Trump bets big on AI to make America dominant again



The Trump administration is preparing to launch a sweeping series of executive orders aimed at securing America’s position as the world’s leader in artificial intelligence. If carried out properly, these efforts could help spark a new era of economic prosperity and technological dominance.

The forthcoming executive actions would radically streamline federal approvals for AI-related infrastructure, vastly expand energy resources devoted to artificial intelligence development, and prioritize the construction of new transmission and data projects critical to powering America’s AI future.

Artificial intelligence could be the single most important economic engine of the 21st century.

It is a remarkable development — and one desperately needed.

Trump’s AI infrastructure revolution

The expected executive orders outline sweeping changes. One key measure would create a national Clean Water Act permit tailored to speed up environmental approvals for AI-related infrastructure — especially energy and data facilities.

Another directive would push the federal government to prioritize “shovel-ready” transmission projects, helping the electric grid expand quickly enough to meet the demands of AI growth.

The orders would also unlock federally managed land for rapid development of the infrastructure needed to power and support artificial intelligence operations.

Finally, the administration plans to increase dramatically the energy resources dedicated to AI development, treating the technology as a national priority.

These changes aim to eliminate major regulatory and logistical obstacles slowing AI advancement. By streamlining permitting, securing energy access, and opening federal land, the orders would lay the groundwork for building and deploying large-scale AI systems nationwide.

A critical change

Each of these reforms matters. The numbers make that clear.

An article published earlier this year in MIT Technology Review summarized estimates from multiple researchers analyzing AI’s future impact. One study from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory projected that by 2028, powering AI in the U.S. could require between 165 and 326 terawatt-hours of electricity annually.

RELATED: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act hides a big, ugly AI betrayal

  Douglas Rissing via iStock/Getty Images

That would exceed the total power consumption of all U.S. data centers today. It’s enough to supply more than 20% of American households.

Put another way, the article noted that AI’s energy demand could create emissions equivalent to driving 300 billion miles — roughly 1,600 round trips between Earth and the sun.

This isn’t a modest technological shift. It’s an industrial revolution, and it’s already under way.

The global AI race

China’s leaders understand the potential benefits and costs of artificial intelligence, too, which is why they have approved dramatic increases in energy development in recent years.

In May, the Chinese government approved a plan to build 10 new nuclear reactors at a cost of $27.7 billion. If implemented, it would make China the planet’s largest generator of nuclear power by 2030.

China also invested more than $900 billion in renewable energy sources in 2024, nearly matching global investment in fossil fuels.

China is taking its energy needs seriously, and the Trump administration appears committed to ensuring that the United States doesn’t fall behind.

AI’s $13 trillion opportunity

Artificial intelligence is not just a futuristic novelty. It is the key to unlocking one of the greatest economic booms in modern history.

The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that AI could generate as much as $13 trillion in additional global economic productivity by 2030. That is the equivalent of adding three new economies the size of India’s. Nations that lead in AI development will enjoy a productivity surge, revolutionizing manufacturing, logistics, transportation, health care, finance, and nearly every other sector.

For the United States, this means the potential to revitalize American industry, re-shore critical supply chains, and create millions of high-wage jobs. AI could supercharge small business growth, empower entrepreneurs, and streamline government services. It could give America the edge in military technology, scientific research, and global competitiveness.

In short, it could be the single most important economic engine of the 21st century.

But to get there, America needs to act quickly. Building the infrastructure necessary to power AI’s massive growth, both physically and digitally, will require bold and aggressive leadership. That is exactly what Trump’s new executive orders represent.

Protecting liberty

Artificial intelligence will transform nearly every part of American life — our economy, schools, military, and medical system.

The upside is immense. With the right leadership, AI could spark a new American golden age, driving productivity and innovation beyond anything in living memory. That’s the future President Trump aims to deliver. If his initiative succeeds, it could define America’s 21st-century revival.

But the risks are real.

So far, Congress and most state legislatures have done practically nothing to safeguard Americans’ basic freedoms in the age of AI. No national guardrails exist to stop this technology from being used to suppress free speech, erode religious liberty, or undermine economic independence.

Without decisive action, the very tools that promise prosperity could become the greatest threat to liberty in American history.

That’s why the Trump administration and Congress should tie any pro-AI legislation to strong protections for individual rights. If America plans to lead the world into the AI future, it must lead with freedom front and center.

Allie Beth Stuckey: Why I’m proud to be an American



The long sun and firework-filled weekend of Independence Day has officially kicked off, and before you crack a beer or fire up a burger — you might want to take a moment to remember why this country is so great.

BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” hasn’t forgotten, and despite knowing that our country is imperfect — she’s well aware that perfection isn’t required to be great.

“We have learned probably more than ever over the past few years how corrupt so many of our leaders are. Our bureaucratic state has turned itself in many ways against its own people,” Stuckey says.

“And so I celebrate America, not because she’s perfect, not because she does no wrong, not because there aren’t some really, really big things to change and to fight for, but because I believe that the values upon which we were established are the greatest values that a country could be founded on,” she continues.


“The idea that all men were created equal, the idea of inherent rights that come from a creator whose authority is transcendent and supreme and above the government. The idea of self-governance, of freedom of speech, of freedom of religion. There is no other country in the world that has championed these things as well as the United States,” she adds.

And while these are the ideas the United States was founded on, they’re only here to stay as long as we continue to fight for them.

“It takes vigilance, it takes dedication, it takes commitment on our part to make sure that we are keeping those things. I mean, it takes, really, a constant struggle, to ensure that liberty is passed down from one generation to the next,” she explains.

“God has placed us here and now, specifically, and with purpose. And that purpose is, of course, to glorify Him, to serve him with joy, and with excellence. But part of that obedience to God is to ensure that we are making better every sphere that we occupy, that we are infusing every sphere of life with as much light and as much truth and as much goodness as we possibly can,” she continues.

“This is what Christians have done for thousands of years, not just engagement in politics and culture, but also through the creation of charities and organizations and all different kinds of entities that have served the human race,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

One declaration sparked a nation. The other sparks confusion.



This week, my university emailed a Fourth of July reflection that caught my attention. It claimed the “backbone of our independence” is entrepreneurship and praised secular universities as the seedbed of innovation — and, by extension, democracy itself.

I’m all for business. Enterprise, creativity, and free markets foster prosperity and reward initiative. But business doesn’t create liberty. It depends on liberty. Markets flourish only when justice, rights, and human dignity already exist. In other words, business is a fruit of independence, not its root.

Our freedoms — legal, political, scientific, and economic — grow best in soil nourished by the belief in human dignity grounded in something greater than man.

As we celebrate Independence Day, it’s worth remembering the true foundation of American freedom. The Declaration of Independence doesn’t just announce our break with Britain — it explains why that break was just. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” it says, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

That single sentence tells us where rights come from: not from governments or markets, but from God. Human equality doesn’t rest on ability, wealth, or status — qualities that always vary. It rests on the shared reality that each of us bears the image of the same Creator.

This truth isn’t just historical. It remains the cornerstone of liberty. Without it, terms like “human rights” or “justice” collapse into slogans. If rights don’t come from God, where do they come from? Who gives them? And who can take them away?

Contrast our Declaration with the United Nations’ 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That document says people “have” rights — but doesn’t explain why or where they come from or why rights matter. It invokes no Creator, no image of God, no natural law, no self-evident truth or moral source beyond political consensus. Rights, it suggests, are whatever the international community agrees they are.

That’s a dangerous idea. If rights come from consensus, consensus can erase them. If governments or global committees grant rights, they can redefine or revoke them when convenient. There is no firm ground, only shifting sands.

Many Americans now prefer this softer, godless version of human dignity. They invoke justice but reject the Judge. They want rights without a Creator, happiness without truth, liberty without responsibility. But rights without God offer no security — and happiness without God dissolves into fantasy. It’s a mirage.

This project of cutting freedom off from its source cannot last. Our freedoms — legal, political, scientific, and economic — grow best in soil nourished by the belief in human dignity grounded in something greater than man.

RELATED: The most memorable epocha in the history of America

  ivan-96 via iStock/Getty Images

We live in God’s world. That distinction matters. A society built on contracts negotiates rights. A society built on covenants honors obligations to the truth. The difference isn’t just theological — it’s civilizational.

By rejecting the Creator, we don’t advance progress. We erase the foundation that made progress possible. C.S. Lewis put it this way: “You cannot go on 'explaining away' forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away.”

Explain away God, and you explain away the reason rights exist.

So this Independence Day, remember what liberty really means — and what sustains it. We’re not free because we said so. We’re free because we answer to a law higher than any court or committee. We are created equal because we are created — period.

Entrepreneurship has its place. But the American experiment wasn’t born from a business plan. It began with a declaration that acknowledged God. If we want that experiment to endure, we must not forget what made it possible in the first place.

This Independence Day, Ditch The DNA Test And Learn More About Your American Ancestors

In a frustratingly divided nation, we need stories that unite us to a shared American vision of the good life based on our nation’s founding principles.

The crown laughed at our Declaration — but America got the last word



John Adams believed America’s independence should be marked with “pomp, shews, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations.” He got his wish. Within a year of the Declaration’s signing on July 4, 1776, celebrations had become a colonies-wide tradition.

The reaction across the Atlantic, however, struck a very different tone.

This wasn’t just about taxes or trade policy. It was about the belief that free men could govern themselves.

The British response was not stunned disbelief or deep introspection. It was mockery — and, ultimately, a grave miscalculation.

The war didn’t begin with the Declaration. A year earlier, in August 1775, King George III had already issued a Proclamation of Rebellion. The crown had stopped viewing the dispute as a matter of political redress. It now saw open revolt.

But the Declaration shifted the terms. What landed in London by mid-August 1776 wasn’t a petition or compromise. It was a bold, philosophical argument for national divorce. In British eyes, it was treason.

A declaration dismissed

British newspapers published the Declaration widely. The London Chronicle printed it, along with other major papers. But few took it seriously. To them, it was just another provocation from unruly colonials.

The elite mocked Thomas Jefferson’s talk of “unalienable rights.” Gen. William Howe, sent to crush the rebellion, called the Declaration “extravagant and inadmissible.” The British state responded accordingly.

RELATED: July 4 exclusive: What we love about America

  LeoPatrizi via iStock/Getty Images

Within weeks, more than 32,000 British troops — including 8,000 German mercenaries — sailed into New York Harbor. It was the largest overseas force Britain had ever fielded. Howe aimed to stamp out the uprising before year’s end.

The campaign nearly succeeded.

George Washington’s army suffered defeat after defeat, narrowly escaping destruction on Long Island. By autumn, the American position looked hopeless.

France’s revenge

But while Britain saw a dying rebellion, France saw a chance to strike.

Even before 1776, French agents had begun quietly arming the colonists. The Declaration gave them a pretext to go farther. Though Louis XVI had no love for democracy, he did have a long memory — and Britain’s victory in the Seven Years’ War had come at France’s expense.

With the Declaration in hand, France could cloak strategic revenge in the language of liberty.

Formal recognition wouldn’t come until 1778, but the shift had begun. French arms, cash, and eventually troops transformed the conflict. What began as a colonial revolt became an international war.

Back in London, the American cause began to attract sympathy in Parliament.

In 1777, future British Prime Minister William Pitt took to the House of Lords to warn his colleagues: “You cannot conquer" America.

He was right.

Not just a rebellion — a revolution

What Britain failed to grasp was that America hadn’t simply declared independence. It had declared a new theory of government: one grounded in consent, not inheritance.

The crown mistook revolutionary conviction for rhetorical flourish. Britain's government believed the colonists would fold in the face of overwhelming force. But this wasn’t just about taxes or trade policy. It was about the belief that free men could govern themselves.

Ideas like that can stand up to empires — even the most powerful in the world.

How a viral video exposed the fall — and rise? — of California



Social media often serves as a cultural barometer, providing useful insight into cultural trends and their shifts. Consider a song parody video that recently went viral. “California Freedom” is an AI-generated satirical reimagining of the 1960s classic “California Dreamin’” by the Mamas and the Papas. Remember that one?

The original song painted California as a paradisiacal escape from the drab and dreary East Coast, a dream only a lucky few could call their home: “All the leaves are brown, and the sky is gray. I’ve been for a walk on a winter’s day. I’d be safe and warm if I was in L.A. — California dreamin’, on such a winter’s day.”

California Freedom gets closer every day as locals rise to the challenge and opportunity in front of them.

The song predates the internet era, but its imagery is timeless: golden sunshine, palm trees, beaches, teens in drop-top cars cruising down Sunset Boulevard. It depicted California as a place of effortless joy — life as it ought to be.

— (@)  
 

This is a starkly different California. The scenes are familiar but jarring: riots, wildfires, corrupt officials with clown faces, piles of money from China and other state malefactors. Set to the same tune, the new lyrics deliver a biting contrast:

Our governor’s a clown, so’s the mayor of L.A. Corruption at the top, arrogance on display. Always assumed we would conform — we’re finally awake. California freedom gets closer every day ...

At first glance, this parody video might seem dark and pessimistic, a major fall away from the sunshine of the original. But the opposite is true. The Mamas and the Papas’ version is the one with a sad, nostalgic, depressed message despite its lovely harmonies and lilting flute interlude. The writer is resigned, stuck. He has little agency in his condition. He tells us:

Stopped into a church I passed along the way. Got down on my knees, and I pretended to pray. You know the preacher liked the cold, he knows I’m gonna stay ... if I didn’t tell her I could leave today… California dreamin’ on such a winter’s day ...

The lead singer contributed nothing to the California dream he longed for and felt no control over his own life. Many in his generation shared that attitude. Baby Boomers who came of age in the mid-1960s soaked up messages that told them they were powerless over their future. They grew up and raised children with little resilience, unprepared to face adversity.

These were the kids who never walked alone in the woods or dug up worms by hand. They grew into college students who needed “safe spaces” and coloring books to cope with opposing viewpoints. They are the fragile offspring of a generation that surrendered its agency — and passed along the habit.

RELATED: LA wildfires point to a long list of failures by California authorities

  Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images

 

But the “California Freedom” video tells a different story. Early on, the bear from the state flag rears up, growls, and bares its teeth — startling Nancy Pelosi. We see ICE and law enforcement pushing back on rioters. And after a litany of the corrupt and destructive acts of key state leaders, the original song’s flute solo plays once again — but this time, Donald Trump is shown performing it in front of California’s most iconic and breathtaking landscapes.

Trump playing the flute may draw laughs — a wink at his claim of childhood musical talent — but the image carries weight. His administration has moved swiftly and forcefully to restore order where leftist leaders welcomed chaos and destruction. Through initiatives like the Department of Government Efficiency and budgetary reform, Trump has choked off taxpayer funds to activist groups pushing bloated, often corrupt government control over everyday life.

The video places Trump against California’s most iconic landscapes — redwoods, poppy fields, the Golden Gate — transforming a moment of satire into something more. It’s not just a gag. It’s a statement: California’s promise still lives. Freedom, prosperity, and integrity don’t flow from bureaucrats or ideologues. They come from the land itself — and the people who choose to defend it.

The video speaks clearly: We have agency. California doesn’t have to remain broken. Beneath the corruption, arrogance, and engineered collapse lies a chance to rebuild. The bear — California’s symbol — rises, growls, and shows its teeth. And through the noise, the music plays again. Behind the drug camps and trash-choked boulevards, the state’s beauty and strength still hum with life.

This energy, stronger than COVID lockdowns that crushed working people while Gavin Newsom dined at the French Laundry, signals something new. The future is coming — and it looks nothing like the ruins left behind.

I first traveled to the San Francisco Bay Area in the early 1970s to meet my fiancé’s family, and I fell in love immediately with the land and the sea. Later, while living in Silicon Valley, we explored the state whenever possible. In the L.A. area, I walked the ocean paths often.

What happened to California in the decades since grieves me. It’s one reason I refused to retire there.

But now, a new generation offers hope. Young people inspired by Trump are shedding the passive fragility their parents too often embraced and indulged. They’re building a different California — one rooted not in globalist pretensions or bureaucratic arrogance but in the sea, the mountains, and the enduring beauty of the land itself.

California freedom gets closer every day as locals rise to the challenge and seize the opportunity in front of them.

Can populism break America’s two-party system?



On a recent episode of “Kibbe on Liberty,” Matt Kibbe sat down with nationally recognized political changemaker Steven Olikara, senior fellow for political transformation at the USC Schwarzenegger Institute and the founder of Millennial Action Project (now Future Caucus), the largest nonpartisan organization of young elected leaders in the U.S.

In their conversation, the two expressed their hopes that populism — a political approach that aims to represent the interests of commoners against a perceived elite or establishment — will eventually conquer the two-party system that crushes the voice of the people.

  

The current political culture in America, says Olikara, has both Republicans and Democrats saying, “We know what's best for you,” but what they should be saying is, “We want to hear from you.”

Kibbe, a self-described “libertarian populist,” agrees, arguing that populism is "the right side of history because the other side is the machine” — “a collusion of government power and corporate power.”

The question is, can populism garner enough support to break the political establishment?

The answer, says Olikara, is yes. Support for populism is high. The issue is the entrenched elites who rig the system to snuff out any non-establishment opponent.

In his experience campaigning in the 2022 U.S. Senate primary in Wisconsin as a Democrat with a strong bent towards populism, his team would “get the most applause out of all the candidates” at campaign events, and yet they could rarely secure a debate to get their “ideas out to a statewide audience” because “all the other campaigns in the party were making an extra effort to make sure there were no debates.”

On the rare occasion he did secure a debate, he was often declared the winner. However, “just as those sparks were flying, the Democratic establishment effectively ended the race 10 days before the election,” says Olikara. “They said, ‘We don't want to wait to hear what the people have to say. We're going to violate our bylaws and endorse the establishment candidate."’

Despite Olikara’s popularity, Mandela Barnes, a well-known Democrat with strong party support, was endorsed by key figures, making his win in the primary nearly certain.

“I got phone calls from a number of senior Democratic leaders calling to apologize to me why they're not only breaking their bylaws but breaking their promise that they had made to me to be neutral in the primary,” says Olikara, noting that these leaders will admit they’re more concerned about money and control than the people’s voices being heard.

“If you just let ideas breathe a little bit, if you let people express their voices, that's the kind of democracy I believe in,” he says.

Kibbe shares Olikara’s sentiments, comparing the current two-party system to having “Taylor Swift” or “the most obnoxious country musician” as your only options for music. “I like the democracy that is Spotify, where I can listen to my weird, very fringy ... versions of music that I like,” he analogizes.

Unfortunately, for now it’s Swift or honky-tonk. “They make it so that you have to choose their candidate or that really bad guy on the other side,” Kibbe laments. “We go through this cycle every two to four years, and it's pretty disheartening for anybody that imagines that we could give people in democratic America choices that they would actually be proud of.”

However, President Trump’s 2016 rise to power as a system-breaker is proof that populist movements can challenge the two-party establishment.

“He's the first guy to sort of take over a party, at least since maybe since Abe Lincoln,” says Kibbe. “Now he is the party, so it was impossible to run against him in his last primary.” But even though Trump proved the system could be broken, “the Democrats seem still hell-bent on preventing a real primary.”

Olikara is hopeful that in 2028, Democrats will allow “the first truly open democratic primary since 2007 and 2008,” when Barack Obama — “not the establishment candidate” — “emerged and defeated the Clinton machine,” a victory he says is “on par with Trump winning the 2016 Republican primary against the establishment.”

“The moment is perfect for it — like there's clearly no field-clearing candidate. It's wide-open. Democrats are in the wilderness now, which usually means a new voice, a new movement, can emerge,” he says. “It's all set up for them, and yet there's a good chance they still shoot themselves in the foot.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.

Want more from Matt Kibbe?

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.

Global elites think you’re too stupid for soda and beer



The latest wheeze from global public health elites? Jack up taxes on tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks, and processed food by 50% to raise $3.7 trillion in new revenue. They call it “health policy.” In plain English, it’s government-sanctioned theft.

This isn’t about curing disease. It’s about expanding state power. These so-called health taxes, pushed by academic ideologues and international bureaucrats, are little more than economic punishment disguised as progress. They won’t meaningfully reduce illness, but they’ll absolutely hit working people the hardest.

Sin taxes don’t foster well-being — they weaponize economic pain against the people who can least afford it.

The new push for massive taxes on soda, smokes, beer, and snacks is social engineering with a hefty price tag. The goal isn’t better health so much as behavioral compliance. And who pays for it? Not corporations. Not policymakers. Regular people. Especially those already stretched thin.

The promise of $3.7 trillion in new revenue tells you everything you need to know. This is about cash, not caring. You’re not going to fix the obesity crisis by making a Coke cost $4. You’re just making life worse for the guy who wants a cold drink after work.

These aren’t just products. They’re small pleasures — a beer at dinner, a smoke on break, a soda on a hot afternoon. Legal, affordable, familiar. Stripping them from people’s lives in the name of “health” doesn’t uplift anyone. It makes life more miserable.

And this plan doesn’t educate or empower. It punishes. It uses taxes to bludgeon people into compliance. That’s not public health — that’s moral authoritarianism.

Proponents claim that higher prices discourage consumption, especially among young people. But that’s not smart policy — it’s an admission that the entire strategy relies on pricing people out of their own choices.

That’s not a sign of sound policy; it’s a confession that the aim is to price people out of their own choices. It’s hard not to see this as profoundly elitist. A worldview in which an ignorant public must be nudged, coerced, and taxed into making decisions deemed acceptable by a distant class of arrogant policymakers.

Sin taxes don’t foster well-being — they weaponize economic pain against the people who can least afford it. The more someone spends on a drink or a cigarette, the less they can spend on rent, groceries, or gas. In the U.K., economists found that sin taxes cost low-income families up to 10 times more than they cost the wealthy. That holds true in the United States as well. These are regressive by design.

History offers a warning. Prohibition didn’t end drinking — it empowered criminals. Today, in places like Australia, black markets for vapes and other restricted products are booming. When governments overregulate, people continue to consume. They just go underground, and quality, safety, and accountability go with them.

Public health bureaucrats love to talk about the “commercial determinants of health,” blaming industry for every social ill. But they ignore the personal determinants that matter even more: freedom, dignity, and the right to make informed decisions.

RELATED: Cigarettes and beer: The heady perfume that transports me to my childhood

  guruXOOX via iStock/Getty Images

People already know the risks of smoking, drinking, and sugar consumption. They’ve seen the labels and heard the warnings for years. They don’t need lectures from bureaucrats, government ministers, or international agencies. What they need is respect — and the freedom to live as they choose.

These new tax schemes don’t offer support or alternatives. They rely on coercion, not persuasion. The state becomes the enforcer, not the helper. It’s a government model that punishes pleasure and equates restriction with virtue.

The sinister core of this health tax agenda lies in its relentless condescension. It assumes people are too stupid, too reckless, or too addicted to choose what’s best for themselves, and so government must intervene forcefully and repeatedly.

This is control, not compassionate governance.

A better path exists — one rooted in harm reduction, not prohibition. Encourage low-sugar drink options. Expand access to safer nicotine alternatives. Support moderate alcohol consumption. Respect the people you’re trying to help.

If public health advocates truly want to improve outcomes, they should abandon these regressive, punitive proposals. They should promote innovation, not punishment. Education, not enforcement.

Because real public health doesn’t treat people like problems to be managed. It treats them like citizens — free to live, choose, and thrive.

Stop trying to segregate the American founding



Race relations in the United States have unraveled in recent years, not only because of genuine disagreement, but because many Americans now grow up believing the nation is fundamentally unjust — racist to the core, perhaps even irredeemable.

This idea, once fringe, now enjoys institutional backing. Critical race theory and DEI ideology assert that the U.S. was founded on slavery and white supremacy. And they dominate schools, corporations, and government agencies alike.

Don’t displace the Fourth of July. Don’t divide what should unite us.

As a result, America has seen a quiet comeback of sanctioned segregation. Colleges increasingly host race-based graduation ceremonies. Society encourages people to define themselves first by racial identity, not shared citizenship. That should alarm anyone who once marched for equal rights in the 1950s and ’60s.

When Americans stop thinking of each other as fellow citizens, the glue that holds the republic together dissolves.

Juneteenth and the new segregation

Consider one example of this trend: the push for a separate “independence day” for black Americans.

On June 17, 2021, Joe Biden signed Senate Bill 475 into law, establishing a new federal holiday: “Juneteenth National Independence Day.” The bill commemorates June 19, 1865, when Union Gen. Gordon Granger arrived in Texas and issued General Order No. 3, announcing that slaves in the state had been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation — two years after it was signed.

Former slaves in Texas celebrated, and in the years that followed, Juneteenth spread across the South. But it never held central importance in the broader civil rights movement.

Juneteenth did not abolish slavery. It merely marked the day slaves in one state learned they had been legally freed. The Emancipation Proclamation, issued in 1863, applied only to states in rebellion — excluding Union-supporting border states like Kentucky and Delaware, where slavery remained legal until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December 1865.

A false independence narrative

Some activists now argue that Juneteenth should serve as “Black Independence Day.” That’s a mistake.

This view implies that African Americans have no rightful claim to the Fourth of July or to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. But those ideas belong to all Americans — not just the descendants of the signers.

It’s true that many historical figures sought to exclude black Americans from the promise of the Declaration. Chief Justice Roger Taney made that argument explicit in the Dred Scott decision. Confederates like Alexander Stephens and John C. Calhoun claimed that “all men are created equal” never applied to African Americans.

They were wrong.

What Frederick Douglass really believed

Some cite Frederick Douglass’ famous 1852 speech — “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” — to support the idea that black Americans should reject the founding. But they ignore the full context.

Douglass, speaking two years after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, condemned the hypocrisy of a country that declared liberty while tolerating bondage. “What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?” he asked. “A day that reveals to him ... the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.”

But unlike Taney, Stephens, and Calhoun, Douglass didn’t reject the Declaration. He upheld it.

RELATED: Frederick Douglass: American patriot

  Photo by Carol M. Highsmith/Buyenlarge/Getty Images

Douglass took hope from the principles it proclaimed and called on America to live up to them. He dismissed the Garrisonian claim that the Constitution was pro-slavery. “Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted,” he said, “the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.”

He believed America’s founding held the moral resources to defeat slavery — and it did.

The universal promise of 1776

America’s founders didn’t invent slavery; they merely inherited it. At the time of the Revolution, slavery was a global institution, practiced on every continent and defended by every empire. Slavery, including African slavery, was a manifestation of the argument of the Athenians at Melos as recounted by Thucydides in his history of the Peloponnesian War: “Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Even Africans sold fellow Africans into slavery.

The Declaration of Independence marked a sharp break from that past. It asserted that all human beings possess natural rights — and that no one may rule another without consent.

Thomas Jefferson famously observed that humanity had long been divided into those born "booted and spurred” and those “born with saddles on their backs.” The founders rejected that model. They established a republic based on equality before the law, not the interests of the stronger over the weaker.

They also knew slavery contradicted those ideals. Many believed the institution would die out — an Enlightenment relic destined for extinction. Still, the political compromises they made to preserve the Union allowed slavery to persist, and it took a war to end it.

Why the founding still matters

The Civil War was not a rejection of the founding. It was a fulfillment of it.

As Harry Jaffa wrote, “It is not wonderful that a nation of slaveholders, upon achieving independence, failed to abolish slavery. What is wonderful ... is that a nation of slaveholders founded a new nation on the proposition that ‘all men are created equal,’ making the abolition of slavery a moral and political necessity.”

The Declaration of Independence lit the fuse that ultimately destroyed slavery.

So let Americans celebrate Juneteenth — gratefully, joyfully, and historically. Let the holiday recall the biblical jubilee it was meant to evoke.

But don’t displace the Fourth of July. Don’t segment America’s founding. Don’t divide what should unite us.

As Douglass said: “I would not even in words do violence to the grand events, and thrilling associations, that gloriously cluster around the birth of our national independence.”

He went on: “No people ever entered upon the pathway of nations, with higher and grander ideas of justice, liberty and humanity than ourselves.”

Douglass understood something too many have forgotten: The genius of the American founding lies not in who it excluded but in the promise that, one day, it would include everyone.

BlackRock and friends may soon control your digital wallet



America is on the edge of a financial cliff, and Washington’s so-called “solution” is yet another clever ploy that could further centralize power and lead to a reduction in freedom.

The latest scheme is a bipartisan bill dubbed the Genius Act. The U.S. Senate passed the bill on Tuesday by a vote of 68-30. The bill now moves on to the House, where its prospects are less clear.

It’s time for the right to sound the alarm and reject the Genius Act — at least until it offers protections for individual liberty.

Supporters of the law claim it will modernize digital finance by issuing new regulations for stablecoins, shoring up assets currently used by millions of people worldwide.

But the legislation comes with serious threats to liberty as well. It could ultimately become a backdoor way to create a digital dollar, one that offers minimal privacy protections and is easily controlled by massive institutions unaccountable to voters.

What is the Genius Act?

Officially named the “Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act,” the Genius Act aims to bring order and credibility to the booming stablecoin market.

Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies tied to supposedly “stable” assets like the U.S. dollar. USD Coin and Tether — two of the most widely used — circulate more than $200 billion combined.

The bill creates a regulatory framework for stablecoin issuers, allowing them to operate under either state or federal supervision. Lawmakers believe this approach will boost credibility with consumers and financial institutions.

The legislation also forces issuers to disclose their reserve assets, submit to public audits, and comply with the Bank Secrecy Act. That law requires financial entities to implement know-your-customer protocols and anti-money-laundering measures — rules that many stablecoin issuers currently avoid.

Most importantly, the Genius Act would force issuers to back their coins with liquid assets, such as U.S. dollars and Treasury securities. For example, for every USD Coin distributed, the issuer would need to maintain $1 in reserves or Treasury bills of equivalent value, ensuring that users can always exchange their stablecoins for dollars.

The Genius Act has drawn broad bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers from both parties praise its regulatory ambitions. But behind the applause lie serious risks.

Programmable money vs. financial freedom

The bill lays the foundation for a programmable digital currency system — one that lacks basic protections for privacy and liberty.

By granting stablecoins federal recognition and placing them under strict oversight and reserve rules, the Genius Act effectively turns them into government-blessed digital dollars, even if the federal government doesn’t issue them directly.

That might sound like progress — if the bill actually protected consumers. But it doesn’t.

The legislation includes no safeguards to prevent stablecoin issuers from linking usage to social credit systems, such as ESG scores, or restricting legal but politically disfavored transactions. These programmable currencies could easily reflect the ideological preferences of their creators.

RELATED: A brutal wake-up call from America’s most powerful banker

  Photo by Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Want to donate to a political cause that a stablecoin company opposes? Expect a digital roadblock. Want to buy red meat, a gas-powered car, or anything else that fails to meet an ESG benchmark? Your money might simply stop working.

That’s not science fiction. That’s the likely outcome if Congress fails to add robust consumer protections to the Genius Act.

A forced hand

No one needs to use stablecoins — at least not yet. The Genius Act doesn’t eliminate traditional dollars. For now, consumers still have alternatives. But that could change quickly.

Stablecoins regulated by the U.S. government offer clear advantages over traditional currency. They move instantly, cost little or nothing to send, and operate around the clock. Because they’re digital, they require no physical infrastructure to create or distribute.

In nearly every respect, government-regulated stablecoins outperform paper money. Once the U.S. government legitimizes them and guarantees their safety, adoption will surge.

As usage grows, demand for traditional dollars could shrink. The companies issuing stablecoins would gain enormous control over economic life. Financial institutions could even begin phasing out physical currency, leaving those who resist digital money with no practical alternative.

That’s why Congress must include strong protections for individual liberty in any bill that accelerates stablecoin adoption. Without those safeguards, Americans may one day wake up to find their economic freedom coded out of existence.

A boon for Treasurys

One of the primary reasons so many in Washington support the Genius Act is that it would increase demand for Treasury bills, which helps the federal government finance its massive debt.

The Genius Act would require stablecoin issuers to back their currencies with cash or U.S. Treasurys. Of the two options, Treasury bills often make more sense for the companies issuing stablecoins. Why? Because Treasury bills pay interest.

Washington is drowning in red ink. With over $36 trillion in national debt and counting, the government desperately needs someone to keep buying its IOUs. Stablecoins could offer a trillion-dollar solution. By 2028, the Treasury Department estimates that stablecoin issuers could hold up to $1 trillion in Treasurys, so long as legislation like the Genius Act becomes law.

The Genius Act isn’t primarily about innovation. It’s about bailing out a bankrupt government.

Who’s pulling the strings?

Even more troubling is who stands to benefit. Major players behind these stablecoins include BlackRock, Fidelity, and other financial giants with deep ties to the globalist ESG agenda and organizations like the World Economic Forum. These aren’t neutral actors. They are ideological enforcers with an appetite for control.

Are these the people we want managing the digital currency of the future?

Are these the institutions we trust to safeguard our freedoms?

It’s time for the right to sound the alarm and reject the Genius Act — at least until it offers protections for individual liberty. If we do not act now, we may soon find ourselves in a nation where every transaction is tracked, every purchase scrutinized, and every dollar you “own” is merely rented from a system that can revoke your access with the flick of a switch.