Category: blaze media

Five police officers allegedly manifested the problem with Flock surveillance systems in Georgia and were charged and fired from their police department.

Neighborhoods across the nation have objected to local police departments signing up for Flock surveillance systems that monitor and capture vehicle license plates.

Police Chief Michael Persley argued that the system had worked properly because the police were caught allegedly abusing the system through safety checks instituted by Flock.

While law enforcement officials say the surveillance program helps them capture criminals and prevent crime, privacy advocates question whether the company is abusing constitutional rights.

Flock defenders were dealt a severe blow when officers were charged by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation with abusing the data.

“The GBI has arrested and charged five former Albany Police Department officers with Misuse of License Plate Data and Violation of Oath of Office following an investigation into the misuse of their access to the Flock Safety System,” read a statement from the GBI dated July 6.

Tytianna Davis, 27, was charged with five counts of misuse of license plate data and one count of violation of oath of office.

Jade Jackson, 32, was charged with two counts of misuse of license plate data and one count of violation of oath of office.

Nicholas Richardson, 30, was charged with 11 counts of misuse of license plate data and one count of violation of oath of office.

Brittney Smith, 23, was charged with one count of misuse of license plate data and one count of violation of oath of office.

Issac Whitus, 24, was charged with two counts of misuse of license plate data and one count of violation of oath of office.

The officers have been accused of accessing the system for “non-law enforcement purposes.”

In a press release, Flock suggested that the incident affirms the efficacy of the system: “This incident is the first publicly confirmed case of Flock’s Audit Assistance feature in action and highlights the importance of how technology separates good policing from illegal misconduct.”

RELATED: Flock Safety CEO: It’s ‘terroristic’ to want to know where we put our spy cameras

A statement from the Albany Police Department, led by Police Chief Michael Persley, said three officers were terminated because of the accusations, while the other two were terminated over separate, unrelated policy violations that were uncovered during the investigation into the alleged abuse.

“License plate reader systems are designed to support legitimate public safety operations, including identifying stolen vehicles connected to criminal investigations, revoking stolen vehicles and assisting in locating individuals during public safety incidents,” said a statement from the APD about the incident.

“Any use of this technology outside its authorized purpose is unacceptable and inconsistent with the standards of professionalism, integrity, and accountability expected of every member of the Albany Police Department.”

The GBI said the investigation is ongoing.

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

​Flock surveillance systems, Law enforcement, Privacy rights, Licence plate reader, Police, Politics 

The European Union had a chance to curtail one of the most intrusive bills it has ever seen on Thursday, but citizens will have to wait even longer to find out their fate.

The potential law in question is a debate on “rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse” in online communications. If passed, the legislation would have cascading effects on the privacy of the average citizen.

‘CHAT CONTROL IS COMING.’

Originally proposed in May 2022, the proposal has bounced around for more than four years. On Thursday, lawmakers once again voted to send the bill back to the Council of the EU, which represents the governments of the member states.

Members needed at least 361 votes to reject the bill, and even though they voted in a majority, it was not enough to kill the legislation.

“CHAT CONTROL IS COMING,” wrote Cypriot member of parliament Fidias Panayiotou.

“Even though most Members of the European Parliament have voted to REJECT Chat Control, we have not been able to reach the absolute majority that was needed (361 Members). This is a sad day for Europeans,” he added.

RELATED: Tony Robbins says his AI agent bought a robot — and asked to take it over. The internet’s not so sure.

The EU proposal is meant to disrupt and stop Child Sexual Abuse Material, referred to as CSAM, by having social media and tech companies scan messages for potentially harmful content.

In a report from November 2025, the EU revealed the types of data tech companies had collected since engaging in its voluntary detection trial. The companies reported that they had collected the following traffic data:

“a) data related to the user account (Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Yubo), e.g. user ID, username, and IP address;

b) metadata related to content (Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Yubo);

c) data related to a potential victim (Google);

d) abuse operations data (Google).”

All providers mentioned videos and images, according to the EU.

RELATED: Xbox to retreat from wokeness, fire thousands — and still might not survive

Nicolas TUCAT/AFP/Getty Images

Now at stake is whether scanning must include monitoring even end-to-end encrypted services, a scheme advanced under the moniker Chat Control 2.0.

Politico described the vote on Thursday as “chaotic,” with one MEP reportedly telling the EU parliament vice president, “We don’t know what we are voting on.”

Member countries now must either accept the changes or propose a different version, which would send the EU into conciliation procedure.

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

​European union, News, Chat control, Censorship, Police state, Fidias panayiotou, Tech 

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and other Democrats were quick to condemn an attack at a mosque as Islamophobia — but BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales notes that the attack wasn’t all it was cracked up to be.

“If there was one message that he wanted you to know, it is that he loves soccer … but if there’s one more thing that he always wants you to know, it’s that Muslims are always the victims. Isn’t it crazy how that turns out?” Gonzales asks, before reading Mamdani’s post about the “attack.”

“Yesterday, during Friday prayers at the Muslim Center of New York in Queens, a man reached for his pocket and congregants saw what looked like a firearm, creating a terrifying situation for Muslim New Yorkers who had gathered to worship,” Mamdani wrote in a post on X.

“I’m immensely grateful and relieved that an MTA employee, a cab driver and an NYPD officer acted quickly to help ensure no one was hurt. Every New Yorker should be able to observe their religion without fear or intimidation,” he added.

“I would guess that you wouldn’t see that same energy if it was a synagogue,” Gonzales comments.

New York Attorney General Letitia James and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also took the opportunity to highlight the situation, with Schumer writing on X that “Islamophobia is unacceptable and we must continue to reject hatred and bigotry in every form.”

James posted that “we must stand united against Islamophobia.”

However, they left one “major detail” out about the attacker.

“It’s just that he was a Muslim. He’s a Muslim himself. So I don’t know how you guys are going on your diatribe,” Gonzales says.

“And according to the criminal complaint, he was seen entering the mosque where he removed his baseball cap and put on a head covering and a mask. He proceeded to count his money and said, ‘If anybody touches my money, it’s going to be trouble,’” she continues.

“And then someone saw what appeared to be a gun in his waistband. They tackled him to the ground. It turns out it was a bb gun,” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Sara gonzales, Zohran mamdani, Letitia james, Chuck schumer, Islam, Islamophobia, The blaze, Synagogue, Mosque, Attack, Sara gonzales unfiltered 

For more than a century, mainstream historians — Christian and non-Christian alike — have largely agreed on one point: Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure.

The enduring debates concern something else entirely. Who did Jesus claim to be? What can history tell us about His life? And how should historians interpret the handful of ancient, non-Christian sources that mention Him?

That small change significantly alters the tone of the passage, allowing Josephus to report what Jesus’ followers believed without personally endorsing their claims.

One of those sources has long stood at the center of scholarly debate.

“And in this time there was a certain Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man …”

Those famous words come from the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. For generations, however, many scholars have argued that portions of the passage were embellished by later Christian copyists, making it difficult to know exactly what Josephus originally wrote.

A new book argues historians have been too skeptical.

A more extraordinary Jesus?

In “Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ,” Yale-trained historian T.C. Schmidt contends that Josephus’ famous “Testimonium Flavianum” — his longer account of Jesus — is substantially more authentic than many scholars have believed. If Schmidt is correct, one of history’s most important non-Christian accounts portrays Jesus as a more extraordinary figure than the prevailing scholarly consensus has assumed.

That would not overturn the historical case for Jesus, which already rests on multiple ancient sources. Rather, it could strengthen historians’ confidence in one of antiquity’s earliest and most important independent accounts of Jesus’ life, execution, and the remarkable movement He inspired.

Among skeptics and believers alike, historians have long looked beyond Scripture when evaluating the historical Jesus.

As New Testament scholar John P. Meier has observed, “The implication is that the biblical evidence for Jesus is biased because it is encased in a theological text written by committed believers. What they really want to know is: Is there extra-biblical evidence … for Jesus’ existence?”

Mainstream historians have long answered that question in the affirmative.

Tacitus: No friend to Christianity

One important witness comes from Roman historian, senator, and ethnographer Tacitus, who flourished in the late first and early second centuries, well within living memory of the end of Jesus Christ’s earthly life.

In his “Annals of Imperial Rome,” Tacitus, who was no friend to Christianity, makes a reference to Jesus Christ that teaches the reader multiple facts about Christ from an outsider’s perspective.

The passage appears amid Tacitus’ account of the burning of Rome under Emperor Nero in 64 A.D. The full passage (in the Michael Grant translation) reads:

“But neither human resources, nor imperial munificence, nor appeasement of the gods, eliminated sinister suspicions that the fire had been instigated. To suppress the rumour, Nero fabricated scapegoats — and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback, the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect in the capital.”

(Grant notes that “this is the only mention in pagan Latin of Pontius Pilate’s action.”)

This not only confirms the spreading influence of Christianity over the region and beyond; it also places Jesus Christ in the correct time and place according to biblical sources and tradition, and crucially, it connects Him with Pontius Pilate.

Josephus: 2 accounts

Josephus provides another crucial witness.

His brief reference to “James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ,” found in Book 20 of “Jewish Antiquities,” has long been accepted by most historians as authentic. As biblical scholar Lawrence Mykytiuk notes, the reference only serves its purpose of identifying James if Josephus expected his readers to recognize Jesus as a real historical figure.

But Josephus contains a second — and far more famous — reference to Jesus.

RELATED: The Trinity answers the Bible’s central question

DeAgostini/Getty Images

Known as the “Testimonium Flavianum,” Josephus’ longer account of Jesus has occupied scholars for generations because portions of the text appear unusually favorable toward Christianity.

Traditionally, scholars have proposed three possibilities.

The first is that the entire passage is a later Christian forgery.

The second is that Josephus wrote it substantially as we have it today.

The third — and for many years the dominant scholarly position — is that Josephus wrote a genuine core that was later embellished by Christian scribes.

Schmidt argues that historians have underestimated Josephus.

‘He was thought to be the Christ’

Drawing on Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Armenian textual traditions, he contends that the “Testimonium” has survived with remarkably little alteration. According to Schmidt, the text has lost only “two or three words,” while the overwhelming majority of the passage is authentically Josephus.

He also argues that early Greek-speaking Christians themselves often treated the passage not as a confession of Christian faith but as a neutral — or even mildly skeptical — description of Jesus, making extensive Christian editing less likely than many scholars have assumed.

One of Schmidt’s most important arguments concerns a famous line traditionally translated, “He was the Christ.”

According to Schmidt, the earliest textual evidence points instead toward a more cautious reading:

“He was thought to be the Christ.”

That small change significantly alters the tone of the passage, allowing Josephus to report what Jesus’ followers believed without personally endorsing their claims.

Schmidt also argues that Josephus’ distinctive writing style appears consistently throughout the passage and that Josephus was uniquely positioned to know reliable information about Jesus, given his family connections and familiarity with Jerusalem’s political and priestly elite.

An invitation

Schmidt ultimately invites readers to reconsider the “Testimonium Flavianum” in light of this evidence.

His reconstructed text reads:

“And in this time there was a certain Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man, for he was a doer of incredible deeds. … He was thought to be the Christ … on the third day it seemed to them that he was alive again …”

If Schmidt is correct, the significance extends beyond textual criticism.

Rather than simply reinforcing the already broad scholarly consensus that Jesus existed, Schmidt argues that one of history’s most important non-Christian historians may have offered a richer — and more authentic — portrait of Jesus than generations of scholars have assumed.

Instead of merely mentioning Jesus in passing, Josephus describes Him as a wise teacher, a worker of remarkable deeds, a man who drew large crowds, whose execution under Pontius Pilate failed to extinguish His movement, and whose followers remained convinced that He had risen from the dead.

Whether Schmidt ultimately persuades the scholarly community remains to be seen. His work does not seek to settle the historical Jesus debate so much as reopen one of its most important textual questions.

It is, instead, an invitation — for believers and nonbelievers alike — to reconsider whether historians have underestimated the authenticity and significance of antiquity’s most important non-Christian account of Jesus Christ.

A free online version of “Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ” is available here.

​Christianity, Historical evidence, Imperial rome, Jesus christ, Judea, Pontius pilate, Scholars, Faith 

Democrats’ growing radicalism presents a danger to the country. Their shrinking ability to conceal it presents a danger to the party.

As democratic socialists and other far-left candidates win Democratic primaries, the mask of moderation is slipping. The establishment media can downplay radical policies when they belong to activists, backbenchers, or losing candidates. It becomes much harder when those candidates begin winning elections.

The Democratic Party’s greatest political danger is not that the party features a rapidly growing number of radicals. It’s that ordinary Americans are finally getting a clear look at them.

The Graham Platner debacle in Maine shows both how much extremism Democrats will tolerate and how long the media will help them avoid confronting it.

Platner was sold as an acceptable working-class populist. His carefully cultivated image as an oyster farmer obscured his privileged background and family support. He disparaged fellow veterans, blamed military service for a history of incendiary online statements, and sent explicit messages to women while married. His policy positions occupied the party’s farthest-left edge. Then came the Nazi tattoo and a series of preposterous explanations.

Democrats, their leaders, and sympathetic media outlets stood by him through it all.

Only after a woman publicly accused Platner of sexual assault did his campaign finally collapse. Platner denied the allegation, but leading supporters withdrew their endorsements, and he announced plans to leave the race.

The episode illustrates two problems: Democrats’ willingness to embrace radicalism in nearly any form and the establishment media’s willingness to disguise that radicalism.

The second may ultimately prove more damaging to the party.

How can appearance be more dangerous than reality? Because the Democratic Party has been moving left for years while much of the press assured Americans that it remained broadly moderate.

Bernie Sanders nearly defeated Hillary Clinton for the 2016 presidential nomination. Two members of the Democratic Socialists of America entered Congress with “the Squad” in 2018. Under the figurehead leadership of Joe Biden, the administration pursued diversity mandates, radical climate policies, uncontrolled spending, and an open southern border.

RELATED: This is not the ‘red wave’ America needs

Aimee Dilger/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images

The establishment media minimized those policies, just as it concealed Biden’s cognitive decline until his political usefulness expired. Once Biden became obviously unelectable, Democrat leaders and their media allies turned on him.

The same thing happened to Platner. The party tolerated everything until his liabilities threatened its electoral prospects.

In both cases, the candidate was expendable. The ideology remained.

Democratic radicalism is becoming more visible because the party and its media allies can no longer hide it. As more moderate Democrats lose primaries, the press must cover the candidates replacing them.

American political journalism has always preferred the horse race to the substance: polls, debates, endorsements, fundraising, and election-night results. Those subjects are more exciting — and less revealing — than sustained scrutiny of what candidates intend to do in office.

But the horse race becomes a problem when the socialists are winning it.

In 2025, self-described socialists Zohran Mamdani and Katie Wilson won the mayoralties of New York City and Seattle.

More recently, Mamdani-backed candidates swept prominent New York congressional primaries. Former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander defeated incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman, while other left-wing candidates unseated Democrat establishment figures.

In Texas, far-left state Rep. James Talarico won the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate. In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed has emerged as a leading contender in the Democratic Senate primary.

More victories may follow as the primary season continues.

Each one forces the media to cover candidates it would previously have dismissed as activists on the party’s fringe. As establishment Democrats disappear from ballots, journalists have fewer supposedly moderate alternatives to place in the foreground.

RELATED: Democratic Socialists of America will seek to RADICALLY upend the federal government in reported platform update

Adam Gray/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The problem becomes even more severe in heavily Democratic districts, where winning the primary is effectively equivalent to winning the general election.

Those nominees are highly likely to enter Congress, join Sanders and “the Squad,” and pull congressional Democrats farther left. Their anti-Trump agenda will give them a national platform over the next two years, making their positions increasingly difficult to ignore.

The establishment media can soften the language. It can call socialism “progressivism,” describe government control as “investment,” and portray ideological victories as demands for affordability or generational change.

It cannot indefinitely hide what elected officials say and do.

That is the Democratic Party’s greatest political danger. It’s not merely that the party features a rapidly growing number of radicals. It’s that ordinary Americans are finally getting a clear look at them.

For years, the establishment media helped Democrats preserve the appearance of moderation while the party moved steadily left. Socialist victories are making that deception impossible.

​Bernie sanders, Democratic socialists, Democrats, Graham platner, Media, Moderation, Primaries, Hillary clinton, The squad, Congress, Opinion & analysis, Leftism, Anti-american 

What is real?

I know that sounds like I’m trying to “blow your mind, man.” But I don’t mean it in some kind of hippy-dippy, dorm-room philosophizing kind of way.

They want a place where they know they’ll be seeing the world as it is, where they can drop their defenses against being fooled.

In 2026, “What is real?” is a very pressing question.

Won’t get fooled again

If you’ve spent any time on X, Instagram, or Facebook, you’ve probably gotten used to thinking about reality. Namely when coming across the countless AI-generated photos and videos flooding your timeline.

Some, of course, are obviously fake. A penguin shaking hands with a polar bear on a dock while a moose looks on from a sailboat? Most likely AI. But with others it’s not so easy.

Take that photo of the beautiful sunrise over those shining snow-covered mountains. Looks real … but it isn’t. Neither is that perfectly convincing woman talking about the scheduling app that helped her organize her life.

Unless you are exceedingly discerning, you’ve probably been fooled by AI, even if just for a few seconds. You shouldn’t feel bad, and you shouldn’t feel like a dupe, even though you probably do. We weren’t made for this world of images that look 99.99999% real but are 0% so. What in our past would have ever prepared us for this world? Seeing is believing? That may have been true once upon a time, but no more.

Shutter island

There are a lot of implications here for society. How do we live in a half reality, half anti-reality world? How do we organize a society around truth when the truth is constantly muddied by false images and videos? How do we even talk to each other if we can’t reach a consensus on what’s in front of us? These are big questions without clear answers.

But on a smaller, more granular, human level, I think something interesting is happening: People find themselves aching for more truth, more reality. Not everyone, of course. Some are going full steam into the Kafkaesque world of reality-nihilism. But others see the trap, the chaos, and the shallow ugliness of anti-reality.

Earlier this year, I started a project by the name of Film 20. Essentially, it’s a place of pure reality in the form of film photography. It’s an archive of photos from real people and real places all around the world. No iPhone photos are allowed, no digital photos from DSLRs either. Only film; only reality.

RELATED: The Kids Are Outside

O.W. Root

Reality hunger

At first, our followers were mostly film photographers and film aficionados. But an interesting thing happened in the past few months. The account blew up in a substantial way. There are now nearly 29,000 people following Film 20, an account dedicated to documenting reality through the eyes of film photographers.

Those 29,000 people aren’t all photographers, though some are — our DMs are flooded with submissions from wonderful photographers from all over. They aren’t just following for the nice photos either. I know because the primary sources of growth have been derived from posts underscoring the purpose of Film 20.

“Never AI. Always reality. Only film.”

People — 29,000 people — want a feed of reality and only reality. They want a place where they know they’ll be seeing the world as it is, where they can drop their defenses against being fooled.

Cultivating authenticity

I know that everyone doesn’t have this same kind of yearning for reality. I understand that these 29,000 are not representative of the general population in 2026. But I don’t think this desire is going away, and I don’t think the awareness of the shallow falseness of digital AI imagery is a short-term blip. The further we move into the AI world, the stronger this yearning for reality will be.

The bleed of fake video and imagery into every corner of our digital world will continue for the foreseeable future. It will be annoying. Next year you will only see more fake videos than the last.

So whether it is film photography, live music, local food, or real people with real emotions, the future of reality is one that will need to be cultivated and earnestly sought out. Just like we try to eat healthy and read good books, we will need to consciously make the choices that lead us toward reality in every way we can.

Reality is good for the body, mind, and soul.

​Ai, Community, Film, Reality, Iphone, Photography, Cameras, Film photography, Fake, Culture, Art, The root of the matter 

The left is in hysterics after the Texas State Board of Education approved new K-12 language arts curriculum standards for the 2030-2031 school year that include specific Bible stories and verses as required reading. Even though the board justified it as essential literary and cultural education rather than religious instruction, cries of “religious favoritism” and “separation of church and state” are dominating left-wing media.

“If you turn on CNN or the BBC or the Guardian or PBS, NBC, any of them, honestly, you’d think Texas had just crowned Jesus king of Texas and ordered every public school child to genuflect before a Bible on their teacher’s desk,” scoffs Glenn Beck.

The truth, however, is that these standards do not in any way breach the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. They simply re-tether America — and the broader West — to her founding principles.

“There is no mandate to put a physical Bible in every classroom. There’s no statewide requirement for devotional prayer or forced religious exercises. … It’s literacy and historic study,” Glenn explains.

He points to the 1963 Supreme Court case Abington School District v. Schempp, in which the court ruled 8-1 that mandatory devotional Bible reading and prayer as opening religious exercises in public schools violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, while explicitly noting that objective, academic study of the Bible (for its literary and historic qualities) as part of a secular education program is permissible.

“Texas is not becoming a theocracy,” says Glenn. “They are walking through a door the Supreme Court left wide open and that our founders walked through with conviction.”

In 1782, Congress even officially endorsed the Aitken Bible (the first complete English-language Bible printed in the United States) for both religious study and literacy advancement in schools.

“One of the very first things that our representatives did … was to put the Bible in the hands of American families and schools,” says Glenn. “That’s not Christian nationalism. That’s the actual founding character of our republic.”

For most of American history, he explains, the Bible was not only “not controversial in schools” but actually seen as “central” to public education.

The McGuffey Readers, first published in the 1830s by educator William Holmes McGuffey, were hugely popular 19th-century American schoolbooks that taught reading, morality, and character through stories, poems, and excerpts that heavily featured the Bible alongside classic literature.

“Children learned to read from the Bible. They learned character from the Bible. That was normal,” says Glenn. “What happened in the 1960s — that was the radical break, not Texas 2026.”

Texas, he argues, is “right” to require Bible readings because students “cannot understand Western civilization,” including its most cherished literature, without it.

“Remove the Bible and half of Shakespeare goes dark. Try reading Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost.’ … Try to understand Dante’s ‘Divine Comedy.’ … You cannot understand ‘Pilgrim’s Progress,’ ‘Moby Dick,’ ‘The Scarlet Letter,’ Dostoevsky’s novels of sin and redemption — any of this,” Glenn exclaims.

Other forms of art crucial to the West become inaccessible too.

From Michelangelo’s “The Creation of Adam” and da Vinci’s “Last Supper” to European cathedrals and the great concertos, sonatas, and symphonies of Bach and Beethoven, the Bible is preeminent to the West’s greatest artistic achievements.

“The Ten Commandments are woven into the Western legal codes. … You don’t understand the Declaration of Independence if you don’t understand the Bible. You don’t understand the abolition movement in Britain and America … Lincoln, the second inaugural address — what is that other than just one giant biblical meditation on sin and judgment and mercy?” Glenn adds, emphasizing Scripture’s foundational role in Western history.

“Trying to understand Western civilization — the art, the literature, the music, its laws, its ethics, the very language — without the Bible is trying to understand the Middle East without the Quran. It is the foundational text; remove it, and the culture becomes incoherent,” he declares.

He warns that when a civilization becomes untethered to its foundation, everything begins to unravel.

“The morals drift; the art loses meaning; the law loses anchor; and most importantly — and don’t the progressives know it — the people lose their story,” he laments. “That’s what’s been happening for 60 years in American education.”

Glenn praises Texas for bringing Scripture back into academics where it rightfully belongs. “They are doing what they must do: simply refusing to continue the lie that the Bible is irrelevant to who we are.”

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, Texas, Bible, Education 

They can give you a gun and a badge. They cannot give you good judgment.

The Fort Worth Police Department gave Sarah Stogner both a gun and a badge. What it apparently failed to determine was whether she possessed the judgment — or the constitutional literacy — required to exercise the state’s coercive power over free citizens.

Sarah Stogner did not shoot anybody, thank God. But that’s an extraordinarily low bar for fitness to exercise state power.

The controversy arose during Fort Worth’s Trinity Pride celebration on June 27, where Christian street preachers were evangelizing outside the event.

Video shows Stogner telling one preacher he could be cited if he said something “offensive.” City officials later emphasized that the citation itself was based on a noise ordinance governing amplified sound, not the content of the preacher’s message.

Sure.

The department then ordered First Amendment retraining after the encounter went viral.

Those facts may determine the outcome in court. They do not change what thousands of people on social media saw with their own eyes: a police officer confidently asserting authority the Constitution does not give her.

The retraining is welcome, I suppose. It also adds insult to injury.

What are they teaching at the police academy these days? This was not some obscure Fourth Amendment exception or a tangled question of qualified immunity.

This was constitutional law 101.

Americans do not lose their right to speak because somebody — a cop especially — dislikes what they have to say. Giving offense is not a crime. Hurt feelings do not create probable cause. The First Amendment does not contain a Pride festival exception. Yet.

What struck me most, however, was not Stogner’s ignorance. It was her arrogance.

She never appeared uncertain. She never asked a supervisor for guidance. She never paused to consider whether she was inventing a speech code on the spot.

RELATED: Blue cities reject law, reject order — and reject America

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI/AFP/Getty Images

She spoke as if the badge settled the question.

That’s worse than stupidity.

A stupid officer can be corrected. An arrogant officer believes correction is for everybody else.

A badge is not a moral credential. It is a legal office.

It does not make its bearer wiser, more virtuous, or more trustworthy. It confers authority — massive authority — within limits established by law.

For years, conservatives have rightly defended law enforcement against the left’s poisonous campaign to “defund the police.” They have recognized the indispensable role police play in maintaining civil order, protecting innocent people, and arresting violent criminals.

They have also rightly rejected the left’s habit of judging an entire profession by its worst actors.

But somewhere along the way, respect curdled into deference.

“Back the blue” became less a defense of lawful policing than a demand for unquestioning loyalty to anyone wearing a badge. Conservatives who instinctively distrust IRS agents, public health officials, and federal regulators somehow came to regard local police as natural allies in the defense of liberty.

That is a dangerous mistake.

Police officers are not the conservative movement in blue uniforms. They are not constitutional scholars with Glocks. They are government employees exercising delegated power.

“Protect and serve” is a worthy ideal. It’s also good marketing.

Every bureaucracy develops its own interests, habits, and institutional mythology. Every bureaucracy eventually divides the world into “us” and “them.”

Police departments are no exception.

Officers spend their days giving commands, issuing citations, conducting searches, making arrests, and using force when necessary. They are trained to establish control and treat uncertainty as a potential threat.

Much of that is unavoidable. Police work is dangerous. Hesitation can get an officer killed.

But the habits required for survival can become habits of mind.

The citizen becomes the subject. Disagreement becomes defiance. Questions become challenges to authority. The officer acts; the public is acted upon.

A Bible, a flag, or a thin blue line decal will not save you when an officer decides you are the problem. Neither will your voting record. The state does not ask whether you backed the blue before it puts you in handcuffs.

Do not misunderstand me. This is not an argument against police. It is an argument against political idolatry.

Conservatives understand, at least in theory, that government power must be constrained because human beings are fallible, self-interested, and prone to abuse authority.

We remember that principle when discussing the FBI, the IRS, or unelected regulators. We remember it when federal agents raid somebody’s home or some public health official invents a mandate.

Then a local officer puts on body armor, and suddenly half the right forgets everything it claims to believe about the state.

The uniform changes. The principle doesn’t.

Police exercise executive power. They carry the state’s monopoly on lawful violence on their hips.

That is precisely why they deserve more scrutiny, not less.

RELATED: Democratic Senate candidate can’t hide from ‘defund the police’ comments, no matter how hard he tries

Sarah Rice/Getty Images

A DMV clerk can ruin your afternoon. A police officer can ruin your life.

That power requires more than tactical training, physical courage, or marksmanship. It requires judgment. More than anything, it requires humility.

An officer must never forget that the badge does not create rights. It imposes limits.

The Constitution does not exist to make police work easier. It exists in part to prevent government officials from doing whatever seems easiest in the moment.

A citizen saying something offensive may cause some heartburn. A loud preacher may irritate festival-goers, businesses, officers, and city officials. None of that gives police authority to suppress protected speech.

Enforce the noise ordinance if the facts support it. But do not allow the police to invent an offended listener’s veto.

Good officers understand the distinction. Good departments reinforce it. Good conservatives should insist upon it.

The answer is not hostility toward law enforcement. The left has already demonstrated the stupidity and destructiveness of treating every cop as an occupying soldier.

The answer is constitutional realism.

Support police when they uphold the law. Defend them when they are unfairly maligned. Hold them accountable when they exceed their authority.

But stop pretending they belong to us.

They are not supposed to serve conservatives, progressives, Pride organizers, or street preachers.

They are supposed to serve the law.

When they forget that, another training seminar may satisfy the public relations department. It does not answer the more serious question.

Should someone who must be retrained on the basic meaning of the First Amendment continue to carry a gun, a badge, and the public’s trust?

Sarah Stogner did not shoot anybody, thank God. But that’s an extraordinarily low bar for fitness to exercise state power.

They can give you a gun and a badge. They cannot give you judgment.

And when an officer displays arrogance instead, conservatives should not avert their eyes simply because the uniform is blue.

​Constitution, First amendment, Fourth amendment, Police officer, Violent criminals, Fort worth, Sarah stogner, Pride celebration, Texas, Opinion & analysis 

The strongest publicly downloadable large language models are, by the composite measure of Artificial Analysis’ Intelligence Index, GLM-5.2, MiniMax-M3, DeepSeek V4 Pro, and Kimi K2.6. They are all Chinese. They are all products of heavily capitalized laboratories. They are all released under permissive licenses and commonly described as open. They are open in the sense that you can download the weights, run them on your own machines, fine-tune them, build products on top of them. They are not open in the sense that you can see how they were made. The training data and code, the recipes that would allow you to reproduce or audit the process remain, for the most part, undisclosed. The door is ajar. The room behind it is dark.

The Open Source Initiative draws a hard line on the terminology. An open-source AI system, by the OSI’s definition, must provide data information, code, and parameters sufficient to use, study, modify, and share the system. Open weights, by contrast, expose only the final product of training: the numerical parameters of a finished network. This situation is the difference between publishing a cookbook and selling a frozen dinner with the ingredient list printed on the box. Both let you eat. Only one lets you cook.

A mechanism for ecosystem capture, price disruption, and geopolitical positioning.

If you are deploying a model for enterprise search or code generation, you may want the frozen dinner: functional, affordable, and available without a subscription to someone else’s kitchen. DeepSeek V4 Pro, at four cents per task on certain benchmarks, is more than 20 times cheaper than GPT 5.5 and more than 40 times cheaper than Claude Opus 4.8. At those prices, the question of whether you can inspect the training data seems academic.

The models themselves are marvels of a particular kind of engineering. GLM-5.2 runs 744 billion total parameters with 40 billion active per token, using a design known as mixture-of-experts that allows a model to be enormous in capacity but economical in use, like a city that keeps most of its lights off at any given moment. DeepSeek V4 Pro pushes to 1.6 trillion total parameters. They process a million tokens of context, which means they can hold an entire codebase or a small library’s worth of documents in working memory. They reason in configurable modes: think a little, think a lot, or do not think at all.

The user chooses; the machine adjusts. In 2024, a chat interface invited you to ask a question. In 2026, it asks a subtler one: How much cognition should the system spend here?

When free isn’t

There is a historical analogy for open models: free software. Eric Raymond wrote about cathedrals and bazaars. Yochai Benkler wrote about commons-based peer production. Christopher Kelty described free software communities as recursive publics, groups organized around the capacity to build and maintain the very infrastructure that makes the group possible. These frameworks still illuminate something about the open-model ecosystem, where quantization hobbyists, inference-engine maintainers, and downstream fine-tuners extend the value of released weights in public, for reputation and for the pleasure of the work itself.

RELATED: Google got conformist. Now we’ll pay the price.

sesame/Getty Images

But the analogy fractures at the point that matters most. The volunteers in the original bazaar outperformed the cathedrals. The 2026 open-model ecosystem is about cathedrals distributing their products through the bazaar. DeepSeek reportedly closed a funding round exceeding $7 billion. Moonshot AI raised about $2 billion. Alibaba continues to invest in its Qwen line while weaving those models into commerce and robotics. These are not volunteer collectives. They are industrial actors pursuing what might be called strategic openness: releasing weights as a mechanism for ecosystem capture, price disruption, and geopolitical positioning. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission has argued that China has effectively gone all in on an open-model strategy, using open publication and aggressive pricing to accelerate adoption and further iteration. The plan is working.

The central paradox of this domain is that openness can simultaneously broaden participation at the edges and concentrate power at the center. Aaron Shaw and Benjamin Mako Hill observed this pattern in peer production years ago: As collaborative systems scale, they tend toward oligarchy. Open models exhibit the same dynamic at the level of an industry. Anyone can download the weights; almost no one can produce them. The foundry becomes more rarefied even as the open web grows more participatory, and the gap between using a model and understanding it widens.

The cookbook stays secret

Meanwhile, the projects that are open in the older, stricter sense continue their work at a lower altitude. Ai2’s OLMo program publishes training data, training code, intermediate checkpoints, and reproducible recipes. OLMo sits at the top of every openness index and near the bottom of every capability leaderboard. This performance is not a coincidence. Full transparency is expensive in ways that go beyond compute, requiring a willingness to be audited, to be reproduced, to be shown wrong. The labs chasing benchmark supremacy have not shown much appetite for that form of exposure.

Thus the word “open” now describes two diverging projects. One is about capability access: the right to run a powerful model without paying rent to a proprietary API. The other is about knowledge access: the right to know where a model came from, what it was trained on, and why it behaves the way it does. These two meanings coexisted comfortably when the best open models were also the most transparent ones. They no longer do. The frozen dinner is excellent. The cookbook is secret.

The coming years may belong to open weights as infrastructure, especially in coding, agentic work, and enterprise use. The deeper contest, the one that will determine what “open” means, is only beginning.

​Tech 

The power of positive thinking has taken an occult turn. After his UFC victory at the White House last month, Sean O’Malley told Joe Rogan that he had seen the outcome beforehand and manifested it into reality.

Whether he meant those words casually or literally, they reflect an increasingly common belief among athletes, entrepreneurs, influencers, and podcasters. Success is no longer merely achieved through discipline and hard work. It is manifested — even conjured. Consciousness itself creates the future.

Our thoughts influence our actions, but they do not govern reality. We make plans, set goals, exercise prudence, and work diligently. The outcome ultimately belongs to God.

At first glance, this language may sound harmless. Athletes have long used visualization techniques. Coaches encourage competitors to imagine success before a game. Olympic athletes mentally rehearse routines. Quarterbacks visualize throws. Fighters picture victories.

But modern manifesting goes far beyond sports psychology.

Traditional visualization is straightforward. Imagining success can improve focus, reduce anxiety, build confidence, and prepare the body for performance. The athlete does not create reality through thought. He prepares himself to perform when reality arrives.

Manifesting makes a different claim.

It holds that consciousness participates in creating reality. The fighter does not merely prepare for victory; he helps bring it into existence. The entrepreneur does not merely work toward success; he attracts it. The individual does not merely respond to the world; he creates his own reality.

This way of thinking has become so common that many people no longer recognize how strange it is. Yet it represents a significant religious shift in modern American culture.

Ironically, little about it is new.

The roots of today’s manifestation movement extend into 19th-century American religious history and, before that, into occult and hermetic traditions.

One important source was Christian Science, founded by Mary Baker Eddy. Christian Science taught that matter is subordinate to mind and that many human problems result from false thinking rather than objective conditions.

Christian Science differs from today’s manifestation culture in important ways, but both assign consciousness a far more fundamental role than traditional Christianity permits.

Closely related was the New Thought movement. Its writers and lecturers taught that positive thinking could produce health, prosperity, and success. The message was simple: Change your thoughts, and you can change your reality.

RELATED: How the WNBA’s biggest star became its biggest embarrassment

Katelyn Mulcahy/Getty Images

Many modern manifestation teachers merely repackage New Thought for the social media age.

The vocabulary has changed, but the assumptions remain strikingly similar.

Instead of speaking about positive thinking — the scientific language of that era — people now invoke frequencies, vibrations, energy, alignment, and quantum possibilities — the scientific language of ours. Instead of spiritual laws, they speak of neuroscience and mindset.

The central claim remains unchanged: Your thoughts possess creative power.

The fundamental reality, they teach, is consciousness. The awakened self is divine.

This worldview also resembles older occult, esoteric, and theosophical traditions.

Historically, occult systems taught that hidden knowledge gave initiates access to powers unavailable to ordinary people. Reality operates according to secret principles that could be learned and harnessed. The enlightened individual gained mastery by acquiring that knowledge.

It is the promise of the serpent in the garden: You will know as God knows.

Human beings know by discovering what is real. God knows as the creator who determines what is real.

Modern manifestation culture often follows the same pattern. Its teachers claim that reality contains countless possible futures and that consciousness selects among them. Individuals are urged to discover hidden truths about their power, unlock limiting beliefs, raise their vibrations, and learn the principles by which the universe operates.

The pattern appears throughout many nonbiblical religions: You are a higher consciousness trapped in a body and must discover the secret that will restore you to divinity.

The problem is not sin but rather ignorance of your own godhood.

You do not need redemption through Christ to restore communion with God. You need enlightenment to remember that you are God.

That is why modern manifestation can accurately be described as a form of neo-gnosticism.

Ancient gnosticism taught that human beings contained a hidden divine element. The fundamental human problem was ignorance of this truth. Salvation came through secret knowledge that awakened people to their true nature.

Modern manifestation often follows the same structure:

You possess hidden creative powers.

You do not understand your true potential.

Limiting beliefs keep you trapped.

Special knowledge sets you free.

The language differs, but the story remains familiar. And its attraction is obvious.

Manifestation promises control in an uncertain world. It offers success without dependence, power without submission, and meaning without repentance. It assures individuals that they are not subject to forces beyond themselves but possess the power to shape their destinies.

RELATED: What if the commies were right after all?

Apic/Getty Images

Yet the system contains a serious flaw: It is self-validating.

When someone succeeds, the success proves manifestation works. When someone fails, the failure is blamed on faulty manifestation. Success confirms the theory. Failure confirms it too.

It resembles the gambler who remembers the one time double zero hit twice in a row and forgets every losing bet.

A theory that can absorb every possible result explains nothing. It merely improvises a new explanation after the fact.

Christianity begins somewhere else entirely.

Scripture teaches that human beings are not creators but creatures. God alone exists from eternity. He created human souls and a material world, and he called that world very good.

Our thoughts influence our actions, but they do not govern reality. We make plans, set goals, exercise prudence, and work diligently. The outcome ultimately belongs to God.

The biblical question is not, “What reality can I create?” It is, “What has God ordained, and how should I respond faithfully?”

That distinction may sound subtle, but it marks two radically different visions of the world.

One places creative sovereignty in human consciousness.

The other places it in God.

So when O’Malley says he manifested his victory, he may mean only that he visualized success and prepared himself mentally. If so, there is little controversy.

But if he means that consciousness itself helped create the result, then he is participating in a much larger religious movement — one stretching from 19th-century metaphysical spirituality through New Thought and occultism into today’s podcast culture.

The language is modern. The temptation is ancient.

​Joe rogan, Manifesting, Opinion & analysis, Positive thinking, Sean o’malley, God, Divinity, Creation, Occult 

For years, we’ve been force-fed the same sickening story. Young Americans aren’t getting married because they simply can’t afford to. The economy is disastrous, wages are too low, and housing costs require selling a kidney.

If we could just inject another thirty grand into everyone’s bank accounts, young lovers would magically sprint down the aisle. It’s a beautiful, thoroughly victim-centric fairy tale that makes everyone nod along. It’s also absolute nonsense.

Government handouts and cultural decay have combined to tell men that effort is for suckers.

A recent report from the Institute for Family Studies dismantles the narrative. The data reveals that the slow-motion suicide of American marriage has less to do with stagnant pay and much more to do with a mind virus that has convinced an entire generation they are too poor to love.

We love blaming the system because it absolves us of our crippling neuroses. But the numbers don’t lie, even if our Instagram feeds do.

Money changes everything?

Inflation-adjusted median earnings for young men recently hit a near 50-year high. Meanwhile, marriage rates continued their downward spiral. If money were the magic libido potion that many claim it is, these trends should move together. Instead, they look like two bitter, screaming divorcees tearing away from a shattered home in opposite directions.

Young men today generally out-earn the idealized pipe-smoking fathers of the 1960s and ’70s. Those mid-century men somehow managed to marry and breed without first acquiring quartz countertops, stainless-steel appliances, or a diversified stock portfolio. They didn’t postpone children until they could afford a five-star Disney excursion. Instead, they embraced the brutal reality of starting with absolutely nothing, expecting to build a life with someone they could love and trust.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, today’s married 30-year-olds own homes at roughly the same rate as their counterparts in 1970. And those homes are massive, bloated monuments to excess, full of technology that would have looked like witchcraft a few decades ago. Somehow, grandparents survived the unbearable trauma of raising kids without an automated espresso maker, a smart home cinema system, or three streaming subscriptions to numb the existential dread.

RELATED: Masked daredevil couple climb to top of Empire State Building to unfurl banner with message

L-R: Jason Mendez/Getty Images; Michael Nagle/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Mergers and acquisitions

Somewhere along the line, the classic vow “for richer or for poorer” was replaced with “call me when your credit score hits 800.” Marriage is no longer the launchpad for adulthood, but the prize handed out at the end of an exhausting corporate obstacle course. You don’t get married to build a life any more; instead, you do it to signal to your peers that you have successfully conquered capitalism. What was once the beginning of a life is now a form of social proof.

We can thank Hollywood and Silicon Valley for this psychological castration. For decades, pop culture has glorified permanent adolescence and consequences-free swiping. Algorithms have transformed regular, middle-class existence into an agonizing, daily comparison against 20-year-old crypto-millionaires who rent private jets for 10 minutes to take a selfie. When every engagement announcement looks like a royal wedding funded by an oil cartel, an ordinary life feels like an insult.

The sickness runs deeper than mere vanity, though. We are also witnessing a strange strike among prime-age men who have voluntarily withdrawn from the workforce to master video games in permanently darkened rooms. Government handouts and cultural decay have combined to tell men that effort is for suckers. Why bother putting on a pair of pants and clocking in when you can just opt out entirely and vape in peace?

‘Know your worth’

Meanwhile, modern relationship advice reads like a venture capital prospectus. Young women are bombarded with articles treating courtship like a hostile corporate takeover. “Know your worth,” the influencers scream. “Never settle. Demand a partner who matches your tax bracket.” And if you find him, make sure he can cook, make you laugh, and respond to texts immediately.

It sounds empowering, but it’s actually a recipe for dying alone with 12 cats. A dependable plumber making a healthy living is discarded because he doesn’t match the lifestyle of a fake TikTok entrepreneur posing next to a Lamborghini he almost certainly doesn’t own. Reality cannot compete with a manufactured version of it.

The ultimate irony is thick enough to choke on. The richest, safest, most pampered generation in human history genuinely believes it is too destitute to commit to another human being. We’ve systematically dismantled every single rung of the societal ladder and are now standing around scratching our heads, wondering why the birth rate resembles a flatline on a hospital monitor.

Until young Americans recognize that a good marriage is built on character rather than curated luxury, churches will remain empty, dating apps will remain an endless purgatory, and cats will eventually inherit more apartments than children.

​Birth rate decline, Cultural decay, Dating apps, Institute for family studies, Marriage crisis, Marriage rates, Culture, Men and women, Wealth, Marriage story 

Steve Hemphill is the former CEO of a seven-figure tech company, lifelong cessationist, and now one of the most unusual ministers in America.

Hemphill tells BlazeTV host Steve Deace that his life changed after his father suddenly passed away of a heart attack, leaving behind an “ancient safe.” What he found was a sealed envelope addressed to him and his brother.

“It said, ‘If you boys find this envelope after I’m dead, do not open it. It is not important. Destroy this envelope without opening it, Dad.’ And it was dated about five months before he died very suddenly and unexpectedly,” he explains.

“So, we burned it without reading it. And I think about it every day.”

“I became very curious about heaven because of the envelope from Dad. It made me curious about what was in the envelope. But that also led to a curiosity about what’s eternity really like,” he explains.

As Hemphill began looking deeper into the Bible, he began to realize that spiritual warfare is real.

“If you don’t have the Holy Spirit, you got a demon spirit instead. In other words, only people with the Holy Spirit can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’” he says, recalling a run-in he had with a retired professor from Stanford.

The professor walked into a Burger King, saw Hemphill there reading the Bible in a booth, and began to say “some very strange things about the Bible.”

“So, I gently interrupted this guy and said, ‘Dr. Smith, let me ask you a question. Is Jesus Lord?’ This guy got so angry at that simple three-word question that he jumps up out of the booth and starts running circles around the Burger King dining room there, screaming at me at the top of is lungs, ‘No, who is Jesus? I don’t know who Jesus is. I’m wasting my time talking to you,’” he recalls.

“I looked up at him and said, ‘Sir, I’m going to pray for you that someday you can know Jesus as Lord.’ And that made him even angrier. He leaned into me, and he’s spitting through gritted teeth, and he shakes his finger right in my face,” he continues.

“He says, ‘Don’t you dare pray for me.’ And I don’t know why I did this because I’ve never done it before or since. I smiled and said, ‘I can pray for you right now. You can’t stop me.’ And he screamed and ran out of Burger King and slammed the door,” he adds.

“So, that was the story that turned the tide for me and began to open my eyes that there’s modern-day situations where demonic activity is still happening,”

This recognition of spiritual warfare eventually led to Hemphill using “stakes,” which refers to putting the word of God on evil land.

“My buddy was a Christian, and this guy he was friends with was not a Christian. And so, when I met the guy, I said, ‘What’s wrong? What’s your spiritual warfare problem?’ And he said, ‘I have demons on my property, and I’m getting ready to commit suicide,’” Hemphill tells Deace.

“I said, ‘Let’s take some tent stakes and write Bible verses on them and hammer them all the way in the ground on the four corners of your land where this is happening. Let’s read the verses out loud to honor God and pray and ask him to make all these bad things stop in your life and see what he does,’” he explains.

“The next week he became a Christian and wanted to be baptized. And that was just bizarre to me. It was hard for me to swallow,” he adds.

But when another woman came to him for help after having terrifying demonic dreams every night at 3 a.m., he tried the same thing. Her nightmares stopped.

“Next thing you know, they’re asking me to stake out this public school. And we did that, and all the problems went away there. The guy causing them died of a heart attack immediately, 30-year-old guy,” he explains. “I can’t make this stuff up.”

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve’s take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Baptism, Steve deace, Steve deace show, Steve hemphill, Demonic activity, The bible, Christianity, Spiritual warfare 

Most of the time when people talk about spiritual warfare, the focus is on the demonic — oppression, possession, attacks, or counterattacks.

But angels are also part of the unseen realm. In fact, according to standard biblical interpretations of Revelation 12, holy angels outnumber demons by about two to one.

And just like demons, angels interact with human beings. Hebrews 13:2 warns, “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

“There are stories about angel encounters that have been handed down throughout history — I’m talking about going all the way back to World War I,” says BlazeTV host Rick Burgess.

On this episode of “Strange Encounters,” Rick revisits two of history’s most remarkable stories about angelic encounters.

Psalm 34:7 in action: Angels surround missionaries on cannibal island

In 1858, Scottish missionary John G. Paton and his wife arrived on the island of Tanna in the New Hebrides to bring the gospel to cannibal tribes. One night, hostile natives surrounded their mission station, intending to burn it down and kill them. As the Patons prayed, the attackers suddenly withdrew in fear.

Roughly a year later, they learned from the chief, who had converted to Christianity, why the locals had fled that night: hundreds of big men in shining garments with drawn swords encircled the Patons’ house.

Both Paton and the chief believed the army to be made up of angels.

Over the following decades, the gospel message spread, and thousands upon thousands of former cannibals turned to Christ across the islands.

“Truly a miracle,” says Rick. “And how was this done? With the appearance of big men in shining garments with swords protecting a missionary.”

He then reads from Psalm 34:7: “The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him, and delivers them.”

“This one almost sounds like exactly what happened to John Paton,” he remarks.

The white cavalry of 1918: Golden-haired angel leads charge against the Germans

In May 1918 during WWI, British troops in France were in a desperate position and about to be overwhelmed by a massive German advance. Suddenly, the German soldiers stopped their attack and began firing wildly at something the British could not see. The fighting halted in confusion.

The British later captured two German officers. When interviewed, the officers described seeing a cavalry charge of men in white uniforms riding white horses shining like sunlight bearing down on them. Leading the troop was a towering angelic figure with golden hair, wielding a great sword.

The Germans opened fire, but the riders kept advancing unharmed. Terrified, the German troops broke off their assault and fled in terror.

The heavenly intervention bought enough time for American troops to arrive and capture the Germany army.

“It led to the allies turning toward victory in World War I against the Germans,” says Rick.

While many think that angels do not intervene in human affairs to this scale any more, Rick pushes back.

“I think when we get to heaven that it may be very likely that we meet an angel or angels that we get to converse with that says, ‘You don’t have any idea how many times I was sent into your life to protect you and to help you,”’ he predicts.

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, Rick burgess, Spiritual warfare, Angels 

Eleven years after the Supreme Court redefined marriage, the robed kings are now attempting to redefine American citizenship.

Notice that I said “are attempting,” not “have redefined.”

‘Whenever a free people should give up in absolute submission to any department of government, retaining for themselves no appeal from it, their liberties were gone.’

Court orders are not self-executing. Nor are they universally binding on the coordinate branches that wield the powers of execution and appropriation. The ruling need not determine how those branches treat future cases.

The Republican response has nevertheless been underwhelming and devoid of urgency — much as it was when the party folded on marriage in 2015.

This time, the stakes are higher. If Republicans respond with the same passivity, we may not have a country left to conserve.

Republicans were apparently so outraged by the ruling that they went on recess for two weeks rather than use the July Fourth period to reassert citizenship by consent of the governed.

Many now insist the only remedy is a constitutional amendment, knowing it would never come close to ratification.

That response accepts the premise that Congress may exercise its powers only within the political rule announced by the court in a case brought by individual plaintiffs.

Conservatives must understand that they cannot comply their way out of judicial usurpation. The political branches must exercise their own constitutional judgment.

Courts do not possess a veto over Congress

Here is the central point Republicans are missing: Courts can decide individual cases. They can affirm, reverse, or vacate judgments.

They do not issue passports, birth certificates, Social Security cards, or citizenship documents to future children born on American soil.

Children already granted citizenship under the prevailing interpretation present a different question. The immediate issue concerns future births.

President Trump should use the veto pen and budget process to prevent the political result the left sought through the court.

RELATED: The courts are running the country — and Trump is letting it happen

Denis-Art/iStock/Getty Images

Congress’ first priority should be a reconciliation bill prohibiting funds for the State Department, Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to issue citizenship documents to children born to illegal aliens or birth tourists.

Some will call that “defiance” of the Supreme Court.

Last I checked, the Supreme Court does not issue birth certificates. It does not appropriate money for them, either.

Even under a strong theory of judicial supremacy, courts may invalidate a positive action by another branch, such as imposing punishment under an unconstitutional law.

But when a court demands that Congress fund and the executive administer a citizenship regime, the political branches retain the right and obligation to interpret the Constitution for themselves.

Abraham Lincoln made this distinction during his sixth debate with Stephen Douglas.

While acknowledging that courts decide individual cases, Lincoln rejected the notion that a judicial opinion automatically becomes a political rule binding Congress and the president in every future controversy.

“We nevertheless do oppose that decision as a political rule,” Lincoln said in Quincy, Illinois, in 1858, “… which shall be binding on the members of Congress or the President to favor no measure that does not actually concur with the principles of that decision.”

James Madison expressed a similar understanding in his second “Helvidius” essay, describing “a concurrent right to expound the Constitution.”

The branches were designed to check one another, not submit automatically to judicial command.

Use power of the purse

Congress should do more than defund citizenship documents for the children of illegal aliens and birth tourists. It should also restrict jurisdiction and funding for federal cases brought to compel their issuance.

Congress possesses broad authority over the jurisdiction, structure, and funding of the lower federal courts. It also controls judicial appropriations.

That power is not theoretical. Supreme Court justices routinely appear before congressional appropriators to seek funding.

Congress may therefore restrict funds for proceedings intended to force the executive branch to issue citizenship documents contrary to congressional policy.

Such provisions would have an obvious budgetary effect and could be included in reconciliation. Congress could prohibit spending both on the documents and on litigation seeking to compel them.

The same legislation should defund:

the diversity visa lottery;grants to sanctuary jurisdictions and states issuing commercial driver’s licenses to illegal aliens;Census Bureau operations used to count illegal aliens for apportionment;visas prohibited by presidential orders but revived through lower-court injunctions.

Republican leaders will hide behind the Byrd rule, which excludes provisions deemed extraneous to the budget. But Republicans found ways around it when extending tax cuts, even where provisions increased the deficit.

These immigration restrictions would reduce federal spending.

Where there is political will, there is a procedural way.

RELATED: The founders gave us the remedy for rogue state judges: Impeach

RapidEye/iStock/Getty Images

Confront judicial supremacy now

Eventually, however, the political branches must simply be prepared to say no to judicial usurpation.

The left will always find a judge willing to declare even jurisdiction stripping or spending restrictions unconstitutional.

That is why judicial supremacy must be confronted directly.

Many assume that because no formal veto exists over a Supreme Court decision, the court must possess final authority. The opposite is closer to the constitutional design.

No special veto was needed because the judiciary possessed neither purse nor sword. Courts depended on the other branches to execute their judgments.

Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as possessing “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.”

Every Republican serious about reclaiming American sovereignty must reach the same conclusion: Judicial supremacy cannot be evaded indefinitely. It must be confronted head-on.

Consider the favored Republican response to the citizenship ruling: Accelerate mass deportations so illegal aliens cannot give birth here. Some lawmakers have also floated restrictions on pregnant foreign visitors.

Those policies are necessary. But the irony should be obvious. The same judges who distorted citizenship law will interfere with every serious immigration-enforcement measure.

Why has the administration struggled to achieve mass deportation? Because federal courts continue to enjoin policies involving ICE arrests, detention, removal, benefits, and visa restrictions. Even policies already upheld by the Supreme Court remain targets.

In Trump v. Hawaii, the court recognized the president’s broad authority to restrict entry from designated countries. Yet lower-court judges continue to obstruct portions of later restrictions.

The same problem will arise when the administration tries to stop counting illegal aliens in the census.

RELATED: Trump’s mass-deportation promise needs receipts

Douglas Rissing/iStock/Getty Images

If Republicans accept judicial supremacy without resistance, judges will almost certainly hold that the 14th Amendment requires every person, regardless of legal status, to be counted for representation.

That argument may even be textually stronger than the claim that every child born to an illegal alien must receive citizenship.

The deeper issue is sovereignty. If Republicans emerge from the final Trump governing trifecta without correcting stolen citizenship, illegal representation, and judicial sabotage of immigration enforcement, the party will have betrayed the promise that launched Trump’s political career 11 years ago.

At that point, another convention and another round of slogans will mean nothing.

Lincoln, citing Jefferson during his fifth debate with Douglas, warned what happens when a free people submit absolutely to any branch of government: “Whenever a free people should give up in absolute submission to any department of government, retaining for themselves no appeal from it, their liberties were gone.”

That is the choice before Congress. Submit to judicial supremacy or use the powers the Constitution still gives the political branches.

The Supreme Court has spoken. Congress does not have to surrender.

​Opinion & analysis, Birthright citizenship, Supreme court, Judicial supremacy, Immigration, Impeachment, Congress, Constitution, Amendment 

Republican United States Senator Lindsey Graham (S.C.), who turned 71 two days ago on July 9 and who served in the Senate for over two decades, died overnight, according to a statement from his office.

“On the evening of Saturday, July 11, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham passed away from a brief and sudden illness,” the statement read. “Senator Graham’s family appreciates prayers at this time and asks for privacy during this incredibly difficult period.”

‘He was always working, and was a true American Patriot. Lindsey will be greatly missed!!!’

Graham was born in Central, South Carolina, on July 9, 1955, and received a law degree from the University of South Carolina. In 1982, Graham joined the U.S. Air Force as an officer in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps. He served on active duty until 1989, in the Guard from 1989 until 1995, and as a member of the Air Force Reserve after that until 2015. He left the Reserve having achieved the rank of colonel.

Graham served stateside during the first Gulf War in legal support of departing troops. He served in Iraq briefly during the War on Terror in both Iraq and Afghanistan and received a Bronze Star for his service.

For most of his career, after leaving active-duty military service, Graham has been involved in politics. He was first elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1992 from Oconee County. Shortly after, in 1994, he was elected to South Carolina’s 3rd Congressional District.

After four terms in the House, Graham was elected to replace Strom Thurmond (R) as the U.S. senator from South Carolina. Thurmond had been in office since 1954.

Graham was a strong supporter of an interventionist foreign policy. He was an advocate for U.S. financial support for Ukraine in its war with Russia and had visited the nation shortly before his passing. Graham was also a proponent of military intervention all across the Middle East, including the recent conflict with Iran.

Graham was a longtime friend of fellow Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona and supported his campaigns for president of the U.S..

After running for president himself in 2016, Graham became a staunch ally of his opponent in that race, President Donald Trump.

Trump, in a statement on Truth Social, wrote, “Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the greatest people and Senators I have ever known, is dead! He was always working, and was a true American Patriot. Lindsey will be greatly missed!!!”

Graham was never married and leaves no children.

​Bronze star, Donald trump, John mccain, Lindsey graham, South carolina, Us senate, Military intervention, Obituary, Politics 

A Florida 13-year-old male was arrested after photos of a gun and a written death threat were sent over social media, authorities said Thursday.

Deputies with the Flagler County Sheriff’s Office began investigating the incident on July 7 after the victim’s mother called 911 to report the threat to law enforcement, authorities said.

‘I want to remind parents to stay engaged in what their kids are doing online and who they’re talking to.’

The victim, also 13, received several Instagram messages earlier in the day from the suspect that included a photo of the suspect holding a handgun as well as a written message that read, “Tn 8:00 pm we be there we alr got lo,” which translates to, “Tonight 8:00 pm we be there we already got location,” authorities said.

The victim told deputies he believed the suspect planned to show up at his home and shoot him at 8 p.m. that night, authorities said.

The suspect later told deputies that he and the victim used to be friends but had a falling-out, authorities said, adding that the suspect also stated that he had messaged the victim that day, and they were planning to fight.

Deputies arrested the suspect and transported him to the Sheriff Perry Hall Inmate Detention Facility, where he was later transferred to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, authorities said.

“Threats are no joke, and we take every threat seriously. This teen had already made plans to fight the victim, and he made it clear it wasn’t going to be a fistfight,” Sheriff Rick Staly said. “I want to remind parents to stay engaged in what their kids are doing online and who they’re talking to. Teach them the proper way of handling disagreements and be the sheriff of your home.”

RELATED: Florida girl, 12, accused of threatening to ‘shoot up’ elementary school, threatening teacher

Image source: Flagler County (Fla.) Sheriff’s Office

Blaze News has reported extensively on similar arrests in Florida recently:

In May, a 12-year-old girl was accused of threatening to “shoot up” an elementary school and threatening a teacher.An 11-year-old boy who was arrested in March for making a death threat was charged with the same crime in October, officials said.Also in March, the Volusia County Sheriff’s Office arrested a 10-year-old boy and perp-walked him on camera after officials said he threatened to bring a gun to his elementary school and left a kill list in his classroom.In February, the Volusia County Sheriff’s Office said officers arrested a 12-year-old girl after she posted online a “detailed manifesto” about carrying out a mass shooting at a middle school due to bullying.Also in February, a pair of 15-year-olds were arrested after being accused of threatening to shoot up high schools, police said.In late October, an 11-year-old girl was arrested after writing a “kill list” at her desk at school, police said. Then just two weeks later, an 11-year-old boy from the same school district was arrested after allegedly creating a “kill list” at school, police said.Also in October, a Florida sheriff’s office came under fire for posting a 9-year-old male’s mug shot on Facebook after his felony arrest for allegedly bringing a knife into his elementary school.Just a week prior, that same sheriff’s office said a 10-year-old was arrested and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill, a third-degree felony, after bringing a pocketknife to school and threatening another student. The sheriff’s office posted the suspect’s name and mug shot.

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

​Florida, 13-year-old, Arrest, Instagram, Flagler county sheriff’s office, Death threats, Gun, Social media, Florida department of juvenile justice, Crime 

Tucked into a draw on our Montana property stands a Douglas fir that a forester estimated to be more than 600 years old.

It grows beside a creek, sheltered by surrounding hills from the worst of the wind. The draw stretches back toward the forest and up the mountain, while the opposite hillside rises steeply above it.

God never promised His people a life without storms. He promised His presence in the midst of them. Still, we are tempted to believe the world has somehow spun beyond His control.

It is an easy place to linger.

Long before my father-in-law bought this property, others recognized that. Arrowheads and stone tools have been found nearby over the years. With fresh water, shelter from the wind, and a commanding view of the valley, it was a natural place to camp.

I sometimes wonder who sat beneath those branches centuries ago.

When friends and family visit, I often take them to see the tree. Some stare in wonder. Others shrug.

My father-in-law never shrugged.

He was so taken with the old fir that he made a simple wooden sign and named it “Legacy Tree.”

The name stuck.

Whenever I stand there, I find myself reaching out to touch its weathered trunk.

Sometimes, it helps to touch something living that has survived.

Six centuries have a way of putting things in perspective.

When this tree was young, Christopher Columbus was still trying to persuade Queen Isabella to finance an uncertain voyage across the Atlantic.

While Martin Luther challenged the church in Wittenberg, the tree quietly added another ring beneath its bark.

It stood while America’s founders pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.”

It was already centuries old before anyone called this land Montana.

Generations passed beneath its branches. Empires rose and fell. Men walked on the moon beneath the same sky that has watched over this tree for more than six centuries.

RELATED: America’s birth defect did not define our destiny

Stevanovicigor/Getty Images

History hurried by. The tree kept growing.

It survived fire, lightning, drought, insects, brutal winters, heavy snow, fierce winds, and everything else the Montana mountains could throw at it.

Fallen trees lie scattered across the property. Some finally yielded to age. Others were struck by lightning or brought down by wind and snow.

Why this Douglas fir still stands while others do not is a mystery known only to its creator.

One day, it too will fall.

Until then, it stands because God sustains it.

Jesus told us to consider the lilies of the field and the birds of the air. He pointed to ordinary things people passed every day and used them to reveal extraordinary truths about His Father’s care.

Standing beneath this old fir, I have begun to wonder whether that invitation extends beyond flowers and sparrows.

If our heavenly Father clothes lilies that bloom for only a season;

if He watches over birds that few people notice;

if He has sustained this tree through six centuries of Montana winters, lightning, and fire;

how much more will He sustain His children?

That question lands differently today than it did a few years ago.

We live in an age of perpetual anxiety. Every news cycle insists catastrophe is moments away. Every political fight is described as the final chance to save civilization. Social media rewards outrage.

Fear has become a business model.

Wars rage overseas. Political divisions deepen at home. Each day seems to bring another reason to worry about tomorrow.

Scripture repeatedly tells us, “Do not be afraid.”

The world profits by feeding our fears. Scripture answers by reminding us who reigns.

RELATED: Every child needs to hear: Daddy’s here

A-Digit/Getty Images

God never promised His people a life without storms. He promised His presence in the midst of them.

Still, we are tempted to believe the world has somehow spun beyond His control.

We all endure our own Montana winters and summers filled with lightning: illness, grief, financial strain, broken relationships, uncertain futures, seasons when the wind seems relentless and hope feels scarce.

Standing beneath the old fir, I hear Christ’s words with fresh ears.

Consider the lilies. Consider the birds. And perhaps, if you will permit one Montana addition to the list, consider an old Douglas fir.

Sometimes, it helps to touch something living that has survived.

Each time I leave that quiet draw, I remember that the God who has faithfully sustained that tree throughout its existence has faithfully sustained me throughout mine.

The headlines will keep shouting.

God will remain faithful.

​Montana, Douglas fir, Martin luther, History, Lilies of the field, Scripture, Politics, Opinion & analysis, Caregivers, Faith, Jesus christ, Christianity 

Alex Reads Tarot had nearly 1 million followers, but her following has dropped significantly after renouncing her former practice and publicly declaring her faith in Jesus Christ.

In a farewell message posted to social media, she explained that some might find her decision surprising.

“And some people may wonder how I can be saying this after spending years of doing the work that I’ve done, doing it professionally. But all I can do is be honest,” she said. “I am not going to be offering any more readings or sessions. I’m not going to be creating any more tarot content. And once this account is gone, I will not be returning.”

“And I don’t know exactly what comes next for me, but what I do know is that Jesus Christ has saved my life, and I can no longer ignore that reality,” she added.

BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey is impressed.

“She had nearly 1 million followers. She deleted all of her tarot-related content, said she would no longer create social media videos. She explained that her change of heart wasn’t something that was sudden, but it happened gradually over the past year,” she says.

“As her faith in Jesus grew, as her beliefs deepened, she found herself wrestling with questions she could no longer ignore. And this is so important,” she adds.

However, her past followers are not impressed.

One commenter on Reddit wrote, “I’m all for people exploring their own spirituality, but I felt so disappointed when she said, ‘Jesus Christ saved my life,’ or whatever she said. She used to seem so open about everything … she could have at least left her videos up since they seemed to genuinely help people. I can’t help but think someone is influencing her in some way. I hope I’m wrong and I hope she finds happiness.”

“Someone like this who is not a Christian on Reddit clearly just doesn’t understand that light can’t have fellowship with darkness, and eventually the light crowds out the darkness,” Stuckey comments.

“You can’t practice witchcraft and promote witchcraft and also be walking with Christ,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Alex reads tarot, Allie beth stuckey, Jesus christ, Witchcraft, Spirituality, Religion, Christianity, Relatable with allie beth stuckey 

The resurrection lies at the very heart of the Christian faith.

When Paul describes what the gospel consists of, he lists two foundational elements — “Christ died for our sins” and “he was raised on the third day.” Both events happened “in accordance with the Scriptures,” and the risen Jesus was seen by numerous individuals (1 Corinthians 15:3⁠–8).

‘After all the reasoning and all the rationales, I’d still desperately prefer to be a conscious, healthy human being than a corpse. Who wouldn’t?’

Unlike most other religions, whose teachings consist of moral or metaphysical principles, Christianity depends crucially on the historical death and resurrection of its founder.

As New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg observes in his commentary on 1 Corinthians:

Older Eastern religions do not even require the actual historical existence of their founders for their beliefs and practices to make sense. In some ways they are more akin to philosophies than to historical truth-claims (e.g., Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism). But Christianity lives or dies with the claim of Christ’s resurrection.

‘If Christ has not been raised’

Indeed, Paul states this to be the case: “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. … Your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17).

But Christ has been raised, and his resurrection vindicates his divine identity and all that he taught. Having proclaimed that “This Jesus God raised up,” Peter summarizes what this reveals: “God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:32, 36). Similarly, in Acts 17, Paul tells the philosophers in Athens that the evidence that Jesus will one day judge the world is that God “has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead” (17:31).

Given the centrality of this event to Christianity, is there good reason to believe it truly happened? It’s beyond the scope of this article to provide an in-depth defense of the resurrection, but a few points will suffice to show that it stands on solid historical ground.

Original creed

Returning to 1 Corinthians 15, scholars have recognized that Paul is quoting a pre-existing creed addressing the resurrection in verses 3⁠-7. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in approximately A.D. 54, a mere 20 years (roughly) after Jesus’s death. The creed he quotes, however, is much earlier than this, showing that belief in the resurrection was present from the beginning of the Christian movement and not a later legend that developed over decades, as some skeptics assert.

The eminent New Testament scholar James D.G. Dunn concurs, stating we can be “entirely confident” that this tradition was formulated within months of Jesus’ death. Other scholars date the creed somewhat later, to within a few years of Jesus’ death, but in any case, it is an extremely early witness to belief in the resurrection, and Paul likely received it directly from Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, both of whom were eyewitnesses (Galatians 1:18-24).

Thus, the belief that Jesus rose from the dead was present almost immediately after the crucifixion and was based on the firsthand testimony of those who say they witnessed it.

Our deepest longings

As human beings, we yearn to find meaning for our lives and see death as something to be avoided. The renowned psychiatrist Viktor Frankl observed that the “striving to find a meaning in one’s life is the primary motivational force in man.” Likewise, philosopher Clifford Williams points out that we “intensely want our lives to be meaningful, to count for something, to matter not only in individual and social ways but in a ‘cosmic’ way.”

If we accept the West’s dominant philosophy of naturalism, however, objective meaning is lost and mortality is assured. Naturalist philosopher Alex Rosenberg expresses it this way:

What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.

What is the meaning of life? Ditto.

Why am I here? Just dumb luck.

… Is there a soul? Is it immortal? Are you kidding?

… What happens when we die? Everything pretty much goes on as before, except us.

Rosenberg attempts to obscure the implications of naturalism with humor and nonchalance, but it’s undeniable that losing meaning and facing our own extinction is devastating. As physician Alex Lickerman confesses in Psychology Today, “I’ve tried to resolve my fear of death intellectually and come to the conclusion that it can’t be done, at least not by me.”

In that same article Lickerman notes that he’s “always surprised by people who say they’re not afraid to die. … I’ve always wondered if that answer hides a denial so deeply seated it cannot be faced by most. Certainly, this has been the case with me. I love being here and don’t want to leave.”

RELATED: Fine-tuned for life: How our one-in-a-million universe points to God

Heritage Images/Getty Images

No consolation

Most prominent nonbelievers seem to agree.

Even in “The Consolations of Mortality” — a book meant to help readers accept death — writer Andrew Stark admits, “After all the reasoning and all the rationales, I’d still desperately prefer to be a conscious, healthy human being than a corpse. Who wouldn’t?”

Similarly, notable atheist Sam Harris concedes that his philosophy does little to banish dread of mortality: “I think we can admit that atheism doesn’t offer real consolation on this point. … The thing that gets lost, the thing for which there is no real substitute, is total consolation in the face of death.”

Death defeated

But what if death has been overcome and God has a purpose for our lives?

The apostle Peter declares that God has given believers “a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead … so that your faith and hope are in God” (1 Peter 1:3, 21). The resurrection doesn’t merely demonstrate that human beings survive death, but that Jesus conquered death for all of us. “Death is swallowed up in victory” (1 Corinthians 15:54). Even now, while on earth, we can experience “the power of his resurrection” (Philippians 3:10).

Contrary to naturalism, for those who place their faith in Christ, life will continue in the presence of loved ones and in fellowship with our Creator. We will fulfill the purpose for which we were created: to know God, to love him, and to enjoy him forever. The paradise we lost in Eden will be regained in a new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21). We’ll spend eternity learning more about God’s infinite nature and enjoying fellowship with his people from every age. We’ll also continue to create things of “glory and honor” that will contribute to the splendor of God’s kingdom (Revelation 21:26). The popular idea that people in heaven will spend their days floating on clouds while playing harps has no basis in Scripture.

Let’s be thankful to God that because of Christ’s sacrifice for our sins and resurrection, we have a glorious destiny if we receive this gift. May we also share this good news with those who lack hope and see no real purpose for their lives.

​Christian faith, Mortality, Resurrection, Fear of death, Atheism, Gospel, Jesus christ, Faith 

A specter is haunting America — the specter of communism. Across the country, socialists are emerging from the political margins, convinced that their moment has arrived.

Recent victories by Zohran Mamdani and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York and Melat Kiros in Colorado have emboldened the Democratic Socialists of America. The organization is now looking beyond deep-blue strongholds toward battleground states such as Michigan and Wisconsin.

The red wave is rising. Americans must stop it before it reaches shore.

Abdul El-Sayed could very well capture the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in Michigan, while Francesca Hong is mounting a serious campaign for governor of Wisconsin. Hong recently finished close behind Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez in a straw poll of Democratic state convention activists.

The movement suffered a setback in Maine, where Graham Platner ended his Senate campaign after a former girlfriend accused him of sexual assault. Platner denied the allegation. His departure, however, does not mean the socialist faction will relinquish its growing influence within the Democratic Party.

Some Democrat leaders are now trying to distance themselves from the movement. They cannot so easily escape responsibility for it.

For decades, Democrats at every level have cultivated the soil in which this radicalism has grown.

In Portland, Oregon, activists tore down statues of America’s founders while local leaders proved unwilling or unable to stop them. More recently, Mamdani used his Independence Day address to portray his opponents as believing that America is “an arena of supremacy” reserved for those with the correct race, accent, or ancestry.

The remark did not directly condemn America as such. It did, however, reflect the left’s familiar habit of interpreting the country primarily through oppression, exclusion, and domination.

Gallup’s latest polling shows how deeply that attitude has penetrated the Democrat electorate. Only 14% of Democrats say they are extremely proud to be American, compared with 70% of Republicans and 28% of independents.

RELATED: What if the commies were right after all?

bauhaus1000/iStock/Getty Images

Patriots instinctively recoil from such contempt for the country. But they should also understand precisely why socialism and communism are incompatible with American principles.

The founders built the republic on natural rights. From those rights flow liberty, private property, religious freedom, free enterprise, and self-government.

Communism rejects them all.

It replaces private property with state control, religious faith with materialism, voluntary exchange with centralized planning, and political dissent with coercion.

The modern democratic socialist may avoid the language of dictatorship and revolution. The underlying tendency remains the same: Transfer more authority from citizens and local institutions to the state.

Mamdani calls for government-run grocery stores, rent controls, and sweeping redistribution. Hong favors aggressive state action to impose her economic and climate agenda. El-Sayed campaigns for Medicare for All, placing still more of the health care system under federal control.

Each proposal is presented as an isolated benefit. Together, they describe a political philosophy in which government assumes ever more responsibility for providing food, housing, medical care, employment, and personal security.

That bargain always comes with a price.

Socialists begin by promising free goods and services, financed by taking the people’s “fair share” from wealthy “parasites.” But economies do not run on resentment. When governments suppress prices, punish investment, seize property, and replace market signals with political commands, the results are familiar: shortages, corruption, censorship, and poverty.

Stalin’s Soviet Union imposed collectivization and famine on Ukraine, killing millions. Castro’s Cuba still struggles to provide reliable electricity and basic goods. Venezuela fell from one of Latin America’s wealthiest countries into hyperinflation, scarcity, and mass emigration.

These catastrophes were not unfortunate deviations from socialism. They followed from concentrating economic and political power in the same hands.

America rests on the opposite premise.

It trusts citizens more than bureaucrats to understand their own needs, pursue their own interests, and build their own lives. The Constitution divides power precisely because the founders feared a state capable of crushing liberty while claiming to act for the public good.

RELATED: Democrats can’t outrun their socialist wing

mj0007/iStock/Getty Images

The Democratic Party now faces a pipeline of candidates who reject that inheritance, moving from DSA chapters into Democratic primaries and, increasingly, elected office.

The stakes extend beyond New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, or Colorado.

America will not survive another 50 years — let alone another 250 — by embracing the ideas that impoverished, terrorized, and destroyed societies throughout the previous century.

The new socialists may have better branding, fashionable social-media accounts, and carefully softened language. Their program still demands that Americans surrender more of their property, independence, and authority to the state.

The red wave is rising. Americans must stop it before it reaches shore.

​America, Communism, Darializa avila chevalier, Democratic party, Democratic socialists of america, Graham platner, Medicare for all, Melat kiros, Natural rights, Opinion & analysis, Red wave midterms, Socialism, Zohran mamdani