Some people flippantly dismiss psychics and mediums, believing their powers to be fake or that they have scientific explanations.

But Rick Burgess, BlazeTV host of the spiritual warfare podcast “Strange Encounters,” argues otherwise. Not only are these kinds of supernatural powers real, they’re “extremely dangerous.”

While he acknowledges the “charlatans” who just scam people for profit, Rick argues that a lot of psychics and mediums are indeed tapping into genuine power — just not the good kind.

“There are people who do have power,” but “this power is not of God,” he says.

“Tarot cards, crystal balls, palm readings … leaves from tea … this stuff is dangerous. This is witchcraft.”

To engage with any of these occult items or practices has one of two results, Rick warns: You’re either going to be “scammed,” or you’re going to have “very dangerous strange encounters” with demons.

To illustrate the latter, Rick reads from Acts 16, which documents Paul and Silas’ encounter with a slave girl who had a “spirit of divination” that gave her real (and lucrative) fortune-telling powers.

When the girl sees Paul and Silas, she immediately cries out, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation.” She continues doing this until Paul becomes “greatly annoyed” and finally forces the demon into submission, stating, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!”

The girl’s owners were furious because when the demon departed, so did her powers and thus their income.

Rick uses this passage as proof that the powers of divination are not only real, they are sourced exclusively from the demonic.

When “somebody claims they have some kind of power, your best case scenario is that they’re just a scam artist,” he says. “That’s the best case because then you just wasted your time and you wasted your money. The worst case is they actually have power.”

“If they do, it is not of God, and you shouldn’t have anything to do with it,” he warns.

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Rick Burgess?

To enjoy more bold talk and big laughs, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Strange encounters, Blazetv, Blaze media, Mediums, Psychics, Divination, Spiritual warfare, Acts 16, Rick burgess, Strange encounters with rick burgess 

For all the infighting over the current and future direction of the Trump coalition, one thing stands above all else as the biggest threat.

It’s not the podcasters and corporate media talking heads arguing over foreign policy. It’s not tax rates or farm policies. It’s not even the social issues that have been flash points on the right in recent decades. It is the issue of immigration, specifically deportation.

It’s shaping up to be a classic standoff between monied special interests and the liberal Republicans they sponsor versus everyday Americans.

Representatives Maria Salazar (R-Fla.) and Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) have started what hopefully will be a short but politically violent war by once again raising the specter of mass amnesty for illegal aliens via their Spanish-language-titled Dignidad Act.

There is nothing new under the sun, so much like every other failed Republican-led amnesty push, their chief sales pitch has been that the Dignidad Act is not amnesty, despite the plain language offering amnesty to more than ten million illegal aliens, by conservative estimates.

Salazar’s sales pitch, which you can see in full, occurred at the deep state’s consensus manufacturing plant, the Brookings Institute.

Rep. Salazar employed a rhetorical device of speaking to imaginary illegal alien friends and asking them if they would accept a new legal status of dignity that would allow them to remain in the United States and enjoy a litany of legal benefits.

To no one’s surprise, they would welcome this opportunity. Salazar also employed the classic trope of challenging the audience regarding who else would clean the toilets or pick the jalapenos, hopefully separate tasks.

While the bill enjoys 20 other Republican co-sponsors, Rep. Mike Lawler leads the pack in hawking this awful amnesty bill. In a heated interview with Laura Ingraham, Lawler attempted to make the case that the amnesty bill is not amnesty, because the status quo is.

While it is true that lack of enforcement of the current laws amounts to de facto amnesty, the solution is to actually enforce the law at scale with the money Congress gave President Trump to carry out his promise of mass deportation.

Lawler stepped on the logical rake with Ingraham when he tried to pump up his enforcement credentials by focusing on criminals and on the ludicrous suggestion that the Department of Homeland Security is able to vet the entirety of the illegal population for amnesty.

On the first point, he said that “if you have committed a crime, you should be removed from the country, period.” What that means in practical terms is that by his argument, only some 500,000 to 800,000, by estimates of the Trump administration, would be in that definitional category.

What he ignores is that illegal presence in the United States is itself a crime, along with the variety of other identity and immigration-related crimes that illegal aliens routinely commit.

As a legal matter, there is no such thing as his small category of “criminal illegal,” and even taking him at his intended policy point of focusing on successfully charged criminals, he is arguing that amnesty should be given to this category so long as an additional crime has not been committed.

This is what I like to call the “one-murder” policy, where liberals argue that illegal immigrants should be allowed to violate our immigration laws until the point at which they create an angel family by killing someone. That is a suicidal immigration policy.

RELATED: My friend survived the Global War on Terror. Leftist immigration policies got him killed.

Kendall Warner/The Virginian-Pilot/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

Lawler then goes on to argue that his amnesty wouldn’t apply to those who entered during the Biden administration. Ingraham challenges him on how the DHS would prove that, at a scale of over ten million, in addition to proving that illegal aliens have maintained continued presence in the United States during their period of being illegally present in the United States.

To put it mildly, he had no answer when pressed by Ingraham multiple times on how the DHS would go about that.

She pressed for a single consideration or qualification that an immigration official would use to determine continual presence. After a non-response, Lawler settled on “you have to be able to meet the qualifications.” Ingraham asked again, “What is the qualification?” Lawler said, “They are going to make the determination as they always have, based on the current structure and guidelines.”

If your head is spinning because of this, it’s okay because it didn’t make any sense. I’ll make it simple: Some Republicans, particularly those who see the big dollar signs of special interest donors who can fund a tight race, are willing to sell an unpopular policy through a left-coded emotional argument.

I would put Mike Lawler in that category. As for Maria Salazar, she is a true believer.

You don’t go on stage at Brookings, put a foreign-language name on a piece of legislation, and deploy emotional arguments centered around the well-being of illegal aliens unless you’re a true believer and, to an extent, acting as an ethnic lobbyist trying to advance the interests of a foreign group in the United States.

The good news is that the majority of the country still believes that people who are in the country illegally should be deported. Those numbers skyrocket for Trump voters and are a key plank of the playbook for the newly formed Mass Deportation Coalition, of which I am a part

The backlash on the Dignidad Act, Salazar, and Lawler has been swift and severe. It’s shaping up to be a classic standoff between monied special interests and the liberal Republicans they sponsor versus everyday Americans.

RELATED: This Supreme Court case could decide the future of American citizenship

Kent Nishimura/AFP/Getty Images

Social media has been lit up with fury and ratios, and most elected Republicans have denounced the futile amnesty effort as a complete rejection of why Republicans are in power right now.

Rising star Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) perhaps put it best when he said that the bill was “mass amnesty” and “a terrible betrayal of our voters” and that he “wanted dignity for Americans — the people whose interests we represent.”

There remains one area of creeping concern: The White House hasn’t exactly made the administration’s position clear, aside from Vice President Vance, who has been continually vocal about opposing amnesty in any form.

Lawler and Salazar retain endorsements from President Trump, and recent confusion about the commitment to the mass deportation agenda can give rise to reasonable suspicion that this amnesty talk is allowed, if not tacitly approved.

Now is the time for continued clarity from those who decide Republican elections: Republican voters. They have made their voices heard with this recent flash point of mass amnesty. The path ahead means not just playing defense against amnesty demands but raising the bar for what is required on the mass deportation front.

These votes will need to see large increases in the deportation numbers, to at least 1 million in 2026, which would be an increase over last year of about three times. The numbers will ultimately tell the story above the politics.

Getting commas in the deportation numbers will maintain the coalition, and it may turn out that it is far more important for keeping power in Washington than it is to keep Lawler and Salazar inside the coalition, even as they seek to tear it apart.

​Dignity act, Dignidad act, Immigration, Illegal immigration, Trump, Ice, Dhs, Maria salazar, Republicans, Mike lawler, Opinion & analysis 

California’s deadly 2025 Palisades and Eaton fires in and around Los Angeles together torched over 37,000 acres, destroyed over 16,000 structures, damaged nearly 2,000 additional structures, and displaced hundreds of thousands of residents.

State and local leaders have since pledged to help property owners rebuild. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), for instance, said, “We’re committed to seeing this through and ensuring this community comes back stronger than before.”

‘Significant barriers remain.’

City and county officials even made noise about cutting red tape and costs to expedite the process. Unfortunately, it appears that the purportedly expedited process isn’t as swift as advertised.

For instance, of the 242 rebuild applications received from property owners affected by the Palisades fire northeast of Malibu, only 80 building permits had been issued as of April 9, according to the permitting progress dashboard for Los Angeles County. Construction is under way on 39 homes, and only one rebuild has reportedly been completed.

Of the 3,125 rebuild applications submitted by individuals affected by the Eaton fire in and around the Altadena area, 2,142 permits have been issued. Construction on rebuilds is under way on 1,138 homes, and 31 have been completed.

The dashboard suggested that the average time spent in county review was 32 business days.

Thousands of people in Los Angeles County haven’t even bothered to apply to rebuild what they lost.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger said last week that while the county has received over 3,000 rebuild applications, that represents roughly only half of the total number of impacted households, reported the Pasadena Star-News.

RELATED: Ashes of Imagination

Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

“The fact that only half of wildfire survivors have submitted applications makes clear that significant barriers remain, especially financial ones,” said Barger.

The Star-News noted that uncertainty over the future of litigation, high rebuild costs, and “underinsurance” are among the factors that have slowed recovery.

Barger credited the Trump administration, however, with helping out.

“I’ve appreciated the opportunity to meet with U.S. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler over the course of these past few months to have solutions-oriented conversations focused on recovery,” said Barger. “Both administrators remain engaged and attentive to our local Eaton Fire recovery work. I remain thankful that President Trump has an interest in supporting wildfire recovery efforts, and I welcome opportunities to work collaboratively with his administration to deliver meaningful relief for our residents.”

While some Californians haven’t bothered applying to rebuild, many of those who have in nearby municipalities — like those in L.A. County — remain stuck waiting.

Mayor Karen Bass — the Democrat who slashed her city’s fire department budget months ahead of the fires in January 2025, then, breaking a pledge not to “travel internationally,” absconded to Africa, where she attended a cocktail party as her city burned — has issued multiple executive orders aimed at expediting the rebuilding process.

L.A. has received 4,276 rebuilding permit applications and issued 2,504 permits to date. Presently, 1,261 applications are in review.

The City of Pasadena has received 94 rebuild permit applications but issued 44 to date. Thirty are presently under review.

The City of Malibu’s rebuild dashboard says that 192 planning applications for single-family residence rebuilds have been approved and 57 are under review; 42 building permits have been issued and approved for construction; and zero certificates of occupancy have been issued.

Blaze News reached out for comment to the offices of Pasadena Mayor Victor Gordo, Malibu Mayor Bruce Silverstein, and L.A. Mayor Bass but did not receive responses.

H/T Washington Examiner’s Sarah Bedford.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Pallisade fire, Palisades fire, Los angeles, Fires, Rebuild, Restoration, California, Democrat, Karen bass, La county, Eaton fire, Politics 

It may sound hard to believe, but except for a very limited group of personnel, the military has treated its bases as gun-free zones. Until very recently, only designated security forces — such as military police — could carry firearms while on duty.

Commanders punished any other soldier caught carrying a weapon severely, with penalties ranging from rank reduction and forfeiture of pay to court-martial, dishonorable discharge, criminal conviction, and even imprisonment.

Penalties for carrying firearms do not deter attackers. Someone planning to murder fellow soldiers will not stop because of gun laws.

Consider the attacks at Holloman Air Force Base (2026), Fort Stewart (2025), Naval Air Station Pensacola (2019), the Chattanooga recruiting station (2015), both Fort Hood shootings (2014 and 2009), and Navy Yard (2013). Across these attacks, 24 people were murdered and 38 wounded. In each case, unarmed personnel — including JAG officers, Marines, and soldiers — had to hide while the attacker continued firing.

That changed with a statement from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

Before today, it was virtually impossible — most people probably don’t know this — it was virtually impossible for War Department personnel to get permission to carry and store their own personal weapons aligned with the state laws where we operate our installations. I mean, effectively, our bases across the country were gun-free zones unless you’re training or unless you are a military policeman.

When the military deployed U.S. troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, it required them to carry their weapons at all times — even on base. Those soldiers needed to defend themselves against real threats, and there are no known cases of them turning those weapons on each other.

So why make it easier for attackers to target troops at home? Why force soldiers — like those at Fort Stewart — to confront armed attackers with their bare hands?

It wasn’t always this way. In 1992, the George H.W. Bush administration started reshaping the military. That shift led to tighter restrictions on firearms. In 1993, President Clinton rewrote and implemented those restrictions, effectively banning soldiers from carrying personal firearms on base.

If civilians can be trusted to carry firearms, military personnel certainly can. As Hegseth noted, “Uniformed service members are trained at the highest and unwavering standards.”

Penalties for carrying firearms do not deter attackers. Someone planning to murder fellow soldiers will not stop because of gun laws. Most mass attackers expect to die during the assault, so the threat of additional punishment carries no weight. Even if they survive, they already face multiple life sentences or the death penalty.

But those same rules weigh heavily on law-abiding soldiers. A soldier who carries a firearm for self-defense risks becoming a felon and destroying his or her future. These policies disarm the innocent while signaling to a determined attacker that no one else will be armed.

Military police guard base entrances, but like civilian police, they cannot be everywhere. Military bases function like cities, and MPs face the same limitations as police responding to mass shootings off base.

Uniformed officers are easy to identify, and that gives attackers a real tactical advantage. Attackers can wait for an officer to leave the area or move on to another target — either choice reduces the chance that an officer will be present to stop the attack. And if the attacker strikes anyway, whom do you think they target first?

RELATED: My friend survived the Global War on Terror. Leftist immigration policies got him killed.

Kendall Warner/The Virginian-Pilot/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

Research shows that civilians with concealed handgun permits are more likely to stop active shooting attacks. By contrast, although police stop fewer attacks, attackers kill them at much higher rates.

After the second Fort Hood terrorist attack, General Mark Milley — then commander of Thirds Corps at that base — testified to Congress: “We have adequate law enforcement on those bases to respond. … Those police responded within eight minutes and that guy was dead.”

But those eight minutes proved far too long for the three soldiers who were murdered and the 12 others who were wounded.

Time after time, murderers exploit regulations that guarantee they will face no armed resistance. Diaries and manifestos of mass public shooters show a chilling trend: They deliberately choose gun-free zones, knowing their victims can’t fight back.

It’s no coincidence that 93% of mass public shootings happen in places where guns are banned.

Ironically, soldiers with a concealed handgun permit can carry a concealed handgun whenever they are off base so that they can protect themselves and others. But on the base, they and their fellow soldiers had been defenseless. Fortunately, that has now changed.

Allowing trained service members to carry on base restores a basic ability to defend themselves and others when seconds matter most. Policies that disarm the very people we trust in combat do not enhance safety — they leave our troops unnecessarily vulnerable where they should be most secure.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

​Pete hegseth, American soldiers, 2a, Military bases, Right to carry, Self defense, Mass shooting, Holloman air force base, Fort hood attack, Opinion & analysis