The U.S. Supreme Court issued a hugely consequential 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais last week, striking down the Bayou State’s controversial 2024 congressional map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and providing some much-needed clarity on “whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act can indeed provide a compelling reason for race-based districting.”

Democrats and other liberals — including Justice Elena Kagan — condemned the ruling, construing it as a gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and a setback for racial minority representation in American politics.

Less than a week after its monumental ruling, the high court gave critics another reason to rend their garments.

‘The dissent’s rhetoric … lacks restraint.’

While it customarily waits 32 days after a ruling to issue its judgment, the Supreme Court on Monday granted Louisiana Republicans’ request to fast-track the process and immediately finalize its opinion in the case, thereby enabling the Bayou State to draw a new congressional map favoring the GOP in time for the 2026 midterm elections.

The court noted in its unsigned order that the usual 32-day delay ordinarily affords the “losing party time to file a petition for rehearing”; however, in this case, the defenders of the unconstitutional gerrymander “have not expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment.”

RELATED: Obama, Mamdani, other Democrats throw ugly tantrums after SCOTUS strikes racial gerrymander

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. JACQUELYN MARTIN/POOL/AFP/Getty Images

Absent that expression of intent or any opposition from Louisiana, the court allowed its ruling to go into effect immediately, prompting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to lash out at her colleagues in an unhinged four-page dissent.

“The Court’s decision in these cases has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana,” Jackson said in her opening salvo.

After criticizing Louisiana’s eagerness to ditch its unlawful congressional map in the wake of the Callais ruling, Jackson said that “to avoid the appearance of partiality here, we could, as per usual, opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position by applying our default procedures. But, today, the Court chooses the opposite.”

Jackson said further that the court’s expedited certification of the ruling “is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map” and represents an abandonment of constraints and principles that is “unwarranted and unwise.”

Evidently it was Justice Samuel Alito’s turn to dunk on Jackson over the latest in her series of trademark screeds.

Alito underscored in an opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch that the charges leveled in Jackson’s dissent “cannot go unanswered.”

The conservative justice pointed out that if Jackson had her way, the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana would be “held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional,” and that the Biden-nominated justice had failed to make the case for why it is somehow now too late for Louisiana to adopt a new, constitutionally compliant map and “not feasible for the elections to be held under such a map.”

In response to the two reasons Jackson did provide for dooming Louisiana to use an unconstitutional map in the midterm elections — first, that the court should observe the customary 32-day delay, and second, that the court should do so to avoid the appearance of bias — Alito wrote that “one is trivial at best, and the other is baseless and insulting.”

Turning on its head the assertion by Jackson that an expedited ruling-certification process screams bias, Alito noted that the Biden-nominated justice failed to explain why “unthinking compliance” with the custom “does not create the appearance of partiality (by running out the clock) on behalf of those who may find it politically advantageous to have the election occur under the unconstitutional map.”

Alito called Jackson’s claim that the decision represents an unprincipled use of power “a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge.”

The conservative justice concluded, “The dissent accuses the Court of ‘unshackl[ing]’ itself from ‘constraints.’ It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint.”

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

​Callais, Congress, Gerrymander, Gerrymandering, Justice clarence thomas, Justice neil gorsuch, Justice samuel alito, Ketanji brown jackson, Louisiana, Louisiana v callais, Midterm elections, Racial gerrymander, Redistricting, Samuel alito, Supreme court, Politics 

The first time I flew on a plane, I was 14 years old. It was my first time going to Europe and my first time anywhere outside the United States other than Canada. But Canada doesn’t really count, does it? Not really, especially back then, when you didn’t even need a passport to drive over the border.

That first time overseas I was alone — kind of. I was playing in an orchestra on a music tour. There were itineraries and things were planned, and there were adults making sure I was present. I was with 85 other high school students, eight counselors, and a director.

I think maybe that’s part of what I’m most thankful for when I think of those summers in Europe. I felt so far away then.

But I wasn’t with my family or my parents. At that age, at least for me, that counted as “alone.”

Roughing it

This was back before we all had smartphones in all our pockets. I couldn’t text my mom and dad every hour, and I couldn’t check my email whenever I wanted. I didn’t even have an email. I could call them, however. And I did, every few days.

Of course, you couldn’t just pick up a pay phone and make an international call. You needed a calling card.

Remember those?

The back was covered with instructions. How to call out of a country, what code to enter calling into a country, and a ton of numbers you had to enter before you even made the call. It was an insanely convoluted system, almost as if it were a test you had to pass. If you accidentally pressed a wrong number, you would have to start all over again.

But this system did work. And it allowed me to check in with Mom and Dad every three or four days, as they requested.

Warm welcome

Every stop of the tour, we would get divided up and stay with different host families — a few kids per household. They would give us a little tour in their broken English (the only language any of us spoke), offer their phone if we wanted to call home, and — if they were really cool — let us have a little wine with dinner.

On our last night, we would play a concert outside in the middle of the town. All the host families would come, sit there in folding chairs, and listen. There was food, sparkling water (then still rare in America), maybe some wine.

The next morning, we would get on the bus and drive to another tiny little town three hours away and do it all again. After four weeks of this it was time to get on a plane and head back home.

I did this every summer in high school. It was a blast, and I learned a lot — both about other people and myself. They were formative experiences for a kid from the Midwest like me, and they set me on a path I’m still on today.

Far and away

Still, I have to wonder if I would ever let my kids do something like that. The thought of sending my son off to Europe at such a young age with people I don’t know gives me serious preemptive anxiety. On the other hand, my parents were good parents and they let me do it. And I survived.

Fortunately, my son won’t be 14 for years, so I have a little time to learn to let go. And if he does go, we’ll have the full spectrum of modern technology keeping us connected, not just some dinky plastic card.

At the same time, I wonder if the end of the calling card didn’t take some of the magic with it. Knowing everything that’s happening with all your friends back home while posting pictures every hour for all of them to see doesn’t quite plunge you into the unknown.

I think maybe that’s part of what I’m most thankful for when I think of those summers in Europe. I felt so far away then — far from Mom and Dad, my school, everyone I knew, and everything familiar. Maybe one of the blessings of having grown up when I grew up was the possibility of that kind of distance. Traveling meant just a little more when you could feel far away.

RELATED: A stranger asked me to have a conversation; here’s why I’m glad I agreed

Imperial War Museum/Getty Images

Cozy connection

I’m in Europe again, though I have a smartphone and email now. I text my wife all the time, and she sends me pictures of the kids. I FaceTime with them, tell them I can’t wait to see them next week, and send them videos of what it looks like here. I manage business on my phone, write columns like this one one my computer, and continue my work as usual despite being across the ocean in the Europe that used to feel so far away.

I like this new reality quite a bit, but I think I liked the old one too. Distance doesn’t feel so great any more. The world is smaller and everything nearer. Maybe the whimsy of those childhood summers in Europe was simply the whimsy of youth and I’m only feeling all this because now I’m old and without that same wonder. But I’m not sure.

We are in the age of ever-present digital connection, and that’s not changing any time soon. Those final years before the mass adoption of the cell phone were the last gasps of a big, magical world. We didn’t really understand it at the time, but the cell phone, the smartphone, and email marked the end of distance and some kind of world of whimsy.

There’s no good in lamenting the things we can’t change, and there are quite a few advantages to this newer, much smaller world. But whenever I want to remember the old excitement of that wider, wilder world, I recall the feel of a calling card in my hand and smile.

​Men’s style, Modern technology, Lifestyle, Travel, Calling cards, Europe, The root of the matter 

Quantum computers, capable of breaking the public-key cryptography that underpins the modern internet, do not exist.

Yet.

But that is all about to change.

So “not yet” is not the right frame. The relevant adversary does not need a quantum computer today. He only needs to be patient: to collect encrypted traffic now, store it, and decrypt it later, once the technology cooperates. “Harvest now, decrypt later” is not a speculative threat model but a rational strategy and almost certainly already happening. Any communication that must remain confidential for a decade or more is therefore a present-tense vulnerability. The threat is future; the organizational work is now, and most organizations are moving slowly.

The migration to post-quantum cryptography is the kind of story that resists being told. Its central drama is administrative. Its heroes work in standards bodies. Its most celebrated outcome will be the absence of any dramatic outcome: browsers connecting, messages delivered, apps syncing, signatures verified, billions of small transactions occurring without incident in a world where the mathematics underneath them has been quietly replaced, the way a crew replaces the cables of a bridge while traffic flows underneath, while commuters listen to the radio and think about dinner.

The engineers who get it right will not be celebrated.

This is what infrastructure looks like from the inside. You do not see it unless it fails.

In August 2024, the National Institute of Standards and Technology released the first principal post-quantum cryptography standards. NIST points toward a transition timeline that deprecates and ultimately removes quantum-vulnerable algorithms by 2035, with high-priority systems moving earlier. The U.K.’s National Cyber Security Centre gives milestone dates of 2028 for discovery and planning, 2031 for early migration of critical systems, and 2035 for completion. The NSA pushes national security systems harder, with 2027 expectations for new deployments and 2030 phase-out milestones. The bureaucratic infrastructure of transition is in place. The transition itself remains.

A comparison keeps surfacing in technical circles: Y2K. The comparison is usually made to suggest scale, urgency, or the difficulty of explaining a threat that has not yet materialized. The deeper resonance is structural. Y2K mobilized enormous institutional effort whose success could only be measured by the absence of disaster. If it worked, nothing happened. The public event was a non-event.

Post-quantum migration has the same shape. It is infrastructural prevention, not technological theater. The engineers who get it right will not be celebrated. They will simply not be blamed.

RELATED: Unless something changes fast, datacenters could crash the electrical grid

standret/Getty Images

Devil’s in the details

The new algorithms use more space than the old ones, and in cryptography, size is no minor concern. ML-KEM-768, used for key exchange, has a public key of 1,184 bytes and a ciphertext of 1,088 bytes. SLH-DSA, used for digital signatures, has a minimal signature of 7,856 bytes. For comparison, a classical elliptic-curve signature is typically under 100 bytes. These size increases change handshake packetization, certificate-chain behavior, hardware security module design, logging, and storage assumptions. Post-quantum cryptography is unlike earlier cryptographic updates because its properties force protocol redesign.

Meta’s internal TLS rollout provides what amounts to a field report from the transition. The company chose a hybrid design combining classical elliptic-curve exchange with post-quantum ML-KEM, preferred the higher-security 768-parameter version, but dropped to the smaller 512-parameter version in some internal cases because packet-size constraints and handshake latency were otherwise too costly. The company reported roughly a 40% increase in CPU cycles during early hybrid rollout and discovered a multi-threading bug in the underlying cryptographic library during deployment at scale. This is what migration looks like in practice: engineering trade-offs among latency, compatibility, and fault discovery, made under production conditions, with real consequences. The ML-KEM-768 client share was large enough to threaten the TLS packet budget, sometimes adding an extra network round trip. A major security transition can hinge on whether a cryptographic object still fits in one packet.

This migration rewards organizations that already know where their cryptography lives. Meta’s migration framework describes a maturity ladder moving from “PQ-Unaware” through “PQ-Aware,” “PQ-Ready,” and “PQ-Hardened” to “PQ-Enabled,” and the prerequisite for any rung above the first is a working cryptographic inventory. An organization that does not know which of its systems use RSA, where its certificates are stored, or what its hardware security modules support cannot migrate. The migration rewards institutions that already behave like maintainers of infrastructure rather than its consumers. NIST calls this broader capacity “crypto agility,” indicating institutional self-knowledge under conditions of future threat.

No comprehension, no consent

Cloudflare reports that well over 60% of human-generated TLS traffic to its network is already protected with hybrid ML-KEM. Apple has deployed iMessage PQ3 since iOS 17.4 and now enables quantum-secure TLS by default. Signal introduced the Sparse Post-Quantum Ratchet so that ongoing conversations, not just initial handshakes, gain post-quantum forward secrecy. Signal’s public explanation emphasizes that the user experience does not change.

This is the governing aesthetic of the entire transition. The strongest form of cryptography is the one whose complexity has been absorbed into protocol design so completely that ordinary users require neither comprehension nor consent. Security succeeds when it disappears into the ordinary path. The future of trust arrives as extra bytes, silently negotiated in a handshake no one watches.

The European Union agency for cybersecurity, ENISA, found in its 2025 survey that post-quantum adoption sits at roughly 2% in the space sector. The technical standards have outrun much of the institutional world that must absorb them. The destination is clear, but parts of the road are still being paved. Somewhere, in data centers that do not advertise their purposes, traffic is being stored against a future that the collectors cannot yet quite see.

​Tech 

A 57-year-old Louisiana woman was convicted of manslaughter after her 4-year-old granddaughter died from acute alcohol poisoning.

Roxanne Record was arrested by Baton Rouge police after they responded to the residence before 11 a.m. on April 21, 2022, and found China Record unresponsive.

The grandmother told police ‘she messed up’ and ‘ruined everyone’s lives.’

The girl was treated by emergency medical personnel but was later declared dead.

Police said the grandmother admitted that she forced the girl to drink the rest of the whiskey in a bottle after discovering that she may have taken a sip. It was reportedly Canadian Mist, an 80 proof whiskey, which translates to 40% alcohol.

She made her drink the alcohol while on her knees in the kitchen hallway as the girl’s mother, Kadjha Record, allegedly watched on.

The grandmother told police “she messed up” and “ruined everyone’s lives.”

An autopsy found that she had a 0.68 blood alcohol level, which is more than eight times the legal limit for an adult driver.

Assistant District Attorney Dana Cummings said the grandmother did not have a good relationship with the child.

“China never had that because her grandmother never, ever took to her, never liked her, treated her differently than she treated the other children,” Cummings said during opening statements.

RELATED: Teen faces horrific rape and murder charges after 2-year-old foster child dies with suspicious injuries

Police reported that the mother gave conflicting accounts of her actions and accused her of failing to stand up to the grandmother or stop the drinking.

Kadjha Record was also arrested and faces trial. The grandmother faces up to 40 years in prison when she’s sentenced on Aug. 10.

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

​Child alcohol poisoning, China record killed, Grandmother makes child drink alcohol, Baton rouge child poisoning, Crime 

As this school year comes to an end, I hear parents talking about what university their children got into and how excited the family is about this next phase of life. As a university professor, I relate to this wholeheartedly. Raising your children to finish high school and go on to university is one of the biggest duties Christian parents will accomplish.

But there is a question Christian parents almost never ask: Why do we send our children into institutions that will work against the very faith we spent 18 years trying to instill?

You will routinely find professors lambasting Christianity in their classes as an oppressive colonizer religion that must be deconstructed.

No one says it that way, of course. Instead, the conversation sounds something like this: “We’ve found a good campus. There’s even a strong Christian student group.”

Now, let me say plainly: Those groups can be wonderful. I thank God for them. But pause for a moment and consider what that assumption reveals. You are already expecting that Christian community will exist outside the mission of the university. You are hoping your child will find a refuge within an otherwise hostile environment.

In other words, you are not sending your child into a place that reinforces truth, but into a storm, and praying they find a bunker. And you are probably paying tens of thousands of dollars to do it.

That should trouble us more than it does, because it wasn’t always this way. Institutions like Princeton, Harvard, and Yale were not founded as neutral arenas of inquiry. They were explicitly Christian. Their purpose was to cultivate piety, train ministers, and teach the knowledge of God to all students.

Universities have always had a vision of truth. The only difference now is that the vision has changed.

RELATED: The pipeline from university radical to would-be assassin

Celal Gunes/Anadolu/Getty Images

Today’s university is not neutral. It is structured around a set of ideas that systematically undermine Christianity while presenting themselves as morally superior. Take the influence of Michel Foucault. Students are taught, often implicitly, that truth is not something discovered but constructed. Knowledge is tied to power. What earlier generations called “truth,” we are told, is really just the perspective of those who happened to win.

Then there is Paulo Freire, whose approach to education has become foundational in teacher training and pedagogy. Education, in this view, is not about learning what is true but about liberating the oppressed. The world is divided into oppressors and oppressed, and students are trained to dismantle the oppressors.

Guess which category Christianity lands in?

Add to this the ever-present language of “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” along with intersectionality. These frameworks redefine truth itself as something tied to identity. Moral authority is assigned based on lived experience, and disagreement is often recast as harm.

The Bible, under this lens, is no longer read as the word of God. It is treated as a cultural artifact, one that has historically supported systems of oppression.

None of this is presented as an attack on Christianity. That would be too obvious. Or at least, you would have thought so even 10 years ago. But now you will routinely find professors lambasting Christianity in their classes as an oppressive colonizer religion that must be deconstructed.

And all of this is framed to the students as compassion and empathy. It is justice. It is only fair. And “that’s not fair!” is a very powerful argument for university students.

Young people have a strong instinct for fairness. When they hear, “That’s not fair,” they lean in. But what they are rarely told is that the definition of fairness itself has been quietly replaced.

Disagreement is recast as harm, hierarchy becomes injustice, and truth becomes a tool of whoever is in power. The Bible is a social construct invented by the patriarchy to retain power.

First comes disorientation: “Everything I learned growing up is being questioned.”

Then pressure: “If you don’t agree, you’re part of the problem.”

Then isolation: fewer Christian friends, fewer edifying conversations. More immoral filth where “love is love” is used to justify the basest forms of lust.

Then internal shift: Doubt feels like intellectual maturity.

And finally, exit or compromise. Some abandon the faith outright. Others keep the label but redefine it until it fits comfortably within the system that once challenged it.

Parents are often blindsided by this. They assume education is neutral. Sure, they had atheist professors and the standard left-wing nut, but those professors were just that: nuts.

Now, the crazy is normalized and the sane, holy, and faithful are institutionalized. Don’t assume that if your child finds a good group, everything will be fine.

This is not a neutral environment occasionally disrupted by bad ideas. It is an environment structured in a particular direction, with occasional pockets of resistance. Those Christian groups we celebrate are the bastions, not the foundation.

So what should parents do?

RELATED: Christian students are pushing back — and universities are cracking

WOJTEK RADWANSKI/AFP/Getty Images

First, don’t just ask whether your children will succeed academically or professionally. Ask whether they will remain faithful to Christ. Help them equip themselves with the armor of God described in Ephesians chapter 6.

Second, prepare them intellectually. They need to understand not only what they believe, but why, and how it contrasts with the frameworks they will encounter. Teach them the Bible and the historic Christian faith.

Third, help your children make faith in Christ their own. This is not merely an intellectual enterprise. Teach your children to love Christ and put their trust in salvation by Christ alone. When they know Him as their savior and trust His promises, they will stand firmly in that day of spiritual battle.

Third, expose hostile frameworks early. Teach them about Foucault, Freire, and the assumptions behind DEI before they hear those ideas in a classroom. If they have already heard the anti-Christian, anti-Bible arguments because you covered them together as preparation, they will be ready to dismantle them.

Fourth, stay engaged. Ask what their professors are teaching. You can look up their professors on the university webpages. Their bios probably won’t say “DEI anti-Christian radical,” but you will get a good sense of what they think by looking at their published works and conference presentations.

Above all, stop assuming neutrality where none exists. This is a spiritual battle of good vs. evil.

The real question is not whether universities shape your children’s beliefs. They will. The question is whether you will prepare your child to recognize that shaping and to stand firm in the truth.

Because if Christ is Lord of all truth, then no institution gets to undermine Him under the guise of “social justice advocacy.”

All parents should prepare their children for this spiritual reality. These university professors want your child’s soul.

​Antichristian, Christianity, Christians, College, College professors, Dei, Diversity, Faith, Intersectionality, Lgbtq, Opinion & analysis 

In its coverage of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent cast vote record decision, Democracy Docket framed the ruling as a dangerous victory for “election deniers” and claimed it gave a “DHS conspiracy theorist access to 2020 election data.”

That framing misses the central point of the case: The court did not authorize the exposure of anyone’s private vote. It allowed access to election records that help the public verify whether reported vote totals match recorded vote data.

In a republic, ballot secrecy protects the voter. Transparency protects the result. Both principles can coexist, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court understood that.

Americans across the political spectrum have lost faith in election systems at different moments and for different reasons.

The court’s actual holding was straightforward: Cast vote records, or CVRs, are not the “contents of ballot boxes or voting machines” under Pennsylvania’s Election Code and therefore are not categorically exempt from public disclosure.

A CVR is not a physical ballot. It does not contain information about voters. It contains information about ballots — and ballots do not contain personally identifying information.

A properly configured CVR cannot link a ballot to a voter in a way that compromises ballot secrecy. In the Lycoming County system at issue, the data was randomized and did not contain personally identifying voter information.

The court explained that the CVR numbers do not correspond to the order in which voters checked in or cast ballots and that those randomization features “significantly decrease the likelihood” of identifying an individual vote. The court concluded that disclosure would allow the public to check the math without violating ballot secrecy.

There is a line of thinking that says a CVR can be kept from the public if there is some edge case where the voter behind a ballot could be reasonably guessed. What that argument misses is that ballot secrecy exists to protect voters from the state — not to protect the state from public scrutiny.

If a government builds or certifies a voting system that allows officials, vendors, or anyone else to identify which voter cast which ballot, the problem is not the citizen asking for public records and the remedy is not secrecy for the government. The remedy is fixing, randomizing, or decertifying the system.

If a county claims that it cannot disclose a CVR because the public could determine how individual voters voted by matching multiple records together, that should trigger an immediate and serious response from state election authorities.

A voting system that allows ballots to be connected back to voters is not merely inconvenient for public-records compliance. It is a direct threat to ballot secrecy.

Public access to CVRs is not about exposing voters. It is about allowing citizens to confirm that election totals add up. Bloomberg Law captured the ruling more accurately: Pennsylvanians may review raw voting records to ensure elections are accurate; the court said disclosure promotes trust, confidence, and legitimacy without violating voter secrecy law.

Americans across the political spectrum have lost faith in election systems at different moments and for different reasons. In September 2024, Gallup found that only 57% of Americans were confident that presidential votes would be accurately cast and counted nationwide, with a massive partisan gap: 84% of Democrats expressed confidence, compared with only 28% of Republicans.

After the 2024 election, AP-NORC found that about six in 10 Americans believed the presidential vote was counted accurately nationwide, while independents remained notably less confident.

In April 2026, Reuters/Ipsos found sharp partisan divides on election fraud beliefs, while also finding that majorities of both Democrats and Republicans remained confident their own ballots would be counted.

This is not a one-party problem. Republicans have raised concerns about mail ballots, voter rolls, citizenship verification, ballot harvesting, and machine tabulation. Democrats, too, have raised serious concerns about election technology when the perceived threat came from foreign interference or insecure electronic systems.

RELATED: The FBI should get a warrant before reading your messages

J. David Ake/Getty Images

After the 2016 election, the Clinton campaign joined recount efforts in key states, with Marc Elias writing that the campaign had examined allegations involving hacking, outside interference, and voting technology.

In the years that followed, prominent Democrats pushed aggressively for paper ballots, audits, and replacement of insecure voting machines. Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden’s PAVE Act, backed by Democratic senators, including Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Tammy Baldwin (Wisc.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), and others, would have mandated hand-marked paper ballots and risk-limiting audits in federal elections.

Let’s be honest: Concern about election technology was not invented in 2020. Democrats were warning about electronic voting systems, paperless machines, hacking, and public confidence long before the current fight over CVRs.

In the case of Pennsylvania, election researcher Heather Honey asked a basic question: Can the public inspect the data necessary to verify the count? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court answered yes, subject to the election code and subject to the protection of ballot secrecy. That should be an easy win for anyone who claims to care about democracy.

Instead, Democracy Docket labeled Honey a “conspiracy theorist” and portrayed the ruling as a victory for sinister forces. But the court did not adopt a conspiracy theory. It adopted a transparency principle. In fact, the court said disclosure promotes “fair, honest, and transparent elections.”

I know Heather Honey as a hard-working, dedicated patriot, a wonderful person, and a loving parent. Her biggest personal failing, as far as I can tell, is that she is a Philadelphia Eagles fan — a burden no court can remedy.

The attack on Heather Honey is totally misplaced. If Democracy Docket disagrees with the legal reasoning, it should argue the law. If it believes certain CVR formats in certain counties could threaten secrecy, then the correct response is not to smear citizens who request public records.

RELATED: Age verification laws do not make us safer

Samuel Boivin/NurPhoto/Getty Images

The correct response is to demand voting systems that protect ballot secrecy by design: randomized ballot records, standardized public CVR formats, and certification standards that make it impossible to connect a ballot back to a voter.

Marc Elias, the founder of Democracy Docket, has built a platform devoted to voting rights and election litigation. He knows better than most that election legitimacy depends not only on access to the ballot, but on public confidence that lawful votes are accurately counted.

CVR transparency is one way to earn it. It does not reveal who someone voted for or publish private voter choices. Properly handled, it lets citizens, researchers, journalists, campaigns, and watchdogs compare reported totals against underlying tabulation records. It is a public audit trail.

And if any county says its CVRs cannot be disclosed because the records would allow ballots to be matched back to voters, then the public-records request is not the scandal. The voting system is.

Democracy does not become weaker when citizens can verify government math. It becomes stronger.

So Democracy Docket should correct its framing, and Marc Elias should leave Heather Honey alone. She is simply defending one of democracy’s oldest and most important rules:

Trust the voters. Protect the secret ballot. And let the people check the math.

​2020 election, Democracy, Election deniers, Election security, Pennsylvania, Voting machines, Democracy docket, Cvrs, Opinion & analysis 

Emma Morris was only 27 years old and six months into her employment at the New York Post when she got a call in late September 2020 from former Trump adviser Steve Bannon saying he had a story that would “change her life.”

“He says, ‘I have Hunter Biden’s computer,”’ Morris recounts on “The Glenn Beck Program.”

Initially, Emma was “skeptical of the source,” given that both Bannon and Rudy Giuliani (who was in possession of a copy of the hard drive) were campaigning for President Trump. Despite being a dedicated conservative who likes Trump and “wanted the story to be true,” Emma was committed to true journalism and thus determined not to be blinded by her political views.

“My capacity as an editor is to relay the truth as closely as I can, not to campaign for Trump,” she tells Glenn.

When the New York Post gave her the greenlight to pursue the story, Emma was immediately overwhelmed by the sheer volume of documents she had to sort through just to pinpoint the angle the story would take.

“I called my boss, my editor in chief, Michelle Gotthelf, … and I was like, ‘I don’t know how to make sense of all of this. It’s too much,’” she recounts.

Gotthelf’s advice was brilliant: “Find me where Joe Biden comes into this.”

“And that was when it clicked,” Emma says.

Her search narrowed in on roughly “10 documents” that involved Joe Biden, which then had to be verified for authenticity given the laptop had been through “a chain of custody.”

“The way that we were able to do that was very simple. … We had the contact lists in his phone book, which was also on the laptop. … And we just called them and said, ‘Hey, it’s the New York Post. I’m going to read you something. Can you tell me if it sounds familiar?’” Emma says.

As she began making these calls, one thing became clear: “It wasn’t Hunter, you know, scurrying around the world himself.”

“There was business partners, and some of those partners had either been burned, some of them had gone to jail, some of them had realized that this is too much. Everyone was receptive,” Emma says.

The response to the story the New York Post broke was shocking.

“I expected conservative media to pick it up. … And that wasn’t what happened at all. As it turned out, the CIA was upset,” Emma says.

“We published at 5 a.m. By like 7 a.m. latest, it was completely blacklisted on Twitter. … Within two hours, it was classified as child porn internally,” she explains.

It later came out that the FBI had been in possession of the physical laptop since December of 2019 and was actively preparing Twitter executives to treat any breaking story about Hunter Biden as Russian disinformation.

To hear more of Emma’s insider scoop, 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.

​Blaze media, Blazetv, Emma morris, Glenn beck, Hunter biden, Hunter biden laptop, Joe biden, New york post, President trump, Rudy giuliani, Russian disinformation, Steve bannon, The glenn beck program, Twitter