Last week was a hard one for the atheists. President Trump read from the Bible in the Oval Office, and a federal court upheld the right of Texas to display the Ten Commandments. You can just hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth.

A recent legal challenge, one of many in a long line of church-state disputes, raises a now-familiar question: Can the government display the Ten Commandments without violating the First Amendment?

If government exists to protect what is of highest value, then it cannot remain agnostic about the source of those values.

Predictably, the answer from modern critics comes quickly. We have lived under an ACLU regime for 50 years, which has gaslighted us into believing any such display is wrong and illegal. The atheist insists that any public reference to the Bible is unconstitutional. The pluralist adds that if one religious text is displayed, then all must be.

Together, they present what appears to be a dilemma: Either scrub public life of all religious content, or open the floodgates to every creed imaginable.

Both claims, however, rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of the American founding.

To see why, we need to begin with the principles that shaped the United States itself. These are the principles articulated most famously in the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration does not speak in the language of neutrality. It speaks of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” It grounds human equality in the fact that we are “created” and “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

These are not neutral or secular claims. They are claims rooted in what philosophers have long called natural theology: the idea that reason and creation reveal truths about God.

The First Amendment must be read in light of these founding principles, not in isolation from them.

The text itself is straightforward: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Notice what it does not say. It does not say that the government must be silent about God.

It does not say that public institutions must pretend religion played no role in the nation’s founding. And it certainly does not say that acknowledging moral truths found in Scripture is forbidden.

What it prohibits is the establishment of a national church and the interference with religious worship.

This distinction is crucial. The founders were not secularists in the modern sense. Many of them (though differing in theological detail) shared a conviction that moral law is grounded in God. That conviction did not lead them to impose a church on the people, but neither did it lead them to erase God from public life.

That is where the Ten Commandments come in.

For centuries, the Ten Commandments have been understood not merely as a religious text, but as a concise summary of the moral law. Prohibitions against idolatry, murder, theft, perjury, and covetousness form the backbone of legal systems throughout the Western world. Even those who reject their divine origin often recognize their ethical clarity.

But here is an often-overlooked point: When the Ten Commandments are displayed, they are displayed as a whole.

This matters because critics frequently attempt to reduce them to commandments five through 10. We can call this the “horizontal” commands governing human relationships. But the full Decalogue begins with the “vertical” commands: to worship God alone, to reject idols, and to honor His name and His day.

To display all 10 is to acknowledge that law is not merely a human construct. It reflects an order that begins with God and extends to human society. That idea is foundational to American law.

This fact is why the atheist objection fails. The claim that the First Amendment requires strict secularism reads modern assumptions back into an 18th-century document. The founders did not believe that public acknowledgment of God violated liberty. On the contrary, they believed liberty depended on it.

Without a grounding in something higher than human will, rights become negotiable and law becomes an instrument of power rather than justice. The very idea of equality (so central to the American experiment) loses its foundation.

The pluralist objection fares no better. It assumes that fairness requires equal representation of all religious claims in public displays. But the United States was not founded on a principle of religious equivalence. It was founded on a particular understanding of God, law, and human nature. This was an understanding shaped by Christianity.

RELATED: Why do state schools bankroll people who despise the state?

ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images

The Christian nature of American law does not mean that citizens of other faiths are excluded. The First Amendment ensures they are free to worship without government interference. But freedom of worship is not the same as a requirement that the state treat all religious claims as equally foundational to its own identity.

A courthouse displaying the Ten Commandments is not making a claim about every religion. It is recognizing the historical and philosophical roots of its own legal system.

And this brings us back to the central issue: What is the role of government?

If government exists to protect what is of highest value, then it cannot remain agnostic about the source of those values. The founders were clear: These rights come from God. To acknowledge that is not to establish a church; it is to affirm the very basis of the nation’s laws.

Displaying the Ten Commandments alongside the Declaration of Independence is not a constitutional violation. It is a historically informed reminder of where our ideas of law and equality come from.

It tells the truth about the American founding.

In an age increasingly confused about the source of its own principles, telling that truth and teaching it to the next generation is the right thing to do.

​10 commandments, Antichristian, Atheists, Bible, Christianity, Declaration of independence, First amendment, Founding principles, Legal systems, President trump, Role of government, Texas, Opinion & analysis 

On April 25 at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner at the Washington Hilton in D.C., 31-year-old California resident Cole Tomas Allen allegedly rushed a security checkpoint armed with a shotgun, handgun, and knives, firing multiple shots in an attempt to target Trump administration officials.

President Donald Trump, first lady Melania Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and others were safely evacuated with no serious injuries to attendees; Allen was quickly apprehended and later charged with attempted assassination of the president. Prior to the incident, he had sent a manifesto to family expressing his motives.

When BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler heard the news, she was shaken but not necessarily surprised by yet another act of political violence from the left.

“The left will keep committing or trying to commit hideous acts of violence against us until they can’t. … There is no rhetoric that exists, no argument that can be constructed that will persuade them to stop,” she laments.

This isn’t just a gut feeling either. On this episode of “The Liz Wheeler Show,” Liz points to a recent poll that captures how deeply committed the left is to using political violence to advance its agenda.

According to an April 2025 poll conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute in partnership with Rutgers University’s Social Perception Lab, 56% of self-identified left-of-center respondents said murdering Trump would be at least “somewhat justified,” with 14.1% calling it “completely justified.”

Liz is horrified by these numbers.

“Fifty-six percent of people on the left — that’s not just the mainstream media and the loudest influencers on X and YouTube, the freaks of the Democratic Party and Congress. This is over half of Democrats,” she says. “That means if you walk up to someone on a street, you meet a neighbor, a co-worker, and you find out that they voted for Kamala Harris or that they lean left, they are more likely than not going to justify a potential assassination of Donald Trump.”

As much as she disagrees with left-wing ideologies, Liz cannot fathom harboring such hatred for her political opponents that she would hope for their murder.

“There’s no circumstance that I can possibly hypothetically construct in my mind where I would ever under any circumstance justify the assassination of even the most horrific Democrat operator that I can think of — ever,” she declares. “There would be no justification for that. It’s illegal. It’s immoral.”

Democrat voters, she argues, are “being formed specifically to believe this.”

Liz shares data from a 2025 Skeptic Research Center report showing that the more education a person has, the more likely they are to condone violence as a means of social change.

“Of people who have a high school diploma or less, 23% agree that violence is often necessary to create social change. Of people who have some college or an associates degree, only 20% agree with that. If you have a bachelor’s degree, 26% agree with that … if you have a graduate or professional degree, suddenly that number jumps all the way to 40%,” she reads from the study.

The same trend emerged for the question: “If you are protesting something unjust, it is reasonable to damage property.”

“This is not a coincidence that … the number of years you spend in colleges and universities correlates to your exponentially increased support for political violence,” says Liz, highlighting the left’s stronghold on academia.

All considered, one thing is clear to Liz: Political violence is no longer confined to the fringes; it’s “mainstream leftist.”

To hear more of her analysis, watch the episode above.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Assassination attempt, Attempted assassination, Blaze media, Blazetv, Cole thomas allen, Donald trump, Leftwing ideologies, Leftwing violence, Liz wheeler, Mainstream leftist, Political violence, Skeptic research center, Social change, The liz wheeler show, Washington hilton, Whcd, Whcd assassination attempt 

Late-night show host Jimmy Kimmel responded defiantly to calls demanding he be fired after joking about President Donald Trump dying before the latest assassination attempt.

Kimmel made the joke during a parody Thursday where he pretended to tell jokes at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and made one at the expense of the president.

‘I agree that hateful and violent rhetoric is something we should reject. I do. And I think a great place to start to dial that back would be to have a conversation with your husband about it.’

Only two days later, an allegedly crazed gunman fired shots at the dinner after posting threats against the president and his administration online.

Kimmel replied to the backlash during his show Monday night.

“You know how sometimes you wake up in the morning and the first lady puts out a statement demanding you be fired from your job? We’ve all been there. Right?” Kimmel said.

He claimed the joke was not about the president dying but rather about the lack of joy on the first lady’s face during their interactions.

“It was a very light roast joke about the fact that he’s almost 80 and she’s younger than I am. It was not by any stretch of the definition a call to assassination. And they know that,” Kimmel said.

“I’ve been very vocal for many years speaking out against gun violence, in particular,” he added. “But I understand that the first lady had a stressful experience over the weekend. And probably every weekend is pretty stressful in that house. And also, I agree that hateful and violent rhetoric is something we should reject. I do. And I think a great place to start to dial that back would be to have a conversation with your husband about it.”

Both the president and first lady called for Kimmel to be fired for the joke.

“Our first lady, Melania, is here. Look at her, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow!” Kimmel quipped.

Kimmel’s show was pulled off the air in Sept. 2025 after he suggested that the suspect in the killing of activist Charlie Kirk was a Trump supporter. He went back to his show only a few days later.

RELATED: ‘The View’ host says latest assassination attempt might have been STAGED by Trump: ‘Is he trying to distract us?’

The first lady posted her comments on Monday.

“Kimmel’s hateful and violent rhetoric is intended to divide our country. His monologue about my family isn’t comedy — his words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America,” she wrote.

“People like Kimmel shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate. A coward, Kimmel hides behind ABC because he knows the network will keep running cover to protect him,” she added.

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

​Kimmel vs melania, Melania trump, Trump assassination attempt, Jimmy kimmel joke, Whcd assassination attempt, Politics 

Video of a very simple question from a Republican member of Congress to a pro-abortion activist went viral on social media.

Republican Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas questioned reproductive rights expert Jessica L. Waters on her preferred method of gruesome baby aborting, but she refused to answer.

‘I wouldn’t want to talk about this either if I were you because it is barbaric and evil.’

Waters was testifying in defense of the FACE Act that was weaponized under the Biden administration to increase prosecution against pro-life activists who protest at abortion provider centers.

“You’re an advocate for abortion, for abortion policy. What’s your favorite type of abortion?” Gill asked.

“I am an advocate for patients having access to the full realm of reproductive health care,” she answered.

“But do you have a preferred method of abortion that you like?” he asked.

“I do not,” she replied.

“Let me read through a couple different methods, and I want to get your take on how much you like these,” Gill said.

“The first type is called a suction abortion. This is when the cervix is dilated and a strong suction 29 times the power of a household vacuum cleaner tears the baby’s body apart and sucks it through the hose into a container. Do you prefer that method?” he asked.

Waters refused to answer, so Gill went on to another method.

“OK, what about this one? This one is called dilation and curettage. After dilation of the cervix, a sharp looped knife is inserted into the uterus. The baby’s body is cut into pieces and extracted, often by suction. Do you prefer that method?” he asked.

Waters again tried to sidestep the question, but Gill pressed on.

“You don’t want to talk about abortion itself. Why is that?” he asked.

He went on to describe another method called dilation and evacuation.

“Do you prefer that method?” he asked.

“I would prefer to talk about the reason the hearing was called and the basis of my expert testimony,” she responded.

“It’s uncomfortable to hear this, isn’t it? It is. I think it is, because it’s barbaric and evil,” he said before describing another abortion method, after which Waters responded again that she would prefer to speak on the subject of the hearing.

“This is the subject of the hearing. This is about protests outside of abortion clinics. I’m asking you about abortion,” Gill said.

“I stand by my prior testimony,” Waters replied.

“I wouldn’t want to talk about this either if I were you because it is barbaric and evil,” he added.

RELATED: Pro-life activist to file civil lawsuit after Democrat DA missed deadline to press charges on assault caught on video

Gill posted video of the testimony from the hearing at the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, and it went viral on social media.

“This is the greatest single question I’ve ever seen asked in Congress,” BlazeTV host Steve Deace replied.

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

​Rep. brandon gill, Prolife viral video, Methods of abortion, Prolifer defeats pro-abort activist, Politics 

Three female customers at a Florida Taco Bell allegedly used a water cup for soda earlier this week, after which an employee opened fire following an argument.

Officers were called around noon Monday to the Taco Bell at Military Trail and 45th Street in West Palm Beach after reports of shots fired inside the restaurant, WPEC-TV reported, citing the probable cause affidavit released Tuesday.

‘It doesn’t surprise me that it would happen. The world we live in today, it makes sense.’

Police said three women entered the restaurant and asked for a cup of water, the station reported.

Investigators said one of the women then filled the cup at a soda fountain, which led to a verbal argument with an employee identified as 20-year-old D’Mari Jy’Quan Patterson, WPEC said.

A witness recorded cellphone video showing Patterson yelling at the women as tempers flared, the station said, adding that police said the sound of a gun being racked can be heard on the video just before a shot rang out in the dining area.

One woman fell to the floor after being shot while another suffered a graze wound, investigators told WPEC.

A third woman ran out of the restaurant, the station said, adding that police allege Patterson followed her outside and fired another shot in her direction.

WPEC said that shot missed but shattered a window near the entrance.

RELATED: Male security guard in Taco Bell caught on video slapping female in face: ‘I said leave!’

The three women drove themselves to a hospital, WPEC reported, adding that police said two were treated for minor injuries and released, while the third was not injured.

After the shooting, Patterson called 911 and told dispatchers a customer had jumped behind the counter, the station said, adding that an arrest affidavit indicated he admitted firing the gun and told officers he placed the gun in the management office before police arrived.

Investigators told WPEC Patterson claimed he believed the women were armed — though police said no weapons were found.

In addition, surveillance video and witness statements don’t support a claim of self-defense, police told the station, which added that the women appeared to be trying to leave when additional shots were fired.

One customer told WPEC regarding the incident that “it doesn’t surprise me that it would happen. The world we live in today, it makes sense.”

Patterson was arrested Monday and charged with three counts of aggravated assault with a firearm, the station said, adding that jail records show he’s being held pending court proceedings. His bond is $25,000 for each count of aggravated assault, jail records show.

The State Attorney’s Office is reviewing the case, WPEC said.

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

​Shooting, Florida, Taco bell, Palm beach county, Employee, Arrest, Aggravated assault with a firearm, Jailed, Female customers, West palm beach, Crime 

Last weekend at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner at the Washington Hilton in D.C., a 31-year-old California resident named Cole Tomas Allen allegedly rushed a security checkpoint — armed with a shotgun, a handgun, and knives — and fired multiple shots in an attempt to target Trump administration officials. Fortunately, no one was seriously injured, and Allen was charged with attempted assassination of the president.

Allen, Glenn Beck says, is different from former would-be assassins. He isn’t “some lone wolf,” “crazed madman,” or “basement-dwelling nobody.” He’s “a brilliant Caltech graduate” with a long list of impressive credentials and a normal background by all measures.

Glenn wants to know how a man with a successful history in engineering, computer science, and education, whose students and colleagues “loved him,” became “the friendly federal assassin” — the nom de guerre Allen gave himself in the manifesto he sent to family and friends before he allegedly attempted to kill President Trump and other Cabinet members.

On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn dives into how a bright person with great potential becomes a radicalized killer and what it means for America if this trend isn’t stopped.

“[Allen] was radicalized the same way our children are being radicalized today — not by some foreign terrorist group, but by the toxic stew that is American politics in 2026,” Glenn says.

From “endless media hysteria” and “the online echo chambers” — where Trump and others in the administration are constantly accused of being “rapists,” “pedophiles,” and “fascists” — to the pervasive “belief that our political opponents aren’t just wrong … they’re evil,” modern society has become a factory that churns out radicals, he explains.

But it’s a complicated issue because these revolutionaries who commit acts of violence in the name of justice consider themselves the good guys.

“[Allen] saw himself as a hero — and that mindset is the danger. The guy thought he was Bonhoeffer!” Glenn exclaims.

Allen’s devolution from a bright man with great potential into an alleged would-be assassin is evidence that our republic is heading toward collapse, he warns.

“Bright young men convinced that violence is the only answer to a political disagreement, when assassination becomes thinkable, when fixing the world means opening fire at a dinner — that’s how our republic unravels,” Glenn says.

If the radicalization and violence continues, government officials and public figures will have to start “living behind the walls,” but it’s everyday Americans who will pay the steepest price by “[losing] a piece of the free open society” that we’ve known for so long.

“It’s the republic that pays the price as we lose yet just one more piece of our soul every time hatred wins,” Glenn says.

“[Allen] wasn’t born this way. He was taught to be this way. He was radicalized step by step, post by post, protest by protest, march after march. He actually began to believe that murder was moral,” he continues.

And Glenn fears he won’t be the last to commit violence against political opponents.

“In a country where political rage is treated like a virtue instead of poison, how many other guys are out there right now?” he asks.

“America, we are running out of warnings.”

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Whcd, Attempted assassination, Blaze media, Blazetv, Glenn beck, Leftwing violence, Political violence, President trump, The glenn beck program, Washington hilton, Whcd assassination attempt, White house correspondents dinner, Cole tomas allen