As I approached the pizza place, I heard someone talking over a loudspeaker. I assumed there was a protest going on. Or a Pride event.

A green-haired woman said: ‘Are you sure God is a He?’

But then I saw what it was: A street preacher was proselytizing and holding a big sign that read, “SINNERS REPENT! OR BURN IN HELL!”

Potty mouths repent!

I’d never seen one of these guys in the wild. Not in Portland. I’ve seen them on YouTube, where they often get into fights with people. Or sometimes, they get attacked.

As I got closer, I could read the large sign and its long list of hell-bound sinners:

PervertsFornicatorsHomosexualsAdulterersPotty mouthsDrunkardsThievesLiarsUsed car salesmen (yes, this was on the list)

The street preacher was a skinny, youngish guy (30?) with a trendy mustache. He wore a cap that said in big letters, “OBEY GOD.”

He was standing on the corner, just outside my pizzeria. At the moment I went inside, he was being yelled at by a short, angry, gray-haired man (50?). I didn’t hear what was being said. I went inside.

Once I had my slice, I sat by the window so I could further observe the adventures of the street preacher and his sign.

By then, the short, angry guy had left. What had he been yelling about? He was probably outraged that a street preacher would dare come plant himself in the middle of the liberal Hawthorne district. And it was June! It was still Pride Month!

We need to have a dialogue

Once the short, angry guy was gone, things calmed down. But other people continued to stop and gawk at the street preacher or engage him in conversation.

For a while, a young woman (25?) was questioning him. She wasn’t yelling, but she seemed pretty worked up.

The street preacher listened to her and seemed to consider what she was saying. I was surprised by how intelligent he looked. Also, he was a reasonably good-looking guy. He wasn’t the pot-bellied, crew-cut fanatic one might expect.

Does God exist?

By the time I finished my pizza slice, a new crowd of people had formed around the street preacher. I went outside and joined the group. I wanted to hear what people were saying.

A middle-aged man wearing cargo shorts and Teva sandals was asking the street preacher questions: If there’s a God, why are there wars? Why is there poverty and disease? And how could God send anyone to burn in hell for eternity? Doesn’t God forgive? Doesn’t He love everyone equally?

To me, these questions sounded like what a 14-year-old would ask. Which made me wonder to myself: “Is everyone in Portland 14?”

RELATED: What was the ‘alt-right’? ‘Whitepill’ clears up the media hysteria

Passage Publishing; Washington Post/Getty Images

What would Jesus do?

Another bystander joined in. He said that Christ didn’t go around denouncing people for their sexual preference. How could the street preacher carry a sign criticizing any people? Jesus would never do that.

The street preacher’s reply was something like: “The true God is a rigorous God. A righteous God. A God who does not tolerate sin. A God who does not excuse liars and perverts. God wants us to be godly. He wants us to live godly lives.”

A green-haired woman said: “Are you sure God is a He?”

The street preacher said: “God is our heavenly Father. He knows what is best for us. It is not our place to negotiate with Him. It is our place to obey Him.”

Classic liberal beliefs

That quieted the nonbelievers for a moment. But then other people chimed in. They espoused the classic liberal belief that “tolerance” and “acceptance” were always best. Who are we to judge?

But the street preacher stuck with his “rigorous” God idea. God had given us simple instructions. It was up to us to follow them. If you think you have a better plan than God … if you think you know better than God … well, good luck with that!

So who won the debate?

I don’t think anyone changed their minds during these discussions. But it was interesting to watch. People were respectful of each other at least. That was nice to see.

The main thing I took away from the debate was how poised the street preacher was. He was deep in enemy territory. But he never lost his cool. And he had clear and succinct responses to every question.

It was the Hawthorne atheists who couldn’t really articulate a coherent position. The best they could come up with was: “If God exists, why are people sad?”

Nor could the onlookers match the street preacher’s moral conviction. They were relativists. They couldn’t say what was “bad” or “good.” Anything could be “good,” if that’s what you were “into.”

Which worked fine in nonbinary, morally ambiguous Portland. But it wasn’t going to win an argument with this street preacher. Not today. Not even with the entire Hawthorne district backing you. This guy was taking on all comers. And he was not backing down.

​Jesus, Portland, Progressivism, Street preacher, Faith, Christianity, Blake’s progress 

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesperson released more details about the lethal shooting of a Colombian man in Maine during an immigration operation.

Details were sparse about the lethal incident in the city of Biddeford early Monday, but in an email statement to Blaze News, ICE confirmed the man was an illegal alien.

‘Were officers threatened? Were the threats rising to the level that justified deadly force? That’s what this investigation is all about.’

“On July 13, 2026, at approximately 7:00 a.m. ET, ICE was conducting targeted surveillance on the last known address of an illegal alien with a final order of removal. An illegal alien departed the residence in a vehicle. ICE law enforcement attempted to conduct a vehicle stop. The vehicle attempted to flee the scene, and fearing for public safety, an officer discharged his weapon,” the statement read.

Maine Sen. Angus King (I) told reporters that the man had been the intended target of the operation. He later said that he had gotten updated information from Sec. Markwayne Mullin of the Department of Homeland Security indicating that the deceased man had not been the target.

“The driver of the vehicle was struck, and emergency services were immediately contacted. He passed away from his injuries,” the ICE statement continued.

The Maine Immigrants’ Rights Coalition released a statement indicating that they had identified the man to be a 26-year-old from Colombia.

They also claimed that he had received authorization to work in the U.S. and had even received a Social Security card. He was later identified as Joan Sebastian Guerrero.

King said Mullin had told him the man “weaponized” his vehicle against the ICE agents, and the senator, who caucuses with Democrats, added that there needed to be a full investigation into the circumstances of the shooting.

“The question is, what did he do with his vehicle?” King said to reporters. “Were officers threatened? Were the threats rising to the level that justified deadly force? That’s what this investigation is all about, and I certainly intend to stay after it to do everything I can to be sure the investigation is as transparent and thorough as possible.”

ICE indicated that both the Biddeford Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had responded to the scene.

“This is a developing situation, and we will update the public when more information is available,” the statement concluded.

RELATED: Sister of man shot by Border Patrol in Arizona tells anti-ICE protesters to stop defending him

A Blaze News request for comment to the MIRC was not immediately answered.

Anti-ICE protests erupted immediately in the wake of the lethal shooting. Some protesters gathered outside the offices of Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins and demanded that she be voted out.

That re-election contest has been tossed into turmoil after Democrat candidate Graham Platner dropped out over numerous scandals that culminated in allegations of sexual assault.

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

​Federal bureau of investigation, Immigration, Immigration and customs enforcement, Maine, Politics 

Medicaid is federally funded and state-run, but the program’s beneficiaries often have the least say in who provides their care and what that care costs.

That’s a built-in flaw. States have every incentive to maximize federal matching funds while federal taxpayers bear much of the cost. The result pits state bureaucrats against Washington’s need to control Medicaid spending — and against taxpayers’ interest in stopping providers, insurers, and contractors from cashing in on weak oversight.

New York’s home-care scandal is not merely a contracting failure. It is a warning about Medicaid’s overall design.

That is why cosmetic Medicaid reforms so often produce more spending, more inefficiency, and more fraud.

Just look at New York.

Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul’s administration botched the reform of its roughly $11 billion Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program, a Medicaid-financed home-care benefit, so badly that federal prosecutors came knocking.

The U.S. Justice Department recently sued the New York State Department of Health and Public Partnerships LLC, the program’s sole fiscal intermediary since 2025. Prosecutors allege that New York’s CDPAP reform, supposedly designed to reduce waste in a billion-dollar program, instead created conditions for an ongoing Medicaid fraud scheme.

Personal care — nonmedical long-term care provided in the homes of elderly and disabled patients — is especially vulnerable to waste and abuse. The reason? It’s difficult to verify that caregivers worked the hours billed or provided the services claimed.

“The service is delivered by unlicensed caregivers in private residences, usually with no on-site supervision,” Bill Hammond of the Empire Center has explained. “The risk is heightened when the aide is a friend or family member of the patient, which is allowed under the popular and rapidly growing [CDPAP].”

New York’s numbers show the scale of the problem.

In 2021, the state employed 138 home-health and personal care aides per 1,000 residents age 65 or older — more than double the national average. New York City employed 236 aides per 1,000 older residents. By 2024, the statewide rate had climbed to 171 aides per 1,000 older residents.

Home care was supposed to reduce New Yorkers’ reliance on nursing homes. Yet the share of elderly New Yorkers living in nursing homes declined more slowly than in almost every other state, while New York’s per capita Medicaid spending on nursing homes remained the highest in the nation and more than double the U.S. average.

RELATED: Medicare red tape turned insurers into villains

NoDerog/Getty Images

Over the decade leading up to 2025, hundreds of fiscal intermediaries emerged to process payroll for CDPAP lay caregivers and perform other administrative duties. These intermediaries eagerly tapped loosely supervised Medicaid dollars.

Many aggressively advertised the opportunity to become a CDPAP caregiver and get paid by Medicaid to care for a family member — eventually at the same legally mandated minimum pay as professionally trained home-care aides.

That helped fuel what Hammond described as “seemingly bottomless and unchecked demand for a costly Medicaid benefit, which has been rising almost 10 times faster than the growth of the state’s elderly population.”

In 2024, New York passed legislation consolidating CDPAP management under a single statewide contractor. The state awarded that role to PPL.

By then, CDPAP relied on nearly 600 intermediary firms, and enrollment had exploded from roughly 12,000 to more than 250,000 between 2015 and 2023.

By shrinking the bureaucracy, New York lawmakers claimed they would restrain CDPAP’s soaring costs. Once again, they promised greater accountability and hundreds of millions of dollars in savings.

They did not deliver.

According to the Justice Department, the procurement process for “one of the most lucrative contracts for administering a Medicaid program in the nation” was compromised from the beginning. Prosecutors allege that “PPL was preselected as the winner through a sham bid process.”

The transition from hundreds of intermediaries to PPL was also disorderly. An unrealistic timeline, evident to both PPL and the Department of Health, disrupted patient care.

Most important, prosecutors allege that “PPL and New York, without explanation, have disregarded key limits the contract imposed on the revenues and profits PPL was entitled to.” Those limits were “central to the goal of saving hundreds of millions of dollars through the CDPAP transition.”

PPL allegedly “siphoned millions of dollars of Medicaid funding,” with the state Department of Health complicit in the ongoing scheme.

RELATED: SNAP may be paying for manicures, bongs, and an obesity epidemic — on your dime

Pete Kiehart/Bloomberg/Getty Images

PPL can be replaced. But another company eager to rent-seek will inevitably take its place unless the incentive structure changes.

As long as federal taxpayers contribute anywhere from $1 to $9 for every $1 New York contributes to fund Medicaid for New Yorkers, state administrations and health officials will remain too complacent about the misuse of taxpayer money.

Any money recovered from this alleged scheme would be dwarfed by Medicaid’s broader improper spending crisis, which may have exceeded $1 trillion over the past decade.

New York’s home-care scandal is not merely a contracting failure. It is a warning about Medicaid’s overall design.

The program rewards states for spending more, obscures responsibility for waste, and leaves taxpayers chasing fraud after the money is gone. Overhauling Medicaid to restore accountability is long overdue.

​Bureaucracy, Fraud, Health officials, Justice department, Medicaid, New york, Nursing homes, Oversight, Obesity epidemic, Kathy hochul, Opinion & analysis 

A former beauty pageant winner, worship pastor, and Christian performer pleaded guilty to committing day care fraud at three businesses in Minnesota.

Jill Mertens, 43, admitted to fraudulently receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Great Start Compensation Support Payment Program, which was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota.

‘We had no idea she was committing any fraud. We didn’t have any idea the day care was in any financial hardship.’

In 2016, Mertens registered three day cares she owned: The Tree of Life Academy in Ramsey and the Creative Stars Academy in Kasson and Rochester.

State data showed that the centers received numerous complaints and violations in recent years.

She received about $425,000 from the program to pay for 23 teachers who did not work at the day cares. She also inflated hours for the employees that she did have.

Mertens won Miss North Dakota and competed in the Miss America pageant in 2001. She went on to become a worship pastor and recorded a contemporary/Christian/gospel album that was released in 2011.

KARE-TV spoke to one couple that said they had prepaid for day care services at one of Mertens’ centers and were cheated when she declared bankruptcy and sold off the centers.

“We had no idea she was committing any fraud. We didn’t have any idea the day care was in any financial hardship,” Joe McInerney of Mantorville said. “Hopefully, she has some time to think about what she did and pay back her debts.”

Mertens agreed to pay back the funds she stole in her plea deal and was released on supervised release.

RELATED: Woman pleads guilty to day care fraud — and also ran Feeding Our Future scam and autism center

A KARE reporter noted in the news video that the plea deal included immunity for Mertens from any other federal investigation that may or may not be going on.

Mertens faces about two years in prison, according to the sentencing guidelines.

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

​Daycare fraud, Feeding our future, Minnesota, Miss america, Plea deal, Politics 

“Inclusive.” “Representative.” “Transparent.” That is how Maine Democratic Party Chairman Charlie Dingman describes the process for selecting a new Democratic nominee after Graham Platner’s withdrawal last week from the U.S. Senate race.

Those are worthy goals. But can a process truly be fair, representative, and transparent when the voters who participated in the June primary will not directly choose the replacement nominee?

Maine voters deserve to know that their vote counts not only on Election Day, but throughout the electoral process.

Under Maine law, Democrats have until July 27 to select a replacement. Rather than hold another statewide primary, party officials will convene a nominating convention to choose the candidate who appears on the November ballot.

That means 601 delegates from Maine’s 16 counties — not the full primary electorate that selected Platner — will choose the replacement nominee.

Primary elections and nominating conventions serve different purposes. A primary gives every eligible voter an equal voice in choosing a nominee. A convention limits that decision to party delegates acting on behalf of the organization.

Both are recognized under Maine law. But they are fundamentally different processes, and the distinction is vital.

The question is not whether Maine Democrats are acting within the law. The question is whether replacing the primary electorate with a convention best preserves public confidence.

Transparency is important. But transparency alone does not answer the deeper question: Should voters or party delegates choose a replacement nominee after a primary?

The circumstances in Maine are unusual, but the broader issue is not.

Political parties across the country have rules for replacing nominees when unexpected vacancies occur. A replacement is necessary. Parties must follow the law. But they should also ask whether their procedures reflect the will of voters as closely as circumstances allow.

RELATED: The media’s Democratic cover-up is collapsing

Chuwy/Getty Images

Following the law is essential. Preserving confidence in the process is essential too.

This is not the first time Democratic voters have watched party leaders make consequential decisions after ballots had already been cast. In 2024, Democratic delegates, rather than primary voters, selected Vice President Kamala Harris after President Joe Biden stepped aside.

Regardless of where one stood on that decision, it raised an enduring question now facing Maine: When circumstances change after a primary, who should choose the replacement nominee?

Election integrity is often discussed in terms of voter ID, ballot security, voter rolls, and timely vote counting. Those safeguards matter because they help ensure elections are conducted securely and accurately.

But election integrity also depends on voters believing their participation shapes the outcome.

When the final decision shifts from the primary electorate to party delegates after voters have already cast ballots, voters are left wondering how much their vote truly counts.

That uncertainty fuels something increasingly common in American politics: cynicism.

A growing number of Americans have adopted a “black-pill” view of politics — the belief that participation is pointless because vital decisions are ultimately made by a small group rather than the broader electorate.

They’re wrong. Voting remains viable.

Yet every time a party shifts a consequential decision from the full primary electorate to a smaller group of delegates after ballots have already been cast, it becomes harder to convince people their participation makes a difference.

RELATED: This is not the ‘red wave’ America needs

Aimee Dilger/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images

Maine voters deserve to know that their vote counts not only on Election Day, but throughout the electoral process.

Election integrity is about more than secure ballots and accurate voter rolls. It is about preserving public confidence that voters, not party insiders, ultimately decide who represents them.

Maine’s experience should prompt lawmakers and political parties to examine whether existing nominee replacement procedures preserve voter confidence when nominees withdraw after a primary.

The question in Maine is not simply who the next Democratic nominee will be.

It is whether voters remain at the center of the process after their ballots have been cast.

The strength of an election is measured not only by how votes are counted, but by whether the voters who cast them still have the final word.

​Primary, Democrats, Graham platner, Americans, Democracy, Kamala harris, Elections, Opinion & analysis, Maine 

For years, Americans have treated the Supreme Court like the nation’s principal.

Every cultural dispute eventually finds its way to Washington, where nine unelected justices are expected to settle questions that neighbors, legislators, parents, and communities no longer seem willing — or able — to resolve themselves.

A free people cannot forever outsource self-government to nine justices in Washington. Sooner or later, our democracy requires citizens to do the hard work themselves.

The Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 decision upholding state laws protecting women’s sports changed more than athletic policy. It reminded America how the Constitution was designed to work.

Much of the public conversation has focused on biological sex and transgender participation in women’s athletics. Those are important questions. But beneath the headlines lies something more significant: The court exercised judicial restraint. Instead of imposing one national standard, it returned much of the debate to the states.

That may prove to be the ruling’s greatest contribution.

Federalism is one of the Constitution’s forgotten masterpieces. The founders never intended America to function as one enormous county governed from Washington. They understood that a nation as large and diverse as ours could remain united because many decisions would be made closer to the people.

California may choose one approach. Texas another. Massachusetts another still.

Citizens remain free to debate, persuade, vote, and, if they wish, relocate to states whose laws better reflect their convictions. That’s the wisdom of our federal constitutional system.

Uniformity has never been America’s highest political virtue. Liberty has.

Federalism has costs. Different states will establish different athletic policies. National competitions may become more complicated. Families moving across state lines may encounter different eligibility rules. Critics are right that legal diversity can create confusion.

But confusion is not democracy’s greatest threat. Centralized power is.

RELATED: Women’s sports finally got a reality check

Oliver Contreras/AFP/Getty Images

Freedom is rarely lost in one dramatic moment. It is surrendered gradually as authority migrates from local communities to distant institutions. The Constitution deliberately resists that impulse because power is safest when it remains close to the people who must live under it.

That principle deserves defending regardless of where one stands on this particular question.

The dissent by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson rested on constitutional and statutory interpretation. Lawyers will debate those arguments for years.

Still, their votes raise an unavoidable question.

Three accomplished women reached a legal conclusion on an issue directly affecting women and girls that many female athletes believe weakens the very protections women’s sports were created to provide.

The issue carries added significance because Justice Jackson’s 2022 confirmation hearing became a defining cultural moment when she declined to define the word “woman,” explaining that she was “not a biologist.” Whether one agreed with her answer or not, the exchange symbolized a culture increasingly uncertain about concepts previous generations regarded as self-evident.

A civilization begins to lose confidence long before it loses arguments.

Women’s sports were never created to diminish men. They were created to protect women.

Biological differences in strength, speed, endurance, bone density, and muscle mass are measurable realities. Separate women’s competitions were established not because women are inferior but because fairness requires meaningful opportunities for women to compete, succeed, and excel.

That principle has served female athletes well for decades.

It also raises an obvious question: Must fairness for transgender athletes require sacrificing fairness for women?

Perhaps America has accepted a false choice.

Athletics already recognizes that fairness sometimes requires separate categories. We separate competitors by age because maturity matters. We separate them by weight because size matters. We celebrate the Paralympics because physical ability matters.

We separate men’s and women’s sports because biology matters.

RELATED: The Supreme Court finally confirmed what I knew all along

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

None of those distinctions is considered discrimination. They are considered fairness.

Rather than forcing one protected group into another’s category, America should consider developing meaningful transgender athletic divisions: state championships, collegiate scholarships, national tournaments, and professional opportunities designed specifically for transgender competitors.

That would expand opportunity without diminishing opportunity.

Surely innovation is better than endless litigation.

The court’s decision did not end America’s debate. The conversation now belongs where representative government intended it to be: in state legislatures, school boards, athletic associations, coaches’ offices, and living rooms across America.

As a Christian, I believe Scripture teaches that humanity is created male and female. I also recognize that many Americans do not share that conviction.

That’s precisely why federalism is vital. It allows citizens with profoundly different worldviews to govern themselves through democratic institutions while remaining united under one Constitution.

That arrangement requires something increasingly rare.

Not outrage. Not hashtags. Not judicial shortcuts. Persuasion.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing separately, argued that biological sex is binary and immutable and warned that denying this reality tells “a lie to the public.” I agree with him.

But whether one agrees with every word or not, his opinion reflects a broader concern: Law cannot remain untethered from objective reality forever. Reality has a stubborn habit of refusing to yield to ideology.

The Supreme Court did not solve America’s cultural divisions. It reminded us whose responsibility they are.

That is the forgotten genius of federalism.

A free people cannot forever outsource self-government to nine justices in Washington. Sooner or later, our democracy requires citizens to do the hard work themselves.

Perhaps the future of women’s sports — and constitutional government itself — depends on whether we still remember how.

​America, Christians, Clarence thomas, Female athletes, Scotus, Scripture, State laws, State legislatures, Supreme court, Trans athletes, Women’s sports, Opinion & analysis 

On Wednesday, July 8, President Donald Trump left Turkey, where he was attending a NATO summit in Ankara with other world leaders to discuss security issues, including the conflict involving Iran. Before the plane departed, reporters who attended the summit were told something odd: Lower your window shades.

When asked about the unusual request, President Trump nonchalantly explained that it was likely due to security reasons.

“You’re probably on a dangerous flight because of the sleazebags that we have to deal with. … I’m number one on [Iran’s] list,” he remarked casually.

Glenn Beck found this moment deeply significant.

As someone who’s received many credible threats over the years, Glenn believes that Trump’s detached comments indicate he’s “made peace” with the deadly implications of having a giant target on his back.

“He is finding a way that he can compartmentalize this and go on with his life and be out in public,” Glenn speculates.

He notes that Trump took his fancy Qatari-gifted Boeing 747-8 to Turkey but returned on the traditional Air Force One, likely because it’s far more heavily armored and equipped with full military-grade protections.

“Turkey shares a border with Iran. Iran has drones and ballistic missiles,” Glenn says, adding that the Qatari plane was sent ahead without Trump on it because “it wasn’t safe bringing [Trump] home past Iran’s front door.”

But Glenn sees this moment as far more than a security footnote. It also reveals how Trump is mentally preparing for the very real possibility that Iran will try to assassinate him and what the deadly difference is between open war and covert murder.

“Now, if Iran killed Trump, if they used a missile and it was executed by the army, it’s not an assassination. … If they bring a guy in out of a uniform and they just have a rocket … and they point it up at the sky and they take [Trump’s plane] out, then it’s murder, it’s terror, and it’s an assassination,” he explains, noting that either scenario would culminate in steep consequences for Iran.

“Four months ago at the beginning of this war, America and Israel killed the top guy, supreme leader, and we called that a strike, an operation, practically a Tuesday,” Glenn continues. “And the president said it out loud that he got Khamenei before Khamenei could get him — same verb pointed both directions.”

“Whose hand is on the trigger” is of paramount importance, he argues, because it determines the difference between “war and murder,” “the soldier and the assassin.”

“[The killing of Khamenei] was done by the uniformed forces of nations in daylight in a war. What Iran has tried to do to Trump was hire a man, cash for killing, arranged in the dark to be carried out by a hired hand who would slip out of the country before the deed was done,” Glenn contrasts. “Not a soldier — an assassin; not a war — murder.”

“The entire point of the laws of war, the thing that separates us from the pit, is that even killing has limits,” he explains. “Who? How? When? In the open or in the dark?”

How we answer these questions determines whether we remain a civilized nation that still believes in rules — even in war — or whether we descend into the kind of lawless chaos our enemies thrive on.

To hear more, 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, Donald trump, Air force one, Iran