The Alaska Supreme Court has delivered the final blow to Republicans’ efforts to keep a Senate challenger by the same name as incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan (R) off the ballot.

In a short order handed down Monday, the court affirmed a ruling from a superior court that Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. must appear on the Aug. 18 primary ballot for U.S. Senate.

‘The only reason he is running is to deceive voters and manipulate Alaska’s election system.’

“The 6/26/2026 order of the superior court directing the Division to include appellee Sullivan as a candidate for United States Senator on the primary election ballot is AFFIRMED,” the order said.

The court remanded the matter to the Division of Elections to determine how J. Sullivan should be listed on the primary ballot.

“A full opinion will be issued at a later date,” concluded the order.

Nate Adams, a spokesperson for Sen. Sullivan, released a statement on the ruling: “We’re disappointed in the court’s decision, because, as the sham candidate Dan J. Sullivan’s lawyers made clear in their legal arguments, the only reason he is running is to deceive voters and manipulate Alaska’s election system.”

“However, we are encouraged by the fact that the Director of the Division of Elections will be able to use her expertise to differentiate between the Petersburg fraud and the incumbent — Senator Dan Sullivan — to the benefit of Alaska voters,” Adams added.

J. Sullivan’s campaign expressed approval of the decision in a statement, saying, “We are grateful for the Alaska Supreme Court’s careful and timely attention to this important expedited matter, and its decision to affirm Judge Matthews’ well-reasoned, thorough order vacating the Division’s unlawful decision to exclude me as a candidate. We expect that the Division will act in full compliance with existing Alaska ballot design law in its preparation of the ballots.”

RELATED: Alaska court reinstates Senate candidate sharing incumbent’s name

A 69-year-old retired teacher, J. Sullivan reportedly registered as a Republican earlier this year and entered the race to oust Sen. Sullivan on May 29, just before the deadline for filing.

He has faced accusations from Sen. Sullivan of coordinating with Democrat operatives to sabotage the senator’s chances of re-election. Sen. Sullivan told CNN earlier this month that J. Sullivan’s candidacy was effectively a Democrat effort to “cheat” and confuse voters in order to increase Democrat challenger Mary Peltola’s odds of winning.

“Democrats recruited a guy by the name of Dan Sullivan. He is a liberal progressive. … He’s donated to Peltola,” Sen. Sullivan said.

He added, “His campaign logo, his letterhead, his website, all had my campaign logo that I’ve had for 13 years.”

In response to J. Sullivan’s candidacy, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Alaska Republican Party filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission and the state’s Division of Elections, respectively.

After Alaska Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom (R) requested an investigation into J. Sullivan’s eligibility, Carol Beecher, the director of the Division of Elections, concluded that J. Sullivan had not filed a genuine “good-faith” candidacy and instead sought to confuse voters by placing two candidates with nearly identical names on the ballot.

J. Sullivan appealed the division’s decision to the Superior Court, where Judge Thomas Matthews affirmed that he met all the qualifying criteria set out by the Constitution and therefore Alaska could not impose an additional requirement on his candidacy. The court further concluded that J. Sullivan’s alleged motives or political affiliations did not bear on his constitutional eligibility to seek office.

The state appealed the decision to the Alaska Supreme Court, which again ruled in favor of J. Sullivan — officially solidifying his place on Alaska’s Aug. 18 nonpartisan primary ballot.

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

​Dan sullivan, Us senate, Politics, Alaska 

An elderly Air Force veteran was assaulted, injured, and robbed after withdrawing cash from an ATM in Pearland, Texas, earlier this month — and cellphone video shows a juvenile taking the victim’s wallet.

A KHOU-TV video report shows the end of the June 19 attack outside a Walgreens, with the victim lying on the ground in a parking space in front of the store.

‘How scary!! I know where this was. I go there when I come into town. But …’

The 79-year-old veteran told the station he thought withdrawing cash from an ATM inside the store was safer. However, he added to KHOU that he suspects he was being watched.

The elderly victim told the station he was jumped as soon as he walked out of the store and that he’s thankful he suffered only minor injuries.

Pearland police on Tuesday confirmed that the suspect seen in a video the department took down from its Facebook page has been identified as a juvenile, and “the investigation is ongoing as officers work to take him into custody.”

Police added that the video was removed because the suspect is a juvenile.

Officers on June 19 responded to a robbery investigation at the Walgreens located in the 11600 block of Shadow Creek Parkway in Pearland, police said.

The investigation revealed that a 79-year-old man had just completed a cash withdrawal from a nearby ATM when he was returning to his vehicle, police said.

At that time, police said, an unidentified black male wearing a white shirt and black pants approached the man who had just withdrawn cash and assaulted him, causing bodily injury.

Police said the suspect stole the victim’s wallet and the cash he had just withdrawn.

Detectives soon identified and arrested two additional suspects involved in the robbery:

Donte Belle, 30, of Houston, was identified as the driver of the getaway vehicle, and he was charged with aggravated robbery, police said.Demondtra Moore, 23, of Houston, was identified as the alleged lookout, and he also was charged with aggravated robbery, police said.

The Special Investigations Unit of the Pearland Police Department’s Criminal Investigations Division is continuing to investigate this case, police said.

A handful of people commented on the KHOU video showing the end of the attack. The following are a few reactions:

“Throw those punks away,” one commenter said.”Damn, I wished that man was armed,” another user wrote.”How scary!! I know where this was. I go there when I come into town. But …,” another commenter exclaimed.

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

​Aggravated robbery, Pearland, Texas, Atm, Walgreens, Elderly victim, Air force veteran, Suspects arrested, Juvenile suspect at large, Crime 

For generations, homeowners have been told that paying property taxes is simply the price of owning a home. But Florida voters may soon have a chance to change that.

A proposed ballot amendment would remove an estimated 60% of homeowners from property tax rolls, a move supporters say would provide long-overdue relief and strengthen private property rights.

“Of course, they’re pushing back on the other side of this. And talking about Oviedo, a bedroom community outside Orlando, has been trying to build a new police station for a decade, but now with this property tax situation, they may not even have a police department to put in the new station,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray explains on “Pat Gray Unleashed.”

“They might have to merge with the county,” he says.

However, Gray is hopeful that Oviedo’s concerns may be ignored.

“In November, Florida voters decide on a ballot amendment that would remove roughly 60% of Florida residents from property tax rolls,” he says. “That’s amazing.”

“Why isn’t that happening in Texas?” he asks.

“Because our governor is a follower,” executive producer Keith Malinak answers.

“If you look at everything, whether it’s COVID or anything, religious stuff, that you’ve seen DeSantis stand up for … Abbott goes, ‘Oh, the water seems fine. I guess now I’ll jump in,’” Malinak says.

“So, maybe this will happen,” he adds.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat’s biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Florida, Governor, Greg abbott, Oviedo, Pat gray, Property taxes, Ron desantis, Texas, Pat gray unleashed 

The arrest of two suspects during San Francisco’s Trans March led to police clashing with marchers who were trying to free the suspects, according to police.

The two suspects were arrested, three marchers were arrested, and two of the police officers were injured while trying to deal with the crowd.

‘People were dancing, children were running around. It was just joyful. And suddenly the police came running. Some of them had their guns drawn, batons out.’

Police said the two were seen vandalizing property with spray paint and that one suspect had assaulted and spray-painted another marcher. When they attempted to arrest the suspects, marchers surrounded them and obstructed the officers in an attempt to free the suspects.

A woman who witnessed the melee Friday told KRON-TV that the police should have let the suspects go rather than fight back against the marchers.

“I’m crying because it was just so shocking to see such a peaceful, beautiful event just be basically run over by police out of nowhere over somebody spray-painting,” said the woman, who wanted to be known by the name Missy.

She said she went to the march with her transgender-identifying child before the police ruined it.

“People were dancing, children were running around. It was just joyful. And suddenly the police came running. Some of them had their guns drawn, batons out,” she added.

Two people were arrested on suspicion of obstruction of police, and three were arrested for alleged vandalism and assault.

“I get that in large crowds police have a heightened sense of awareness and reaction and all of that, but the guy was spray-painting. I just don’t feel it was necessary,” the woman added.

The San Francisco Police Dept. released a statement about the incident:

The SFPD always respects individuals’ First Amendment rights to protest; however, criminal activity will not be tolerated in San Francisco. Additionally, the SFPD is unwavering in its support for the LGBTQ+ community and will continue to protect and serve every community in San Francisco.

One livestreamer recorded himself screaming at police officers and demanding to know why they would arrest transgender-identifying people in the transgender district.

RELATED: California taxpayers are funding gender transition services for homeless illegal aliens: Report

Missy was upset that the police tried to arrest people committing crimes instead of standing by transgender-identifying marchers.

“We don’t need our police officers being unpredictable,” she added. “We need them to stand side by side with us.”

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

​Lgbtq community, San francisco, Trans march, Vandalism, Obstruction of justice, Politics 

The pastor of the New Hope Community Church in Palatine, Illinois, says that he isn’t backing down from preaching the truth after LGBTQ+ activists showed up to protest.

The protesters are angry at messages the church has posted on its digital sign that refer to Pride Month, and they want the church to stop.

‘That gives us the chance to share God’s truth. I wish they’d come every day so we can have conversations.’

One of the messages reads, “We love you enough to tell you the truth,” while another reads, “Ditch Pride, embrace humility.”

“Our goal was to let other residents of Palatine know what this church preaches and that Palatine is better than that,” said Paul Dombrowski of the Northwest Suburban Pride Network to WLS-TV.

“It is important to stand up for those in our community who are being marginalized and who are being ostracized clearly in this way,” said Chelsea Laliberte Barnes, a member of a group named Liberal Moms of the Northwest Suburbs.

Some said they were concerned about the messages because the church is near a school.

The WLS news video report showed that one protester held up a sign reading, “Hate has no home here,” while a report from LGBTQ Nation called the messages “hateful.”

Members of the church came out to defend the innocuous messages and discuss the issue with the protesters.

James Pittman Jr., the pastor of the church, said they would not change their messaging and added that he welcomed the protests.

“That gives us the chance to share God’s truth. I wish they’d come every day so we can have conversations,” Pittman told WLS.

RELATED: NY Pride group disbands after founder is arrested for disgusting alleged crime with minor

The pastor explained that the church’s digital messages would often reflect the season, such as Christmas or Easter, but in June they refer to Pride Month.

WLS noted that LGBTQ activists had also tried to get Palatine city officials to fly a Pride flag outside of city hall but had been rebuffed.

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

​Christianity, Church, Lgbtq, Pride month, Protest, Politics 

Nobody asked us. Not me, not my teammates, not the 18-year-olds who had just arrived at the University of Pennsylvania and found themselves sharing a locker room with Lia Thomas.

Nobody held a vote, nobody sent an email, nobody knocked on the door and said, “Hey, is this OK with you?” They simply instructed us that a man would be joining the women’s swim team and waited for us to get used to it. We never did.

Somewhere along the way, it became the job of a bunch of college kids to fix something the adults in the room had broken.

Plenty of lawyers and pundits will spend the next several weeks dissecting the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in West Virginia v. B.P.J. They will argue about precedent and jurisdiction, but here is what most of them are missing: They were not in that locker room. I was.

Eighteen times a week for an entire season, I changed and showered alongside a male athlete. Eighteen times a week, my teammates and I were expected to act like this was normal.

Voicing concerns was dubbed hateful, and the policy that created this situation in the first place was not. We had earned our spots on the team, but not one person in a position of authority at Penn, the NCAA, or USA Swimming ever pulled us aside and asked how we were handling the situation.

The administration and governing bodies were not interested. The message was quiet but very clear: Your discomfort is not the problem we are trying to solve.

When we tried to raise our concerns, the athletic department told us Thomas’ place on the team was nonnegotiable. Staff members offered us psychological services in an attempt to re-educate us into being comfortable undressing in front of a man. Their solution was not to protect us but to “fix” us.

Somewhere along the way, it became the job of a bunch of college kids to fix something the adults in the room had broken.

That is what I want people to understand when they hear about this ruling: It is not abstract to me. It is not a hypothetical or a talking point. I lived inside the policy the court just ruled states have the right to prohibit.

I can tell you from experience that the “compassionate” framing the other side always reaches for has never once held up to reality.

RELATED: SCOTUS sides with common sense after boys try to play sports with girls

Alex WROBLEWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

Compassion for whom? Not for the female athletes who trained their entire lives and finished one place lower than they should have. Not for the teenager in California who lost a state track title she had earned. Not for my teammates and me who were expected to smile and say nothing while the people making decisions were only concerned about the feelings of one male athlete.

This ruling matters, but it does not automatically fix the issue of the governing bodies and professional organizations that spent the last several years dismantling women’s protections one policy at a time.

The NCAA still allows athletes to compete on an amended birth certificate in some cases, a solution you’d come up with if you were never really trying to solve the problem and never had to share a locker room with a fully grown man.

And worse still, 23 states have no law protecting girls at all.

The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act has been sitting on Capitol Hill for years. Every member of Congress who let it die in committee now has a Supreme Court majority telling them they had the authority to act and chose not to. It is time to finish the job.

I have been waiting for that moment since I was 19.

The court got it right. I just wish it had not taken this long for the people in charge to catch up to what I knew firsthand in my locker room.

​Supreme court, Lia thomas, Women’s sports, Scotus, Ncaa, Upenn, Transgender athletes, Usa swimming, Opinion & analysis 

Chief Justice John Roberts begins the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship opinion in Westminster in 1608 with Calvin’s Case and the English law of royal subjectship.

I would begin in Philadelphia in 1776.

English law rested upon allegiance to the Crown. The American Republic would rest upon the consent of a self-governing people.

Between those two places — and those two moments — lies the American Revolution. And the Revolution changed more than who governed America. It changed the very foundation of political membership.

That is the central problem with the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Barbara. The court’s opinion is learned, careful, and historically rich. Chief Justice Roberts traces the English doctrine of jus soli through Calvin’s Case, Blackstone, a substantial body of antebellum American authorities, and finally United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

It may well become the definitive defense of the conventional understanding of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. But it answers the wrong question.

The issue is not whether America inherited English legal language. It plainly did. The issue is whether America also inherited England’s understanding of political membership.

The majority assumes that the American Revolution left the English understanding of political membership largely intact. The dissents argue that the Revolution rejected that understanding and replaced it with an American conception of citizenship grounded in the consent of the governed. That is the real disagreement in this case.

A new creed

Under English common law, nearly everyone born within the king’s dominions became a natural-born subject. Birth within the sovereign’s territory created permanent allegiance to the Crown because the child was born under the king’s protection. That doctrine made sense in a monarchy. It reflected a world of subjects, sovereigns, dominions, and perpetual allegiance.

But the United States is not a monarchy.

The Declaration of Independence did more than announce separation from Great Britain. It rejected the political philosophy upon which English subjectship rested. Jefferson’s words — that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed” — were not mere rhetorical flourishes. They announced a new theory of political legitimacy.

The Declaration’s closing words made the rejection of perpetual allegiance explicit: The new states were “absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown.”

English law rested upon allegiance to the Crown. The American Republic would rest upon the consent of a self-governing people.

That revolutionary transformation should have been central to the Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Instead, the majority largely assumes that English subjectship and American citizenship belong to the same constitutional lineage. Roberts proves an important proposition: England recognized birthright subjectship. But he does not prove the decisive one: that Americans who had repudiated monarchy intended, less than a century later, to constitutionalize the English law of royal subjectship as the definition of citizenship in a republic.

Mere obedience to law is not the same thing as complete political allegiance.

Justice Joseph Story helps explain why that distinction matters. Story was steeped in English law, but he was not merely Blackstone with an American accent. His great constitutional project was to explain how inherited English legal concepts had been adapted to the institutions and principles of an American republic.

He stands as a bridge between the common-law inheritance and American constitutionalism.

That is the bridge missing from the majority’s account. Roberts reads the inherited legal tradition largely as a line of continuity from Calvin’s Case to Wong Kim Ark. But the American constitutional genealogy runs along a different path: the Declaration of Independence, Story’s adaptation of inherited law to republican constitutionalism, Lincoln’s reaffirmation of the Declaration as the nation’s first principle, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the 14th Amendment.

Abraham Lincoln understood this better than anyone. He did not treat the Declaration as a mere political manifesto. Lincoln treated it as the nation’s statement of principle. In his famous meditation on the Constitution and the Union, Lincoln described the Declaration’s principle of liberty as the “apple of gold,” with the Constitution as the “picture of silver” framed around it.

The frame was made not to conceal or destroy the apple, but to preserve it.

That is precisely the point here. The Constitution must be read as law. But it is American law, not English law. And the 14th Amendment must be read as part of the Constitution’s effort to vindicate the principles of the Declaration after the catastrophe of slavery and Dred Scott.

Preserving the cornerstone

The Reconstruction Congress was not attempting to preserve English constitutionalism. It was completing the work begun in 1776.

The Declaration proclaimed that “all men are created equal.” Dred Scott denied that promise, holding that an entire class of Americans could never become members of the political community. The 14th Amendment repudiated that decision.

But it did so by restoring the principles of the American founding, not by reviving the legal doctrines of the British Crown.

This is why the majority’s repeated description of the Citizenship Clause as “declaratory” does not resolve the question. Declaratory of what? The common law of royal subjectship inherited from England? Or the constitutional law of citizenship that Americans had transformed through the Declaration, the Revolution, and nearly a century of republican self-government?

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, not 1768. It should therefore be interpreted through the constitutional understandings of the American Republic, not simply those of the British Empire.

The Citizenship Clause provides: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” The clause does not simply require birth in the United States. It adds a second requirement: The person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Those words must do real work.

RELATED: The Supreme Court puts border judges back in their lane

Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The majority effectively equates “subject to the jurisdiction” with “subject to American law.” Anyone physically present in the country, except diplomats and members of sovereign Indian tribes, must obey American law. From that premise, the majority concludes that virtually everyone born here becomes a citizen.

But the Reconstruction Congress was speaking of something more profound than traffic laws and criminal jurisdiction. It was defining membership in the American political community.

The debates surrounding the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment repeatedly invoked the ideas of complete jurisdiction, complete allegiance, and undivided political obligation.

Senator Lyman Trumbull, the principal author of the Civil Rights Act, explained that citizenship extended to those who were subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States — not merely to those temporarily answerable to its laws.

Every foreign visitor is obliged to obey American law while here. So is every foreign student, every tourist, every diplomat’s driver, and every person who crosses the border unlawfully. But mere obedience to law is not the same thing as complete political allegiance. If it were, the jurisdictional language would add almost nothing to the constitutional text.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 used slightly different language, extending citizenship to persons born in the United States and “not subject to any foreign power.” The 14th Amendment altered the phrasing, but not the underlying concept of complete political jurisdiction. The point was not mere geography. It was political membership.

That is why the dissents have the stronger originalist argument.

Citizenship in America

Justice Clarence Thomas begins with a question the majority never fully confronts: What did Americans understand citizenship to mean after they had rejected English subjectship? That is the proper originalist inquiry. It is not enough to ask how English courts defined the king’s subjects. The constitutional question is how Americans defined members of a self-governing republic.

The majority’s treatment of United States v. Wong Kim Ark illustrates the same methodological difficulty. Roberts portrays today’s decision as little more than the faithful application of settled precedent. That gives Wong Kim Ark much broader force than it actually possessed.

The case involved a child born in San Francisco to parents who had been lawfully admitted and permanently domiciled in the United States. That holding was sufficient to resolve the controversy before the Court. Whether the Constitution mandates citizenship for children born to temporary visitors or to those unlawfully present was not presented.

To be sure, Justice Horace Gray’s opinion draws heavily on the English tradition of jus soli. But the opinion’s reasoning extended well beyond the facts before it. Its discussion of temporary visitors and the full scope of the Citizenship Clause should be evaluated on the strength of its historical reasoning, not treated as though every observation carried the force of the Court’s holding.

That is especially important because Wong Kim Ark itself looked backward through the English common-law tradition. Today’s Court repeats that move. But whether Justice Gray correctly understood the original meaning of the 14th Amendment remains the very question under debate.

Over the past two decades, Edward Erler, Michael Anton, and I, along with several other prominent legal scholars, have argued that the Citizenship Clause must be understood against the backdrop of the American Revolution rather than the English common law of perpetual allegiance.

That argument does not deny England’s commitment to jus soli. It asks whether the American Revolution rejected the premise on which English jus soli rested.

RELATED: Sen. Schmitt offers glimmer of hope after birthright citizenship ‘mistake’ from SCOTUS

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images

Chief Justice Roberts presents an intellectually serious account of the conventional view. The majority opinion deserves respect for its scholarship and for its careful engagement with difficult historical sources.

But scholarship is only as persuasive as the question it seeks to answer.

Roberts proves that England followed jus soli. He proves that English subjects acquired allegiance by birth within the king’s dominions. He proves that Wong Kim Ark embraced that historical tradition.

What he never quite proves is why the American people, after repudiating monarchy and proclaiming government by consent, should be presumed to have constitutionalized that English doctrine rather than adapting inherited legal language to their own revolutionary understanding of citizenship.

The disagreement between the majority and the dissent is therefore not ultimately about Blackstone, Calvin’s Case, or even Wong Kim Ark. It is about what the American Revolution accomplished. Did it merely transfer sovereignty from the king to the people while leaving the English understanding of political membership intact? Or did it reject that understanding and replace it with citizenship grounded in consent, allegiance, and membership in the American political community?

Justice Thomas places that question at the center of the inquiry. For an originalist, that is exactly where it belongs.

The Declaration of Independence eloquently and definitively answered that question in favor of the doctrine of consent rather than the feudal doctrine of jus soli. In this, its 250th anniversary, it should not have been overlooked.

​Scotus, Birthright citizenship, 14th amendment, 1776, Wong kim ark, Dredd scott, Common law, Declaration of independence, Supreme court decision, Opinion & analysis 

Comedian Druski took the stage at the BET Awards as a flamboyant preacher obsessed with celebrities’ net worths and extravagant displays of wealth. And while it was a joke, BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock believes it exposed something very real about the current state of the black church.

“The black church is now a running joke to the point that the BET Awards can be based off of it. Druski opened up the BET Awards mocking the black church,” Whitlock says, before playing a few clips from Druski’s performance.

In one clip, Druski yelled that “somebody getting impregnated with the Word of God in here, in the front row right here.”

In another clip, he says, “We’ve got so many stars in the building whose net worths are blessed and who God has ordained to bless me. Put Tyler Perry net worth up there. Oh my God! Glory! $1.4 billion dollars! We pulling net worth tonight. Amen.”

“Somebody better donate, amen? Amen. Amen. Who else in the building? We got Stevie Wonder in the building. Put his net worth up there. $200 million,” he continues, with the screen behind him showing Wonder’s net worth in brail.

“This man is mocking the black church, taking God’s name in vain in front of a national television audience on the biggest night in black culture,” Whitlock says.

“I actually think he’s a force for good. He’s holding up a mirror and saying this is the type of clown show we have become,” he continues.

“Druski is using comedy properly to hold up a mirror and say … our behavior is so foolish that the only thing I can do is mock it,” he adds.

While Shemeka Michelle agrees, she also doesn’t think the comedy is for everyone.

“I don’t have a problem with it when it comes to people like us who actually can say this is so sad, that it’s accurate … but I think where my problem would come in at is that so many people won’t see it. They won’t see that this is accurate and this is sad and that there needs to be a change,” Michelle says.

“They will just take it as ‘OK, this is nothing to take serious, and we can continue to just play with God and the church, and it’s something that should be made a joke of,’” she continues.

“That’s what I’m kind of fearful of, that people just won’t have any reverence for God,” she adds.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Jason whitlock, Fearless, Druski, Comedian, Bet awards, Black church, Shemeka michelle, Jason whitlock harmony 

Eleven years ago, after the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obergefell redefined marriage, Daniel Horowitz published his book “Stolen Sovereignty,” warning that a day was coming soon when the court would redefine what citizenship means — “the ultimate question” of every civilization.

Today, his prediction came true. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of birthright citizenship — determining that any child born in the United States, regardless of the parents’ immigration status, is a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.

Now that the gavel has fallen, what is needed, says Horowitz, is not an “analysis of the [majority] opinion,” but a willingness to “[look] forward” to what comes next.

On this episode of “Conservative Review,” Horowitz explains why this SCOTUS ruling is only a travesty if we allow it to be.

“The important thing is not what the court said but what Trump and the Republican Party in control of Congress and, frankly, the red states … will do with this opinion,” he declares.

Calling the ruling “the Waterloo moment of judicial supremacism,” Horowitz argues that the executive and legislative branches have “an obligation to act in concert with what [they] know to be true” — namely, to “say no and not issue it.”

Because the judiciary lacks the power of the purse or the sword, its rulings are not self-executing on the other branches; they depend on the executive and legislative branches choosing to give them effect.

“The action item from here is very simple,” says Horowitz.

“Congress, in budget reconciliation and/or the appropriation bills to fund the government past October 1, [fiscal year] 2027, must prohibit the funding for the issuance of passports and, obviously, birth certificates to people [who] cannot show that one parent is a [legal permanent resident].”

As for the executive branch, it “should just say no,” Horowitz states bluntly.

“This should be Trump’s entire focus — just this,” he says. “All the political capital they’re going to expend on holding up the NDAA, holding up the Farm Bill … — it needs to be for defunding the issuance of … citizenship documents to illegals and tourist visas.”

To accept a ruling from SCOTUS — made up of unelected, life-tenured judges — as unassailable law, Horowitz warns, is like allowing “tyranny worse than King George” to govern our land.

“How fortuitous and tragic that it’s on the week of July Fourth 250th celebration … that we are being told that [] the unelected branch, without consent, could engage in social transformation without representation … that they could determine [birthright citizenship] with finality, including allowing the entire world to come in and dilute our citizenship and help vote and determine everything else as well,” he exclaims.

“That is not a thing. That is something that we never adopted, and it cannot and must not go through.”

To hear more, watch the episode above.

​Conservative review, Daniel horowitz, Scotus, Birthright citizenship, 14th amendment, Conservative review with daniel horowitz