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.

God’s justice doesn’t sleep — and the Supreme Court just proved it



In a landmark 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on so-called gender-affirming care for minors. Wednesday’s ruling in United States v. Skrmetti affirms the state’s authority to protect children from irreversible medical interventions, declaring that such laws do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 prohibits medical providers from prescribing puberty blockers, administering cross-sex hormones, or performing surgeries on minors for the purpose of treating gender dysphoria. With this ruling, the court established a powerful precedent, strengthening similar laws in more than two dozen states and shielding them from federal interference.

The Supreme Court now affirms what parents, pastors, and pediatricians have known for years: Children deserve protection — not ideological exploitation.

This is more than a legal or political victory. It’s a profoundly spiritual one.

Judgment in Pride Month

The timing of the court’s decision — handed down in the middle of Pride Month — is impossible to ignore. For years, the month of June has been co-opted to celebrate sexual perversion and radical gender ideology. Parades, corporate campaigns, and cultural rituals now elevate confusion and self-expression above truth and morality.

But God’s timing often intersects with the idols of a wayward culture.

Just as He once shattered the authority of Egypt’s gods through plagues and humiliated the pagan deities of Canaan through Israel’s victories, He now confronts the false gods of modern America. The gods of Pride Month have names: self-worship, mutilation, and moral relativism.

This ruling, like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization before it, arrived in a season when the world celebrates rebellion. But God never abdicates. He acts — often decisively.

The right to protect children

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in concurrence, emphasized the state’s legitimate interest in protecting children from unproven and dangerous procedures. “States could reasonably conclude,” he wrote, “that the level of young children's cognitive and emotional development inhibits their ability to consent to sex-transition treatments.”

Thomas reminded the nation that legislatures — not courts — are charged with protecting the vulnerable. The Constitution allows states to say no to radical experiments on children. That’s common sense. That’s moral responsibility.

RELATED: Matt Walsh’s crusade pays off: SCOTUS protects Tennessee kids from gender mutilation

  Photo by Jason Davis/Getty Images for The Daily Wire

The court’s ruling also reinforces policies advanced by the Trump administration, which has taken steps to push back against transgender mandates. The court now affirms what parents, pastors, and pediatricians have known for years: Children deserve protection — not ideological exploitation.

‘The least of these’

At its core, this decision defends “the least of these" (Matthew 25:40). In Matthew 10:42, Jesus declares, “And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones ... truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”

Advocates of transgender medicine call their approach “compassionate.” But compassion doesn’t mutilate. It doesn’t sterilize. It doesn’t tell children they were born in the wrong body.

Real compassion tells children the truth: They are fearfully and wonderfully made. God knit them together in their mother’s wombs (Psalm 139:13-14). He doesn’t make mistakes.

The lie that “God got your body wrong” devastates young minds. Puberty blockers, double mastectomies, and genital surgeries don’t bring peace. They usher in trauma, regret, and permanent damage.

By upholding these bans, the Supreme Court gives children the gift of time — time to grow, to mature, and to embrace their God-given identities without the pressure of irreversible decisions.

Tear down the idols

Now comes the charge to the church. This moment demands courage.

American culture has erected new high places. Gender ideology sits at the top. It demands worship, conformity, and silence. But like King Josiah, who tore down the altars of Baal, or Gideon, who smashed the Asherah poles, Christians must act.

Now is not the time for retreat. Now is not the time for timidity. The culture may roar, but the God of heaven still rules.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reminds believers that God still moves. He has not abandoned America. He still defends the innocent. He still topples idols.

Faithfulness bears fruit

Galatians 6:9 tells us not to grow weary in doing good. This ruling is the harvest of those who prayed, labored, and stood firm when the world called them hateful. Their perseverance bore fruit — in law, in policy, and in culture.

Let this be a turning point.

Let this be the moment when the nation remembers who created it. Let this be the moment when the church reclaims its voice. Let this be the moment when truth reasserts itself — and children are protected from those who would harm them in the name of progress.

America is not forsaken. God is still at work, and His purposes will prevail.

Trump’s truth about ‘due process’ has the left melting down



Tuesday’s congressional testimony from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem turned heads for all the wrong reasons. Pressed to define “habeas corpus,” she stumbled. And while I respect Noem, this moment revealed just how dangerously misunderstood one of our most vital legal protections has become — especially as it’s weaponized in the immigration debate.

Habeas corpus is not a loophole. It’s a shield. It’s the constitutional protection that prevents a government from detaining a person — any person — without first justifying the detention before a neutral judge. It doesn’t guarantee freedom. It demands due process. Prove it or release them.

Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.

And yet, this doctrine — so essential to our liberty — is now being twisted by the political left into something it was never meant to be: a free pass for illegal immigration.

The left wants to frame this as a matter of compassion and rights. Leftists ask: “What about habeas corpus for migrants?” The implication is clear: They see any attempt to enforce immigration law as an attack on civil liberties.

But that’s a lie. Habeas corpus is not an excuse for indefinite presence. It doesn’t guarantee that every person who crosses the border gets to stay. It simply requires that we follow a process — a just process.

And that’s exactly what President Donald Trump has proposed.

Habeas corpus, rightly understood

Habeas corpus is the front door to the courtroom. It simply requires the government to justify why someone is being held or detained. It’s not about citizenship. It’s about human dignity.

America’s founders knew this — and that’s why they extended the right to persons, not just citizens. Habeas corpus isn’t a pass to stay in America forever — it’s a demand for legal clarity: “Why are you holding me?” That’s it.

If the government has a lawful reason — such as illegal entry — then deportation is a legitimate outcome. And yet, the left treats any enforcement of immigration law as a betrayal of American ideals.

The danger today isn’t that habeas corpus is being ignored; it’s that it’s being hijacked. The system is being overwhelmed with bad-faith cases, endless appeals, and delays that stretch for years. Right now, the immigration courts are buried under 3.3 million pending cases. The average wait time to have your case heard is four years. In some places, people are being scheduled for court dates as far out in 2032. Where is the justice in that?

This is not compassion. This is national sabotage.

Weaponizing due process

The left uses this legal bottleneck as a weapon, not a shield. Democrats invoke due process as if it requires the government to play a never-ending shell game with public safety. But that’s not what due process means. Due process means the state must play by the rules. It means a judge hears a case. It means the law is applied justly and equally. It does not mean an open border by procedural default.

So no, Trump is not proposing the end of habeas corpus. He’s calling out a broken system and saying, out loud, what millions of Americans already know: If we don’t fix this, we don’t have a country.

This crisis wasn’t an accident — it was engineered. It’s a Cloward-Piven playbook, designed to overwhelm the system. Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.

Abandon the Constitution?

Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. But how do we balance the Constitution and our national survival without descending into authoritarianism? Abandon the Constitution? No. Burn the house down to get rid of the rats? Absolutely not. The Constitution itself gives us the tools to take on this crisis head on.

The federal government has clear authority over immigration. Illegal presence in the United States is not a protected right. Congress has the power to deny entry, enforce expedited removals, and reject bogus asylum claims. Much of this is already authorized by law — it’s simply not being used.

RELATED: Trump shrugs at immigration law — here’s what he should have said

  Photo by: Rodrigo Varela/NBC via Getty Images

President Trump’s idea is simple: Use the tools we already have. Declare the southern border a national security emergency. Establish temporary military tribunals for triage. Process asylum claims swiftly outside the clogged court system. Restore “Remain in Mexico” so that the border is no longer a remote court room. Appoint more immigration judges, assign them to high-volume areas, and hold streamlined hearings that still respect due process.

That’s not authoritarian. That’s leadership.

The path forward

Trump is not trying to destroy habeas corpus. He’s trying to save it from being twisted into a self-destructive parody of itself. Leftists have turned due process into delay, justice into gridlock, and they’re dragging the entire country into their chaos.

It’s time to draw the line. Protect habeas corpus. Use it lawfully. Use it wisely. And yes — use it to restore order at the border. Because if we lose that firewall, we lose the republic.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

The courts side with drag queens over parents ... again



To this day, courts insist you have no right to bodily autonomy when it comes to coerced vaccination and forced masking. They cite the “police powers” of the state as justification. But when the state uses those same powers to regulate public nudity or sexually explicit drag shows in front of children, suddenly the judiciary rediscovers the First Amendment.

In 2023, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed SB 1438, a commonsense law that barred businesses from knowingly admitting children to “adult live performances.” The law defined such performances as any show that “depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or specific sexual activities ... [such as] lewd conduct, or the lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts.” Sounds reasonable.

Republicans made a strategic blunder by conceding to the myth that judges serve as final arbiters of public policy.

Yet last week, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2 to 1 that the law violated the First and 14th Amendments.

Even before getting to the legal merits, the scope of the ruling itself highlights the absurdity of universal injunctions against laws passed through the democratic process. The plaintiff, Hamburger Mary’s — a restaurant that occasionally hosted drag shows — wasn’t under investigation or facing prosecution. Still, the court granted standing to pre-emptively strike down the entire law.

Everyone agrees the state has the authority to regulate such matters. The court’s objection? Some of the law’s terms might be too vague and could potentially affect protected speech.

Even if the court’s argument on vagueness held water, it still lacked the authority to block the entire statute. Courts may grant relief only in specific cases where enforcement clearly exceeds constitutional limits. Judges do not have the power to veto legislation — especially when most of it falls well within a state’s lawful regulatory authority.

On the merits, the claim that terms like “lewd conduct” are unconstitutionally vague is nonsense. Legislators have used this language for centuries, and it has held up in court. The 11th Circuit should have overturned the district court’s injunction. But in 2023, only Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch voted to stay it.

RELATED: How Trump can dismantle the imperial judiciary once and for all

  Photodisc via iStock/Getty Images

Let’s be honest: Americans used to enjoy far more freedom and a more faithful interpretation of the First Amendment — yet still lived under far stricter laws governing public indecency. Many of those laws remain on the books. The federal government itself once enforced the Comstock Act of 1873, which banned the mailing of “obscene,” “lewd,” or “lascivious” materials — including sex education. That law could be called vague, too, but the courts upheld it for decades.

As for the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, the idea that protecting children from lewd public displays somehow undermines civil rights would have stunned the amendment’s authors. James F. Wilson, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and architect of both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, made the intent clear. “We are establishing no new right, declaring no new principle,” he said. “It is not the object of this bill to establish new rights, but to protect and enforce those which already belong to every citizen.”

Someone should have warned Wilson that his push to secure property rights for freed slaves would one day be twisted into a supposed constitutional right to expose minors to nudity.

Beyond the absurdity of the 11th Circuit’s ruling, the larger issue lies in the unchecked power courts now claim over legislation. The Florida case highlights a troubling truth: The Supreme Court lacks a reliable five-vote majority willing to overturn lower court decisions that undermine state authority. Just last week, all three Trump-appointed justices joined a ruling that reversed a sound Fifth Circuit decision limiting the removal of criminal aliens under the Alien Enemies Act.

We must now confront the deeper problem: Courts no longer merely interpret law — they nullify it. Florida’s experience shows that even with supermajority Republican control, conservative laws will not survive unless we challenge the false doctrine of judicial supremacy. The courts have become a roadblock, not a referee.

Republicans made a strategic blunder by conceding to the myth that judges serve as final arbiters of public policy. They promised their base that stacking the courts would be enough. It wasn’t. Instead of reforming the system, they legitimized it — and now they pay the price.

That price includes a legal regime where exposing children to sexually explicit performances passes as a constitutional right.

Unless lawmakers begin pushing back against the judiciary’s overreach, even the most modest conservative reforms will continue to fall — along with every last parental right and public standard along the way.

Memo to Democrats: ‘Oversight’ isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card



Democrats and their media allies now argue that members of Congress hold a newly invented constitutional right to storm U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. Their claim? Elected office grants them authority to resist arrest, trespass on federal property, and even assault law enforcement — all in the name of “oversight.”

This claim fails both legally and morally. The members involved should face prosecution for any crimes they committed, along with disciplinary action in the House of Representatives. For too long, the political class has treated immigration enforcement as a mere policy disagreement — as if wanting laws enforced and wanting them ignored were morally equivalent. In doing so, the left has normalized the historically abnormal: mass illegal immigration and the sabotage of our deportation systems. It’s time to treat these actions for what they are — criminal subversion of U.S. law.

No one gets to use 'oversight' as a pretext for criminal behavior.

Start with what happened last week in Newark, New Jersey. The instigators included New Jersey Democratic Reps. LaMonica McIver, Bonnie Watson Coleman, and Rob Menendez Jr., along with Newark Mayor Ras Baraka. Baraka was arrested for trespassing and defying multiple warnings to leave the premises. According to Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, body camera footage shows “members of Congress assaulting our ICE enforcement officers, including body-slamming a female ICE officer.” DHS plans to release the video soon.

The Democrats have mounted two defenses. First, they claim victimhood — insisting they broke no laws. That argument will not survive video evidence.

Second, they assert an absolute right to enter ICE facilities without warning under their oversight authority. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, defended the stunt by denouncing ICE as “Trump’s stormtroopers” and promising “more oversight — and more unannounced visits.”

Thompson and others cite an appropriations law that says, “Nothing in this section may be construed to require a Member of Congress to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility ... for the purpose of conducting oversight.”

That phrase — “conducting oversight” — is the entire ballgame.

The fact is, oversight powers do not belong to individual members of Congress. They belong to the full House, delegated through formal committees led by majority-party chairmen. Minority members cannot issue subpoenas or demand access on their own. Without authorization from Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.), the Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee had no legal basis to enter — let alone rush — a secure ICE facility.

ICE’s past policy of accommodating visits reflects executive discretion, not any congressional right. No one gets to use “oversight” as a pretext for criminal behavior. Even with proper authorization, no member of Congress holds the right to use force to conduct an inspection. This is a political argument masquerading as a legal one.

U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba has indicated she will proceed with prosecution. Her decision should rest solely on the facts — not the convenient legal fiction of “oversight amnesty.” As Bennie Thompson himself once said when chairing the January 6 select committee, “No one is above the law.”

Congress should not let this incident pass without consequences. While expulsion may prove unlikely due to the two-thirds vote requirement, the House can and should remove these members from their committee assignments. Rep. McIver currently sits on the Homeland Security Committee, where Secretary Kristi Noem is scheduled to testify this week. Let her watch from the hallway.

Iowa is poised to be first in the nation — again!



My little state of Iowa has played a pivotal role in shaping national politics for decades. It began in 1976 with the Iowa caucuses, where many viewed Ronald Reagan as a washed-up politician. Yet, the former California governor challenged a sitting president in the state’s first-ever caucus, setting off political reverberations that reshaped the Republican Party and American politics.

That same year, a little-known Georgia governor, Jimmy Carter, pulled off a major upset in Iowa, launching his path to the presidency. Decades later, Barack Obama’s road to the White House likely would have ended if he hadn’t defeated Hillary Clinton in the Hawkeye State. Iowa also made history by becoming the first state to remove three Supreme Court justices in a retention election, rejecting their ruling on same-sex marriage and striking a blow against the canard of judicial supremacy.

The gloves are off, and lawmakers are being reminded that what may have been a safe election in the past might not stay that way in the future.

Now, with fewer than four million residents, Iowa again has a chance to shift the nation’s political direction. This week, the Iowa Legislature is poised to make it the first state to strip gender identity protections from its civil rights code. And you can bet if this happens in Iowa, the impact will extend far beyond our borders, shaping the national political debate for years to come.

“It’s pretty simple,” said Chuck Hurley, vice president and chief legal counsel for the Family Leader family policy center. “A male is a man, a female is a woman. Gender identity, which was put into the Iowa Civil Rights Code in 2007, 18 years ago, has been a pathetic mistake. It’s allowed men into women’s spaces. It’s forced taxpayers to spend several million dollars on mutilating healthy body parts of people.”

So in a state where Democrats are vastly outnumbered and with President Donald Trump providing more cover than ever before on this issue by slaying Maine’s governor for her trans madness in broad daylight last week, why worry? Well, for the same reason as always: feckless Republicans.

“We already had two Republicans who have gone on the record in opposition to the bill,” said Josiah Oleson, the Family Leader’s elections director. “What’s interesting is you would expect that those Republicans would come from a weak suburban seat that is going to be a tough re-election. But the two who have actually bailed both come from pretty Republican seats that voted for Trump by heavy margins this last fall.”

“So you’re left with the option that they might actually believe this ideology, which is just ridiculous,” Oleson continued. “One of the legislators in the statement he put out in opposition to the bill said that he was afraid that if we didn't allow people to put their preferred gender on their birth certificate, that it might be a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.”

Imagine the reaction if someone had made this argument about gender just a few decades ago — let alone in the 19th century. Anyone pushing such a position now should resign from the legislature out of shame.

Fortunately for supporters of the bill, Hurley and Oleson believe there aren’t enough opponents to block its passage. But they also know how quickly fear can spread, so they’re taking no chances. The gloves are off, and lawmakers are being reminded that what may have been a safe election in the past might not stay that way in the future.

“Looking at the legislators we're concerned about, all but one or two of them didn't even have a primary opponent when they ran this last time,” Oleson said. “But we’re talking about a fundamental issue here that if we can’t agree that a man is a man and a woman is a woman in the conservative movement, then what are we even doing here?”

Hurley added that in his 35 years fighting for legislation at the Iowa State Capitol, one of the biggest problems Republicans have always had is "the people who run for office just because they want to be liked and they get in there and they realize, ‘Uh-oh, we’ve got a very polarized culture. Not everybody likes me anymore.’”

Do they really not understand that calling themselves Republicans won’t win them votes from the transgender mob? Well, let’s make darn sure this time we make them understand. While I’d like to believe strong arguments alone could accomplish that, my experience in broadcasting has shown me that sunlight is the best medicine for the nicer-than-God Republican when he is about to do something really stupid.

Every Iowan should take note of which legislators refuse to act in the wake of the recent federal election landslide. Voters in states like Arizona, Alabama, and South Carolina will be watching to see how Iowa leads with unapologetic clarity and conviction.

As I said before, Iowa has long set national trends, for better or worse. But now, as we debate fundamental issues of reality and decency, we cannot afford to falter. Iowa must lead.

Parental rights activist sounds alarm about in-school clinics that medicalize kids without parents' knowledge



Dozens of public schools across Maine have opened in-school HealthReach Community Health Centers that offer students birth control, vaccines, mental health care, and possibly sex-change drugs.

Some parents have taken issue with the federally funded medicalization of their children's schools, especially since Maine law allows clinics to administer certain drugs and services to kids without parental consent — an opportunity that has already been exploited.

HealthReach assistant director of operations Diandra Staples admitted in October that just last year, seven out of 181 students kept their parents in the dark about services rendered at the clinics, reported WGME-TV. "They'll probably remain confidential for their safety or because they may not have support at home," said Staples.

Alvin Lui, president of the parental rights advocacy group Courage Is a Habit, is sounding the alarm that following months of controversy and debate, a Maine school board "snuck" in a vote for Dec. 5 to install one such federally qualified health center in its district.

"They have to submit their agenda within 5 business days. They waited until Thanksgiving Eve hoping no one would be paying attention through the Thanksgiving holiday weekend," Lui told Blaze News. "If by chance a few parents realize it Tuesday or Wednesday, it would be too late to alert the community. That is what this MSAD 11 school board was counting on."

The "possible approval to host a Health Clinic at Gardiner Area High School in the 2025-2026 school year" is on the agenda for the Maine School Administrative District No. 11 board's Thursday meeting, where Staples is scheduled to give a presentation.

'All will happen immediately, without parental consent.'

"We were fortunate that amazing on-the-ground parents we work with were monitoring, knowing how unethical this school board is," added Lui.

When asked about the admitted instances of "confidential" student visits and whether parents will increasingly be kept in the dark about their kids' medicalization, Lui said, "They are doing the, 'It's not happening, it's not happening that much, but it's good it's happening a lot,' line of dishonest manipulation. The reason they gave for the seven children they had to treat without parental consent (parents are 'unsafe and abusive') will be the same reason they give for the next 70 children, the next 700, and eventually all children whose parents do not agree with transgender ideology and/or birth control."

"This is the same blueprint they used for keeping transgender secrets in schools and the Transgender Trafficking Bills we've been fighting," added Lu, referencing legislation like Maine's LD 227.

Although Courage Is a Habit and other parental rights activists were successful in defeating an earlier version, Gov. Janet Mills ratified Democratic state Rep. Anne Perry's LD 227 in April. LD 227 — which Lui previously referred to as the "Transgender Trafficker Protection Act" — prohibits "interference" with abortions or sex-change mutilations, protects medical practitioners from lawsuits, and conceals the known whereabouts of interstate child runaways from their parents, among other things.

Michelle Tucker, a newly elected member of the school board who has spoken out against state-mandated policies for transvestic students, noted in October, "They are children, and maybe they're not mature enough to make these decisions without parental support."

Lui suggested that whereas parents might be willing to push back against various medical interventions at school, "Children of any age will be paired with an affirm-only counselor or therapist to put them on the transgender path. Children will be given binders and tucking for transgender reasons. Girls will be able to obtain any and all types of birth control. All will happen immediately, without parental consent."

"Ultimately, all medical decisions will be made within school grounds, without parental consent, and all that will be needed is someone at the clinic to deem the parents 'unsafe and abusive,'" added Lui.

Blaze News reached out to the MSAD 11 superintendent's office as well as to HealthReach for comment but did not receive responses by deadline.

When the idea for the clinic at the Gardiner Area High School was first floated, Lindsay Hammes, spokeswoman for the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement to the Kennebec Journal, "The school-based health centers enhance educational outcomes for students by limiting missed instructional time for external appointments, reducing absenteeism from chronic conditions, and decreasing disciplinary actions among students needing behavioral or medical support."

Ahead of the vote Thursday, Courage Is a Habit created an online form that community members can use in the final hours before the vote to deluge the board with emails expressing their concerns about the initiative.

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

'Blaze News Tonight' RECAP: Elon Musk's Trump donation, Secret Service failure, and a Jan. 6 victory



In the wake of Trump’s near-assassinaton, Elon Musk has not only endorsed Donald Trump for president but has also pledged $45 million a month to a Trump-affiliated PAC, likely making him an even bigger target for the left. Corrupt Democrat Sen. Bob Menendez (N.J.) has been convicted on 16 counts, leading several Democrat senators to call for his resignation, even threatening to expel him if he refuses to step down. Next, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) gives her thoughts in an exclusive interview on Trump’s decision to appoint JD Vance as his running mate, as well as Biden’s calls for unity. Next, former Navy SEAL and security expert Erik Prince joins the show to shed light on the newly surfaced Iranian assassination plot, as well as the failure of the Secret Service not only at the rally but in general. However, there is a hopeful development in one January 6 case. A federal judge ordered the release of January 6 prisoner John Strand. Blaze News investigative journalist Steve Baker calls in to discuss the ruling.

  Elon Musk Goes Full MAGA with Monthly $45M Trump Super PAC Pledge | Guest: Erik Prince | 7/16/24 www.youtube.com 

Elon gets super political in super PAC donation

Senior politics editor and Washington correspondent for Blaze Media Christopher Bedford joins Jill and the panel on “Blaze News Tonight” from day two of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to discuss Elon Musk’s recent political moves and Democrat Sen. Bob Menendez’s conviction.

In regard to Musk’s donation pledge, Bedford says, “My gosh, he’s brave.”

Not only did Musk pledge “$45 million a month, a staggering amount of money,” to a Trump super PAC, but he also expressed his disapproval of Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s bill that permits children to transition behind their parents’ backs by vowing to “move his space company to Texas.”

Further, Democrat Senator Bob Menendez, who Bedford says is “one of the more openly corrupt senators” and “an incredibly arrogant politician,” has been convicted on “federal corruption charges.”

Even “the Democrats just want him to go away,” says Bedford.

Further, Julio Rosas, Blaze Media’s national correspondent, who is also attending the RNC convention, spoke with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) about her thoughts regarding Trump’s VP pick, JD Vance.

“It’s the direction I want the party to go in, and that’s going to be America first,” Greene said of Vance.

To Biden’s calls for “unity,” Greene was candid: “If Joe Biden and the Democrats were serious about unity, he would completely stop the weaponized Department of Justice that he has enabled, he would reel back Merrick Garland, he would drop all the charges against President Trump, [and] he would release political prisoners who are being held in prison for years now for protesting election fraud.”

Secret Service failure and Kimberly Cheatle’s refusal to step down

The Secret Service is on high alert after reports of an Iranian plot to assassinate Donald Trump have surfaced. Former Navy SEAL and security expert Erik Prince joins the show to shed light on the threat.

“I think this is a desperate effort to deflect from a completely botched job of protecting the leading Republican candidate and front-runner for the next presidency,” Prince tells Jill, adding that he doesn’t give the threat “a whole lot of credibility.”

“We suffer from a from a whole collection of federal agencies that are bloated, obese, unaccountable, and ineffective, and we continue to steer away from a merit-based, execution-based excellent society to our detriment,” he continues, noting that had Trump been killed, “we could have literally torn the country asunder.”

When Prince points to the lack of merit in our federal agencies, he is, at least in part, referring to Secret Service director Kimberly Cheatle’s DEI initiative to ensure 30% of the force is made up of women.

Even though Cheatle has technically “[taken] responsibility” for Trump’s near-assassination, she has nonetheless refused to step down from her position.

While the FBI has sworn to investigate Saturday’s unfortunate events, Jill questions the authenticity of their claims, given “the way that the federal agencies have handled Donald Trump-related issues in the past.”

Prince agrees, stating he has “zero confidence in the federal government being able to investigate itself.”

A January 6 victory

The tides have turned for one January 6 defendant, John Strand, who was ordered to be released by a federal judge this July.

Blaze News investigative journalist and fellow January 6 victim Steve Baker joins the show to explain the details of Strand’s case. Steve tells Jill and the panel that Strand is one of the more “high-profile cases” of all the January 6 defendants.

Strand attended the Capitol on January 6 because he was the friend and bodyguard of Dr. Simone Gold, who was deplatformed during the height of COVID for recommending “alternate therapies that were not part of the approved narrative from the administration.”

Dr. Gold was scheduled to speak at the Capitol that day — an event that was “legally permitted.” When the Oathkeepers and Strand escorted Dr. Gold to her speaking location, however, the chaos had already begun.

“John Strand and Simone Gold did not participate in violence; they did not participate in breaching the Capitol building whatsoever,” says Baker, “but when the doors opened, they, like so many hundreds and even thousands of others, did in fact go inside peacefully, and she actually decided to deliver her prepared remarks there in the Rotunda.”

After Dr. Gold delivered her speech, she and Strand “peacefully left.” However, both were “arrested very early on” and were “charged not only with a handful of misdemeanors,” but also with the “infamous 1512 obstruction of an official preceding felony, which carried up to 20 years potential imprisonment.”

While Gold ended up “taking a plea deal" involving “60 days in prison,” Strand decided that “he was going to be a warrior” and fight the charges. In the end, he was sentenced to “32 months in prison.”

“They committed exactly the same crimes, but because he wasted the government's time and he put them through the hassle of having to prepare for a trial … Simone got two months in prison and he got 32 months in prison,” says Baker.

However, the Supreme Court’s “overturning of 1512" led to Strand’s release.

'Blaze News Tonight' RECAP: Implications of Trump’s near-assassination, JD Vance, and eerie parallels between Trump and Roosevelt



Last weekend, President Trump came within a literal inch of death during an assassination attempt at a rally in Butler County, Pennsylvania. The following Monday, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed his classified documents case due to the unconstitutionality of Jack Smith's involvement. BlazeTV host of “Stu Does America” Stu Burguiere joins "Blaze News Tonight" to discuss the historic last few days for Donald Trump and what they could mean come November. Next, Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford and Blaze Media national correspondent Julio Rosas tune in from the RNC convention in Milwaukee to discuss President Trump's VP pick — Ohio Senator JD Vance — and the anti-Trump protests raging in the streets outside the convention. Next, the panel discusses the group of attendees at the Butler, Pennsylvania, rally who witnessed the shooter mount the roof and who called for help but were ignored. Former intelligence analyst for the Department of Defense and chief researcher for Glenn Beck Jason Buttrill joins to break down the failure of the Secret Service to protect former President Donald Trump from danger. Lastly, BlazeTV host of "The Glenn Beck Program" and Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck joins the show to discuss the parallels between the attempted assassination of Trump and that of President Theodore Roosevelt.

 'America’s Hitler'?! Biden’s Unity Message TANKS After Trump Picks JD Vance for VP | 7/15/24www.youtube.com

Historic days for Donald Trump

At a rally in Butler County, Pennsylvania, former president Donald Trump was nearly assassinated when a shooter, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, opened fire from a nearby rooftop, hitting Trump in the ear. Two days later, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Trump’s classified documents case, ruling that special counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed.

“This is probably one of the craziest sequences of events that I've ever seen in politics,” says BlazeTV’s Stu Burguiere.

“To just have a bullet go through your ear, you're an inch away from dying, to have the presence of mind to stand up there and raise your fist and show America that … not only did this not hurt you, but we're going to keep going is one of the most incredible moments — the most bada** moment — I've ever seen,” he tells Jill.

According to Stu, Trump’s bold display of courage will likely result in “a bump” for him, meaning that people who have never considered voting for him before may find themselves “crossing that line for the first time because there is something really, truly American” about “the way [Trump] reacted.”

Further, Stu suspects the mainstream media will soften toward Trump for a while and conveniently “forget about all the rhetoric” it’s been spreading about his similarity to Hitler.

“You call somebody Hitler over and over and over again, it's going to create an impression among some unstable people that the correct, moral thing to do is to take him out,” says Stu, suggesting that the media’s rhetoric is at least partially to blame for Trump’s almost-assassination.

Republicans unite at Milwaukee RNC Convention, anti-Trump protests rage on

According to Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford, currently attending the RNC convention in Milwaukee, the events that occurred over the weekend seem to be unifying the right.

“The Republicans were already set to walk into this week more unified than the Democratic Party by an absolute long shot, but the historic deadly attack and the attempted assassination that we watched on television on Saturday has even heightened that,” says Bedford, adding that the spectrum of Republicans coming together ranges from warmongering Nikki Haley to 50 Cent.

As for Trump’s VP pick — Ohio Senator JD Vance — Bedford alleges that the majority of convention attendees seem “thrilled with this decision,” but there are certain individuals, “some of the old Tea Party conservatives,” for example, who are not so thrilled.

“What choosing Vance says — a young senator, 39 [years old], in his first term, a rising star, telegenic, intelligent — is it allows the MAGA movement to know that there's some kind of future, a potential successor, after Trump's second term in office if he wins,” Bedford explains.

For all the unity among Republicans, however, there seems to be equal solidarity among Trump-haters. Footage shows mass anti-Trump protests in the streets of Milwaukee, where Trump-Hitler rhetoric has not waned at all.

Blaze Media national correspondent Julio Rosas tells Jill that in the press conference that followed the march on the RNC, protest leaders were “denouncing Trump,” likely realizing that his “popularity [is] rising in the aftermath” of the assassination attempt.

“One of the speakers did say that, generally speaking, she was against any assassination attempt on any politician, but then she caveated that by saying it's undeniable that Trump's rhetoric, policies, and actions has led to the legitimization of political violence by white nationalists,” Rosas reports.

Secret Service failure?

Police forces and Secret Service at the rally where President Trump was shot have come under intense scrutiny after a group of bystanders witnessed the armed shooter mount the roof but were ignored when they reported the threat.

Jill plays the footage of one witness recounting to the BBC’s Gary O'Donoghue that he “[pointed] at the guy crawling up the roof” to police and Secret Service and even told police that “there's guy on the roof with a rifle,” but nothing was done until after Crooks had already started firing.

He also asked: “Why is there not Secret Service on all of these roofs?”

Former intelligence analyst for the Department of Defense and chief researcher for Glenn Beck Jason Buttrill calls the situation “ridiculous” and “chaotic.”

Jason, who’s “worked alongside Secret Service,” says that he “cannot fathom how this happened,” as Secret Service — especially when the protective operation involves a president — will “show up weeks in advance” to conduct a “site survey” for the purpose of developing a “multi-tiered security plan.”

Part of that security plan involves setting up “firing positions” that fall “outside the perimeter,” completely debunking the narrative of the Secret Service director who claimed that “they’re not responsible outside that perimeter.”

All considered, it seems highly unlikely that the roof from which the shooter fired was not considered a high-risk area by the Secret Service prior to the rally.

Parallels between Teddy Roosevelt & Donald Trump’s almost-assassinations

Glenn Beck, a lover of history, couldn’t help but notice several parallels between Donald Trump’s near-death experience and that of Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.

When Roosevelt was shot, the bullet “didn't go into his lungs” but rather “lodged between two ribs because the speech and his glasses,” which he’d put into his front coat pocket, “caught that bullet,” says Glenn, adding that Roosevelt “went on to give the speech” despite his wound.

“The way Donald Trump handled the assassination attempt is almost identical to what Teddy Roosevelt did,” he tells Jill. “When Donald Trump got up and he said, ‘Wait, wait, wait,’ and then he looked at the crowd and held his fist up and he said ‘fight.’ I ... immediately thought of Theodore Roosevelt.”

Jill agrees, adding that Trump “never backs away from a fight,” which is also “what Teddy Roosevelt is known for.”

As for Trump’s decision to select JD Vance as his running mate, Glenn says, “I think it was a really good move.”

Vance, according to Glenn, has the potential to carry on Trump’s legacy and counteract the left’s narrative that Trump will refuse to leave office.

“You could interpret this as … Donald Trump saying, ‘I know I'm only going to be there four years,”’ says Glenn, meaning that Vance, if he runs for president in 2028, could actually accomplish much of what Trump set out to do — things that Trump knows are impossible to achieve in one term.

'Blaze News Tonight' RECAP: Project 2025, the SAVE Act, and Inflation



The left is panicking over Project 2025, villainizing it as far-right extremism, but what's really in the document? Heritage Foundation president and co-author of the initiative Kevin Roberts joins the show to answer questions and debunk lies regarding Project 2025. Next, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) explains the SAVE Act — a bill that would bar non-citizens from voting in the 2024 election. Democrats have largely voted against it; Biden has even vowed to veto it, and yet, 81% of the American people agree that only American citizens should have the right to vote in U.S. elections. What the people want is crystal clear, but how likely is the SAVE Act to pass prior to November? Finally, Carol Roth joins the program to tell us the truth about inflation, including what the recent one-tenth drop means for the average American.

 Project 2025: Heritage President DEBUNKS Lies | Guests: Kevin Roberts & Sen. Mike Lee | 7/11/24www.youtube.com

Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts on Project 2025

Democrats are in an uproar over Project 2025, calling the initiative far-right extremism and attempting to attach the document to Donald Trump, who has denied any affiliation. Headed by the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025 is a detailed plan of policy proposals for the next conservative administration. What's in the document, though? Kevin Roberts, Heritage Foundation president and co-author of Project 2025, joins the show to "separate fact from fiction."

The list of lies liberals are spreading about Project 2025 grows longer by the day, but "the one thing they get right," Roberts says, "is that we call for the utter elimination of the U.S. Department of Education."

As for the people "doxxing" and "threatening" those behind Project 2025, Roberts promises unapologetic prosecution.

"We are going to prosecute you, and we're going to do that using every ounce of the law. It's going to be peaceful; it's going to be lawful, but you have picked the wrong fight," he says.

Sen. Mike Lee on the SAVE Act

Among the many fears Americans harbor regarding Biden's open border policies that have ushered in millions and millions of illegal immigrants is the concern that non-citizens will be given voting rights prior to the 2024 election, potentially changing the outcome. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), however, alongside Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and House Speaker Mike Johnson, have proposed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act that aims to ensure only American citizens can vote in the 2024 election. Unsurprisingly, most Democrats have voted against it. Biden has also mentioned vetoing the bill.

Sen. Mike Lee, who joins the show, explains that liberal opposition to the bill is rooted in Democrats' desire to "rely on non-citizens" to impact "a federal election" — something he calls "terrifying."

While Lee admits that they face "some heavy obstacles to passing [the SAVE Act]," he knows that should the bill be voted down, the decision "is going to come at a price," granted "81% of American voters agreed that only citizens — only American citizens — should vote in federal elections," which is "a huge bipartisan supermajority."

Sen. Lee also broke down his op-ed on Blaze News, which discusses the legal lawfare the left has used to take down Trump. "[Democrats] are the rule of law," he says, adding that "Democrats love throwing around ... the term 'our democracy,' and yet, when they use the term democracy, they're more often than not talking about something that is the exact opposite of democracy."

As for President Biden's cognitive decline, Lee says his Democratic colleagues "are referring behind closed doors to this situation ... as the 'Weekend at Bernie's' chat."

"I think they've finally started to accept the fact that they've pushed it so far they can't take it any farther."

Carol Roth on inflation

Blaze News contributor and author of "You Will Own Nothing" Carol Roth joins the show to tell us the truth about inflation, one of the biggest — if not the biggest — complaint of American citizens.

"The top issue on Americans’ minds as they head to the polls is the economy," Roth wrote in her recent article "The GOP needs to stay focused on inflation, not cognition."

Roth, who agrees that Biden's mental acuity is a problem, argues that his administration's destructive policies — including the ones driving inflation through the roof — are the far more pressing issue.

"We're missing the opportunity when we're talking about his cognitive decline to talk about the fact that whether it's Biden or someone they put in his place ... these are the broader policies of not just this man but of the Democrats and that if we want to save our country, we need to be making a change in holding those people accountable, and that goes farther than just Joe Biden," she says.

As for inflation, which as of yesterday was down "one-tenth of 1%," Roth says she isn't hopeful it will make a real difference for the average American.

"A quarter of a percentage point, which is probably what is on the table today for September (if that even happens) isn't going to change things meaningfully," she says, adding that she thinks "we need to see something like a 1% cut ... then maybe Americans start to feel a little bit of relief in terms of anything that is tied to an interest rate."

"The most meaningful thing it will mean is that the $35 trillion in debt we have — that big portion of it that needs to be refinanced plus the almost $2 trillion deficits that we're running that need to be financed — they will be able to be financed hopefully at lower interest rates, which will overtime, theoretically, bring down the deficits and hopefully have a positive impact on inflation ... that's the best we can hope for."

For more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, tune in to 'Blaze News Tonight' daily on BlazeTV.