Category: blaze media

President Donald Trump has in recent days lambasted several influential critics of the U.S.-Israeli military actions in and around Iran, including long-time supporters Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and Alex Jones.

Shortly before sharing an AI image on Truth Social on Sunday depicting himself dressed in messianic garb and healing a sick man, Trump posted another tirade, this time targeting Pope Leo XIV — the spiritual father of over 1.4 billion Catholics worldwide, including Vice President JD Vance and roughly 20% of Americans — over Leo’s anti-war remarks.

‘I’m not a big fan of Pope Leo.’

“Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy. He talks about ‘fear’ of the Trump Administration, but doesn’t mention the FEAR that the Catholic Church, and all other Christian Organizations, had during COVID when they were arresting priests, ministers, and everybody else, for holding Church Services, even when going outside, and being ten and even twenty feet apart,” wrote Trump. “I like his brother Louis much better than I like him, because Louis is all MAGA. He gets it, and Leo doesn’t!”

Trump noted further that he doesn’t:

want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s terrible that America attacked Venezuela, a Country that was sending massive amounts of Drugs into the United States and, even worse, emptying their prisons, including murderers, drug dealers, and killers, into our Country. And I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I’m doing exactly what I was elected, IN A LANDSLIDE, to do, setting Record Low Numbers in Crime, and creating the Greatest Stock Market in History.

Pope Leo, whose Petrine ministry began in May 2025, has long advocated for victims of war, particularly children, and urged world leaders and followers of Christ to pursue peaceful resolutions.

RELATED: Catholic churches PACKED for Easter as conversions skyrocket

Simone Risoluti/Vatican Media/Vatican Pool/Getty Images

During a prayer vigil for peace at Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome on Saturday, for instance, the pope highlighted the condemnations of war voiced by two of his predecessors — Pope John Paul II against the Iraq War and Pope Paul VI against the conflict of his age in 1965 — then noted:

Prayer teaches us how to act. In prayer, our limited human possibilities are joined to the infinite possibilities of God. Thoughts, words, and deeds then break the demonic cycle of evil and are placed at the service of the Kingdom of God. A Kingdom in which there is no sword, no drone, no vengeance, no trivialization of evil, no unjust profit, but only dignity, understanding, and forgiveness. It is here that we find a bulwark against that delusion of omnipotence that surrounds us and is becoming increasingly unpredictable and aggressive. The balance within the human family has been severely destabilized. Even the holy Name of God, the God of life, is being dragged into discourses of death. A world of brothers and sisters with one heavenly Father vanishes, as in a nightmare, giving way to a reality populated by enemies.

A day earlier, the pope’s X account shared the following message, which was met with widespread criticism: “God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs.”

‘I do not think the message of the gospel should be abused as some are doing.’

Such comments apparently got under Trump’s skin.

After claiming that Leo was elected pope only “because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump,” the president said, “Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician. It’s hurting him very badly and, more importantly, it’s hurting the Catholic Church!”

In addition to criticizing the pope on social media, Trump told reporters, “We don’t like a pope that’s going to say that it’s OK to have a nuclear weapon. We don’t want a pope that says crime is OK in our cities. I don’t like it. I’m not a big fan of Pope Leo. He’s a very liberal person, and he’s a man that doesn’t believe in stopping crime.”

Pope Leo responded to Trump’s critiques during a flight to Algeria, noting that he does not regard his “role as that of a politician.”

“I am not a politician, and I do not want to enter into a debate with him,” said the pope. “I do not think the message of the gospel should be abused as some are doing. I continue to speak strongly against war, seeking to promote peace, dialogue, and multilateralism among states to find solutions to problems. Too many people are suffering today, too many innocent lives have been lost, and I believe someone must stand up and say there is a better way.”

‘It is the Pope’s prerogative to articulate Catholic doctrine and the principles that govern the moral life.’

After noting that he urges all world leaders, not just Trump, to “promote peace and reconciliation,” Pope Leo underscored, “I have no fear of the Trump administration or speaking out loudly of the message of the gospel, which is what I believe I am here to do, what the Church is here to do.”

“We don’t deal with foreign policy with the same perspective he might understand it, but I do believe in the message of the gospel, as a peacemaker,” added the pope.

Bishop Robert Barron, whom Trump appointed to his Commission on Religious Liberty last year, stressed on Monday that the president’s remarks about the pope “were entirely inappropriate and disrespectful.”

“It is the Pope’s prerogative to articulate Catholic doctrine and the principles that govern the moral life. In regard to the concrete application of those principles, people of good will can and do disagree,” wrote Barron. “I would warmly recommend that serious Catholics within the Trump administration — Secretary [of State Marco] Rubio, Vice President Vance, Ambassador Brian Burch, and others — might meet with Vatican officials so that a real dialogue can take place. This is far preferable to the statements on social media.”

Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated, “I am disheartened that the President chose to write such disparaging words about the Holy Father. Pope Leo is not his rival; nor is the Pope a politician. He is the Vicar of Christ who speaks from the truth of the Gospel and for the care of souls.”

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

​Vatican, Pope leo, Donald trump, Iran war, Iran, Israel, War, Conflict, Peace, Holy see, Pro-peace, Anti-war, Criticism, American, Catholic, Catholicism, Catholic church, Christian, Politics 

Liberals around Europe are raising their glasses in celebration after seeing the results of the election in Hungary on Sunday.

With nearly 99% of the votes counted, Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party had secured only 55 of the 199 seats in the Hungarian parliament, bringing Orbán’s 16-year stint as prime minister to an end despite an endorsement last week from President Donald Trump.

‘Hungary has sent a very clear signal against right-wing populism.’

“He is a true friend, fighter, and WINNER, and has my Complete and Total Endorsement for Re-Election as Prime Minister of Hungary — VIKTOR ORBÁN WILL NEVER LET THE GREAT PEOPLE OF HUNGARY DOWN,” Trump wrote Tuesday.

Tisza, the party led by Orbán’s former underling Peter Magyar, managed to secure 138 seats. Our Homeland Movement, a conservative nationalist party, won six seats.

Tisza’s supermajority — won in an election in which approximately 77.8% of eligible voters participated — will enable Magyar and his party to alter the country’s constitution and possibly undo the Fidesz party’s legacy.

Tisza’s manifesto reportedly advocates for a more pro-EU, pro-NATO approach and commits to expediting Hungary’s embrace of the euro as its official currency.

Liberal leaders in Europe were apparently ecstatic over the end of Orbán’s rule and his Christian, nationalist, “migrant-free, pro-family” agenda — an agenda that delivered domestic results that prompted the European Union to deny Hungary billions of euros in funding.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, whom a recent survey showed had the lowest approval rating among 24 democratically elected world leaders, characterized the result as a “heavy defeat” for “right-wing populism,” reported Deutsche Welle.

RELATED: Trump lashes out at crumbling NATO alliance following ‘frank’ closed-door meeting

Sean Gallup/Getty Images

“Hungary has sent a very clear signal against right-wing populism across the whole world. In that respect, yesterday was … a good day,” said Merz. “This demonstrates that our democratic societies are evidently much more resilient to Russian propaganda and further external interference in such elections.”

Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the EU Commission, stated, “Hungary has chosen Europe. Europe has always chosen Hungary. A country reclaims its European path. The Union grows stronger.”

French President Emmanuel Macron said that “France welcomes the victory of democratic participation, the Hungarian people’s commitment to the values of the European Union, and Hungary’s commitment to Europe.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who threatened Orbán on March 5, also celebrated Tisza’s rise to power. “Ukraine has always strived for good-neighborly relations with every European country, and we are ready to advance our cooperation with Hungary. Europe and every European nation must strengthen; millions of Europeans yearn for cooperation and stability.”

The Orbán government angered the European liberal establishment in part with its rejection of LGBT cultural imperialism, its refusal to implement the EU’s radical migration policies, and its refusal to “fulfill Ukraine’s demands.”

Magyar said on Facebook that he will “work for a free, European, functional and humane Hungary in the next four years.”

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

​Hungary, Europe, Viktor orban, Donald trump, Election, Zelenskyy, Eu, Leyen, Macron, Orban, Conservative, Nationalist, Populism, Continent, Politics 

The term euthanasia literally means “good death.” The word is constructed from the Greek eu (good) and thanatos (death) — the same root that inspired the name of the Marvel villain Thanos, whose vision of “balance” required mass death.

The language itself tells you everything. Dress death up as “good,” and you can begin to sell it to failed socialist medical systems as a desirable cure-all.

Euthanasia, often called “doctor-assisted suicide,” has been thrust back into public view by developments in countries like Canada and Spain. What we are seeing is not compassionate medicine. It is the quiet normalization of despair.

A culture that cannot tell its weakest members, ‘Your life is worth living,’ will eventually tell them, ‘Your death is preferable.’

Consider the case of Noelia Castillo in Spain.

Castillo, just 25 years old, had endured profound suffering. As a minor, she was in mental health care. As an adult, she was the victim of sexual assault multiple times. After a suicide attempt following the second assault, she was left paralyzed from the waist down. In that condition, she requested euthanasia.

Her father pleaded with the courts to deny the request, arguing that her mental health made such a decision unsound. The courts disagreed. The state approved her death.

A young woman, failed repeatedly by those entrusted to care for her, was ultimately offered death as the solution.

Even more troubling, British pianist James Rhodes publicly appealed to her to reconsider, offering to cover her medical costs. His plea underscores what the system refused to admit: Castillo did not need death; she needed care.

And Castillo herself admitted as much. In an interview, she essentially asked: If I cannot access health care, am I then entitled to access death care?

That question exposes the entire moral collapse. She was denied meaningful treatment in her socialist system but granted state-funded death as the solution to her suffering.

The Canadian example

If Spain reveals the logic of euthanasia, Canada demonstrates its trajectory. In Vancouver, Miriam Lancaster went to the emergency room for back pain. Instead of being treated, she was offered medically assisted suicide.

Death does cure back pain. It cures everything by eliminating the patient. Failed socialist medicine jumped at the chance to raise its cure statistics.

Thankfully, Lancaster refused. She later received proper treatment and went on to continue traveling the world. Had she accepted the offer, a solvable medical issue would have become a state-sanctioned death and she would have been “cared for” right into the grave.

Then there is the case of Jennyfer Hatch, a 37-year-old Canadian woman suffering from Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, a painful connective tissue disorder. Hatch became the face of a euthanasia promotional campaign titled “All Is Beauty,” a three-minute film celebrating her final days before medically assisted death.

Let that sink in: a commercial for suicide.

And yet Hatch admitted privately that she chose euthanasia not because her condition was untreatable but because obtaining adequate medical care in Canada’s system was too difficult.

The myth of ‘compassionate’ systems

We have long been told by progressives that socialized medicine would deliver universal care, eliminate wait times, and treat every patient with dignity. Instead, it is increasingly offering a different solution: eliminate the patient.

The logic is brutally simple. If you cannot heal the sick, you can always reduce the number of sick people. These socialists saw the story of Thanos as a “how to.”

People have always been capable of taking their own lives. A system that merely facilitates suicide adds nothing of value. It does not heal; it does not restore; it simply institutionalizes despair. It admits it offers no meaning in life to those who suffer.

RELATED: The judgment behind the abortion numbers

DREW ANGERER/AFP/Getty Images

What is a good death?

At the heart of this debate is a deeper question: What do we mean by a good death?

For modern secular societies, the answer is increasingly clear: a good death is a painless one. It is an escape from suffering.

But this definition collapses under scrutiny.

First, it ignores the most basic philosophical question, one raised memorably by Hamlet: “What dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil?” If death is not the end, if judgment awaits, then euthanasia is not an escape but a gamble of the highest stakes. It the solution urged by demons looking forward to claiming another soul.

Second, it misunderstands the nature of a good life.

A life free from all pain is not a noble life. It is not the life we admire, nor the life we aspire to. Our stories, our heroes, and our deepest intuitions all tell us the same thing: Meaning is forged through suffering.

Imagine a hero who, one-third of the way through the story, says, “This is too hard. I think I’ll end my life to avoid the suffering ahead.” That is not a hero. It is a failure.

Suffering, rightly understood, is not meaningless. It teaches perseverance, discipline, and faith. It refines character.

As Scripture teaches, “Add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance …” (2 Peter 1:5-6).

A pain-free life is not the highest good. A life shaped by truth, virtue, and endurance aimed at eternal life of knowing God is our chief and highest good.

The real crisis

The rise of euthanasia is not ultimately about medicine. It is about worldview.

Societies that reject God are left with no ultimate purpose, no transcendent hope, and no reason to endure suffering. When affluence fails and suffering remains, the only consistent answer left is escape.

A culture that cannot tell its weakest members, “Your life is worth living,” will eventually tell them, “Your death is preferable.” From hating God, the culture naturally moves to hating neighbors. It is a moral collapse described in Romans 1:31. The people become heartless and ruthless.

A better hope

The answer to suffering is not death. It is redemption.

Only a worldview grounded in the reality of God can make sense of suffering without surrendering to it. Only Christ offers not merely relief from pain, but restoration, meaning, and eternal hope. He can heal our physical pain, but more importantly, he can forgive our sin and restore our communion with God.

The growing acceptance of euthanasia should force us to confront the emptiness of the alternatives.

If death is our only answer, then we have already lost. But if life has meaning, then suffering is not the end of the story.

And that is the difference between despair and hope.

​Maid, Assisted suicide, Euthanasia, Medical assistance in dying, Mental health, Healthcare, Good death, Dignity, Thanos, Opinion & analysis 

The proposed Power of Siberia 2 pipeline is a roughly 2,600-kilometer corridor designed to carry West Siberian gas through eastern Mongolia into northern China, at a capacity of up to 50 billion cubic meters per year. Negotiations between Gazprom and China National Petroleum Corporation have produced binding memoranda, then further uncertainty, then more memoranda. The pipeline does not yet exist and may not for years.

And yet, in Beijing’s 15th five-year plan, between provisions for new-energy bases and power transmission corridors, the state has authorized “preliminary work” on what officials dub the China-Russia Central Line. “Preliminary work,” in the language of Chinese planning, is a technology of commitment, authorizing feasibility studies, coordinating interagency expectations, and, critically, creating the anticipation of sunk costs.

Cold War history provides an analogy.

The pipeline has a connection with semiconductor fabrication, although its mechanism is diffuse and ecological. A chip is made inside a system that runs on electricity, nitrogen, hydrogen, ultra-pure water, and climate control so exacting that a brief power disruption can scrap in-process wafers worth millions of dollars. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company consumed 27,456 gigawatt-hours of electricity in 2024, roughly the annual power consumption of Connecticut. Natural gas accounted for less than 7% of that total. Electricity was everything, and electricity in northern China is produced partly by gas-fired plants that require continuous fuel supply.

The more interesting pathway runs through industrial gases. A modern fab consumes nitrogen and hydrogen at a scale that strains the imagination: tens of thousands of standard cubic meters of nitrogen per hour, used for inerting, purging, and deposition, and hundreds of standard cubic meters of hydrogen for annealing and epitaxial processes. Much of this hydrogen is produced from natural gas via steam methane reforming. Any shift in the economics or security of natural gas supply therefore propagates into the economics of hydrogen, and from there into the supply chains that sit beneath the clean-room floor. The pipeline is an upstream condition for chip-making, which explains what the official planning documents are actually doing.

Beijing understands the relationship. The 15th five-year plan is notable for placing natural gas pipeline networks and integrated circuits in the same national blueprint. The plan calls for improvement of mature fabrication nodes, advanced process capability, key equipment, and what it describes as “full-chain breakthroughs” achieved through “unconventional measures.” The phrase “unconventional measures” has the quality of bureaucratic candor: it acknowledges that the ordinary levers are insufficient. The “full-chain” framing treats the chip problem as a system vulnerability, where weakness anywhere in the chain, including in the mundane substrate industries that supply gases and chemicals and ultra-pure water, becomes a strategic exposure.

Back to the future

Cold War history provides an analogy. A declassified CIA intelligence estimate from 1982 examined the Soviet Siberia-to-Western Europe pipeline with the dry alarm that characterized Cold War strategic assessment. It noted that large pipeline projects tie together technology transfer, credit, markets, and long-run dependence in ways that create political dilemmas for everyone involved. The buyer gains energy security and loses leverage. The seller gains hard currency and loses flexibility. The pipeline, once built, becomes what analysts call a frozen option: a capital commitment so large that it biases future policy — abandoning sunk costs is politically difficult, and constituencies form around infrastructure.

RELATED: Russia’s and China’s superweapons are stunning the world. The US is struggling to catch up.

GREG BAKER/AFP/Getty Images

Nord Stream 2 carried 55 billion cubic meters per year when it was operating. Power of Siberia 2, at 50 billion cubic meters, is built to similar scale. The comparison is not reassuring to anyone, including China’s planners, who understand that a second large Russian pipeline would increase import concentration even as it reduces seaborne vulnerability. This is the paradox embedded in the corridor logic: The project that insulates itself from one chokepoint exposes itself to another.

An extended energy shock around the Strait of Hormuz, of the kind that analysts are tracking in 2026, makes overland pipelines look like strategic wisdom. A geopolitical rupture or rivalry with Russia would make the same pipeline look like a trap. China’s negotiators have read this history. Their unusual patience in signing on, their expansion of LNG capacity in parallel, their insistence on pricing terms that Russia finds inadequate, all reflect the recognition that the pipeline’s value as an unbuilt corridor may exceed its value as a built one. China wants optionality as well as leverage.

More energy, more chips

The binding constraint on China’s most advanced semiconductor fabrication is not electricity or nitrogen or hydrogen but extreme ultraviolet lithography and the specialized manufacturing equipment and intellectual property that surrounds it, as well as the export controls that the United States has used since 2022 to restrict Chinese access to the frontier tooling. A stable gas supply does not yield an EUV machine. The pipeline’s effects are on the ecology of scaling, not on the cutting edge, where the competition is most intense and the gap remains most visible.

What the pipeline can do is lower the infrastructure risk premium that makes certain chipmaking clusters too fragile to sustain. Imagine a provincial government courting a 28-nanometer foundry, a packaging campus, and several industrial-gas suppliers. The limiting questions in that negotiation are often quiet ones: Can the local grid guarantee continuous power? Can industrial gases be delivered without interruption? Can the region meet environmental compliance requirements without shutting down plants during winter pollution campaigns? A new trunkline does not answer these questions but shifts the feasible responses. It allows planners to make commitments that would otherwise require hedges, and hedges in industrial policy tend to become failures.

The plan to advance “preliminary work” on the Central Line is a political commitment embedded in security thinking, industrial strategy, and the institutional planning routines of a state that treats external dependence as a vulnerability to be managed by building redundancy and domestic capacity simultaneously. Chips increase the value of energy security. Energy security increases the feasibility of chip scaling. The state that grasps this feedback loop before its competitors will have done something more durable than winning a trade dispute. It will have changed the conditions under which the next dispute is conducted. Such change may take decades to become visible, and “preliminary work” is how it begins.

​Tech, Return, China, Russia, Power of siberia pipeline 2, Semiconductor 

Despite Alexander Dugin’s push for a return to faith and traditional values, Glenn Beck believes the Russian political philosopher to be one of the most dangerous thinkers in the world.

Even though Dugin is often seen as a conservative ally, Glenn warns that his “Fourth Political Theory,” Eurasianism, and mystical traditionalism represent a sinister threat to America, the West, and even the MAGA movement. Dugin’s “traditional values,” he argues, are a facade that will ultimately lead to chaos, apocalypse, and even Antichrist-like disruption.

On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn puts Dugin under a microscope and warns that his appealing talk of faith and tradition is actually a dangerous deception that could lead millions into spiritual darkness.

On March 30, Dugin posted a tweet that Glenn says exposes him for who he really is:

Glenn’s head writer and researcher, Jason Buttrill, translates the tweet: “He’s asking both Sunni and Shia Muslims to come together for ultimate destruction basically — to join forces to fight against us.”

“Final battle,” he explains, “can really only mean one thing, … the legit final battle Armageddon that’s going to wash the world in blood.”

According to Twelver Shi’ism (the largest branch of Shia Islam), there were 12 divinely chosen imams after the prophet Muhammad, with the 12th one — the Mahdi — currently hidden and expected to return at the end of times to bring justice.

“This is like a Christian saying, ‘We got to unite right now and get into this war because there will be a massive slaughter; it’ll start the clock ticking, and we’ll have the seven years of tribulation and Jesus will come back,”’ Glenn says. “That’s exactly what this language means.”

The “common enemy” Dugin speaks of, he insists, “is us.”

The philosopher’s “mask has come off,” Glenn warns. Behind the traditional values that he uses to lure in the masses is “Antichrist thinking” that hungers for the “apocalypse.”

Dugin’s tweet isn’t some one-off message either. “In 2024, he also said we should give nukes to the Palestinians and nukes to anyone who would fight against the real enemy — again, us,” Glenn recalls.

Millions of Americans are falling prey to this messaging.

“They are so deeply … fogged that they would think that that’s a good idea,” Glenn says.

But they will eventually wake up to find themselves caught in a dangerous trap — one that puts their very soul at stake, he warns. “My job and my faith requires me to be concerned about your soul. Over the Republic, your soul is at stake. People are going to end up on the wrong side.”

“They’re just not even going to know it, and it will happen through people like [Dugin] that are telling you, ‘I understand how you feel. … This country really has screwed you, hasn’t it? … You know what the problem is? All this freedom.’”

While it may sound nice initially, what this ideology ultimately leads to is pure dystopia.

“You start rounding people up or you start shooting people,” Glenn says bluntly.

We have but “two options,” he says: “We restore the Constitution and our principles” or “face a final battle.”

To hear more of Glenn’s analysis, 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.

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, Alexander dugin, End times, Antichrist, Twelver shi’ism, Mahdi, Islam, Fall of the west, Blazetv, Blaze media 

Chick-fil-A employee Jaydon Cintron told WITN-TV he was taking his break on Good Friday morning when he found two white envelopes in the men’s restroom at the restaurant in Kinston, North Carolina. Kinston is about 90 minutes southeast of Raleigh.

“They were on the floor next to the toilet. My first thought was just like, … OK, no, this isn’t happening,” Cintron told WITN. “Something is wrong.”

‘Money is useless without character.’

But it was happening — and something most definitely was wrong for the person to whom the envelopes belonged.

Return to sender

You see, one envelope was labeled First Citizens Bank, and it contained $5,000; the other envelope was labeled Truist Bank, and it contained $4,333, the station said.

And how did Cintron react?

He told the station he simply picked up the envelopes and brought them to human resources.

A WITN reporter asked the 18-year-old why he didn’t keep the cash for himself.

Cintron replied to the station with the following: “That’s not what Jesus would’ve done. That’s not what God would’ve wanted.”

RELATED: The secret to Chick-fil-A’s success has nothing to do with chicken

‘True integrity’

Cintron added to WITN that his faith guides his thought process: “Money is useless without character.”

Kinston Police Chief Keith Goyette told the station that “a lot of people will unfortunately take that money and run with it. But kudos to that employee at Chick-fil-A. [He] definitely deserves an award.”

John McPhaul, owner of the Kinston Chick-fil-A, noted to WITN that Cintron embodies the restaurant’s principles: “True leadership, true integrity is doing the right thing when no one’s watching. And Jay did that in this case, and he should be commended for it.”

The station said the restaurant tried to search security video in an attempt to identify the owner of the money but had no luck.

However, Chief Goyette told WITN the owner of the money came forward Monday morning to claim the $9,333.

It’s own reward

Cintron revealed to the station that the owner of the money approached him and offered him a $500 reward for his good deed, but Cintron initially declined and told the man he expected no reward for what his faith told him was the right thing to do.

“I don’t want anything out of this,” Cintron told the station, adding, “I did this because that’s what Jesus would do.”

WITN noted that after declining the reward multiple times, the teenager finally accepted it — and numerous viewers agreed that Cintron deserves all the recognition he’s receiving.

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

​Faith, Christianity, Jesus, Faith in action, Chick fil a, North carolina, Honesty, Integrity, Found cash, Restroom, Chick fil a employee, Reward, Abide, Align 

On a recent episode of “Strange Encounters” — a podcast on spiritual warfare — BlazeTV host Rick Burgess received a message from a listener who was disturbed by what he had been seeing in the Pentecostal church.

He wrote, “The Pentecostals seem to me to be mocking the Holy Spirit by running around the church speaking in gibberish, knocking people down, etc. Is this some sort of demonic type of behavior that is not honoring the Spirit of the Lord or just confused people who have twisted Scripture and clearly don’t seem to follow it?”

Rick addresses the controversial issue of speaking in tongues by first pointing out different denominations’ preferences for one specific part of the Holy Trinity.

“Conservative Presbyterians, you see a more stoic, reverent representation and a lot — a lot — a lot of talk about the Father. … If you were to go to a traditional, say, Baptist church, you’re going to hear a lot about the Son,” he says.

“And then you get into the charismatics … your Pentecostals, your Church of God, and it’s almost like the Holy Spirit is their favorite.”

The issue of speaking in tongues, Rick explains, begins with “[taking] God as he is.”

“We should be worshipping God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit,” he says.

Rick points out that speaking in tongues is often treated by denominations that embrace it as something that makes them “superior” to other Christians.

“Some go even further to say that to speak in tongues is to prove that you are truly redeemed. Scripture would not agree with that,” he says.

So what does Scripture say about speaking in tongues?

Rick refers to the apostle Paul’s advice in 1 Corinthians 14:

Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

Rick unpacks Paul’s teaching: “Is speaking in tongues real? Yeah, it is. Is it some gift that … is beneficial to the church? Not really.”

“If it’s just a bunch of gibberish with no one to interpret and you’re making a scene in the church and drawing attention to yourself and it has no benefit to the rest of the church, then Paul doesn’t seem to think much of it at all,” he continues.

However, Rick is conflicted about whether or not speaking in uninterpreted tongues in church is overtly demonic.

“I don’t really know the answer to that. It feels to me that any time that we are singing praise songs that have bad theology, preaching messages that are not biblically sound, and, I guess I would say, and speaking in tongues in a way that is in conflict with Scripture, I think at the heart of all that is demonic activity,” he says.

“Because let me tell you, [demons] would love to come inside the church if they have been invited.”

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, Strange encounters with rick burgess, Rick burgess, Speaking in tongues, Spiritual warfare, Demonic oppression, Blazetv, Blaze media 

I’ve been fighting Duchenne muscular dystrophy for 40 years. My brothers Angelo and Antonio died from it at ages 20 and 22, respectively. Antonio died in 2015, when my son, Ryu, was barely a toddler and had already been diagnosed with the same terminal illness.

My childhood memories are of praying for my brothers, caring for them with my mother, and Mom taking all five of her kids to church almost every day. I always asked God to heal my brothers, and — after Ryu was born — I added him to those prayers.

I’ve been saying the same prayer for help and to be able to lend my voice for over 40 years.

But I also went to God with another prayer — I asked that He would open the door that allowed me to share our family’s story. I didn’t know what that looked like, or when it would come, but I trusted in it.

This year, that prayer was answered when I was asked to speak out not just on behalf of my brothers and son, but for every family that feels isolated because of a terminal rare disease.

I visited Washington, D.C., to share my story with lawmakers from both parties as well as patient advocates and to ask them to push the Food and Drug Administration to stop standing in the way of drugs like Elevidys, the only gene therapy treatment for my son’s illness.

The advocacy worked. I can’t say how much my own small voice, speaking up for the first time, helped, but so many people speaking out made a difference.

The first indicator was when the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Dr. Vinay Prasad announced his resignation from the FDA just a week later — he leaves this month. Prasad blocked treatments, with the support of FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, that could have helped kids like Ryu all across the country to live.

RELATED: Trump is keeping his word on health care costs

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

I’m just a mom. But we recently celebrated Easter, where a carpenter saved the world. He overcame the establishment of His time, which was willing to throw the vulnerable and sick to the side. He fell, but He didn’t falter — I hope to follow His example.

As we were approaching Holy Thursday this year, Ryu was having a hard evening. He needed his Bipap machine to help his lungs function, as he so often does. But he looked at me — my 14-year-old wheelchair-bound boy who is the happiest kid I know — and said, “Mom, this sucks. But what you’re doing makes it a lot easier.”

My story may not matter to FDA Commissioner Makary, who seems to have forgotten about Ryu and thousands of other kids like him. But God sees every hair on our heads. He named us before our parents knew us. And sometimes, like Gabriel told the prophet Daniel, prayers are answered long before we see their fruition.

I’ve been saying the same prayer for help and to be able to lend my voice for over 40 years. To the world, Antonio and Angelo may be long deceased, but they are the foundation for how my husband and I have cared for Ryu. And God has allowed me to carry their stories from my home in El Paso to our nation’s capital.

Commissioner Makary and Dr. Prasad may have forgotten that their job is to save lives, but God seems to have different plans. He’s just getting started with me in spreading His good news, and so far it has been amazing.

But I’m also not surprised, because I knew God would take care of it all.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in the Christian Post.

​Duchenne muscular dystrophy, Healthcare, Fda, Prayer, Faith, Vinay prasad, Elevidys, Opinion & analysis 

A New Jersey woman tasked with prosecuting lawbreakers, including those driving under the influence, has received a slap on the wrist after her 30th birthday turned into a night she would probably like to forget.

On March 8, 2025, Bryashia Atchison-Henderson, an assistant prosecutor in Essex County, apparently celebrated turning the big 3-0 a little too hard. A driver contacted police after allegedly witnessing Atchison-Henderson make a sharp turn and then fall out of her vehicle.

‘She threw up in the car.’

Edgewater police found Atchison-Henderson lying in a parking lot near her car, which was parked on a curb and still running, bodycam footage revealed. She also told the cops, “I didn’t realize I was this drunk,” prompting a field sobriety test.

“You kinda just admitted to me that you were drunk,” one officer says on the video.

She had difficulty standing and could not correctly identify her location, video showed. She also began to cry and repeatedly begged to call her son’s father.

RELATED: Tiger Woods arrested for DUI after another rollover incident, police say

Atchison-Henderson was arrested around 8:30 p.m. and placed in the back of a police cruiser. One of the arresting officers later told a colleague, “She threw up in the car.”

While at the station, she allegedly refused a breathalyzer. She also vomited again, this time in the processing room, authorities said, according to NJ.com.

For over a year, Atchison-Henderson continued working at the prosecutor’s office with a DUI charge looming over her head. The office did not acknowledge her arrest until four months later, the New Jersey Globe reported.

On April 2, 2026, she pled guilty to reckless driving. She will reportedly have to pay a $340 fine plus court costs. The Globe noted that the reckless driving conviction will also likely result in points on her record.

A charge of refusing a breathalyzer had already been dropped.

The Essex County prosecutor’s office confirmed to NJ.com that Atchison-Henderson remains employed but declined to comment on any possible disciplinary action she may face.

“Administrative investigations are confidential,” the office said in a statement. “As such, we are unable to comment on the matter.”

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

​Bryashia atchison-henderson, Essex county, New jersey, Dui, Politics 

In 2018, I was a guest of Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) at the State of the Union. The place was electric — political theater at its finest. Members of Congress, guests, and press were packed into a room that felt more like a pressure cooker than a chamber. And whoever designed those gallery seats clearly had smaller people in mind.

We had to be there early, which meant a lot of sitting. I struck up a conversation with the man seated just behind me to my left. It turned out to be Bill Nye. He was cordial. My kids had watched him on TV. We talked briefly, just two people passing time.

A serious person is obligated to be even-handed, even when he doesn’t like someone or disagrees with him.

After the speech by Donald Trump, as the room began to empty, I stuck my hand out to Bill, and his only response was, “He didn’t talk about space.”

It wasn’t a big comment. But it was revealing. We had just witnessed something few people ever experience in person. And that was his takeaway.

A lot has happened with America’s space program since then.

I looked and have yet to see where Bill Nye said, “I don’t agree with the man, but something good happened here.”

I did see he was at a No Kings rally last month.

Which raises a simple question: Are we willing to acknowledge what is true, even when we don’t like who it’s attached to?

We hear a lot about following the science. Fine. Then follow it.

Because if you start with the premise that a person is irredeemable, then everything he does must be dismissed. At that point, you’re not evaluating evidence. You’re protecting a conclusion you’ve already chosen.

We’ve seen this before. A man once stood face to face with truth and asked, “What is truth?” Not because the answer wasn’t there, but because he had already decided what he was willing to accept and what it might cost him.

Truth is not hard to find, but it’s hard to accept when it costs us something.

Sometimes you see people model a better way.

I encountered one of those moments when my wife, Gracie, sang at the inauguration of the governor of Tennessee.

At the time, Harold Ford Jr. was a young congressman who was present at the event. After Gracie performed, there were a lot of people on that platform. Important people. People far more connected than we were.

But Harold made a point to come straight to us.

Not a quick handshake and move on. He engaged. Asked questions. Took genuine interest.

A few days later, we found ourselves on the same flight to Washington. Gracie was headed to Walter Reed to sing for wounded warriors. Once again, Harold made a beeline for us.

Same posture. Same curiosity. Same kindness.

We’ve not crossed paths since, but I still watch him when he’s on “The Five.” Not because I agree with everything he says. I don’t. I watch because he is measured. He gives credit where it’s due. He asks questions. He looks for common ground. He treats people as individuals, not categories.

That stayed with me.

I saw something recently that would have been unthinkable not long ago.

Mark Levin had Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.) on his show. If talk radio were music, I always considered Rush Limbaugh a virtuoso and Mark Levin heavy metal.

Levin and Fetterman engaged. Asked real questions. Gave thoughtful answers. No rush to score points.

Just two men doing something we used to call normal. And that’s when it hit me. Why does that feel unusual?

RELATED: You don’t have to engage with crazy

Mark Von Holden/WireImage

For 40 years, I’ve lived in a world where I don’t get to choose who walks into the room to care for my wife. Nurses. Surgeons. Specialists. People from every background and belief system.

I’ve seen medical professionals wearing pronouns on their badges. While I inwardly sighed and questioned the scientific judgment of someone who touts that, Gracie still needed care.

And in that moment, my irritation didn’t get a vote. So I did what caregivers learn to do.

I stuck out my hand and engaged. I listened, observed, and learned to separate what I felt about a person from what I could clearly see in front of me.

A serious person is obligated to be even-handed, even when he doesn’t like someone or disagrees with him.

The next time you hear something good about someone you can’t stand, ask yourself a simple question: Could this be objectively true, even though I don’t like this person?

You don’t have to change your vote or your convictions, but you do have to decide whether you’re going to follow the facts or protect a script.

In the real world, where people actually depend on you, clinging to a preferred script isn’t just lazy, it can be very costly.

If you’re willing to set that script aside, even for a moment, you might find something better than being right.

You might find clarity. And in a world this loud, that’s no small thing.

​State of the union, Political disagreement, Caregiving, Truth, Donald trump, Mark levin, John fetterman, Opinion & analysis 

There was a time when God revealed himself in astonishing, tangible ways.

In the Old Testament, he led the Israelites through the wilderness by appearing as a pillar of cloud and fire; he descended on Mount Sinai with thunder, lightning, thick smoke, and a loud trumpet blast to deliver the Ten Commandments; he took the prophet Elijah to heaven in a whirlwind with a chariot and horses of fire; and the list goes on.

But since the coming of Jesus, God has been much more subtle in how he reveals himself. Many Christian testimonies include encounters with God, but they are usually experienced in quiet, personal moments.

John Luke Robertson believes this is why so many people today refuse to believe in God. On this episode of “Unashamed,” he joins Al Robertson, Zach Dasher, and Christian Huff to unpack exactly that.

John Luke points out that Jesus’ own life and ministry were clearly marked by subtlety.

“He could have said at 12 years old, ‘I’m the Messiah,’ and started it from there, but He waited till He was 30,” he explains.

Even after his ministry began, Jesus often told people — including his disciples and those he healed — to keep his miracles secret. Multiple times in the Gospels, he is recorded saying “my time has not yet come” when people tried to force his hand or make him king too soon.

When he finally faced the cross, Jesus still remained subtle in admitting his divinity, responding to direct questions like “Are you the Son of God?” or “Are you the King of the Jews?” with humble affirmations such as, “You have said so” or “you say that I am.”

“All the way up till the very end, he didn’t have this big reveal of who he was. … And I think we see that same thing with God now,” says John Luke.

John Luke recalls hearing an atheist explain that he doesn’t believe in God because if he were real, “He would have revealed himself more openly.”

But if you look back through history, this isn’t a modern issue. For centuries people have been demanding more obvious or dramatic power.

“I was just reading this book talking about the same thing,” says Christian. “It was these two early historians … and they were saying they don’t believe the gospel and Jesus because they’re like, ‘After the resurrection, why would he appear to women and to peasants? … Why would he not appear to Caesar and Pilate and all these powerful people?”’

In the next segment of the show, the panel moves deeper into how this expectation of a more dramatic, public revelation of God has roots in ancient heresies that the early church had to confront — errors that still influence skeptical thinking today.

To hear it, watch the episode above.

Want more from the Robertsons?

To enjoy more on God, guns, ducks, and inspiring stories of faith and family, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Unashamed, Unashamed with the robertsons, Blazetv, Blaze media, Early church, Heresy, Jesus, Christianity, Old testament 

One of the remarkable scientific discoveries of the past several decades is that the universe and Earth appear fine-tuned for life.

Philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer explains that fine-tuning “refers to the discovery that many properties of the universe fall within extremely narrow and improbable ranges that turn out to be absolutely necessary for complex forms of life … to exist.”

Earth’s position in the solar system is in what scientists call the Goldilocks Zone, where it’s not too hot and not too cold.

It’s important to note that the term “fine-tuning” or “fine-tuned” is a neutral description that doesn’t imply the existence of God. It’s a designation routinely used by scientists and scholars of all stripes.

Although scientific findings are always provisional, it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that an incredibly powerful and intelligent being designed our universe to support life.

In what follows, we’ll look at the scientific credibility of fine-tuning, specific examples, possible explanations for it, and some objections to it. Fine-tuning is not surprising if Christianity is true, since God intended to create human and animal life (Genesis 1), but it is surprising in the case of naturalism, where it appears to be an astounding coincidence.

Believe the science

One will occasionally meet skeptics who believe fine-tuning is an idea invented by Christians but not taken seriously by scientists. This is a misconception, to say the least. Consider the following testimony:

Agnostic physicist Sir Fred Hoyle: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”Atheist physicist Stephen Hawking: “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”Agnostic physicist Paul Davies: “The entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly.” “On the face of it, the universe does look as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator expressly for the purpose of spawning sentient beings.”Atheist physicist Steven Weinberg: “Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.”

It’s notable that cosmic fine-tuning was one of the reasons the distinguished atheist thinker Antony Flew changed his mind about God’s existence, as recounted in his 2007 book “There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.”

Against all odds?

Philosopher Robin Collins points out, “If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as one part in 1060 [i.e., 1 followed by 60 zeros], the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible.”

This is a mind-boggling number. Collins likens this improbability to “firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.”

He also observes that “if gravity had been stronger or weaker by one part in 1040, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist.”

If gravity were slightly stronger, stars would burn out in millions, rather than billions, of years (our sun is about 4.6 billion years old). If gravity were slightly weaker, most stars would never form at all — or would be too small and cold.

Oxford mathematician and philosopher John Lennox helps us understand this vast improbability as follows:

Cover America with coins in a column reaching to the moon (380,000 km or 236,000 miles away), then do the same for a billion other continents of the same size. Paint one coin red and put it somewhere in one of the billion piles. Blindfold a friend and ask her to pick it out. The odds are about 1 in 1040 that she will.

A little closer to home, Earth’s position in the solar system is in what scientists call the Goldilocks Zone, where it’s not too hot and not too cold, allowing for liquid water to exist on its surface. The size of Earth also ensures that it has the right gravity to retain an atmosphere suitable for life without being too strong to inhibit the mobility of organisms.

Many other examples could be cited, but these illustrate the almost inconceivable odds against a life-permitting universe and Earth.

By design

These numbers are so surprising that they call out for an explanation, and there seem to be only three options: physical necessity, chance, or design.

Regarding physical necessity — that the universe had to have the properties that it does — there are no good reasons to believe this. As far as scientists can tell, the universe could have had a vast range of different laws, constants, and qualities.

To cite Davies again, “There is not a shred of evidence that the [parameters of our] universe [are] logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal contenders for reality.”

Regarding chance, we saw earlier how incredibly unlikely it is that any possible universe would support life. When you combine the improbabilities of all the fine-tuned parameters together, the odds against life become overwhelming. The one remaining option is design. All our experience tells us that only rational agents design things, and thus a cosmic designer is the best explanation for the universe’s fine-tuning.

Multiverse muddle

Space prohibits an extended discussion of objections to fine-tuning. I’ll briefly address two that are frequently mentioned.

The first is known as the weak anthropic principle, raised by physicist Martin Rees, among others: “Some would argue that this fine-tuning of the universe, which seems so providential, is nothing to be surprised about, since we could not exist otherwise.”

Thus, we should not be surprised that the universe is fine-tuned for life, since we are here observing that it is. But as philosopher Douglas Groothuis points out, this confuses two related but distinct ideas: 1) the truism that we couldn’t observe anything unless the universe was life-permitting and 2) an explanation of why the universe is so finely tuned. Acknowledging the first observation doesn’t negate the need to explain why, against all odds, our universe is life-permitting.

Second, some thinkers appeal to the idea of a multiverse to explain fine-tuning. If billions, or even an infinite number, of other universes exist, one of those universes will inevitably permit life. We happen to be in the lucky universe that does.

God is in the details

There is no experimental evidence, however, that a multiverse exists, and some see it as an ad hoc proposal to avoid the theistic implications of fine-tuning. As physicist John Polkinghorne writes, “Let us recognize these speculations for what they are. They are not physics, but in the strictest sense, metaphysics. There is no purely scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of universes.”

While the multiverse hypothesis is complex, ad hoc, and lacks evidence, the design hypothesis is simple (one Creator) and, as noted earlier, draws on our universal experience that only minds design things.

Thus, fine-tuning provides compelling evidence that God exists and intended to create living beings. And this sounds very much like the kind of God we find described in Genesis — one who, from the beginning, “created the heavens and the earth” and declared his creation “very good” (Genesis 1:1, 31).

A version of this essay originally appeared on the Worldview Bulletin Newsletter.

​Intelligent design, Stephen hawking, Creationism, Big bang, Atheism, Fred hoyle, Science, Philosophy, God, Christianity, Apologetics, Faith 

Kemi Badenoch — Conservative Party leader, survivor of the 2024 electoral rout, and arguably the sharpest political mind left in British conservatism — is considering a ban on the burqa as part of a broader review of Islamist extremism.

She should stop considering and start legislating.

‘Freedom’ that produces permanent public anonymity for one group, in spaces where no one else enjoys it, is not freedom’s finest hour.

The case does not begin with Badenoch, and it does not end in Westminster. Across six European democracies — Austria, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Switzerland — full or partial bans are already law.

Their constitutions survive. Their Muslim populations remain. The predicted social cataclysm never arrived.

What arrived instead was policy — enforced and producing measurable outcomes.

Facing facts

The deeper question is why the rest of the Western world has been so slow, so squeamish, to reckon with what the burqa actually does in public space.

Full facial concealment — not the hijab, not the headscarf, but the garment that renders a woman’s face entirely invisible — removes her from the basic grammar of human interaction. Faces carry trust, intention, fear, and consent. Humans have read them for a hundred thousand years, and no amount of progressive goodwill has updated the firmware.

When you cannot see someone’s face, you cannot treat the person as a fully present participant in civic life. You can only treat the person as a shape moving through it.

Free societies depend on legibility among their members. Not total transparency — nobody is proposing to ban sunglasses or launch inquiries into wide-brimmed hats — but the basic mutual visibility that public life requires.

Courts require faces. Banks require faces. Polling stations, airports, and schools all require faces. Nobody marches on these institutions screaming tyranny.

Anonymity in shared space has always carried costs, and open societies have never been shy about saying so.

The burqa asks for a permanent exemption from an obligation everyone else accepts without drama.

Enforced invisibility

That exemption makes a certain grim sense in Afghanistan, where the Taliban reinstated the burqa as compulsory law in 2022 — a country where female faces are treated as a political problem requiring a legislative solution. In that context, the garment is a uniform of erasure, imposed top-down by men who find women’s faces inconvenient.

Which makes its romantic defense in the West, as an expression of individual freedom, not just ironic but absurd. The symbol of enforced invisibility does not become an emblem of liberation simply by crossing a border.

The First Amendment crowd — loudest in America, with philosophical cousins across the Atlantic — will say that mandating what a woman removes from her face differs not at all from mandating what she puts on it.

The argument does not survive contact with consistency.

Masks off

Masks at protests are already banned in multiple jurisdictions. Religious exemptions from generally applicable laws have limits even under the most robust free-exercise jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has never held that faith confers a blanket right to opt out of civic norms that apply to everyone else.

Employment Division v. Smith settled that much in 1990, and the decades since have not reversed the principle that neutral, generally applicable laws can coexist with religious freedom without apology.

A ban on full facial concealment in public spaces would likely qualify.

“Freedom” that produces permanent public anonymity for one group, in spaces where no one else enjoys it, is not freedom’s finest hour.

Female agency is the argument’s most seductive register. She chooses this. She owns it. Perhaps. But agency exercised under doctrinal pressure, familial expectation, or community sanction has a habit of resembling choice from a distance.

RELATED: Syria’s Bloody Crescent

Mike Mercury

Feminist exception

Western feminism spent decades insisting that personal preference does not close the conversation when that preference is shaped by systems that constrain what preference can look like. That reasoning dismantled arguments about beauty standards and industries far less coercive than religious orthodoxy.

Applied here — to a garment entire governments have made compulsory — the same movement suddenly finds the question too delicate to pursue.

None of this requires hostility to Islam, to faith, or to religious expression broadly understood.

The headscarf is not the burqa. Private devotion is not public concealment.

People are entitled to their beliefs, entitled to wear almost anything behind their own doors, entitled to worship as conscience directs.

But public space is shared space, and shared space carries shared obligations.

Turning your face away from those obligations — permanently, behind fabric, as a matter of principle — is less religious liberty than a form of civic withdrawal.

There is a meaningful distance between religious expression and civic withdrawal. The burqa travels the full length of it.

Open society? Closed case

British polling puts support for a ban at 56%. For once, democratic instinct and reasoned argument are pulling in the same direction — not always a luxury policymakers enjoy.

In America, a federal ban would face genuine First Amendment scrutiny. The constitutional architecture differs, the judicial culture differs, the politics differ enormously.

But “legally complicated” and “morally unclear” are not synonyms.

Many Americans who correctly distrust government overreach have no difficulty concluding that facial concealment in courtrooms, classrooms, and government offices warrants regulation.

The legal pathway varies by country. The underlying social logic does not.

The burqa is not compatible with open societies. The only remaining question is how long open societies intend to pretend otherwise.

​Letter from the uk, Islam, Burqa ban, Burqa, Afghanistan, Taliban, First amendment, Lifestyle, Culture, Faith 

On the latest episode of “The Drive with Lauren and Karl,” Karl Brauer and I talked about something every driver notices before almost anything else: the number on the pump.

And lately, those numbers have been going the wrong direction.

Sitting in a drive-through line for coffee, food, or dry cleaning may not feel like a big deal, but zero miles per gallon is still zero miles per gallon.

I was reminded of that the hard way when I filled my diesel SUV and saw the price climb past $5 a gallon. Karl had it even worse in California, where he paid more than $6 a gallon and described a friend filling a heavy-duty Ram for $167.

That’s not a small nuisance. For many drivers, it’s a direct hit to the household budget.

Fleeting relief

The frustrating part is that gas prices had started to moderate. As domestic production improved, prices eased. Diesel came down. Regular gas came down. Drivers finally got a little breathing room.

Now that relief is fading.

The reason is simple: Fuel prices do not respond only to what is happening at your local gas station. They respond to what is happening around the world. Global instability, supply concerns, and broader energy-market pressure push prices up quickly. And when that happens, drivers feel it immediately.

That is especially true in places like California, where prices are already higher than the rest of the country. When fuel rises nationally, it rises even more there.

For consumers, that means the practical question is no longer why it’s happening. It’s what to do about it.

Shop around

There is no magic fix, and no one is suggesting drivers can “budget” their way out of a price spike. But there are a few ways to reduce the damage.

The first is obvious: Shop around.

Apps like GasBuddy, AAA, and other fuel price trackers can help drivers compare prices before they fill up. The information is not always perfect, but it’s often good enough to spot the worst stations and find better options nearby. Membership clubs like Costco or BJ’s can also make a meaningful difference if you already belong and can tolerate the wait.

And that is the catch. When gas prices spike, everyone has the same idea. Those discount stations get crowded fast.

Fuel for thought

That makes another point more important than people realize: Avoid wasting fuel when you do not need to.

That means thinking harder about the little convenience habits most drivers don’t notice when gas is cheap. Sitting in a drive-through line for coffee, food, or dry cleaning may not feel like a big deal, but zero miles per gallon is still zero miles per gallon. If you can park, go inside, and get out faster, that saves fuel and time.

The same goes for trip planning.

If prices stay high, it makes sense to consolidate errands, reduce unnecessary driving, and stop making multiple short trips when one will do. It sounds simple because it is simple. But simple matters when every fill-up costs more than it should.

RELATED: Start-stop was just hit by the EPA. Now comes the real test.

Heritage Images/Getty Images

No safe haven

Vehicle condition matters too.

Checking tire pressure once a month can make a real difference in fuel economy. Underinflated tires increase rolling resistance and cost you money over time. It’s not glamorous, but it’s one of the easiest ways to improve efficiency without changing vehicles or spending money.

The same logic applies across power trains.

If you drive a hybrid, you still use fuel. If you drive an EV, electricity has gotten more expensive too. There is no completely insulated category of driver anymore. Energy costs hit everyone one way or another.

That reality matters because it resets the conversation. This is not just about gas stations. It is about transportation costs broadly rising again.

Domino effect

And once that happens, everything else gets more expensive too.

Delivery fees go up. Services cost more. Operating a truck or SUV becomes harder to justify for some families, even if they need the capability. People start changing habits not because they want to, but because they have to.

That is why fuel prices always matter politically and economically. They are not just one more cost. They touch almost everything.

For now, the best drivers can do is limit waste, shop smart, and be realistic. Prices may come down again eventually, but they are not likely to stabilize until the broader global picture does.

Until then, drivers are back where they’ve been too many times before: staring at the pump and doing the math.

​The drive, Gas prices, Auto industry, Lifestyle, Consumer news, Evs, Align cars 

Last month, American rapper Afroman (real name Joseph Edgar Foreman) won a defamation lawsuit against Ohio sheriff’s deputies who raided his home in 2022. Acting on a tip about drugs and kidnapping, the deputies kicked down his door with guns drawn, ransacked the house, and seized some cash — all captured on his home security cameras.

No drugs or evidence was found, and no charges were filed. Afroman then turned the raid footage into viral parody videos, including the hit “Lemon Pound Cake,” which prompted the deputies to sue him for defamation. On March 18, an Ohio jury ruled in his favor on the grounds of free speech.

Now he joins Matt Kibbe, BlazeTV host of “Kibbe on Liberty” to discuss the raid, the lawsuit, and what the victory means for free speech in America.

Afroman, who’s currently on tour, says that the incident with the Ohio deputies has turned out to be “a blessing in disguise,” as people have been showing their support like never before.

“We got way more people than I usually have, and man, you can feel it. I’’s something new in the air. Man, I’m back like Tina Turner after ‘What’s Love Got to Do With It,’” he laughed.

But before the victory, life was feeling dark, he admits.

“You start questioning your manhood when people come to where your family live and they kick the place in. … It’s outrageous for people to come to your house and tear it up — especially when they got all their information wrong,” he tells Kibbe.

Even after the cops found nothing in Afroman’s home, the arrogance and ill will they carried into the raid lingered throughout the lawsuit, he recounted. “They were unapologetic and sarcastic and kind of delighting in the fact that they did vandalize my property.”

The trial, he says, was “set up in the police officers’ favor.”

“They dismissed my claims before I even went to court, so I was just in court to discuss how much money I was going to pay, you know, the vandals and thieves,” he recounts, adding that the warrant used to access his home had many “flaws,” but the court refused to address it.

However, Afroman nonetheless won the case. The jury ruled that his videos, which he says he made to help “pay for the damages” caused by the deputies, were protected under his free speech rights.

“Ultimately, in a nutshell, the police officers lost the case, and freedom of speech prevails in America,” he says triumphantly.

But freedom of speech wasn’t the end of Afroman’s victory. The lawsuit ended up drawing unprecedented attention to his album and music videos.

“[Those cops] did more for my social media in three days than I could do for myself in 15 years,” he says, noting that he gained “800,000 followers” in a matter of days because of the lawsuit.

But the biggest victory remains the protection of the First Amendment.

“Some countries, you can’t say nothing. You got to shut up. You can’t speak out against the government. … But one of the beautiful things about America is, you know, you can speak,” he says.

“So, thank God I have it, and it’s the one thing that brought me justice.”

To hear the full interview, watch the video above.

Want more from Matt Kibbe?

To enjoy more of Matt’s liberty-defending stance as he gets in the face of the fake news establishment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Kibbe on liberty, Matt kibbe, Afroman, Blazetv, Blaze media, Free speech, First amendment, Lemon pound cake 

Public distrust of AI platforms has reached an all-time high, especially when it comes to users’ private data. Not only are people leery of the AI platforms themselves, but they’re also concerned over how the government can access and use this information. Until recently, AI development felt like the Wild West, with little regulation to get in the way of supposed innovation. That’s all about to change, however, with a brand-new federal bill based on the big national framework Trump rolled out in advance.

The study

In late March, cybersecurity software company Malwarebytes conducted a survey among its newsletter readers, asking them to share their thoughts on AI and user privacy. After collecting 1,200 responses, the results were clear: A staggering 90% of readers simply don’t trust AI with their data.

There are a lot of good things in the bill, but it falls short in other key areas.

One of the main distrust drivers stems from fears of “personal data being used inappropriately” by both corporations and the government. Recent large data breaches that put user credentials directly on the dark web, along with commercial surveillance campaigns, have further contributed to the problem.

To combat the distrust, users have turned to privacy tools, such as VPNs, ad blockers, and identity theft protection services. However, these only go so far when AI platforms can circumvent the usual digital defense mechanisms to learn more about your online presence than it was ever meant to know.

The only firm solution to assuage public distrust is to give the AI companies some legal guardrails to ensure that they don’t overstep the rights and security of the people, with the majority of respondents agreeing that they “support national laws regulating how companies can collect, store, share, or use our personal data.”

The bill

A new federal bill proposed by Senator Marsha Blackburn aims to bridge the gap between AI’s fast-paced development and shielding the public from emerging dangers brought on by these rapidly evolving platforms. Dubbed the Trump America AI Act, the bill will codify President Trump’s previously touted National AI Legislative Framework by focusing on two major goals: protection and empowerment of the following:

1. Protections for children

AI developers are required to “prevent and mitigate foreseeable harm to users” with an emphasis on protecting the data, mental health, and safety of minors. AI developers can also be held legally accountable for any damage done by a failure to comply.

Pro: AI providers would be immediately responsible for their chatbots encouraging and even coaching young and vulnerable people on how to take their own lives.Con: AI developers will need a way to verify the age of their users, potentially leading to the mass collection of user IDs, resulting in a digital database. Also, while the bill protects minors’ user data, adults are exempt, failing to solve the concerns expressed in Malwarebytes’ survey.

2. Protections for communities

U.S. companies across all industries, as well as federal agencies, must send quarterly reports to the Department of Labor that detail AI-related impacts on the workforce, including job layoffs and displacements. Data centers are also barred from siphoning energy resources from communities and driving up prices.

Pro: As AI-driven layoffs have already begun, this is a good first step to highlight how AI realistically affects the unemployment rate.Con: Although companies must report AI-related job losses, the bill doesn’t prevent the displacement of employees outright. Companies can still fire employees en masse in a way that would cripple the workforce, impact the economy, and drive the U.S. toward forced universal basic income.

RELATED: Elon Musk’s Terafab is coming, and you’re not ready

onurdongel/Getty Images

3. Protections for intellectual property

AI companies are prohibited from feeding their LLMs with copyrighted materials, including books, movies, music, and more. Under the bill, AI is excluded from fair use under the Copyright Act.

Pro: Content creators no longer have to worry about their creative catalogs being stolen, uploaded, copied, and remixed into new bodies of work when prompted by users on any given platform. They retain full ownership of their content without threat of subjugation.Con: A lack of copyrighted information could lead to gaps in AI platforms’ knowledge graphs, potentially slowing or even stifling development.

4. Protections for conservatives

AI companies are banned from injecting woke ideologies into their large language models, and AI chatbots are no longer allowed to express biases against conservative ideas and values, all of which will be verified through third-party audits.

Pro: Despite efforts to attract support on the right, many Big Tech giants are still dominated by left-wing elites. These safeguards will ensure that their personal and factional beliefs don’t poison the datasets behind their platforms, instead aiming to support truth and facts.Con: The bill isn’t specific enough in defining the woke ideas, political biases, and discrimination it aims to prevent. Unless the bill intends to leave a loophole for the left to exploit, these exact parameters need to be spelled out, lest they be left open to interpretation.

5. Protections for innovation

One of President Trump’s biggest AI goals is to secure America’s place as the global leader in AI technology. As such, this bill encourages partnerships between the government, businesses, and education to accelerate research and development with limited barriers to the infrastructure needed for rapid growth.

Pro: This piece of the bill ultimately centralizes the resources underpinning the United States’ AI development, including computing power, datasets, and advanced infrastructure. By combining the knowledge and experience of multiple groups across various expertise with the best technology available, our AI program will theoretically evolve even faster than it already has over the last several years.Con: Centralized AI development that happens too quickly could potentially lead to developmental mistakes with big consequences, such as launching untested models that underperform, building agents that aren’t fully capable of completing the jobs they’re designed to do, and even causing economic instability should an AI bot or agent run rogue within critical infrastructure, such as businesses, medical facilities, and even military applications.

History in the making

This is a unique time in history. Society has never witnessed a more disruptive technology than generative artificial intelligence, and it takes a lot of watching, waiting, debating, and legislating to get the regulations right for a piece of tech that will touch nearly every facet of modern life.

The Trump America AI Act is merely a launch pad — a starting point — that will guide America’s future of AI research, development, and execution for decades to come. There are a lot of good things in the bill, but it falls short in other key areas:

It doesn’t protect adult users’ privacy, especially in terms of user data and surveillance.It doesn’t protect human workers from mass layoffs and unemployment.It indirectly encourages a digital ID database for age verification with no clear guidelines on how IDs should be gathered, stored, or deleted.

That said, AI regulation has to start somewhere, and the Trump America AI Act is still in its infancy. There will be opportunities to amend the bill as it moves through the legislative process. For now, this version offers a solid foundation for governing the AI tech of tomorrow.

​Tech 

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