The next AI race isn't about smarter machines. It's about human experience.



If you want to glimpse the future of artificial intelligence, don't start in Silicon Valley. Start in a South Korean factory.

According to the International Federation of Robotics, South Korea now has 1,012 industrial robots for every 10,000 manufacturing workers — the highest robot density in the world. Put another way, roughly one in every 10 manufacturing "workers" is now a robot.

For now, however, even the world's most advanced humanoid robots still struggle with tasks that young children perform effortlessly.

That startling figure is one piece of a much larger story stretching from American AI labs to South Korean factories, Chinese assembly lines, and Indian garment workshops.

For most Americans, the AI revolution is something that happens on a screen. We think of ChatGPT writing emails, Claude summarizing reports, or Google Gemini answering questions. The race appears to revolve around Silicon Valley companies building ever more capable language models.

But the next phase of artificial intelligence is becoming much more physical.

Instead of asking how machines can write like humans, researchers are asking how they can move like humans — how they grasp a coffee mug, fold a shirt, stitch a collar, or crack an egg without crushing it.

That challenge has created an unexpected global division of labor: America builds the brains, South Korea builds the bodies, China provides the classroom, while India supplies the teachers.

Together, they're revealing something surprising: the future of artificial intelligence depends on ordinary human beings.

South Korea: Building the bodies

If robotics has an epicenter, it may well be South Korea.

The country's dominance in robotics didn't emerge from nowhere. It grew out of decades spent building some of the world's most advanced automobiles.

The same expertise that allows South Korean companies to manufacture electric motors, precision steering systems, sensors, braking technology, and other high-performance automotive components translates remarkably well to humanoid robots. Goldman Sachs Research estimates Korean companies could account for roughly 30% of global humanoid robot production by 2035, either by manufacturing robots directly or supplying the critical components that allow them to move.

Yet South Korea's embrace of automation has also exposed its tensions.

This week, Hyundai workers overwhelmingly voted to authorize strike action after contract negotiations stalled, with robots emerging as a central issue for the first time.

The union isn't simply demanding higher wages.

It wants guarantees over how artificial intelligence and humanoid robots will be introduced onto factory floors, arguing that workers deserve a voice before machines begin performing jobs currently done by people.

The dispute centers on Atlas, the humanoid robot developed by Hyundai-owned Boston Dynamics.

While company executives describe Atlas as a way to perform dangerous, repetitive, and physically demanding work, union leaders see a machine that could eventually replace the people who build Hyundai's cars.

The disagreement captures the paradox facing much of the developed world.

Countries like South Korea desperately need automation. It has one of the world's fastest-aging populations and one of its lowest birth rates, creating labor shortages that robots may eventually help fill.

Yet the workers whose jobs are most vulnerable understandably want assurances that they won't become casualties of the technological transition.

Child's play

For now, however, even the world's most advanced humanoid robots still struggle with tasks that young children perform effortlessly.

Finding a coffee pot, identifying its handle, lifting it correctly and pouring without spilling remains astonishingly difficult for a machine.

The bottleneck is no longer the body or the brain. It is experience.

Engineers can now build remarkably capable robot bodies and increasingly sophisticated AI models. What they can't manufacture is the accumulated experience that allows humans to navigate the physical world almost without thinking. Like a child learning to walk — or an apprentice learning a trade — robots improve only through repeated interaction with the real world.

RELATED: Your child’s new best friend might be a Chinese surveillance device

akinbostanci/Getty Images

China: Generating the experience

South Korea may lead the world in robot density, but China wins on sheer scale.

According to the International Federation of Robotics, China had 2.027 million industrial robots operating in its factories in 2024. It installed another 295,000 robots that year alone, accounting for 54% of global robot demand.

That scale gives Beijing an enormous advantage in the next phase of AI.

Unlike ChatGPT, which learned from enormous quantities of text on the internet, humanoid robots must learn by interacting with the real world. Every object they grasp, every obstacle they navigate, and every task they complete generates valuable information that helps improve future models.

China has more of that real-world classroom than anyone else.

Part of the urgency stems from demographics. After decades of the one-child policy and collapsing birth rates, China faces one of the fastest-aging populations in history. Its working-age population is projected to shrink dramatically over the coming decades, threatening the labor force that powered its manufacturing rise.

Humanoid robots have become one response. Every robot deployed today becomes another teacher for tomorrow's robots. More deployment generates more real-world data, and better data produces better AI models.

Better models create more capable robots, which in turn generate even more data.

In the race toward physical AI, experience itself has become a competitive advantage.

India: Supplying the trainers

If South Korea is building the machines and China is putting them to work, India is asking who benefits from the knowledge that makes them possible.

Across the country, companies are asking factory workers, construction laborers, delivery drivers, and homemakers to wear head-mounted cameras while they go about their daily routines.

No gesture is too small to escape the camera's eye: how a garment worker guides fabric through a sewing machine, how a mason carries bricks across uneven ground, how someone folds laundry, washes dishes, packs a lunch.

The recordings — known as "egocentric data" — have become one of the world's most valuable resources.

Many workers reportedly weren't told exactly why they were being recorded; in fact, some laughed when cameras were first strapped to their foreheads. That laughter changed to unease as they realized they were teaching machines that might someday replace them.

Labor advocates have raised new questions. If a worker's lifetime of accumulated skill is converted into an AI dataset worth millions of dollars, should that worker share in its value?

Can consent really be voluntary if refusing to wear the camera could jeopardize someone's livelihood?

And who owns years of accumulated know-how once it has been converted into a commercial AI dataset?

For perhaps the first time, the routines of ordinary life are becoming economically valuable in their own right.

Skills that were never considered professions — sewing a collar, folding towels, washing dishes, preparing meals, gripping an egg without breaking it, carrying heavy materials safely — are becoming indispensable training material for the world's most sophisticated robots.

Indian startup Neocambrian AI estimates it could require 100 million hours of first-person human activity before machines approach human-level dexterity.

The irony is impossible to miss.

As artificial intelligence becomes more sophisticated, researchers are discovering just how difficult it is to replicate the quiet competence of ordinary people.

We, robot

The AI revolution has often been described as a triumph of silicon over flesh. Instead, it is becoming a lesson in just how remarkable ordinary human beings really are.

The machine doesn't know what an ordinary person knows: how tightly to grip an egg, how to instinctively shift its weight while walking across uneven ground.

These are forms of embodied wisdom acquired through years of living in a human body.

Christianity has long insisted that human beings are not merely minds that happen to inhabit bodies. In Genesis, mankind is introduced not simply as a thinker but as a worker — cultivating a garden, naming animals, building a family, and exercising stewardship over creation.

These are not incidental tasks. They are ways human beings express creativity, responsibility, and love.

One of the strangest consequences of the AI revolution is that it is reminding us of the enduring dignity of the same ordinary human work it seeks to replace.

How the United States can take the lead in autonomous warfare



The debate over autonomous weapons has started from the wrong premise.

Critics ask whether the United States should permit machines to kill. Advocates frame the question as whether we can afford to fall behind adversaries who will deploy such systems regardless. Both sides treat autonomous lethality as a novel moral category that demands a novel governing framework.

The United States will field autonomous systems regardless of whether the public debate reaches a satisfying resolution.

The U.S. military already possesses such a framework, however. It has been used for decades, it scales naturally to autonomous systems, and the public debate would improve considerably if both sides understood these realities.

The military governs the use of force through weapons control statuses, a graduated system that every air defense operator and ground commander knows by three commands. “Weapons hold” authorizes engagement only in self-defense or under specific order. “Weapons tight” authorizes engagement only against targets positively identified as hostile. “Weapons free” authorizes engagement against any target not positively identified as friendly.

A commander sets the status based on mission, threat, and environment, as units within his command may operate under different statuses depending on the situation. The framework already calibrates lethal authority to circumstance. It does not require a soldier to seek individual approval for every trigger pull, because the controlling judgment comes from the posture the commander has set rather than in each discrete engagement.

This structure maps directly onto the problem of autonomous weapons.

The objection that a machine cannot exercise the contextual judgment that distinguishes a combatant from a civilian, a threat from a bystander, has force only in environments where discrimination is genuinely difficult — precisely the condition the weapons control framework already addresses.

The Taiwan Strait and downtown Tehran are not the same operating environment, and no serious framework should govern them in the same way.

Consider the contrast. An autonomous system operating in the Taiwan Strait is tasked with engaging naval vessels in a declared conflict zone where civilian traffic is minimal. Every surface combatant of a certain signature is presumptively hostile and faces a discrimination problem that is nearly trivial. The environment is uncluttered, the targets are large and militarily unambiguous, and the consequences of restraint include the loss of American ships and sailors to adversary missiles that outpace any human operator’s reaction time.

A weapons-free or weapons-tight posture for autonomous engagement in that environment is defensible on the same grounds that justify those postures for human-operated air defense.

The same autonomous system operating in a dense urban environment such as downtown Tehran, where combatants and civilians occupy the same streets, should operate under weapons hold, which requires a human to authorize each engagement. The environment dictates the posture, and the framework already exists to make that determination.

RELATED: The empire cannot drone-strike its way out of decline

ATTA KENARE/AFP/Getty Images

The Pentagon has, in fact, started to incorporate this framework into existing policy. Directive 3000.09, updated in January 2023, requires that autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force. It also requires that the design of such systems confine each engagement to a time frame and geographic area consistent with commander and operator intentions.

The directive presupposes that the appropriate level of human control varies with the system and mission rather than holding constant across all cases.

What the directive does not yet do, and what the public debate has not yet grasped, is connect that variation to the weapons control vocabulary the force already uses, which would render the entire question legible to commanders, policymakers, and the public in terms the military has been employing for generations.

Adopting this approach requires trusting the military to set the posture, which is the crux of the matter for a public institution. The objection that the U.S. cannot trust commanders to calibrate autonomous lethal force responsibly proves too much.

We already trust those same commanders to calibrate human lethal force through an identical framework — one that, when commanders adopt the wrong posture, produces civilian casualties.

An autonomous system governed by the same logic inherits the same accountability structure, because the commander who sets a weapons-free posture for an autonomous system owns the consequences exactly as the commander who sets it for a battery of human-operated interceptors.

A public institution governing an autonomous force must establish this policy explicitly rather than allow it to emerge on a case-by-case basis from procurement decisions and after-action reviews.

The military should state as a matter of doctrine that autonomous weapon systems operate under weapons control statuses set by the responsible commander; that the status a commander may set for a given system depends on the discrimination difficulty of its operating environment; and that the most permissive postures remain available only in environments where the discrimination problem is genuinely simple.

RELATED: The AI gold rush could become an incumbent graveyard

Tasha Art/Getty Images

This codification would accomplish two things that the current ambiguous debate does not. First, it would give commanders a clear and familiar vocabulary for governing systems that would otherwise arrive without doctrinal handholds. Second, it would give the public a transparent standard by which to hold the institution accountable, because a weapons control status is a decision with a name and an owner rather than a diffuse property of an algorithm that no one can identify.

The alternative is not a world without autonomous weapons. Adversaries are building them, the technology is proliferating, and the United States will field autonomous systems regardless of whether the public debate reaches a satisfying resolution.

The alternative to adopting a clear framework is fielding these systems under an ambiguous one, in which the absence of explicit doctrine forces operators and engineers to improvise the hardest decisions in the moment rather than letting commanders govern them in advance within a system the nation has already validated across decades of use.

The military knows how to use lethal force. The framework is sound, familiar, and accountable. The task now is to apply it deliberately to new autonomous systems rather than assume that such systems require the country to invent its ethics of force from scratch.

Editor’s note: This article appeared originally at the American Mind.

Never Forget What The Covid ‘Experts’ Did To Us

'Now is the time is do what you’re told,' Dr. Anthony Fauci, the 'Covid Czar' said at the height of the pandemic. His command proved costly.

China Is Paying Missouri State U Millions of Dollars a Year To Send Its Best and Brightest to Business School, a Training Ground for Communist Party Elites: Report

Missouri State University has spent the past 25 years offering an MBA program for Chinese Communist Party officials and other "figures tied to China’s defense industry," with graduates often taking senior roles in Chinese firms under American sanctions, according to a new investigation from the analytical firm Strategy Risks. The Chinese government is believed to be paying MSU several million dollars a year for the program.

The post China Is Paying Missouri State U Millions of Dollars a Year To Send Its Best and Brightest to Business School, a Training Ground for Communist Party Elites: Report appeared first on .

Texas Solar Company Seeks Valuable US Green Energy Tax Credits Despite Deep Ties to Powerful Chinese Solar Firm

T1 Energy, a startup solar panel maker that says it is "bringing solar technology and know-how back to America," is making a push to retain eligibility for some of the most generous U.S. tax benefits even as the Trump administration prepares to crack down on "green energy" businesses' ties to China. T1 is certainly vulnerable to the looming crackdown: The company maintains business ties to a massive Chinese solar company that is led by a member of the Chinese Communist Party and subsidized by the Chinese government, according to financial disclosures reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon, something experts say could disqualify T1 from the tax credits it is seeking.

The post Texas Solar Company Seeks Valuable US Green Energy Tax Credits Despite Deep Ties to Powerful Chinese Solar Firm appeared first on .

States allege this top security-cam company has Chinese military ties — it sells baby monitors too



A home security and baby monitor provider is allegedly tied to the Chinese government.

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway said in a press release on Monday that the communist government has had its "hand on our cradles" for some time.

'These cameras watch our babies breathe.'

Hanaway announced a lawsuit against Lorex, a major retailer of WiFi cameras for indoor and outdoor security, including baby monitor cameras. The company even sells cameras attached to lightbulb fixtures as well.

In 2018, Lorex was acquired by Dahua Technology, the same year Dahua CEO Fu Liquan was reported to be the secretary of Dahua's Communist Party Committee. In 2019, Dahua was used by the Chinese government for its surveillance program.

Dahua eventually sold Lorex to Taiwanese company Skywatch for $72 million in 2022, but according to the Missouri AG, the connection to China still exists and Lorex misled retailers about its ongoing connections.

"The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Missouri will not allow the CCP to put its hand on our cradles," Hanaway said in the press release. "Parents place these cameras over cribs and in bedrooms to protect their children, not to invite a foreign adversary into their homes."

Hanaway stated that Lorex has maintained its ties to Dahua as an ongoing supplier of components despite the then-Department of Defense previously designating Dahua as a national security threat.

RELATED: Inside China's plan to beat the US at big tech forever

Families and retailers like Costco, Best Buy, and Amazon are being lied to.

Lorex, a leading manufacturer of baby monitors and home cameras, is concealing material ties to the CCP and Chinese military.

We’re taking them to court. pic.twitter.com/RdcPTnBaeD
— Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway (@AGCHanaway) June 15, 2026

Hanaway also alleged that Lorex's firmware routes straight to Dahua, "further evidencing CCP involvement and control over device hardware and software."

In addition to selling products connected to China on its own website, Lorex cameras were sold through Amazon, Best Buy, Costco, Menards, Micro Center, Office Depot, and Staples all while the company "misrepresented and omitted fundamental facts" to consumers and retailers, the lawsuit claims.

"Lorex tells families its video cameras are 'private by design' while concealing ties to a Chinese military company," Hanaway added. "These cameras watch our babies breathe, capture our children's voices, and record families' most intimate moments. When companies won't tell the truth about their connection to hostile foreign governments, my office will step in to protect families."

RELATED: $965 billion AI giant warns we need to hit the brakes — but will China?

Sheldon Cooper/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images

Missouri is suing under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, seeking restitution of up to $1,000 for each Missouri customer who bought a Lorex camera in the last five years, as well as $1.8 million in damages from the company.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit in February against Lorex with similar accusations, in that the company is still tied to Dahua, uses its components, and failed to disclose this information to consumers.

Paxton said these points violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Lorex did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment and has not released public statements about the Missouri lawsuit.

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

Stellantis’ China gamble could reshape America’s auto industry forever



Chinese cars are a security risk.

That's the message Washington has been sending the American consumer: Cheaper vehicles aren't worth exposing sensitive data to theft. Hence the massive tariffs aimed at China.

The difference is that Stellantis is now openly telling investors that these partnerships are central to its long-term strategy.

But while America was focused on keeping brands like BYD and NIO out of local dealerships, the global auto industry quietly found another way in.

And Stellantis just made that strategy official.

Ties that bind

The parent company of Jeep, Ram, Dodge, Chrysler, and Fiat has embraced deeper partnerships with Chinese automakers and suppliers as part of its global restructuring effort. New CEO Antonio Filosa is betting the company's future on partnerships, software integration, shared manufacturing, AI systems, and Chinese EV technology.

That should concern every American consumer, every UAW worker, every supplier, and every policymaker. The issue is no longer simply about cars built in China. It's about China becoming embedded inside the future of the American auto industry itself.

Stellantis recently announced a roughly $1.17 billion partnership with China's Dongfeng Group to build new-energy vehicles at a Wuhan manufacturing plant beginning in 2027. The agreement includes future Peugeot and Jeep models for China and other global markets.

But that's only part of the story.

FaST and furious

At its recent Investor Day presentation, Stellantis unveiled its "FaSTLAne 2030" strategy, a $70 billion restructuring plan featuring 60 new models, expanded AI integration, autonomous-driving development, and manufacturing partnerships stretching across China, Europe, India, and North America.

The message from Filosa was unmistakable: Partnerships will be "embedded" in Stellantis' future strategy.

That should have set off alarms in Washington.

Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno (R) has been leading the effort to block Chinese vehicles and components from gaining a foothold in the United States because of concerns over technology and supply-chain dependence. Yet while lawmakers debate tariffs, one of America's best-known automakers is openly moving deeper into partnerships with China.

For years, Americans were told tariffs would stop China from gaining influence over the U.S. auto market. But tariffs mainly target finished vehicles imported directly from China. They do little to prevent American or European automakers from incorporating Chinese-developed batteries, software, electronics, and EV platforms into vehicles sold under Western brands.

Beneath the badge

Consumers may soon be driving vehicles wearing Jeep, Dodge, Chrysler, or Ram badges while much of the underlying technology comes from Chinese partnerships: batteries, semiconductors, AI systems, autonomous-driving technology, and connected-car software.

To control these is to control the modern automotive supply chain. China already dominates large portions of that ecosystem, and many legacy automakers increasingly appear to believe they cannot compete globally in EVs without Chinese involvement.

For the UAW and the industrial Midwest, the implications are enormous.

For decades, organized labor fought outsourcing to lower-cost countries. But the shift toward electric vehicles creates a different challenge. EVs generally require fewer moving parts than traditional internal-combustion vehicles, reducing demand for engines, transmissions, and many of the suppliers that support them. If battery production, electronics, and software also migrate overseas, the economic consequences could ripple through the entire manufacturing base.

America's automotive economy extends far beyond assembly plants. It includes steel suppliers, logistics companies, plastics manufacturers, tool-and-die shops, engineering firms, rail networks, repair facilities, dealerships, and thousands of small businesses. When supply chains move, entire local economies move with them.

RELATED: America's salvage yards are on fire — and drivers are the ones getting burned

Andy Cross/Getty Images

If you can't beat 'em ...

Stellantis' own strategy reflects that trend.

By the end of the decade, the company wants half its global production running on just three platforms. Its new STLA One architecture will support more than 30 models while integrating advanced software, steer-by-wire systems, AI capabilities, and connected cockpit technologies.

At the same time, Stellantis plans to cut more than 800,000 units of manufacturing capacity in Europe while aggressively restructuring operations around efficiency and lower costs.

Even more revealing is its expanding relationship with Leapmotor, the Chinese EV company in which Stellantis already owns a controlling stake through a joint venture. What began as a distribution agreement has expanded into manufacturing cooperation and joint sourcing designed to improve "cost competitiveness."

Rolling computers

The auto industry has seen this pattern before.

Detroit once dominated global manufacturing before outsourcing and offshoring reshaped the landscape. Today's version isn't just about where vehicles are assembled. Modern cars are rolling computers connected to cellular networks, cloud services, cameras, microphones, GPS systems, and over-the-air software updates.

That is why national security concerns now collide directly with automotive policy.

The Biden administration imposed 100% tariffs on Chinese EV imports and proposed restrictions on connected vehicle technology because of concerns over data collection and infrastructure security. Those concerns are legitimate. Modern vehicles collect extraordinary amounts of information, including location data, driving behavior, communications, and other personal information.

Now, imagine foreign-developed software integrated into millions of connected vehicles operating across the United States.

That concern helps explain why Moreno's proposal to block Chinese vehicles and components represents a major escalation in the debate over America's automotive future.

His message is straightforward: Chinese companies should not gain a strategic foothold inside the U.S. auto industry.

China syndrome

President Trump spent years warning about unfair Chinese trade practices and the hollowing out of American manufacturing. His tariffs forced companies to rethink supply chains and brought China's influence into the political spotlight.

Yet despite those efforts, many automakers continued moving deeper into China's EV ecosystem because executives saw lower costs, faster development, and access to advanced battery technology.

Stellantis is hardly alone. Ford has partnered with CATL. Volkswagen expanded its ties with Xpeng. General Motors continues to rely on Chinese-linked battery supply chains, and Tesla maintains an enormous manufacturing footprint in China.

The difference is that Stellantis is now openly telling investors that these partnerships are central to its long-term strategy.

If America loses control of automotive batteries, semiconductors, software platforms, AI systems, and electronics manufacturing, the consequences could extend far beyond the auto business. This remains one of the country's largest manufacturing sectors and one of its biggest sources of middle-class industrial employment.

Consumers were promised that the EV transition would spark a manufacturing renaissance. Instead, America risks becoming increasingly dependent on foreign-controlled supply chains for many of the most important technologies inside next-generation vehicles.

The next generation of cars may still wear familiar American badges while relying heavily on Chinese-developed batteries, software, and technology underneath the sheet metal.

That's the issue Washington is finally beginning to confront.

The real battle is no longer about where vehicles are assembled. It's about who controls the technology inside them, who owns the supply chains behind them, and whether America still intends to build the next generation of vehicles itself.

Notorious, China-Based American Mogul Is Running Shadowy Influence Campaign to Undermine U.S. AI Efforts, Give Communist China an Edge in Technology Arms Race

A Shanghai-based American expatriate who works hand in glove with the Chinese Communist Party is using a network of American nonprofits to foment and amplify American opposition to artificial intelligence and the data centers that power it in a bid to propel China past the U.S. in the technological arms race.

The post Notorious, China-Based American Mogul Is Running Shadowy Influence Campaign to Undermine U.S. AI Efforts, Give Communist China an Edge in Technology Arms Race appeared first on .

Sick Leftist Plot to Turn White House UFC Event into a Massacre | 6/16/26
play icon

Sick Leftist Plot to Turn White House UFC Event into a Massacre | 6/16/26

$965 billion AI giant warns we need to hit the brakes — but will China?



Anthropic helped build the AI race. Now, it's warning the finish line may be coming faster than anyone expected.

The company, recently valued at a staggering $965 billion, says its latest AI systems are approaching dangerous capabilities that could fundamentally change the future of technology, prompting calls for a worldwide slowdown in frontier AI development.

“They did this because it’s getting close to improving itself without human help,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray explains on “Pat Gray Unleashed.”

“In April, Claude ran a full AI research project completely on its own. Humans picked the topic and then it just did it. Claude came up with every experiment, ran every test, and delivered the results. Two human researchers spent a full week on the same problem,” he continues.


While the researchers only made it 23% of the way there, Claude made it 97% of the way there.

“Claude Mythos preview is now 52 times faster than a skilled human at improving AI training code. So it can fix its own training code. The same task takes a human four to eight hours. Claude does it better. Claude already writes 80% of Anthropic's own code,” Gray says.

While in March 2024, Claude could reportedly handle a four-minute task on its own; now it handles 12-hour tasks.

“That number doubles every four months,” Gray explains, adding that “week-long tasks are expected by 2027.”

“So when they call for a development pause, I mean we’re caught between a rock and a hard place, right, on this technology. No one wants to pause or slow down on this because there’s so much at stake,” he continues.

“There’s money, there’s advancement, there’s so much going on here ... and they can’t risk falling behind others. Worse than companies not being willing to do this, China certainly isn’t going to pause,” he adds.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.