The GOP can’t win by playing prevent defense



This week, the NFL Draft descends on Pittsburgh. For many fans, Draft Day is the most hopeful day of the year — a chance to believe one rookie or well-timed trade will finally deliver the championship that always seems just out of reach. It’s also a time for the age-old debate between building your offense or your defense.

Political parties face the same pressure. Hall of Fame coach Bear Bryant put it bluntly: “Offense sells tickets, but defense wins championships.” But Republican leaders have too often misinterpreted that maxim and taken it to its extreme, seeking to minimize risk at the expense of boldly pursuing wins.

If the GOP wants to be remembered for something more than last year’s highlight reel, the party should deliver more wins through budget reconciliation by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.

For example, imagine your favorite team coming out after kickoff and immediately dropping into a prevent defense. You’d be furious. That scheme is for closing out a lead when time is on your side, not for playing an entire game. Deployed prematurely, it surrenders easy, incremental yards and hands the opponent the initiative.

This is why Republicans must get off their back foot and go on offense. In celebration of America’s 250th birthday, let’s call back to our founding fathers for a different strategy from our first president, George Washington: “Offensive operations, often times, is the surest, if not the only ... means of defense." Or as the legendary boxer Jack Dempsey distilled this principle: "The best defense is a good offense."

So how could the GOP go on offense and force Democrats to play defense for a change? House Republicans have a golden opportunity right in front of them right now.

RELATED: How Republicans have failed to defund sanctuary cities for a generation

J. David Ake/Getty Images

This week, the Senate took the first step to unlock the federal budget process called reconciliation, which allows for Congress to make changes to spending for that fiscal year without the threat of a Democrat filibuster. The Senate-passed budget resolution contains reconciliation instructions for only two committees to produce text for the final bill, focusing on funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol — a direct response to end the DHS shutdown caused by Democrats’ outrageous refusal to fund those parts of the Department of Homeland Security. While Republicans need to fund the DHS, reconciliation is a time-intensive and arduous process. Given the time crunch and the need to deliver more legislative wins, congressional Republicans can and should use the reconciliation process to do more and go on offense.

Specifically, House Republicans could go big by including policies that reform wasteful spending and eliminate fraud, delivering impressive wins for everyday Americans that reduce the cost of living.

The effort required to enact this plan might make some in D.C. bristle. It would take long nights and likely some weekends, but the American people would finally see and feel the tangible effects of federal policy on kitchen-table issues, just like how people filing their taxes this year got a boost from the Working Families Tax Cut signed into law last year, using the same reconciliation process.

Voters expect more than business as usual from their elected representatives. No one wants to see their team down the field just to kick a field goal without even attempting a touchdown. That approach denies the American people the opportunity to see the full potential of policies that could be enacted if the GOP went on offense.

Enough fans will suffer through another disappointing season, remaining loyal to their losing teams. Americans are hungry for a win. If the GOP wants to be remembered for something more than last year’s highlight reel, the party should deliver more wins through budget reconciliation by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.

The moment George W. Bush showed me what true compassion looks like



Many years ago, a man approached me after church.

“I heard about you and your wife’s journey,” he said. “I know exactly what you’re going through. I know how you feel.”

What happened to the people in pain? Did their burdens lift? Did their circumstances change?

I remember being surprised. I didn’t know anyone in that city who walked a road like ours. By that point, both of my wife’s legs were gone, and we were somewhere around surgery number 75.

“Oh?” I said.

“Yeah,” he replied earnestly. “My wife broke her ankle last month.”

Of the many gifts our heavenly Father has bestowed, sarcasm didn’t make the cut, so I bit my tongue and learned to like the taste of blood. After a brief but violent collision between my brain and my mouth, I responded the way any good Southerner would.

“Bless your heart.”

Yet his words stayed with me. That word “exactly” was doing a lot of work. He didn’t ask to understand. He announced that he already did.

A broken ankle is certainly nothing to be minimized, but it is not the same as a life marked by decades of surgeries and a body that no longer has ankles. And treating those two things as the same doesn’t honor suffering. It distorts it.

RELATED: You don’t have to engage with crazy

Michael S. Schwartz/Getty Images

We do this more than we realize. Not just in church hallways, but on far larger stages.

One of the most famous moments was during the 1990s when Bill Clinton leaned in to a camera during a presidential town hall debate, softened his voice, and told a distressed audience member, “I feel your pain.”

Or, as he said it, “Ah feel your pain.”

It worked. He connected with enough people to win. But it raises questions.

What happened to the people in pain? Did their burdens lift? Did their circumstances change?

When suffering is approached with certainty rather than humility, it becomes toxic empathy. It sounds like compassion, but it satisfies the speaker and leaves the sufferer untouched. It doesn’t just fail to help; it often abandons people in the very moment they asked not to be.

Understanding is claimed. Burden is often avoided.

When someone shares their pain, he's not asking you to take over. He's inviting you in — but not to rearrange the furniture.

Too often, we grasp for words that sound right instead of doing what is right. Words are how we connect, but in moments like these, too many of them get in the way.

I never know exactly how someone else feels. But I can listen. I can pay attention. I can show up. And I can resist the urge to insert myself into something I haven’t carried. I learned that from my wife, Gracie.

A woman once started to share something painful with Gracie, then stopped and said, “My situation doesn’t compare to yours.”

Gracie didn’t let that stand.

“Don’t minimize your pain by comparing it to mine,” she said. “If you’re going to compare anything, compare this: If I’ve found God to be faithful in my journey, then hold on to that while you trust Him in yours.”

Somewhere along the way, that woman probably learned to measure her pain before she spoke of it. To decide whether it qualified. Gracie didn’t accept that. She let her know she deserved to be seen.

We tend to mishandle each other’s and our own pain. Sometimes we insert ourselves into someone else’s pain. Sometimes we talk ourselves out of our own. And in both cases, something essential gets lost.

Suffering doesn’t need a spokesperson. It needs someone willing to see and stay.

Years ago, Gracie and I waited in line to meet President George W. Bush. When our turn came, he reached out to greet me, then turned to her. He noticed her uncovered prosthetic legs below her skirt. This was long before people displayed them the way they do now, especially women.

He didn’t say anything. He met her eyes, took her hand, and held it in both of his. I watched his expression change. His eyes softened. There was a hint of moisture there. And he just stayed with her for a moment that seemed to stretch.

The most powerful man on the planet at the time didn’t insert himself into her story. He didn’t try to prove he understood it. He simply met her in it.

We see the opposite often enough. Public figures stand under bright lights and assure people that they understand. They speak quickly, confidently, sometimes even spiritually, about pain they have never carried. It sounds compassionate. It polls well and is usually offered in exchange for votes or money.

But it leaves people alone. Because the moment someone claims to fully understand another person’s pain, he has stopped listening. And when suffering becomes a platform, the work of carrying it gets left to someone else.

Respecting someone’s pain doesn’t involve saying, “I know exactly how you feel.” It starts with admitting you don’t and staying anyway.

The FBI should get a warrant before reading your messages



Conservatives have spent decades fighting government overreach. We have opposed IRS targeting of Tea Party groups, regulatory power-grabs, and agencies that treat the Bill of Rights as a suggestion. So explain this: Why are Republican leaders in Congress lining up to renew a surveillance law that lets the FBI read Americans' private communications without asking a judge? Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act expires on April 30. Intelligence agencies want an 18-month clean extension — no changes, no reforms, no warrant requirement. The intelligence community has joined former Biden administration officials in making the rounds on Capitol Hill, pressing members of Congress to fall in line.

Some of us are standing up for the Fourth Amendment by demanding, at the very least, fair votes on real civil liberties protections. Some are not, demanding that we shut up and not only reauthorize this powerful spying power, but also deny Americans a chance to see how their representatives in Congress vote on an issue that enjoys overwhelming, bipartisan support from their constituents.

Conservatives who believe January 6 defendants were treated unjustly by a politicized Department of Justice should be the first to demand a warrant requirement — because Section 702 is one of the laws that was wrongly used to go after those Americans.

Here's what a "clean" reauthorization actually means. The government collects the communications of foreign targets overseas — emails, texts, calls. That part is unobjectionable. Foreigners have no Fourth Amendment rights. The problem is what happens next. When those foreign targets communicate with Americans, those American messages get swept into the database too — hundreds of millions of them. And then the FBI can search through those communications using your name or email address — with no warrant, no judge, and no probable cause. This is the "backdoor search." This is not a hypothetical concern. In a single reporting period, the government conducted 278,000 searches that violated the rules. From 2018 to 2024, federal law required a warrant before the FBI could conduct backdoor searches in certain criminal cases. The bureau ran dozens of qualifying searches during that window. It obtained the required court order zero times.

Conservatives who believe January 6 defendants were treated unjustly by a politicized Department of Justice should be the first to demand a warrant requirement — because Section 702 is one of the laws that was wrongly used to go after those Americans.

RELATED: GOP hard-liners derail government's spying power despite pressure from Trump

cbies/Getty Images

Congress responded in 2024 by passing minor reforms that mostly codified then-current practice — RISAA — which is to say Congress put into law the same rules that had already led to significant misuse. The FBI's response was to quietly use a separate querying tool that bypassed those requirements. By March 2026, the FISA Court issued a classified opinion that found the issue spanned the entire intelligence community. And it isn’t just the FBI. We still don’t know whether the NSA analyst who searched Section 702 data for information about online dating matches kept his security clearance or job.

The fix is straightforward. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) has introduced the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act, while Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), and a bipartisan coalition have introduced the Government Surveillance Reform Act, both of which require a warrant before the FBI can access an American's private communications collected under Section 702. Conservative members blocked the clean reauthorization not to make FISA reauthorization impossible, but to create a path forward for a version that does not unjustly violate Americans’ privacy.

The argument that we must choose between national security and the warrant requirement is false. Warrants do not prevent surveillance. They require the government to convince a judge that the surveillance is justified, as the Constitution requires. Government agencies that cannot meet that standard are fishing — for you.

Universal basic income is a dangerous delusion



As artificial intelligence drives fresh excitement in the tech world, major figures such as Elon Musk are reviving an old political fantasy: universal basic income. The idea has drawn support from a strange coalition, from progressive politicians like Andrew Yang to libertarian thinkers like Charles Murray.

To its advocates, UBI is the obvious answer to a future in which machines displace human labor. But beneath the sleek language of innovation lies the same old welfare-state promise: material comfort in exchange for dependence. Its supporters speak as though it were the natural companion of progress. In reality, it threatens to rob millions of the work, structure, and purpose that give life meaning.

UBI attracts supporters for very different reasons. For Andrew Yang and others on the left, it promises relief from poverty through guaranteed cash transfers. For Charles Murray, it has represented a simpler and more streamlined alternative to the sprawling welfare state. For Elon Musk and many AI boosters, UBI solves the problem of those with too little cognitive ability to compete, left behind in an increasingly IQ-based economy.

Their motives differ, but they share a revealing assumption: that UBI is an inevitable response to progress rather than a political choice with deep moral and social consequences. In each case, the individual is treated less as a citizen with duties and aspirations than as a materialist problem to be managed.

Welfare for all

A version of UBI basically already exists in the United States. With the vast web of interlocking welfare programs offered by the state for things like disability, poverty, child care, minority status, and educational attainment, most people can find a way to qualify for assistance with food or housing. It might not provide a comfortable or desirable life, but if someone doesn’t want to work to survive in America, they often do not have to.

For many people, the state has become not a temporary backstop but a long-term provider. That arrangement may keep some households afloat, but it has not produced a flourishing class of free and self-governing citizens. It has more often produced dependence, passivity, and bureaucratic management.

The case for UBI made by many AI enthusiasts bears a familiar resemblance to the old socialist dream. Human labor may become unnecessary, they say, but machine-driven abundance will replace what is lost. Freed from drudgery, ordinary people will devote themselves to art, philosophy, travel, community, and self-cultivation. The nation will become a republic of fulfilled and creative souls, all liberated from economic necessity. It is an attractive vision. It is also the same old fantasy that material abundance can dissolve the harder facts of human nature.

The idea that AI can produce the predicted level of abundance is itself a huge, untested assumption.

Man is not a machine

AI is well-suited to handling many managerial tasks and repetitive interactions. It is far less capable in situations that require judgment, responsibility, dexterity, trust, and adaptation to messy reality. Even the systems that do work require expensive hardware, enormous energy consumption, and a dense supporting infrastructure. A country that struggles to maintain basic institutional competence should be wary of fantasies about a nearly labor-free future sustained by flawless technical systems. Before promising a world beyond work, the advocates of UBI should first show that the machinery behind that world can actually exist.

Even if one grants the premise that AI could replace most labor and generate enough abundance to meet material needs, UBI would still collide with basic truths about human nature. Men do not work merely to eat. Work gives shape to the day, imposes discipline, teaches competence, and anchors identity. People on welfare in the current system are not known for their high propensity to churn out great American novels or breathtaking sculptures. Instead, welfare recipients tend to watch television, play video games, and do drugs with their free time. Idleness, not unleashed creativity, is the fruit most often produced by removing the human need for labor.

Undoubtedly, some genuinely talented people who are trapped in unfulfilling jobs would benefit from this UBI scenario, but for the average person, it would be a disaster. For most people, even imperfect work provides something essential: structure, routine, responsibility, and a recognized place in the world.

Slaves to the tech plantation

A humanity freed from the necessity of labor would see the Pareto Principle run wild, with a small number of talented and driven people benefiting greatly as the rest fall into idleness. The mortality rate of men spikes when they retire because they lose the structure and meaning that had previously defined their lives.

UBI advocates also have a habit of addressing only the survival aspects of economic behavior while ignoring one of its most important functions — status. The status hierarchy is one of the most important aspects of how humans order our societies, and to determine our place within that hierarchy, we play status games.

Occupations can be extremely desirable for the status they confer, not just the resources they provide. A plumber may earn more than a professor, yet many people would still prefer the title and standing that come with academic life. If AI makes a base level of abundance available, people will compete over something to obtain status. Maybe artisanal, hand-manufactured items will become the new marker of status. The point is that these behaviors are hardwired into humans, and we should not expect them to disappear even if we solve the problem suddenly that they initially addressed.

AI enthusiasts rarely consider the consequences of disconnecting the entire production process from humans. Markets currently seek to maintain an equilibrium between human production and human consumption. There are artificial signals and plenty of distortion, but markets are still human-centered. If you decouple the system from human input by placing everyone on UBI, you create a closed techno-commercial feedback loop that no longer needs to be restricted by human concerns. In such a system, the citizen is no longer a participant but a dependent end user. That is not merely an economic shift. It is a transformation in the meaning of social life.

The danger grows sharper once one considers the political power UBI would concentrate in the state. The U.S. government already plays favorites, denying business loans, college scholarships, mortgage assistance, and other benefits to races, religions, or political affiliations that it finds undesirable. Every payment can become a point of pressure. Every dependency can become a tool of compliance.

It should be obvious that the state would become even more abusive if it became the only distributor of economic goods and services. Incredibly, socialists, libertarians, and techno capitalists can all make the same mistake, though it is not that surprising once you realize the underlying error. Their ideologies differ, but all are tempted by the same thin view of man as a creature defined mainly by material needs. But man is not a machine to be provisioned. We are more than just inputs and outputs; we are creatures who require meaning and purpose. That is something that a universal basic income can never give.

Pope Leo's mosque message misses the hardest truth about Islam and Christianity



Pope Leo XIV wants Christians and Muslims to focus on what unites them.

That was the clear message of his remarks last week inside a mosque in Algeria. But by highlighting common ground, the pope may be downplaying something just as important: the big and enduring differences — not to mention a long, uneasy history — that continue to shape relations between the two faiths.

Speaking at the Grand Mosque of Algiers on April 13, the pope emphasized mercy, solidarity, and what he called “concrete fraternity.” He urged believers to reject violence, warning that religion without compassion loses sight of human dignity. It was a gracious, carefully calibrated message, one that reflects decades of Catholic outreach to the Muslim world.

Real dialogue, if it is to be more than symbolic, requires more than shared language about peace and dignity. It requires clarity.

But it's only part of the story.

Relations between the papacy and Islam stretch back more than 1,300 years to the era of Pope Donus in the 7th century, when the rapid expansion of Islam transformed the Christian world. What followed was not primarily dialogue, but conflict. Muslim armies swept through formerly Christian lands in North Africa and the Middle East. Europe responded with the Crusades. Constantinople fell. Naval battles like Lepanto became defining moments of civilizational struggle. For much of history, Christianity and Islam encountered each other not in shared spaces of worship, but on opposing sides of war.

That history does not dictate the future, but ignoring it doesn’t lend clarity to the present.

The Catholic Church’s modern approach to Islam largely dates to the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. Its declaration, Nostra Aetate, marked a turning point, stating that the Church “has a high regard for the Muslims,” who worship the one, merciful God. It called for both sides to move beyond past hostilities and work together for justice and peace.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church builds on that framework. It teaches that Muslims, “together with us, adore the one, merciful God” and are included in God’s plan of salvation. That’s pretty remarkable language, especially when viewed against centuries of conflict. They reflect the Vatican’s deliberate effort to emphasize common ground and reduce religious hostility.

But they do not erase fundamental differences.

Islam rejects the Christian understanding of God as Trinity, denies the divinity of Jesus, and does not accept the central claim of salvation through the cross and resurrection. These are not minor disagreements. They go to the heart of what each religion believes about God and humanity’s relationship to Him. Any serious discussion of Christian-Muslim relations must grapple with that reality.

Previous popes have approached this tension in different ways.

Pope St. John Paul II became the first pope in history to enter a mosque when he visited the Great Mosque of Damascus on May 6, 2001 — a groundbreaking moment in interfaith relations just months before 9/11. That same year, he sparked controversy by kissing the Koran. Supporters saw it as a sign of deep respect. Critics saw it as a confusing gesture that seemed to honor a text at odds with core Christian beliefs. Either way, it highlighted the risks that come with symbolic outreach.

Pope Benedict XVI took a more cautious approach. While committed to dialogue, he stressed that it must be grounded in truth and reason, not just goodwill. He argued that peace requires honesty about differences, including disagreements over religious freedom, an issue that remains unresolved in parts of the Muslim world where Christians face legal or social restrictions.

Pope Leo’s remarks in Algeria clearly point to the Vatican’s emphasis on unity. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. In a fractured world, a call for peace and mutual respect is not only understandable, but it’s also necessary.

There is, however, a difference between emphasizing shared values and presenting an incomplete picture.

Leo spoke movingly about fraternity but said little about the theological differences that define Christianity and Islam. He called for peace but did not address the question of reciprocity — whether Christians are afforded the same freedoms in Muslim-majority countries that Muslims enjoy in the West. He highlighted what unites while leaving largely unspoken what divides.

That move may be diplomatically prudent. It may even be pastorally appropriate in a mosque setting.

But for a global audience, it risks creating the impression that the differences are smaller, or less significant, than they really are.

Real dialogue, if it is to be more than symbolic, requires more than shared language about peace and dignity. It requires clarity. It requires acknowledging that agreement on some moral principles does not erase profound disagreements about truth. And it requires confronting difficult realities, including the uneven state of religious freedom worldwide.

The Catholic Church’s own teaching reflects this balance. It calls for respect toward Muslims, rejects hatred and violence, and encourages cooperation where possible. But it also insists on the uniqueness of Christ and the truth of the gospel. Those elements are not in conflict.

The challenge is maintaining that balance in practice.

Pope Leo XIV’s visit to an Algerian mosque was a powerful symbol of goodwill. It showed a church willing to engage, to listen, and to seek peace across religious boundaries. But symbols, however compelling, are not the whole story.

If interfaith dialogue is to have real substance, it must be rooted not only in what is shared, but also in what is true — and in a clear-eyed understanding of history, theology, and the world as it is.

That is the harder message. It is also a far more necessary one.

Eric Swalwell's fall is a warning to all Christians



There’s an old saying: If they didn’t make you, they can’t break you.

But when you start living for the applause or fearing the critics, you have already lost your way. Eric Swalwell used to love the spotlight and ignore the noise, but eventually, that borrowed protection always falls apart.

Now, he’s standing there on his own, having to answer for it all. People don’t just wake up and decide to ruin their lives. It happens through tiny, bad choices that feel like no big deal at the time — mostly because nothing seems to go wrong immediately.

Judas didn’t just end up where he did by accident. It started with small compromises he thought he could handle.

If you think you’re above a fall like this, you’re already kidding yourself. This isn’t just about one man’s mistake; it’s a pattern. These things build up long before anyone sees them. By the time the truth comes out, the damage is already done.

We live in a world that loves the idea of "my truth" or "your truth," but reality isn’t that flexible. The truth doesn’t care if you’re ready for it; it just is. When it hits, everything changes. The room gets quiet, confidence turns into defensiveness, and things start to unravel fast.

Most people see this happen and think one of two things: “That’s what you get for living that way” or “I’m just glad I’m not that guy.”

Both of those look like safe responses, but they aren’t. Those thoughts show up quietly, sounding like common sense or discernment rather than pride. That’s why we trust them. But if we think this is only about someone else, we’ve missed the point. It’s easy to judge and say he deserved it, but the Bible warns us not to celebrate when an enemy falls — not just to be polite, but because it reveals our own hearts. Wanting justice for him while expecting mercy for ourselves is exactly what keeps us from seeing our own need to make things right.

RELATED: Democrats' 'Sergeant Schultz strategy' on Chavez and Swalwell

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc./Getty Images

This isn’t just something to gossip about; it’s a warning. Judas didn’t just end up where he did by accident. It started with small compromises he thought he could handle. That’s the big lie: that you can manage guilt without it costing you anything.

I’ve seen crowds scream the lyrics to AC/DC’s “Highway to Hell” like the whole idea is just a joke. The music feels good, and the moment hides the reality. Until it doesn’t.

Eventually, the music stops, and the voices fade. There comes a moment when you can’t shout over the truth any more. The Bible shows us that when that first happened, no one needed an explanation.

They knew. They tried to hide. Nothing has really changed since then. When that moment comes for us, there won't be any point in comparing ourselves to others. We’ll just stand there as we are — covered, or not.

There’s no spin and no audience to back you up. If we’re just relying on our own efforts, we’re completely exposed. But there is hope: Jesus Christ.

He doesn’t argue that we are innocent. Instead, He invites us to turn around and trust Him. He gives us His own goodness to stand in. There really isn’t a middle ground.

Uncle Sam wants YOU — to obey immigration laws



Economist Thomas Sowell once noted, “Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them.” The story of U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Matthew Blank and his illegal alien wife, Annie Ramos, is a perfect example of Sowell’s assertion.

According to CBS News, Ramos — who is now 22 — was illegally brought to the United States by her family in 2005. Staff Sergeant Blank married Ramos, knowing full well that she was an illegal alien. He stated to the New York Times, “I knew she didn’t have status. [But] we were doing everything the right way.” Ramos was eventually arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a few days after the couple was married, at the military base where Blank was stationed.

If litigants are free to ignore court appearances without consequences, the whole system falls apart.

Of course, despite Blank’s assertions to the contrary, nothing was done “the right way” in this case. After entering the United States unlawfully, the Ramos family was scheduled for an appearance before the U.S. Immigration Court. They failed to appear. When a respondent in immigration proceedings defaults, the immigration judge is required pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) to enter an in absentia order of removal. This is clearly conveyed to all illegal aliens placed in immigration proceedings, both verbally by the immigration officers handling their cases and in all written notices issued by the court.

In absentia removal notices may seem harsh to the casual observer, but they are not. Courts engage in serious business. And running legal tribunals costs taxpayers a significant amount of money. If litigants are free to ignore court appearances without consequences, the whole system falls apart. Accordingly, courts expect litigants to appear for scheduled hearings, on time, every time. That is why every court in the United States imposes penalties, ranging from monetary fines to additional criminal charges and extended sentences, when litigants fail to appear.

Moreover, the above-mentioned statute governing in absentia removal orders provides an “out” for individuals who missed their hearings due to exigent circumstances. It specifically states that such an order may be rescinded “upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of the order of removal if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances” or “upon a motion to reopen filed at any time if the alien demonstrates that the alien did not receive notice” of the hearing.

There is no indication that Ms. Ramos or her family ever made any attempt to reopen immigration proceedings and seek rescission of the order of removal entered against them. That is likely because the Ramos clan was fully aware they were likely to be deported. Contrary to popular opinion, the vast majority of illegal aliens do not qualify for any form of relief from removal, with 79% to 80% being either ordered removed or granted voluntary departure. Instead, Ms. Ramos waited approximately 15 years and applied for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Obama administration’s ill-fated attempt to impose an immigration amnesty by executive fiat.

And what of Staff Sergeant Blank’s status as a member of America’s armed forces? In 2022, the Biden administration unilaterally and arbitrarily directed the Department of Homeland Security “to generally refrain from seeking the deportation of U.S. military veterans or service members and their immediate family members.” Of course, that policy was unlawful. Neither the Uniform Code of Military Justice (the statute governing the actions of members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Space Force) nor the Immigration and Nationality Act has any provisions exempting either service members, or their families, from the laws governing the admission of foreign nationals into the United States. And only Congress has the authority to enact such exemptions, which it has never done.

Accordingly, the Trump administration rescinded team Biden’s illegal policy. It began applying the provisions of the INA to service members in the same manner as to everyone else. This is as it should be. Pro forma leniency toward alien immigration violators merely because they are related to a military member is bad policy. It makes our service members targets for foreign intelligence agents. And the presence of illegal aliens on military installations undermines the security of those facilities.

Recently, Annie Ramos was released from immigration detention. It remains to see how ICE will proceed with her case. But both our political leaders and the generals in charge of our armed forces should tread carefully. Every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, and guardian commences his or her military career by taking an oath that begins, “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true allegiance to the same.” If military service becomes a free pass to violate the very laws that preserve our national sovereignty, then service members are not bearing true faith and allegiance to our Constitution — they are claiming to be exempt from it.

Want to live to 100? Don’t expect Big Pharma to help.



A few years ago, surgeries and medications helped heal my broken body after a terrible accident. I was grateful for the modern medical system’s capabilities as eight broken ribs, a clavicle that was in five pieces, and a collapsed lung were treated and healed. What would have been miracles of biblical proportions 50 years ago were a process that allowed me to go back to work within months.

The pharmaceutical drugs that got my body on the road to healing were a big part of that success. As a chiropractor with almost two decades in the field, I have seen medications, drugs, and related treatments do wonders, especially after an accident, surgery, birth, or some other significant medical event. But I have also seen the true cost of Big Pharma’s greed, as many patients come to me with years of problems that have been patched over by marketing posing as pharmaceutical solutions.

Big Pharma’s solution is to 'fix' the problem with even more drugs.

Take the push to prescribe GLP-1s to kids as young as 13 — who are then told they should be taking these weight-loss drugs for life. Why bother with exercise and healthy diets when you can just take Wegovy every month indefinitely? For pharmaceutical shareholders, that must look like a great business model. To anyone who cares about the health of the nation, it’s a scandal.

My wife and I founded our chiropractic practice on the principles of Eric Plasker’s 100-year lifestyle philosophy. We quickly learned that living a good life for more than a century is almost impossible when you are overmedicated, sedentary, miserable, and addicted to taking the “cures” peddled to so many Americans.

RELATED: 'Hold Big Pharma accountable': Vaxx giants are sure to be nervous about Rand Paul's new bill

Liudmila Chernetska/Getty Images

I see the problems caused by modern lifestyles every day at my practice. Patients come to me with aches and pains, over-inflamed by the food they eat, the drugs they take, lack of movement, and mental overload. I treat the body as one connected system led by the nervous system, using chiropractic adjustments to restore brain-body communication so that pain eases and overall health improves.

I tell patients that where possible, prevention is always better than a cure. There are also changes we can all make that will keep us healthier for longer. Focusing on eating right and leading an active lifestyle will help to keep the medications at bay.

If you’re suffering from a major illness or recovering from a severe accident, you should use the very best medicines our society offers. However, too many people rely on drugs as a be-all, end-all solution to their problems, turning to them for minor illnesses, for non-severe pain, and as a substitute for exercise, eating healthily, and taking a positive mental outlook on life.

As a society, we have forgotten how to listen to our bodies. We have replaced movement with sitting and staring at screens, filling our bodies with high-sugar, overprocessed food, substituting real social connections with electronic friends, and letting stress rule our lives. Our bodies are at maximum toxic overload. And we wonder why we don’t feel good and are labeled the sickest nation in the world.

Standard medical thinking is that a drug can “fix” the problem with the body. However, the drugs often have a two-part negative impact: they mask the messages that our body is trying to tell us and create unwanted side effects.

Of course, Big Pharma’s solution is to “fix” the problem with even more drugs. The cycle is endless.

Today, Americans pay roughly three times more for medicines than people in any other country, accounting for about three-quarters of the pharmaceutical sector’s profits. Sure, modern medicine can work miracles. But the sheer expense is often unmanageable for too many families, forcing them into financial difficulties or making choices between food and medicine.

Instead of spending years patching themselves up and paying for overpriced drugs, my patients watch their bodies follow their natural healing processes. We’d all like to live to 100, but no pill or jab will help you reach that milestone. True health and longevity can only be achieved when we say no to Big Pharma and take control of our own health.

The founders demanded the Bill of Rights. AI also needs one.



In September 1787, the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia came to a close. Delegates had spent months debating and negotiating the structure for a new American government. When the final document was presented for signatures, most of the delegates agreed to support it. But one of the most influential figures in the room refused.

George Mason of Virginia would not sign the Constitution.

Mason’s refusal did not stem from radical opposition to the new proposed government. In fact, he played a major role in shaping America’s early political philosophy. Yet when the convention concluded, Mason believed something essential was missing. The proposed Constitution created a powerful federal government, but it contained no explicit protections for individual liberty. Without a Bill of Rights, Mason warned, citizens would have little protection against abuses of power.

If artificial intelligence is going to help shape the future of our society in profound ways, should it not also be built to respect the same freedoms that Americans have fought for since the founding of the republic?

History ultimately proved his concerns justified. Mason’s refusal helped spark the debate that led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights a few years later. His message was simple. When a new, powerful institution is created, the protection of liberty cannot be an afterthought.

A new power is emerging

More than two centuries later, we find the United States again standing at the edge of a transformative moment. Today, the institution taking shape is artificial intelligence. And this institution may end up being just as consequential to society as the shaping of the country in the late eighteenth century.

The most advanced AI systems are already beginning to shape our culture and how people access information, businesses make decisions, institutions function, and public discourse unfolds. These systems are being integrated into everything from banking and education to media and health care. In many cases, AI models act as intermediaries between humans and the world of information around them.

This development carries enormous promise. Artificial intelligence could accelerate medical research, improve productivity, and unlock scientific discoveries that once seemed impossible.

At the same time, the growing influence of AI raises an important question. What values will guide the systems that increasingly shape our society?

AI is not neutral by default. Every model reflects decisions made by its designers. The data used to train it, the rules used to filter its responses, and the priorities embedded in its algorithms all influence how it interacts with users. Beyond just answering questions and responding to prompts, these systems influence what information people encounter and how issues are understood.

In other words, the institutions building AI today are quietly creating the informational infrastructure of the future.

Where are the safeguards for freedom?

George Mason understood that powerful institutions require clear limits. His concern centered on ensuring that a strong central government would respect the rights of the people it serves.

Artificial intelligence deserves the same scrutiny.

Recent controversies surrounding AI tools have revealed how easily political or ideological assumptions can shape technological systems. A growing body of studies has found that many leading AI models tend to reflect left-leaning political assumptions in their outputs, raising concerns about viewpoint bias. Major AI platforms have faced backlash for producing historically inaccurate outputs to satisfy modern ideological expectations, as seen in widely publicized image-generation failures.

Social media platforms, powered by similar AI-driven algorithms, already curate what users see, amplifying certain viewpoints while quietly burying others. Even leaders within the AI industry have acknowledged the risk that these systems could influence public discourse in ways that are difficult for users to detect.

More egregious examples can be seen with Chinese AI models, such as DeepSeek, which have been shown to avoid or redirect discussion on topics that conflict with official government positions, reflecting the priorities of the state rather than the pursuit of truth.

Taken together, these examples demonstrate how AI can be shaped to filter reality itself, whether by governments, corporations, or the assumptions embedded by developers.

These examples illustrate a basic reality. Artificial intelligence can either serve as a tool for expanding human freedom or as an instrument for shaping and controlling public discourse and, by extension, society. The outcome will depend on the values embedded in these systems today.

A meaningful step forward would be the adoption of clear, principled guidelines for building and deploying these systems. At minimum, AI development should prioritize truth-seeking over narrative-shaping, ensuring that systems are designed to inform rather than steer users toward predetermined conclusions.

Developers should also commit to transparency in training data sources, so the public has a clearer understanding of what informs these models.

Just as important, developers should resist coercion from governments or corporations seeking to suppress lawful speech or manipulate outcomes. They should reject internal policies that seek to bury dissenting views under the vague banner of “safety,” a term that too often masks subjective judgment.

These principles may not solve every problem, but they would begin to align AI with the values of a free society.

George Mason’s warning for the AI age

George Mason refused to sign the Constitution because he believed liberty needed stronger protection before a new federal government was enacted. His insistence on a Bill of Rights helped ensure that the American experiment would endure longer by providing explicit protections for individual freedom.

The United States now faces a similar moment as artificial intelligence becomes woven into the fabric of modern life. AI will influence how people learn, communicate, and understand the world. The values guiding these systems will shape society in ways that are difficult to predict.

Before this technological infrastructure becomes fully embedded in our daily lives, it is worth asking a question that George Mason would likely recognize.

If artificial intelligence is going to help shape the future of our society in profound ways, should it not also be built to respect the same freedoms that Americans have fought for since the founding of the republic?

The founders believed liberty required clear protections before a new, powerful structure was fully unleashed. As we enter the age of artificial intelligence, their lesson remains as relevant as ever.

Victor Glover reminded us what an American is



With the Artemis II crew returning safely to Earth, Americans will celebrate the technological achievement. We should. Sending human beings beyond low Earth orbit and around the moon again is no small feat. It represents decades of engineering, discipline, and courage.

But one astronaut in particular offers more than a technological triumph. He offers a picture of American excellence.

Victor Glover did not arrive at that moment by accident.

What he did required a different kind of courage: not the physical courage of launch and re-entry, but moral courage.

He is not a symbol manufactured by a press office. He is not the product of a diversity initiative and a woke Marxist education. He is the result of something much older and much more demanding: hard work, discipline, intelligence, perseverance, and grit.

Glover trained as an engineer. That alone requires precision, patience, and a mind trained to see reality clearly. He then became a naval aviator and test pilot, both fields where failure is not theoretical. In that world, mistakes are measured in lives, not opinions. Thousands of flight hours, high-stakes missions, constant evaluation.

And still that was not the end.

In 2013, he was selected by NASA. But selection is not arrival. It took years, seven long years, before he would fly his first mission. Many would have grown restless. Many would have settled. Glover did not.

In 2020, he flew on SpaceX Crew-1 and spent six months aboard the International Space Station. Six months of isolation, pressure, and relentless responsibility. That mission alone would define a career for most. For Glover, it was preparation.

Because what defines him is not a single accomplishment, but a pattern: He does not quit.

In a culture obsessed with shortcuts, Glover represents something rare: grit. The kind of grit that shows up quietly, day after day, without applause. The kind that builds a character capable of flying beyond Earth and returning safely.

Naturally, in our current climate, that kind of excellence cannot simply be recognized for what it is. It must be reframed.

Glover is frequently asked about being “the first black astronaut” to achieve various milestones. But here again, he distinguishes himself. He refuses to reduce his work to categories imposed by modern DEI ideology. Instead, he consistently redirects the conversation to what unites us.

RELATED: NASA's Victor Glover shares gospel as he circles dark side of the moon: 'Love God with all that you are'

Danielle Villasana/Getty Images

Humanity. Shared purpose. The wonder of exploration. That refusal pushes back, calmly and intelligently, against the narrowing of human achievement into demographic boxes. Glover does not deny history, but he does refuse to let it define the meaning of his work. And then there is something even more striking. He brings it all back to Christ.

At a moment when humanity once again turns its attention to the moon, when millions listen, watch, and wait, Glover did something that many in his position would avoid: He spoke openly about his faith.

Before losing radio contact on the far side of the moon, Glover quoted Jesus’ command to love God. In doing so, he joined a small but remarkable tradition of astronauts who understood that the greatest realities are not technological but theological.

It is impossible to hear that moment without recalling Apollo 8.

As that crew orbited the moon for the first time in 1968, one of the astronauts, Frank Borman, read from Genesis:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

That reading was broadcast to the entire world. It remains one of the most watched moments in human history. But it also sparked controversy. The reaction was swift. Legal pressure followed. And by the time Apollo 11 reached the moon, the environment had changed.

Buzz Aldrin, a Presbyterian elder, still took the Lord’s Supper, but he did so privately, inside the lunar module, before stepping onto the surface of the moon. His church had provided the elements. He didn’t bring public attention to it like Borman. It was not broadcast.

That contrast tells a story. The early openness to public expressions of faith gave way to pressure to keep religion quiet, especially in scientific contexts.

Victor Glover must have known that history. He knew the unspoken rule: faith belongs in private. And he rejected it.

What he did required a different kind of courage: not the physical courage of launch and re-entry, but moral courage. This is the courage to clearly speak the gospel when silence would be easier and the courage to affirm what is true about Jesus when others prefer ambiguity.

He did not rant. He did not posture. He simply spoke from his heart about his faith. He quoted the Bible. And in doing so, he reached millions.

That clarifies something many have forgotten: Science and faith are not enemies. The attempt to separate them, to exile God from the public square — from education, from exploration — is not neutrality. It is a philosophical choice to show bigotry toward Christians.

And it is one Glover quietly refused to accept. This is where his example extends beyond a single mission. Victor Glover represents a distinctly American synthesis: A man who works hard, who masters his craft, who pushes exploration to its limits.