Christians are missing the opportunity next door



Christians need not wait for Washington to settle the immigration debate before sharing the gospel with the people who have already arrived.

Whatever happens next — tighter restrictions or a return to the influxes Democrats encouraged — Hindus and Muslims have made their homes here and established temples and mosques. They are our neighbors. Christians have a duty to evangelize them.

The religions of the world have come to our neighborhoods. We have the honor of sharing Christ with the people who practice them. We should get to work.

We should debate whether a society without a shared foundation can hold together through the modern left’s thin materialistic secularism or resurgent occultism. Obviously, it cannot. We should also challenge what the left proposes to put in place of the Christianity that helped form this country.

But those arguments do not suspend the Christian obligation to share Christ. Hindu and Muslim immigrants have come to a country with a long Christian heritage. They should expect to encounter Christianity here, just as a Christian moving to India would encounter Hinduism or one moving to Saudi Arabia would encounter Islam.

Hindu statues and Islamic calls to prayer now confront Americans with religions they may once have known only from books. What a great opportunity to share Christ!

Evangelism can begin in a conversation at work or school. Christians can visit religious centers, get to know their neighbors, and preach publicly. Whatever the setting, we must understand what the other person believes and explain where Christianity differs.

Hindu traditions include worship of many deities, although Hindu schools understand those deities differently. For some American Christians, a Hindu temple may provide their first encounter with statues used in religious worship rather than displayed in a museum.

We have learned the commandment against making and worshipping idols. Yet our sermons often emphasize spiritual idolatry because bowing before a physical image seems so remote from our lives. Our Hindu neighbors may give us occasion to discuss that commandment in its most literal application.

Some influential Hindu philosophical traditions teach monism: that reality is ultimately one. Advaita Vedanta identifies the true self, Atman, with Brahman, the ultimate reality. The formulation “This Self is Brahman” appears in the Mandukya Upanishad.

Yoga and meditation are practices aimed at realizing the self is God. Reincarnation teaches that our soul has existed from eternity and is on a journey to be freed from the body and reach enlightenment as God.

RELATED: ‘I think they're demons’: Why JD Vance refuses to downplay supernatural evil

Kent Nishimura-Pool/Getty Images

The Christian answer to identifying the self with God is direct: God created us. We are not God. Creation had a beginning; only God has existed from eternity. The temptation in Genesis 3:5 promised, “You will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The distinction between Creator and creation also explains Christianity’s rejection of idols. Paul condemns those who “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles” in Romans 1:23.

Idolatry calls for repentance. Salvation from that sin comes only through Christ.

Islam presents a different challenge. It has a violent history with Hinduism. It also strongly condemns idolatry. It arose after the Jewish and Christian Scriptures and claims continuity with earlier revelation. Yet it rejects the atonement at the center of the Christian gospel.

Biblical revelation teaches the need for vicarious atonement — a sacrifice on behalf of sinners. In the books of Moses, the Day of Atonement gives this teaching a central place. Passover likewise involves the death of a lamb and the application of its blood so that a household escapes judgment. Christians understand these as signs pointing to Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Islam rejects Christ’s sacrificial death as the means of salvation. The Quran states in 6:164 that no bearer of burdens will bear another’s burden. Muslims emphasize obedience, repentance, and God’s mercy; Islamic teaching also denies that deeds alone secure entry into paradise. The Christian disagreement concerns how God reconciles sinners to himself: through the atoning death of Christ.

The biblical response is that none of our works can ever save us. Even if we became perfectly obedient today — and most of us can admit we cannot — we would still owe a debt for our past sins. Thinking future obedience can erase those sins is like thinking cutting up your credit cards pays off the balance.

God’s perfect justice and perfect mercy must both hold. Simply overlooking sin would leave justice unsatisfied. At the cross, Christ bears the penalty for sin and offers salvation to sinners who cannot save themselves. God remains just while showing mercy.

RELATED: A Christian guide to trolling without sinning

Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Christianity explains our problem and provides the solution God has given. We need reconciliation with our Creator, and we receive it through Jesus Christ.

Our Hindu and Muslim neighbors may know Christianity chiefly through what their own religious traditions say about it. They may never have read the Bible or heard the gospel explained clearly from Scripture. American Christians can open the Bible with them and make that introduction.

We must prepare for those conversations. Evangelists on social media can make the work look easy, but years of study and practice may stand behind a short video. Read Scripture, understand its teaching, and learn to speak kindly with people who disagree.

Pray for the people you hope to reach. Our duty to share the gospel should lead us to prayer, with fasting when appropriate.

Live the Christian life yourself. You are introducing someone to the true and living God, who offers reconciliation through Jesus Christ. Know that salvation yourself before presuming to explain it to someone else.

Finally, ask questions and listen to the answers. You are speaking with a person. Learn what he believes, what he doubts, and what he understands about Christianity. A religious label cannot tell you all of that.

The religions of the world have come to our neighborhoods. We have the honor of sharing Christ with the people who practice them. We should get to work.

JD Vance to Steve Deace: AI must serve people — not the other way around



As artificial intelligence rapidly transforms the economy, Americans are asking whether the technology is moving faster than the public can keep up — and BlazeTV host Steve Deace wants their questions answered.

So Vice President JD Vance is doing just that.

“A lot of our audiences around the country, Mr. Vice President, kind of feel like this is kind of being thrust on them, and they haven’t had time to breathe,” Deace tells Vance, noting that in contrast, even the internet “slowly rolled out phase by phase.”

“It didn’t in just 10 minutes just take everything over,” he continues. “And I think a lot of people feel like AI is. Like nobody wants China to dictate this technology to us. At the same time, you know, people do care about land use and making sure they’re heard, and are we building these things for jobs that will actually go to Americans?”


“Can you give us some clarity on this at all?” Deace asks.

“So first on the data center thing, my view is that the political backlash to the data center thing is fundamentally about local control, which obviously we love. As the president of the United States has said, these are important engines of the economy, but they have to be done in the right way,” Vance says.

“And I think the most important way to ensure that they’re done in the right way is for people to follow the Trump administration’s taxpayer protection pledge,” he explains, pointing out that in communities where data centers are building their own power sources, there’s less political backlash.

“When you, on the other hand, have a data center that’s tapping into the pre-existing grid where people see their power bills go through the roof, that’s a real problem,” Vance says. “I don’t want a data center built if it means that local residents are going to have to pay higher electricity costs.”

As for AI in general, Vance explains that the principle he applies is that “technology exists to serve the human person and the human person of course exists ultimately to have a relationship with their creator.”

“I don’t think that we can see technology as the end, and I think that we have to make these technology tools subservient to human operators,” he says.

“And so where I get a little worried is when I see the technology companies come out and say, ‘We’ve lost control. We can no longer control these tools.’ And that brings me to my final point, which is the solution to these problems is to hold the tech companies accountable,” he continues.

“Not to give them regulatory protection and allow regulatory capture,” he adds.

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Bern notice: Sanders’ AI plan puts Washington in charge of tomorrow



Americans should pay close attention to a new artificial intelligence proposal from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a democratic socialist, and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas).

Sanders and Casar recently announced plans to introduce the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act. Their proposal is designed to prevent the creation of artificial intelligence systems that become more intelligent than human beings or develop capabilities that could threaten humanity.

Overseeing frontier AI would be more difficult than running a railroad or postal network.

The dangers they identify deserve to be taken seriously. But their proposed solution would also place extraordinary power over one of the most consequential technologies in human history in the hands of the federal government.

According to a summary released by Sanders’ office, the proposal would permanently prohibit the development and deployment of artificial superintelligence, including systems that surpass human intelligence, threaten governments, or evade human control. It would also pause advanced AI development until a new federal regulator establishes safety rules and a process for reviewing models.

That is only the beginning. Sanders and Casar want to establish a new Cabinet-level agency responsible for regulating advanced artificial intelligence. The agency would monitor frontier AI systems throughout their development, oversee the removal of capabilities deemed dangerous, and supervise the destruction of prohibited artificial-superintelligence systems.

The proposal also contemplates severe penalties. People who violate or circumvent its restrictions could face up to 20 years in prison. Companies could face what Sanders’ office calls the “corporate death penalty.” The United States would also pursue international agreements, export controls, and allied coordination intended to prevent artificial superintelligence from being developed elsewhere.

Without a doubt, advanced AI could pose serious threats to human freedom and security. A system capable of evading human control, conducting sophisticated cyberattacks, helping develop biological weapons, or manipulating critical infrastructure would present risks unlike almost anything governments have confronted. Sanders’ office cites reported incidents involving advanced AI systems as evidence that the technology is becoming increasingly difficult to control.

The key question is whether giving Washington sweeping regulatory authority would solve more problems than it causes. The federal government does not exactly have an impeccable record managing complicated institutions.

RELATED: Anthropic entrusts its AI oversight to globalist cronies — prioritizing the world over you

Rudall30/Getty Images

The Postal Service reported a $9 billion net loss in fiscal year 2025. Amtrak, despite record ridership and revenue, reported a $598.4 million adjusted operating loss for the same fiscal year. The federal government had accumulated a $2 trillion deficit through the first 11 months of fiscal 2026.

Those comparisons do not prove that a federal AI regulator would fail. Running a railroad or postal network is obviously different from regulating artificial intelligence. If anything, overseeing frontier AI would be more difficult. But the government’s record raises a legitimate institutional question: How confident should Americans be that Washington can successfully oversee technology that even its developers acknowledge can be difficult to understand and control?

Another danger deserves even more attention: politicization.

Under the Sanders-Casar proposal, a Cabinet-level agency would determine which advanced AI systems may proceed, establish safety rules, review models, monitor their capabilities, require developers to remove features deemed dangerous, and supervise the destruction of systems that cross the government’s line.

Those are immense powers. Government officials could use them to limit lawful activity, favor politically connected companies, or advance particular ideological causes and special interests.

Artificial intelligence will increasingly shape how Americans receive information, communicate, work, conduct research, educate their children, and participate in the economy. A regulatory structure powerful enough to determine which advanced AI models may exist could therefore exercise tremendous influence over American life.

There is also a serious federalism debate that should not be overlooked. Congress possesses substantial constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, while states retain broad traditional regulatory powers. AI regulation could therefore involve authority at both levels of government rather than belonging exclusively to either one.

A state-centered model offers an important structural advantage: It disperses power.

States can adopt different approaches, experiment with different safety standards, and correct mistakes without necessarily imposing the consequences of those mistakes on the entire country. Regulatory capture can occur in state governments, too, but capturing one state regulator is different from capturing a single federal agency controlling advanced AI nationwide.

RELATED: Silicon Valley is building a god in its own image

Gremlin/Getty Images

Supporters of federal regulation can reasonably respond that a patchwork of 50 state systems would create serious compliance problems for technology that routinely crosses state boundaries. A national regulator could also impose consistent rules on developers whose products operate throughout the country.

That is a serious argument. But so is the danger of allowing one centralized authority to micromanage breakthroughs in AI. A mistake, political abuse, or act of regulatory capture at the federal level could affect the entire country at once.

The proposal has been announced but not yet formally introduced, so its precise statutory language remains unknown. Based on the summary released by Sanders’ office, however, it would create a Cabinet agency capable of stopping AI development, ordering systems destroyed, imposing potentially existential penalties on companies, and sending people to prison for decades.

Before Congress considers such an extraordinary framework, Americans should decide how much authority any single government agency should possess over the development of artificial intelligence — and what safeguards would prevent that authority from being abused.

The mass-deportation promise is disappearing



At the Republican National Midterm Convention in Dallas last week, Vice President JD Vance said, “Under Donald Trump’s leadership, we have seen the foreign-born share of our population drop by 3 million people. That’s illegal aliens that we sent back home.” That is not true, and I wish he hadn’t said it.

The first sentence appears to round a recent estimate that the total foreign-born population fell by 2.9 million. The second recasts that estimate as 3 million illegal aliens whom the administration sent home. That is not what the underlying study says. But Vance said what he said, and if we are going to be straight shooters with Americans, then we need to hold all our political leaders to the same standard. That is especially true when it comes to the base’s favorite candidate for the next Republican presidential nomination.

It’s one thing not to mention mass deportation, but quite another to throw out numbers that nobody believes and the government’s own public data does not support.

With all due respect to the vice president, who has earned a deep reservoir of trust and support, we still need to be clear-eyed if we are going to build momentum for a mass deportation campaign.

As the vice president himself has said, “We need people to be pushing back from inside the tent.” We cannot accept premature celebrations in place of action. There could be a million explanations for how that statistic made it into the speech instead of the term “mass deportation” itself. My read is that someone ordered them not to speak about mass deportation at the convention, so it may have been hard to come up with something to say in its place. I have drafted and edited my fair share of speeches over the years. Group projects can take on lives of their own, and things end up in speeches that should not.

I was on the ground in Dallas, and I heard no speaker use the term “mass deportation.” It was a noticeable departure from the term’s prominence at the 2024 Republican National Convention, where viewers and attendees saw signs calling for “mass deportation now” while President Trump promised the “largest" deportation operation in history.

The promised mass-deportation campaign has not come to pass, and the absence of any reference to it just two years later speaks volumes about the abandonment of the cause.

The only reference to mass deportation I caught at the convention came from Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin during an offstage interview. “Our base wants mass deportation. We need mass deportation,” he said. Mullin, who receives the sharpest mix of criticism and encouragement, including from yours truly and the Mass Deportation Coalition, deserves credit for at least being willing to say it. Obviously, doing it is what matters, but it starts with saying it.

Instead of mass deportation, we have a growing scandal over basic deportation data. ICE has not released its fiscal year 2025 annual report, which congressional appropriators directed the agency to issue within 90 days of the fiscal year’s end. The ICE dashboard that was regularly updated, even during the Obama and Biden years, has not posted new removal data since November 2024.

RELATED: Trump’s mass-deportation promise needs receipts

Megan Varner/Getty Images

In place of numbers are far-fetched claims and surface-level figures tossed out on social media and suspiciously amplified by networks of influencers. I suspect the amplification is not organic. Many of the posts are not even logical on their own terms, including one I saw recently claiming that ICE achieved a monthly record of 50,000 arrests. It then multiplied that “record” by the 20 months President Trump has been in office and claimed that 3 million people had therefore been deported. But 50,000 multiplied by 20 is 1 million, not 3 million. And arrests are not deportations. Nonetheless, the 3 million claim made the rounds on social media.

Then came another 3-million claim, this time drawn from a study based on the Current Population Survey, a voluntary monthly household survey used to measure the labor force. The study estimated that the total foreign-born population fell by 2.9 million from January 2025 to July 2026. It also preliminarily estimated that the illegal immigrant population fell by 2.3 million, from 15.8 million to 13.5 million. Importantly, that is an estimated net change in population, not a count of people deported. The study says the change can reflect new arrivals, deportations, voluntary emigration, legalizations, and deaths.

Vance also said Americans had competed for jobs and homes against “25 million new illegal immigrants.” If you are confused, then you are in the right place. The new claim that 3 million illegal aliens were sent home rests not on administrative deportation records but on an extrapolation from the survey, which does not ask respondents about their immigration status. It is a stretch to turn that estimate into 3 million illegal aliens “sent back home,” especially after claiming moments earlier that 25 million new illegal immigrants had competed with Americans for jobs and homes.

RELATED: The conservative base will remember this betrayal

PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP/Getty Images

None of this should even be part of the argument or public conversation. The Trump administration has administrative data on removals and returns; it is choosing not to release a detailed public accounting.

This should be among the easiest data to track and compile in all of government. Each formal removal or return generates case records and departure paperwork. Officials review those figures regularly. They know what I know: Actual interior deportations are far below the estimates being bandied about.

My estimate is that interior removals are probably closer to one-sixth of the 3 million the administration claims. I have sued the DHS with the Oversight Project to obtain this data, but the agency is still spending taxpayer money on lawyers to keep it hidden. It is a cover-up and a scandal, and there are unfortunately no better words for it.

It’s unfortunate that the ascendant vice president decided to jump headfirst into the deportation-data mess. It’s one thing not to mention mass deportation, but quite another to throw out numbers that nobody believes and the government’s own public data does not support.

Glenn Beck's message to America on the 25th anniversary of 9/11



September 10, 2001, felt like any other day. Americans went to work, made plans, walked their dogs, and tucked their children into bed without knowing they were living through the final hours of a world that was about to change forever.

On the anniversary of 9/11, Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck is reflecting on the courage and sacrifice that emerged in the wake of the attacks — and the gratitude Americans should have for every ordinary morning they get to wake up to.

“Do you know when the bridges and tunnels closed, half a million people were stranded, right there in lower Manhattan? Half a million. Sky was on fire behind them. Black, dust, ash everywhere,” Glenn recalls.

“The Coast Guard put out a call for every boat that could come,” he explains. “Tugboats, ferries, dinner cruises, fishing charters, you know, a guy with a Boston whaler.”


After the 9/11 attack, those vessels took half a million people off the island.

“It was the largest — and still is— the largest sea evacuation in the history of the world. Bigger than Dunkirk,” he says.

However, Americans quickly forgot the sacrifice others made out of love for their country and people.

“We have spent 25 years telling everybody it’s wicked, that it’s rotten. It was rotten from the start. That everything it gave us was stolen and everything that it built should be torn down or burned down,” he says.

But this “wicked” country is “still feeding us this morning.”

“It’s still a place people are dying in the desert to reach. It still goes on loving a generation that never once said thank you and might even be embarrassed to say thank you, America,” he explains.

And not only are foreigners doing everything they can to get into the country, but they’re doing it because an ordinary America that sees little gratitude is actually extraordinary.

“We’re standing in the ordinary,” Glenn says. “A different kind, but an ordinary today. Right now, somewhere in this country, there’s a morning coming that will divide our lives entirely. And that day is not on any calendar.”

“Nobody’s watching and saying, ‘I know when that’s going to happen.’ And what we will remember about today, this Thursday, this nothing of a day, is what we always remember,” he explains, noting that we will not remember “the argument” or “the elections.”

We will remember “the kitchen, the dog, somebody’s hand on the back of your neck.”

“I remember September 10, 2001. It was the last ordinary day of my life, of the America I knew. And in one day, the next morning, that ordinary America was completely different,” he says.

“It’s weird that we call what’s happening in the world today ordinary, but it is. It’s just the new normal,” he continues. “And I thank God we got another September 10.”

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 government would like to discuss your allowance



Abdul El-Sayed did Americans a favor when he sat down with Jesse Watters on Fox News this week. The Michigan U.S. Senate candidate gave us a remarkably clear lesson in the philosophy behind America’s growing democratic socialist movement. The real question is simple: Who owns your property — you or the government?

The most revealing moment was not about Sharia law, transgender medicine, or even socialized health care. It came when Watters pressed El-Sayed about his proposal to tax the wealth of Americans with more than $100 million.

Before giving government more power, ask what happens when the people wielding it decide that you, too, have more than you need.

El-Sayed has made the argument before. Billionaires, he says, can surrender a substantial portion of their wealth and still remain billionaires. Their children and grandchildren will still be rich.

Notice the premise. This is not merely an argument that government needs revenue for legitimate functions, nor a dispute over whether the top marginal income-tax rate should be 35% or 39%. The argument is that you possess more than you need — and government gets to decide how much that is.

That is the part Americans need to understand.

Suppose you build a company. You work for decades. You save, invest, and take risks. The company becomes enormously valuable. Under the traditional American understanding, the presumption is that the property is yours. Government may tax under constitutional authority, but it does not acquire an unlimited moral claim on your property because politicians decide you have too much of it.

El-Sayed reverses that presumption. What are you going to do with all that money? Whatever your answer, the socialist argument says it is too much because you have more than you need.

The proper question is not what you intend to do with your property. The proper question is: By what right does the government take it?

That distinction takes us back to 1776. The founders understood that government is necessary to protect life, liberty, property, contracts, and the peaceful exercise of rights.

But precisely because government possesses coercive power, it must be limited. The founders built a constitutional order around the insight that human beings abuse power, so power must be divided, checked, and restrained.

Read the Declaration of Independence. The complaint against George III is repeatedly that political power has exceeded its proper bounds. The king interferes with colonial legislatures, imposes taxes without consent, and seeks to subject Americans to “absolute Despotism.”

The central political problem was not how government could solve every problem. It was how citizens could prevent government from becoming one.

RELATED: The data center mob wants your property rights too

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Compare that instinct with New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s declaration that there is “no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.” That is nearly the photographic negative of the American constitutional tradition.

The founders asked: What powers have we actually given government, and how do we limit them? The new socialists ask: What problem is left for government to solve?

El-Sayed’s wealth-tax argument reveals why. Once we abandon the presumption that your property is genuinely yours, the limiting principle becomes hard to locate. If $100 million is too much, why not $50 million? Why not $10 million? If politicians may determine how much wealth you need, why stop with billionaires?

The issue is not whether anyone should feel sorry for billionaires. The issue is who owns the property.

Redistribution is politically easiest when it begins with somebody almost nobody identifies with. He has plenty. You do not. Why shouldn’t government take some?

Because a government powerful enough to decide how much property another person needs has been given a power that does not become harmless merely because its first target is richer than you.

Then there is the comic assumption beneath the argument: Government will spend the money more wisely.

El-Sayed’s home state offers a useful caution. The state auditor found Michigan’s Unemployment Insurance Agency ineffective during the COVID pandemic. Fraud controls were weakened, billions in improper or fraudulent payments went out, and later audits found serious failures in recovering them.

These are the institutions that will reliably improve on the decisions of people who built billion-dollar companies?

Government has legitimate but limited purposes, and legitimate taxation follows from those purposes. But legitimate taxation does not establish a standing claim to whatever share of your wealth politicians decide you do not need.

This debate is especially important because socialism has found a receptive audience among younger Americans. Harvard’s 2025 Youth Poll found support for capitalism among young Americans at only 39%, while nearly half of young Democrats expressed support for socialism.

That is, in part, a failure of education.

We have spent enormous energy teaching young Americans to critique power and too little teaching them why constitutional government was designed to limit it. Much of contemporary oppression theory condemns authorities who presume to know how others should live, then demands political power to impose its own answers.

The next generation needs a different lesson.

RELATED: The DSA’s history lesson has one big omission

Sarah Rice/Getty Images

Your life is your responsibility. Your neighbor’s property belongs to your neighbor. Wealth does not become public property when it crosses an arbitrary number selected by a politician. Government exists to protect rights, not to decide how much prosperity citizens are permitted to enjoy.

Freedom includes choices politicians consider foolish or wasteful. Save your money, give it away, invest it, build a business, leave it to your children, support your church, fund a charity, or buy something ridiculous. Within the law, those decisions belong to you.

That is what limited government protects.

The socialist temptation is perennial because it begins with an attractive promise: Give us more power, and we will use it to make life fairer.

The American answer is older and wiser: Before giving government more power, ask what happens when the people wielding it decide that you, too, have more than you need.

The data center backlash is getting spiritual



As I — and numerous others — anticipated years ago, the populist backlash against the dystopian possibilities of super-duper artificial intelligence has begun in earnest, with the rise of data centers as the inciting event.

It is easy to see why. Beyond the standard human response to unasked-for change at scale — isn’t there someone (me!) you forgot to ask? — the populist spirit in America has always run bone-deep.

Americans do not like feeling mogged by their fellow citizens, and we like even less being lectured by the moggers about how we are unentitled to feel that way.

Alexis de Tocqueville understood the democratic dynamics of envy and resentment. Under conditions of social equality, everyone feels precariously interchangeable with everyone else, so another person’s relative advantage can register not merely as inequality but as a wound to pride.

Extend that dynamic to the “global town square,” where we spend more and more of our waking hours watching other people’s breakout advances in real time, and the sensation of being left behind goes nuclear.

Americans do not like feeling mogged by their fellow citizens, and we like even less being lectured by the moggers about how we are unentitled to feel that way. Worse, somewhere beneath the resentment lurks the humiliating suspicion that we have helped put ourselves in the inferior position.

Sensitive young men of ambition today — reminding me of my own “Fight Club”-era preoccupations — are once again stalking some kind of Nietzschean-Christian syncretism that promises, amulet-like, supreme confidence and supreme humility. The reason is that both Nietzsche and Christ condemned resentment.

The gulf between the Übermensch and the God-Man is obviously enormous. Yet both traditions understand that resentment degrades the person who lives by it. And that is why the backlash against data centers has moved so quickly from personal grievance and political interest onto the higher plane of spiritual war.

More Americans across the political spectrum now speak of data centers as if they are not merely ugly, expensive, noisy, or intrusive but evil — evil as “tech” itself has become in their imagination, evil as the “tech lords” who build it are presumed to be.

On the secular left, where human justice perfected becomes an almost religious ideal, tech’s push toward superhuman capability readily appears sinister. On the woo-woo left, where witches warn that they cannot hex Trump, tech’s tilt toward post-humanity manifests as something post-natural and spiritually contaminating.

RELATED: Is this the number-crunchers’ come-to-Jesus moment?

Inkoly/Getty Images

On the right, spiritual conservatives with relatively weak institutional confidence often apply a precautionary principle: If it looks menacing, assume it’s evil. Those with stronger church lives have a different reason for suspicion: an acute awareness of man’s fallenness and the old Actonian warning that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Search a man for evil — beginning with yourself! — and evil, no doubt, you shall find. But this being America, where making me feel “less than” can register as a kind of spectral crime, the emotional incentive is to cast the first stone. And in an age when throwing a stick will almost certainly hit somebody culpable and “punchable,” it is remarkable that the techies did not prepare for the boomerang now whacking them upside the head.

But that should be the beginning of our rumination, not the end. Many, many techies are doing “this” because of what they regard as good intentions. Some sincerely believe they are acting, for our own good, out of their very best intentions.

Ignoring that fact will produce a maelstrom of resentment more destructive than the nightmares already filling our wounded and prideful imaginations.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. But the proverb should not tempt us to dismiss good intentions as meaningless. It should force us to take seriously the human yearning for the good, the wonderful, and the pure — especially in people whose projects strike us as dangerous.

Christians, in particular, are meant to remember that all creation cries out for reunion with God and that even badly distorted human desires can point toward something real that has gone wrong in the seeking.

RELATED: The question of the AI age: How much humanism is too much?

Moor Studio/Getty Images

That does not give the maddest of mad scientists a cosmic hall pass. It does mean that, if we look without fear at the grand plans of our technologists, we may see in them a powerful expression of the universal human longing for purification.

As the structure of our economic life increasingly leaves people feeling condemned by bad debts, bad surpluses, and obligations they cannot spiritually discharge, we desperately seek something powerful and authoritative enough to wipe the ledger clean and leave us new.

Hey, our best-intentioned techies keep shouting. There’s an app for that!

No purification, no salvation; this we have known for ages. But when time feels short, we become vulnerable to shortcuts — to the fantasy of a perfectly engineered “solve” for our human, all-too-human debt.

If we merely demonize one another — losing sight of the Lord’s hidden presence in us all — then the data centers may not be what finally tears us apart. We may do that job ourselves.

The DSA’s history lesson has one big omission



I walked into my first DSA meeting looking for an answer to a very specific question: How do modern Marxists reckon with communism’s long history of atrocities?

In recent weeks, clips of Democratic Socialists of America leaders praising countries such as Cuba and China have gone viral. Other prominent socialists, including Hasan Piker, openly admire Lenin and Stalin and post pictures of themselves reading “What Is to Be Done?” while wearing Cartier.

Power is not only money or property. It is also the power to decide which history gets remembered and which gets reduced to a footnote.

Communist regimes killed tens of millions of people in the 20th century. So when I sat down for a DSA 101 lecture and was greeted as a comrade, I wanted to hear how the organization taught that history.

The answer was one of the more impressive acts of historical revisionism I have ever heard.

The DSA has built a coalition around oppression. Transgender people, racial minorities, immigrants, women, and people angry about the cost of health insurance are presented as members of classes exploited by a capitalist ruling order. In the room, confidence in the American dream was scarce. Resentment of the capitalist class was not.

That framework extends abroad. As the leader of my DSA 101 session put it, “A socialist approach is built on international solidarity and support. Socialists are internationalists.” Hence the fixation on Cuba, Venezuela, Gaza and the West Bank, and other places cast as victims of American power.

The problem is that several regimes the DSA treats sympathetically were devastated by Marxist rule itself.

Take the Soviet Union. During the Great Terror, roughly 700,000 people were executed. Millions more died through forced resettlement, the gulag, famine, and other state policies. One widely cited estimate puts the Soviet communist death toll at about 20 million.

Yet during the entire two-hour DSA course, the Soviet Union came up only once. The instructor praised it: “Socialists can be proud of our history. Some of the very first, most striking work [for feminist rights] occurred just after the October Revolution in the Soviet Union.”

That was it. The mass killing disappeared. Progressive feminism remained.

China received similar treatment. While discussing planned economies, the instructor praised the Chinese system for combining planning and markets in service of human need. Missing from that account was Mao Zedong’s rule, under which historians have estimated that as many as 70 million people died, many during famines ushered in through Marxist policies.

Cuba got the same reframing. The instructor blamed blockades, embargoes, and sanctions for depriving Cubans of “the chance to live in prosperity and dignity,” while praising the government for resisting America’s “oppressive” economic influence. Castro’s regime, according to historian R.J. Rummel, was responsible for as many as 141,000 deaths.

RELATED: Hasan Piker is the anti-Charlie Kirk

Blaze Media Illustration

The pattern became hard to miss. Marxist countries were not presented as failures so much as unfinished projects. Their progressive achievements were foregrounded; their victims were backgrounded. When socialist systems failed, capitalism, American imperialism, or the political class usually entered the explanation.

“The general attitude of socialism, which goes back to Marx and Lenin,” the instructor said, “is that when we are assigning blame … [it] is with the political class.” He spoke at length about the Pentagon and American power as sources of death and destruction. The deaths caused by Marxist governments? Nothing to see there.

If you let your opponent talk long enough, he will often tell you his strategy. That’s why I went.

The DSA did not exactly deny the horrors of 20th-century communism. It did something more useful: It barely taught them. The history was filtered through a moral framework in which socialists remain the champions of the oppressed and capitalism remains the prime suspect.

“It is the intention of the DSA to take power and wealth away from the capitalist class and put it in the hands of the working class,” the instructor said.

Power is not only money or property. It is also the power to decide which history gets remembered and which gets reduced to a footnote.

If young people learn about communist regimes chiefly through their promised ideals and progressive “wins,” while the bodies disappear from the lesson plan, they are not being taught communism’s history. They are being taught how to forget it.

‘No Child Has Two Moms’ Is Controversial Only In An Anti-Child Society

The furious reaction to two simple sentences reveals just how much effort has gone into teaching Americans to reject the most basic fact of human existence: every child comes from one mother and one father.

Democrats took Hispanic voters for granted — and paid for it



After the United States’ 250th anniversary on July 4, 2026, Americans have an opportunity to look beyond the celebration and toward the coalition that will carry the American experiment through its next 250 years.

One of the most significant political developments of the past decade has been the steady movement of Hispanic voters toward conservative principles. Across the country, Hispanic Americans are rejecting the assumption that they belong permanently to one political party. Instead, many are embracing values centered on faith, family, entrepreneurship, and individual liberty.

The recent realignment among Hispanic voters can become more than a temporary political trend.

For conservatives, however, demographic movement alone is not enough. If the conservative movement hopes to build a lasting coalition, it must stop treating Hispanic voters as a constituency that receives attention only during election season.

For too long, political outreach to Hispanics has consisted of translated advertisements, a few campaign appearances, and promises made in the final weeks before Election Day.

A durable partnership requires year-round engagement. Conservatives need to invest in permanent community organizations, local leadership development, and sustained economic messaging focused on issues that directly affect working families.

Lowering the cost of living, reducing unnecessary regulations, encouraging entrepreneurship, and expanding economic opportunity all resonate deeply in Hispanic communities, where small-business ownership and upward mobility remain central aspirations.

The alignment between Hispanic voters and conservative principles is not merely political. It is cultural.

Faith is a cornerstone of life for many Hispanic families. Religious belief, community involvement, and commitment to strong family structures continue to shape daily life and personal values. These traditions align naturally with a worldview that emphasizes personal responsibility, civic engagement, and the institutions that strengthen communities.

The entrepreneurial spirit is equally powerful.

Hispanic Americans start businesses at remarkable rates, creating jobs, building wealth, and contributing to local economies. Policies that reward hard work, protect private enterprise, and expand economic freedom speak directly to those experiences.

For many families, support for constitutional government and individual liberty is rooted in personal history.

Countless Hispanic Americans arrived in the United States after witnessing economic collapse, political instability, or authoritarian rule in parts of Latin America, particularly in countries that embraced socialist or communist systems.

Their experiences offer a powerful reminder that America’s founding principles are not abstract ideals. They are safeguards against the failures that have plagued other nations.

America’s 250th anniversary presents an opportunity to tell a fuller story about the nation’s past and future.

RELATED: The GOP’s 2028 ticket math is already brutal

Will Oliver/EPA/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The American story has always been one of people from different backgrounds uniting around a common set of ideals. Hispanic Americans are not newcomers to that story. They are helping write its next chapter.

Many legal immigrants and first-generation Americans possess a profound appreciation for the opportunities available in the United States. They understand the extraordinary freedoms this country provides because their gratitude is rooted in lived experience.

That perspective is especially valuable at a time when political discourse often emphasizes division and identity politics over unity and patriotism.

America does not need competing tribal factions organized around race, ethnicity, sex, or other demographic categories. It needs a coalition of citizens committed to preserving the principles that have sustained the republic for two and a half centuries and passing them on to future generations.

The conservative movement has an opportunity to help build that coalition.

But it must recognize that the recent realignment among Hispanic voters can become more than a temporary political trend. It can become a permanent feature of American politics if conservatives acknowledge and cultivate the deeper convergence of values already taking shape.

We should look beyond the next election cycle and toward the next century.

If the United States is to remain a beacon of freedom for another 250 years, it will need a coalition united not by blood or ethnicity but by a shared commitment to faith, family, capitalism, and the founding ideals of the republic.

Hispanic conservatives may prove central to that American renewal.