A male suspected of fatally shooting two men just hours and miles apart Sunday in Attala County, Mississippi, allegedly attempted to break into a home — but the armed homeowner was ready for him.

Authorities told WLBT-TV the first shooting occurred around 1 p.m. when deputies and EMS were dispatched to County Road 1107 after a man had been shot in the road.

‘There is no way to explain that.’

Tim Lawrence, 67, was pronounced dead at the scene, the station said.

Chris Hughes, 41, was identified as a suspect, and authorities were told that Hughes had been picked up and was a passenger in a gray GM truck, WLBT reported.

Deputies at 3:20 p.m. were dispatched to yet another shooting on Country Road 1141, the station said.

A gray GM truck matching the description of the vehicle Hughes was believed to be in was found wrecked, and the driver — 46-year-old Jeffery Mallet Jr. — had been shot, WLBT reported. Mallet later was pronounced dead, the station said.

Authorities said Mallet and Hughes were cousins, WAPT-TV reported.

The two shooting scenes were approximately four miles apart, WLBT noted, adding that as a manhunt was underway, a perimeter was secured, checkpoints were set up throughout the area, and multiple drones and a state highway patrol helicopter were deployed.

RELATED: Armed male enters Florida home, won’t leave — then threatens homeowner while advancing toward him. But victim also is armed.

A search warrant was executed on Hughes’ home, but the residence was found empty, WLBT said.

Soon after, gunshots were heard, and law enforcement went toward them to find Hughes tried to break into a homeowner’s back door, WLBT reported.

But WLBT said the homeowner fired a weapon, striking Hughes.

EMS was dispatched, and Hughes was taken to a hospital where he later was pronounced dead, WLBT noted.

“There is no way to explain that,” Attala County Sheriff Curtis Pope told WAPT. “No matter how long you’re in this business, every situation is different.”

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

​Crime thwarted, 2nd amend., Guns, Gun rights, Fatal shooting, Attempted home invasion, Mississippi, Murder suspect, Crime 

For decades, the abortion debate has revolved around a single question: When does life begin? Scientists are asked to answer it. Legislators argue over it. Courts try to define it. Activists debate heartbeats, brain waves, viability, and development.

But while this question is important, it is not the most important question. The real question is what gives human life value.

The abortion debate will never be settled by science, politics, or emotional arguments. It is ultimately about where human value comes from.

If human life has no intrinsic value, then it does not really matter when life begins. And if human life does have intrinsic value, then the moment a human life exists, it must be protected. The entire issue hinges not on biology, but on value.

Biology shows life, not value

Modern science has made one fact undeniable: from the moment of conception, a new human organism exists. This is basic embryology. A distinct human life begins at fertilization with its own DNA, its own development, and its own biological trajectory.

Science is very good at describing life. It can measure heartbeats, detect brain activity, and observe development in remarkable detail. But science has a limitation: It can describe life, but it cannot assign value to it.

A microscope cannot tell us that murder is wrong. DNA cannot tell us that humans have rights. A heartbeat cannot tell us that a life is sacred.

Science describes what is. It cannot tell us what ought to be. Value, morality, and justice must come from somewhere else.

The image of God

The Bible answers the value question in the very first chapter. Genesis 1:27 says that God created man in His own image. This is one of the most important statements in all of Scripture, because it explains why human life has value at all.

Human beings are not valuable because they are intelligent, strong, independent, or useful. Human beings are valuable because they are made in the image of God.

This is not poetry. It is ontology — a statement about what man is. The image of God is the foundation of human dignity, human rights, and justice itself. Remove the image of God, and there is no objective reason why humans should be treated differently from animals. Rights become preferences, and justice becomes power.

The image of God is what makes human life sacred.

RELATED: We must resist a culture that redefines death as dignity

Mininyx Doodle/Getty Images

Value comes from what something is

One of the great errors of modern thinking is the idea that human value comes from ability or development. Our culture often assigns value based on intelligence, awareness, or productivity. But abilities exist on a spectrum. Some humans are more intelligent than others. Some are stronger than others. Some are more developed than others.

If value comes from ability, then human rights belong only to the strong, the intelligent, and the capable. But justice requires something far more stable than ability. Justice requires that human value be tied to what a human is, not what a human can do.

And what is man? Man is the creature made in the image of God.

The image of God does not grow over time. It is not earned by development. It is not granted by government. It does not appear at birth or increase with intelligence. It is inherent to what man is from the moment he exists.

If a human exists, the image of God exists

Once we understand that human value comes from the image of God, the abortion debate becomes much clearer. The question is no longer about heartbeats or brain waves or viability. It becomes much simpler: When does a human begin to exist?

And the answer to that question is at conception. All things begin at their beginning.

We do not say a tree begins halfway through its growth or that a river begins miles downstream. Things are defined by their beginning, not by later stages of development.

From the moment a human exists, the image of God exists, human value exists, and justice demands protection for that human life.

The issue is not development, location, or independence. The only issue is what the child is: a human being made in the image and likeness of God.

RELATED: James Talarico found a verse — and twisted the meaning

Danielle Villasana/Getty Images

The debate is about value

This is why the abortion debate will never be settled by science, politics, or emotional arguments. It is ultimately about where human value comes from.

If value comes from society, then society can decide who has value and who does not. If value comes from ability, then the strong will always rule over the weak. If value comes from preference, then power decides everything.

But if value comes from God, then every human life — born or unborn, strong or weak, wanted or unwanted — has equal worth because every human bears the image of the Creator.

Once we understand that human value comes from the image of God, the conclusion becomes unavoidable. To destroy that life is not merely to end a biological process — it is to destroy a human being who reflects the Creator Himself.

The doctrine of the imago Dei does not allow for partial justice, developmental value, or conditional protection. The image of God demands that every human life be treated with equal justice from the moment that life begins.

Because human value does not come from development, ability, or location. Human value comes from God.

​Pro life, Abortion, Roe v wade, Dobbs v. jackson, Image of god, Imago dei, Human life, Conception, Human rights, Opinion & analysis 

President Donald Trump characterized Operation Epic Fury as a successful military operation that is “nearing completion” in his address to the nation on Wednesday evening.

Although he struck a celebratory tone — lauding, for instance, American armed forces’ “swift, decisive, overwhelming victories on the battlefield” — Trump suggested that the increasingly unpopular conflict will continue for at least two or three more weeks, during which time the U.S. will purportedly “bring [Iran] back to the Stone Ages, where they belong.”

‘Hollywood delusions have so poisoned your minds.’

While well-received by some in America — Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), for instance, said that it was “the best speech I could’ve hoped for” — remnants of the Iranian regime were less receptive to Trump’s remarks.

Tasnim News Agency, a state media outfit associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, reported that Amir Hatami, the commander in chief of the Iranian Regular Armed Forces, advised his subordinates to “monitor enemy movements and actions with maximum vigilance, analyzing them moment by moment, and to implement countermeasures against enemy assaults at the appropriate time.”

Hatami reportedly noted further that in the event of a ground invasion into Iran, “not a single individual should survive.”

RELATED: Trump says Iran asked for a ceasefire — but the US has one major condition

Explosion in Tehran. Contributor/Getty Images

In addition to vowing counterattacks, Hatami framed Trump’s speech as confirmation that the U.S. and Israel intend to “erase Iran’s name and existence.”

Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian parliament, shared a statement on X stressing that Iranians “give everything — everything we’ve got — for the land we love.”

“We are not warmongers,” continued Ghalibaf. “But when the time comes to defend our homeland, every last one of us becomes a soldier.”

The speaker claimed that roughly seven million Iranians have committed to picking up arms in defense of their country. He then concluded with the challenge, “Bring it on.”

Ebrahim Zolfaghari, spokesman for Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters — the outfit that coordinates Iran’s joint military operations — said in a video statement on Thursday that American and Israeli intelligence about Iranian military might “is incomplete” and that their alleged faulty assumptions “will only deepen the quagmire in which you have trapped yourselves.”

Zolfaghari suggested further that “this war will continue until your humiliation, disgrace, permanent regret, definite defeat, and surrender.”

Seyed Majid Moosavi, an Iranian military commander presently running the IRGC Aerospace Force, said in response to War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s echo of Trump’s “Stone Age” threat, “It is you who are taking your soldiers to their graves, not Iran, whom you seek to drag back to the Stone Age. Hollywood delusions have so poisoned your minds that, with your paltry 250-year history, you threaten a civilization over 6,000 years old.”

While Iranian regimists responded especially poorly to Trump’s speech, oil prices and the markets also reacted in an unfavorable manner.

Brent crude oil was trading at under $100 per barrel on Wednesday prior to the president’s remarks. It shot up afterward in intraday trading to over $108 per barrel and remained over $107 on Thursday.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average reportedly dropped by 1.3% on Thursday; the S&P 500 dropped 1.2%; and the Nasdaq Composite dropped 1.7%.

As promised, the U.S. continued its aerial attack on Iran in the wake of Trump’s speech, allegedly wounding former Iranian foreign minister Kamal Kharazi — an adviser to the government whom the New York Times reported was apparently helping to facilitate peace talks between Vice President JD Vance and Iranian authorities.

Iran, in turn, launched numerous missiles at Israel and neighboring Arab states on Thursday.

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

​War, Iran, Conflict, Foreign entanglement, Interventionism, Tehran, Military, Stone ages, Donald trump, Trump, Politics 

Democrats have spoken out of both sides of their mouths on the matter of redistricting.

Proposed changes to congressional maps that would boost Democrats’ chances in elections are, on the one hand, purportedly a means to “help level the playing field,” a way to “restore fairness,” and — in the words of Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger — a “response to what we’re seeing in other states that have taken extreme measures to undermine democratic norms.”

‘Gerrymandering is when politicians manipulate the maps in order to predetermine the outcome.’

When faced with proposed changes to congressional maps that threaten their power, Democrats have alternatively likened redistricting efforts to the Holocaust, called them “a threat to democracy,” and characterized them as “authoritarian.”

This hypocrisy has proven to be an issue for proponents of Virginia’s proposed constitutional amendment, which is on the ballot in the April 21 special election.

The National Democratic Redistricting Committee — a supporter of voting “yes” in the gerrymandering referendum that would all but ensure that 10 out of the state’s 11 congressional seats go to Democrats — complained on Thursday about opponents of the proposed amendment turning to former President Barack Obama for support.

“A MAGA-aligned dark money group is trying to fool Virginia voters with a dishonest mailer that features an unauthorized photo of President Barack Obama and lies about his position on the Virginia referendum,” the NDRC said.

“The ‘No’ campaign and its allied MAGA-funded dark money groups are so terrified of the voters that they are resorting to desperate, deceptive tactics like this one to spread misinformation and lies,” said John Bisognano, president of the NDRC. “There is no confusion. President Obama endorses voting YES to stop Trump and his MAGA allies from rigging our elections and to protect the rights and voting power of the American people ahead of the midterms.”

One of the mailers features an image of Obama along with the quote, “For too long, gerrymandering has contributed to stalled progress and warped our representative government,” reported the Virginia Mercury.

While characterized by the NDRC and the NAACP Virginia State Conference as so-called misinformation, the Obama quote is indeed genuine — and its context is damning.

RELATED: Red-state inaction is the soft underbelly of border politics

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Obama wrote in a July 8, 2020, post on X, “For too long, gerrymandering has contributed to stalled progress and warped our representative government. Redistricting begins next year — let’s all do our part to protect and restore our democracy.”

Obama then urged Americans to join him “in the fight for fair maps” — specifically to support a possible constitutional amendment that would curb gerrymandering.

In the video accompanying the former president’s 2020 post, Obama states, “Gerrymandering is a sneaky way for politicians to consolidate as much power as they can.”

Another activist featured in the video adds, “Gerrymandering is when politicians manipulate the maps in order to predetermine the outcome so that it benefits one side over the other.”

‘Barack Obama, Abigail Spanberger, and others have already spoken against this kind of gerrymandering.’

Eric Holder, former President Obama’s scandal-plagued attorney general, notes in the video that “you see the greatest amount of voter suppression when you see the greatest amount of gerrymandering.”

Desperate to secure a majority in the U.S. House in the midterm elections, Obama and Democrats have jettisoned their supposedly principled stance from yesteryear and are now speaking out of the other side of their mouths.

Obama, specifically, is supporting the “yes” campaign.

In addition to featuring in a video championing Democrat gerrymandering, he stated last month, “Several Republican-controlled states have redrawn their congressional maps to give themselves an unfair advantage in the midterm elections. Now Virginia has a chance to help level the playing field.”

The mailer that highlighted Obama’s hypocrisy and urged voters to “Protect Minority Representation” was sent to Virginia voters last week by the Justice for Democracy PAC, reported the Virginia Independent News.

A similar graphic was reportedly texted to Virginia voters by the Democracy and Justice PAC — which, like Justice for Democracy, is chaired by former Virginia Del. A.C. Cordoza (R) — along with the following message, “President Barack Obama says ‘For too long gerrymandering has contributed to our stalled progress and warped our representative government.’ That’s why it’s important next month to vote NO against Virginia’s redistricting effort.”

As proponents of the gerrymandering initiative melted down over the sight of Obama in the opposition mailers, Cordoza said in a statement to CNN, “No one can refute the accuracy of the quotes we’re presenting. Barack Obama, Abigail Spanberger, and others have already spoken against this kind of gerrymandering — I’m simply reminding voters where they stood.”

A Tazewell County judge ruled on Jan. 27 that the proposed constitutional amendment was unlawful. The Virginia Supreme Court then ruled last month that Virginians can still vote for it in the statewide April referendum, though the commonwealth high court may yet uphold the lower court’s injunction.

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

​Gerrymander, Gerrymandering, Redistricting, Redistrict, Spanberger, Barack obama, Obama, Democrat, Democratic, Hypocrisy, Congress, Midterm, Elections, Politics 

The New Democratic Party of Canada recently held a leadership convention in Winnipeg, which took a series of chaotic turns as delegates clashed over pronouns, privilege rules, accessibility issues, and speaking rights.

“That’s the far left. They’ve never had someone attain the level of, say, prime minister. They’ve been around since the ’60s. So they’ve been out there, and they’re just an entertaining lot when they gather to get official business done at the National Democrat Party,” Malinak explains.

And clips from the convention do not disappoint.

The clips reveal the use of “equity cards,” which were handed out to delegates based on identity categories like gender, race, sexuality, and indigenous status. Delegates who had said “equity cards” were allowed to jump the line to ensure equal representation in debates.

As the clips reveal, however, the delegates did not debate on issues like cost of living or crime — but rather why they deserved to be holding one of the equity cards.

“I’m sorry, just real quick point of personal privilege,” one transgender delegate said. “I understand there’s very little time for delegates to speak, but … it’s hard as a racialized and transgender delegate to sometimes use this card and speak to somebody in front of me in line and ask, ‘Hey, this pertains to multiple intersecting parts of my lived experience. I’d like to speak.’”

“I was rejected when I talked, and it’s frustrating when these are my rights being directly under attack right now in Alberta and that a cisgender woman had spoken over me, and I understand her rights are important too, this pertains to her too, but I don’t know,” the transgender “woman” continued.

“I hope that in the future, the federal NDP will also have a broader interpretation of the equity cards for speakers,” he added.

“These people,” Gray comments, “if they were left to their own devices, they’d be dead because they have so many rules and so many things that offend them and so much stuff that you can’t do around them or say to them.”

“That is mental illness on display,” Malinak 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.

​Pat gray unleashed, Pat gray, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, New democratic party of canada, Pronouns, Equity cards, Trans activism, Lgbtqia, Equity and inclusion, Keith malinak 

Illinois Rep. Delia Ramirez (D) recently said the quiet part out loud: If Democrats regain power, they intend to “melt ICE” and “dismantle the Department of Homeland Security.”

Not reform. Not recalibrate. Dismantle.

At this point, no one should be surprised, but everyone should be paying attention.

The window for aligned federal action is limited, and states must be prepared to carry that work forward regardless of what happens in Washington.

Over the past several years, we have seen what a serious approach to border security can look like. Under President Donald Trump, the federal government has taken long overdue steps to restore enforcement at the border, disrupt cartel operations that extend into American communities, and reassert the basic principle that immigration law should be enforced.

But the job is nowhere near finished.

Cartel networks are still heavily embedded in trafficking routes, financial systems, and communities across the country. Interior enforcement remains inconsistent. Local and state cooperation is uneven at best. And despite real progress, the broader homeland defense framework is still fragile — dependent on political will, which can shift overnight.

That fragility is exactly what Ramirez’s comments expose. We are not debating hypotheticals; we are being explicitly told what will happen when the balance of power shifts.

The same agencies tasked with protecting the homeland would be targeted for dismantlement, the enforcement tools that have begun to regain ground would be stripped away, and the limited progress made in confronting transnational criminal networks would be reversed.

This threat is not just rhetoric from some far-left politician. Polling trends are already pointing toward a potential shift in power in the 2026 midterms. That means the window for aligned federal action is limited, and states must be prepared to carry that work forward regardless of what happens in Washington.

RELATED: My message to President Trump: Don’t mess with Texas politics

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Key legislation like the SAVE America Act remains stalled, and DHS is still not fully funded to meet the scale of the challenge, caught in the middle of ongoing congressional budget standoffs. Structural reforms that would lock in enforcement gains for the long-term have yet to materialize. In other words, even with unified control, the system is struggling to deliver the level of security the country requires.

So what happens when that control goes away? We don’t have to guess — we’ve been told.

Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D) has said that under Democratic control, officials carrying out deportations could face mass prosecutions, while taxpayers would be expected to fund reparations for the “trauma” inflicted on foreign nationals.

The largest deportation effort in American history would be halted. Federal enforcement would be curtailed. The focus of immigration policy would shift away from American communities and toward accommodating foreign nationals.

And once that signal is sent from Washington, it will cascade downward — into statehouses, city councils, and law enforcement agencies across America.

This fight cannot be viewed as strictly federal. As I’ve written before, it starts at home. It depends on governors willing to lead, legislatures willing to fund enforcement, and local law enforcement willing to uphold the law consistently and without apology.

Sheriffs, police chiefs, and county officials are not peripheral actors in this system; they are fundamental to whether it succeeds or fails.

That responsibility is especially urgent in red states. And right now, Texas has an opportunity to lead.

RELATED: Senate Republicans tried to cave on Trump’s agenda

Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The Texas Legislature has already laid the groundwork with its 2026 Interim Charges, taking on everything from hostile foreign networks operating inside our state to strengthening and equipping the new Texas Division of Homeland Security. But our interim work only matters if it turns into action.

As we head into the 90th Legislature, and while there is still alignment in the White House, Texas has an opportunity to go further — building a real, state-led homeland defense framework that doesn’t depend on shifting priorities in Washington. That means passing laws with teeth, funding enforcement, closing loopholes, and making it clear that in Texas, the rule of law is not optional.

Because when the political winds shift, and they always do, the difference between a secure nation and a vulnerable one will come down to what was built beforehand. The left’s intentions are no longer implied, they are explicit. The time for debate about what might happen is over. The only question now is whether we have the will to act before those promises become policy.

​Border states, Texas, Trump, Dhs, Ice, Democrats, Immigration, Illegal immigrants, Border security, Red states, Opinion & analysis 

WhatsApp is the most widely used messaging platform in the world, boasting three billion active monthly users as of 2025. With widespread adoption, Meta’s communication juggernaut delivers 100 billion messages per day brimming with terabytes of data that, up until recently, were believed to be safely encrypted to keep prying eyes at bay. Allegedly, that’s not the case: A new lawsuit claims WhatsApp’s encryption technology is merely a façade that hides Meta’s broad backdoor access.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Meta “categorically” denies the claims. But while the most recent turn in the drama involved a judge tossing out a suit from WhatsApp’s former cybersecurity chief alleging the company fired him for blowing the whistle, the larger global class-action suit against Meta rolls on.

Why people love WhatsApp

WhatsApp is hugely popular for several reasons.

A full trial and an investigation will need to be conducted before the truth comes to light.

First, it’s not tied to any specific phone platform or service. Unlike Apple’s proprietary iMessage, or perhaps Blackberry Message of the past, WhatsApp works on most devices, including Apple products, Android phones, desktop computers, and more. It’s ubiquitous, making it an easy choice for users who just want to connect with their family and friends, wherever they are and whatever device they use.

Second, WhatsApp features end-to-end encryption built on Signal Protocol — the same encryption technology found in the Signal app. That means your messages, photos, videos, and other files sent through the app are private so that only you and the person you’re talking to can view them. Don’t take my word for it though. Here’s what Meta says:

When you send a message, the only person who can read it is the person or group chat that you send that message to. No one can see inside that message. Not cybercriminals. Not hackers. Not oppressive regimes. Not even us. End-to-end encryption helps make communication via WhatsApp private — sort of like a face-to-face conversation.

With end-to-end encryption, you can be sure that your messages are safe and sound from prying eyes who wish to monetize your information or worse, right? At least, that’s what it’s supposed to mean.

The lawsuit

The new lawsuit alleges that WhatsApp isn’t as encrypted as everyone believed. Filed at the U.S. District Court by a band of whistleblowers from Australia, Brazil, India, Mexico, and South Africa, the suit claims that WhatsApp’s encryption technology can be easily thwarted by the right people within Meta’s own hallowed halls — including content moderators working through Accenture, which has been added as a defendant in the case.

Before we jump too far down the rabbit hole, the suit admits that WhatsApp doesn’t make the source code behind its encryption implementation available to the public or third-party auditors. Therefore it’s impossible to prove (or even disprove) that its encryption system is set up correctly, with no backdoor access or vulnerabilities. The public simply has to trust Meta to be honest here.

RELATED: Meta drops stunning news about its $77 BILLION VR world

David Paul Morris/Bloomberg/Getty Images (L), Nikolas Kokovlis/NurPhoto/Getty Images (BG)

So how do the whistleblowers allegedly know that users’ encrypted messages are easily accessible? They claim that a Meta engineer can simply file a request within their internal system to view a user’s ID and chat history for work purposes. Worse, they claim some celebrities, politicians, and even Meta employees are closely “tracked” by staff for “investigation.” Lastly, the suit claims that Meta tried to prevent this information from reaching the public by isolating workers into specialized groups and forcing them to sign NDAs that threatened legal action should they speak out.

If true, this would mean that practically anyone’s WhatsApp data is viewable by a limited but notable group of people within Meta and, perhaps, some moderators working through Accenture. This data could also theoretically be copied and shared with other groups outside of the company, including advertisers, bad actors, or the government. Note that there is no proof so far that Meta shared users’ information outside of the company, but its sheer accessibility would throw a spotlight on Meta’s promise that no one — including Meta itself — can see your messages.

Naturally, Meta disputes the charges laid out in the lawsuit: “Any claim that people’s WhatsApp messages are not encrypted is categorically false and absurd,” the company says. “WhatsApp has been end-to-end encrypted using the Signal protocol for a decade. This lawsuit is a frivolous work of fiction and we will pursue sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel.”

Should you abandon WhatsApp?

Just like individual people, in the court of law, companies are innocent until proven guilty. A full trial and an investigation into Meta’s encryption practices will need to be conducted before the truth comes to light. Erring on the side of caution, however, open source apps that are subject to public scrutiny and security audits are the only ones that can be tested and proven to do what they promise to do. Whether or not you wish to move away from WhatsApp is a personal choice.

That said, both public-facing apps from Signal and Telegram are open source, and they’re built with security protocols that are publicly verifiable. Signal comes with end-to-end encryption enabled from the start. Telegram requires the user to enable end-to-end encryption by starting a Secret Chat. That makes either of these options stronger on private messages and data.

​Meta, Whatsapp, Privacy, Tech