Category: blaze media

It’s over for human-generated content.

That seems to be the conclusion of Meta’s AI consultant, Henry Ajder, who recently warned that the internet will soon be taken over by “AI slop” — insta-generated, low-quality, noisy, and derivative text, video, images, and even influencers.

All to make numbers go up while also crushing signal fidelity, creativity, and information quality.

Meanwhile, Meta corporation remains locked in its own historical pattern of scrambling to retain relevance in the digital cash-grab — now manifested as the race to AI market dominance. This race presents a circular conundrum: The more output from AI tools you create, the more AI tools you need to manage it.

If Ajder is correct, then using the internet is about to get even more tiresome. For how long, no one, not even Ajder, knows.

‘The age of slop is inevitable. I’m not sure what to do about it.’

The reasoning is all shortsighted, but not at all mysterious. It’s akin to the constant call for weapons upgrades in a military context: If they get it before us, we’re dead.

It may be the case that this base impulse to compete in austere, non-human market conditions has much to do with the rather shameful and sordid historical arc of Meta and its leader, Mark Zuckerberg. A pattern emerges where the humanity at play seems to be something along the lines of a child who feels left out and wants to play, and shorn of morality or bearing, he will do anything to get the chance to be cool.

A decade of scrambling

Consider the arc: Meta really begins with Facebook and leaps up with the acquisition of Instagram. There’s no argument in retrospect to overcome the all-but-catastrophic effects, the sweeping social decay, and human suffering by dispersal and rewiring of human attention spans that are the true fruit of this social media empire.

With all the data, illegally and immorally harvested perhaps, a switch into AI for Zuckerberg was in the cards from day one. By the time Instagram was purchased in 2012, the big push was toward machine learning. The same year saw Google drop big money into AI via Google Brain.

Between 2014 and 2018, the business and development ecosystems surrounding artificial intelligence take shape. OpenAI emerges, famously. The General Data Protection Regulation emerges in European law as a protection against privacy and data-rights violations. In this period, Zuckerberg/Facebook acquires messaging platform WhatsApp and VR company Oculus while also marking up big numbers in terms of violating data and privacy rights.

What does Zuckerberg do? He adds AI content moderation. It’s clear there’s neither a moral center nor some visionary, religious-level plan. It’s just grabbing the bag, over and over again. Chasing big brother, as it were.

In 2021, the virtual Zuckerberg-a-verse rebrands as Meta. The fact is that Facebook had become a sort of pre-slop disaster scene of ads, scams, and bots. A mass exodus from the platform by Gen X and younger users is memorable to all who lived through the era. The rebrand to Meta signals a shift, perhaps formally, into AI, but it’s late and it feels without focus or design.

RELATED: Zuckerberg to dump hundreds of billions into new Manhattan-size projects

Craig T. Fruchtman/Getty Images

Llama drama

Perhaps it was the case that Zuckerberg just needed his peers to point the path. By 2022, Meta developed an open-source AI model called Llama, but it wasn’t until 2023, amid that project’s underperformance, that the company began to pivot in earnest.

This year, Meta has gone on a conspicuous hiring spree to buy its way to the top of the AI game. The company has hired veterans from OpenAI, DeepMind, and Anthropic and turned the main project, the holy grail, apparently, that all AI companies are crawling toward, over to Alexander Wang. Wang is tasked with bringing the Meta AI capacities beyond human levels, into the realm of so-called true superior intelligence.

Meta is still dragging Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and a suite of quasi-metaverse/virtual reality products to market with, let’s say, varying degrees of efficacy and social or historical importance. Consistent with the pattern of simply keeping up with the herd, avoiding the bold and fearsome mess of human originality, Meta’s stab at the ultimate “reasoning model” LLM is simply called Superintelligence Lab.

If Meta’s conjuring up of ultimate intelligence pans out, it will be a story of coming from behind. And given Henry Ajder’s slop warning, it may be that Zuckerberg will need to, once again, turn quickly toward emergency triage and apply his AI to a cyber disaster zone effected, in large part, by other AI models.

Flood warning

This time, not just Facebook, but great swaths of the internet as a whole face a cataclysm. Here’s what we’re facing when and if the flash flood of AI-driven super-slop arrives.

Category 5 slop storm hits as predicted in late 2025.50% of all social media content is AI-generated or automated.Use cases dominated by low-quality text, images, videos, and ads.Trust crashes as no standards develop for authenticating human vs. AI content.Meta’s own tools are turned on swamping its platforms with slop.Markets grow for generative models fitted to evade AI security detection.Users and companies scramble to find cryptocurrency solutions to authentication.

But in spite of the dawning recognition that Bitcoin offers a scalable way to distinguish human from automated artifacts, Ajder states “the age of slop is inevitable.” He sighs, “I’m not sure what to do about it.”

So we’re probably in for yet another ripple in the story of the evolving internet, but perhaps there’s a bright light, maybe not for Meta but for the rest of us normal people, and it’s this: If the big platforms are shattered by their own serpentine machinations gone awry, a market may open for smaller, curated, niche platforms where genuine human online interaction can make another play.

Being that there is no real discussion to either moderate slop or to break the monopolistic big tech entities, this author would, all things considered, be willing to wade through an era of turbo-tedium for a chance at platforms more human, with better boundaries, and perhaps built by founders interested more in human interaction and less in simply chasing trends, number lines, and grand delusion.

​Ai, Meta, Henry ajder, Mark zuckerberg, Big tech, Culture, Lifestyle, Return 

In our modern age — especially within Christian circles that embrace self-awareness and spiritual growth — people often talk about identity in terms of personality types and natural strengths.

Tools like the Enneagram, Myers-Briggs, and StrengthsFinder are often used as mirrors to better understand ourselves and others. I’m a sucker for a good personality test like anyone. Though these frameworks can be enlightening at times, here’s the danger: These tools, as helpful as they may be in their place, can quietly become idols. They can morph into spiritual blinders that reinforce something far more subtly dangerous than we realize — the sin of self-determination.

True freedom isn’t found in finding our perfect role — it’s in letting God define our role entirely.

Let’s be clear: Nowhere in scripture does God say, “Because of your personality type, you get a pass on obedience.” He doesn’t say, “Oh, you’re an Enneagram 5, so it’s fine that you’re emotionally detached,” or, “You’re naturally quiet — don’t worry about speaking the truth or sharing the gospel.”

And yet, how often do we do just that? We spiritualize our preferences and protect our comfort zones, all while whispering to ourselves or boastfully proclaiming to others, “This is just how I am.”

That mindset is a slow poison to surrender. Instead, we should be asking, “How are you shaping and stretching me, God?” When personality profiles become excuses, and natural giftings become the boundary lines of our obedience, we risk falling into the ever-subtle sin of self-determination rather than surrender to God and His calling.

But we must be open-handed to how the Lord wants to use us.

When personality becomes permission & gifting becomes a boundary

The moment personality becomes a shield and natural gifting becomes the edge of our obedience — we’ve stopped following Jesus and started following ourselves. The line is razor-thin, and it’s easy to cross. And when we do, we quietly slip into the belief that we get to define what obedience looks like.

We must resist the lie that God only wants what comes easily. His Spirit is not limited to what we’re “good at.” He doesn’t ask for your comfort — He asks for your “yes.” A surrendered, open-handed “yes.”

I hear these phrases often:

“I’m not a good cook — that’s not my gift.”“I’m not into hosting — it drains me.”“That’s just not my personality.”

But scripture doesn’t ask if hospitality is our thing. It commands us to pursue it. Romans 12:13 says, “Seek to show hospitality.” In John 21, the resurrected Jesus makes breakfast for His disciples. The Son of God washed feet and fed friends. Not because it was His “strength,” but because love serves. These were not “kingly” activities, but the model of Christ crushes our excuses.

If Jesus Himself served others in such a practical, humble way, how much more should we be willing to do the same?

RELATED: The secret to happiness? It’s not what you’ve been sold

Jorisvo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

There are many everyday skills — like cooking, cleaning, and hosting — that may not come naturally to us, but they are often the very means through which we love others well. It’s been said: “Hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard.”

God calls us to serve and be uncomfortable by stretching ourselves in areas we’re weak in. In fact, God rarely calls the “qualified” to accomplish His purposes in the Bible or those with natural talents to lead.

Moses, Jeremiah, Gideon, the disciples — all were not technically qualified to do what God called them to, but God chose them to lead because He’s not hamstrung by “natural giftings.” He delights in using weak vessels marked by humility far more than those who believe they’re strong enough and talented enough to do life without Him.

God rarely chooses the ‘qualified’

Look at the men and women God uses throughout scripture.

Moses stuttered and protested God’s calling — pointing to his lack of eloquence and confidence. Gideon was timid and afraid — weakest in his family and least in his tribe — yet called to deliver Israel. Jeremiah was “too young” and didn’t know how to speak, but God gave him the words and equipped him. The disciples were unremarkable fishermen, tax collectors, and misfits. Their resumes were unimpressive, but their obedience was history-making.

God delights in using the weak. Why? So no one else gets the glory but God.

In God’s Kingdom, the question isn’t, “What are you naturally good at?” It’s: Are you willing to obey, even when you feel utterly unqualified?

And the truth is: We’re all unqualified — until the Holy Spirit empowers us.

When we rely solely on our strengths, we rob God of the opportunity to showcase His. When we only serve from comfort, we take credit for the fruit. But when we step into weakness, we have to depend on God — and He loves to meet us there.

This pattern is found all throughout the Bible. Jesus didn’t choose disciples based on charisma, influence, or spiritual gifts. Peter was impulsive and brash; Thomas was analytical and skeptical; James and John were ambitious. Yet, Jesus called each to follow, be transformed, and participate in His mission.

The biblical narrative consistently confronts the lie that our natural bent defines our usefulness. In God’s economy, identity is not who we are by default, but who we become through surrender and obedience.

God’s power is made perfect in what we’d rather avoid

Let’s not forget what Paul said: “But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me” (2 Corinthians 12:9).

Do you believe that God wants to show His power through your discomfort? That He may intentionally be calling you to that ministry, that task, that person — not because it fits you perfectly, but because it will stretch you deeply?

Spiritual gifts, too, are not about personality. They’re supernatural empowerments from the Spirit for the edification of the church. And often, they come in areas where we feel most ill-equipped. Why? So we’ll never forget that it’s God working through us, not us working for Him.

RELATED: Why ‘follow your heart’ is terrible advice — and God knew it all along

Arthit_Longwilai/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Just look at Billy Graham. The man who would preach to millions of people around the globe was initially hesitant to speak in public and cut off the very idea of it as an adolescent. He was so uncomfortable as he felt God pushing him to share the gospel through public speaking that he practiced sermons to birds and trees just to gain confidence. But his fear didn’t get the final word — God’s calling did. And because of that surrender, eternity is different for countless souls.

If we only say “yes” to what we like or understand, we miss the miracle of transformation. God’s call is not about where we shine most naturally — it’s where He shines most supernaturally. Our weaknesses are not a liability; they’re an invitation.

So let’s stop asking, “What do I want to do for God?” and start asking, “God, what do You want to do through me?” Let’s not be closed-fisted with our preferences when God is asking for open hands.

Here are a few practical steps toward true surrender:

Pray with a posture of surrender: Don’t just ask for clarity — ask for courage.Use personality tools with humility: They’re descriptive, not prescriptive.Get around people who challenge your comfort: Don’t just look for affirmation — pursue sharpening.Step into discomfort as a form of worship: Obedience is often inconvenient — and that’s the point.

True freedom isn’t found in finding our perfect role — it’s in letting God define our role entirely.

There is no “personality pass” in God’s Kingdom — only the call to be conformed to the image of Christ. That means surrender. That means obedience. That means going where we’d rather not go and doing what we’d rather not do — because He is worthy.

We were not made to serve from comfort. We were not saved to play it safe. We were called, chosen, and commissioned to live a life that displays the glory of a God who works powerfully through surrendered weakness.

Let’s stop limiting God to our giftings. Let’s start asking Him to do what only He can do — in us, through us, and in spite of us.

​Christian, Christianity, Enneagram, God, Myers-briggs, Personality tests, Self-determination, Sin, Strengthsfinder, Faith 

As the Israel-Hamas war extends into its 21st month, calls for peaceful solutions have rung out across the globe as the world watches the horrors of war. The pope has renewed his message of peace in the wake of one of the most recent attacks.

On Friday, in a telegram signed by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin on his behalf, the Holy Father expressed deep sorrow for the loss of life and for the injuries caused by the Thursday Israeli attack on a Catholic church in the Gaza Strip.

‘I again call for an immediate halt to the barbarism of the war and for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.’

The pope expressed in the message his “profound hope for dialogue, reconciliation and enduring peace in the region.”

The pope reiterated his message of peace at the end of his Sunday Angelus prayer from Castel Gandolfo, his summer retreat.

RELATED: Pope Leo XIV begins pontificate with thunderous call for Christian unity

Photo by OMAR AL-QATTAA/AFP via Getty Images

“I again call for an immediate halt to the barbarism of the war and for a peaceful resolution of the conflict,” Pope Leo XIV said at the end of his prayer.

“I renew my appeal to the international community to observe humanitarian law and to respect the obligation to protect civilians, as well as the prohibition of collective punishment, the indiscriminate use of force and the forced displacement of the population,” the pope added.

The pontiff prayed for the souls lost in the Gaza attack and prayed for the recovery of those who were injured. The “accident,” as the Israelis reportedly described it, left three dead and wounded 10 others, including the parish priest.

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

​Politics, Pope leo xiv, Catholic church, Gaza, Israel hamas war, Peace, Israel, Palestine 

I still remember the first time one of my toddlers bolted into the street — every cell in my body shifted from principle to protection in an instant. Fatherhood doesn’t just stir the heart; it rewires the brain. In those early years, my focus stretched from the next news cycle to the day my kids might walk their own children to school. Sacrifice stopped being a slogan and became second nature.

New York Assemblyman and socialist wunderkind Zohran Mamdani, 33, is newly married and — so far — childless. But he’s busy trying to reshape a city where roughly one-third of children already grow up without fathers. That void correlates with higher poverty, lower academic performance, and a 279% spike in gun-carrying and drug-dealing among boys. These aren’t abstract numbers. They’re generational failures — and Mamdani’s agenda would only make them worse.

Fatherhood teaches trade-offs. Socialism hides them behind someone else’s money.

Take his signature proposal for “free” cradle-to-kindergarten care. He wants universal day care seats, baby-supply “baskets,” mental health counselors in every school, and car-free pickup zones. The cost? Roughly $12 billion per year, funded by higher taxes on employers and top earners.

Parents hear promises like that and think about the paycheck covering piano lessons and groceries. Government doesn’t create money; it redirects it. And new taxes on employers show up as thinner paychecks, higher prices, and fewer jobs.

His rent policy isn’t any better. Nearly 30% of New York renters are families with children. Mamdani wants to pack the city’s Rent Guidelines Board with activist votes to lock rent increases at zero. But freezing rent doesn’t create bedrooms. It discourages builders, shrinks housing supply, and drives growing families out of the city. Ask any parent in a cramped walk-up: When the family grows and the square footage doesn’t, someone ends up sleeping in the hallway.

Mamdani’s approach to crime is just as detached from reality. In 2020, he tweeted: “There is no negotiating with an institution this wicked & corrupt. Defund it. Dismantle it. End the cycle of violence.” Today, he promotes a $1 billion Department of Community Safety — $600 million of it reallocated from existing programs — staffed largely by social workers.

But dads hauling strollers through subway stations at midnight know what real safety looks like. It involves more than pastel-vested mediators. When train platforms feel lawless, families don’t stick around. They drive. Or they leave the city altogether.

And culture matters too — especially for kids. Mamdani defends the slogan “globalize the intifada,” claiming it’s rooted in the same Arabic term used by the Holocaust Museum to describe the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. He co-sponsored the “Not on Our Dime!” Act to cut off donations to charities linked to Israel and once refused to sign a Holocaust remembrance resolution. Jewish leaders call it anti-Semitism. Parents call it reckless — because they know their kids might hear the echo of that rhetoric in homeroom tomorrow.

Data confirm what dads already know: Kids without a father in the home are 47% more likely to live in poverty. Fathers who show up daily help blunt toxic stress and behavioral problems. It’s not just about income. It’s about modeling restraint, responsibility, and the long-term thinking Mamdani’s high-spend, low-accountability vision systematically undermines.

RELATED: Establishment Dems say Mamdani and his allies are in for a ‘painful lesson’

Photo by Barry Williams/New York Daily News/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

Our political compass is broken. Résumés stuffed with Ivy League credentials, activist hashtags, and crowdfunding clout now pass for qualifications. Meanwhile, we discount the experience that actually trains a person to lead — especially the crucible of parenthood.

Raising children demands long-term planning, hard budgeting, and a deep sense of stewardship. It builds moral seriousness — and exposes policies that collapse under the weight of real-world trade-offs.

Even California Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom just proved the point. On a recent podcast with retired Navy SEAL Shawn Ryan, Newsom admitted that pushing “gender-affirming care” on 8-year-olds is “tough, man.” He acknowledged that Democrats have a “major problem” with voters on the issue.

And then he said it: “Now that I have a 9-year-old … I get it.” One of the left’s crown princes backed off the party line the moment fatherhood entered the chat.

Of course, not everyone can have children. Many serve the next generation through adoption, teaching, mentoring, or public service. Their sacrifices matter. The point isn’t that only parents deserve a voice — but that people who have shouldered the daily demands of raising children tend to lead with more foresight, more restraint, and more care than the abstract theorists ever do.

Now picture Zohran Mamdani pacing Gracie Mansion at 2 a.m., rocking a colicky newborn. Would he still blow $12 billion on sprawling social programs instead of cutting waste and letting families keep more of their earnings? Would he still gamble his child’s walk to school on unarmed crisis counselors? Would he still bet her rent on policies that shrink the housing supply?

Fatherhood teaches trade-offs. Socialism hides them behind someone else’s money.

New York needs leadership rooted in faith, family, and lived responsibility — not hashtags or hollow credentials. Until Mamdani graduates from theory to midnight diaper duty, voters who already live in the real world shouldn’t hand him the baby.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Zohran mamdani, New york, New york city, New york city mayoral race, Socialism, Democrats, Family, Housing, Rent control, Rent freeze, Defund the police, Crime, Law and order, Social workers, Globalize the intifada 

The massive left-wing radical groups that wreak havoc on the country wouldn’t be so successful unless their pockets were full. And unfortunately, the reason their pockets are full is because the American people are unwittingly filling them with their tax dollars.

“You get Congress to allocate a whole bunch blindly, usually through these organizations. An insane allotment to government agencies,” Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck says, singling out the United States Agency for International Development and Department of State.

“The USAID money that was doled out to foreign recipients in 2023 alone, $4.17 billion,” Glenn explains. “The money is then moved from State and USAID to other trusted organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).”

Once the money is in one of those “trusted organizations,” the money then somehow gets to people like George Soros and foundations like Open Society.

“Now, we know how your tax dollars spread a globalist progressive agenda regardless of who’s president. But knowing just this isn’t enough, we have to fill in this blank,” Glenn says, noting that the blank is between how the money flows from a trusted organization like the NED to Soros.

“So who do you audit? The CIA, the State Department, USAID? Well, yes, but if you stop there, the deep state lives on. We have to go deeper,” he continues.

This is where an organization like the Tides Foundation comes in.

“The Tides Foundation is receiving U.S. tax dollars,” Glenn says. “The entire purpose of Tides is to be a progressive left-wing dark money machine. It’s money laundering. Legal, but money laundering nonetheless. You cannot trace money. Once it goes in, it goes dark. You can see what’s coming out, but you don’t know who’s giving it.”

“Leftist billionaires, organizations, they all donate to Tides specifically so their money can go dark. So why is the Tides Foundation getting tax dollars?” he asks, before showing that the Tides Foundation is also involved in the Tides Center.

“They’re spreading tax dollars to each other,” he explains, adding, “and then they spit out to places like Soros.”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

​Sharing, Free, Upload, Video phone, Video, Camera phone, Youtube.com, The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Usaid, George soros, Tides foundation, The tides center, Left wing radical groups, Taxpayer dollars, Corruption, Money laundering 

Israel’s Operation Rising Lion, alongside the U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, has eliminated the threat of a nuclear Iran. Just weeks ago, the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran loomed large and seemed inevitable. The world is now unquestionably safer.

If there were any doubt of Israel’s capabilities, this operation has burnished the Israeli military’s reputation as first-class when it comes to lethality and intelligence tradecraft.

The strikes on Iran open up a new door for Israel — one that moves its priorities from defending against existential threats to a role as global peacemaker.

Operation Rising Lion also showcased the close partnership between Israel and the United States. In President Trump’s address following the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz, he explained that Israel and the U.S. worked “as a team like no team has ever worked before” to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.

With its top strategic threat neutralized — a threat that shaped Israeli military planning for decades — Israel now has an opportunity it hasn’t had in its modern history. Since it is not consumed solely by existential concerns from Iran, it can now re-evaluate its foreign policy goals and consider how to build on this achievement, which advances not only Israeli and American security but global stability.

Of course, the Iranian regime has not said its final word on the matter. President Trump and his team will likely proceed with negotiations to obtain Iran’s commitment to abandon its quest for a nuclear weapon. Moreover, as Trump has repeatedly clarified, should Ayatollah Khamenei make any moves to rush toward a nuclear weapon, military options remain on the table for the United States.

But last month’s historic military milestones have undeniably produced a new geopolitical reality. The Iranian regime — stripped of its top commanders and nuclear scientists and without many military capabilities — is now a shell of its former self. For all the relief and celebration this historic moment brings, it also presents Israel with a new challenge — not unlike the one the United States faced after the Cold War.

Israel’s top strategic threat has suddenly disappeared.

From survivor to peacemaker

Today, Israel can reassess its national ethos, which for the past 77 years has focused on survival. Through Operation Rising Lion, Israel has achieved the unthinkable. The nation now has the chance to think not only in terms of immediate threats, but of long-term opportunity.

Israel certainly continues to face enemies who seek its destruction. Iran and its proxies, even in their weakened state, remain a serious threat and are determined as ever to strike, with or without nuclear weapons. But the region now faces a power imbalance that could work in Israel’s favor. As in the post-Cold War era, when nations aligned themselves with U.S. power, more countries in the Middle East may now prefer to join “Team Israel” than to stand against it.

Even before Oct. 7, Israel had established itself as a global force. As Putin began escalating his invasion of Ukraine, European nations quickly became consumers of Israel’s military technology, particularly its air defense systems. After the success of the Abraham Accords, Israel emerged as a leader in extending economic benefits across the global South through its role in the India-Middle East Economic Corridor. The technological ventures and scientific discoveries of the “startup nation” have contributed breakthroughs to medicine, travel, and communication, among other industries.

Israel’s vigilance must continue. But the success of Operation Rising Lion opens a door for a new phase in its global role — one in which Israel embraces the responsibilities of a peacemaker.

Though this may sound like a lofty ideal, Israel — like the United States after World War II and the Cold War — has a track record. Israel’s ability to do so depends on its teamwork with the world’s top force for good and peace: the United States.

Three strategic regions

Given its small size and the volatility of its region, Israel will have to choose carefully where to engage. But there are three scenarios where its role as a peacemaker is not only viable but strategically beneficial.

The first is in Syria. Capitalizing on President Trump’s newfound relationship with Ahmed al-Sharaa during his visit to the Middle East in May, al-Sharaa has already had a team meet with an Israeli delegation in Azerbaijan.

Moreover, al-Sharaa opened Syria’s skies to Israel during its operation against Iran. Israel can assist al-Sharaa as he faces the challenge of centralizing control in Syria and securing the Levant area.

RELATED: After the bombs, Iran sharpens its digital daggers

Photo by BirgitKorber via Getty Images

The second is in Ukraine. With its large Russian-speaking population and unique position in regional politics, Israel can serve as a mediator between the United States and Russia. This could also help the U.S. apply pressure on Iran, Russia’s key military supplier.

The third opportunity lies in Europe, particularly in deepening cooperation with NATO members. Israel not only brings top-tier military technology to the table but can also collaborate on countering Iran’s influence on the continent.

Israel’s ‘post-Cold War’ moment

Israel will need to continue its military operations in Gaza, in the West Bank, and in the north. It must continue to track and anticipate how and where the Iranian regime will escalate conflict, as it inevitably will, whether incrementally or in more overwhelming provocations.

Building on its new record of world peace, Israel can invest in new partnerships and forms of cooperation that position it not only as a survivor in a tough neighborhood but also as a bridge to a better future for its region and beyond.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Iran, Israel, Iran nuclear program, Operation rising lion, Fordow, Middle east, War, Nuclear weapons, Airstrikes, Donald trump, Isfahan, Natanz, Ayatollah khomeini 

Not since “The Passion of the Christ” has a TV show or movie about the life of Jesus captivated audiences quite like “The Chosen.”

The show is available on Netflix, Amazon Prime, and other streaming platforms, and over 200 million people have watched the crowdfunded historical drama that follows Jesus and his disciples around ancient Galilee and Judea.

That means the series, which premiered in 2017 and is now in its fifth season, is possibly the most successful Christian TV show of all time, and it is almost certainly the most successful crowdfunded media production in history.

What sets “The Chosen” apart is the show’s creativity and its commitment to visually and viscerally transporting viewers back to the first century. The tension of the time in which Jesus lived — at the intersection of the Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds — is palpable through the screen.

Captivating storylines and the show’s overall high production value also keep viewers glued to their screens.

Not only is “The Chosen” fun to watch, but creator Dallas Jenkins is honest about what he wants the show to accomplish. A Christian himself, Jenkins hopes the show motivates viewers to read the Bible for themselves.

“‘The Chosen’ is based on the true stories of the Gospels of Jesus Christ. Some locations and timelines have been combined or condensed. Backstories and some characters or dialogue have been added. However, all biblical and historical context and any artistic imagination are designed to support the truth and intention of the scriptures. Viewers are encouraged to read the Gospels,” the series tells viewers in the first episode.

‘They elicit a response from the viewer that corresponds to the response that the passages are trying to elicit from the reader.’

The show’s success indicates that Jenkins has probably accomplished his goal of encouraging at least some people to read more of the Bible for themselves. But does the show “support the truth and intention” of the biblical authors?

Biblical scholars who spoke to Blaze News gave their perspective on the biblical accuracy of the wildly popular series.

Is ‘The Chosen’ biblically accurate?

One criticism of “The Chosen” is that the show’s world-building and backstory development deviate too much from the Bible.

One critic called “The Chosen” a “dangerous source of entertainment, which dramatically takes Jesus and his words out of context.” Another critic said the “space-filling scenes” or those interactions that are not in the Bible “are dangerous.”

To be sure, there are countless interactions and conversations in the show that likely did not happen — and they certainly don’t appear in any of the four Gospel accounts.

For example, the show gives extra-biblical background on Mary Magdalene and includes a character for the wife of Peter the disciple. We know Peter was married because Jesus healed his mother-in-law, but the Gospel stories never introduce his wife. Most of the extra-biblical material, indeed, is related to the relationships among the characters and their dialogue.

But biblical scholars told Blaze News the creative liberties that “The Chosen” takes to produce a captivating story do not render the show biblically inaccurate.

In fact, New Testament scholar and professor at Gateway Seminary Dan Gurtner told Blaze News that he believes the show is “remarkably contextually accurate.”

“I like ‘The Chosen’ because I think they are faithful to what they’re trying to do, and I think they elicit a response from the viewer that corresponds to the response that the passages are trying to elicit from the reader,” Gurtner said.

“They are faithful to the spirit of scripture. They take a lot of liberties, but they bring it back to the text,” he explained.

“All these backstories and all these intertwining things — which are completely made up, but they’re in character with the people — they meet up with the biblical story,” he added. “I think that kind of creativity — it’s fictitious, of course, and we get that — but they meet up with the biblical story. And whenever it meets up with the biblical story, it’s right in step and completely in line with what the Bible actually says.”

New Testament scholar Paul Sloan, a biblical studies professor at Houston Christian University, told Blaze News that much of “The Chosen” is “accurate” and “well represented,” and “when it’s altered, it’s done so fairly and justly and in an entertaining way that I think is good to appreciate.”

Scholar Craig Keener, a professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, also praised the show for helping the audience relate with an accurate depiction of Jesus: a Jewish, Middle Eastern man.

“I think it nails Jesus’ heart in the Gospels. I mean, in terms of blending all the Gospels together, I think it nails Jesus’ heart,” Keener told Blaze News.

“I think it helps immerse us more in the Middle Eastern, early Jewish context of Jesus,” he added of the show. “Maybe not all the details are right, but it’s way beyond what people are used to. And so it helps people identify more with the Jewishness of Jesus than church people may traditionally have done so. It’s good cross-culturally helping us think that way.”

‘The problem is when a film or a TV show comes off as if they are, and they don’t realize all the ways in which they’re being anachronistic or selective or creative.’

The scholars also emphasized that an important consideration when evaluating the accuracy of “The Chosen” is the fact that the biblical authors told history differently than we tell history today.

“The Gospels are historical, but they’re not histories. They’re ancient Greco-Roman biographies,” Gurtner said. “Any ancient author is not trying to write by the conventions of modern historiography.”

What that means, explained New Testament scholar and Bethel University professor John Dunne, is that the Gospels “aren’t trying to provide a film recording, a video recording of what happened.” Rather, the Gospel stories “have theological interests,” he said, and “particular ways of storytelling” that are designed to communicate those theological interests and evoke a response from the audience.

Does the show’s accuracy even matter?

Multiple scholars who spoke to Blaze News said that “accuracy” is not the right metric by which to judge the show.

“It’s the wrong metric because really what we’re doing is we’re comparing the film that we direct in our minds when we read the Gospels with an external film by another director who has imagined it differently,” explained Dunne.

The issue of accuracy and inaccuracy, on the other hand, is an important aspect when a show is not up front about the creative licenses its production takes, Dunne added.

“If a film is overtly saying, ‘We’re not trying to be accurate, or we’re not trying to X, Y, or Z,’ then I don’t think it should be a metric,” he explained. “The problem is when a film or a TV show comes off as if they are, and they don’t realize all the ways in which they’re being anachronistic or selective or creative.”

But, as he noted, “The Chosen” does not commit that fault.

“It’s only when people aren’t aware of how they’re taking liberties that I really want to push back,” Dunne said. “If they’re very aware of all the liberties they’re taking — and I think ‘The Chosen’ kind of revels in their own creativity — then the metric of accuracy doesn’t come up for me.”

New Testament scholar Jason Staples, a professor at North Carolina State University, emphasized that biblical accuracy per se is not the mission of “The Chosen.”

“It’s trying to be an entertaining adaptation for a modern audience of a lot of the things that are in the Gospels,” Staples said. “And as such, it has to make a lot of decisions for a combination of audience appeal and entertainment. And also there are a lot of places where the Gospels are sparse in terms of their details.”

“So it just adds a lot of material to flesh things out that just aren’t specified in the Gospels. And some of the things that it does are implausible, but perfectly within the bounds of a typical adaptation,” he explained. “So I think it’s a pretty good and certainly entertaining adaptation of the material in the Gospels, but it is certainly very different from the Gospels in what it does.”

What about the inaccuracies?

While the show is a faithful adaptation of the Gospels, it is not without some historical inaccuracies.

For example, scholars who spoke to Blaze News noted historical inaccuracies related to building and city architecture, as well as the show’s inaccurate depiction of literacy levels in first-century Galilee.

‘Jesus is not eradicating ritual purity. He is removing the source of impurity. He isn’t getting rid of the system; he’s getting rid of the impurity itself.’

They stressed, however, that those inaccuracies, which pertain to what biblical scholars call “background material,” don’t make a significant difference to the plot of the show or the depiction of Jesus’ ministry.

But one problem area most of the scholars identified is the show’s inaccurate depiction of Jesus’ interaction with ancient Judaism and the Jewish law.

“In terms of the purity regulations, there’s just all sorts of mistakes about how people with skin diseases are handled in terms of what actually constitutes ritual impurity and what ritual impurity actually means,” Staples said. “There’s this sort of conflation in ‘The Chosen’ about when someone is ritually impure that sort of in some way has something to say about their moral status, which in the Jewish Torah, the purity and impurity code is not a matter of morality.”

Staples, moreover, expressed concern that “The Chosen” suggests that Jesus “sort of opposes the ceremonial or ritual or purity regulations of the Torah in ways that the Jesus of the Gospels does not.”

Dunne shared a similar concern.

“Jesus is not eradicating ritual purity. He is removing the source of impurity. He isn’t getting rid of the system; he’s getting rid of the impurity itself,” he told Blaze News. “But when you see what ‘The Chosen’ does with it — oh my goodness! — they run in the opposite direction.”

The misrepresentations of ancient Judaism and Jesus’ relationship to the Jewish law is a fair critique, Sloan said, “because we’re talking about real people, and obviously, Christians have a history of anti-Judaism.”

“So to the degree that some of their misrepresentations are actually perpetuating the tropes that contribute to that anti-Judaism, I think it’s important to critique that,” he explained.

Does the show violate the second commandment?

Perhaps the most prominent critique of “The Chosen” is that it violates the second commandment, which prohibits idol worship — or, technically, making any image “in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.”

One critic said “The Chosen” exemplifies a “clear violation of the 2nd Commandment” because the show “substitutes a created human in place of the uncreated Christ.” Popular pastor Voddie Baucham has also said he doesn’t watch “The Chosen” because he believes the show violates the second commandment.

‘The joke is that if Jesus films violate the second commandment, then Jesus violated it first because he’s the representation of God.’

But none of the scholars who spoke to Blaze News believe the show violates the second commandment by depicting Jesus on screen.

“It’s not portraying God the Father. Jesus actually became flesh,” Keener said.

Staples, on the other hand, pointed out that Christians generally interpret the second commandment to mean a prohibition against “making an image in order to bow down or in order to worship it, in order to treat it as though it were deity.” Because “The Chosen” was not made for worship, he doesn’t believe the show violates the second commandment.

Sloan offered Blaze News the same perspective.

“It’s not what [‘The Chosen’ is] there for. It’s not an image that is being worshipped. It’s not anything that is being treated as an idol,” he explained. “And if this is a transgression of image-making, then I would have to assume that every single artistic depiction of Jesus is also a violation of that.”

For critics who claim “The Chosen” transgresses the second commandment, Dunne said the logical end of that argument ends in a knot.

“The joke is that if Jesus films violate the second commandment, then Jesus violated it first because he’s the representation of God, right?” he quipped.

Meanwhile, Jenkins has defended the show against the charge that it violates the second commandment.

“It’s not the portrayal or image itself that’s the issue. If it was, then as the verse says, ‘anything’ on earth or even water would be wrong to portray. It’s clearly the worship of it,” Jenkins said.

“But no one is worshipping the TV screen; we’re not claiming the show is the Bible or Jonathan [Roumie] is actually Jesus; and no one believes the portrayal is an object of worship or anything other than another way to illustrate and point people to truth,” he added. “On no conceivable level does ‘The Chosen’ compare to the gods and idols and images the Israelites were potentially worshipping to compete with God.”

Should you watch ‘The Chosen’?

If one of the central purposes of the show is to use beautiful filmmaking and storytelling to point the audience back to the Bible, then the biblical scholars who spoke to Blaze News would consider Jenkins’ mission a success.

Staples, for example, told Blaze News he believes the show gets the audience to think about issues connected to their faith while encouraging them to return to their Bibles.

‘I watch what they presented, and it finds my affections drawn more to Christ and more attentive to the text.’

“And as a biblical scholar, things that get people to actually read the Bible are generally a plus for me,” he said.

Gurtner, meanwhile, praised “The Chosen” for doing to its audience what the Bible does to its readers: It confronts you with the person of Jesus — and forces you to respond.

“It does raise those questions of who do people say that Jesus is? That is the fundamental question,” he said. “And when you get to that question, it makes you deal with the, ‘So what?’ Once you realize who Jesus is, then what does that mean? What does that require of you?”

“Then all of a sudden, once you realize who Jesus is, all of a sudden you have to do something with what he claims,” Gurtner explained. “You can’t just say, ‘OK, so Jesus is God. Now let me go about my life.’ All of a sudden, you have to take what he says. You can’t just leave that on the floor.”

Keener agreed the show “challenges us to ask questions” and “invites us to think more deeply about the Gospels, not just to recite the stories, but to think about the details.”

Sloan even told Blaze News that he knows of people whose desire to read the Bible has been reinvigorated by “The Chosen.”

“I know people who have become more interested in the Gospels and reading the scriptures because of the show,” he said. “So I think that’s a good testimony to the fact that these people are not just watching the show and then not reading their Bibles any more because of it. It’s getting them interested.”

At one moment during his interview with Blaze News, Gurtner removed his scholarly lens and spoke about “The Chosen” from his Christian perspective.

What he said is perhaps the highest endorsement a scholar of his caliber — a bona fide expert on the synoptic Gospels — could offer “The Chosen.”

“This is not a scholarly perspective. This comes from the perspective of the Christian who wants to be faithful to Jesus, who knows the text and who desires to understand the text better and who is trying to understand what they’re trying to present in ‘The Chosen.’ And that is, I watch what they presented, and it finds my affections drawn more to Christ and more attentive to the text,” Gurtner explained.

He went on, “I see this as a very well-produced, imperfect, but well-produced flashlight onto the word of God. And it’s like putting a new light bulb in the light in my study when I open up my Bible. This is a really good new light bulb. I think I’m going to keep putting this light bulb into my light fixture in my study so that I’m going to really be able to see the word of God better. It doesn’t replace the word of God. It helps me to see the word of God better. Why would I criticize the light bulb? It doesn’t make sense to me.”

In that sense, Gurtner would argue that any Christian — and anyone curious about the person of Jesus — should watch “The Chosen” and wrestle with the questions it forces onto you.

“This isn’t scholarship,” he said of the show. “This is media meant to edify.”

​The chosen, Christianity, Christians, Dallas jenkins, Jesus, Biblical scholarship, Bible, Faith 

It’s been nearly two months since Phil Robertson, the beloved patriarch of Duck Dynasty, passed away after a courageous battle with Alzheimer’s disease. On their podcast, “Unashamed,” Phil’s sons Jase and Al Robertson have openly shared the raw and heartfelt journey of grieving their father’s loss with their listeners. Yet Jase recently revealed a deeply personal story he had held close — until now.

In the latest episode of “Unashamed,” Jase recounted a poignant, tearful moment that beautifully illustrates how God works in mysterious and profound ways.

“It seems unbelievable. I wouldn’t make this up because it’s kind of a heavy story,” he says.

When Phil was at the pinnacle of his fight against Alzheimer’s, Jase, trying to get his mind off his father’s waning condition, went to the driving range to hit a few golf balls.

“I was hitting the ball terribly because I hadn’t been playing golf,” he confesses.

Unbeknownst to him, the club’s multi-time champion was watching him. “I knew him but didn’t really know him,” Jase says, “and he’s like, ‘Do you want me to help you?’”

The two ended up playing nine holes together and exchanging phone numbers.

The very next day, however, Jase received a text message from a friend mourning the death of one of the golf club’s members.

The person who had died was none other than the man Jase had played with the day prior. “I was so shocked,” he says.

Life, as it does, moved on. Phil passed away on May 25, and after funeral arrangements and time to grieve with family, Jase continued recording podcasts and running Duck Commander.

Last week, however, Jase returned to the golf course. Little did he know that another strange encounter awaited him.

Jase, alone on a nearly empty course, suddenly got the feeling that he was “being watched.”

“I look and there’s a guy standing there … in the parking lot looking at me,” he says. “I said, ‘Hey, what’s going on?’ and he said, ‘What are you fixing to do?’ which I thought was a weird question. … I said, ‘I’m fixing to play nine holes,’ and he said, ‘Can I play with you?’”

Jase could see that the man was sad, and immediately he knew that this encounter wasn’t an accident. “I thought, this has got to be a God thing,” he says.

And it was.

The second the man got into Jase’s cart, he told him that his best friend of 35 years had died and that he hadn’t been able to play golf since.

His friend happened to be the man Jase had played golf with a few months prior.

“He said, ‘I’m into a routine where I go to his grave site and … then I come up here, and I just sit in the parking lot. … I know you just lost your dad, and I saw you walk across the parking lot, and I thought, well, maybe he can help me,”’ Jase recounts.

“It was an uncomfortable, weird conversation,” but “we talked about Jesus. We talked about life,” he says.

Right as they were finishing their game, a storm was blowing in. “I turned around and looked back at the fairway. It was the most spectacular rainbow you have ever seen in your life,” says Jase. “When he saw that rainbow, he just burst into tears.”

When they eventually parted ways, Jase was “overcome with emotion.”

“I thought, this is what God does,” he says, noting that the encounter hadn’t just been for the man who was grieving his friend — it was also for him.

“I think God sent him for me,” he says, “because it was probably the most I had talked about Phil in that way.”

To hear the full story from Jase, watch the episode above.

Want more from the Robertsons?

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

​Unashamed, Unashamed with phil robertson, Phil robertson, Jase robertson, Christianity, Phil robertson death, Blazetv, Blaze media 

“In America, we don’t do kings.” That was the message of the leftist protesters who swarmed the streets nationwide on June 14 in opposition to President Donald Trump and his agenda.

“Trump must go now!” they chanted, waving signs that likened the president to a dictator and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to his “Gestapo.” Their complaint was alleged despotism. But if Democrats really opposed authoritarianism, they wouldn’t be celebrating its emergence in the courts.

There are no kings in the United States — just a bunch of black-robed activists who seem to have forgotten the difference between ‘Your Honor’ and ‘Your Majesty.’

When U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani brazenly overstepped her authority on July 7 to block Congress from stripping Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid funding through the budget reconciliation bill — a clear usurpation of the legislative branch’s power of the purse — the response from the left wasn’t outrage. It was praise.

“Good,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote on X. “Democrats will never stop fighting this backdoor abortion ban from the Republicans.”

— (@)

Schumer’s apparent admission that Medicaid funds abortions aside, his comments also belie his party’s disingenuous indignation over supposed federal overreach.

Judges above the law

That selective outrage was on full display in April amid the arrest of a Wisconsin judge for allegedly escorting Eduardo Flores-Ruiz — an illegal immigrant who had previously been deported — out the back jury door of her courtroom to help him evade federal immigration authorities.

The ICE agents in question had a valid administrative warrant for Flores-Ruiz’s arrest, yet leftists railed against efforts to hold Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan to account for her alleged obstruction.

“By arresting a sitting judge over routine courthouse management, the Trump regime has signaled its eagerness to weaponize federal power against members of the judiciary who do not align with its political agenda,” writer Mitchell Sobieski fumed in a Milwaukee Independent op-ed.

If impeding federal law enforcement now qualifies as “routine courthouse management,” that’s a big problem.

Meanwhile, Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson, a Democrat, complained that the Trump administration was “scaring people” by enforcing federal immigration law.

“They’re scaring people in this community; they’re scaring people in immigrant communities all across the United States,” Johnson told reporters.

Never mind the law-abiding U.S. citizens who remain scared that their daughters, sisters, or mothers could be the next Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, or Rachel Morin — all victims of murderers in the country illegally.

Apparently, their fears are irrelevant.

As for Dugan, her claim that “judicial immunity” precludes her from being prosecuted for alleged obstruction of justice is as monarchical as it gets.

Judges are but one facet of the American justice system, and as Democrats loved reminding us all 15 minutes ago: “No one is above the law.”

Democrats love activist judges

Of course, Democrats’ lack of interest in reining in the judiciary is nothing new. After all, the Democratic Party has long relied on activist judges to impose its will on the American public.

With Roe v. Wade in 1973, liberals leveraged a sympathetic U.S. Supreme Court to force nearly a half-century of unregulated abortion onto a country that was — and still is — deeply divided on the procedure.

In 2015, leftists used the same playbook to mandate same-sex marriage nationwide via Obergefell v. Hodges.

In the age of Trump, however, judicial activism has become an even more flagrant problem.

Last year, then-candidate Trump was frequently forced to split his time between the campaign trail and the courtroom as he fended off contrived criminal indictments and lawsuits, nearly all of which were conveniently presided over by liberal judges.

RELATED: Rogue anti-Trump judges obliterated by SCOTUS’ landmark ruling

Liudmila Chernetska via iStock/Getty Images

At the same time, radical judges in Colorado and Illinois, along with Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, attempted to strip voters of their right to decide the presidential election by removing Trump’s name from the ballot.

Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to quash that authoritarian plot. Unfortunately for the justices, it’s a move they’ve had to repeat several times since the president’s inauguration in January.

In a line of cases challenging Trump’s policy pursuits, rogue district court judges have issued sweeping injunctions blocking him from implementing his agenda nationwide in cases without a class certification — a practice that the Supreme Court has lately admonished as “likely” judicial overreach.

Still, lower-court judges are finding other ways to overstep their authority. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, for example, appears to have decided that his court, not the nation’s high court, reigns supreme in the land.

Monarchy reaches the highest court

Even after the U.S. Supreme Court lifted Murphy’s nationwide block on third-country deportations in June, Murphy continued to insist that the Trump administration allow six illegal immigrant defendants to challenge their removal before deporting them to a third-party country.

That move even rankled liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who had initially sided with Murphy.

“I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed,” Kagan wrote, concurring with the majority that the deportations could proceed.

Yet not even the top court is immune to political activism, it seems.

In her dissent from the court’s ruling against blanket injunctions, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, described the majority’s decision as “profoundly dangerous.” In her view, containing temporary judicial relief to those requesting it somehow grants the president “unchecked, arbitrary power” and “undermines our constitutional system.”

Jackson’s words were acrimonious enough that Justice Amy Coney Barrett included a stinging rebuke in the court’s ruling.

“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary.”

An imperial judiciary, indeed!

No, there are no kings in the United States — just a bunch of black-robed activists who seem to have forgotten the difference between “Your Honor” and “Your Majesty.”

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

​Opinion & analysis, Judges, No kings, Donald trump, Supreme court, Constitution, Checks and balances, Judiciary, Executive branch, Judicial supremacy, Nationwide injunctions, Obergefell v. hodges, Roe v. wade, Judicial activism, Monarch, Amy coney barrett, Ketanji brown jackson, Elena kagan, Imperial presidency, Imperial judiciary, Chuck schumer, Planned parenthood, One big beautiful bill, Brian murphy, Rogue judges, Eduardo flores-ruiz, Milwaukee, Cavalier johnson, Hannah dugan, Obstruction, Immigration and customs enforcement 

The American Enterprise Institute is an unlikely place to be reminded of why Donald Trump was necessary 10 years ago and is no less needed now. But a comment by Yuval Levin on a recent AEI panel succinctly brought out the difference Trump has made. Criticizing today’s populist, Trump-led Republican Party, Levin said, “The right has to ground its approach to the public in a more conservative message, in a sense that this country is awesome. It is not a festering, burning garbage pile — that is a strange way to talk to the next generation, and it’s not true, even a little bit.”

Trump has never used the words “festering, burning garbage pile,” but he’s used similarly strong language to describe America’s condition in this century under administrations other than his own. Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” implies that America hasn’t been great lately, although he and his voters can change that. Whenever Trump alludes to what Levin calls “a festering, burning garbage pile,” he’s referring to the poor leadership our country has suffered from in the not-too-distant past and the results of its misgovernance.

Trump’s task is clear: Restore the people’s power over the elite. Only then will the elite feel compelled to reform.

But that’s not what Levin or other AEI types hear. To them, Trump’s criticisms of the ruling class sound like criticisms of the country.

He upended the system

It would be unfair to guess that Levin simply believes the nation’s elite and the institutions they run are what count as the country itself, but there are precedents for such a view. In traditional monarchies and aristocracies, the rulers are the embodiment of the realm. Our Declaration of Independence was quite radical in breaking away from that understanding, asserting that the people are the realm and that all its institutions are answerable to them, not the other way around.

Levin and other intelligent non-populist conservatives know this, and they’re well aware of the failings of the pre-Trump Republican Party and the country’s political establishment as a whole. But knowing and feeling are different things.

Much of what survives of the pre-Trump conservative movement even now feels that the virtues rather than the vices of the old elite (and the institutions with which they are almost synonymous) ought to be emphasized.

For reasons that are easy to understand, many temperamental conservatives have an abiding fear of demagogues and an irreverent public. However corrupt or incompetent Ivy League-educated leaders may be, they should not be criticized too harshly — likened to flaming rubbish, for example — lest Ivy League education itself be stripped of its mystique. That mystique is part of the decent drapery of republican life, instilling a proper attitude of deference among the public toward those who have the education and lifestyle preparation to lead them.

From the moment he came down the escalator a decade ago, Trump upended this system. He pays no heed to the norms that distinguish America’s leadership class from the rabble the way noble bloodlines distinguished leadership in traditional hierarchical societies.

Elite confusion

Trump draws strength from the weakness of America’s elites and the widening public awareness of their vices. This is why, again and again, he has been rewarded for violating the very norms the elites consider sacrosanct, even to the point of winning the Republican nomination and then the White House last year despite a slew of criminal convictions and many more pending charges.

In three consecutive elections, Trump has not offered voters only a choice of leaders but a choice between systems of government. The capaciousness of our republican Constitution is such that within its framework, more than one kind of regime is possible. The “informal regime” can be considered the regime of society as well as government, or a regime that in operation reflects the real dispensation of authority within the country.

Most Americans have sadly little familiarity with even the letter of the written Constitution, and even most educated Americans have never entertained the thought of an informal regime. Much of the country’s elite (think about the typical writer for the Atlantic, for example) suffers paroxysms of panic over Trump’s words and actions because its members conceive of the informal regime under which they’ve lived their whole lives — and under which people like themselves flourish — as being the only natural outcome of the written Constitution.

RELATED: Trump isn’t hiding a client list — he’s too busy saving the country

Bonnie Cash/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images

To violate the “norms” of this regime is to violate the Constitution itself, as far as their understanding can conceive.

It’s rare that voters get to make a choice not just between candidates but between regimes. The greater and lesser George Bush, the male and female Clinton, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris all represented the same regime and norms. Trump differs from them all not only in policy but in the relationships he represents between the people, elected power, and institutional elites (both inside and outside government).

They delegitimized themselves

Trump at last gave the American people a choice of regimes, with one regime — represented by his enemies, not just in the general election but in the Republican Party, too — operating on aristocratic presumptions and the other being a reassertion of popular self-government, including its characteristic parrhesia and even vulgarity.

Crude materialists who understand power only in terms of wealth struggle to interpret Trump, because he and many of his associates obviously belong to the same affluent class as his enemies. Yet just as Christ said the poor will always be with us, so too does every regime, formal or informal, have its rich men. The regime is not defined by the existence of a wealthy group; it’s rather about relationships and authority, and that is what Trump has changed.

This change was necessary because the old regime had already destroyed its own legitimacy. It performed poorly for millions of ordinary Americans, but beyond that, it had also grown arrogant. Its norms were not a limitation on its power or abuses but rather a gag stifling criticism from within or below.

The new regime that’s in the making will have its own defects and will need various corrections, but the test of a regime lies precisely in its ability to correct itself. The old elite had lost that ability and would hardly have had the will to exercise the capability even if it had still been there.

Trump is not a revolutionary who has overthrown a healthy order. Rather, he, like the American revolutionaries of 250 years ago, has given the people a chance to be healthy again by ridding themselves of a debilitating regime. Americans had been tricked into living under an aristocracy within the form of a democracy.

Against the phony aristocracy

Thomas Jefferson hoped that voters would freely choose natural aristocrats — leaders of wisdom, virtue, and ability. But in recent decades, the country fell under the rule of an aristocracy against nature: a self-perpetuating elite that governed through institutions immune to the ballot box. Universities, nonprofits, media outlets, the permanent bureaucracy, judges, and political operatives in both parties — each aligned ideologically, broadly liberal — formed a web of power that shut down any real challenge.

Until Trump.

He offered the people a radical choice, and they took it. They rejected the aristocracy.

If America’s ruling class had actually resembled the natural aristocrats Jefferson envisioned, the people might not have turned to Trump. But the elite they faced was an aristocracy of privilege: smug mediocrities, not public-spirited heroes or genuine geniuses. Swapping one set of insiders for another would have changed nothing. Trump gave them a worthwhile alternative.

Even conservatives like Yuval Levin — who value the role of a well-formed elite in a healthy republic — should recognize this moment. America can only return to true aristocracy, the kind America’s founders hoped for, by becoming more democratic and more populist. The people must want an elite — and they will only want one that serves them faithfully, competently, and without arrogance.

Trump’s task is clear: Restore the people’s power over the elite. Only then will the elite feel compelled to reform.

That path won’t destroy American institutions. It will save them.

Editor’s note: A version of this article was published originally at the American Mind.

​Opinion & analysis, Donald trump, Maga, First six months, Trump administration, America first, Thomas jefferson, Elites, American enterprise institute, Yuval levin, American mind, Joe biden, Kamala harris, Mitt romney, John kerry, Barack obama, Bob dole, John mccain, Institutions, Administrative state, Deep state, Constitution, Elections, Choice 

Bombshell evidence has come out surrounding many top Democrats’ apparent obstruction of the 2016 election. According to Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, this “overwhelming evidence” shows that the Obama administration “politicized and weaponized” intelligence surrounding the Trump-Russia hoax in 2016.

This had led many Republican leaders to feel vindicated nearly 10 years since what some are calling a “conspiracy.”

‘The Panel was fantastic on prosecuting Obama and the “thugs” who have just been unequivocally exposed on highest level Election Fraud.’

On Friday, Gabbard told Fox News that the documents she was declassifying showed evidence of a “treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government.”

“These documents detail a treasonous conspiracy by officials at the highest levels of the Obama White House to subvert the will of the American people and try to usurp the President from fulfilling his mandate,” she likewise posted to X.

RELATED: BREAKING: Bombshell documents referred to DOJ expose Obama’s direct role in Russia hoax

– YouTube youtube.com

On Saturday, President Donald Trump commended Gabbard for her historic release of these documents. Trump also singled out former President Obama in his response to the news of the declassification of these documents — and even mentioned the idea of “prosecuting” him.

“Great job by young and talented Harrison Fields on FoxNews [sic]. The Panel was fantastic on prosecuting Obama and the ‘thugs’ who have just been unequivocally exposed on highest level Election Fraud. Congratulations to Tulsi Gabbard. Keep it coming!!!” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Saturday evening.

Shortly after posting that message, Trump also reposted a clip of Gabbard’s interview on Fox News. In the post, he quoted Gabbard: “We had, in President Obama and his leadership team, people who did not want to accept the will of the American people in electing Donald Trump in 2016 — and therefore cooked up this treasonous conspiracy to…effectively launch a years-long coup against the sitting President of the United States.”

Trump posted another Fox video clip in which this story was called a “blockbuster scandal.”

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

​Politics, Trump, Tulsi gabbard, Obama, Foxnews, President trump, Russia hoax, Director of national intelligence, Russiagate 

This July marks the 100th anniversary of one of the most consequential legal and cultural battles in American history: the Scopes “Monkey” Trial.

Held in 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee, the trial centered on the teaching of Darwinian evolution in public schools. But its implications reached far beyond the small-town courtroom. A century later, the trial remains deeply relevant — not just for Tennessee but for the entire nation.

The loss of God in our schools has led to the loss of purpose in the hearts of many young people.

Why? Because the heart of the trial wasn’t just about curriculum — it was about worldview.

When John Scopes was charged with violating Tennessee’s Butler Act for teaching that humans descended from lower animals, the case became a flashpoint in a larger war over truth. The debate wasn’t about scientific inquiry; it was about whether our children should be taught that their lives are the result of random chance or divine design.

Darwinian evolution strips humanity of inherent worth. It reduces people to mere products of an unguided, purposeless process. For generations now, our public education system has promoted this theory as settled fact, conditioning students to view themselves as nothing more than advanced animals with no higher calling or creator.

This is not just a scientific discussion — it’s a spiritual crisis.

Genesis 1:27 highlights the truth of mankind’s origin, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Despite this truth that once shaped our nation, children are now taught that their origins are accidental, that morality is relative, and that there’s no divine image imprinted on their being.

The result of this leads to the heartbreaking reality of anxiety, identity confusion, and hopelessness. The loss of God in our schools has led to the loss of purpose in the hearts of many young people.

RELATED: The Scopes Monkey Trial at 100: Who really won?

altmodern/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Even with our nation’s stray from truth in public school systems, Tennessee has once again stepped into the national conversation. But this time, with a new kind of clarity.

In 2012, Tennessee passed legislation informally known as the “Monkey Bill.” Contrary to how it’s often portrayed, the bill doesn’t ban the teaching of evolution, yet, it encourages critical thinking among students. The law allows teachers the freedom to help students analyze and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories, including evolution.

In short, it affirms that students have the right to question. To debate. To think.

This is an important shift. Since the deviation of biblical truth, evolutionary theory has been treated as sacred dogma in our schools, protected from scrutiny or alternative viewpoints. The 2012 bill creates space for inquiry — not indoctrination. It gives students the freedom to explore other explanations for human origins, including intelligent design and biblical creation.

Tennessee is not alone.

Across the country, more parents, teachers, and lawmakers are beginning to ask: Are we really offering students a full picture of science? Or are we force-feeding them a worldview that excludes God by default?

The Scopes Trial is no longer just a historical milestone — it is a mirror, reflecting how far we’ve drifted from the foundational truths that once guided this nation. We’ve traded the biblical truth that we were created in God’s image for a theory that says we’re cosmic accidents. And the fruit of that trade has been bitter.

It’s time to return to the truth.

We must fight to protect our children from ideologies that deny their worth, confuse their identity, and distance them from their creator. We were not made by chance. We were created by God, in His image, with purpose and dignity. That truth must once again be allowed in our classrooms — and in our culture.

A hundred years after Dayton, the battle continues. But so does the opportunity to stand for truth. Let us not waste it.

​1925, Christianity, Christians, Darwin, Darwinism, Evolution, Genesis, God, Scopes monkey trial, Scopes trial, Tennessee, Faith 

Since around 2020, Washington, D.C., and seven states have opened their health care programs to illegal aliens. However, since President Trump’s administration began, some states have abruptly changed their policy positions.

According to the Associated Press, California, Illinois, and Minnesota, all heavily Democrat-run states, have announced that they will be scaling back or ending their Medicaid programs for illegal aliens.

‘When we looked at the state budget, the dollars were not there to support what was passed and what was being spent.’

Illinois will begin slashing its Medicaid availability immediately for illegal immigrants ages 42-64 for an estimated $404 million in savings.

Minnesota likewise will be ending the program for adult illegal immigrants immediately. It is estimated that the state will save $57 million with this policy change.

RELATED: Pushing back against the big Medicaid lie

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images

Minnesota Speaker Lisa Demuth (R) said that the health care program was not sustainable in her state.

“It wasn’t about trying to be non-compassionate or not caring about people,” she said, according to the AP. “When we looked at the state budget, the dollars were not there to support what was passed and what was being spent.”

Illegal alien adults in Minnesota will still have the option of purchasing health insurance, Demuth said.

California, on the other hand, will stop enrolling adult illegal immigrants into its program in 2026, which will save the state more than $3 billion over several years.

Health officials estimate that roughly 200,000 illegal aliens will lose health coverage in California when the program cuts take effect next year. However, Governor Gavin Newsom (D) reportedly maintains that the state still provides the most expansive health care coverage for poor adults.

Health care providers have pointed to the increasing number of immigration raids by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency as a contributing factor of changing patient behavior. Fears of deportation have decreased the number of regular health care visits from illegal aliens.

This change in policy in blue states comes in light of the broader deportation efforts by the Trump administration, which has reversed many of the immigration policies of the Biden administration.

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

​Politics, Medicaid, California, Illegal aliens, Medicaid cuts, Gavin newsom, Ice, Mass deportations 

Dear Chip and Joanna,

I have been thankful for you and your family for years now. When it felt like America was sliding into the moral swamp, you presented a fun vision of a Christian family in the home renovation world. In entertainment terms, you have created a remarkable blend of humor, authenticity, and craftsmanship. You are loved around the world, for good reason.

God does a lot of demo. But this is loving demo — demo that changes us for his glory and our good.

Many of us have marveled at all that you have created and built in Waco, Texas. This includes a ton of Christian families. We’ve prayed for you, cheered for you, and visited your famous complex in Waco. We’ve supported you amid different trials you’ve faced publicly, and we’ve been thankful to our great God that you did not compromise on your shows by featuring visions of the family owing to paganism, not Scripture.

Which is why the new show on Magnolia Network called “Back to the Frontier” has troubled many of us.

“Back to the Frontier” features a same-sex couple among the three featured “families” going back to the land. This couple could not have children in natural terms, of course, so they bought their children through surrogacy, a wholly unnatural form of family creation. (By the way, Katy Faust is a faithful evangelical voice on surrogacy — check out this content and website.)

Just as “Fixer Upper” celebrated the God-designed natural family, so “Back to the Frontier” sadly platforms the unnatural “family.” The same-sex couple in question, Jason Hanna and Joe Riggs, said as much in a recent interview: “It was this great amazing opportunity to normalize same-sex couples and same-sex families.” This is the opposite effect that “Fixer Upper” has had over the years.

Chip, you seem like a fun and affable man. As a fellow father, I love that you are full of life. You’re joyful. You love your wife and children. You enjoy time with them. You work hard. You’re extremely skilled in your work, which is cool to see in a lazy age. You and your wife both model excellence in your craft, which stands out in our lazy, low-skill, low-ambition age.

In addition, I’ve watched you handle the dreaded “change order” more times than I can count — shifting structures, rebuilding walls, changing light fixtures, and other such last-minute tweaks. You regularly roll with these requests, doing so calmly, graciously, and with good cheer. You do so, in part, because the finished product is often all the better. Things looked great before, but your gifted wife’s sharp-eyed changes look all the better as you two improve what was already strong.

RELATED: Chip Gaines tells us not to judge — but we won’t pretend any more

Nathan Congleton/NBC via Getty Images

With regard to “Back to the Frontier,” I believe — in the simplest terms — that we need a change order. For what little it’s worth, here is my humble encouragement: Consider pulling “Back to the Frontier.” I don’t say this in anger. I don’t say it to threaten you with the loss of money from the “family-friendly” crowd. I don’t say it from the peaks of Moral Mount Olympus.

No, I write this as a fellow sinner redeemed by the grace of God in Christ. As Christians, we cannot play any part in normalizing sin. We know that sin is not freedom, but death. We know that there are not many ways to God, but one, and his name is Jesus Christ. We know that what our culture yells at us to affirm — namely sin of every kind, including sexual sin — only leads to eternal destruction (Revelation 21:8).

In saying this, I should note that you were right in your recent X statements to call for love among believers. No doubt convictional Christians can sometimes speak without love, me included. Further, “gentleness and respect” are non-negotiable in disagreement, you’re right (1 Peter 3:15). I’m sure you’ve felt the sting of ungentle speech many times as a public figure; I have real compassion for that.

But we’ve got to think hard about how Scripture handles love in a fallen world. You know this passage, but it bears restating: “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:4-6).

Love, Paul says, “rejoices with the truth.” Should we love unbelievers of all kinds, showing kindness to them as much as we can? Yes. Does this include same-sex couples? Absolutely. But can we love them in a way that affirms their sin? We dare not. Doing so is not loving because of Scripture’s clear witness on the sinfulness of homosexual desire, identity, and action per texts like Romans 1:18-32 (here is one short resource on this controversial subject).

In an evil age, we need to celebrate what God celebrates. God brought Eve to Adam as portrayed in Genesis 2, founding the family by their marriage. Everything is built upon this. The natural family alone — one man married to one woman for life, with children coming from this union — honors God.

Not only this, but marriage is a living picture of the gospel. Christ has taken a bride for himself, the church, giving his own blood for our salvation (Ephesians 5:22-33). So we see that complementarian marriage is not only honoring to God on earth, but points us ahead, to the end of all things, the undoing of all evil and the wiping away of every tear (Revelation 22).

In noting all this, Chip, I am not condemning you and your wife as the only professing believers ever to err. Every Christian fails, me very much included. Every Christian stumbles (James 3:2). You and Joanna have no doubt weathered a great deal; you have taken a lot of heat, and I genuinely empathize with you. But compassion, we remember, isn’t compromise — just as love is not affirmation.

My prayer in writing this humble little piece is that you will consider these words. In truth, we all must hit the “restart” button at different points in our lives. As Christians, it’s not just that we try to adapt a little in such instances, honing our conversational habits and improving our table manners. No, there’s something much bigger going on: It’s the refining work of our holy God.

We break stuff, but God rebuilds us — often through the experience of pain (Hebrews 12:3-13). Even as God disciplines and redirects us, however, Scripture teaches us that he is not a severe heavenly Father. He is patient, kind, and loving beyond comprehension. God is not only willing to forgive us when we break stuff; God loves to forgive us (Jeremiah 31:3).

You could put it this way: Like you, Chip, God does a lot of demo. But this is loving demo — demo that changes us for his glory and our good. With that in mind, please know that I’m praying for you and Joanna, Chip. I’m cheering for you. In faith in our great God, I believe that this is not the last page of the last chapter of the book.

To put it differently: It’s a great day for a change order.

Best,
Owen Strachan

This article was adapted from an essay originally published on Owen Strachan’s Substack, To Reenchant The World.

​Back to the frontier, Bible, Chip gaines, Christianity, Christians, God, Jesus, Joanna gaines, Lgbtq agenda, Open letter, Faith 

Pornography is having a moment — and not in the way purveyors of pornography would like.

As a matter of fact, the foundations of the commercial sex industry are starting to disintegrate. Exhibit A: In a historic decision last month, the Supreme Court upheld the Texas age verification law protecting children from easily accessing harmful pornography online.

Pornography sites built their empires, in no small part, by allowing, encouraging, and profiting from the distribution of image-based sexual abuse material on their platforms.

It’s proof the tide is finally turning against the pornography industry.

States are pushing back against the sexual abuse and exploitation found on pornography sites like Pornhub, XVideos, and others by passing legislative solutions like age verification, device filter legislation, and the App Store Accountability Act to curb children’s access to content that is harmful to them. Surely, with the Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of age verification, more states are likely to follow.

A Kansas mother recently filed lawsuits against four pornography sites for allegedly failing to implement age verification on their websites as required by Kansas law.

The European Union, meanwhile, is investigating Pornhub, XVideos, XNXX, and Stripchat for allegedly failing to protect children from accessing their sites in violation of the Digital Services Act.

People are waking up to the reality of pornography’s acute harm — especially to children who have had way-too-easy access to online pornography. It’s encouraging to see that government officials are taking a stand to protect children.

Online pornography is a powerful stimulus that is disruptive to children’s development and contributes to numerous harms including vulnerability to sexual victimization, child-on-child harmful sexual behaviors, high-risk sexual behaviors, and compulsive sexual behaviors. It disrupts the natural formation of children’s sexual arousal templates.

RELATED: Children win: Supreme Court slaps down Big Porn — putting kids before profit

TheCrimsonRibbon/iStock/Getty Images Plus

And despite claims to the contrary, pornography is also harmful to adults.

A recent report from the Guardian revealed that pornography website algorithms take users to more extreme material, desensitizing them and spurring their escalation to child sexual abuse material and acting out what they see on real children.

The report illustrates some of the reasons pornography is harmful.

In England and Wales, 850 men a month are arrested for online child abuse offenses. They come from every walk of life: teachers, police officers, bus drivers, doctors. Those on the front line are warning of another alarming trend: a significant shift towards younger offenders among those picked up for watching illegal material. Now, police, charities, lawyers and child protection experts are asking what is driving this tidal wave of offending and finding one common thread: the explosion over the past 10 to 20 years of free-to-view and easily accessible online pornography. Material so violent it would have been considered highly extreme a generation ago is now readily available on iPads, desktops and the phones in teenagers’ pockets. A growing body of research is beginning to warn of how problematic porn habits can be a pathway into viewing images of children being abused.

Contrast this with the pornography industry’s claims that porn isn’t harmful, and it becomes ominously apparent whose side the truth is on.

Mainstream pornography sites like Pornhub have hosted child sexual abuse material, sexual assault, rape, image-based sexual abuse, nonconsensual content, and content with violent and racist themes.

Pornography sites built their empires, in no small part, by allowing, encouraging, and profiting from the distribution of image-based sexual abuse material on their platforms, according to a new report released by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation.

One woman was shocked to find out that videos of her were non-consensually uploaded to Pornhub by a former boyfriend. One of the videos had her name attached to it and garnered millions of views.

By encouraging users to upload “free” pornography, these sites get enormous traffic to their platforms that remains the basis of the industry’s profitability and incentivizes them to ignore blatant image-based sexual abuse and child sexual abuse material on their platforms.

Legislative solutions like the Take It Down Act, recently signed into law, will help those who have been victimized by the uploading of image-based sexual abuse, mandating its removal within 48 hours.

The pornography industry is on defense, as it should be. Cracks in its exploitative foundation are widening, and it’s time for the whole system of exploitation to finally crumble.

​Pornography, Pornography ban, Porn, Supreme court, Xxx 

Back in June, police dashcam video revealed the moment when three females climbed atop a cruiser belonging to the Richmond Heights, Ohio, police department and engaged in a twerking dance — with the officer inside the vehicle, WOIO-TV reported.

Detective Evan Wright noted to the station last week that “a group of females walked by the cruiser … one of them climbed up on the push bumper and began to dance. … And then another two females … climbed up on the side of the car.”

‘I used to play a song by the Staple Singers — “Respect Yourself” — and it says, in part, respect yourself, ‘cuz if you don’t, ain’t nobody gonna give a hoot about you. Respect yourself. Go listen to the song.’

The detective appeared in WOIO’s video report with the vehicle in question, pointing out “a small dent and a little crease here. … We didn’t decide to fix that at this point in time. And then there was a pretty significant scratch that was about, probably, from here to here.”

RELATED: Dumb twerking teens caught on video vandalizing business. Dumber still? Gang symbols carved into cars lead to arrest.

The station said police were able to identify two of three women with help from the Northeast Ohio Regional Fusion Center using facial recognition software called Clearview AI. Blaze News reported that similar technology was used in a Florida arrest last month.

Police added to WOIO that the software also searches social media accounts and other databases to confirm identities.

Wright sent a message to the females in the station’s video, saying “there’s warrants out for your arrests. You might as well come turn yourself in and get the ball rolling on your court case here. … You’re going to get picked up at some point.”

The WOIO reporter in the video, Harry Boomer, at the end of the clip added a bit of advice for the females: “I say this as an old disc jockey. I used to play a song by the Staple Singers — ‘Respect Yourself‘ — and it says, in part, respect yourself, ‘cuz if you don’t, ain’t nobody gonna give a hoot about you. Respect yourself. Go listen to the song.”

Blaze News on Friday afternoon spoke to Detective Wright, who indicated that all three females now have been identified — but they still haven’t turned themselves in.

Wright told Blaze News the females in question are:

26-year-old Christa Crutchfield — “the lady who first climbed up” on the cruiser;21-year-old Juilya Taylor — “the woman who stood on the hood”;23-year-old Gionni Barnes — the female who briefly kneeled atop the cruiser’s hood.

Wright told Blaze News that all three women are charged with criminal damaging and riot; the charges are misdemeanors.

He added to Blaze News that they actually can call police to get their bond amounts, come in for booking, pay the bonds, and get released the same day. It’s a scenario that Wright told Blaze News would be “better for them” — as opposed to police picking them up on traffic stops.

The WOIO anchor who introduced the station’s video said that while twerking has been around “for decades,” viewers probably have never seen twerking done atop police cars.

Well, Blaze News has documented a couple of cases of that very act.

VIDEO: Women twerk atop Chicago police SUV while it’s moving. Cops say they’re investigating; observers say it’s disgusting.Outrageous video: Females twerk on hood of police cruiser as cop crosses his arms and watches

Of course, twerking also has taken place amid other less-than-savory scenarios:

‘Hail Satan!’ Spitting, twerking, violent pro-abortion mob descends upon pro-life group at collegeOutrage erupts over viral video of young child twerking while crowd applauds on NYC street: ‘This is beyond sick.’VIDEO: Juneteenth revelers twerk, pose on top of ambulance coming to help at deadly shooting sceneTwo males knocked out cold by same thug on busy Chicago street — and at least 5 females seem to respond by twerking in front of traffic

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

​Twerking, Females, Arrest warrants, Damaging police vehicle, Facial recognition technology, Ai, Police dashcam video, Criminal damaging charges, Riot charges, Misdemeanors, Richmond heights police department, Ohio, Crime 

Founder of the Dream Center in Los Angeles Matthew Barnett has been on the front lines of the homelessness crisis for the past few decades — and what he’s discovered should change the way we view, and attempt to help, the homeless.

“What have you learned about homelessness during these 30 years? What do you think a lot of people just don’t understand about it?” BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” asks.

“Every testimony we have at church — we have a four-minute testimony every church service, from somebody whose life has been transformed,” Barnett explains.

“90% of every testimony says, ‘My parents went through a divorce,’ or there’s some family breakdown, and that became the traumatizing event that put them in that situation.”

In addition to the family breakdown, Barnett believes that “the culture of drugs” and “openness to everything” has created “a culture where people just think it’s friendly to become addicted to drugs.

“But the breakdown of the family always seems to be the core issue when people are talking about a traumatic event that sent them into a situation or a negative spiral,” he tells Stuckey.

While mainstream discussion around homelessness is politically charged and full of debates surrounding policy, Stuckey has also noticed that it doesn’t seem like political changes hold any answers.

“It doesn’t really seem like in most cities, including in Los Angeles, that we’re going in the right direction,” she tells Barnett.

“Oh, we’re spending so much money — it’s unbelievable — on homelessness,” Barnett says of the city.

“It costs us $7,500 a year to house someone, rehabilitate them, educate them. It costs like $175,000 a year to incarcerate them or deal with the issues of homelessness per person.

“So there’s no accountability. There’s no reason for people to really grow,” he continues.

“It would almost be better if you gave everyone $10,000 to rebuild their life who went through a one-year, structured faith-based type of program.

“But there’s just no incentive to change. There’s no incentive for people to want to go forward. We’re trying to legislate something that is dealing with the heart,” he 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.

​Video, Camera phone, Video phone, Upload, Free, Sharing, Youtube.com, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Relatable, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Homelessness epidemic, Homelessness crisis, Homeless, Los ángeles homeless, The dream center, Matthew barnett 

There is an editorial genre kept alive at liberal publications around the country that is focused on questions about what to do with conservative kin and how best to prevent family members from similarly adopting viewpoints at odds with leftist values.

The HuffPost, for instance, published a long-winded essay from a stereotypical Bluesky progressive about whether she should cut her “right-wing, Trump-loving in-laws out of [her] kids’ lives.”

New York magazine ran an essay last year from a mother of white boys expressing terror over their potential slide to the right and over “having a flesh-and-blood oppressor-in-training eating [her] spaghetti and meatballs.”

The Delaware News Journal published an open letter in December in which the former president of the Delaware teachers’ union defended the decision to ditch Trump-supporting family members, claiming that “it comes from a deep sense of betrayal, a need to preserve our mental and emotional well-being, and the refusal to stay silent in the face of harm.”

Obama speechwriter David Litt recently contributed to the genre with a piece in the New York Times titled “Is It Time to Stop Snubbing Your Right-Wing Family?”

Litt ultimately answered yes, that “keeping the door open to unlikely friendship isn’t a betrayal of principles — it’s an affirmation of them.”

RELATED: CDC knew the COVID jab was dangerous — and pushed it anyway

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

However, prior to signaling his beneficence, Litt provided Times readers with a reminder both of the elitism that has helped the Democratic Party alienate much of the electorate and of Democrats’ chronic abuse of those who failed to fall in line during the pandemic.

At the outset, Obama’s former speechwriter noted that he “felt a civic duty to be rude” to his wife’s younger brother.

“He lifted weights to death metal; I jogged to Sondheim. I was one of President Barack Obama’s speechwriters and had an Ivy League degree; he was a huge Joe Rogan fan and went on to get his electrician’s license,” wrote Litt.

Although the speechwriter did not dwell on these differences, they appear to fit thematically with voters’ understanding reflected in a poll recently conducted by the Democratic super PAC Unite the Country — namely that the Democratic Party is “out of touch,” “woke,” and “weak.”

According to Litt, the imagined chasm between him and his conservative brother-in-law grew during the pandemic, particularly when the in-law refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine — a decision that various studies and recent warnings from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have vindicated, especially when it comes to healthy men.

‘It felt like he was tearing up the social contract that, until that point, I’d imagined we shared.’

The Ivy League Democrat admitted that had the man “been a friend rather than a family member, I probably would have cut off contact completely.”

Although Litt did not end up cutting off his brother-in-law, he indicated that he was for a period of time strategically unfriendly, claiming that such treatment of the unvaccinated “felt like the right thing to do” — a tactic then advocated in the pages of USA Today.

Democrats at the time were apparently willing to go far beyond unfriendliness in their efforts to bring the unvaccinated to heel.

In a Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of 1,016 likely voters conducted in January 2022, pollsters asked, “Would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose a proposal to limit the spread of the coronavirus by having federal or state governments require that citizens temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine?”

Whereas 71% of all voters — and 84% of Republicans — signaled opposition to throwing the unvaccinated in quarantine camps, 45% of Democrats said they strongly or somewhat favored the proposal.

According to the same poll, 48% of Democrats supported federal or state governments fining or imprisoning Americans who questioned the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines on social media, TV, radio, or in digital publications.

The same month that nearly half of polled Democrats expressed a desire to see their fellow citizens locked up for wrongthink or tossed into camps for avoiding an experimental vaccine, the Los Angeles Times ran a piece suggesting it was “not necessarily the wrong reaction” to “celebrate or exult in the deaths of vaccine opponents.”

“Turning down a vaccine during a pandemic seemed like a rejection of science and self-preservation,” wrote Litt. “It felt like he was tearing up the social contract that, until that point, I’d imagined we shared.”

RELATED: Polling reveals: Whatever Democrats are doing, it ain’t working

Photo by Jim Vondruska/Getty Images

While certain that conservatives will continue to be shunned over the MAGA agenda — in particular over President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown and over Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s reform of the medical establishment — Litt questioned the efficacy of Democrat cancel culture, suggesting that “it’s counterproductive.”

In what might be the most telling sentence in the piece, Obama’s Democratic speechwriter characterized as “radical” the notion that individuals can like each other despite disapproving of each other’s political choices.

More in Common, a research outfit that studies social division, noted in a 2019 study concerning the root causes of political polarization that “Americans have a deeply distorted understanding of each other. We call this America’s ‘Perception Gap.'”

According to More in Common, Democrats have a much wider perception gap, “likely because they have fewer Republican friends.” The likelihood of Democrats reporting most of their friends sharing the same political beliefs increases depending on their level of educational attainment, whereas the likelihood remains flat for Republicans.

Although he claimed shunning family with opposing views wasn’t worthwhile, Litt made sure to indicate that ostracizing strangers was still okay, claiming he’d avoid White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on account of his supposed “odiousness.”

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

​Obama, David litt, Litt, New york times, Liberal, Media, Democratic, Democrat, Intolerance, Poll, Elitism, Politics 

A “chaotic scene” broke out in Los Angeles early Saturday morning when a man drove through a crowd standing outside a nightclub.

At approximately 2:00 a.m. Pacific Time, a man drove into a crowd waiting outside a club called the Vermont Hollywood on the crowded Santa Monica Boulevard in East Hollywood. At least 30 people were injured in the incident.

‘The car stopped once it hit the hot dog stand; it got stuck there. If not, I wouldn’t be here to tell [the story].’

“They were all standing in line going into a nightclub. There was a taco cart out there, so they were … getting some food, waiting to go in. And there’s also a valet line there,” Fire Captain Adam VanGerpen said in a statement. “The valet podium was taken out, the taco truck was taken out, and then a large number of people were impacted by the vehicle.”

“This really was a horrific scene, just because all of these people are coming out to have a good time,” VanGerpen told KTLA. “They’re waiting in line and then a vehicle comes and drives through them, so it was a chaotic scene, but we also saw people showing their best. … People with broken legs were being assisted by people they never met before.”

RELATED: Tragic explosion claims lives of elite Los Angeles sheriff’s deputies: ‘Very active crime scene’

– YouTube youtu.be

CNN reported that the allegedly intoxicated driver, after crashing through the crowd and hitting a taco stand and valet podium, was surrounded by a crowd, assaulted, and shot. He was taken to the hospital to be treated while in police custody. The suspected shooter fled the scene on foot with police in pursuit.

The suspect shooter, who has not been identified, was described by LAPD as “a Hispanic male, approximately 5 feet, 9 inches tall, 180 pounds, bald, wearing a blue jersey, and possibly armed with a silver revolver.”

Witness Maria Madrano, who was working at a food stand nearby, reported that a fight had broken out outside the club prior to the incident. “The car stopped once it hit the hot dog stand; it got stuck there,” Medrano told the Associated Press from the hospital. “If not, I wouldn’t be here to tell [the story].”

Fox News reported that there were seven victims in critical condition, six in serious condition, and 19 in fair condition, as well as seven who refused transport to the hospital.

“This is a heartbreaking tragedy,” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said in a statement Saturday morning, according to CNN. “I want to thank the more than 100 LAFD and LAPD personnel who responded to the scene to help to save lives. The hearts of Angelenos are with all of the victims impacted this morning — a full investigation into what happened is underway.”

According to reports, 124 LAFD personnel responded to the scene. The investigation into the incident remains ongoing.

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

​Politics, Los angeles, Lapd, East hollywood, Santa monica boulevard, Vermont hollywood, Nightclub 

The 2024 ESPY Awards ended Wednesday night with bright lights, political speeches, and corporate jingles — but not a single “Thank God.”

From the Dolby Theatre stage to the post-show press scrum, winners thanked coaches, trainers, parents, and activists. The Author of Every Talent didn’t even make the credits. The omission wasn’t just noticeable — it felt deliberate. And for those of us who still believe sports can lift our eyes toward Heaven, the silence thundered.

God is still in the game, because we the people keep inviting Him.

Simone Biles, who took home two trophies, captured the event’s tone. While accepting Best Championship Performance, she closed with: “I believe in the power of sport, the power of us, and, of course, the power of she.” A slick nod to gender politics, sure — but no hint of the divine.

The Icon Award segment turned up the ideological volume. Soccer star Alex Morgan credited a legacy of “women who gave us the confidence and will to play, to fight, to advocate.” She declared: “We’re standing on the shoulders of giants. … It’s because of you that we never have to apologize for speaking up or for fighting to raise the bar.”

Rugby player Ilona Maher, named Best Breakthrough Athlete, offered her viral mantra: “Strong is beautiful. Strong is powerful. It’s sexy — whatever you want it to be.” Empowerment rang from every line. Gratitude to God? Missing again.

Even the evening’s most historic honor, the Arthur Ashe Courage Award, stayed strictly secular. NBA legend Oscar Robertson described his long battle for player rights: “It was a desperate need for players to have more security. … It’s important to do the right thing even if it comes at personal sacrifice.” Admirable. But no recognition that courage itself might be a gift.

Now compare that to what fans reward outside the ESPN echo chamber.

Just 24 hours earlier at MLB’s All-Star festivities, Yankees captain Aaron Judge was asked what truly satisfies him. His answer came without hesitation: “Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He’s given me this platform. … The fame is great and all, but it’s not as fulfilling as the relationship I have with Him.” Social media lit up. Judge’s bat — engraved with 2 Corinthians 5:7 — sold out in hours. Open faith still resonates. That’s the marketplace talking.

Football fans feel it every Sunday. Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes, now chasing a Super Bowl three-peat, once told reporters: “Before every game, I walk the field and do a prayer at the goalpost. … I thank God for letting me be on a stage where I can glorify Him.” That clip has tens of millions of views on TikTok — and thousands of comments from rival fans typing “Amen.” Stadiums full of people may disagree on who wins, but they unite in prayer.

College football delivered another reminder. LSU’s Jayden Daniels opened his 2023 Heisman speech with: “I want to first give thanks to God. … He’s my rock, my savior. He blessed me with the talents and ability to get here.” The ballroom erupted. ESPN’s own cameras showed fans rising to their feet. Hashtags like #GloryToGod trended for days.

Spectators haven’t rejected God. The gatekeepers have.

RELATED: Simone Biles signals defeat in feud with Riley Gaines on trans athletes

Photo by Loic Venance / Contributor via Getty Images

The same networks that replay Mahomes’ pregame prayer for clicks strip divine gratitude from their own scripts. They celebrate activism in every language — except the one that thanks Heaven. But when tragedy strikes, like Damar Hamlin’s collapse, the crowd knows what to do. Silence falls. Heads bow. The reflex is prayer. The reflex is God.

As a father of three, a Catholic convert, and host of the YouTube show and podcast “We the People,” I see what’s at stake. We welcome current and Hall of Fame athletes and popular entertainers on every episode to talk about faith, family, and freedom. And of the three, the one they speak most freely and fervently about is their faith in God.

Sport remains one of the last places in American life capable of binding us across lines of class, creed, and color. Strip out its spiritual bloodstream, and all that’s left is a corporate pageant — flashy but hollow.

So here’s the call to action the ESPYs missed: If you hoist a trophy the size of a small child and can’t spare one breath to credit the One who designed your lungs, hand the mic to someone who will. Fans still cheer character as loudly as clutch shots. They did it for Judge, Mahomes, and Daniels — and yes, even Biles, when she thanked God after winning gold in Rio.

The appetite is there. The crowd is ready. Only the stage managers lack the courage to serve it.

Until then, award shows will keep cutting Heaven from the highlight reel. But the roar in the stadium — and the quiet prayers whispered at home — tells a different story. God is still in the game, because we the people keep inviting Him.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Simone biles, Espys, Espy awards 2025, God, Religion, Jesus christ, Patrick mahomes, Christianity, Christians, Amen, Savior, Jayden daniels, Heisman trophy winner, Aaron judge, Faith, Corinthians, Super bowl, Espn