The list of possible successors to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) was whittled down somewhat in Tuesday’s primary elections.

On the Republican side, Rep. Chip Roy (R), an antagonist of Paxton who had Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz’s endorsement, faced off with Mayes Middleton, a Texas state senator who characterized himself as a proud supporter of the America First agenda; Aaron Reitz, the Paxton-endorsed former assistant attorney general who promised to “destroy the left” if elected; and Joan Huffman, a Texas state senator supported by various police unions.

‘I’d like to come home to Texas.’

Roy, who led the pack in a Texas Politics Project Poll taken last month, said in a video statement on Tuesday afternoon, “There’s a lot of important issues, and as a former federal prosecutor and the former first assistant attorney general — someone who’s been in the battle fighting for you — I’d like to come home to Texas and be your attorney general.”

The congressman came home for a relatively disappointing performance, trailing Middleton throughout the night.

With over 91% of the expected votes in, Middleton had secured 39.2% of the vote, while Roy had 31.6% as of Wednesday morning, reported NBC News. Huffman and Reitz secured 15% and 14.2% of the vote, respectively.

RELATED: Trump-endorsed candidate wins Senate primary in key battleground state

Mayes Middleton. Photo by Montinique Monroe/Getty Images

As neither of the top two Republican candidates obtained more than 50% of the vote, they must go head-to-head on May 26 in a primary runoff election.

Just before midnight, Middleton — a seventh-generation Texan and father of four who was endorsed by numerous conservative groups including the Texas Family Project, Moms for America Action, and the True Texas Project — wrote on X, “1st Place! Thank you to conservatives across Texas for your trust, your vote, and for giving us incredible momentum going into the runoff.”

Middleton pledged in his campaign to “lead the charge to secure our border, protect Texas kids, ensure fairness in girls’ and women’s sports, protect Texas taxpayers and consumers, ensure strict election integrity, and root out waste, fraud, and abuse from our government.”

Reitz congratulated Roy and Middleton, noting, “They ran strong campaigns, I respect them both, and they earned their place in the next round. I wish them both well.”

On the Democrat side, Nathan Johnson, a litigator and composer who contributed scores to the anime series “Dragon Ball Z,” competed for his party’s nomination against former Galveston Mayor Joe Jaworski and Anthony Box, an Army veteran, former FBI agent, and attorney.

With 92% of the votes counted, the Associated Press reported that Johnson led Jaworski and Box by over 20 percentage points with 47.9% of the vote, just shy of the 50% necessary to avoid a runoff on May 26. Jaworski reportedly had 26.7% of the vote as of early Wednesday, while Box had 25.4%.

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

​Texas, Lone star state, Chip roy, Aaron reitz, Mayes middleton, Primary election, Primary, Texas primary, Politics 

Watching the swarm of active and former officers on TV and across social media in the wake of the Iran operation, one thing becomes painfully clear: We are not educating the American officer corps for 21st-century war.

In almost every case, these officers — regardless of service — stay locked in the tactical weeds. They can tell you the circular error probable of a Tomahawk missile, the engagement envelope of a JDAM, and the close-quarters choreography of a SEAL platoon. They can talk gear, ranges, platforms, and “capabilities” until your eyes glaze over.

Too many mid-level officers can operate tactically and, at best, think in an operational frame. Few can function in the strategic register.

What they cannot do — with a few exceptions — is think strategically.

Gen. Jack Keane stands out because he can talk operational and strategic moves as a ground commander sees them. But the larger pattern points to a flaw baked into our professional military education system: It produces tacticians who struggle to connect the fight in front of them to the history behind it and the policy goals above it.

That flaw shows up as a shallow understanding of American history, American military history, and the U.S. role in the world since World War II. Even with Iran — a country that has loomed in U.S. policy for decades — many younger officers appear hazy on basic context.

They don’t know, for example, that Iran aligned with the United States during World War II. They don’t know the long arc of American involvement with the Shah (reinstalled in 1948, uninstalled at the fumbling behest of Jimmy Carter in 1979), or the 1979 revolution, or the Reagan-era gamesmanship, or the diplomatic failures and half-measures that followed. They don’t grasp how those chapters shape the threat environment we are dealing with right now — or why “Iran” is never just Iran.

That ignorance produces a second-order problem: a lack of situational awareness about almost any contemporary politico-military challenge.

Too many mid-level officers can operate tactically and, at best, think in an operational frame. Few can function in the strategic register. Fewer still can explain the principles of grand strategy — or, more accurately, war policy: what the nation wants, what it will pay, and what it must prevent.

Without that understanding, senior officers cannot give clear, disciplined advice to a president or a White House staff that may lack military experience. The armed forces become a machine that can execute missions brilliantly while remaining uncertain about the “why.”

There is another cost to this historical and strategic illiteracy: a warped sense of time.

Military operations do not unfold on cable-news timelines. Understanding the implications of a wartime environment takes time. Reshaping an adversary’s behavior takes time. Consolidating a political outcome takes time. If officers making decisions lack a working understanding of the history of that environment, they will miss opportunities that could save lives and treasure — and they will overestimate the speed at which results can be achieved.

I say this as someone who has lectured for decades at military institutions, including the U.S. Air Force Academy, the National Defense University, and the National Intelligence University.

In recent years, I have watched what can only be described as intellectual sludge: more than 20 years of forced social engineering and liberalization within the military academic ecosystem. Diversity, equity, and inclusion became more important than producing officers who are not risk-averse and who understand the hard realities of war — including destruction and death — and the grim imperative to minimize our casualties while maximizing the enemy’s. Brutal, yes. Also true.

RELATED: Memo to Hegseth: Our military’s problem isn’t only fitness. It’s bad education.

Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

Gen. Curtis LeMay put it plainly: “I don’t mind being called tough, because in this racket, it’s tough guys who lead the survivors.”

There is hope on the horizon, at least in the Air Force. Through what looks like a deus ex machina, the Air Force Academy has rapidly changed its top leadership — installing a new superintendent, commandant, and dean in a single sweep. The new dean, Col. James Valpiani, has a résumé you could shorthand as “Clark Kent in blue.” USAFA has also begun reversing the overly civilianized faculty model, replacing it with Air Force officers who have the appropriate degrees and the right instincts.

That is a start.

Now comes the core reform: The academy must make U.S. history, U.S. military history, and U.S. Air Force history — from World War II forward — a central, non-negotiable part of the curriculum. Young officers need to understand not only what America can do, but what America is trying to do — and why. They need a strategic rationale, not just a technical one.

That kind of grounding also restores a concept the services once prized: meritocracy. The smartest and most aggressive should lead, and they should lead with a strategic understanding worthy of the responsibility.

Gen. George Patton liked to say, “A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.” A good plan depends on something deeper than PowerPoint. It depends on a commander with history embedded in his soul — history understood as lived reality, not as trivia.

I would sure like to help plant it there.

​Pete hegseth, Us military, Military education, American history, Air force academy, Strategic thinking, Military officers, Opinion & analysis, Military academies, Grand strategy, Jack keane, Iran, Shah, Islamic revolution 

Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) faced a primary rematch against firearms influencer Brandon Herrera for Texas’ 23rd Congressional District seat on Tuesday — and will have to face him yet again.

Gonzales, who narrowly defeated Herrera in a 2024 runoff race, will once again battle Herrera in a runoff election on May 26 after neither candidate received more than 50% of the primary vote on Tuesday.

As of Wednesday morning, unofficial election results showed Gonzales with roughly 41.6% of the vote and Herrera with 43%.

‘I think the voters in Texas are going to speak pretty loudly.’

The incumbent’s re-election campaign came under scrutiny in September when one of his staffers, Regina Santos-Aviles, committed suicide by setting herself on fire. Allegations soon surfaced that Gonzales and Santos-Aviles had been having an affair.

While Gonzales dismissed the claims as smear tactics, some Republican lawmakers called on him to resign after explicit text messages he allegedly sent to Santos-Aviles were leaked to the public in late February.

Gonzales has refused to step down, stating, “What you’ve seen is not all the facts.”

Gonzales secured endorsements from several Republican politicians, including President Donald Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.), Rep. Steve Scalise (La.), and House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (Minn.). Trump reposted his endorsements on Friday, but notably omitted Gonzales.

RELATED: Tuesday’s must-watch primaries: The races that will determine if America First takes over in 2026

Tony Gonzales. Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

Herrera, Gonzales’ most prominent competitor, received endorsements from several Republican members of Congress, including Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (Fla.), Rep. Eli Crane (Ariz.), Rep. Chip Roy (Texas), and Rep. Lauren Boebert (Colo.).

Rep. Mike Haridopolos (R-Fla.) predicted ahead of the primary election that Gonzales would lose.

“I think the voters in Texas are going to speak pretty loudly. And I would guess that his days are numbered in Congress,” Haridopolos stated.

RELATED: 3 contentious Texas primaries that hang in the balance

Brandon Herrera. Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Herrera’s internal poll showed him receiving 45% of the vote, up 24 points ahead of Gonzales.

At the time the polls closed in Texas, 7:00 p.m. local time, bettors on Kalshi Markets gave Herrera a 95% chance of winning the election.

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

​News, Texas, Tony gonzales, Brandon herrera, Donald trump, Trump, Regina santos-aviles, Mike johnson, Steve scalise, Tom emmer, Anna paulina luna, Eli crane, Chip roy, Lauren boebert, Mike haridopolos, Republican primary, Politics 

Attorney General Ken Paxton advanced in the heated Texas Senate Republican primary alongside incumbent Sen. John Cornyn.

Paxton and Cornyn will now go to a runoff after spoiler candidate Rep. Wesley Hunt secured just over 13% of the vote, according to the New York Times. With 82% of the vote count in as of early Wednesday morning, Cornyn held a narrow lead over Paxton at 42.1%, while the attorney general secured 40.9% of the vote.

‘Republican voters are now forced to endure an even longer primary runoff election.’

“Judgement Day is coming for Ken Paxton,” Cornyn’s campaign said in a post on X.

RELATED: 3 contentious Texas primaries that hang in the balance

Photo by Danielle Villasana/Getty Images

Republican operatives criticized Hunt for running as a spoiler candidate, calling his candidacy a “vanity tour.”

“Instead of fighting for President Trump and conservative priorities, Wesley launched a career-ending vanity tour without any substance or political reasoning,” the Senate Leadership Fund said in a statement. “While Wesley’s amateur consultants got wealthy on his senseless campaign, Republican voters are now forced to endure an even longer primary runoff election.”

President Donald Trump notably refrained from weighing in on the race despite the lobbying effort from Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to garner support for Cornyn.

“I like all three of them,” Trump told reporters, referring to Cornyn, Paxton, and Hunt. “Actually, I like all three. Those are the toughest races. They’ve all supported me. They’re all good, and you’re supposed to pick one, so we’ll see what happens.”

RELATED: Tuesday’s must-watch primaries: The races that will determine if America First takes over in 2026

Photographer: Mark Felix/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The three-way race drained valuable resources fighting for a comfortable Republican seat, effectively delaying the GOP primary until May 26, 2026.

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

​Texas primary, Texas senate seat, Republican primary, 2025 primary, Ken paxton, Wesley hunt, John cornyn, Senate republicans, House republicans, Attorney general, Donald trump, John thune, Politics 

The Department of War has set its sights on hypersonic weapons, vehicles that maneuver through the atmosphere at Mach 5 and beyond. The very speed of these weapons, their desirable property, raises new challenges for their use. Hypersonics move the friction of the battlefield upstream into the design, manufacturing, and test ecosystems, where failures can be expensive and hard to diagnose.

The allure of these systems is “decision-centric.” The idea, borrowed from John Boyd, is to get inside an opponent’s decision cycle, his “OODA loop,” and force a state of perpetual disorientation. The wager is that speed plus maneuverability can deliver a kind of supremacy that feels, to those in the Pentagon, like control over time itself.

The history of this pursuit is a recurring military revolution of time compression. In 1968, the rocket-powered X-15 made its final flight, an engineering path the U.S. partially explored and then left dormant for decades. Now, the Department of War frames its latest tests as a return to that aerospace mastery.

To bridge this gap, the military has begun to borrow the jargon of Silicon Valley.

The context is different this time, and the pressure of the moment is no longer speculative. Russia has claimed the combat use of its Kinzhal and Zircon missiles in Ukraine. China, according to the Department of War’s 2025 reports, possesses the world’s “leading hypersonic missile arsenal.” These events convert the technology from a next-gen category into an “enacted reality,” a spectacle of intimidation that shapes budgets and public mythologies.

The American effort is split between two architectures: the boost-glide vehicle, which maneuvers through the upper atmosphere after being launched by a rocket, and the hypersonic cruise missile, an air-breathing vehicle powered by a scramjet. The scramjet is a particularly demanding piece of engineering, requiring supersonic combustion to occur in extremely short “residence times” at extreme temperatures. These systems make the operational promise that they can fly in the upper atmosphere, between 80,000 and 200,000 feet, effectively exploiting the altitude bands where existing sensors and interceptors struggle to maintain continuous observation.

The department’s own vocabulary reveals a more earthbound struggle. Officials describe a portfolio that is a grinding capacity contest involving aero-aerothermal science, high-temperature materials, and supply-chain fragility. The Government Accountability Office notes that the limited experience in producing these weapons makes cost prediction and schedule control unusually difficult.

RELATED: ‘Painful days’: Iran kills US troops as Trump threatens decapitated Iranian regime

Photo by Daniel Torok/White House via Getty Images

The fiscal year 2026 research funding request for hypersonics was $3.9 billion, a sharp drop from the $6.9 billion requested in FY2025. As of early 2026, the department has not yet established stable “programs of record” for these weapons, implying that the mission requirements and long-term funding remain unresolved.

To bridge this gap, the military has begun to borrow the jargon of Silicon Valley. It speaks of delivering a “minimum viable product.” It aims to develop capability at the “speed of relevance,” a phrase that imports the tempo of commercial tech into the military imagination. The warfighter is reimagined as a “user” whose feedback shapes “capability increments.”

The constraints on this vision are mundane. The GAO identifies aged facilities and “insufficient sustainment” as major risks for test capacity. There are long lead times for specialized carbon-carbon materials and limited suppliers for thermal protection. To enhance the workforce, the department is spending $100 million to run a university consortium to cultivate a community of labs and curricula.

The speed of these weapons affects the attacker as well as defender. When decision time shrinks, the temptation to automate launch decisions grows. Arms control analysts warn of “flash” dynamics driven by machine interpretation and rapid escalation pathways. This concern became concrete on February 5, 2026, when the New START treaty expired. For the first time in decades, the United States and Russia have no binding bilateral framework for strategic predictability. In this vacuum, strategic stability is a contested design space in which weapons, sensors, and machine-speed doctrines interact.

​Tech 

Being president of the United States is a job unlike any other. Wise leadership often goes unnoticed because the public never sees the disasters it prevented. Feckless leadership leaves a paper trail of avoidable tragedy — and nowhere does that trail run clearer than immigration.

The mass shooting over the weekend in Austin, Texas, offers a grim case study. Ndiaga Diagne opened fire at a popular bar near the University of Texas, killing two people and injuring 14 others before police killed him. The story of how he entered the country, stayed, and ultimately gained citizenship reads like a checklist of missed opportunities for enforcement and vetting.

A government that takes national security seriously screens more aggressively, removes violators faster, and treats immigration law as law — not as a set of suggestions.

Diagne, a 53-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Senegal, moved through an immigration system that repeatedly rewarded leniency and procedural box-checking over basic security judgment. As the U.S. hardens its defenses amid escalating conflict with Iran, the country should confront these shortcomings and adopt reforms that put Americans’ safety first.

A path to citizenship full of red flags

Diagne’s record raises questions that any serious system should have addressed long before he was granted citizenship.

He entered the United States on a B-2 tourist visa on March 13, 2000, during the Clinton administration. A year later, New York City police arrested him for illegal vending. That offense alone might not have warranted major action, but it marked the beginning of a pattern. Reports also suggest he overstayed his visa, since tourist visas for Senegalese citizens typically allow a stay of six months.

By 2006, during the George W. Bush administration, he adjusted his status to lawful permanent resident through marriage to a U.S. citizen. In April 2013 — during the Obama administration — he became a naturalized citizen, despite earlier signs of disregard for immigration rules and later arrests in New York between 2008 and 2016. Some of those matters remain sealed, and public reporting about the underlying conduct varies, but the volume alone should have triggered deeper scrutiny at every stage.

Reports also describe Diagne as emotionally disturbed. He reportedly applied for asylum years after becoming a citizen — a move that makes little sense on its face and raises further questions about stability, intent, and how carefully officials reviewed his file over time.

The attacker’s presentation added another disturbing layer. He wore a hoodie emblazoned with “Property of Allah” alongside an Iranian flag. Reports about images from his home also claim he kept pictures of Iranian leaders. Even if investigators ultimately draw a different conclusion about motive, the optics underscore the obvious point: When the system admits, legalizes, and naturalizes people with glaring warning signs, the country absorbs the risk.

None of this looks like a one-off error. It looks like a culture of permissiveness — a system that too often treats enforcement as optional and vetting as a formality.

RELATED: The great replacement, American style

piranka via iStock/Getty Images

We’ve seen this pattern before

Austin did not occur in a vacuum. The 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack left 14 people dead and 22 injured at a holiday party. One perpetrator, Tashfeen Malik, entered the U.S. on a K-1 fiancé visa during the Obama administration. Investigators later said she pledged allegiance to ISIS online before the attack.

San Bernardino revealed the same basic weakness: immigration pathways that assume good faith, overlook warning signals, and fail to connect the dots until bodies lie on the ground.

Now place those lessons in the current context. Iran’s regime has built its influence by exporting terror through proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. As U.S. and Israeli strikes pressure Tehran, the regime’s remaining options include asymmetric retaliation. Domestic security officials should treat that risk seriously, especially after reports that the Biden-Harris administration released more than 700 Iranian nationals into the interior. Even if only a tiny fraction pose a threat, the consequences could be catastrophic.

America cannot afford “sleeper” operatives posing as refugees or asylum-seekers from terrorist-sponsoring regimes. A government that takes national security seriously screens more aggressively, removes violators faster, and treats immigration law as law — not as a set of suggestions.

Democrats have opposed border security, tougher deportations, and reforms such as the SAVE Act. They dress up their opposition as compassion. In practice, permissive policies expand the pool of illegal residents, increase pressure for amnesty, and reshape political incentives through reapportionment and election machinery. Americans pay the price. The dead in Austin and San Bernardino paid the price.

Americans should say, with one voice: No more.

​Austin, Austin shooting, Immigration, Muslim immigration, Ndiaga diagne, Tourist visa, Property of allah, Sleeper agents, Opinion & analysis, Illegal immigration, Visa overstays, Asylum, Mental illness, Iran war, Islam, Terrorism, San bernardino shooting, Jihad, Senegal 

The NBA has described a strip club as an “iconic cultural institution.”

Along with musical performances, a podcast, and chicken wings, the Atlanta Hawks have announced a “Magic City Monday” on March 16 against the Orlando Magic.

‘Allowing this night to go forward without protest would reflect poorly on us as an NBA community.’

In the official announcement, promoted by the NBA itself, the league declined to note that Magic City — the establishment being celebrated — is actually a strip club, nor did it even describe it in a tamer fashion, like an exotic dancing club, for example.

Instead, the venue was celebrated as having a “pivotal role in hip-hop and Black culture.”

“This collaboration and theme night is very meaningful to me after all the work that we did to put together ‘Magic City: An American Fantasy,'” said Jami Gertz, principal owner of the Hawks. “The iconic Atlanta institution has made such an incredible impact on our city and its unique culture.”

Melissa Proctor, Hawks executive vice president, avoided stating the true nature of the club also, instead mentioning “the food … the music and the exclusive merchandise.”

The bizarre promotion drew reaction from San Antonio Spurs center Luke Kornet, who pointed to the obvious omission of Magic City being “Atlanta’s premier strip club.”

RELATED: Michael Jordan shocks NASCAR by doing something no one has done in 77 years

In a written post to his page on Medium earlier this week, Kornet — a devout Catholic, according to the New York Times — asked the NBA to cancel the promotion and to respect and protect women instead.

“The NBA should desire to protect and esteem women, many of whom work diligently every day to make this the best basketball league in the world. We should promote an atmosphere that is protective and respectful of the daughters, wives, sisters, mothers, and partners that we know and love.”

The 30-year-old went on: “Allowing this night to go forward without protest would reflect poorly on us as an NBA community, specifically in being complicit in the potential objectification and mistreatment of women in our society.”

Along with stating that he and other players were surprised by the themed night, Kornet said the league should hold a “higher standard” for what it promotes.

RELATED: NJ governor crushed with boos at Devils game before honoring Team USA hero Jack Hughes

Photo By Raymond Boyd/Getty Images

“The celebration of a strip club is not conduct aligned” with what the NBA purports to be, Kornet added.

Sharing Kornet’s sentiment was Golden State Warriors veteran Al Horford.

“Well said Luke,” Horford wrote on X, sharing a copy of Kornet’s statements. Horford played for the Hawks from 2007 to 2016.

Despite the brazen celebration of the club, this appears to be the only instance that the NBA or one of its teams has promoted a business of this nature.

The Hawks and NBA did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

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

​Fearless, Strippers, Nba, Basketball, Atlanta, Sports 

On an episode of “Moonshots with Peter Diamandis” released earlier this year, Elon Musk dropped a statement so chilling, it stopped Glenn Beck in his tracks.

“Well, one, like, side recommendation I have is, like, don’t worry about, like, squirreling money away for retirement in, like, 10 or 20 years. It won’t matter. … If any of the things that we’ve said are true, saving for retirement will be irrelevant,” the tech titan said.

Diamandis followed up with an equally chilling statement.

“The services will be there to support you. You’ll have the home. You’ll have the health care. You’ll have the entertainment,” he said.

Musk then likened today’s AI progress to a roller coaster car perched at the crest of a hill, insinuating that right now we’re in the stomach-churning hang time before the inevitable free fall.

“I think we’ll hit AGI next year in ’26,” he posited. (Note: The podcast was recorded in December 2025.)

Glenn unpacks the gravity of Musk’s shocking statements: “AGI is artificial general intelligence. That means the computer — the AI system — is smarter at everything than any human is. It is better at, name the topic, than the best human you can find, and it can do everything that a human can do better than a human.”

But unlike Musk and Diamandis, Glenn isn’t as optimistic about this techno-utopia that AI will supposedly create.

“We have got to prepare for this,” he warns.

Already AI is replacing workers in many industries, but the free fall into rendering humans virtually useless has yet to come but approaches closer every day, he says. “It’ll go the factory worker, then the truck driver, then the coder, then the accountant, the analyst.”

“The ground is shifting quickly,” he says, warning that the world is gearing up to propose dystopian ideas to compensate for the coming AI takeover — ideas we must be prepared to reject.

One of the most prominent (and harrowing) “solutions” is universal basic income — that is, regular cash payments provided by the government or a similar authority to every individual in a population, with no conditions attached.

“I am dead set against that,” Glenn says.

“[UBI] is the modern version of bread and circuses — and make no mistakes, the communists, the social planners, the Davos crowd, they’re going to offer it all as, not as a temporary bridge, but as a permanent arrangement,” he cautions.

Already, the globalist elites are devising plans to create “a managed society — a population that is pacified, production centralized, dependency normalized,” he explains, citing the work of WEF agenda contributor Yuval Noah Harari, who’s argued that AI and automation will create a “useless class” of people who become superfluous to the economic and political system and therefore must be provided for with universal basic income and essentially sedated via computer games, virtual reality, and possibly even drugs.

“People are going to go for this,” Glenn says, “not because they love collectivism, but because nobody offered them another path.”

It’s essential, he argues, that we explore other avenues for how to handle the AI takeover before true panic sets in and the frenzied masses agree to something disastrous.

One promising alternative, Glenn says, originates from celebrated free-market economist Milton Friedman, who, despite being “accused of being a defender of the coldest kind of capitalism,” supported “a version of basic income” called the “negative income tax.”

This idea, Glenn explains, proposes eliminating the welfare state — “that’s food stamps, housing subsidies, overlapping programs, bureaucracy” — and “[replacing] all of that with a simple income floor that everybody gets.”

“If you earn below a certain threshold, the government will send you supplemental income, but as you earn more, the support will phase out very gradually,” he adds, noting that the genius in this plan is the preservation of “incentive.”

“Technological advancement is going to become so severe at some point that AI could create pockets of severe displacement, and with that, you’ll either get violent populism, authoritarian redistribution of wealth, or a market-compatible safety valve, and that’s what [Friedman’s] negative income tax was — a pressure release without central planning,” Glenn says.

If we fail to choose the path that preserves our freedom, a bleak “new world order and one world government” will greet us on the other side of the impending AI apocalypse.

To hear more of Glenn’s analysis, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, Blazetv, Blaze media, Agi, Artificial intelligence, Ai, Ai takeover, Elon musk, Singularity, Milton friedman 

The founder of Star Autism Center admitted that he began the $6 million scam after “investors” approached him and provided families from the Somali community to bilk the federal government out of taxpayer cash.

Abdinajib Hassan Yussuf was only 22 years old when he started running the scheme after dropping out of St. Cloud Technical College in Aug. 2020.

The more services the families signed up for, the more they would receive in kickback payments.

Yussuf said he registered his center with the Minnesota Secretary of State and was able to enroll as an Early Intensive Developmental and Behavioral Intervention program provider with the Minnesota Department of Human Services on the very same day.

Court documents said that some of the workers at the Star Autism Center were unqualified family members as young as 18 years old.

Yussuf admitted that he didn’t know anyone with autism, so the “investors” arranged for families in the Minneapolis Somali community to sign up for the autism services.

Some of the families received monthly kickback payments for signing up, and Yussuf said that many had falsified diagnoses obtained for the sake of the scam. The more services the families signed up for, the more they would receive in kickback payments.

Yussuf and his partners then sought and gained reimbursement for the faked services from Medicaid and bilked the federal government out of $6 million over four years.

The fake autism center CEO pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and faces five years in prison once he is sentenced.

Yussuf sent more than $200K of the stolen funds to Kenya, according to the U.S. Attorney’s office.

RELATED: Minnesota news outlet is getting wrecked online for story on Somali migrants’ economic impact on Minnesota

Prosecutors say they are planning to indict Yussuf’s “investors” in the scam.

Blaze News’ requests for comment from the Minnesota Sec. of State’s office as well as the Minnesota Department of Human Services were not immediately returned.

The Trump administration is investigating Democratic-Farmer-Labor Gov. Tim Walz (Minn.) for possible obstruction of justice related to the Somali community schemes.

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

​St cloud star autism center, Autism fraud minnesota, Minneapolis somali fraud, Abdinajib hassan yussuf, Politics 

The death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who ruled Iran with brutality for nearly four decades, has thrown the Persian Gulf country into a historic moment of uncertainty — and possibility. His welcome passing shattered the familiar, oppressive order and forces a question Iran can no longer postpone: What comes next?

That question arises as Iran sits at the center of a deeper shift that may prove historic and generational. Much remains uncertain: how change will unfold, how long it will take, and what form it will assume. One principle, however, should guide every serious observer: Lasting change in Iran must come from within, driven by Iranians themselves and their organized resistance. Anything imposed from abroad or engineered through outside force will fail.

Iran’s destiny will be shaped by Iranians: by students, workers, professionals, and above all by women who refuse to accept a future defined by repression.

For more than four decades, Iran’s clerical establishment has displayed many vulnerabilities. One stands out as both defining and revealing: institutionalized misogyny. This is not merely a social failing. It is a governing doctrine.

That doctrine has become the regime’s weakness.

Women have been among the primary victims of Iran’s repression. They have also become the most dynamic force challenging it. Across the country, women no longer merely participate in dissent. They drive it. In city after city, they confront the regime’s most repressive forces. In many instances, they do not just join protests; they lead them.

One striking feature of this movement is its intergenerational character. Observers rightly note the youth of Iran’s protesters. But mothers march alongside daughters, and that image captures something profound about Iran’s national awakening: The demand for freedom is no longer confined to one age group or social class. It has become a shared national aspiration.

In moments of historic transformation, leaders emerge whose lives embody a movement’s aims. In Iran’s struggle, one such figure is Maryam Rajavi, president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. For nearly half a century, she has been engaged in Iran’s fight for freedom. Her commitment is personal. She lost one sister to the Shah’s secret police, SAVAK, and another under the rule of the ayatollahs while she was pregnant. Such losses would silence many. For her, they hardened resolve.

Rajavi’s significance lies not only in her story but in her vision. Over decades, she has helped cultivate a generation of women within Iran’s resistance — women who now occupy leadership roles, organize networks, and sustain activism under extreme repression. Tens of thousands of women affiliated with her movement have died in the struggle for freedom. That sacrifice, measured in lives rather than slogans, lends credibility to the movement she represents.

This is not symbolic inclusion. It is a structural transformation. Women at every level of opposition challenge the regime’s core assumption that power must remain exclusively male.

At the center of Rajavi’s platform is a 10-point plan outlining a democratic future for Iran. At its heart sits a principle the current regime finds intolerable: gender equality. In that vision, equality is not a concession. It is a foundation — essential to political legitimacy, economic progress, and justice. Women’s rights are not a peripheral demand; they are a declaration that a future Iran must break with decades of repression.

RELATED: Iran’s freedom fighters put America’s No Kings clowns to shame

Photo by Thierry Monasse/Getty Images

Sometimes a single image conveys what volumes of analysis cannot. Few signals would announce a new era more clearly than the emergence of a modern-minded Muslim woman as a central leader of democratic change. That would mark more than a political transition. It would signal renewal — a break with tyranny and a declaration that Iran’s future belongs to all its citizens.

History offers countless examples of societies that seemed immovable until, suddenly, they were not. Authoritarian systems often look strongest just before they weaken and most permanent just before they dissolve. The forces now stirring within Iran — especially the courage and leadership of its women — suggest the country has entered such a moment.

The lesson for the world is straightforward. Iran’s destiny will not be shaped by foreign intervention or external engineering — and it will not be served by fake leaders like Reza Pahlavi, who rely on social media and bots for relevance. Iran’s destiny will be shaped by Iranians: by students, workers, professionals, and above all by women who refuse to accept a future defined by repression.

Their struggle is not only national. It reflects a universal truth: The desire for freedom, once awakened, cannot be permanently suppressed.

The direction of Iran’s transformation is becoming clearer. And if history is any guide, when that transformation reaches its turning point, it will bear a defining hallmark: It will have been led, inspired, and sustained by women.

​Iran, Maryam rajavi, Trump, Democracy, Iranians, National council of resistance of iran, Secret police, Opinion & analysis, Freedom, Regime change, Ayatollah ali khamenei 

Voters in North Carolina took to the polls Tuesday to select their primary candidates in several races, including a high-stakes U.S. Senate race. After Republican Senator Thom Tillis announced his retirement last June, over a dozen candidates threw their hats in the ring — six Republicans and six Democrats.

Polls opened at 6:30 a.m. Tuesday for voters to select their primary candidates for Tillis’ open Senate seat, as well as 14 U.S. House of Representatives seats.

Trump said Whatley is ‘fantastic at everything he does’ in an endorsement message.

Trump-endorsed Michael Whatley won the Republican primary election decisively Tuesday night after delayed polling results were released. Whatley pulled in over 234,000, or 63.8%, of the votes, as of 9:00 p.m. ET, according to WFAA.

Former North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper was considered the favorite on the Democratic ballot. As expected, Cooper won the Democratic nomination handily, according to WFAA.

RELATED: Tuesday’s must-watch primaries: The races that will determine if America First takes over in 2026

Former North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper (D)Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Whatley celebrated the victory on social media shortly after the race was called: “Thank you North Carolina! I’m honored to be the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in North Carolina. Republicans are united. Now the real fight begins. This November, North Carolina voters will have a choice: Safer Communities, Secure Borders, More Jobs and Lower Costs or Roy Cooper’s failed record. Let’s win.”

In a statement obtained by Blaze News, Senate Leadership Fund Executive Director Alex Latcham congratulated Whatley: “SLF congratulates future U.S. Senator Michael Whatley on his primary victory tonight, where he once again proved that he is the leader who can build winning coalitions and ensure North Carolina remains red this November.”

“Meanwhile, Roy Cooper’s failed leadership left families without homes after Hurricane Helene, raised prices across the board, and prioritized far-left ideologies over North Carolina values,” Latcham went on. “Voters know that Roy Cooper cannot be trusted to represent them in Washington, and Senate Leadership Fund will firmly fight to ensure Michael Whatley is elected this November.”

Trump said Whatley is “fantastic at everything he does” in an endorsement message posted to Truth Social last month. With Trump’s blessing, Whatley also served as the chair of the Republican National Committee from March 2024 to August 2025.

Other candidates who appeared on the GOP ballot include Michele Morrow, Don Brown, Richard Dansie, Thomas Johnson, and Elizabeth Anne Temple. Additionally, Margot Dupre’s name reportedly appeared on the ballot, but she was disqualified for not having eligible voter registration in the state, according to WRAL.

Other Democrat candidates include Daryl Farrow, Justin E. Dues, Robert Colon, Marcus W. Williams, and Orrick Quick.

Originally scheduled to close at 7:30 p.m. local time, the poll closing time was pushed back by one hour at a precinct in Halifax County due to an issue that delayed the site’s opening, WBTV reported.

The precinct that experienced the issues was Halifax County’s Littleton precinct. The voting location was Littleton United Methodist Church, according to the North Carolina State Board of Elections’ press release regarding the decision.

“With more than 2,600 polling sites statewide, it is not unusual for minor issues to occur at polling sites that result in brief disruptions of voting. The State Board routinely meets to discuss the extension of hours when the need arises on Election Day,” the Board said in the statement.

As a result, no primary results were reported until 8:30 p.m. ET.

North Carolina is considered by many to be a key battleground state that could serve as a potential indicator for the fate of the remainder of Trump’s second term.

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

​Politics, North carolina, Battleground, Thom tillis, Senate race, Primary election, Michael whatley, Republicans, Democrats, Roy cooper, Trump, President trump, North carolina state board of elections