Category: blaze media

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 

The state of Texas continues to experience a mass influx of Indian immigrants, who are now the largest Asian subgroup in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. The increase in population growth is in part due to the state’s robust H-1B program. Indian nationals consistently receive roughly 70% of all approved H-1B visas in Texas due to its booming tech, IT, and engineering sectors.

It’s no surprise, then, that the majority of the H-1B fraud cases and investigations that have been publicly reported or pursued in Texas in recent years involve Indian nationals, Indian-origin individuals, or firms primarily serving Indian workers.

BlazeTV’s Sara Gonzales has been at the forefront of these investigations — busting allegedly fraudulent Indian-run businesses claiming to sponsor H-1B visa workers. Her work was the catalyst for Governor Greg Abbott’s freeze on new H-1B hires at state agencies and universities and Attorney General Ken Paxton’s state investigations and lawsuits against dozens of suspect companies.

But Sara’s issues with Texas’ growing Indian community go beyond just fraud.

“All of these people come here illegally or legally, scam our system, drive up home prices, and then s**t on our neighborhoods — like quite literally,” she says.

She points to a story that has gone viral of an Indian man publicly defecating in a Texas neighborhood.

Sara is horrified but not necessarily shocked by the incident.

“Do you think that when they come here, they’re going to stop s**tting in the streets? No, of course not,” she says. “They don’t respect our country. They are coming here to take.”

“This is not the first time we’ve had some documentation of an Indian person or an immigrant of some sort who doesn’t respect our country, doesn’t respect our rules … caught, like, peeing right outside their restaurant that they work at,” she continues.

“You can take the Indian out of India, but can you take the India out of the Indian? Apparently not.”

To hear more, watch the episode above.

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 unfiltered, Sara gonzales, H-1b fraud, India, Indian immigration 

A national five-year plan tells you what a regime believes about the unfolding of society over time: that the future is an engineering problem, history has a rhythm, and the state holds the baton. China is now in its 15th such plan. Its language has evolved over the decades. Whereas early plans stressed Soviet-assisted heavy industry, the current one elevates “AI Plus,” swarm intelligence, embodied AI, and intelligent agents. The word “rejuvenation” appears with the frequency of a liturgical response. But the plan remains a metronome for national development, as an official commentary put it in 2026.

China spent 3.93 trillion yuan on research and development in 2025, or 2.8% of GDP. The country holds 6.3 million valid invention patents and installed 295,000 industrial robots in a single year, 54% of all the industrial robots installed on Earth. Nature Index ranks the Chinese Academy of Sciences as the world’s leading research institution.

China’s supercomputers now hold the top global ranking.

For the first time, the World Intellectual Property Organization placed China in the global innovation top 10 and says the country leads the world in knowledge and technology outputs. Stanford’s AI Index reports that the performance gap between American and Chinese AI models has mostly closed. These indicators report a condition that already exists.

However, the interesting question about China’s technological future has never been whether its numbers are big, but what kind of civilization produces them and, in return, what kind of civilization they produce.

Engineering everything

Writer Dan Wang calls China an “engineering state,” which he contrasts with America’s “lawyerly society.” In a lawyerly society, problems are disputes to be adjudicated, interests to be balanced, rights to be negotiated in the shadow of precedent. In an engineering state, problems are systems to be optimized. You do not argue about the bridge; you build the bridge. You build it faster than anyone expected, and then you build the rail line to the bridge and then the city around the station, and soon the question of whether the city was a good idea becomes moot because the city is already there and full of people buying things on their phones.

By December 2024, China had 1.1 billion internet users, more than a billion online payment users, and 974 million online shoppers. Seventy percent of citizens over 60 were shopping online. Short-video platforms had become major retail channels, with 71% of viewers reporting purchases after watching. What is happening is a compression of social acts: Entertainment, advertising, recommendation, checkout, and social proof collapse into a single continuous interface. Commerce is atmosphere, the feed a way of life.

RELATED: Just how American is the Trump phone? This teardown reveals the truth.

Eduard Lysenko/Getty Images

The philosopher Yuk Hui has argued that technology is never culturally neutral, that different civilizations articulate different relationships between nature and technical practice, and that the assumption of a single universal technics, Greek in origin and Western in development, has blocked serious thought about what Chinese technology might mean on its own terms. For example, China has built a governance architecture around AI that looks little like America’s approach of permissionless innovation followed by belated regulation. China’s algorithmic recommendation rules already require platforms to promote “mainstream values” and “positive energy.” Its measures on generative AI require legal data sources, accuracy improvements, and safeguards against harmful outputs. Its 2025 labeling rules mandate disclosure of AI-generated content. China is engineering the moral atmosphere in which its AI systems operate.

A civilization at stake

The question this raises is the oldest one in the modern history of Chinese technology, first posed during the Self-Strengthening Movement of the 1860s, when Qing reformers tried to borrow Western military and industrial methods without disturbing the civilizational order that received them. The May Fourth intellectuals of 1919 radicalized the problem by turning science into a slogan for national salvation. The People’s Republic added the Soviet planning apparatus. Each generation has found a new way to ask the question: How much of modern power can be adopted technically without rewriting the civilization that adopts it?

The answer apparent in the current data is that China has become extraordinarily good at a specific kind of technological work but has not yet settled the deeper question. China leads the world in deployment, turning research into factories, interfaces, supply chains, and mass habits with a speed no other country can seem to match. Its Shenzhen industrial parks run AI models that optimize manufacturing parameters 30 times an hour. Its robot installations outnumber those of every other nation combined. Its open-weight AI models such as DeepSeek V4 have pushed cost-efficient, deployable intelligence to the center of the national ecosystem.

Our future?

The United States still produces more frontier AI models, holds higher-impact patents, and dominates AI data-center infrastructure. China’s basic-research share of R&D spending, while rising, remains low among top performers: 7.08% in 2025, up from 6% in 2019, which represents real movement as well as a persistent tilt toward application over inquiry. China’s supercomputers now hold the top global ranking, but on benchmarks more relevant to AI workloads they rank fourth, running on domestic chips not yet at the leading edge. The semiconductor constraint and export controls are real. The gap between “registered users” and “actual users” of generative AI, between 600 million and 249 million, tells its own story about the distance between infrastructure and habit.

The most plausible future is that China becomes the place where 21st-century technologies are most completely socialized — embedded into schools, factories, transport, shopping, and the daily texture of regulation and moral instruction. China will be the civilization that most thoroughly absorbs technology into ordinary life, and in so doing, reshapes what ordinary life can mean. The question is whether absorption at that scale and speed leaves room for the things that cannot be optimized. That question, too, is very old, and the five-year plan cannot answer it.

​Tech, China, Artificial intelligence 

It’s no longer a secret that most of the food Americans eat is detrimental to their health. From chemical pesticides and GMOs to artificial additives, preservatives, and dyes, much of the common foods available today are loaded with junk known to cause health issues — even serious ones, like cancer and disease.

Few, however, know that Big Food is largely owned by tobacco companies. On this episode of “Relatable,” Allie Beth Stuckey sits down with Ashley and Patrick Sullivan, the creators of the documentary “Breaking Big Food,” which pulls the curtain back on how the tobacco industry hijacked our food system and sparked a major health crisis.

“In 1985, R.J. Reynolds, the maker of Camel cigarettes, purchased Nabisco for about $5 billion. In 1988, Philip Morris, the maker of Marlboro cigarettes, purchased Kraft Foods for about $13 billion,” Patrick explains, noting that “these are just two of the examples of Big Tobacco buying up” big name food companies.

“By the 1990s, Big Tobacco actually controlled about 40% of the food supply in America,” he adds.

Ashley explains that the reason for the push to control Big Food stemmed from the government’s decades-long anti-smoking campaign that resulted in a sharp decline in U.S. adult smoking rates — and a whole lot less cigarette sales.

“[Tobacco companies] saw number one, the industry that they were in was going down in flames and maybe saw an opportunity in the food industry to go in and say, ‘We are the addiction people, let’s figure out how to apply what we know to processed foods,”’ she says.

“How did that actually affect the ingredients in the products at these companies?” Allie asks.

Patrick says it began with the most rudimentary of business questions: “How do we get our customers to buy more of our products?”

Science provided the answer.

“The tobacco scientists became food scientists, and they began studying how do we tickle the pleasure centers of the brain with potato chips and candy and sodas, and they found this sort of perfect mixture of fat, salt, and sweet that makes it so no one can eat just one,” he explains.

They also found ways to save money by using preservatives to expand the shelf life of food products and making cost-effective ingredient swaps, like “switching from cane sugar to high fructose corn syrup.”

Companies used crafty marketing strategies, Ashley notes, to distract the public so it didn’t notice the significant changes that were being made to food ingredients.

“Let’s color this with red dye 40 and make it look really pretty. Let’s do these fun ads. Let’s target children, make it fun for them to want to purchase these foods,” she says.

“Let’s put a toy inside of the cereal. Let’s give a free gift with a Happy Meal,” Patrick adds.

Then the government inverted the food pyramid, recommending high portions of grain over any other food group. That wasn’t because humans thrive on a grain-rich diet but because of the “lobbying efforts on the behalf of grain producers,” Patrick notes.

To hear more of this fascinating interview about how America’s food system became poisoned, watch the episode above.

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.

​Relatable, Allie beth stuckey, Maha, Big food 

The gains made in classical education in recent years are truly encouraging. Students are once again learning great names and great stories, and they are encountering primary texts that invite them to participate rather than be passive observers.

But while the classical academic program is teaching our children the names of virtues long out of fashion, we should ask whether we have created the conditions in which those virtues can truly take root and flourish.

Students need raw contact with nature so that virtue is exercised with cold hands and aching backs, not merely batted around the seminar table as an abstraction.

In the “Cyropaedia,” Xenophon’s account of Cyrus’ formation and adventures before he ascended to Persia’s throne, Xenophon describes the paideia, or the process of formation whereby young men become statesmen. Xenophon’s Cyrus grew up with rigorous discipline: combat, cold exposure, fasting, and the austere corrections of men hardened by war.

His education was a series of experiences fashioning him for military service, accustoming him to privation, and schooling him in the unapologetic art of justice.

What Xenophon sketches out, in the main, mirrors the Greek historian Herodotus’ description of the education of noble Persian youth in “The Histories.” They were sent away to spend time with military commanders on the empire’s frontiers.

Far from the corrosive luxuries and intrigues of the court, the young learned to “ride, shoot the bow, and speak the truth.” Only when sufficiently hardened were they considered fit to return to the seats of power and take their place in the political life of the empire.

Both Herodotus and Xenophon depicted an ideal education that prioritizes exposure to nature, the cultivation of martial virtue, and the use of simple, manly rhetoric consisting of straightforward, honest speech — rather than the forked-tongued parlance common in the halls of power. This, both Greeks report, is education that forms kings.

Unfortunately, this is far removed from our modern approach to education. You won’t find anything like the kind of education depicted in the “Cyropaedia” in public, private, or STEM-focused schools — or even most classical schools.

To help us take seriously what Xenophon and Herodotus say about education, especially where it is at odds with contemporary practice, we should enlist the aid of John Henry Newman, a theologian who wrote luminously about education. In a series of sermons, Newman criticized the nearly homogeneous-in-form book learning we call education today.

RELATED: America’s classrooms are feeding the red wave — socialist red

Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu/Getty Images

In a sermon on the state of innocence before the Fall, Newman argues that our reason is just as fallen and corrupt as our passions. He asks, “What then is intellect itself, as exercised in the world, but a fruit of the fall, not found in paradise or in heaven, more than in little children, and at the utmost but tolerated in the Church?” He continues, noting that after the Fall, “passion and reason have abandoned their due place in man’s nature, which is one of subordination, and conspired together against the Divine light within him, which is his proper guide.”

Newman acknowledges reason as a gift from God for which we should be grateful. But this hardly contradicts his call for us to refrain from idolizing it, whether at the expense of the passions or not.

In another sermon, Newman exhorts, “Now the danger of an elegant and polite education is, that it separates feeling and acting; it teaches us to think, speak, and be affected aright, without forcing us to practise what is right.” He continues: “The refinement which literature gives, is that of thinking, feeling, knowing and speaking, right, not of acting right; and thus, while it makes the manners amiable, and the conversation decorous and agreeable, it has no tendency to make the conduct, the practice of the man virtuous.”

This sounds like bad news for a culture whose educational practice consists almost entirely of sitting, reading, and thinking.

But we might object that reading about heroic characters can inspire us to emulate their virtues. So too can vicious characters warn us off their path and help us to see patterns of evil as they develop. Without rejecting literature-based education entirely, Newman plays out a likely scenario involving the breakdown of character when it has been reared on affect rather than its rougher cousin, reality:

For instance, we will say we have read again and again, of the heroism of facing danger, and we have glowed with the thought of its nobleness. We have felt how great it is to bear pain, and submit to indignities, rather than wound our conscience; and all this, again and again, when we had no opportunity of carrying our good feelings into practice. Now, suppose at length we actually come into trial, and let us say, our feelings become roused, as often before, at the thought of boldly resisting temptations to cowardice, shall we therefore do our duty, quitting ourselves like men? Rather, we are likely to talk loudly, and then run from the danger. Why? — rather, let us ask, why not? What is to keep us from yielding? Because we feel aright? Nay, we have again and again felt aright and thought aright, without accustoming ourselves to act aright; and though there was an original connexion in our minds between feeling and acting, there is none now; the wires within us, as they may be called, are loosened and powerless.

“Loosened and powerless” is a sad substitute for what Newman suggests we ought to demonstrate instead: “hardy, rough-handed obedience.”

We now find ourselves back with Cyrus on the frontier, where reality itself is the teacher and the lesson is not optional. Even students in the best classical schools today spend too much time in purely intellectual arenas, where they can separate feeling from action, sentiment from reality — arenas where talk is as cheap as it is plentiful.

Fortunately, there is a corrective. But be warned: It is as rugged and as demanding of adults as of the young. It will require many in education who are accustomed to the relative comfort of lecture halls and seminar tables to relearn the feel of callouses and the inevitable alternation between sweating and shivering that the unmediated life provokes.

The corrective, simply put, is robust physical training in fitness, athletics, or the school of the outdoors — camping, climbing, and diving. Students need raw contact with nature so that virtue is exercised with cold hands and aching backs, not merely batted around the seminar table as an abstraction.

They need hard, physical work — tilling the soil or caring for animals — that teaches patience and responsibility and impresses upon them the limits of human will. They need to willingly forgo modern comforts that obscure the lessons contained in God’s book of nature.

Hard labor and self-mastery learned through challenge can no longer serve as mere supplements to education. As long as we treat them as such, we should not expect our children to demonstrate the “hardy, rough-handed obedience” that Newman argued is the hallmark of citizens of great nations.

Editor’s note: This article appeared originally at the American Mind.

​Public schools, Private schools, Classical education, Physical education, Xenephon, Herodotus, John henry newman, Physical labor, Cyrus the great, Opinion & analysis 

Oklahoma City Police this week released video recorded around 8 a.m. July 2 showing a suspect throwing a Molotov cocktail at a victim in a wheelchair — and authorities said the “terrifying incident unfolded right across the street” from police headquarters.

“What happened next showed the absolute best of our community and our first responders,” police said.

‘These are people, these are our neighbors, these are our fellow Oklahomans. These are people with hopes and dreams, just like any of us.’

Police department detectives and a “quick-thinking bystander immediately rushed into danger to help the victim and take the suspect into custody on the spot,” police said, adding that the city’s fire department “was also quick to the scene to provide crucial medical aid.”

Police said, “Thanks to this rapid, heroic response, the victim is expected to recover, and the suspect is behind bars.”

The Oklahoman reported that a city police officer wrote in a court affidavit that the perpetrator was walking westbound on Main Street when he saw the victim — who was in a wheelchair — crossing the street. The perpetrator turned around and approached the victim, then ignited a Molotov cocktail and threw it directly at the victim, which set him on fire, the paper noted.

RELATED: Man flings Molotov cocktails at federal building while yelling ‘anti-ICE’ comments, feds say

The Oklahoman said the video shows the victim wheeling himself out of the fire — but the suspect who threw the Molotov cocktail then appears to try to push the victim back into the flames.

Two Oklahoma City police detectives exited a vehicle at the intersection and took a 38-year-old suspect into custody, the paper said.

The victim was treated for minor injuries, including burns on the back of his neck and arms, the Oklahoman said, citing court documents.

More from the paper:

According to the court affidavit, the suspect told investigators he was “looking for marks” and intended to kill the victim because he thought he saw a “mark” and believed the victim was a child molester. He also told investigators he made two Molotov cocktails but was only able to use one before detectives stopped him.

After the attack, the suspect was booked into the Oklahoma County jail on complaints of first-degree arson, assault and battery with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to kill and two counts of possessing, using, manufacturing or threatening to use an incendiary device or explosives.

KOCO-TV identified the suspect as Alexander Emery, adding that authorities said Emery has a lengthy criminal history, including charges of trespassing, burglary, drug offenses, breaking and entering, and assault and battery — with cases dating back about a decade.

Jail records indicate Emery’s bond amount is $200,000.

RELATED: Democrats wanted a makeover. They got Marxism and Molotov cocktails.

Alexander Emery. Image source: Oklahoma County Jail

KOCO said a news crew from the station found the Molotov cocktail attack victim, who is homeless, in his wheelchair near the scene of the attack. The station said he declined to go on camera but told the news crew he’s OK, feels grateful, and believes God was with him during the harrowing incident.

The victim also told KOCO he was treated at the scene but declined to go to the hospital. He also told the station he doesn’t know the attacker or the reason behind the assault.

Meghan Mueller, president and CEO of the Homeless Alliance, told KOCO the video of the attack is “absolutely horrific.”

“The fact that this happened is something that should shock the community,” Mueller added to the station. “These are people, these are our neighbors, these are our fellow Oklahomans. These are people with hopes and dreams, just like any of us.”

Mueller also told KOCO that “the really important thing to remember is that we all need to take better care of each other.”

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

​Oklahoma city, Molotov cocktail attack, Wheelchair, Arrest, Police headquarters, Police, Crime 

The Social Security trust fund is projected to run out of money by 2032. Without legislative reforms, retirement benefits for tens of millions of Americans could face significant cuts.

As lawmakers debate how to preserve the program, most proposals focus on raising payroll tax revenue or making other budgetary adjustments. But these discussions miss a larger point: The program itself is increasingly ill-suited for younger generations.

Americans who are decades away from retirement should be allowed to opt out of Social Security and pursue retirement planning through private alternatives.

Rather than forcing Americans into a system that may not deliver on its promises, policymakers should allow young workers to opt out and prepare for retirement in their own way.

America’s younger generations are coming of age amid an affordability crisis. Housing costs, groceries, health insurance, transportation, and higher education consume a growing share of household budgets. In such an environment, financial flexibility matters more than ever.

Yet every paycheck is hit by a 6.2% Social Security payroll tax, withheld with the promise that workers will receive benefits decades later when they reach retirement age. For many Millennials and members of Generation Z, that promise appears increasingly uncertain.

The idea that workers simply “pay in” and later receive back what they contributed has long been misleading. Today’s payroll taxes largely fund benefits for today’s retirees. As demographic pressures strain the system, younger Americans face the prospect of paying into Social Security for decades while receiving far less in benefits than previous generations.

In turn, few Gen Zers count on Social Security to support them in retirement someday. More than half expect to rely on personal retirement accounts as their primary source of income in retirement. Only 35% expect the program to still be around when they retire.

Rather than dragging younger workers through years of uncertain taxation, policymakers should give them a choice. Americans who are decades away from retirement should be allowed to opt out of Social Security and pursue retirement planning through private alternatives.

The freedom to decide how to spend and save one’s income is deeply ingrained in American culture. Some people rent apartments, rely on public transportation, and prioritize international travel. Others buy homes, raise families, and invest heavily in property or small businesses. The diversity of lifestyles that defines the United States is made possible by economic liberty.

Social Security’s mandatory payroll tax limits that liberty, particularly for younger generations who are unlikely to receive the same value from the program as their parents and grandparents. Every dollar directed to Social Security is a dollar that cannot be used to pay down debt, purchase a home, invest in education, build a business, or save independently for retirement.

RELATED: Rural health is the next MAHA frontier

Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post/Getty Images

Private retirement accounts also offer greater opportunities for long-term growth. Historically, diversified investments held through 401(k)s, IRAs, and other retirement vehicles have generated substantially higher returns than the growth reflected in Social Security benefits. Depending on their investments, 401(k) plans may return 5% to 8% annually, while some Roth IRA portfolios may return 7% to 10%.

In contrast, Social Security payments reflect 1% to 3% annual growth, matching cost-of-living adjustment inflation rates.

Younger workers with decades of investing ahead of them are uniquely positioned to benefit from compound growth. But the ineffective Social Security system holds them back from the thousands to millions in returns available by private-sector investment vehicles.

In an era of accessible investing platforms and unprecedented financial tools, a one-size-fits-all government retirement system makes less sense than ever. Americans are capable of making different choices about their financial futures. They should have the freedom to decide whether Social Security is one of them.

As lawmakers confront Social Security’s looming insolvency, they should look beyond tax increases and accounting fixes. The debate should include a more fundamental question: Why should younger Americans be required to participate in a system they increasingly doubt will deliver on its promises?

Social Security was created for a different era, when workers had fewer options, people did not live as long, and America’s population was booming. Those conditions no longer exist, and it leaves the system unable to afford its original obligations.

If Social Security cannot provide future generations with the same security it once promised, then those generations should be free to pursue their own path. Young Americans deserve the freedom to build their own financial future.

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

​Social security, Gen z, Opinion & analysis 

A 17-year-old boy is on trial for allegedly shooting to death an elderly couple that had hired him to do odd jobs around their home in Mississippi.

Cordarius Hobbs was arrested by Simpson County Sheriff’s deputies after an hours-long standoff on June 3 when they were called to the residence near Mendenhall.

Less than a week after Hobbs was taken into custody to face charges for double murder, his two brothers were involved in a massive manhunt.

The incident unfolded after three contractors went to the home of 75-year-old Bill Blair and his 71-year-old wife, Carol Blair, to install a generator at about 10 a.m.

They said they noticed that the door to the wife’s car was left open and there were multiple guns on the seats, according to a Mississippi Bureau of Investigation investigator.

An hour and a half later, they called the Simpson County Sheriff’s Department for a welfare check on the Blairs.

A half hour later, at noon, deputies arrived and tried to push through a screen door to find gunshots being fired at them. That began a standoff between police and the alleged shooter, which lasted for about two hours.

Hobbs tried to flee from the home on foot, but police were able to capture him. They said he was wearing all black and holding a bag but did not have a weapon when captured. He was also shot during the incident, but his injuries were not life-threatening.

According to investigators, 280 bullet casings were found inside the home, as well as three guns, which all belonged to Bill Blair.

Inside the home they found Carol Blair in a fetal position in a bedroom with three gunshots to the back of her head. Bill Blair was found lying on his back in the kitchen with three gunshots to his face.

Hobbs was charged with two counts of capital murder along with a burglary count, four counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, four counts of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, and two counts of aggravated assault on individuals 65 or older.

The family of the victims said they had hired Hobbs to clean up around the home.

RELATED: Suspect in brutal beating of Trump supporter in San Diego identified as neighbor — and victim’s medical update is devastating

The Blairs’ pastor told KPTV-TV they were the “sweetest couple” and one was rarely seen without the other nearby.

“They loved the Lord, and it was evident in their life. … You knew that they were just good people that would help anyone,” Pastor Andy Fullington said.

Less than a week after Hobbs was taken into custody to face charges for double murder, his two brothers were involved in a massive manhunt after an officer was shot during a traffic stop.

Cortavious Lawayne Hobbs, 18, and Cortavion Dewayne Hobbs, 19, got into a shoot-out with police and were later found hiding underneath a house, prosecutors said.

Covington County Deputy Yates Rodney, who was critically wounded, is still undergoing treatment for his injuries.

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

​Double murder, Standoff, Massive manhunt, Brutal murder, Elderly couple, Crime