Faith and family are keys to resisting tyranny’s grip



The evil doctrines of Marxism have infiltrated many institutions in the United States, leading conservatives to frame cultural and political battles as a contest between individualism and collectivism. On the surface, this makes sense. Marxism, as the ideology of communism, promotes state-enforced equality where individual agency is subordinated to a top-down notion of the collective good.

Many past conservative thinkers recognized this as a false binary, however. They understood that individualism, if left unchecked, can foster conditions that pave the way for tyranny. Lower-order organic identities — such as family, faith, and community — have repeatedly proven to be the only effective forces against the imposition of top-down despotism. The true battle is not between individualism and collectivism but between ordered liberty and disordered tyranny.

Framing our current opposition to Marxist dogma as a conflict between individualism and collectivism is a mistake.

In his classic work “Democracy in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville explored the rise of individualism during the democratic age following the American and French revolutions. De Tocqueville believed a democratic trajectory was inevitable for France and sought to understand how Americans had managed to curb its worst impulses.

He observed that individualism often led people to focus solely on their own lives and interests, leaving them indifferent to the well-being of their neighbors and their communities. This lack of civic engagement, he argued, made it easier for despots to establish tyrannical rule. A despot thrives on individual apathy and the absence of civic virtue. He wrote:

Despotism, suspicious by its very nature, views the separation of men as the best guarantee of its own permanent rule and usually does all it can to keep them in isolation. No defect of the human heart suits it better than egoism; a tyranny is relaxed enough to forgive his subjects for failing to love him, provided that they do not love one another. He does not ask them to help him to govern the state; it is enough that they have no intention of managing it themselves.

How did Americans preserve a spirit of individualism while avoiding its corrosive effects on civic life? For de Tocqueville, the answer lay in their impulse to build free institutions and engage in voluntary associations. He observed that Americans had an instinct to form committees, community organizations, and charities to address almost every problem.

In the United States, individuals did not need to be ruled by a powerful despot because citizens were expected to actively contribute to the collective well-being of their communities through voluntary efforts. This approach was individualistic in that it arose organically and was not compelled by the state. But it was also collectivist in that individuals felt a profound duty to their families, churches, and communities.

Even when problems required government intervention, governance in America was primarily local. The national government remained small, and local matters were handled by elected officials who were familiar with the specific character and needs of their communities. According to de Tocqueville:

American legislators did not believe that a general representation of the whole nation would be enough to cure a disease so natural to the frame of democratic society and so fatal. They also thought it appropriate to give each area of the territory its own political life so as to multiply without limit the opportunities for citizens to act in concert and to let them realize every day their mutual dependence. This was a wise plan.

Despite their individualistic tendencies, the American system encouraged citizens to recognize their interdependence and address issues affecting their communities at the local level. The collective identity of the polis enabled them to resolve problems more effectively without formal government involvement.

Even when government action was necessary, it was limited in scope, shaped by the community’s identity and political structure. The state did not need to enforce collectivity because communities formed naturally, allowing individualism to thrive without descending into tyranny.

The greatest evidence of this principle can be found in the tactics used by communist regimes to centralize power. Marxists routinely advocate the destruction of the family, church, and even ethnic identity because these lower-order bonds obstruct the centralization of authority. As de Tocqueville observed, the isolated individual is most vulnerable to despotism.

Totalitarian regimes seek to ensure that all relationships are mediated between the individual and the state, leaving each person dependent on the central authority for assistance and conflict resolution. By contrast, people bound by organic ties of faith, family, and community are far more likely to resist the arbitrary dictates of a despot.

When Western governments attempted to create biomedical security states in the wake of COVID-19, it was almost exclusively communities of faith that had the courage to resist. Religious groups possessed an identity and allegiance that extended beyond individual material benefit. This collective identity gave them both the courage and community support needed to stand firm against the dictates of the regime. These communities were able to defend their liberty because they exercised it collectively, united in purpose.

The American tradition embodies individual liberty practiced in service to the collective good. It is a liberty ordered toward a higher purpose, pursued through the establishment of free institutions and voluntary associations. Framing our current opposition to Marxist dogma as a conflict between individualism and collectivism is a mistake.

Instead, we should understand that by practicing individual virtue in service to our organic communities, we can avoid the tyrannical state that Marxism prescribes. This ensures that liberty is not just a personal right but a shared responsibility to uphold the well-being of our families, faith, and communities.

'Peak gaslighting': Desperate California teachers characterize parental rights candidates as untrustworthy



The prospect of greater transparency and restored parental involvement in children's education appears to have panicked a gang of teachers from California's Newport-Mesa Unified School District.

Parental rights advocates emphasized to Blaze News that this desperation is yet another signal the tide is turning in favor of parents.

English teacher Matt Armstrong of Newport Harbor High School and a multitude of fellow travelers in the district released an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times' Daily Pilot on Thursday blasting those candidates now seeking election to the NMUSD board of trustees who would dare protect parental rights.

Although Armstrong and the op-ed's signatories refrained from naming the candidates outright, they appear to have been referring to Philip Stemler in Trustee Area 3 and Amy Peters in Trustee Area 6.

"We understand that it's fashionable in some circles to criticize public institutions and vilify teachers," wrote Armstrong and company. "With that in mind, the undersigned teachers and I want to make clear that proclaiming 'parental rights' is code for two goals: to lord over our community's teachers and to censor materials available to students."

According to the opinion piece, parents "have not been deprived of any rights" but threaten to upend Democratic laws intended to keep parents in the dark about consequential decisions regarding their children and to foist racial and LGBT propaganda on children.

Corey A. DeAngelis, senior fellow at the American Culture Project and executive director at the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom, told Blaze News, "Their claim that parents haven't been deprived of any rights is peak gaslighting. California politicians are fighting to keep secrets from public school parents"

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) ratified the so-called AB 1955, the so-called SAFETY Act, in July.

'They think they own other people's children.'

The law, first introduced by gay Assemblyman Christopher Ward (D) and championed by the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, prohibits school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and state special schools from introducing or enforcing rules, regulations, or policies that require employees to disclose to parents "any information related to a pupil's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression."

On account of AB 1955, parents in NMUSD are precluded from challenging the district's policy that requires educators to hide a child's so-called "transgender or gender-nonconforming status" from their parents when "appropriate."

Armstrong and company alleged in their op-ed:

If elected, these people will overrule the qualifications and experience of the educators in our schools by adopting policies intended to challenge California law. They would use their position of public trust on our nonpartisan local school board to pursue a partisan agenda to upend the California SAFETY Act. Such grandstanding will subject our district to costly litigation on a losing case. This is where 'defending parental rights' will lead us.

According to her candidate statement, Peters, a mother of three and former educator, not only wants to address the suboptimal academic outcomes in the district and its "poor fiscal health" but to "work to restore the partnership between parents and educators, and to ensure that transparent and response governance and leadership is prioritized."

The Daily Pilot indicated that Peters has been openly critical of AB 1955.

"I don't think we should be keeping that information from parents," she said at a recent forum hosted by the Harbor Council PTA at Back Bay High School. "The secrecy that's happening on school campuses drives a wedge between schools and parents and teachers and children."

Stemler, a father of two and San Bernardino County deputy district attorney endorsed by Newport Beach Mayor Will O'Neill, similarly emphasized the need for transparency in his candidate statement, noting further that "when it comes to the issues facing today's students, family is the solution, not the problem."

Stemler added, "Parental and family involvement is vital for student success. We must end policies driving a wedge between parents and students."

Both Stemler and Peters have reportedly expressed an interest in challenging state laws that undermine parental rights.

"The blizzard of state laws and regulations that are governing our schools are the reason why you need someone like me, who has experience in court and litigating and standing up for what's right," said Stemler.

After warning that if parental rights advocates were elected, choices over what students read might be localized, Armstrong and company claimed, "Those who 'fight for parental rights' don't really care about your rights or your children."

Blaze News reached out to Peters and Stemler for comment but did not receive a response by deadline.

DeAngelis told Blaze News that the claims in the op-ed "raise serious red flags. Government school employees attacking parental rights in education are the ones who cannot be trusted."

"They think they own other people's children," continued DeAngelis. "It's time for parents to hold these tyrants accountable at the ballot box."

'They look at parents as dangerous and think they should get out of the way.'

Alvin Lui, president of the parental rights advocacy group Courage Is a Habit, told Blaze News that the "gas-lighting tactics" employed in the op-ed are now customarily advanced by government educators and administrators in K-12 — by those convinced "it's the parents that shouldn't be trusted; that they're the ones that know better."

Lui noted that the mounting pushback from parents across the nation is partly the result of such brazen anti-parent sentiment in the school system.

"The schools aren't even hiding how much they disdain parental rights," said Lui. "[Educators] believe that they know better than the parents. They believe that their values are better, that the parents are backwards or bigots. ... They look at parents as dangerous and think they should get out of the way."

This op-ed is another "great example of why more parents should push back even harder," added Lui. "It's a classic manipulator tactic: DARVO, which is deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender. That's exactly what they're doing."

Like Lui, DeAngelis noted a silver lining about the current battle in the schools.

"The good news is parents have woken up and they're never going back to sleep," DeAngelis told Blaze News. "The power of parents scares the defenders of the status quo more than anything else. That's precisely why teachers unions have resorted to attacking parents who want more of a say in their children's education."

DeAngelis added that the U.S. Supreme Court "famously ruled in 1925 that 'the child is not the mere creature of the State.' California politicians would be wise to remember those words today."

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

Blaze News investigates: Famed neuroscientist claims he's disproven free will — but his peers say he failed miserably



Much is known, or at least believed, about the heavens and the earth. The human mind, however, remains a relative mystery. Although it has long been taken for granted by a great many legal and biblical scholars, the concept of free will is chief among the problems of the mind that has befuddled natural scientists.

Two blockbuster science books came out in October 2023 on the topic, pulling readers in opposite directions.

In the first book, “Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will,” Dr. Kevin Mitchell, an associate professor of genetics and neuroscience at Trinity College Dublin, argued that human beings are indeed free agents, endowed with “the capacity for conscious, rational control of our actions.”

In the second book, “Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will,” Dr. Robert Sapolsky, a professor of biology, neurology, and neurosurgery at Stanford University, argued that human beings are effectively automatons determined to act by numerous internal and external factors, and on whom admiration or blame is wasted.

Mitchell and Sapolsky’s contrasting arguments may be of great interest to those contemplating Christian morality, soteriology, and Western law, especially given the apparent centrality of free choices in all three.

Seeking to learn more about the state of play for the debate on free will, contemporary arguments for an agential mankind, and where Sapolsky may have stumbled, Blaze News recently spoke to Dr. Kevin Mitchell and to Dr. Stephen M. Barr, president of the Society of Catholic Scientists and professor emeritus at the University of Delaware’s department of physics and astronomy.

While Sapolsky could not be reached for comment, his rebuttals might appear in his discussion with Mitchell later this month.

Extra to exploring the science of free will, Blaze News has also briefly considered the religious side of the equation, hearing from Dr. Brian H. Wagner of Veritas Baptist College about what the Bible says about free will.

Undetermined

In “Determined,” Sapolsky argues that “we are nothing more or less than the cumulative biological and environmental luck, over which we had no control.”

Accordingly, in Sapolsky’s view, an individual — just another “biological machine” — executes action A instead of actions B through Z because their brain chemistry, hormonal balance, early experiences, prenatal development, cultural upbringing, and genetics work in concert with a multitude of other material factors to preclude them from doing anything else. Sapolsky refers to the determining influence of many such distinct factors as “distributed causality.”

“The intent you form, the person you are, is the result of all the interactions between biology and environment that came before,” wrote Sapolsky. “All things out of your control. Each prior influence flows without a break from the effects of the influences before. As such, there’s no point in the sequence where you can insert a freedom of will that will be in that biological world but not of it.”

Just as the rapist apparently couldn’t help but be a rapist and the concert pianist couldn’t help but become a pianist, the cynical neuroscientist in this case was fated, thanks to a “gazillion” determinants, to construct an anti-freedom argument vulnerable to attack by his peers.

While Sapolsky eagerly provided evidence of various determining influences as well as their respective causative strengths in his book, Dr. Stephen Barr underscored in his recent review in First Things and in conversation with Blaze News that defenders of free will going back to antiquity have gladly acknowledged the existence of multiple influences — including diminishing influences — on free will.

Sapolsky has drafted a fine list of possible influences, but that’s not enough, said Barr, as he “has the burden of proof backwards.”

“One need not know exactly how free will works to have rational grounds for thinking one has it, any more than one needs to know exactly how vision works to believe that one is able to see,” wrote Barr. “Rather, it is Sapolsky who has set out to prove something, namely that human thought and action are not merely influenced by physical factors but entirely ‘determined’ by them, and to do this he has the burden of showing that no other causes are at work.”

Barr told Blaze News, “He has to show that these physical causes are the only causes; that there are no other causes. So he thinks that by piling on all of this description of the physical causes that he’s somehow excluded the possible operation of other causes. That’s just not logically sound.”

“It simply does not prove what he thinks it proves. He hasn’t proven anything in the neuroscience part [of the book],” continued Barr. “He is a neuroscientist. That’s his expertise. That’s what gives his book weight. But he doesn’t deliver the goods.”

Dr. Mitchell identified a similar fault in “Determined.”

“[Sapolsky] provides lots of evidence of various influences on our behavior — genetics, experience, evolution, hormones, whatever — none of which is disputed,” Mitchell told Blaze News. “Everybody agrees that those are there. But his conclusion is that all of those things together leave no room for anything else. All the causes must have been accounted for and he provides no evidence for that conclusion. That’s just a vibe.”

Mitchell indicated that he agrees that the influences referenced by Sapolsky do indeed affect humans but that their actual impact has been overblown for rhetorical effect. Despite Sapolsky’s contextual intimation, personality traits, for instance, are not particularly predictive of any specific behavior in any specific context, Mitchell told Blaze News.

Mitchell noted further that Sapolsky:

cites tons and tons of studies in his book to make these points and to kind of give the impression that each of these influences, by themselves, has a really big effect. So he’ll cite these studies that supposedly show a big effect of something like social priming — these sort of psychological experiments where you surreptitiously expose someone to a bunch of words with some connotations like, say, ‘old age,’ and then having read those things, they change their behavior in a way that they’re not even aware of. That whole literature is supposed to reinforce the notion that all of our behavior is like that — that we’re always being pushed around by subconscious kinds of things that we’re not really aware of — but it turns out that literature is terrible. It’s just really, really bad. It’s absolutely the poster child for the replication crisis in science.

Dr. Barr indicated that Sapolsky also muddies the waters by referencing Libet-type experiments — on at least 28 pages in his book — despite ultimately acknowledging their irrelevance.

Benjamin Libet conducted famous experiments in the 1980s, which were initially mistaken for potential nails in free will’s coffin.

Test subjects were wired up with electroencephalogram brain monitors and prompted to make a series of simple, spontaneous hand movements. Prior to consciously registering their decisions to gesture, Libet detected an electric signal in the test subjects’ brains and later concluded that “cerebral initiation even of a spontaneous voluntary act ... can and usually does begin unconsciously.”

Some prominent scientists concluded that this and related experiments were dispositive with regards to the debate over free will.

The late social psychologist Daniel M. Wegner concluded, for instance, that free will was an illusion and that consciousness was an “epiphenomenon” as causally related to human action as the “turn signals are to the movements of [a] motor vehicle.”

Barr noted, however, that these experiments have aged like milk, citing recent research that suggests, for instance, that the “brain preparing to move is actually happening simultaneously with the building of the intention to move.”

Edward Neafsey, professor emeritus at Loyola University Chicago’s Stritch School of Medicine and former director of the university’s neuroscience graduate program, highlighted studies debunking the previously accepted timeline of intention and neuronal activity.

Referencing the time course of intention before movement when compared to the time course of human neuronal firing rate decreasing before movement, Neafsey noted that “there is no difference between the onset times. Both intention and neuronal activity related to movement begin about 2 sec before movement. Thus, ‘No difference’ is the correct answer to Libet’s original question about the relation between pre-movement brain activity and pre-movement conscious intention to move. This means that Libet’s 1983 conclusion that there was ‘unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act’ was wrong.”

While the findings highlighted by Neafsey are generally good news for scientific defenders of free will, they neither help nor hinder Sapolsky, who wrote that “all that can be concluded is that in some fairly artificial circumstances, certain measures of brain function are moderately predictive of a subsequent behavior.”

What actually hurts Sapolsky’s case, besides his apparent attempt to flip the burden of proof, is his adoption of a fringe definition of free will.

The straw man’s neuron

“Find me the neuron that [started the choice], the neuron that [was activated] for no reason, where no neuron spoke to it just before,” wrote Sapolsky. “Then show me that this neuron’s actions were not influenced by whether the man was tired, hungry, stressed, or in pain at the time.”

The takeaway from Sapolsky’s rhetorical search for the neutral neuron is that the only free choice would be one bereft of context and entirely random — a definition Sapolsky admits the majority of philosophers won’t accept.

Mitchell indicated that Sapolsky is setting an extremely high bar for what qualifies as a free act where “unless you’re free from any prior cause whatsoever, then you don’t have freedom.”

“When you think about it, no organism could be free of all prior causes and still be an organism and still be itself,” said Mitchell. “Organisms carry their history with them. That’s what makes them selves through time. That includes genetic history; it includes physical history; it includes psychological history; our biography; and all of our goals and beliefs and desires.”

While such defining characteristics and prior causes may constrain behavior, they also set the stage for rational decision making.

“If none of those prior causes existed, we wouldn’t have any reason to do anything but we also wouldn’t be a person,” said Mitchell.

Barr emphasized that the rationality condition absent from Sapolsky’s free choice is core to the concept of free will in the Judeo-Christian philosophical tradition — a millennia-old tradition that Sapolsky appears to have relegated to a single, dismissive footnote in his book.

Sapolsky indicated that he avoided theologically based Judeo-Christian views about these subjects because, so far as he could tell, most of the theological discussions center on God’s omniscience.

“That’s nonsense,” Barr told Blaze News. “There’s huge discussion in Christian history about freedom and moral responsibility, and what it means to have free will, and so on — a very rich tradition of which he is obviously completely unaware.”

“Traditionally, what it meant to act freely was you were able to control your actions, at least to some extent of the time, based on rational considerations. Another word for free will was ‘rational will.’ Another word for the spiritual soul was ‘rational soul,” continued Barr.

The rationality of free will, hardly limited to the Judeo-Christian tradition, is also borne out in Mitchell’s evolutionary account.

Organisms from microbes on up to humans “integrate multiple signals at once, along with information about their current state and its recent history, to produce a genuinely holistic response that cannot be deconstructed into isolated parts,” wrote Mitchell.

Humans are especially agential and dynamic owing to a nervous system that has evolved over time into a control system to “define a repertoire of actions and choose between them” and to “give greater and greater causal autonomy over long and longer timeframes.”

Equipped with an “executive function,” humans boast the ability to rationally factor historical inputs and regulate behavior, not just in the moment but through time.

“We make decisions, we choose, we act,” Mitchell noted in his book “Free Agents.”

There are, however, degrees of freedom, not just between species and from person to person, but across an individual’s choices.

When pressed on when a human is operating at his freest, Mitchell indicated it would be in those circumstances when an adult is confronted with multiple options and is able, without coercion, to settle upon the option he's worked out to be the most optimal.

“His book is an attack on human rationality. When you attack human rationality, you are in the final analysis, attacking all human values,” said Barr.

“The real reason we need free will is that we need to be open to what is good and what is true, and the mind cannot be making decisions based on what is good and what is true if its decisions are entirely controlled from below — by physics and chemistry and biology, and things below the level of rationality,” continued the physicist.

Barr noted further that while much of the conversation about free will often centers on questions of moral freedom, intellectual freedom stands to be just as much a casualty.

If you tell someone you’re not morally responsible for what you do or for your moral decisions, then that can be a welcome conclusion, because who doesn’t want to be exculpated or absolved from moral responsibility? They might want that, but if you tell the same person, ‘You’re also not free with respect to anything you believe or think. Your thoughts are really not your own. Your thoughts are just dictated by chemistry and neuronal activity. ... They don’t want to hear that.

Something borrowed

Whereas Barr figures Sapolsky’s neuroscience-centered argument is a failure, he noted that his appropriation of an established argument from physics for cognitive determinism is somewhat formidable.

“In the 1920s, however, quantum mechanics showed that the laws of physics are not deterministic. Any past state of the universe allows many possible future states, and the laws of physics determine only their relative probabilities. That revolutionary discovery eliminated the argument against free will based on the nature of physical law,” wrote Barr.

However, Barr told Blaze News, “Roughly speaking, the larger the system you’re dealing with, the less of what’s called quantum indeterminacy plays a role.”

Whereas there is indeterminacy at the atomic and subatomic level, “The structures of the brain are so large compared to atoms that — this is the argument — quantum indeterminacy doesn’t play any role, and therefore it’s quasi-deterministic,” said Barr. “If for all practical purposes, the brain is functioning as if it were based on deterministic physical laws, you’re back in the soup. Yes, the laws of physics aren’t deterministic, but when you’re talking about the brain, you can sort of treat them as if they were.”

This is hardly an original argument on Sapolsky’s part, but Barr noted it nevertheless remains a challenging argument, raising tough questions for free will defenders:

Assuming that we have free will, how is it that our wills can produce a physical effect in our brain — can cause this neuron to fire or not to fire or this thing to happen and that thing not to happen? How can it do that if there’s a quasi-determinism there that is, in effect, totally controlled by the physics? That’s a puzzle.

Mitchell, who has elsewhere criticized reductionism, was even more critical of Sapolsky’s argument from physics, stressing that physics “is not deterministic at the quantum level and it’s not deterministic at the classical level. And it never was.”

After casting doubt on strict determinism up to the level of psychology, Mitchell suggested that it’s simply not the case that when the brain is “exposed to any scenario, it basically just works through the algorithm of what you should do.”

“The whole point of having a brain capable of cognition as opposed to just a bunch of hardwired reflexes is that we encounter novel scenarios all the time. That’s what brains are good for. That’s why our complicated brains have enabled us to colonize every kind of environment in the world — because they allow us to solve novel problems that we’ve never encountered individually and that our ancestors have never encountered evolutionary,” Mitchell told Blaze News. “To say that our psychology is deterministic is just a very speculative claim.”

Sapolsky’s not-so hidden agenda

Sapolsky’s pitch to those who would embrace his determinism is that it’s high time for humanity to re-evaluate admiration and blame — to recognize that without free will, “there can be no such thing as blame, and that punishment as retribution is indefensible.”

The pianist who dazzles an audience with unparalleled skill in the concert hall is not to be admired any more than the pedophile who preys on the innocent is to be blamed, as neither are ultimately responsible for their actions in Sapolsky’s deterministic utopia.

Sapolsky would further have society restructure its rules of criminal responsibility such that instead of arrests, trials, and measured sentences, those who have harmed others would be investigated, evaluated, then quarantined.

While quarantine might sound like imprisonment, Sapolsky’s version would be “the absolute minimal amount needed to protect everyone, and not an inch more.”

Ethics professor Susan D. Carle and Tara L. White, the founding director of the Laboratory of Affective Neuroscience at Brown, recently analyzed Sapolsky’s proposals in the spring issue of the Rutgers University Law Review and found them wanting; they pointed out, for instance, that the neuroscientist fails to account for how future dangerousness would be evaluated, who would bear the burden of proof, and what ultimately his system would, in practice, improve.

When highlighting what would be lost in Sapolsky’s system, Carle and White referenced Dr. Mitchell’s understanding that “praising those who possess admired personality traits encourages socially cooperative behavior, just as heaping opprobrium and retribution on those who have transgressed community norms communicates social meanings about what the group discourages.”

While critics have noted the unworkability of Sapolsky’s post-free will system, Dr. Barr indicated further that his quest to eliminate the concept of moral deserts is not the cure to cruelty and undeserved punishment the neuroscientist figures it for.

“What he doesn’t understand is that the whole notion that punishments can be deserved or not deserved is actually a limiting principle,” said Barr. “It’s a limitation on punishment because traditionally — in the Judeo-Christian worldview and I imagine more widely than that — it was regarded as unjust to give someone a punishment more harsh than he deserved.”

Covenantal implications

The legal system would not be the only institution impacted by a deterministic proof. After all, free will not only entails the ability to think freely and act morally but to willingly accept Christ.

While uncertainty about free will appears likely to persist in scientific circles, scripture appears fairly clear about its existence.

Dr. Brian H. Wagner set the stage in his written response to Blaze News by highlighting 1 Corinthians 7:37-38: “Nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.”

Wagner accompanied the verse with the following argument for God’s sovereign conference of free will to man:

  1. A libertarian freewill decision is made by a libertarian free will.
  2. If a libertarian freewill decision is defined as made "having no necessity" by one who "has power over his own will" and the scripture gives one example of such a decision existing, then a libertarian free will exists to make that libertarian freewill decision.
  3. The scripture gives such an example in 1 Corinthians 7:37.
  4. Therefore, libertarian free will exists.

“The key phrase is — μὴ ἔχων ἀνάγκην ἐξουσίαν δὲ ἔχει περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου θελήματος — not having necessity but authority he has over the individual desire,” wrote Wagner. “How that is not seen as a very clear and appropriate definition of LFW being defined by Paul as the foundation for the decision making of this circumstance is beyond me.”

“I can only see theological prejudice as the reason for rejecting Paul's confirmation that a LFW decision can be made in this circumstance,” continued Wager. “And if in this circumstance, then that LFW truly exists for other circumstances is a reasonable inference.”

When asked what free will has to do with Christian morality and salvation, Wagner responded, “This question appears to be about whether sin or covenant love can come into existence without free will existing in the one declared guilty of sin or accepted into an everlasting covenant love relationship. The answer is no, sin or covenant love cannot exist without free will.”

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

Emergency management policy expert shines light on the Helene problem NO ONE is talking about



These days, the well-being of Americans seems to be at the bottom of our government’s priority list. Foreign wars and the millions of illegal immigrants who have invaded our country suck up U.S. dollars by the billions, leaving needy Americans in a state of hopelessness.

The most recent example of this includes the victims of Hurricane Helene. FEMA claims it’s out of funds. It showed up a week after the storm ravaged the coastline. Then, it offered a pitiful $750 to families who had lost everything despite giving far more than that to illegal immigrants. There’s even reports of FEMA actively thwarting the private sector’s efforts to fill the gap.

What gives? Why does it seem like the plight of Americans is met with hostility from emergency services?

Amy LePore, a policy expert on the increased federalization of emergency management in the U.S., recently spoke with Matt Kibbe about this issue. Her take is that the public is misled in thinking that the federal government is prepared to respond when disaster strikes.

While there are many reasons for this, there’s one in particular Amy says is especially problematic: States aren’t passing the Defend the Guard Act.

— (@)

“There are resources stationed in many states, which have the training and capacity to respond to disaster, and half the time, they’re deployed to the Middle East,” she told Kibbe and pointed to the Tennessee legislature that did not pass the Defend the Guard Act, which would prohibit the deployment of the National Guard overseas unless Congress has formally declared war.

One day before Helene hit, Tennessee’s National Guard was deployed to Kuwait and was therefore unable to assist the hurricane victims.

“The Defend the Guard bill has been in 30 legislatures and has passed in three states but in three chambers only,” Amy explains, adding that what we really need “is a brave state.”

“I think all it is going to take is one state (maybe that state will be Tennessee) who takes this seriously, who can get it passed in both chambers. And I think there will be a domino effect in other brave states,” she says.

To hear more about the Defend the Guard bill and the unsung heroes who work tirelessly to bring our troops home so that they are positioned to support Americans, watch the clip above.

To watch Kibbe’s full conversation with Amy LePore, watch the episode below. Want more from Matt Kibbe?

- YouTube www.youtube.com

To enjoy more of Matt's liberty-defending stance as he gets in the face of the fake news establishment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Christian Case For Voting For Trump

Staying home is not the moral high ground this election. Voting for Donald Trump is.

German politician convicted of hate crime after sounding alarm about Afghan rape gangs



A right-wing politician in Germany has been convicted of a hate crime and fined thousands of dollars for sharing statistics about the disproportionate number of gang rapes committed by immigrants, specifically Afghan nationals, and for questioning whether multiculturalism means accommodating rape culture.

Marie-Thérèse Kaiser is a member of the right-leaning Alternative for Germany. The 27-year-old women's safety advocate and former model serves as the party's only representative in the Rotenburg district council.

While campaigning during the 2021 federal election, Kaiser posted on social media, "Afghanistan refugees; Hamburg SPD mayor for 'unbureaucratic' acceptance; Welcoming culture for gang rape?"

The German newspaper Junge Freiheit reported that Kaiser was responding in August 2021 to socialist Hamburg Mayor Peter Tschentscher's announcement that he would take in 200 Afghan workers. Kaiser was evidently concerned about what impact the new cohort might have on local culture and safety.

Her post was reportedly accompanied by a graphic indicating that Afghan and African asylum seekers "are proportionally 40x and 70x more involved in gang rapes than Germans," citing government statistics.

— (@)

The then-AfD candidate cited the statistics to justify her concern over uncontrolled immigration and the possibility of rape by "culturally alien masses."

Background

Mass immigration to Germany from Middle Eastern nations such as Afghanistan has coincided in recent years with a massive spike in violent crime, including rape.

The Pew Research Center indicated that between 2010 and 2016, Germany accepted over 670,000 refugees and 680,000 non-refugee immigrants. Of the roughly 1.35 million immigrants who flooded into Germany during that period, an estimated 850,000 were Muslims.

A government-commissioned study revealed in early 2018 that there was a 10.4% increase in violent crime at the height of the immigration crisis overseen by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who had circumvented EU rules and effectively opened the union's doors to immigrants from Syria and other oriental states. Deutsche Welle reported that 90% of this violent crime increase was attributable to immigrants, predominantly males between the ages of 14 and 30.

Despite altogether amounting to less than 2% of the overall population at the time, the BBC indicated that over 10% of murder suspects and 11.9% of sex offenders were asylum seekers and refugees in 2017.

The situation has not improved.

Reuters reported last month that the number of criminals with non-German backgrounds continues to climb. In 2023, there was a 5.5.% increase in overall crime and a 13.5% increase in the number of suspects with foreign backgrounds.

"What the AfD has warned about for years can no longer be hidden ... new crime statistics have triggered a debate on 'foreigner crime,'" said Richard Graupner of the AfD in Bavaria.

Imported criminality has not only victimized countless Germans but created horrible new customs.

New Year's Eve, for instance, appears to have become an annual night of immigrant riots and gang assaults on German women. Blaze News previously reported that two-thirds of the rioters detained in the most recent explosion of New Year's violence were non-citizens, including 27 Afghans and 21 Syrians.

German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser stated in the aftermath on Jan. 4, "Good politics must clearly state what is happening: In major German cities we have a problem with certain young men with a migrant background who despise our state, commit acts of violence and are hardly reached by education and integration programs."

Outrage over this imported phenomenon has coincided with the rise of the right-leaning AfD party, which has been critical of the country's immigration policies.

The BBC noted that various high-profile incidents, such as the brutal rape and murder of 19-year-old medical student Maria Ladenburger by an Afghan criminal in 2016, "helped boost the country's far right."

German officials appear to have instead treated the AfD as the problem, harassing and censoring party members. With the AfD polling second nationally and state elections scheduled for later this year, there have even been discussions of banning the party outright.

Free speech ends where inconvenience begins

Kaiser was reportedly charged and convicted with incitement to hatred after raising concerns about a very real problem gripping the nation. She indicated in February that she had appealed the ruling and was scheduled to appear in court in May.

"Simply naming numbers, dates and facts is to be declared a criminal offense just because the establishment does not want to face reality," she wrote on X. "I will not allow myself to be silenced."

A court in Lower Saxony upheld the guilty verdict Monday.

The court was unmoved by Kaiser's argument that freedom of expression in politics, particularly in electoral campaigns, must enjoy special latitude in the spirit of democracy. According to Lower Saxony's local news outlet, the presiding judge stated, "Freedom of expression ends where human dignity begins."

Kaiser, identified by the judge as an "exemplary defendant" during her sentencing, must now pay a fine of over $7,000.

Kaiser, who indicated on Instagram that the courtroom was packed full of supporters along with her parents, said of the verdict, "The whole world is amazed at this decision by the German courts. After even Elon Musk took up my case, I received numerous letters from supporters and press inquiries."

The politician was referencing Musk's Monday response in which he wrote, "Are you saying the fine was for repeating accurate government statistics? Was there anything inaccurate in what she said?"

"My trust in the German constitutional state was once again severely shaken yesterday, but all the letters give me courage and give me confidence," added Kaiser.

Marie-Thérèse Kaiser's original campaign video

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

Levin: Alvin Bragg unveils game plan for Trump case



Donald Trump sat in court Monday as jury selection began in his criminal hush money trial, which Mark Levin believes is legally frail and should have been “dismissed immediately.”

The former president is the first in U.S. history to go on trial for criminal charges, and is facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in order to influence the 2016 election.

Levin calls this case a “non-disclosure agreement case.”

But that doesn’t matter to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg or anyone else in relentless pursuit of Trump’s freedom.

“They want to convict Trump of some crime, and that crime is a non-crime,” Levin says.

“This is a reporting issue for the company that paid the nondisclosure agreement with Stormy Daniels. The issue is whether it was a legal expense or business expense,” Levin says. “So, Bragg says, ‘Well it should have been in one category rather than the other and the reason it was in the wrong category is Trump was trying to cover up that he was using money this purpose.’”

That purpose being “to violate federal law.”

“You might be asking yourself, what does a DA have to do with the federal? Nothing. That’s why this case should have been dismissed immediately,” Levin says, noting that all Bragg had to do was “rejigger the words and the semantics” to “turn these so-called misdemeanors into felonies.”

“It’s not only bizarre,” he continues, “but he takes the precedent of a loss and applies it anyway. Why? ‘Cause he’s going to have an all Democrat jury, and he knows they’ll convict Trump.”


Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

UC Berkeley in hot water after allegedly letting only non-whites work its farm on Saturdays



The University of California at Berkeley has been accused of "systemic racism" for only having non-white residents work its community farm on select days.

The Mountain States Legal Foundation, a Constitution-affirming activist group based in Colorado, recently filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, alleging that the university's Gill Tract Community Farm exclusively offers its space to "Black, Indigenous, and People of Color," reported the New York Post.

William Trachman, general counsel for the constitutionalist group and a UC-Berkeley alumnus, stated, "UC-Berkeley thinks that racial segregation is progressive now, but it's no different than segregation of the past."

The regents of the University of California acquired 104 acres of land in Berkeley and Albany, California, in the early 20th century. Over the past decade, a small portion of the land has been used as a community farm.

According to the website for the glorified vegetable patch, the "UC Gill Tract Community Farm is a collaborative community project between the University of California Berkeley and the local community, focused on issues of food justice and urban farming. It is located in Albany, CA, at the corner of San Pablo Ave and Marin Ave."

The farm, largely if not entirely sustained by grant money, appears to be run by radical leftists.

Berkeley Student Farms, a coalition that supposedly includes the students involved in UC Gill Tract Community Farm, states on its website that the "work of decolonizing our land, our food, and our community is an ongoing and continuous effort. In partnership with BlPOC farmers and land stewards, we provide workshops centered around the liberation and decolonization of farming practices."

The Gill Tract Farm specifically issued a "statement of solidarity" condemning the police in 2020.

"We Must Defund the Police," said the statement. "We must eliminate the public's use of the police as first responders. We must eliminate their weaponization. We must eliminate their power to cause harm and death with impunity. We must not wait to end this racist reign of terror."

The farm also called for the dismantling of "white supremacy in our community."

The Post indicated that the complaint includes an email from a program manager at the farm that stresses, "Saturdays are exclusively BIPOC. Exceptions have only been made for events that are BIPOC-centered and with plenty of advance notice and planning."

The farm manager apparently also figured white residents for threats and walking sacrileges, writing, "I trust you stand in solidarity with upholding boundaries around that safe and sacred space."

"Preventing Caucasians from accessing Berkeley's College of Natural Resources Farm on Saturdays is a clear violation of Title VI, which bars educational institutions from engaging in or allowing race discrimination," said Trachman, who previously served as deputy assistant secretary in the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights under President Donald Trump.

Extra to possibly violating federal law, it appears the farm's alleged segregationist policy runs contrary to its own code.

The farm states in its litany of community agreements, "We do not shame or belittle others, or make unsolicited comments on people’s bodies, race, gender, religion, or other aspects of their personal identity."

Dan Mogulof, a spokesman for the university, told the Post, "The anonymous texts attached to the complaint have no specific information about time or place. And, as you can see, the Gill Tract's website and calendar make no mention whatsoever of any program or activity of the sort described in the complaint."

Despite casting doubt on the farm's alleged segregationist Saturdays, Mogulof added that "the university takes complaints like this extremely seriously, and I can assure you that on Monday I will contact the appropriate people on campus in an effort to determine what the facts are."

Trachman may have singled out the farm, but he suggested that federal officials should take a hard look at UC-Berkeley for other programs possibly corrupted by "systemic racism."

This is not the first time the Mountain States Legal Foundation has filed complaints against the university over its discriminatory reflexes.

Last year, the group filed a civil rights complaint objecting to UC Berkeley's segregated graduation ceremonies, claiming they violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Office for Civil Rights subsequently opened a case against the university.

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

Virginia Gov. Youngkin vetoes 30 anti-gun bills, keeping law-abiding citizens armed and Democrats angry



Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) blew away 30 bills this week that he figured encroached on the rights of law-abiding citizens, including a Democratic bill prohibiting the sale or possession of new so-called "assault" rifles.

Among the bills Youngkin ultimately shot down were:

  • HB 2, a Democratic bill that would ban the sale or possession of new "assault rifles";
  • HB 454, a Democratic bill that would have criminalized an otherwise law-abiding citizen's possession of a firearm in a building owned or operated by a college or university — which Youngkin noted was unnecessary granted the present ability of institutions of higher education to implement prohibitions on their respective campuses;
  • HB 585, a Democratic bill that would have barred firearms sales within 1.5 miles of an elementary or middle school — which the governor said appeared "unconstitutional, retaliatory, and arbitrary";
  • HB 799, a Democratic bill that would have required the submission of fingerprints with an application for a concealed handgun permit or permit renewal — which Youngkin said "targets individuals already subject to background checks and mandatory training, creating superfluous and onerous restrictions on responsible citizens exercising their Second Amendment right to self-defense";
  • SB 273, a Democratic bill that would have required a waiting period to purchase a firearm — which Youngkin said would "impede individuals facing threats of violence from promptly acquiring a firearm for self-defense";
  • HB 798, a Democratic bill that would have barred Virginians with a misdemeanor conviction of assault and battery or stalking from purchasing, possessing, or transporting a firearm;
  • SB 99, a Democratic bill that would have banned the carrying of so-called "assault firearms" in public areas; and
  • SB 327, a Democratic bill prohibiting any American under the age of 21 from purchasing a handgun or "assault firearm" — which Youngkin indicated would render meaningless the constitutionally protected right to possess a firearm for those under 21.

The Washington Post noted that in Youngkin's first two years in office, Republican lawmakers successfully prevented gun-grab legislation from advancing in the House of Delegates. This spared the governor from having to evidence his support for the Second Amendment.

However, with majorities in both the state House and Senate, Democrats apparently figured they could advance their agenda or at the very least expose the governor as a defender of the Constitution.

Youngkin said in a statement, "I swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of Virginia, and that absolutely includes protecting the right of law-abiding Virginians to keep and bear arms."

The governor did, however, ratify a bill preventing parents from "willfully allowing a child who poses a credible threat of violence to access a firearm" as well as a bill banning the manufacture, transfer, or possession of an auto sear — a device that converts semi-automatic firearms into automatic weapons. Neither of these bills were opposed by the Citizens Defense League.

"I am pleased to sign four public safety bills which are commonsense reforms with significant bipartisan support from the General Assembly, and offer recommendations to several bills which, if adopted, will make it harder for criminals to use guns in the commission of a violent act," added Youngkin.

The governor's vetoes were not well received by Democratic lawmakers, who do not have two-thirds majorities required to override them.

Democratic state Sen. Creigh Deeds complained on X, writing, "2 more of my bills, prospectively banning assault style weapons, and keeping guns off college campuses are being vetoed. Shameful and unthinking action!"

Deeds' colleague, state Sen. Mamie Locke (D), responded, "Consider the source. Guns for everybody, no redemption for anyone, suppress the vote and voters and tax cuts for millionaires. Who's backwards?"

Heather Williams, the president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, claimed, "Republicans continue to make it clear that they care more about guns than people."

The National Rifle Association, on the other hand, lauded Youngkin's resolve.

"Governor Glenn Youngkin's courageous veto of dozens of ill-conceived gun control bills is a resounding victory for the Second Amendment in Virginia," Randy Kozuch, NRA executive director, said in a statement obtained by Fox News Digital.

"His refusal to bow to unconstitutional overreach — stopping widespread bans on semi-automatic firearms, blocking ill-conceived laws like arbitrary waiting periods, and unjust age restrictions — underscores his fierce commitment to safeguarding our fundamental rights," continued Kozuch. "This is a clear message: Virginia stands firm against the erosion of our liberties."

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

A republic’s shield or tyranny’s sword?



In the modern world, it is difficult to imagine a nation without a professional standing military force, but throughout history such a force has been considered at odds with the liberty of the people. The debate was far from settled when the United States was founded. While many consider it an absolute necessity today, the standing army has been recognized by many thinkers as the natural precursor to empire, a force that compels the host nation to constantly expand.

As conservatives slowly begin to question the forever wars that our ruling elite have used to waste the blood and treasure of this nation, it is worth stopping to evaluate the role that the maintenance of a large professional fighting force has played in compelling our leaders to seek constant conflict.

It may be that the best the citizens of America can do is stay vigilant and guard against the temptations of empire that a standing army presents.

The reflexive conservative support of American soldiers is the correct instinct. Volunteering to put oneself in harm’s way to protect the people of your nation is a noble act. The American military has become an almost hereditary warrior caste drawing heavily from red-state populations to man its most effective combat units. It is entirely proper for conservatives to venerate the honorable service of their brothers, neighbors, and children.

One of the main reasons the U.S. armed forces are facing a recruiting crisis is the way that they have demonized and purged the conservative soldiers who traditionally filled the ranks. So as we look at the virtues and dangers of a standing military, let us remember that we are not questioning the honor of those who have so diligently served this nation.

In defense of liberty

Niccolo Machiavelli is best known for “The Prince,” but most people do not realize that the political theorist was not a monarchist. He was, in fact, a staunch supporter of the republican form of government. For Machiavelli, the nature of a state’s military defense was the most important factor in its ability to secure liberty, and he wrote about the subject at length.

Renaissance Italy was plagued by constant warfare between competing city-states, and the regular use of mercenaries created serious problems for Florence, Machiavelli’s home. Repeated betrayal by troops who had no personal ties to the city-state that they served led Machiavelli to conclude that no matter how rich a nation became, it must have a fighting force loyal to the people it protected.

While Machiavelli understood the critical need for armed forces that were personally connected to the state, he warned against the dangers of keeping a professional army in times of peace in his book “The Art of War.” He believed that the ruling class must always fear professional soldiers because those military men have no other means of making money. Large standing armies are extremely expensive, and if they are not constantly deployed abroad to gather spoils or secure trade, the cost of those forces adds up quickly. If a state does not keep its professional troops deployed abroad and has no consistent way to afford to pay them, then idle armed men with no other form of employment will quickly become a threat to the ruling class.

War can also be an excellent way for the ruling class to make money by funneling tax dollars extracted from the populace through defense contractors who are often owned by or are kicking money back to politicians. This means that those in charge of a country with a large professional fighting force always have an incentive to find a new war that makes them money and keeps the bulk of the military occupied in foreign lands. Empire becomes the natural solution to many problems imposed on a ruling class by a standing military.

As an alternative, Machiavelli encourages republics to adopt the citizen militia as the solution to the problem of standing armies. By making every capable citizen a soldier, the republic ensures that its military will be personally loyal to the state, but it also avoids the temptation of constant deployment and conquest.

Militia members are drilled as soldiers, but they maintain civilian occupations that allow them to feed their families and pay their mortgages. When a threat to the nation arises, the militia defends its homeland. But when the danger has passed, militiamen return to their normal lives. There is no need to constantly find money to pay the troops, no reason to regularly keep forces deployed, and no incentive for a lucrative defense industry to grow around the military.

Machiavelli noted that when ancient Rome was a republic, its military was a citizen militia where each citizen provided his own weapons and armor. But as the army became professionalized and men made soldiering their career, the nation inevitably transitioned into an empire.

What the founders thought

America’s founders were also big admirers of the ancient Roman republic and recognized many of the concerns Machiavelli expressed in his writings.

Thomas Jefferson spoke regularly about the threat that standing armies pose to the liberty of a free people, while James Madison and Alexander Hamilton acknowledged these dangers when writing “The Federalist.” While defending the legislative branch’s ability to maintain a standing army in Federalist 24, Hamilton noted that two state constitutions, those of Pennsylvania and North Carolina, had clauses that explicitly warned that standing armies in a time of peace were a danger to liberty.

In Federalist 29, Hamilton explained that a well-regulated citizen militia can make a standing army unnecessary, which in his mind was a much better way to avoid the perils of a standing army than outright banning the creation of one.

If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

This is why we see so much confusion over the language of the Second Amendment. The citizen militia was assumed to be the default mode of armed defense for a free republic. Of course every individual had a right to bear arms. How else would the United States protect itself?

To be clear, none of this validates the leftist claim that the Second Amendment is outdated. The right to self-defense does not cease to exist just because the Unites States has a professional military. But it is important to understand the context in which these critical documents were written. Our founding fathers were aware of the temptations that a standing army presented and agreed with both the ancient Romans and Machiavelli that the citizen militia was the natural defensive force of the republican form of government.

Warfare has changed quite a bit from the days of Machiavelli. Intercontinental ballistic missiles and aircraft mean that military threats can appear at moments' notice. Highly complicated weapon systems require intense training and specialization to use and maintain. The idea of having time to raise a citizen militia to effectively repel a threat from a major power, even if those militia members trained regularly, seems tenuous at best. Even if the United States wanted to scale down its military to a temporary force, other global players are unlikely to follow suite.

Also, to be frank, Americans have gotten used to the notion that someone else will fight their battles. The idea that every individual citizen would take up the defense of their nation seems like a quaint notion from a bygone era. If a citizen militia is the price of liberty, it is likely that for the average American, the price is too high.

As John Adams said, the Constitution is made to govern virtuous people, and in that respect, we exist well beyond its reach. It may be that the best the citizens of America can do is stay vigilant and guard against the temptations of empire that a standing army presents.

Conservatives have already begun to lose their taste for forever wars, tired of sending their sons to serve an empire that no longer cares about them. Let us hope that this eventually forces America’s ruling class to focus on the common good of the people once again.