Category: blaze media

Last week, Glenn Beck released an exclusive, tell-all interview with Cracker Barrel CEO Julie Masino that extracted the juiciest details regarding the country chain’s disastrous and quickly walked-back attempt to modernize its beloved old-timey brand. Glenn pulled no punches about the failed revamp: It was “just stupid from start to finish.”

Masino insisted that it was never her intention to change the iconic Cracker Barrel brand. She claimed that her goals were to boost engagement after COVID did immeasurable revenue damage, address common customer complaints (like uncomfortable chairs and dim lighting), and make practical adjustments to a busy logo that wasn’t conducive to an iPhone screen.

“The intent was not ideological. It was not to put the old version of Cracker Barrel in a box,” she vowed.

But given the fact that many believe the rebranding was indeed rooted in left-wing dogma, like DEI, Glenn asked the question point-blank: “Had the company embraced DEI as a culture?”

Masino initially gave an indirect answer: “Cracker Barrel has always been about welcoming everybody in. I think before I was here, we had different policies. We’re here to take care of people. We’re here to make sure everybody can work here, can be welcome here.”

But Glenn, unsatisfied with her response, pressed harder: “Every American wants that. … When a brand … all of a sudden makes it a point of saying, ‘Boys can be girls, and they should be in the girls’ locker room,’ I don’t need that from my brand; I don’t want that from my brand. You as individuals can make whatever choice you want, but don’t preach to me from a corporate place.”

“What I’m asking you — was [making political statements] part of any of the strategy?” he repeated.

“No, it’s pancakes. Yeah, we’re not trying to make political statements,” Masino said, insisting the rebranding initiative was always about “food and experience.”

Glenn pushed back again with the analogy of “Uncle Ted” moving into Grandma’s house. “He’s now taking care of Grandma, but he’s getting rid of all of the doilies that have been on Grandma’s table, and you’re like, ‘That’s not Grandma.’”

“You were messing with Grandma’s house,” he boldly accused.

“We’re sorry that that’s what people feel. That was not the intent. … It hurts me because I don’t want people to be mad at Cracker Barrel. Our job is to make people love Cracker Barrel,” Masino said.

“And so, even trying to invite new people in, it was always about, how do we show them the magic that is Cracker Barrel, the stories of America, the stories of our guests? … That’s what we want everybody to love.”

To hear more of the interview, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

​The glenn beck podcast, Glenn beck, Blazetv, Blaze media, Julie masino, Cracker barrel, Cracker barrel caves, Cracker barrel boycott 

The marriage rate has been in decline for decades, dropping from 10.6 per 1,000 people in 1980 to 6.1 in 2023. Last year, American adults were less likely to be married than at nearly any other time since the Census Bureau began logging marital status in 1940, with married couples heading only 47.1% of U.S. households.

The apparent aversion to marriage is bad news for American children, who perform better in school and are far less likely to end up in prison or depressed when raised by married parents, as well as for American adults who tend to see better health outcomes, be happier, and live longer when espoused.

‘Devaluing marriage and motherhood has consequences.’

Recent Pew Research Center analysis of survey data from the University of Michigan suggests that this decline may continue — especially if young women’s growing resistance to marriage goes unremedied.

Whereas 20 years prior, 80% of 12th graders said that they were most likely to choose marriage in the long run, only 67% of 12th graders polled in 2023 indicated that they want to get married someday. Another 24% said they don’t know if they’ll get married, up from 16% in 1993.

This drop appears to have been largely driven by shifting views among girls.

In 1993, 83% of girls and 76% of boys said that they wanted to get married. In 2023, only 61% of girls said they wanted to get married — a drop of 22% — while 74% of boys indicated they wanted to ultimately tie the knot.

RELATED: Family or fallout — experts assess the threats now facing the nuclear family

Photo by STRINGER/AFP via Getty Images

Pew indicated that there was also a precipitous drop in the percentage of 12th graders who indicated they wanted to have kids if they marry.

Whereas in 1993, 82% said they wanted to have kids, in 2023, only 73% indicated they wanted to welcome new life into this world. Even more dramatically, the percentage of those who said they would “very likely” want to have kids if married dropped from 64% in 1993 to 48% in 2023.

“It’s almost like decades of devaluing marriage and motherhood has consequences,” wrote the Alabama Policy Institute.

Katy Faust, founder of the children’s advocacy group Them Before Us, stated, “More than almost anything else trending, this terrifies me. Because of the nature of our bodies women have historically pursued marriage more. What kind of disastrous, antihuman messaging are young women being flooded with to return these kinds of results?”

RELATED: Domestic extremist or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the mom

Photo by Lambert/Getty Images

Dr. Brad Wilcox, professor of sociology at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, said the anti-nuptial trend among young women and adolescent girls was “disastrous.”

Wilcox underscored that this trend reflects a particularly raw deal for women, highlighting a recent YouGov survey of U.S. women, ages 25 to 55, fielded by the Institute for Family Studies and the Wheatley Institute, which found that married women with children are:

more likely (19%) to report being “very happy” than both unmarried women with children (13%) and unmarried women without children (10%);more likely (47%) to report that life has felt enjoyable most or all of the time in the past 30 days than both unmarried women with children (40%) and unmarried women without children (34%);less likely (11%) to report being lonely most or all of the time in the past 30 days than both unmarried women with children (23%) and unmarried women without children (20%);more likely (51%) to receive physical affection than both unmarried women with children (29%) and unmarried women without children (17%); andmore likely (28%) to report their lives have a clear sense of purpose than both unmarried women with children (25%) and unmarried women without children (16%).

Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet said of the Pew report, “Something has gone terribly wrong.”

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

​Marriage, Sacrament, Family, Husband, Wife, Matrimony, Health, Science, Feminism, Domesticity, Love, Relationships, Life, Lifestyles, Families, Children, Pew, Poll, Politics 

A Missouri woman who was accused of paying students for sex and giving them alcohol and drugs while she was a substitute teacher just learned where she’ll be spending the next decade.

Carissa Smith, 31, was arrested last November and indicted on a host of charges including two counts of sexual trafficking of a child under the age of 18, nine counts of statutory rape, two counts of statutory sodomy, three counts of sexual contact with a student, and one count of patronizing prostitution from a victim 14 years and younger.

‘Very disturbing and distressing information.’

Investigators indicated the incidents occurred from August 2023 to September 2024.

According to the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office, victims alleged that Smith — who began regularly working as a substitute teacher at Dixon Middle School in August 2022 then worked at Dixon High School from 2023 until her resignation in August 2024 — “would offer money, marijuana and/or alcohol to students in return for sex or to allow her to perform oral sex.”

The probable cause statement indicated that Smith paid one victim at least $100 to engage in sexual activities with her. Authorities noted further that Smith urged one minor victim not to discuss their encounters with anyone else.

Court documents reviewed by USA Today indicated that Smith also involved her husband, informing him that one victim had a compromising video and was blackmailing her. The husband allegedly threatened more than one minor with a baseball bat.

The affidavit reviewed by People magazine indicated that after hearing a rumor about a video circulating in the community that allegedly showed the substitute teacher performing a sexual act with one of her students, Smith’s brother-in-law caught her in bed with an underage student.

RELATED: Former teacher sentenced to 132 years in prison for horrific abuse of her two stepsons

Photo by Karl Merton Ferron/Baltimore Sun Staff

Victims claimed that Smith would have sex with them at her house as well as other locations, including on roadsides.

The day after Smith’s Nov. 12, 2024, arrest, Dixon R-I School District Superintendent Travis Bohrer revealed to parents that the district had received a report of possible misconduct by Smith earlier in the year from at least one student and had notified the relevant authorities.

Bohrer noted, “This is very disturbing and distressing information for everyone in our school community.”

While out on bond, Smith was arrested again in September and charged with tampering with a witness after court documents say she was caught at the home of one of her victims, the sheriff’s office confirmed to USA Today.

The former teacher’s $250,000 bond was revoked on Sept. 10.

“The defendant was ordered to have no contact with any victim in this case,” noted prosecuting attorney Jeffrey Thomas. “The defendant has failed to follow a course of good conduct.”

Smith pleaded guilty to lesser charges of two counts of sexual contact with a student and one count of first degree endangering the welfare of a child/sexual conduct on Sept. 17, reported KRCG-TV, and faced as many as 12 years in prison.

Smith instead received a sentence Wednesday of 10 years behind bars, the station said in a separate story.

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

​Crime, Pedophile, Molester, Teacher, Substitute teacher, Carissa smith, Missouri, Dixon r-i district, School, High school, Predator, Court, Prison, Law, Order, Middle school, Arrest, Sentence 

A civilization is only as healthy as the families that make it up. Decades of research confirm that a society’s best shot at thriving depends on people getting married and having children. In general, individuals flourish in this environment, as does the community — and ultimately the nation itself.

But what happens when an entire generation loses interest in traditional family? This is a pivotal question conservative America is asking right now, as marriage and fertility rates are at all-time lows.

A brand-new Pew Research Center analysis is making waves after revealing that only 61% of 12th grade high school girls intend to get married some day — a 22-point drop from 1993 when 83% expressed interest in marriage.

Interestingly 12th grade boys stayed about the same: 74% expressed expectations for future marriage, compared to 76% in 1993.

For the first time ever in this dataset, high school boys are now more enthusiastic about marriage than girls.

The poll revealed other alarming statistics regarding marriage as well: From 1993 to 2023 among male and female high school seniors, the intention to stay married to the same person for life dropped 4%, while intention to have children dropped 9%.

Stu Burguiere, BlazeTV host of “Stu Does America,” warns that these stats do not bode well for the country. “Every metric (this is no exaggeration), every financial metric, every well-being metric, every happiness metric — all of these things are improved when you get married,” he says, reminding that marriage “is a foundational part of our society, and that has been true for decades and decades and decades and decades.”

The fact that girls are losing interest in monogamy at unprecedented rates is a direct result of the woke feminist movement that’s aimed to “liberate” young women by discouraging marriage and childbearing and encouraging promiscuity and abortion.

Not only does this leave people chronically lonely and unfilled, it also threatens the well-being of the nation that depends on a steady birthrate to thrive.

“The trends are bad — really, really bad — and if it continues, it will turn into a crisis,” Stu warns.

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

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu’s lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Stu does america, Blazetv, Blaze media, Stu burguiere, Marriage rate, Monogamy, Marriage crisis, Fertility crisis, Feminism 

Is principled conservatism dead? And would that even be good?

Robert P. George’s resignation from the board of the Heritage Foundation last week suggests a deeper shift inside the conservative world. George is one of the most respected conservative intellectuals alive — a Princeton professor who built the James Madison Program and shaped a generation of natural-law scholarship. His departure, prompted by how Heritage President Kevin Roberts handled Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes, exposes a widening fracture on the right about what conservatism is and what it should defend.

The first lesson conservatives should recover: Reason and faith are not optional in the public square.

I have watched this tension escalate since what some have called Charlie Kirk’s “martyrdom.” Voices from what garden-variety conservatives call “the far right,” what liberals lump together as “the right,” and what Antifa brands “fascist” are pushing for influence inside the movement. Some insist these agitators are leftist plants sent to fracture the right. Others believe God allows the intentions of every heart to be revealed.

Whatever the explanation, the attacks now directed at George follow a predictable pattern: an “OK, Boomer” dismissal of a man who has spent his life defending the unborn, natural marriage, and the created order.

Full disclosure: When I was a graduate student studying natural law at Arizona State University, George took time to meet with me and guide my work. Later as a tenured professor, I became a fellow in the very program he founded. One of my own undergraduate professors — the great ethicist Jeffrie Murphy — said George’s work compelled him to rethink everything.

So-called far-right critics now claim George will debate and even co-author books with Cornel West, with his ties to Louis Farrakhan, but refuses to work with people “to his right.” The charge — absurd on its face — is that he is some kind of “controlled dissenter,” a token conservative tolerated by the Ivy League so long as he stays within its boundaries. From there, the speculation drifts into unfounded theories about motives and self-preservation.

George does not need me to defend him. His life’s work refutes these claims. He has never backed away from his convictions. He has never trimmed the truth to curry favor with elite institutions. He debates West because he believes reason still matters, because he believes truth can be argued in public, and because he believes even fierce disagreement does not require abandoning basic human dignity. He refuses to compromise an inch while treating his interlocutors as human beings.

That shouldn’t be so difficult to understand.

In fact, that’s the first lesson conservatives should recover: Reason and faith are not optional in the public square. They are the foundation for honest argument, and honest argument is the only way a free people can persuade and be persuaded. If we descend into conspiracy theorizing, rage, or tribal loyalty as our primary modes of engagement, we abandon the very tools that made conservatism coherent.

Here is George’s warning: Don’t become postmodernists. Don’t imitate the left’s racial essentialism or identity politics. Don’t throw out reason because some Enlightenment thinkers misused it. If you want to rethink every narrative you’ve heard, fine — do it with reason, not with the power-dialectic that dominates progressive thought.

But principles alone are not enough. Being principled does not mean being naïve. Conservatives once understood strategy and tactics — long-term goals paired with immediate steps that move us toward them. I believe the United States should acknowledge the kingship of Jesus Christ. Presidents from both parties once referred to America as a Christian nation. If that is true, then we must engage publicly, argue publicly, and fight publicly for that idea of ordered liberty.

That means getting into the trenches. It means refuting Marxism and atheism clearly and without apology. It means being innocent as doves and wise as serpents, fighting to win without surrendering either virtue.

RELATED: Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, and the war for the conservative soul

Photo by Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto via Getty Images

What we cannot become is principled losers. The enemy welcomes our gentlemanly retreats. The progressive movement wants more than policy wins; it wants to redefine the human person, the family, and the moral order itself. A party that endorses abortion at any point, supports the mutilation of healthy children, and treats scripture as hate speech leaves no moral ambiguity about which side a Christian or natural-law conservative should support.

Read George’s arguments against liberalism. Read his defense of natural law. If you disagree with him, he will debate you — he always has. But you can learn from him that a revival of natural law and natural theology is essential right now. That requires teaching the truths in Romans 1 and learning from Acts how to speak across cultures and ideologies.

We are in a spiritual war. The weapons are spiritual, but the fight is real. The stakes are real. The consequences are real.

It is far better to be fighting through the mud of Mordor than fat, complacent, and conquered in the Shire.

​Conservatism, Nick fuentes, Heritage foundation, Opinion & analysis, Tucker carlson, The right, Conservatives, Kevin roberts, Robert p. george, Cornel west, Louis farrakhan 

Families gather for all sorts of reasons — Thanksgiving, Christmas, weddings, funerals. And sometimes that’s when the fireworks start. There’s an old joke that any family gathering where the cops aren’t called is a successful one. Beneath the laughter sits a truth most families know. When people with long memories sit at the same table, old hurts rise right alongside the cranberry sauce.

Sin fractured families long before politics did. It divides hearts, poisons conversations, and leaves scars that last for generations. Every family bears some of that damage, and nowhere does the fracture cut deeper than between fathers and children.

Every father fails in some way, and those failures bring deep sadness. Grief isn’t a sin. Derision and resentment are.

A caller once told me about his alcoholic father, who had been abusive for years. The caller was 52, yet when he talked about being around his father, his voice broke. “Every time I’m around him,” he said, “I feel like I’m 9 years old.” The man’s father had fallen and now needed care, but the wounds had not healed. His wife and children were watching, waiting to see what he would do. His father was still drinking, still choosing the same path.

I told him, “You’ve made sure your father has food and care, but you’re not required to be subservient. Your family counts on you. Your father continues to make destructive choices, and you can’t change that. Your family’s well-being cannot come at the expense of his demands. He may not make it — but you have to.”

That conversation stayed with me. It reminded me how hard it is to see a parent’s weakness and not respond in anger or disgust or fear. We want to fix it, mock it, punish it, or walk away. Yet scripture gives us a different picture of what honor can look like when a father’s failings are laid bare.

After the flood, Noah planted a vineyard, drank too much, and passed out naked in his tent. His son Ham saw him exposed and mocked his shame. His brothers, Shem and Japheth, took a blanket, walked backward, and covered him.

It wasn’t easy. I imagine Shem and Japheth groaning at the sight of their father — maybe with tears in their eyes. Some fathers decline; some abandon; but every father fails in some way, and those failures bring deep sadness. Grief isn’t a sin. Derision and resentment are.

What do we do when we see our fathers in their weakness? When bitterness stirs, when old wounds reopen, when the urge to expose feels justified? The man who once loomed large now looks small. He wielded power over a child but appears diminished, not just by age but by the perspective that comes with time. That truth can stir anger or sorrow — or offer release.

In the garden, when Adam and Eve sinned, they saw their own nakedness for the first time and tried to cover it with leaves. The first act of grace in scripture was God covering their shame with garments He made Himself. Blood was shed to make those coverings — a quiet foreshadowing of what grace would one day cost.

That moment wasn’t about modesty. It was mercy. God did for them what they could not do for themselves. He covered their shame. From that moment on, grace has always moved toward covering — not humiliating.

At the cross, the story reached its fulfillment. The Son of God allowed Himself to be stripped bare. He bore the nakedness that belonged to us. What began in Eden with God covering human shame ended on Calvary with Christ carrying it. We were clothed in mercy because the innocent one was exposed.

Jesus told another story about a father and his sons. One rebelled and returned in disgrace. The other stayed but grew proud and resentful. Both disrespected their father — one through sin, the other through scorn. Yet the father ran to meet the prodigal and later went out to plead with the older son. He carried the same heart as Shem and Japheth. He covered shame, and even resentment, with grace.

RELATED: What we lose when we rush past pain

O2O Creative via iStock/Getty Images

Caregiving brings old wounds to the surface fast, and the holidays push them even closer to the edge. Many caregivers know this. They spend their days covering weakness — with blankets, patience, or prayer. They honor parents who can’t return the favor, who may not even recognize them anymore. Sometimes they protect in spite of, not because of. Some fathers, like that caller’s, won’t change. But we can.

At some holiday tables, people say, “Please pass the turkey,” when what they really want to say is, “Why can’t you?” or “Why didn’t you?” Those moments expose the gap between what we feel and what we’re called to.

Some fathers failed in ways that make reconciliation impossible. Honoring them does not mean returning to harm, pretending nothing happened, or carrying the weight of their failures. Their shame is not ours to bear. But we’re also not given permission to parade it.

So we honor the office, tell the truth, and set safe boundaries. We refuse to be shaped by their sin and trust God to deal with what belongs to Him. And because grace covers us, we can choose dignity over bitterness — even when fathers fall.

​Grace, Forgiveness, Family, Opinion & analysis, Fathers, Holidays, Arguments 

Much like gas-station sushi, David Brooks is hard to stomach at the best of times.

But his latest New York Times essay is the kind that makes you reach for the sick bag. He opens with the usual routine: an exasperated sigh, a long, self-important pause, and the unmistakable air of a man convinced he has cracked the cosmos — again.

A hidden faith saves no one, a timid faith shapes nothing, and a faith that folds under pressure is closer to cheap furniture than conviction.

He quotes a Czech priest, hints at deep wells of wisdom, and then meanders toward the real purpose of the piece: explaining, with mild exasperation, why Christians are once again disappointing him. This is nothing new. It’s a ritual at this point — a complaint that returns like spam you swore you unsubscribed from.

To be fair, Brooks isn’t stupid. He knows how to spin a story, how to climb onto the moral high ground without looking like he’s climbing, and how to crown himself the lone voice of reason in an age he insists is losing its mind.

But there is no missing the tone that hangs over almost every line he writes about believing Americans: a thin mist of condescension, settling somewhere between pastoral concern and a parent-teacher conference. He talks about everyday Christians the way a pretentious barista talks about someone ordering regular coffee — uncultured, embarrassing, and in need of enlightenment. And the tone, more than any point he makes, gives him away instantly.

Brooks claims to fear “rigid” or “pharisaical” Christianity. Yet the only certainties that radiate from his essay are his own. He divides the world into two armies — Christian nationalists on one side and “exhausted” secular humanists on the other — and then steps forward as the lone oracle who claims to see a path out of the fog.

Christians who vote for borders, who cherish the nation that shaped their churches, or who think culture is worth defending are waved off with his familiar, weary flick of the wrist. They’re told they practice a “debauched” version of the faith.

No evidence needed. Brooks’ opinion is treated as its own proof.

His description of these believers always follows the same script. They are angry, dangerous, and obsessed with power. They clutch their creed like a makeshift weapon, ready to wallop anyone who wanders too close.

In his telling, they never act from devotion, duty, or gratitude. They never look around their communities and see an America they love slipping away. They never mourn the millions taken before they drew a breath, the cracking of our shared foundation, or the slow burial of the sacred.

Instead, Brooks tells us they operate from “threat more than hope,” as if the country’s cultural decay were some far-fetched tale told for effect, rather than something families watch unfold every day in their schools, in their cities, and on their screens.

Brooks then pivots to his preferred theological register: the poetry of longing. He praises yearning, doubts, desires, and pilgrimages — all worthwhile themes.

But he uses them the way an interior decorator uses throw pillows: scattered for mood, never for structure. His spiritual reflections float past in soft, airy phrases that never touch the ground. This isn’t the faith of the Gospels, anchored in sacrifice and truth. It’s faith as fragrance — atomized cosmetic, evaporating faster than one of his metaphors. It asks nothing, risks nothing, and confronts nothing, which may be why Brooks finds it so comforting.

RELATED: Exposing the great lie about ‘MAGA Christianity’ — and the truth elites hate

jokerpro/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Throughout his essay, Brooks holds up a small circle of “wise people” as models of the faith America needs — Tomas Halík, Rowan Williams, and a handful of theologians who speak in clichés and move through the world like contemplative shadows. Their calm inspires him. Their pluralism delights him. Brooks treats their quietism as the apex of Christian maturity, as if the holiest life is lived at arm’s length, murmuring about mystery while the roof caves in.

What he never admits is what these figures actually represent: a brand of Christianity that thrives in seminar rooms, academic conferences, and anemic interfaith panels — spaces far removed from the daily battles most Christians face. Halík writes beautifully about longing. Rowan Williams writes elegantly about humility. But neither man spent his life in the trenches defending children from ideological capture in schools, or standing up to governments intent on shredding the family, or speaking plainly about sin in a culture that now calls sin a civil right.

Brooks misreads their vocation as the universal Christian posture when it is, at best, one posture among many.

The heart of the essay is its barely disguised contempt for ordinary Christians who believe their faith should shape the societies they inhabit. This is the point he never states outright but gestures toward with every paragraph.

Faith, to Brooks, is primarily personal, private, and utterly toothless. The moment it concerns the fate of a nation or the moral trajectory of a culture, he calls it nationalism. If a Christian speaks of stricter immigration policies, he hears xenophobia. If a parent protects his child from the cultural free-for-all, he calls it regression.

Brooks leans heavily on the aforementioned Czech priest and philosopher, Tomáš Halík, as if Halík were handing him a permission slip for a diluted Christianity. Halík writes movingly about interior struggle and authentic witness, ideas rooted in his years serving an underground church under communist rule.

But Brooks treats Halík’s reflections on the inner life as a blanket command for Christians to withdraw from the outer one. Halík speaks of sincerity; Brooks hears surrender. Halík points to the vast, ungraspable side of faith; Brooks converts it into a polite memo urging believers to stay in their lane.

And so Brooks gets the entire lesson backward. Halík survived a regime that tried to erase Christianity from public life. He never argued for Christians to silence themselves or retreat from cultural battles. Yet Brooks uses him as cover to criticize anyone who won’t float along with the cultural current.

What Brooks never admits is that what he calls “Christian nationalism” is not the fringe menace he imagines. For many believers, it is simply the instinct to guard the faith that built their communities. It isn’t a hunger for domination, but a love for the inheritance passed down to them. It isn’t outright hostility toward outsiders but gratitude for the civilization that formed them.

Brooks conveniently sidesteps all of this and builds a caricature he can berate, warning of a “creeping fascism” that lives entirely in his own mind.

The self-anointed sage wants Christians to trade their armor for aroma, to swap vigilance for vague platitudes, and to follow his favorite tastemakers into a future where faith survives only behind closed doors.

But Christians know better. A hidden faith saves no one, a timid faith shapes nothing, and a faith that folds under pressure is closer to cheap furniture than conviction. Brooks will disagree, naturally. He always does.

As so many times before, the smug sexagenarian takes a swing at American Christians. And once again, he misses the target by a mile.

​David brooks, Christian nationalism, New york times, Christianity, Christian, Faith 

The American dream is slipping away for many young Americans, as life becomes increasingly unaffordable — especially home ownership. Soaring home prices and interest rates and a housing shortage bar younger generations of people from purchasing a house. Today, the average age of a first-time home buyer is 40 years old.

Many ideas are being tossed around regarding how to bring home ownership back into the realm of possibility for young families — most notably President Trump’s polarizing 50-year mortgage proposal.

But Sara Gonzales, BlazeTV host of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” says we’re ignoring a simple solution: eliminate property taxes.

Right now in the state of Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis (R) is aggressively pushing for the elimination of property taxes, condemning them as “rent to the government.”

Abolishing property taxes, says Sara, is a “standard conservative position.” “You should not have to buy a home and then spend 20, 30, 50 years paying off that home, and yet you still never truly own your home because you would still pay rent to the government,” she says.

And yet there are conservatives who oppose the elimination of property taxes, claiming it encourages older homeowners to hoard inventory.

“So you’re basically saying … we should what? Kick all the oldies out of the homes that they’ve paid for so that young people can buy them up? Like, I’m sorry, are we conservatives or are we not?” asks Sara.

Further, senior tax caps allow older homeowners to pay significantly less in property taxes than younger homeowners, meaning Boomers are already incentivized to not sell. But if we were to enforce higher taxes on our senior population, as some conservatives suggest, we’re now guilty, Sara argues, of the same thing we criticize socialists for — taxing the rich.

Another pro-property-tax argument is that the tax accounts for significant funding for education. But public schools, says Sara, aren’t something most true conservatives want to fund anyway because “they’re indoctrinating your children.”

If we really want to make sure the essentials, like police and fire services, are well funded, we should first look at eliminating all waste, fraud, and abuse. If it’s out of control at the federal level, then it’s almost certainly out of control at the local level, says Sara.

All in all, eliminating the property tax benefits everyone, says Sara. Not only will it prevent people from being forced to pay lifetime rent to the government, but when older homeowners eventually do die, younger families have a better chance of affording those vacant homes because they’re not inheriting enormous property taxes.

“Take this into consideration,” says Sara.

“Say you have parents who are wealthy because they’ve worked hard and they own a lot of land … that they would like to give to you when they die. Consider you will not even be able to keep your parents’ property or home with the astronomical property taxes that you will owe at the end of every year on land and a home that they already paid for.”

“If you’re young and you ever want to own a home, you should recognize that [property taxes are] a problem for everyone. So let’s solve the problem for everyone.”

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

​Sara gonzales, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Blazetv, Blaze media, Housing crisis, Home ownership, Boomers, Property tax, Ron desantis, Abolish property tax 

Although there has been a long slew of adaptations, parodies, and spin-offs of “Frankenstein,” many fans of Mary Shelley’s famous novel were looking forward to the newest iteration by Guillermo del Toro, which just came out.

In the age of AI, gene therapy, and the modern aversion to death, the story of a scientist who gives life to a creature of his own design naturally resonates with most people. Moreover, a director who is known for his ability to craft fantastical narratives, gothic settings, and unworldly monsters seemed like the perfect fit for such a story.

What could have been a story of redemption and radical love is turned into one of violent horror and unavoidable tragedy.

But with such a tale from such a director at such a time, there was also a good chance the whole film could become an overwrought piece of woke propaganda. Would del Toro stay faithful to the source material, or would he indulge his worst tendencies and recreate “The Shape of Water” with Shelley’s basic premise?

Sadly, he opted for the latter.

Woke makeover

While showing his usual visual flare, del Toro and his writers nonetheless succumbed to transforming the romantic tale of man’s excesses and consequent fall from grace into a woke narrative of a marginalized victim suffering from an oppressive father figure. The monster is not a hideous abomination that goes on a killing spree to spite his creator, but is rather a misunderstood, sensitive outcast who deserves sympathy.

It is his creator, Victor Frankenstein, who is the real monster: Not only does he abuse his own creature, but he murders multiple people and lies about it.

In fairness to del Toro, he probably planned out the film a few years ago when such a script happily aligned with the woke spirit of the time. And he did win an Oscar for “The Shape of Water,” so he can’t be blamed too much for returning to the same formula. How was he supposed to know that this would all become tedious and unfashionable in 2025?

And yet for all that, it’s wrong to assume that the original novel lacked these themes entirely.

Original intent

While most fans and critics examine the science-fiction elements of the novel and the Promethean allegory of man’s creation running amok, an honest reading would show that the novel is first and foremost a Romanticist manifesto. The main character is neither Victor nor his creation but the Swiss Alps that provide the backdrop of every scene, monologue, and conversation. The main conflict is not Victor attempting to stop his monster from terrorizing his friends and family, but finding meaning and unadulterated joy in the world rendered cold and dull by Enlightenment philosophy.

Most importantly, the book’s main argument is the problem of loneliness and how it animates humanity’s darkest impulses. The movie actually deals with this idea somewhat, though the novel is fully based on it.

How else should the reader make sense of all three of the main characters (besides the Alps), who all suffer from profound loneliness? The first character to appear in the book is the ambitious explorer and scientist Robert Walton, who attempts to go to the North Pole. Besides detailing his progress to his sister in a series of letters, he also mentions his lack of a friend. This leads him to immediately take interest in the Swiss scientist Victor Frankenstein, who just happens to be in the Arctic, searching for his monster.

Frankenstein, in turn, also reveals his own introverted nature and consequent desolation.

RELATED: How Disney butchered ‘Snow White’ — and it’s worse than just wokeness

Manuel Velasquez/Getty Images

Even though he has good friends, a loving father, encouraging teachers, and a bride waiting for him, Frankenstein seems to reject their company. Either he feels unworthy of such friends, especially after the mayhem inflicted by his monster, or he desires full control in his relationships.

More than anything, this antisocial stance seems to be the main inspiration for creating his monster. Even though many naturally assume he was driven by glory, power, and morbid curiosity, Shelley hardly mentions any of that. Instead she details Victor’s loving upbringing and beautiful surroundings, only to have him forget all this and conduct a weird experiment of bringing a monster to life.

Then, of course, there is the monster himself, who is quite open about his loneliness and resorts to terror to have a companion. Abandoned by Victor, the creature roams the countryside, fruitlessly searching for a human being who can stand to befriend him. Long story short, this doesn’t happen, so he takes revenge on Victor for putting him in this situation.

Alone, we break

Read through the prism of loneliness, the novel makes a surprisingly compelling case not only for cultivating friendship but also for the kind of dysfunction that results from the lack thereof.

This is especially pertinent for audiences today who are forced to cope with the mass atomization of modern life.

In terms of their social life, most young people in the developed world often resemble Robert Walton, Victor Frankenstein, Frankenstein’s monster, or some combination thereof. They feel misunderstood, have few outlets for their thoughts and emotions, and respond in similar ways to the characters: They seek internet fame, indulge in darker temptations, and even lash out against a world that seems to reject them.

Much like the literary critics and adaptors who miss this larger theme in their analysis of the smaller ones that result, today’s social commentators who remark on the pathologies of the youth do the same.

At the heart of all this dysfunction is loneliness. And behind the social crisis lies a spiritual crisis.

Had Frankenstein abided by Christian teaching, he would accept his limitations and work to overcome his personal misgivings of befriending and serving others. Instead of trying to build a companion for the monster, only to dismantle it in a fit of rage, Victor could have loved his creation, much as God does. Instead of the monster basing his morality on Goethe, Plutarch, and Milton — which all promote epic struggles and titanic egos — he could have picked up the much more available (and readable) Gospels, which stress forgiveness and humility.

Then again, this is Mary Shelley’s story, and she was far from a devout Christian. Similarly, del Toro is also an atheist and likely shares the same outlook on the Christian demands of friendship, virtue, and human creativity.

What could have been a story of redemption and radical love is turned into one of violent horror and unavoidable tragedy.

Created for fellowship

Still, even if such Romantic secular humanism makes for better dramatic tension and suspense, it elides the deeper truth that comes out of the story: Man is not meant to be alone.

Victor’s real crime was not his ambition or curiosity but forsaking everyone around him. It wasn’t an abusive father that led him to this (as the new film suggests) but his willful ignorance of the Father in Heaven. As such, he creates a personal hell with its very own devil.

Even if Shelley and del Toro miss this point, readers and audiences should take heed and confront the problems of loneliness and nihilism in the world around them.

​Woke, Frankenstein, Mary shelley, Netflix, Guillermo del toro, Movie review 

Many working in technology are entranced by a story of a god-tier shift that is soon to come. The story is the “fast takeoff” for AI, often involving an “intelligence explosion.” There will be a singular moment, a cliff-edge, when a machine mind, having achieved critical capacities for technical design, begins to implement an improved version of itself. In a short time, perhaps mere hours, it will soar past human control, becoming a nearly omnipotent force, a deus ex machina for which we are, at best, irrelevant scenery.

This is a clean narrative. It is dramatic. It has the terrifying, satisfying shape of an apocalypse.

It is also a pseudo-messianic myth resting on a mistaken understanding of what intelligence is, what technology is, and what the world is.

The world adapts. The apocalypse is deferred. The technology is integrated.

The fantasy of a runaway supermind achieving escape velocity collides with the stubborn, physical, and institutional realities of our lives. This narrative mistakes a scalar for a capacity, ignoring the fact that intelligence is not a context-free number but a situated process, deeply entangled with physical constraints.

The fixation on an instantaneous leap reveals a particular historical amnesia. We are told this new tool will be a singular event. The historical record suggests otherwise.

Major innovations, the ones that truly resculpted civilization, were never events. They were slow, messy, multi-decade diffusions. The printing press did not achieve the propagation of knowledge overnight; its revolutionary power was in the gradual enabling of the secure communication of information, which in turn allowed knowledge to compound. The steam engine unfolded over generations, its deepest impact trailing its invention by decades.

With each novel technology, we have seen a similar cycle of panic: a flare of moral alarm, a set of dire predictions, and then, inevitably, the slow, grinding work of normalization. The world adapts. The apocalypse is deferred. The technology is integrated. There is little reason to believe this time is different, however much the myth insists upon it.

The fantasy of a fast takeoff is conspicuously neat. It is a narrative free of friction, of thermodynamics, of the intractable mess of material existence. Reality, in contrast, has all of these things. A disembodied mind cannot simply will its own improved implementation into being.

RELATED: ‘Unprecedented’: AI company documents startling discovery after thwarting ‘sophisticated’ cyberattack

Photo by Arda Kucukkaya/Anadolu via Getty Images

Any improvement, recursive or otherwise, encounters physical limits. Computation is bounded by the speed of light. The required energy is already staggering. Improvements will require hardware that depends on factories, rare minerals, and global supply chains. These things cannot be summoned by code alone. Even when an AI can design a better chip, that design will need to be fabricated. The feedback loop between software insight and physical hardware is constrained by the banal, time-consuming realities of engineering, manufacturing, and logistics.

The intellectual constraints are just as rigid. The notion of an “intelligence explosion” assumes that all problems yield to better reasoning. This is an error. Many hard problems are computationally intractable and provably so. They cannot be solved by superior reasoning; they can only be approximated in ways subject to the limits of energy and time.

Ironically, we already have a system of recursive self-improvement. It is called civilization, employing the cooperative intelligence of humans. Its gains over the centuries have been steady and strikingly gradual, not explosive. Each new advance requires more, not less, effort. When the “low-hanging fruit” is harvested, diminishing returns set in. There is no evidence that AI, however capable, is exempt from this constraint.

Central to the concept of fast takeoff is the erroneous belief that intelligence is a singular, unified thing. Recent AI progress provides contrary evidence. We have not built a singular intelligence; we have built specific, potent tools. AlphaGo achieved superhuman performance in Go, a spectacular leap within its domain, yet its facility did not generalize to medical research. Large language models display great linguistic ability, but they also “hallucinate,” and pushing from one generation to the next requires not a sudden spark of insight, but an enormous effort of data and training.

The likely future is not a monolithic supermind but an AI service providing a network of specialized systems for language, vision, physics, and design. AI will remain a set of tools, managed and combined by human operators.

To frame AI development as a potential catastrophe that suddenly arrives swaps a complex, multi-decade social challenge for a simple, cinematic horror story. It allows us to indulge in the fantasy of an impending technological judgment, rather than engage with the difficult path of development. The real work will be gradual, involving the adaptation of institutions, the shifting of economies, and the management of tools. The god-machine is not coming. The world will remain, as ever, a complex, physical, and stubbornly human affair.

​Ai, Return, Tech 

Presidio Healthcare recently made history by launching the nation’s first pro-life, Christian health insurance option in Texas at a time when many families are experiencing both historic rate increases and decreasing subsidies in the Obamacare marketplace.

While the heart of our mission focuses on serving families with an affordable option that protects both their values and their financial security, the vision for how we accomplish that aim rests on a lesser-known Christian principle that I believe provides a road map for reforming our broken health care system.

Health care policy should focus on expanding options for families while empowering them to own their own health insurance.

That principle is called “subsidiarity,” which represents a system of values that puts families first — in contrast to our current system that ignores the individualized needs of Americans.

The Christian principle of subsidiarity states “that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized competent authority rather than by a higher and more distant one, whenever possible.”

The latest debate over Obamacare subsidies serves as a great example of how our current system prioritizes the higher and more distant authority (i.e., Washington, D.C.) over the least centralized authority (i.e., American families).

The Obamacare market was designed to provide subsidies for low-income Americans, which by itself does not inherently violate the principle of subsidiarity. Rather, the problem lies with the insistence that this one federally controlled market should serve as a one-size-fits-all solution for everyone, including middle-income Americans who do not qualify for adequate subsidies.

The centralized answer that Democrats offer requires the Obamacare market to be propped up inefficiently with more subsidies. The subsidiarity answer would propose decentralizing the market by allowing alternative risk pools regulated at the state level to serve the middle-income Americans with products designed for their needs.

To summarize the principle for a broader application: Health care policy should focus on expanding options for families while empowering them to own their own health insurance.

In a decentralized system, Americans would become smarter consumers of health care as they bear the responsibility of owning and paying for their own health care expenses. The impact would reach beyond the economic. The key benefit to subsidiarity is its preservation of each of our relationships to God through our individual decision-making responsibility.

If tomorrow’s health care shoppers were individuals and families (instead of governments and employers), private insurance markets would be forced to serve the Christian and pro-life values of families, as opposed to our current system of serving government agendas and large employer needs. Presidio is building toward that tomorrow and starting now in Texas.

RELATED: Medical ‘experts’ want to jab a needle through your God-given rights

EKIN KIZILKAYA/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Unfortunately, there is a major roadblock to this future.

Ironically, the employer-sponsored marketplace and the single-payor Medicare program — two markets that conservatives often support — in many ways violate the principle of subsidiarity to a greater degree than the much smaller Obamacare individual market.

We need to be consistent if we want to reform our health care system. Employers control the health insurance decisions for close to 150 million Americans, and all of us are forced to pay into a federally centralized Medicare program that exhibits some of the worst elements of socialism, such as dictating prices that distort our entire system.

The spiritual impact is evident through the contraceptive mandate and employer decisions that force millions of Christians to be insured on products that cover abortion, abortifacients, contraception, and other immoral services. Through Medicare, we have collectively forfeited our health care autonomy to Washington, D.C., when we turn 65, creating problematic scenarios that could prioritize our federal budget over dignified treatment for end-of-life care.

We need to do more than just talk about Obamacare — and we need take action now.

The good news is that health care policymakers need to look no farther than to what the private market is already doing.

Presidio is part of a decades-long movement in the health care industry to launch innovative alternative services that serve families directly. This includes affordable non-Obamacare alternatives, health-sharing ministry plans, and, more recently, “ICHRA” benefit platforms that are moving employers out of the business of purchasing health insurance and into a defined contribution model where employees purchase and own their own insurance.

The road map is there. Government and employers can assist families in purchasing health insurance rather than purchasing it for them. Private market innovations would follow.

At Presidio, we are building toward a future where subsidiarity replaces centrally controlled markets and the pro-life values of Christian Americans drive pro-life health insurance options that help fund life-affirming care. We do not take federal subsidies, and we do not want your employer forcing you to have Presidio coverage.

As in all authentic Christian movements, we rely on individual families to help build Presidio, and we look forward to serving your needs while we expand our vision of a health care system in America founded on the principle of subsidiarity.

​Health care, Presidio healthcare, Christianity, Christian, Subsidiarity, Faith 

The number one country song in America isn’t sung by a human. Instead it was generated entirely by AI — which may have devastating implications for music, creativity, and the very definition of humanity.

The song “Walk My Walk” is by AI artist Breaking Rust and features lyrics like, “Every scar’s a story that I survived / I’ve been through hell, but I’m still alive.”

“They say slow down, boy, don’t go too fast / But I ain’t never been one to live in the past,” croons the AI artist.

“If you look at some of the lyrics of this song, I mean it talks about how he’s been dragged through the mud. He’s, you know, had to really stand. I mean, it doesn’t know any of this stuff. None of it is real. And yet it is assembling it in a way that is so appealing, it’s number one on the Billboard country music chart,” Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck says on “The Glenn Beck Program.”

“The whole world is about to change,” he continues. “You know, I just heard Elon Musk say that in five years, there’s not going to be phones or apps. It will just be some sort of a box or device that you kind of carry around with you and it’s listening. It’s anticipating. It’s AI.”

“And it will know what you want to hear, what you want, and it will create the music you want to hear. It will create the podcast you want to hear. It will do all this stuff for you. So we will be in our own universe even more than we are right now,” he adds.

This has led Glenn to ask some serious introspective questions like, “If AI can fake being a human and sing soulfully while not having a soul, what does it mean to be human?”

“I think a lot of people won’t care,” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere chimes in. “Like, people won’t care if it is made by humans or not if they like it. And they seem to like it.”

While both Glenn and Stu agree AI will likely take over the arts, Glenn believes that “handmade is going to come back into style at some point.”

“Human-made will come back into style,” he says. “But … we’re going to go through a period where it’s going to get really scary.”

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.

​Video phone, Free, Sharing, Camera phone, Upload, Video, Youtube.com, The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Ai, Artificial intelligence, Breaking rust, Walk my walk, Ai country song, Ai music, Billboard country music chart, Elon musk 

For decades, U.S. education has been dominated by the American left. Its stranglehold was highly visible during the Biden administration, with countless stories about wildly inappropriate books in school libraries, critical race theory being taught in classrooms, and national associations calling for parents to be designated domestic terrorists.

How did our public school systems — including those in red states, from Iowa to Alaska — become infected with radical leftist ideology? The answer is education consulting groups.

As long as Republicans continue to outsource their governance and expertise to thinly veiled activist groups, nothing will change.

Most Americans don’t realize that every aspect of governance, from parks and wildlife departments to the curriculum in kids’ schools, has been outsourced to a coalition of nameless, faceless NGO consulting groups that are funded by millions of taxpayer dollars funneled through the government. One of the worst offenders is the American Institutes for Research.

AIR is currently under contract with at least 25 states, with the majority involving contracts to develop state standards. For those unfamiliar with education policy, standards determine what students need to learn and when they need to learn it. Lesson plans, curriculum, and textbooks are required by law to be aligned with standards.

AIR’s tentacles stretch from D.C. into health care and counseling policy — and education. It has long been entrenched in most red-state education departments to “facilitate” standards revisions. Take its influence in Alaska as a recent example.

Alaska has had multiple contracts with the nonprofit, including the School Climate and Connectedness Survey, which focuses on social-emotional learning and adult education content standards. AIR is also cited as a teaching resource for curriculum implementation.

On the Alaska Department of Education’s social studies website, AIR is listed as a source multiple times, including in the HQIM Rubric and in a PowerPoint presentation that was given to the state board, which was co-presented with an AIR employee. The presenters insisted that standards must have an equity focus and touted a shift from learning about social studies to student activism, or “action civics.”

These standards were implemented in Alaska’s new social studies curriculum, and the results are predictably a mess. Developed by a panel selected by race rather than merit, the standards are chock-full of land acknowledgments and other progressive claptrap. Alaska is now training its kids to be activists rather than teaching them about the American founding.

Worse yet, Alaska is also a partner with AIR for its Indigenous Student Identification Project, headed by Nara Nayar. On her LinkedIn account, she proudly lists her work “on comprehensive sexuality education for elementary and middle school students.”

This is where Alaskan taxpayer dollars are going: equity education, activism training, and filling the pockets of far-left education consultants who teach sex ed to elementary students.

Turning to the Midwest, Iowa’s social studies overhaul is in consultation with Stefanie Wager, a former AIR employee who is a glorified activist. She lists “racial justice, equity, and inclusion” as top priorities. Wager has an extensive list of extremist views that influence her work as an education consultant.

Wager was once president of the National Association for the Social Studies, a left-wing outfit that has shaped red-state history instruction. She has also worked as the education partner manager for Bill Gates’ personal office. Wager began as an AIR employee embedded within the Iowa Department of Education. When news broke about her involvement, she left AIR and joined the Iowa Department of Education full-time.

These aren’t just one-off examples — they are emblematic of the reach and influence of shadow consultant organizations that control public education. Peruse nearly any state department of education, and you will find rubrics with equity focuses, social studies curriculum full of progressive ideology, and AIR-linked content on state websites. Nebraska, for example, contracted AIR for a social studies report that is spotlighted on AIR’s website.

RELATED: Trump admin takes major step toward dismantling the Department of Education

Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The worst part is that state taxpayers are unknowingly funding all of this. South Dakota signed a nearly quarter-million-dollar contract with AIR to facilitate work-group meetings to revise the state’s social studies standards, which produced standards laced with wokeness. The blowback was so swift that then-Gov. Kristi Noem (R) had to intervene and force South Dakota’s Education Department to restart its standards revision work from scratch.

The result was some of the best standards in the country.

Alaska has likely paid millions for its various studies and surveys, but the cost of only one project, at $350,000, is publicly available. Iowa awarded AIR a $31 million contract for testing assessments. This is a patronage scheme using taxpayer dollars to fund pet leftist programs. To make matters worse, most red states keep all of this hidden. In Alaska, you have to pay the state for a contract to be disclosed.

As long as Republicans continue to outsource their governance and expertise to thinly veiled activist groups, nothing will change. Schools will continue to be breeding grounds for left-wing extremism, school libraries will be filled with radical propaganda — and taxpayers will keep funding all of it.

Red-state legislatures and governors need to look to trusted alternative providers that reflect their states’ values. They should create and fund parallel structures that put outcomes above partisan dogma and properly vet each person to whom they give their constituents’ money. This is the only way to begin countering the efforts of the shadow government in our states.

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

​K-12 education, Left wing, State education, Opinion & analysis, Department of education, Public education, American institutes for research, Standardized tests, American founding 

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito delivered Texas Republicans some good news on Friday, temporarily reinstating the Republican-friendly congressional map they passed in August.

After Texas Republicans surmounted weeks of obstruction by their Democratic colleagues, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ultimately signed the “One Big Beautiful Map into law” on Aug. 29, leaving the Lone Star Sate with a congressional map that could net the GOP five extra seats in the midterm elections.

‘Radical left-wing activists are abusing the judicial system to derail the Republican agenda and steal the U.S. House.’

However, the adoption of the new map prompted hand-wringing among liberals and a successful Democratic gerrymandering campaign in California — as well as a legal challenge from several race-based groups of plaintiffs led by the League of United Latin American Citizens.

The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the map was the result of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering and asked a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to block use of the map for the 2026 elections.

The court on Tuesday ruled 2-1 in favor of the liberal advocacy groups, finding that the challengers likely would be able to prove that it was racially gerrymandered.

RELATED: Yet another state’s districts found to be racist, resulting in new map for 2026 midterms

Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” wrote Judge Jeffrey Brown in the ruling. “To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) was among the liberals who celebrated the ruling, noting that “Donald Trump and Greg Abbott played with fire, got burned — and democracy won. This ruling is a win for Texas, and for every American who fights for free and fair elections.”

But the celebration proved premature as Abbott and other Texas officials promptly appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement, “Radical left-wing activists are abusing the judicial system to derail the Republican agenda and steal the U.S. House for Democrats. I am fighting to stop this blatant attempt to upend our political system.”

Justice Alito stayed the lower court’s ruling Friday and gave GOP map opponents until Monday to respond to his order.

The Republican map is back in play pending the outcome of the state’s appeal before the high court.

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

​Alito, Congressional map, Elections, Gerrymander, Gerrymandering, Greg abbott, Ken paxton, Map, Midterm, Politics, Redistricting, Samuel alito, Supreme court, Texas 

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has taken aggressive action this week against Sharia law, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Yet critics are demanding to know why, during his time in office, millions in taxpayer-funded grants have been allocated to alleged Islamist organizations based in Texas.

Abbott announced on Tuesday that he had designated the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR as foreign terrorist and transnational criminal organizations. The following day, Abbott urged local district attorneys to investigate potential Sharia “courts” operating in Texas and defying state and federal laws to push Islamic codes.

‘Unlike the previous administration, recipients of grants will no longer be permitted to use federal funds to … empower radical organizations with unseemly ties that don’t serve the interest of the American people.’

Despite Abbott’s recent actions, some have faulted the governor for allowing taxpayer dollars to be used to fund the uptick in Islamic mosques in Texas, citing a June report from the Middle East Forum. The article claimed Texas gave “over $13 million of federal and state monies to mosques and community groups aligned with Islamist movements such as Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Jamaat-e-Islami, as well as hostile foreign regimes.”

Of the 18 organizations that received funds, a dozen were said to have “extremist links.”

“While a few thousand dollars in the state government’s data consists of the return of escheated funds, the vast majority of the millions spent appear to be the result of direct state grants, subsidy programs, and federal sub-awards managed by the Texas state government,” the Middle East Forum wrote.

The Texas governor’s office told Blaze News that the funding referenced in the Middle East Forum’s report was not state tax dollars but rather federal funds distributed by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Nonprofit Security Grant Program.

As part of that program, since 2016, roughly $63 million in federal funds have passed through Texas to nonprofit organizations, including $55 million to churches and synagogues, and a smaller portion went to mosques, according to Abbott’s office.

RELATED: Secret Sharia ‘courts’ in Texas may be quietly overriding state law — Abbott calls for investigation

Photo by RONALDO SCHEMIDT/AFP via Getty Images

The governor’s office contended that organization-vetting for this DHS and FEMA grant program is performed by these federal agencies, not by the state.

Sam Westrop, the director of Islamist Watch and the author of the Middle East Forum report, disputed this claim, arguing that the state was responsible for screening these grant applications and had the authority to exclude applicants.

Westrop told Blaze News that “only a small number” of the $13 million came from the DHS’ Nonprofit Security Grant Program.

“However, many of the grants we identified, while not all from DHS, were in fact paid for from federal funds; and are thus subawards,” Westrop stated. “But by serving as the primary grantee, the Texas state government is required by the federal government to vet and assess risk. Subawards are discretionary, and the primary grantee may exclude a subawardee.”

“So these grants may be financed by federal dollars, but the monies are distributed through and at the discretion of the Texas state government, much by the governor’s office itself,” Westrop added.

The Nonprofit Security Grant Program seeks to provide financial support to nonprofit organizations that are considered “high risk” of a terrorist attack. These nonprofits can include places of worship, educational facilities, and medical facilities, among other 501(c)(3) organizations. The funds are intended to support security enhancements, such as installing cameras, alarms, and fences. The grant can also be used toward security planning and training, as well as cybersecurity.

RELATED: No Sharia law in Texas: Abbott draws a hard line against radical Islam

Photo by Ilana Panich-Linsman for The Washington Post via Getty Images

According to FEMA, the State Administrative Agency in each state is “the only eligible applicant” for this grant and “responsible for handling the federal award.” Therefore, churches and other places of worship seeking funds through the Nonprofit Security Grant Program are “subapplicants that must apply through the SAA in the state or territory where the applying facility is physically located.” The nonprofits cannot apply directly to FEMA.

The applications are first “scored by the SAA in coordination with its state.” Then the SAA submits “a prioritized list of [investment justifications] with all scores to FEMA.”

FEMA notes that a facility’s local SAA may have its own requirements to apply for the grant. Texas’ SAA contact is the Homeland Security Grants Division under the Texas Office of the Governor.

These now-archived grant opportunities from Texas’ eGrants website state that the “Office of the Governor will screen all applications to ensure that they meet the requirements included in the funding announcement.” However, it notes that FEMA “makes final funding decisions.”

While it remains disputed whether Texas could have blocked these grants from going to alleged Islamist organizations, FEMA has made it clear that the DHS, under Secretary Kristi Noem, has significantly increased the vetting at the federal level.

“Under Secretary Noem’s leadership, FEMA conducted a critical evaluation of all grant programs and recipients to root out waste, fraud, and abuse and deliver accountability for the American taxpayer,” a FEMA spokesperson told Blaze News. “For Fiscal Year 2025 grant awards, DHS and FEMA worked together to vet grant recipients and ensure that every dollar spent strengthens the nation’s resilience.”

“Unlike the previous administration, recipients of grants will no longer be permitted to use federal funds to house illegal immigrants at luxury hotels, fund climate change pet projects, or empower radical organizations with unseemly ties that don’t serve the interest of the American people,” the spokesperson added.

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

​News, Greg abbott, Abbott, Texas, Department of homeland security, Dhs, Sharia law, Muslim brotherhood, Council on american-islamic relations, Council on american islamic relations, Cair, Middle east forum, Federal emergency management agency, Fema, Grants, Politics 

The government has one biblical purpose: to protect the innocent and punish evil. But America’s leaders have abandoned this duty, as many have done in the past.

And Dr. Frank Turek points out to BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey that instead of protecting the people from evil, corrupt governments often wield evil.

“It’s interesting, Allie. Our mutual friend James Lindsay is an agnostic atheist, and about a year before Charlie died, he texted Charlie and he said, ‘Charlie, I’m starting to believe in Satan,’” Turek tells Stuckey.

Turek recalled Lindsay explaining that this happened when he dove into the history of communism.

“And so Charlie texted him back, ‘If Satan, then God,’ and James texted back, ‘That would follow,’” he says.

“In other words, it’s the point that if there’s evil, there has to be good because evil is not a thing in itself. It’s a lack in a good thing. It’s like cancer,” he continues.

And in order to prevent evil from rapidly spreading and hurting them, people trust the government to help stop it.

“We need a force to protect innocent people from evil and to punish wrongdoers,” he says. “And when governments cease to do that, they cease to become legitimate governments.”

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 phone, Upload, Sharing, Camera phone, Free, Video, Youtube.com, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Relatable, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Frank turek, Charlie kirk, Communism, Evil, Government, Governments biblical purposes, James lindsay 

Georgia U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) announced her resignation Friday night, citing a desire to spare her family from further danger and her district from a “hurtful and hateful” Republican primary.

While her current term does not end until Jan. 3, 2027, Greene indicated she will instead leave office on Jan. 5, 2026.

In both her video and written statements, Greene highlighted her historic support for President Donald Trump, her conservative voting record — the New Americans’ Freedom Index gives her a lifetime rating of 97% and the Conservative Review’s Liberty Score gave her a 100% rating — and her subjection over the years to constant “personal attacks, death threats, lawfare, ridiculous slander, and lies.”

‘All I see ‘Wacky’ Marjorie do is COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN!’

“When the common American people finally realize and understand that the Political Industrial Complex of both parties is ripping this country apart, that not one elected leader like me is able to stop Washington’s machine from gradually destroying our country, and instead the reality is that they, common Americans, The People possess the real power over Washington,” wrote Greene, “then I’ll be here by their side to rebuild it.”

Her resignation announcement comes just days after Greene suggested that the latest series of threats against her life were due to her recent loss of favor with Trump.

The president noted in a lengthy Nov. 14 post on Truth Social that he was withdrawing his support for the “ranting lunatic” Georgia congresswoman and would give “unyielding” support to whomever opposes her in next year’s primary.

“All I see ‘Wacky’ Marjorie do is COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN! It seemed to all begin when I sent her a Poll stating that she should not run for Senator, or Governor, she was at 12% and didn’t have a chance (unless, of course, she had my Endorsement — which she wasn’t about to get!),” wrote Trump.

RELATED: Marjorie Taylor Greene says she has received violent threats — and blames Trump

Photo by ALLISON ROBBERT/AFP via Getty Images

When asked days later about the threats against Greene — the Rome Police Department confirmed in an emailed statement to Blaze News that they received reports about them — Trump told reporters, “Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Greene. I don’t think her life is in danger. … Frankly, I don’t think anybody cares about her.”

Greene subsequently noted, “President Trump’s unwarranted and vicious attacks against me were a dog whistle to dangerous radicals that could lead to serious attacks on me and my family.”

Since taking office in 2021, Greene has been the victim of numerous swatting attacks — attacks that various lawmakers have suggested are tantamount to attempted murder and domestic terrorism.

The congresswoman alleged that whereas the swatting attacks and death threats she had previously experienced came from the left, she said Trump labeling her a “traitor” made her a target for attacks by individuals on the right.

‘Many common Americans have been cast aside and replaced as well.’

“… President Trump has called me a traitor, which is absolutely untrue and horrific,” wrote Greene, adding that “this puts blood in the water and creates a feeding frenzy. And it could ultimately lead to a harmful or even deadly outcome.”

The response to the news that Greene is leaving office has been mixed.

Trump — whom Greene criticized in recent months for his June airstrikes on Iran and his Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files — told ABC News’ Rachel Scott, “I think it’s great news for the country. It’s great.”

Trump commented further Saturday morning — calling her “Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Brown” — and saying Greene “has decided to call it ‘quits'” due to “PLUMMETING Poll Numbers, and not wanting to face a Primary Challenger with a strong Trump Endorsement (where she would have no chance of winning!) …”

After Trump also dinged Kentucky Republicans U.S. Sen. Rand Paul and U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie — and suggested Greene “went BAD” because he didn’t return her phone calls — the president thanked the Georgia congresswoman for her service.

Laura Loomer — who has advocated for the ouster of various elements of Trump’s 2024 coalition in recent months — tweeted that “Traitor Greene is a terrible person. I get a lot of joy in watching my enemies fall.”

Shawn Harris, a Democrat hoping to flip Greene’s seat in the midterm election, also welcomed the news, writing, “Get ready Georgia! Teachers, farmers, veterans, EVERYONE, I need your support.”

But some politicos expressed displeasure with Greene’s resignation announcement.

Former Cobb County GOP Chairwoman Salleigh Grubbs said she was “heartbroken,” noting that Greene “put it all on the line time after time. She fought for her district and put America First. What more could anyone have wanted? A sad day in America.”

Indiana Rep. Victoria Spartz (R) said “there’s a lot of truth to what Marjorie had to say” and added that she can’t “blame her for leaving this institution that has betrayed the American people.”

Cenk Uygur, the far-left CEO of the Young Turks, wrote the following to Greene: “I would have never imagined saying this, but … don’t go. Stay and fight. Even though we still disagree on so many things, you were one of the very few honest people in Congress. Stay and fight!”

But Greene noted in her Friday statement, “I refuse to be a ‘battered wife’ hoping it all goes away and gets better. If I am cast aside by MAGA Inc and replaced by Neocons, Big Pharma, Big Tech, Military Industrial War Complex, foreign leaders, and the elite donor class that can’t even relate to real Americans, then many common Americans have been cast aside and replaced as well.”

The disenchanted Republican added, “There is no ‘plan to save the world’ or insane 4D chess game being played.”

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

​Congress, Donald trump, Georgia, Jeffrey epstein, Laura loomer, Loomer, Maga, Marjorie taylor greene, Mtg, Politics, Primary, Republican, Resignation 

So far, more than 100 federal court judges have ruled against the Trump administration in hundreds of lawsuits filed by states, unions, nonprofit organizations, and individuals.

While some of these rulings are fairly grounded in the Constitution, federal law, and precedent, many are expressions of primal rage from judges offended by the administration and moving at breakneck speed to stop it.

Trump sometimes exceeds his authority. Activist judges substitute ‘frequently’ for ‘sometimes.’ The Constitution and the Supreme Court disagree.

According to a Politico analysis, 87 of 114 federal judges who ruled against the administration were appointed by Democratic presidents, and 27 by Republicans. Most of the lawsuits were filed in just a few districts, with repeat activist judges leading the opposition.

Lawsuits against the administration may be filed in the District of Columbia and, often, also in other districts. Initially cases are randomly assigned. Plaintiffs focus on districts with predominantly activist, progressive judges. Because related cases are usually assigned to the same judge, later plaintiffs file in districts in which related cases were assigned to friendly activists.

Conservative judges generally believe they should interpret the law and avoid ruling on political questions, while liberals tend to see themselves as protectors of their values. After 60 years of domination by activist liberals, the Supreme Court and conservative appeals court judges are finally demanding that district court judges respect the Constitution. The Supreme Court is also re-evaluating precedents established by far-left justices who substituted their values for the words and intentions embodied in the Constitution.

To date, the Supreme Court has reversed or stayed about 30 lower court injunctions blocking the administration, and appeals courts have reversed or stayed another dozen. Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson imposed an administrative stay on a district court decision requiring the immediate resumption of SNAP payments.

Federal judges who oppose Trump’s agenda are openly opposing the Supreme Court. In April, D.C. Chief Federal Judge James Boasberg sought to hold administration officials in criminal contempt for violating an order the court had vacated. In May, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ho criticized the court’s demand that district courts act promptly on administration requests. In a September ruling, Boston Federal Judge Allison Burroughs challenged the court for expecting lower courts to treat its emergency orders as binding legal precedent.

Ten of 12 federal judges interviewed by NBC News in September, and 47 of 65 federal judges responding to a New York Times survey in October, thought the court was mishandling its emergency docket. They described orders as “incredibly demoralizing and troubling” and “a slap in the face to the district courts.”

Deservedly so. Though the Supreme Court and appeals courts judges have rebuked district court judges for ignoring higher courts and abusing their authority, they continue to do so with rulings focused on identity politics and a progressive lens on the woes of immigrants, minorities, women, and workers. They likely expect to be reversed on appeal, but they secure wins by causing delay and creating fodder for progressive activists to rally their supporters.

There is little that can be done about these judges. Removal requires a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate. With Democrats supporting these judges, those votes are unrealistic.

RELATED: Who checks the judges? No one — and that’s the problem.

Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images

Just a few of the dozens of examples of politicized judicial decisions:

In May, Myong Joun, a Biden appointee in Boston, enjoined layoffs at the Department of Education in a decision featuring an encomium to its anti-discrimination mission. The Supreme Court stayed his injunction.

Despite this precedent, Susan Illston, a Clinton appointee in San Francisco, issued a nationwide injunction barring the administration from firing union employees during or because of the government shutdown. Ignoring settled law, she bemoaned the “trauma” of workers who had been under “stress” ever since Trump’s election. Illston gambled correctly that the shutdown would end before her order could be reversed.

Indira Talwani, a federal district court judge in Boston, went further. Declaiming her fear that defunding Planned Parenthood would deprive women of access to abortions, she elided Article I of the Constitution, which requires all federal spending to be approved by Congress, nullifying a duly enacted statute that suspended funding of large abortion providers for a year. By the time she is reversed, the suspension will have expired.

In June, after San Francisco Federal Judge Charles Breyer enjoined Trump from federalizing the California National Guard, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit unanimously stayed his order, explaining that on military matters, the president’s judgment stands unless it is dishonest. Nonetheless, Oregon Federal Judge Karin Immergut subsequently blocked deployments in Portland, substituting her assessment of the situation for the president’s.

An Obama-appointed judge recently interviewed by NBC explained, “Trump derangement syndrome is a real issue. As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane.”

Trump sometimes exceeds his authority. Activist judges, who self-reverentially believe progressive technocrats and judges are democracy’s guardians, substitute “frequently” for “sometimes.” The Constitution and the Supreme Court disagree.

​Gop, Federal judiciary, Supreme court, Opinion & analysis, Judicial supremacy, National injunction, The courts, Judicial overreach, Federal court, Lawsuits, Donald trump, Maga, America first, Leftists, Judicial activism, Congress, Nullification 

Law enforcement in Florida is looking for a female seen on video inside a bus beating up an elderly passenger last month.

A 70-year-old woman on Oct. 21 took a seat in the disabled section of a transit bus, the Broward County Sheriff’s office said, adding that “her ride would end with her battered and bruised after being attacked by a fellow bus rider.”

‘This is repulsive. This is something that should never happen; it should not happen in any type of civilized society. What this woman did is absolutely unacceptable.’

Detectives said the attacker, who was standing, bumped into the victim several times due to the movement of the bus, officials said.

The victim asked the attacker to give her some space, officials said, after which a verbal argument ensued.

With that, officials said the attacker “intentionally and forcefully pushed her body into the victim several times. The attacker then grabbed a grocery bag and struck her in the face with it.”

At one point during the assault, video appears to show the feisty elderly woman issuing a middle finger to her attacker.

The sheriff’s office said the victim used her cane to defend herself, and the attacker punched the victim multiple times in the head.

Officials said several bystanders on the bus came to the victim’s defense and separated her from the attacker.

RELATED: Insane video shows female beating up city bus driver before crash into restaurant — and then she actually keeps attacking him

The bus driver saw the incident and stopped the bus in the 4100 block of West Oakland Park Boulevard in Lauderdale Lakes, officials said, and that’s where the attacker and a woman with her fled.

The victim suffered bruising on her forehead but declined to be transported to the hospital, officials said.

“Fortunately the victim did not suffer any major injuries. She was treated on scene,” sheriff spokesperson Carey Codd told WFOR-TV.

Codd added, “This is repulsive. This is something that should never happen; it should not happen in any type of civilized society. What this woman did is absolutely unacceptable.”

Broward Sheriff’s Office Violent Crimes Unit detectives released video of the attack in hopes of identifying the woman who pestered the elderly woman before punching her repeatedly. You can view the sheriff’s office video here.

Those with information on the identity of the attacker or the woman with her are asked to contact BSO Violent Crimes Unit Detective Andres Lopez at 954-321-4915 or submit a tip through the SafeWatch app, officials said.

Those wishing to remain anonymous and be eligible for a cash reward can contact Broward Crime Stoppers at 954-493-TIPS (8477), submit a tip online at browardcrimestoppers.org, or dial **TIPS (8477) from any cell phone in the United States. If your tip leads to an arrest in this case, you are eligible for a reward of up to $5,000, officials said.

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

​Physical attack, Florida, Female attacks elderly woman on bus, Broward county sheriff’s office, Crime 

Is a tariff a tax? Many Americans have forgotten that this question, which has been in the news more or less all year, was fundamental to the American Revolution. And among American Patriots, or Whigs, meaning those who supported the colonists’ claims against Parliament, there was almost universal consensus that they were different things, constitutionally speaking.

Throughout the Imperial Crisis of 1763 to 1776, the consensus among the colonists was that Parliament had the right to regulate trade in the British Empire but had no right to tax the colonists. And they recognized that a regulation of trade might take the form of a duty imposed upon, for example, molasses imported from French colonies to favor molasses imported from British colonies.

The founding generation believed in the separation of powers.

In the colonists’ view, the Sugar Act of 1764 was an unconstitutional innovation. The Act was quite explicit, stating at the top that it was passed for the purpose of “applying the produce of such duties, and of the duties to arise by virtue of the said act, towards defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the said colonies and plantations.” It was the first trade act to do that.

Townshend’s overreach

The Stamp Act of 1765, and the reaction to it, made the protest against the 1764 Sugar Act less conspicuous. The result of the actions taken against the Stamp Act was that many in Parliament did not grasp the American argument against the Sugar Act. Hence, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts in 1767, imposing duties on lead, glass, paper, paint, and tea to raise revenue. When the colonists complained, many in Parliament accused the colonists of moving the goalposts.

The charge was not accurate, but it did reflect what they believed. And, like many today, many members of Parliament were unable to grasp the difference between a duty imposed for the purpose of trade regulation and a duty imposed for the purpose of raising revenue.

The most famous criticism of the Townshend Acts, and the most popular writing of the era until Thomas Paine published “Common Sense” in January 1776, was John Dickinson’s “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.” In the second letter, Dickinson made the consensus Patriot argument logically, clearly, and eloquently.

There is another late act of parliament, which appears to me to be unconstitutional, and as destructive to the liberty of these colonies, as that mentioned in my last letter; that is, the act for granting the duties on paper, glass, etc.

The parliament unquestionably possesses a legal authority to regulate the trade of Great Britain, and all her colonies. Such an authority is essential to the relation between a mother country and her colonies; and necessary for the common good of all …

I have looked over every statute relating to these colonies, from their first settlement to this time; and I find every one of them founded on this principle, till the Stamp Act administration.* All before, are calculated to regulate trade, and preserve or promote a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire. … The raising of a revenue thereby was never intended. … Never did the British parliament, till the period above mentioned, think of imposing duties in America for the purpose of raising a revenue. …

Here we may observe an authority expressly claimed and exerted to impose duties on these colonies; not for the regulation of trade; not for the preservation or promotion of a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire, heretofore the sole objects of parliamentary institutions; but for the single purpose of levying money upon us.

This I call an innovation; and a most dangerous innovation.* It may perhaps be objected, that Great Britain has a right to lay what duties she pleases upon her exports.

That so many people today don’t seem to understand this distinction is a sign that the American bar seems to have gone Tory. The founding generation’s way of thinking about tariffs, and perhaps law in general, is in danger of being rendered foreign to our public policy discussion, perhaps even to constitutional discussion, even among people who mistakenly think of themselves as originalists.

This way of thinking, of course, says little about the current case, as the purpose of the law itself must be understood in light of the thinking of the men who passed it. But it is also true that the way of thinking that Dickinson represented, and which was broadly shared in the founding generation, might have something to say here.

Delegation’s limits

The founding generation believed in the separation of powers. The founders recognized, as “The Federalist” notes, that in practice the powers will inevitably overlap and sometimes clash. But they did operate within a way of legal and constitutional thinking that took it as a given that in order to guard the separation of powers, any delegation of legislative powers to the executive had to be limited and focused.

There is a difference between a reasonable and an unreasonable delegation of powers, just as there is between a tax and a regulation of trade, even if, in both cases, money is raised at customs houses. The kind of delegation the Trump administration is asserting in this case is difficult, perhaps impossible, to reconcile with the practice of separation of powers. Congress has no right to abdicate its obligation to set trade policy via legislation.

RELATED: Read it and weep: Tariffs work, and the numbers prove it

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The Trump administration’s assertion that it has the right to set tariffs worldwide, claiming unlimited emergency power based on a law designed to delegate to the president a narrow emergency power, resembles the kind of expansive, arbitrary interpretation that the founders’ legal heroes fought.

In the 1630s, King Charles claimed the right to collect “ship money” throughout England. By tradition, the king had the right to raise money, without Parliament’s consent, in port towns in time of war, or if war was imminent.

King Charles asserted a living constitution interpretation: Given modern circumstances, he claimed a general right to raise taxes if a war emergency was imminent. Dickinson mentioned the case in the first Farmer’s Letters, suggesting there was a connection between the logic of the one argument and the other.

Our difficulty recognizing the limits of the nondelegation doctrine — and our confusion about the difference between a duty imposed to raise revenue and one imposed to regulate trade — shows how much work remains if we want to understand the Constitution as the framers did. That understanding requires grappling with the ideas about human nature, government, and law that justified ratification in the first place and that still anchor our constitutional order.

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

​Tariffs, Trump, Trade policy, Taxes, Opinion & analysis, Donald trump, American founding, Townsend act, Sugar act, Trade, Emergency powers