists) very well, something our book, The Answer: Proof of God in Heaven, is also meant to do. You show them the truth – that without Christ the “Holy day” is just an empty celebration of nothingness, much like an atheist’s entire life appears to him, meaningless and truly depressing.
You are doing more on behalf Christ than many. Thank you, and may God continue to bless your work, and may God’s love fill your heart this Christmas.

‘A’ for Average!

At some colleges over 50% of the grades given are A’s. And while students may be happy, it begs the question: What does an A grade mean?

Well, this is not terribly surprising. As we move toward a more pure entitlement society, it is no wonder we are becoming more and more accustomed to rewarding nothing. “I deserve it,” is the new mantra – with no reason necessary. Trophies for ninth place, and ribbons for “participation.”

Now we see it in our teaching institutions. But here’s an interesting point:

Subject matters as well. Mathematics departments tend to grade more rigorously than liberal arts. The easiest subject? Education, where 71 percent of all grades are ‘A’s.

You think your kid’s teachers are really well-educated? They took the ‘easiest’ classes, giving proof to the old adage that those who can’t, teach.

Numerous studies have found that today’s average young person thinks he possesses above-average intelligence.

Julia Twenge, a psychologist and author of the book Generation Me, in a previous statement to The DC News Foundation, wrote, “Students are getting better grades for less work, which is probably one reason why they feel so confident.”

The trend of self-delusion among teenagers is a particularly American problem, Kosakowski noted.

“The only things our kids rank the highest in are confidence in their abilities,” he said. “Math, science, and everything else has gone down.”

The underlying question the articles on this don’t attack are whether students really are “happier.”

In a fair grading system, you reward people for their outstanding achievements,” said Rojstaczer. Grade inflation “lowers the intensity and intellectual level in many classes.”

If you don’t have to work for it, can obtaining it really make you happy, long term? These institutions, and society in general, are robbing individuals of their potential joy, by patronizing and coddling them until there is nothing else to do but submit to mediocracy.

%d bloggers like this: