The Lindsay Clancy murder trial has become a national true-crime spectacle. The Massachusetts mother who strangled her three young children with exercise bands in 2023 pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, citing postpartum psychosis, while prosecution argued the killings were premeditated and sought first-degree murder convictions.

With arguments complete, the jury has been deliberating since last Thursday with no verdict yet.

While BlazeTV host Rick Burgess is horrified by the tragic fates of Clancy’s three children, he is also deeply disturbed by the number of women who continue to support Clancy and advocate for her acquittal. On this episode of “Strange Encounters,” Rick highlights a dark shift in the maternal instinct — a shift he sees as demonic.

“I can't help but think to myself that this — not depression but this psychosis — it feels pretty new,” says Rick. “Women have been having babies for a long, long time.”

“Now we've gone to the point that we're almost willing to say a mom should not be held accountable for methodically and just horrifyingly killing one child after another, even catching one that tried to run,” he continues, calling it “evil.”

While Rick acknowledges that new mothers certainly need help and support, he refuses to co-sign on the idea that the lack thereof absolves someone of killing her children.

“This husband maybe wasn't supportive. You can be frustrated with doctors ... but holding her up as a poster child for postpartum moms and their struggles, I think, is going way too far with this,” he says.

The support Clancy is receiving from women — many of them mothers — indicates a "ugly shift,” he argues.

“There was a time when the maternal instinct of a woman would immediately pour out to the murdered children, not the clearly disturbed mother,” says Rick.

“That’s a shift, and I think it’s an ugly shift, and it’s one that should gravely concern us.”

What’s behind this, he contends, is undoubtedly spiritual. He highlights a warning from the late evangelical pastor John MacArthur: “MacArthur said, ‘Unfortunately, we're in a time now where people don't even want the church to feed their mind. They want the church to feed their emotions.'”

But when emotions rule, we become “a lawless society,” says Rick.

“You can and should, no problem, have compassion for Lindsay Clancy, OK? But you also can demand justice for the three children she [allegedly] murdered. It's not one or the other,” he notes.

“We can't live in a civilized society when the way I feel about something trumps what the law calls for … and we're already there to a degree.”

This devolution into lawlessness, he warns, reeks of demonic influence.

“For us to empathize with Lindsay Clancy more than we empathize with the children that were [allegedly] murdered” is “exactly what the dark forces of the spiritual realm” are gunning for, says Rick, “and that’s a dangerous road to be on.”

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Rick Burgess?

To enjoy more bold talk and big laughs, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

They’ve delivered the newspaper their entire lives, but they’ve never actually read it. Naturally, they’re now in charge of it.

On September 7, BlazeTV is heading to the tiny desert town of "Dusty Bluffs" with a brand-new original comedy series from the creators of "Agua Donkeys." The series follows MP and Jer, two lifelong paperboys who have pretty much everything they want: a newspaper route, plenty of time to hang out, and a comfortable routine they have absolutely no interest in changing.

That routine gets turned upside down when the editor of the Dusty Bluffs Gazette suddenly skips town, putting the only jobs MP and Jer have ever wanted in jeopardy. Rather than accept that their days slinging papers might be over, the boys decide to take matters into their own hands and run the newspaper themselves.

Welcome to Dusty Bluffs

Armed with overconfidence and an impressive ability to misunderstand almost everything happening around them, MP and Jer find themselves navigating a job they know virtually nothing about.

But "Dusty Bluffs" is about more than the boys’ unlikely career move. The series builds its comedy around the eccentric residents of their tiny desert town, awkward conversations, and everyday situations that have a tendency to become much more complicated whenever MP and Jer are involved.

The premiere wastes little time introducing that world. As the boys make their way around town, even the most ridiculous encounters are treated with complete sincerity. MP and Jer’s understanding of what’s happening is often very different from reality, but their unwavering confidence rarely seems to suffer as a result.

Now responsible for covering the people and stories of Dusty Bluffs, MP and Jer are about to become much more involved in their hometown than they ever intended.

A different kind of BlazeTV original

Dusty Bluffs is part of BlazeTV’s growing lineup of original programming, giving subscribers even more to watch alongside the shows, personalities, and commentary they already know.

It’s also a chance to do something a little unexpected. With Dusty Bluffs, BlazeTV is bringing subscribers an original scripted comedy built around memorable characters, a bizarre little town, and a sense of humor all its own.

For current subscribers, Dusty Bluffs is included with their BlazeTV subscription. For everyone else, the premiere offers another reason to see what’s new on the platform.

Don’t miss the premiere of Dusty Bluffs September 7, exclusively on BlazeTV. Subscribe today to unlock Dusty Bluffs, plus original series, exclusive shows, and more available to BlazeTV subscribers.

A Democrat running for Wisconsin's 3rd Congressional District is in hot water for seemingly hiding her connections to George Soros-funded political groups.

Rebecca Cooke told voters she is a working-class outsider who worked as a waitress and entrepreneur, but she delayed the release of the financial disclosures about the money she got from Soros groups.

'Radical Rebecca Cooke is a paid political operative for far-left liberals and wants to push their socialist agenda.'

Cooke released the information two days after winning the Aug. 11 Democratic primary, after applying for an extension with the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives in April.

The disclosure indicated that from January 1, 2025, to July 14, 2026, she received at least $5,000 from two left-wing organizations funded by the George Soros Open Society organization: the Third Way and the Pipeline Fund.

Cooke is not required to release the exact amount she received, but only to indicate a range of the value of the money.

A spokesperson for the Third Way told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the organization had paid Cooke $30,000 for "a project focused on elevating the voices and concerns of working-class Americans that have too often been missing from the rooms where decisions are made."

A spokesperson for the Pipeline Fund would confirm only that Cooke worked for the organization.

"We can confirm Rebecca Cooke worked as a contractor for the Pipeline Fund in 2025 to help advance our mission of building a reflective democracy where working-class people, women, people of color, and other underrepresented communities are fully supported to run for office and advance the needs of their communities," the spokesperson said to the Sentinel.

National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Zach Bannon blasted Cooke in a statement to Fox News Digital.

"Radical Rebecca Cooke is a paid political operative for far-left liberals and wants to push their socialist agenda. Commie Cooke may fit in at [a] Soros-funded consulting firm, but she is far too extreme to represent Western Wisconsin," he said.

Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden (Wis.) also vehemently criticized Cooke for hiding the financial information from voters.

RELATED: Soros-backed DA vows to 'blow up' White House ballroom, calls Trump a 'pain in the a**'

"For months, Democrats and Republicans across the 3rd District called on Cooke to release her financial disclosures. She had every opportunity to be transparent with voters. Instead, she chose to keep them hidden until after the primary," he said in a news release.

Cooke said in a statement to the Journal Sentinel that the disclosure proved her claims about being a working-class American.

"I’ve always worn multiple hats to make ends meet and, in addition to waitressing, I worked on two projects related to getting more working-class people to run for office and conducted research for an organization about how to better connect with working-class voters," read an email from Cooke.

"There are unique challenges to running for office as a working-class person with an hourly wage job and a full-time campaign schedule," she added. "For example, I’m one of the thousands of people in this district who can’t afford health insurance. I’ve been proud to help make it easier for the next generation of working-class leaders to step up and take our fight to Washington, D.C."

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

ESPN once devoted more than five consecutive hours of prime-time programming to diversity, inclusion, and intersectionality.

The network became so woke that it went from being the most trusted name in sports to pulling a broadcaster off the air for having a name that sounded racist.

'We're watching.'

That's a true story.

A network's nadir

In 2017, a part-time sportscaster was set to announce the William & Mary-Virginia football game at Scott Stadium in Charlottesville, Virginia. The only problem was his name was Robert Lee, and that was too close to Confederate General Robert E. Lee for ESPN, even though Lee is Asian.

The broadcaster was reassigned to cover a different game that day.

Still, the ESPN snowball was nowhere near critical mass. The next month, ESPN reporter Jemele Hill called President Trump a "white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself [with] white supremacists."

When the George Floyd era came around, it ushered in unquantifiable amounts of diversity programming at the network, culminating in the "Time for Change" broadcast that time certainly forgot. From 8 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. on June 24, 2020, ESPN aired segments with Black Lives Matters founders, essays about "white privilege," and race-based poetry readings.

In an effort to clear-cut any nonbelievers, the network pulled hosts Rachel Nichols and Sage Steele off the air in 2021 for daring to raise questions over topics like diversity and vaccines. In 2022, ESPN took a side in the transgender-athlete debate and celebrated Lia Thomas for beating women in swimming.

By 2023, ESPN seemed primed to bottom out, never to regain the respect of men who flicked it on after work or boys who watch "SportsCenter" on repeat during a sick day.

As the network took leaps to becoming a laughingstock, it seemingly had no choice but to force a pendulum swing. So its leaders turned to none other than a former NFL punter who retired young and had been making waves.

Pat McAfee embodied the opposite of what ESPN preached for years: an offbeat, edgy, small-town personality with the right amount of charm. Most of all, he was doing big numbers, and that's exactly what the network needed.

With millions of subscribers and hundreds of thousands of live viewers, ESPN pulled up to McAfee's house with a dump truck full of money: $85 million over five years, to be exact.

A contract that big may tighten the intellectual belt for some, but not McAfee. He wasted no time pushing the envelope.

Before his new show even aired, he was making jokes about sex offenders.

RELATED: Cam Newton blows the lid off the NFL, claims players, coaches, and execs faked their COVID-19 vaccination

Lauren Leigh Bacho/Getty Images

Paging 'Mr. Pfizer'

"I think Nassar was in on the design team actually," McAfee said in response to some college football uniforms. Larry Nassar was convicted of sex crimes against young female athletes on the USA Gymnastics team.

Why comment on the tautness of a team's pants? Why not? Reset.

McAfee's show aired in September 2023 and got off to a blazing start. But it didn't take long for friend of the show and NFL MVP Aaron Rodgers to start making his weekly appearances, something he had done since 2020.

That marked the end of McAfee's tenure as a noncontroversial host, just a month into his new ESPN show.

The quarterback dropped back and threw a bomb on ESPN airwaves, calling fellow NFL player Travis Kelce "Mr. Pfizer" for promoting a COVID-19 vaccine.

Rodgers wasn't pulled off the air, censored, or reprimanded by McAfee; the host let him go off. In fact, he let him go off for months as he criticized the NFL and the federal government, while acting as Rodgers' sounding board in his years-long feud with TV host Jimmy Kimmel.

McAfee endured constant criticisms at the time. Chief among them were claims that ESPN had wasted its money on him and his contract was tantamount to spending almost $100 million to platform conspiracy theories.

This didn't stop the podcaster. McAfee turned a negative into a positive and became the go-to source for mainstream controversial content in the sports world, whether he liked it or not.

RELATED: Joe Rogan & Shane Gillis say we're never going back — and young men should listen

Working out

When McAfee was told his success as an informal presenter was based on him being white, he didn't let the accusations paint him into a corner. In fact, he broke the wall down of what he was allowed to say.

"There's one white bitch for the Indiana team who is a superstar," McAfee said, ironically as an ESPN disclaimer scrolled by at the bottom of the screen.

McAfee explained that he was actually praising WNBA star Caitlin Clark, but that didn't matter; the media wanted a scalp. The former player apologized, said what he meant, and moved on. They were expecting a collapse, but when the pressure mounted, McAfee refused to fold.

When LeBron James and Stephen A. Smith nearly came to blows, McAfee hosted James in a way no other outlet would. He didn't ask for an apology or a prepared statement; he simply said, "We're watching."

Indeed McAfee and company watched when James likened Smith to Taylor Swift. They listened to James describe Smith as eating ice cream in his "tighty-whities" at home. The most popular NBA player in a generation was trash-talking with the boys, and it was airing on ESPN. No network apology-broadcast followed.

The formula hasn't changed, either. Rolling through 2026, McAfee is still having Rodgers on to trash Anthony Fauci and reprimand his haters, but he does so in front of live college football audience.

No matter how many people call McAfee a conspiracy-theory pusher or a "threat" to journalism, he has persevered, using a philosophy he only recently published: "If I seen young me, what would I tell him now? Just breathe; it’ll all work out. Somehow it'll all work out."

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

A board-certified ob-gyn has joined the chorus of mothers praising and defending Lindsay Clancy online, posting a video telling the mother who allegedly murdered her three children that she didn’t “know what else [Clancy] could have done.”

“Hi, Lindsay. I’m Dr. Sterling. I don’t even know if you’re allowed to watch videos like this. If someone can show it to you, I don’t know. But I want you to know that I believe you,” Dr. Noa Sterling said in the video posted to social media.

“From my perspective as an ob-gyn, I believe that you were over-functioning throughout your entire postpartum period. I am blown away by how hard you were working to get better while also working as a mom,” she continued.

“I’ve got three kids. I know how much work it is even when you are mentally well. It’s so hard to take care of three kids. ... Hindsight’s 2020, but I don’t know what else you could have done,” she added.

“‘I don’t know what else you could have done other than [allegedly] murdering your three children?’” BlazeTV host Pat Gray comments in disbelief.

“One of the things is not [allegedly] murdering your three children. That’s one of the things that she could have done is not [allegedly] kill her kids,” he adds.

Sterling went on to say that Clancy has “galvanized us women in a really powerful way.”

“And I’m not quite ready to tell my story yet. When I eventually do, it’s going to be because you came first, and you showed all of us that we can be honest and can be real about what we experience as mothers,” she said.

“Thank you for [allegedly] killing your kids?” Gray asks, shocked.

“So she’s galvanized a movement to murder children?” executive producer Keith Malinak chimes in, adding, “She says she’s a mother of three. If I’m her kids, I know I’m changing the locks is what I’m doing.”

Want more from Pat Gray?

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

With the start of the NFL season barely a week away, fans are clamoring for news about their team's starting quarterback or star receiver.

Instead, viewers are getting what is likely to feel like another puzzling, unnecessary confirmation about the upcoming season.

'The only thing more powerful than hate is love.'

It's been a decade since former San Francisco 49ers quarterback turned activist Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem, causing nationwide controversy.

Kaepernick's argument that the United States "oppresses black people" had a monstrous effect on the league, pushing the NFL into activism from seemingly every angle.

The death of George Floyd and the 2020 Summer of Love riots inspired more political messaging in the NFL — in its stadiums, on player equipment, and in front offices.

Now, the NFL has confirmed it will continue its league-wide platitudes for yet another season, specifically confirming its social justice messaging will remain on fields and player helmets.

"We are continuing with both the end zone stencils and helmet decals this season," an NFL spokeswoman told Front Office Sports.

This program typically manifests in messages like "End Racism."

RELATED: Al Michaels divides NFL fans with Trump jab during 'Thursday Night Football': 'Read the news'

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

According to the report, the NFL will also carry over its use of the song "Lift Every Voice and Sing," colloquially known as the black national anthem, before the Super Bowl and other events. It has been used in season openers since 2020, as well.

Also reportedly returning is the NFL's partnership with rapper Jay-Z's Roc Nation, the company behind the 2026 Super Bowl halftime show fiasco with singer Bad Bunny.

The Puerto Rican artist's performance this year had him deliver just one line in English, while angering fans with progressive messaging like, "The only thing more powerful than hate is love."

The NFL will still champion the phrase "Inspire Change" as its main social justice initiative promoting the following pillars: education, economic advancement, community-police relations, and criminal justice reform, which focuses on "key reforms" to the system like "pre-trial detention."

RELATED: Enes Kanter Freedom responds to WNBA owner comparing his protest to shooting someone

Sebastian Widmann/Getty Images

Other programs that aren't going anywhere are the NFL's "My Cause My Cleats" initiative that allows players, coaches, and staff to wear custom cleats to showcase causes or nonprofits on their shoes. The cleats are typically worn during games and later auctioned off for charity.

Also returning is the NFL's support for historically black colleges and universities.

Troy Vincent Sr., NFL executive vice president of football operations, simply says on the NFL website that the league works with HBCUs to "provide opportunities to students and administrators from these great institutions."

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

Let’s get real about something far too many professing Christians have wrongly decided is OK. We’re talking about people who think obedience to Christ doesn’t require participation in the local church.

In a few Christian women’s groups I’m in online, I’ve seen so many casually mentioning how they don’t have a church, or aren’t particularly interested in looking for one, or blatantly reject the idea that it’s needed at all. Comments like:

To remove yourself from the reach of elders, correction, and communal responsibility is, bluntly put, to refuse Christ’s ordained means of grace.

I don’t have to be part of a church. I can watch a service online from my sofa, I can worship or read the Bible whenever I want, and I can gather with other Christians anywhere, anytime. I don’t need to be “pastored.”

This woman is way off base, because a lone Christian is much more easily misled than someone who’s following Christ’s command to connect with a local body of believers.

To clarify, we’re not talking about the capital C “Church” — the global body of believers throughout history. Every authentic Christian joins THAT Church the moment they turn to Christ. No, we’re talking about the LOCAL church — designed by God to offer what the global Church cannot.

Question: What is a local church?

Answer: A group of Christians who live near each other who voluntarily band together to worship God, study His Word, love and serve each other, and submit to the group’s chosen leaders, which should include biblically qualified elders who are able to teach and disciple the flock, as well as qualified deacons to help in practical ways.

All of this is scriptural, as we’ll point out below, but first a quick word about what constitutes a “local group.”

Americans, especially in larger cities, are used to driving a distance to get to a preferred church. I’m not going to argue with that, but I am going to make a plea that the closer you are to your church, the more you can invest your time and energy in it — and the more it can invest in you.

If you are now searching for a church home, I strongly encourage you to start with the congregations closest to you and work your way out from there till you find a biblically sound body you and your family can join.

Not a building

Of course, the local church is not a building. You can have church in a school auditorium, at the local park — anywhere your group is allowed to assemble.

What makes such a group a “local church” is not location, but congregation — a group of Christians in the area who choose to commit to each other, whether they own a meeting space or not.

In fact, a pretty robust argument could be made that owning a facility is an impediment, or at least a distraction, to the church’s mission to shepherd the flock and serve the community.

I love stained glass windows, whether they’re in pretty little country churches or enormous European cathedrals. But those facilities require upkeep, costing money and time that could be directed to other endeavors and needs, especially if the church building sits unused most of the week!

What the local church is for

The Bible provides an excellent roadmap for the local church’s marching orders, because Christ did not establish a disembodied, leaderless, commitment-free Christianity. When believers detach themselves from the local church, in fact, they are not protecting their faith; they are redefining it on their own terms.

So what exactly are we to do?

We are to act more like the early church! Familiarize yourself with what our first brothers and sisters in Christ were doing. You can’t go far wrong using that as a template.

But here’s a helpful checklist of how we are to interact with our local church:

1. Meet regularly

First Corinthians 14 details how to conduct an orderly worship service, including phrases like “when you assemble.” Paul’s assumption is that believers are regularly meeting together, and such meetings are referenced often throughout the New Testament.

"And let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near" (Hebrews 10:24-25).

2. Worship together, pray together, learn the Word together

Just like the early church:

"And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to the prayers" (Acts 2:42).

3. Submit to church leaders (elders/pastors, deacons)

The New Testament knows nothing of a Christian who answers to no one. Christ commands believers to submit to church leadership (Hebrews 13:17) and establishes church discipline, not to shame or punish but to restore (Matthew 18:15-20).

This is one the sofa-churchers miss every time.

Elders/pastors are biblically charged with shepherding the flock (Acts 14:23) — the flock being whatever local church they are leading. But how can they shepherd someone they don’t know, who’s not there?

In Acts 6, the apostles told the believers to select men “from among you” to serve as leaders (leaders often referred to as deacons). This was only possible because the local congregation knew its men and was therefore qualified to help choose leadership.

These commands are not optional, situational, or suspended when church life becomes difficult. To remove yourself from the reach of elders, correction, and communal responsibility is, bluntly put, to refuse Christ’s ordained means of grace. You cannot claim Christ as Savior while functionally rejecting Him as Lord, and the moment a believer declares, “I don’t need the church,” she has placed herself as the final authority over her own discipleship and rejected membership in the Bride of Christ.

Further, if you’re not committed to a congregation, you don’t have a Christian leader (shepherd) keeping watch over you (sheep). That is dangerous territory for any of us and surely a big part of the reason God created us to be in churches.

4. Love each other, become a family to each other, hold each other accountable

Commitment to a sound biblical church offers much more than a healthy leader-congregant relationship. It also offers by far the best way to fulfill the numerous biblical instructions regarding one another. (And they are numerous, as I explained here.) Tim Challies says:

Many of these commands can either only be carried out or can best be carried out in local contexts. You may be able to bear my burdens from a thousand miles away, but those who are closer are much more able. And so membership answers this question: Who are the people I am especially called to love? Or who am I primarily meant to serve with the gifts God has given me? It narrows the answer from the entire global church to one specific congregation. To become a member of a church is to say that these are the people God has most explicitly called me to love, serve, and pray for. These people are my “one another.”

Yes! Your local church is where you find your “one another” and where they find you. It’s also where you find “one anothers” who are not like you. Local church gives you an opportunity to love and serve singles if you’re not single, older saints if you’re younger, families if you don’t have kids, and vice versa.

This is ground zero for one of those “greatest commands” of Jesus, to love one another.

5. Observe the Lord’s Supper together; witness baptisms of new believers

The ordinances are generally undertaken in church, and they are to be part of a believer’s life. Baptism can take place anywhere there is water and a believer willing to conduct the baptism, but bringing this under the authority of the church protects the meaning and purpose of baptism through clear teaching on the subject. Likewise with the Lord’s Supper — good teaching in the church clarifies who should and should not be participating.

6. Serve the community near the church, meeting physical and spiritual needs

There is power in numbers, when you’re trying to make an impact for Christ in your community. This doesn’t mean you don’t individually love your neighbor, share the gospel, etc., but it does mean that when you uncover a need that you as an individual can’t fill — well, that’s a need you take back to your church.

Similarly, churches are often notified or aware of needs before individuals are. Serving the community as part of your local church is a powerful witness.

Give me that old time (marketplace of) religion

Another comment to consider from one of my ladies’ online groups:

Sometimes it is hard to find a modern church that fits one’s personal beliefs and convictions. In those cases, I’d say try to find a friend group made of Christians and have a Bible study or just meet up to talk and encourage one another in Christ.

“Try to find a friend group made of Christians.” Hmmm ... if only we had institutions DESIGNED to bring Christians together in fellowship.

And assuming you find something like that (outside of church), “just meet up to talk and encourage one another” is a big bowl of weak sauce compared to the robust spiritual experience the local church offers and demands.

But I want to address her opening comment, because that’s a huge part of the problem with the sofa-churchers: they’re looking for a church that “fits their personal beliefs and convictions.”

America’s consumer mentality — and our relative abundance of churches — play a role in this mindset. Many have left a church, or not found another one, not because they can’t find something doctrinally sound, but because they’re focused entirely on their own tastes, preferences, and comforts.

Thanks in part to our robust freedom of religion, America is home to more than 300,000 Protestant congregations alone. That’s more than 6,000 churches per state, although the Bible Belt areas tend to have more than, say, godless Seattle (I was born there; I can say that).

So we Americans are quick to jump from church to church because it’s pretty easy to find a new one. And we can pick and choose features most appealing to us.

That, however, is where a lot of us go wrong. We choose a church with a consumer mindset, ticking off the features that “fit” our family. The music’s great! They have lots of middle schoolers! There’s a Saturday night service!

Beloved, that stuff is not the focus when looking for a church. We all need a church that prioritizes:

• doctrinally sound biblical teaching (not just on Sunday mornings);
• small groups for Bible study, prayer, community, and accountability; and
• outreach to the lost (locally and on the mission field, ideally).

You found a church? Here’s what’s next:

1. Commit for the long haul. Approach your church with a “lifetime” rather than a “trial period” mindset.
2. Prioritize presence. Make regular attendance the baseline — not an optional extra for when the schedule is clear.
3. Listen with a soft heart. Treat the Sunday sermon as a direct message from God; read the passage before you arrive.
4. Go deeper than Sunday. Seek out a small home group (sometimes called a community group or life group) that studies, prays, serves, and eats together — that’s the best way to build community.
5. Get busy. Identify specific ways to serve this body you’ve joined.
6. Make your church better. Look for ways your church is serving the community, and come alongside. Or bring ideas for outreach back to your church!

Because — ultimately — you DO need a church. And there’s a church out there that needs you. So get off the sofa and go find your part of the Body.

The newest parish in the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth has taken the name of a Christian martyr whose remains went unclaimed in his own homeland.

Muslim terrorists pledging allegiance to the Islamic State in Libya tracked down and abducted 21 Christian construction workers in early 2015. Twenty of the men were Coptic Orthodox, and the 21st was Matthew Ayariga, a migrant worker from Ghana.

'Those who sought to silence the name of Jesus instead gave the world witnesses who proclaimed Him without words and unto death.'

Given the option of death or renouncing Christ, all 21 men kept the faith and were beheaded, some while praying, on a beach in western Libya on Feb. 15, 2015.

In the corresponding ISIS video titled "A Message Signed in Blood to the Nation of the Cross," Ayariga and the other martyrs are marched onto a beach, forced onto their knees, then slaughtered. While the martyrs' blood flowed into the Mediterranean, one terrorist states, "We will conquer Rome."

While there is some uncertainty about whether Ayariga was a Christian before meeting the 20 Copts, there is no question about the Ghanaian's conviction in his final moments.

Ayariga was reportedly asked, "Do you reject Christ?" Referencing his fellow captives, he apparently responded, "Their God is my God."

The leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria, canonized the martyrs as saints in 2015.

Years after noting that the martyrs' "blood is not only the 'seed of Christians,' but also ... a seed that will bear rich fruit for Christian unity," Pope Francis recognized the 21 as saints, adding them to the Roman Martyrology.

RELATED: Texas pastor issues two challenges for men today: 'Putting it into action bears fruit'

Bishop Michael Olson of the Diocese of Fort Worth announced on Friday the establishment of the diocese's 93rd parish: Saint Matthew Ayariga Catholic Church in Arlington.

Olson noted that this parish, which will largely serve the Ghanaian Catholic community in North Texas, is the first Catholic parish anywhere in the world to be established under the patronage of Saint Matthew Ayariga.

"His response in the face of certain death was heroic," said the bishop. "The words attributed to Matthew at that moment when he was asked about his faith have borne witness to Christ throughout the world: 'Their God is my God.'"

The Texas bishop emphasized that the Muslim terrorists' beheading video greatly backfired.

"The video images of that terrible day were intended by the murderers to inspire fear among Christians," said the bishop. "Instead, the steadfast faith of the martyrs has become a testimony to the victory of Christ. Those who sought to silence the name of Jesus instead gave the world witnesses who proclaimed Him without words and unto death."

Bishop Olson further emphasized that Ayariga's martyrdom demonstrates that "in Christ there is much more that we hold in common than anything that divides us."

"The hatred of Christ and His Gospel drove the members of ISIS to persecute and murder these men in an effort to extinguish the light of Christ. Where hatred foments separation among people, Christ brings forth communion. Where violence seeks to erase a man’s identity, the Church remembers his name," continued the bishop. "Where death boasts to have the final word, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ declares otherwise. 'The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it' (John 1:5)."

The dedication Mass for the new parish located at 1400 South Cooper Street, Arlington, is scheduled for Jan. 29, 2027.

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

The Biden FBI targeted adherents of what it dubbed "traditionalist Catholicism" and suggested in a widely distributed internal assessment that certain Catholic beliefs were linked to violent extremism and criminal activity.

Although a whistleblower exposed the bureau's abuse of counterterrorism tools to smear Catholics and adherents of the Society of St. Pius X in 2023, some in the Biden FBI continued on with the project, according to a new report from the Justice Department's Weaponization Working Group.

'History will rightly judge the Richmond Catholic Memo as a grave failure.'

"The Richmond Memo was a clear abuse of power, targeting conservative and religious beliefs disfavored by agents of government who lacked necessary oversight," said Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. in a statement released Thursday. "No more."

The investigation

The FBI's assessment smearing members of a Catholic sect and certain Catholics with socially conservative views as potential extremists was the outgrowth of a Richmond field office investigation into an individual identified as "Target 1" in the new report but revealed to be Xavier Louis Lopez through the footnotes.

Lopez was on the FBI's radar due to his alleged "violent and racially motivated ideology" posts online, assault of police officers, and espousal of "violent, racial views" in state prison following a felony vandalism conviction.

After his release from state prison in June 2021, Lopez — who last year was sentenced to over eight years in federal prison for illegally possessing Molotov cocktails — began attending a chapel affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X, a group that the Vatican declared schismatic in July.

According to the new DOJ report, in November 2022, the FBI reached out twice to the priest who oversaw the chapel and grilled him about Lopez's religiosity, political beliefs, and involvement in the chapel. After the priest finally signaled that he could not "violate" the relationship he had with the people of his church and said, "I don't want to be involved," the FBI launched an investigation into the priest and his chapel.

RELATED: The Justice Department finally has a grown-up in charge

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Upon discovering that the priest's uncle was himself a priest ordained by the late British Bishop Richard Williamson, the leader of an SSPX breakaway group who was convicted in Germany of Holocaust denial, the FBI expanded its investigation to the uncle.

The FBI ramped up its surveillance of the two SSPX priests, tracking their movements and scrutinizing credit card details. The uncle's phone was even searched at Boston Logan International Airport to determine his "level of contact with his nephew, Priest 1," said the report.

Days after the Boston Field Office surveilled the uncle and a travel companion, former FBI special agent Kyle Seraphin leaked the internal assessment — commonly referred to as the Richmond Catholic Memo.

The memo

In late 2022, FBI intelligence analysts cooked up a memo about the supposed "increasing intersection of rad-trad (radical-traditional) Catholics and DVEs [domestic violent extremists]" despite acknowledging elsewhere that there was insufficient evidence to point to any such increase.

At the time, analysts could identify only two potentially relevant cases elsewhere in the nation — one of which concerned a dead subject in Oregon and the other pertaining to an SSPX-linked subject who moved to Wisconsin. That was evidently enough for the FBI bad actors to presume there must a pattern and to create a document suggesting as much.

The Richmond Catholic Memo was developed partly on the basis of information from the Portland field office, which was apparently heavily reliant on an Anti-Defamation League "dossier"; a proposed paragraph from the Milwaukee field office; the Richmond field office's investigation into the two priests; and intelligence from a foreign law enforcement agency.

The FBI analysts also relied on several politically biased sources including the Atlantic, Salon, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Around this time, the FBI built a presentation titled "Traditionalist Catholicism Overview," in which agents identified various core beliefs supposedly held by potentially extremist Catholics and SSPX members — including support for the Traditional Latin Mass, isolationism, conservative family values, and "hardline positions on abortion, LGBTQ matters, [and] interreligious dialogue," according to documents included in the DOJ report.

Justice Department

In this particular presentation, the FBI suggested that "radical-traditionalist Catholicism" was not limited to sects that have rejected the authority and/or legitimacy of the pope but included some "Canonically Regular" groups formally approved by the Vatican and "in full communion with mainline Catholic Church."

Despite vague definitions, a dearth of evidence, and a reliance on biased sources, the FBI's Richmond Catholic Memo confidently asserted:

FBI Richmond assesses the increasingly observed interest of [racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists] in [radical-traditionalist Catholic] ideology almost certainly presents opportunities for threat mitigation through the exploration of new avenues for tripwire and source development. FBI Richmond makes this assessment with high confidence based on FBI investigations, local law enforcement agency reporting, and liaison reporting, with varying degrees of corroboration and access.

The memo, which is dated Jan. 23, 2023, also concern-mongered about the supposed threat posed by traditionalist Catholics ahead of the 2024 election and suggested that legislation and judicial decisions related to abortion, immigration, affirmative action, and LGBT "protections" might serve as "catalyzing events."

Justice Department

Shameless

The DOJ report released Thursday highlighted the bureau's various attempts at damage control after Seraphin leaked the memo to the public on Feb. 8, 2023, including the decision by FBI leadership to delete the memo from its files. However, this deletion was not immediate — and staff continued to work on the project.

Citing correspondence between FBI intelligence analysts, the DOJ report noted that the memo remained accessible for weeks and was accessed by "19 intelligence analysts from 13 field offices, along with four agents and two task force officers from two field offices, three senior intelligence analysts from three different field offices, and a Chief Division Counsel from another field office."

Not only was it accessed after the deletion order, but "one of the original drafters" of the memo "continued workshopping it," said the new DOJ report.

In an internal FBI email dated March 17, 2023, an intelligence analyst said that the analyst "spent today tinkering with" the domain perspective and had made "major changes."

RELATED: Why Christian nationalists can still be conservatives

Justice Department

The individuals behind the memo at the Richmond field office, at least one of whom continued to work on the project despite public outrage, received little discipline under the previous administration.

The FBI's Inspection Division reviewed the creation and approval process behind the memo and concluded both that it "erroneously equated the ideology of domestic terrorism (DT) subjects who self-identified as ‘Radical Traditional Catholic’ ('RTC') with [racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist] ideology, without sufficient support" and that the memo "failed to consider the potential bias and credibility of open-source information" upon which it relied, the DOJ report said.

The Inspection Division also determined that the drafters of the memo demonstrated a lack of "professional judgment and failed to adhere to FBI standards," the report added.

Following these findings, the leadership of the Richmond field office said in July 2023 that the "people involved didn't deserve this" and blasted the whistleblower as "cowardly." The drafters of the memo and others involved ultimately "received positive feedback in their performance reviews," the new DOJ report said.

Accountability

The DOJ did not mince words in the conclusion to its report: "The Federal Bureau of Investigation is entrusted with the solemn responsibility of protecting the First Amendment rights of all Americans. History will rightly judge the Richmond Catholic Memo as a grave failure of the FBI Richmond Field Office to uphold that responsibility."

The Trump Justice Department has made abundantly clear that those responsible for this weaponization of law enforcement against Catholic Americans have met some consequence.

"This Department of Justice will not tolerate a weaponized bureaucracy that chills First Amendment activity," said Attorney General Todd Blanche. "The individuals who developed the Richmond Domain Perspective are no longer with the Department, and our working group’s efforts to investigate weaponization under the previous administration will continue."

After firing multiple employees tied to the memo in June, FBI Director Kash Patel underscored that "this FBI will never infringe on religious freedom."

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

If they can’t get Trump, they’ll go after the people around him. That’s the conclusion Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck is drawing as he examines the media firestorm surrounding Natalie Harp — the Trump aide nicknamed the “human printer.”

Harp hasn’t done anything controversial outside of being a loyal aide, but that didn’t stop Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) from setting off a firestorm by mocking her in a speech.

“And while the sailors on the Lincoln fight his war, while he fruitlessly drains our munitions and oil reserves, the president sleeps through his meetings,” Ossoff said, pausing for the crowd’s laughter.

“He golfs and trades stocks. See, he doesn’t want to do the job. He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the emir of Qatar,” he added.

“Notice how the crowd goes wild when he mentions Natalie Harp?” Glenn asks.

“He didn’t say affair. He didn’t say mistress. He didn’t say anything a fact-checker could grade. He just said her first name and said it, you know, the way you’d say something about a man’s girlfriend,” he says.

“Seventy-two hours later, Slate was running a headline asking whether the president of the United States is sleeping with his executive assistant,” he continues. “The Daily Beast published her private letters. CNN counted her tweets from five years ago. The Guardian ran two separate pieces. The New Republic, a writer there who once ran Obama’s social media accounts explained that she’s a danger to the republic.”

“The Washington Post flew a reporter to Nicaragua to interview her estranged brother who is, and I am not making this up, an actual Sandinista. Che Guevara books on the bookshelf, an FSLN flag on the wall, and that’s who they use as a character witness against her,” he adds.

Harp had stage-2 bone cancer in her mid-20s and has said publicly that “doctors offered her opioids and disability, do not resuscitate paperwork,” and a “conversation about dying with dignity.”

However, because of the left’s attack on her, Snopes has had to publish a fact-check on whether or not her cancer was real.

“They went after whether she was sick or not,” Glenn says, disgusted.

“She’s not a security threat. She’s not a scandal ... and she’s being taken apart on national television for the crime of standing too close because they can’t get him,” he adds.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

As an AP U.S. History student nearly 40 years ago, one of the more vexatious essay questions my classmates and I had to tackle was whether the War of 1812 was a matter of “national honor” or “national interest.”

As I recall, we went round and round for days before settling on national honor.

National honor can serve the national interest. National vanity does not.

Honor is often a dumb reason to go to war.

Often — but not always! In reality, the war was fought for honor and interest. The British were impressing American sailors, interfering with American commerce, and treating the sovereignty of the young republic as something they could disregard when convenient.

National honor and national interest were entangled.

Donald Trump is very big on national honor. He wants America respected. He hates the idea that foreign governments might laugh at us, exploit us, rip us off, or conclude that the United States is too weak or timid to defend its interests.

There is much to be said for that instinct.

The problem is that Trump sometimes confuses national honor with national interest. And sometimes he confuses both with national vanity.

Which brings me to Lake America.

On Thursday, Trump signed an executive order directing the federal government to rename Lake Ontario “Lake America.” The order gives the United States no additional territory or water rights. It opens no market, lowers no tariff, strengthens no alliance, and makes no American safer.

It does, however, annoy Canada.

This is where the War of 1812 becomes more than an old high school essay question.

RELATED: Trump renames Lake Ontario to ‘Lake America’ in jab at Canada over trade war

Al Drago/The Washington Post/Bloomberg/Getty Images

One assumption behind the American invasion of Canada was that it would be easy. Thomas Jefferson famously predicted that acquiring Canada would be “a mere matter of marching.” Not quite.

We surrendered Detroit, lost at Queenston Heights, and repeatedly failed to conquer Canada. Oh, and of course, there was the not insignificant matter of the Brits burning down Washington, D.C., in 1814 as retaliation for our burning and looting of York (modern-day Toronto) the year prior.

Americans had looked at the disparity in power and concluded that the disparity settled the question.

There is an echo of that mistake today.

My friend Kurt Schlichter captured the attitude neatly last week in a Townhall column headlined “It’s Always Cute When Canada Thinks It Matters.”

Schlichter is right about the imbalance of power. Canada is vastly weaker than the United States. It neglected its military while sheltering beneath the American security umbrella, and its economy depends much more on our market than ours depends on Canada.

But “Canada is weaker than we are” and “Canada doesn’t matter” are very different propositions.

My old teacher Angelo Codevilla had a useful maxim: “What is nearest is dearest.”

Writing about Mexico in 2009, Codevilla argued that geography had joined our countries together “whether anybody likes it or not.” Events close to home bear more directly on American peace and prosperity than events halfway around the world. “Canada’s position is analogous,” he added.

Canada matters not because we owe Canadians special deference. It matters because geography says it does.

We share more than 5,000 miles of border, the Great Lakes, continental defense, energy systems, supply chains, waterways, pipelines, railroads, and deeply integrated economies.

An America First foreign policy should understand this instinctively.

That does not require being nice to Canada. If Ottawa is free-riding on defense, demand more. If Canadian protectionism hurts American farmers or manufacturers, fight it. If pressure produces better terms for Americans, squeeze away.

The question is what American interest the pressure serves.

RELATED: How Mark Carney chose the dairy cartel — and China — over a Trump trade deal

Evelyn Hockstein/POOL/AFP/Getty Images

Trump has spent much of his second term calling Canada “the 51st state,” referring to ex-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “Governor Trudeau,” dismissing the border as artificial, and threatening or imposing economic pressure on our northern neighbor. Canada’s navy is barely a coast guard!

Canada did not respond by becoming more accommodating. It became more Canadian.

At the beginning of 2025, Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives appeared headed for a crushing victory. Trudeau was finished, and the Liberals were exhausted and deeply unpopular.

Then Trump changed the question.

Instead of asking whether they had finally had enough of the Liberals, Canadian voters increasingly asked who was best equipped to deal with Donald Trump.

That was a much better question for Mark Carney.

Trump did not single-handedly cost Poilievre the prime ministership. Carney was a strong candidate in his own right, and Poilievre had weaknesses of his own.

But the reversal was extraordinary. The Liberals came back to win bigly. Poilievre lost his own seat even as Conservatives won a record 8.1 million votes.

Trump helped turn a Liberal Party on its heels into a government with a political incentive to resist the United States.

That should interest an America First president, shouldn’t it?

I do not especially care whether Canadians believe their national honor has been wounded. I care whether wounding it makes them more or less likely to do what is advantageous to us.

Foreign policy is not therapy. We do not need to validate Canadian feelings or pretend Canada and the United States are equals in power.

But statesmanship requires understanding how other people are likely to behave.

Tell 40 million Canadians often enough that their country is a joke, their sovereignty is optional, and their border is imaginary, and some sizable fraction will become willing to pay a price to tell you no.

RELATED: Scratch a liberal, find a censor

Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

That may be foolish of them. It’s also predictable.

The United States can hurt Canada much more than Canada can hurt us. Of course we can.

But the measure of foreign policy is not whether you can hurt the other fellow. It is whether hurting him gets you something you want.

Tariffs might. Pressure on Canadian defense spending might. Hard bargaining over trade, energy, manufacturing, critical minerals, or Arctic security might.

What does Lake America get us? No land. No water. No money. No security. No concessions. Just the satisfaction of reminding Canada that we are bigger than Canada. Big whoop.

Nearly 40 years ago, my classmates and I decided the War of 1812 was chiefly about national honor.

I’m less interested today in settling that old argument than in remembering the question.

National honor can serve the national interest. National vanity does not.

Kids are different these days. Kids are spoiled these days.

It sounds like something an old curmudgeon might say, but sometimes the old curmudgeons are right, aren’t they?

Loving children doesn't require arranging the world around them. In fact, doing so can hamstring the very people we're trying to help.

There have always been rich people who could spoil their children. But for most of human history, ordinary people simply didn’t have enough money to do much spoiling with things. They lived modestly, and their children did too.

Kids didn’t have bedrooms and closets overflowing with toys. They might have a doll, a wooden train, a ball, a bat, a top, and a few other things. Read old memoirs and accounts of childhood, and you encounter children delighted by things that would barely register as presents today — an orange in a Christmas stocking, for instance.

Imagine giving the average American kid in 2026 an orange for Christmas and expecting excitement.

Spoils of abundance

Mass abundance changed all that. We can now spoil our children with things on a scale our ancestors could hardly have imagined. But I think we spoil them in another, more consequential way too.

We spoil them with importance.

Spoiling children with things is a problem everybody understands, even if plenty of us do it anyway. We know that buying children whatever they want whenever they want it can produce ungrateful, entitled adults.

But we talk much less about what happens when we organize family life around children — their preferences, their feelings, their schedules, their entertainment, their happiness. We don't merely give children too much. We make too much of them.

There are many ways to describe this kind of spoiling, but the simplest is that we teach children to believe the world revolves around them. A child who learns that lesson fails to learn humility, flexibility, self-awareness, and the ability to accommodate other people. He grows up with a distorted view of how the world works and what his place in it is.

This has been happening for at least a generation or two, and I think we've all seen the results in our degrading culture, even if we don't always recognize the cause.

The explosion in material spoiling is easy enough to explain: mass abundance. But what explains this other kind?

Lonely islanders

As usual, there isn't one answer. The rise of “gentle parenting” is part of it. So is the cultural change that followed the social revolutions of the 1960s, when adults increasingly began looking to “the youth” rather than expecting the young to learn from their elders. Another part is parents abdicating their roles as leaders, teachers, and disciplinarians because they would rather be their children's friends.

But there is another explanation that interests me more: Families got smaller.

The connection between smaller families and spoiled children is pretty straightforward. The fewer children you have, the more time and attention you can devote to each one. That sounds wonderful, of course. All good parents want more time with their kids.

But smaller families don't just give parents more time. They give parents more bandwidth to accommodate every preference, negotiate every disagreement, indulge every mood, and bend over backward in ways that aren't necessarily good for a child.

If you have one child, that child naturally becomes the center of your world. And why wouldn't he? We love our children. Of course they're central to our lives.

But there is a difference between three, four, five, or six children being the center of a family's world and one child being the center of it.

When all of a family's attention, energy, money, patience, anxiety, and ambition can be concentrated on one child, it's much easier for that child to conclude that his importance within the family reflects his importance everywhere else.

A large family naturally limits how much the household can revolve around any one child. And that may be one of its greatest virtues.

Thank you for sharing

When parents have more children, they are forced to divide their time and attention. They cannot endlessly negotiate every dispute or accommodate every preference. They can't always have infinite patience, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Sometimes Dad has to be the judge and make a ruling. Sometimes your brother gets his way. Sometimes your sister gets the front seat. Sometimes somebody else gets the last piece. Sometimes you have to wait. Sometimes you have to share. Sometimes the family is doing something you don't particularly want to do, and you're doing it anyway because you're part of the family.

That's life.

A house full of siblings teaches lessons that parents can otherwise spend enormous amounts of effort trying to manufacture. You learn that other people have needs and desires too. You learn to negotiate, compete, compromise, forgive, wait, lose, and get over things. Most importantly, you learn that you are loved enormously without being the most important person in the room.

RELATED: We need a Labor Day for moms

David McNew/Getty Images

Love and limits

Having more children places natural limits on our ability to spoil them as much as we might instinctively want to. In doing so, it can make us better parents and our children better prepared for the world.

Because the desire to spoil our children is perfectly natural. We want to give them everything. We want them to be happy. We want to enjoy our time with them. We want them to know how deeply they are loved.

Those are good impulses. But good impulses can manifest themselves in unhealthy ways. Loving children doesn't require arranging the world around them. In fact, doing so can hamstring the very people we're trying to help.

At the end of the day, our job is the same job parents have had throughout history: to raise children who become moral, functioning, upright, hardworking, well-adjusted adults capable of forming families and raising good children of their own.

Our children should know that they are loved beyond measure. They should also know that the world does not revolve around them.

Teaching them both may be one of the most loving things a parent can do.

A Florida HVAC technician was fired and arrested after he allegedly was caught on video violently abusing a small dog while on the job.

The Sanford Police Department said it was alerted on Wednesday to an "incident that took place where an HVAC technician who was working inside a resident’s home intentionally kicked the homeowner’s dog."

'May God watch over their sweet fur baby and bring healing and comfort to their family.'

Police said the suspect — identified as 43-year-old Richardson Noel — was caught on video allegedly abusing the animal by a dog treat dispenser that doubles as a motion-activated camera.

The footage shows a man entering the home shortly before 11:30 a.m. last Monday as a 12-year-old Chihuahua named Boomer barks at him, according to People magazine.

Seconds after entering the house, the disturbing video appears to show the man violently kicking the small dog and sending the animal airborne.

Ryan Menzies, the dog's owner, told WESH-TV that the incident occurred while he and his girlfriend were at work; she received a motion alert from the dispenser's app.

Menzies said his girlfriend sent him a video of the alleged animal abuse.

"I was standing in the parking garage at work, and I said out loud, 'Oh, my God,' and almost started crying," Menzies recalled. "And then anger took over, because I knew I had to get home."

"She looked back in the video, and that's when she called me back and said, 'You need to get home now. He kicked the dog. ...'" Menzies told WKMG-TV. "She started crying when she first saw it and then immediately went to her supervisor and said, 'I need to leave.'"

According to Menzies, the brutal kick knocked the senior dog unconscious and triggered a seizure.

"He gave a 100-pound kick to an animal that's five pounds," Menzies said. "So [Boomer] flipped over, slid along the floor, and was unconscious for over a minute, after which he woke up and had a seizure for five minutes."

WESH said that during the 65-second video, Noel can be seen returning twice — first moving the dog's head around with his boot and then turning him over. The station said Boomer remained limp for the remainder of the recording.

Menzies said Boomer and the couple's other Chihuahua were secured in another room, but it was unclear how the dog got out.

According to Menzies, the veterinarian said Boomer had no broken bones but warned that the animal could have internal bruising.

RELATED: DC dog daycare employee kicked, killed puppy: 'Bronny brought immeasurable joy to our lives'

Police said Noel turned himself in to authorities Thursday.

Noel, of Broward County, is charged with aggravated animal cruelty.

Citing jail records, WESH reported that Noel's bond was set at $8,000, and he was released from jail Thursday night after posting bond.

Sanford Police Chief Cecil Smith stated, "It is deeply disturbing that someone entrusted with entering a person's home to complete a service would violate that trust by viciously injuring a defenseless animal. The video is difficult to watch and shows the callousness of this individual."

According to the arrest report, Noel was on a service call for his employer, ElDante HVAC Services, LLC, at the time of the incident.

The company announced that Noel has been fired and issued an apology on its website:

First and foremost, we offer our deepest and most sincere apologies for the incident involving one of our technicians. As pet parents ourselves, we fully understand the emotional gravity of witnessing a beloved dog being subjected to physical harm. We are truly sorry for the distress and pain this incident has caused.

While the technician has shared that he has had negative experiences with dogs in the past, his actions are absolutely not justified. The behavior he displayed was completely unacceptable and does not reflect the values, standards, principles, or professionalism that we hold our company and our team to.

We have taken this matter extremely seriously. The technician’s employment was terminated immediately after we reviewed the circumstances and the available evidence. Criminal charges have also been pursued, and we are cooperating fully with the appropriate authorities regarding this matter.

When we first became aware of the incident, we immediately questioned the technician about what had occurred. In his initial account, he stated that the dog had attempted to bite him twice. After reviewing the recorded evidence later that same day, we determined that his account did not accurately reflect what had occurred. This further confirmed our decision to terminate his employment that same evening.

We also want to emphasize that we have a strict company policy that no technician is permitted to enter a property when unattended pets or minors are present. In this situation, the technician failed to follow our established safety protocol and proceeded on his own rather than contacting his supervisor for guidance. This was a serious violation of our company policy.

We have personally extended our sincerest apologies to the tenants and offered our assistance in any way we can during this difficult time. We sincerely hope their beloved dog makes a full and speedy recovery.

May God watch over their sweet fur baby and bring healing and comfort to their family. Our thoughts and prayers remain with them during this difficult time.

WESH reported that ElDante HVAC Services, LLC did not respond when asked if the company would pay for Boomer's veterinary bills.

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

On Tuesday, my lawyers from the Goldwater Institute and I will appear before the Arizona Supreme Court to argue a proposition that, until recently, I would have thought too obvious to require lawyers: When the government violates a law enacted to protect you, you ought to be able to ask a court to make it stop.

Apparently this is controversial.

The question before the Arizona Supreme Court is larger than one professor, one university, or even DEI.

My case began with Arizona State University’s mandatory “Inclusive Communities” training. ASU required employees, as a condition of employment, to complete instruction on such fashionable academic doctrines as “whiteness,” “heteronormativity,” and “transformative justice.” An early version included a quiz requiring employees to select approved answers, including that land acknowledgments are important tools of accountability and that DEI should permeate every aspect of the university.

The course included material on “white privilege,” “white supremacy,” and the claim that American institutions normalize racial oppression. One segment even included a Starbucks employee describing an “existential crisis” when Americans could not pronounce her name.

There was, however, an inconvenience. Arizona has a law.

And the law says the state and its agencies “may not require an employee” to participate in training that presents “any form of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex.” It separately bars the use of public money for such training.

This is not an especially cryptic statute. One need not summon a seminar on poststructuralist hermeneutics to decipher the words “may not.”

I’ve alleged that ASU violated the statute. The merits of that claim have never been tried. Before ASU can be required to defend the training in court, the Arizona Board of Regents has argued that I cannot bring the case at all.

The trial court said I could. The Arizona Court of Appeals said I could not. The state Supreme Court has now agreed to hear the case and framed the question in the language lawyers love: whether the court of appeals failed to apply Arizona precedent for determining when a statute contains an “implied private right of action.”

That phrase sounds calculated to make normal Americans suddenly remember they have lawns to mow. But the principle behind it is important.

The law does not expressly say, “An employee may sue his employer for violating this section.” The Board of Regents therefore argues that no private cause of action exists. The Court of Appeals accepted that reasoning.

My attorneys argue that Arizona law does not end the inquiry there. Under state precedent, statutory silence “begins, rather than ends” the inquiry. Courts may consider a law’s language, context, purpose, subject matter, and consequences to determine whether a private right is implied.

RELATED: Feds probe ASU for racial bias — will other universities be held accountable?

flags/iStock/Getty Images

And the law is expressly directed at protecting state employees from being forced into prohibited training.

So here is the elementary question: If the employee the legislature meant to protect cannot enforce the protection, what exactly has he been given?

The lawmakers who sponsored the statute filed an amicus brief supporting my case and arguing that employees like me are exactly whom the law was intended to protect. That does not decide the legal question. It does underscore the practical one: If the protected employee cannot sue, who can?

A legal protection that government may violate without anyone able to invoke it in court has been demoted from law to suggestion.

That is why this case is not merely about DEI and certainly not merely about me.

Imagine a future Arizona government dominated by people whose politics are the reverse of mine. Suppose it mandates ideological training that violates a statute protecting progressive state employees. Should those employees be told, “Yes, the legislature prohibited this, but you are not permitted to ask a court to stop it”?

Of course not.

Conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheists, Republicans, Democrats, and the politically exhausted all have the same interest here. A government constrained by law is safer than a government permitted to decide for itself whether the laws restraining it will actually be enforced.

The larger controversy over DEI only sharpens the point. For years, university administrators embraced an ideology that purported to fight racial discrimination while rehabilitating racial judgment under new terminology. The vocabulary changed. The moral error did not.

Now legislatures are acting, parents are objecting, faculty members are speaking, and DEI offices are being renamed or reorganized.

But changing the stationery is not accountability.

RELATED: Diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging: A new name for the same game

johnwoodcock/iStock/Getty Images

Institutions regain public trust by telling the truth about what they did. Administrators who imposed unlawful training should answer for it if a court finds that the law was violated. Those who objected should be able to get through the courthouse door long enough to have that question decided.

When a government institution is accused of violating the law, its first instinct should not be to discover an ingenious reason the citizen cannot sue.

Let the case be heard.

If ASU’s training complied with Arizona law, let ASU prove it. If it did not, let the courts say so.

That is what courts are for.

The question before the Arizona Supreme Court is larger than one professor, one university, or even DEI. It is whether a law written to restrain government is something the people it protects may actually invoke against government.

Arizona has already told its agencies, “You may not.”

Now we find out whether an employee is allowed to answer, “Then prove it in court.”

I received my Fitbit Air near launch day back in May, and I’ve had it on my wrist ever since. In our original hands-on coverage, I loved it for its lightweight design, long battery life, and 24/7 wearability, despite a lack of GPS tracking for runs, questions around data privacy, and an inconsistently reliable AI coach.

Three months later, I have more thoughts on how Fitbit Air has aged and whether or not I still recommend the device.

I find that it’s an inconsistent health partner.

Things I still love about the Fitbit Air? For starters, the size and weight have proven to be a huge selling point for the Fitbit Air. It’s so light and unobtrusive, I forget I have it on most of the time. Unlike larger fitness bands or even watches, its bracelet-like design makes it easy to wear in tandem with jewelry or accessories on the other wrist. Personally, I pair mine with an Apple Watch (I’m a data nerd; don’t judge), and I rarely dodge judgmental glances in public, so it must look normal to most folks.

Its covert aesthetic is further complemented by reliably impressive battery life that lasts slightly more than a week per charge, though this window may shorten a bit if you’re a real exercise fanatic. I rarely have to take it off or acknowledge it’s there, which is the best thing you could ask for in a dedicated fitness tracker. Considering that the Fitbit Air samples heart rate data every five seconds, this kind of battery life cannot be overstated. It’s truly impressive, as far as wearable gadgets go.

Zach Laidlaw

If there’s anything to gripe about, it’s that the pebble module inside the Fitbit Air is made of plastic. Sure, it’s lightweight and cheap to produce, but it’s also easy to damage. Shortly after the Fitbit Air launched, some users reported scratches on the heart rate sensor, and one unlucky user found out that bug sprays and plastics don’t mix. Keeping these in mind, I’ve been careful with my Fitbit Air, and it’s held up quite well so far, despite getting drenched for daily showers, occasional exercises, and rounds of dirty dishwater in the kitchen sink. Let’s see if that trend continues.

Things I dislike about the Fitbit Air

That’s not to say that Fitbit Air is perfect. When the device launched, Google heavily pushed its Gemini-powered AI health coach as a key feature. The company even rebuilt the Fitbit app around it as Google Health. Unfortunately, Coach still needs some work.

Through my day-to-day musings with Coach, I find that it’s an inconsistent health partner. Sometimes, it’s really good at making recommendations to improve personal fitness or serving as a soundboard for discussing random health questions. Other times?

RELATED: Google's Fitbit overhaul is actually great. There's just one catch.

Zach Laidlaw

It hallucinates over the data stored within the app. I’ve had it misread my readiness score, undercut my daily steps, and send me a morning notification to tell me I woke up too early while I was actively still sleeping.

One time, it even invented its own stress score, which is a feature Fitbit used to have, but it was removed when Google Health took over. When I asked Coach where it got the number, it said that I could find it myself in Google Health, but naturally, it wasn’t there. I’m still not sure where it found that hidden data, if it existed at all.

At this point, Coach is an interesting feature to play with, but it’s not actually reliable or useful yet. If it wasn’t already included in my Google AI Pro subscription, I wouldn’t dare spend the extra money on a Google Health Premium plan to try it out.

Would I recommend the Fitbit Air?

It’s only been a few months, but Fitbit Air remains to be one of the most interesting fitness trackers I’ve used in the last 15 years. Shortcomings aside, it does the basics well. Build, comfort, and battery are all highly rated in my book. It’s also tough to find a reliable tracker with class-leading heart rate, sleep, and fitness metrics for under $100. For the money, you get a lot of gadget here, and I would recommend it to anyone who is even the least bit curious about your health.

Zach Laidlaw

The story doesn’t end there, though. Fitbit Air is about to get better. Google announced at its hardware event in mid-August that the wearable is getting a powerful software upgrade. As part of Google’s new Health Guardian system for Pixel Watches, Fitbit Air will receive several quality-of-life features: insulin resistance metrics and blood pressure trends.

Together, these could theoretically help users detect early signs of diabetes and hypertension. That said, the features are expected to roll out in September, so I haven’t had a chance to test them yet. When they’re available, though, I’m sure I’ll have some thoughts. You’ll just have to wait until the six-month long-term review to read them.

Meta is set to pay a staggering $17 billion settlement after allegations that its social media platforms contributed to addiction and other harms among young users.

The agreement marks one of the largest corporate payouts tied to the growing backlash against Big Tech — and BlazeTV hosts Christopher Rufo and Jonathan "Lomez" Keeperman aren’t exactly sure how to feel about it.

“So we had a ruling this week,” Rufo says, “a settlement this week that Meta, which is the kind of dumb rebrand, like, middle-aged man identity crisis rebranding of Facebook, has settled to pay $17 billion.”

“Meta has been found guilty, or admitted to, harming children with its Facebook technology,” he explains.

“Essentially, they’re saying social media is addictive and harmful to kids in the same way that kids might be, you know, lighting up cigarettes,” he adds, before asking Lomez whether it’s good or bad.

“I’m of like two, three, four minds about this, honestly. On the one hand, it does strike me a little bit as a moral panic, I should say, which is like, OK, we’re going down this path of increased social media use. People are addicted to their phones,” Lomez says.

“There’s no ambiguity around that. That’s obvious and demonstrably the case. The question is, what harms are these doing? ... And I think there are real harms,” he adds.

One of these “harms” is the “pervasive mass psychosis” that Lomez explains is “dominating our public life in almost every respect.”

“People getting herded into these sort of algorithmic valleys, you might call them, where they don’t see outside of it. Their information environment is completely one-sided, and this is deranging to people,” he says.

However, is the responsibility on those who have created social media, or those who use it?

“I think it’s a little bit of both,” he says. “And certainly when it comes to kids, I think kids are particularly susceptible to this stuff. And there ought to be a certain kind of responsibility that’s placed on the people creating these tools to be mindful of the ways in which kids in particular are susceptible, are able to be manipulated, where their sort of weaknesses are.”

“So this is all to say, when it comes to Meta here, is it reasonable for them to pay out $17 billion to these states? My answer is actually, yeah, it is,” he adds.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Abdul El-Sayed did Americans a favor when he sat down with Jesse Watters on Fox News this week. The Michigan U.S. Senate candidate gave us a remarkably clear lesson in the philosophy behind America’s growing democratic socialist movement. The real question is simple: Who owns your property — you or the government?

The most revealing moment was not about Sharia law, transgender medicine, or even socialized health care. It came when Watters pressed El-Sayed about his proposal to tax the wealth of Americans with more than $100 million.

Before giving government more power, ask what happens when the people wielding it decide that you, too, have more than you need.

El-Sayed has made the argument before. Billionaires, he says, can surrender a substantial portion of their wealth and still remain billionaires. Their children and grandchildren will still be rich.

Notice the premise. This is not merely an argument that government needs revenue for legitimate functions, nor a dispute over whether the top marginal income-tax rate should be 35% or 39%. The argument is that you possess more than you need — and government gets to decide how much that is.

That is the part Americans need to understand.

Suppose you build a company. You work for decades. You save, invest, and take risks. The company becomes enormously valuable. Under the traditional American understanding, the presumption is that the property is yours. Government may tax under constitutional authority, but it does not acquire an unlimited moral claim on your property because politicians decide you have too much of it.

El-Sayed reverses that presumption. What are you going to do with all that money? Whatever your answer, the socialist argument says it is too much because you have more than you need.

The proper question is not what you intend to do with your property. The proper question is: By what right does the government take it?

That distinction takes us back to 1776. The founders understood that government is necessary to protect life, liberty, property, contracts, and the peaceful exercise of rights.

But precisely because government possesses coercive power, it must be limited. The founders built a constitutional order around the insight that human beings abuse power, so power must be divided, checked, and restrained.

Read the Declaration of Independence. The complaint against George III is repeatedly that political power has exceeded its proper bounds. The king interferes with colonial legislatures, imposes taxes without consent, and seeks to subject Americans to “absolute Despotism.”

The central political problem was not how government could solve every problem. It was how citizens could prevent government from becoming one.

RELATED: The data center mob wants your property rights too

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Compare that instinct with New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s declaration that there is “no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.” That is nearly the photographic negative of the American constitutional tradition.

The founders asked: What powers have we actually given government, and how do we limit them? The new socialists ask: What problem is left for government to solve?

El-Sayed’s wealth-tax argument reveals why. Once we abandon the presumption that your property is genuinely yours, the limiting principle becomes hard to locate. If $100 million is too much, why not $50 million? Why not $10 million? If politicians may determine how much wealth you need, why stop with billionaires?

The issue is not whether anyone should feel sorry for billionaires. The issue is who owns the property.

Redistribution is politically easiest when it begins with somebody almost nobody identifies with. He has plenty. You do not. Why shouldn’t government take some?

Because a government powerful enough to decide how much property another person needs has been given a power that does not become harmless merely because its first target is richer than you.

Then there is the comic assumption beneath the argument: Government will spend the money more wisely.

El-Sayed’s home state offers a useful caution. The state auditor found Michigan’s Unemployment Insurance Agency ineffective during the COVID pandemic. Fraud controls were weakened, billions in improper or fraudulent payments went out, and later audits found serious failures in recovering them.

These are the institutions that will reliably improve on the decisions of people who built billion-dollar companies?

Government has legitimate but limited purposes, and legitimate taxation follows from those purposes. But legitimate taxation does not establish a standing claim to whatever share of your wealth politicians decide you do not need.

This debate is especially important because socialism has found a receptive audience among younger Americans. Harvard’s 2025 Youth Poll found support for capitalism among young Americans at only 39%, while nearly half of young Democrats expressed support for socialism.

That is, in part, a failure of education.

We have spent enormous energy teaching young Americans to critique power and too little teaching them why constitutional government was designed to limit it. Much of contemporary oppression theory condemns authorities who presume to know how others should live, then demands political power to impose its own answers.

The next generation needs a different lesson.

RELATED: The DSA’s history lesson has one big omission

Sarah Rice/Getty Images

Your life is your responsibility. Your neighbor’s property belongs to your neighbor. Wealth does not become public property when it crosses an arbitrary number selected by a politician. Government exists to protect rights, not to decide how much prosperity citizens are permitted to enjoy.

Freedom includes choices politicians consider foolish or wasteful. Save your money, give it away, invest it, build a business, leave it to your children, support your church, fund a charity, or buy something ridiculous. Within the law, those decisions belong to you.

That is what limited government protects.

The socialist temptation is perennial because it begins with an attractive promise: Give us more power, and we will use it to make life fairer.

The American answer is older and wiser: Before giving government more power, ask what happens when the people wielding it decide that you, too, have more than you need.

On August 10, a powerful magnitude 7.4 earthquake struck western Colombia near the town of San José del Palmar in Chocó Department, killing at least 287 people, injuring thousands, and knocking down buildings in cities like Pereira and Cali.

While Colombia is the most recent example, it’s certainly not the only country to experience devastating earthquakes in recent months. Since May, Venezuela, Indonesia, Mexico, and Japan, among several others, have all experienced the ground-splitting force of major quakes.

On a recent episode of “Live Free,” host and Lakepointe Church pastor Josh Howerton, along with co-host and fellow pastor Carlos Erazo, dove into the biblical significance behind the uptick in earthquakes and other kinds of chaos.

“When you look at Scripture, there's only one time that Jesus actually specifically explicitly addresses earthquakes,” says Erazo, “and the one time He does it, it happens in the context of the end-times and the return of Jesus.”

He then reads Matthew 24:7-8, which documents Jesus’ answer to His disciples’ questions regarding the signs that will mark the end of the age: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.”

The earthquakes that are happening all over the world right now, Erazo says, are “literally what Jesus said 2,000 years ago would happen.”

He acknowledges that skeptics will argue that earthquakes have always happened, but they’re missing a critical distinction.

“There's always been earthquakes ... and that's true, but we haven't always had these amount of earthquakes in the context of literally everything else that we're seeing right now happening and unfolding in our world,” he says.

He points to another of Jesus’ end-time signs in Matthew 24 — “wars and rumors of wars.”

“Studies show today that in the last four to five years, there's been an increasing number in quote ‘active armed conflicts involving governments.’ 2025 set an all-time record high since World War II,” says Erazo.

“In 2026, the amount of countries that were involved as well in conflicts outside of their own borders nearly doubled in the last 20 years, and according to this same report, it says quote, ‘Global peace is at its lowest level since 2007,”’ he adds, citing the 2026 Global Peace Index from the Institute for Economics & Peace.

These natural disasters and global conflicts aren’t mere occurrences, Erazo argues, but signs that Jesus’ prophesies are coming to pass.

“When you see stuff like that — earthquakes, wars, persecution, the insanity happening out there, chaos — Jesus said this would happen,” he says.

For Christians, these signs herald the good news that Jesus’ final return draws nearer — but not so for the unbeliever, says Erazo.

“If you're not a Christian ... this should scare you,” he warns.

“Jesus spoke about birth pains, and this is just the beginning of something that's going to get worse.”

To hear more, watch the episode above. “Live Free with Josh Howerton” is on BlazeTV+, YouTube, and major podcast platforms.

Join BlazeTV+ and start watching Josh today at blazetv.com/JOSH. Use promo code JOSH40 to get $40 off your subscription.

Virtual Private Networks are meant to shield your browsing history from all manner of prying eyes, including your internet service provider, your workplace or school, and even potential hackers. If you use a VPN with your Windows PC, though, I have some bad news: Microsoft has a full record of your browsing habits, and it can even report your activity to the FBI.

According to court documents released on July 1, a 19-year-old young man working with the cyber criminal group known as Scattered Spider was caught hacking into a computer system belonging to a luxury jewelry store. While inside, the hacker stole company data and demanded $8 million in cryptocurrency for ransom. Ultimately, the jewelry store kicked the hacker out of its system without paying the ransom, and the perpetrator was later arrested and charged.

Every user is susceptible to unwarranted surveillance and government overreach.

It’s a simple case of conspiracy, digital intrusion, and fraud ... but there’s a catch.

The hacker’s identity should have been hidden from the feds.

Reports indicate that the hacker used a Windows PC to access the jewelry store’s system. Before breaking in, he installed a VPN onto his device that was meant to conceal his IP address, location, and identity. The VPN worked as intended, but it still wasn’t enough to keep his activity from leaking to the FBI. Even with protections in place, Windows itself was the thing that outed him in the end, thanks to a little-known device identifier called Global Device Identifier, or GDID.

What is GDID?

Every installation of Windows is assigned a GDID. Up until recently, there wasn’t a lot of information on exactly what this identifier could do, and even now, details are scant. However, thanks to this case, we can make a few deductions.

GDID can track and keep a record of the web browsing history on the device that it’s assigned, even if a VPN is installed. This information is saved over time, and it can’t be erased or cleared, even if with a system wipe or reinstall of Windows.

GDID can’t see what a user did on the pages they visited. It doesn’t know what that person saw or read on the screen. However, simply visiting a certain URL may be enough to draw conclusions and bring legal charges, as was the case with the Scattered Spider hacker.

What does this mean for regular users?

For the criminally inclined, GDID is just another way for the FBI to serve justice in a world increasingly plagued by cyber criminals, AI-powered security threats, and system breaches. As more of our digital infrastructure comes under attack at the hands of quantum computing and other innovations we haven’t yet imagined, the feds will need all the help they can get to stop criminals in their tracks.

And for the rest of us?

RELATED: New malware is crippling Android phones, but not yours if you do this

Jutharat Pinpan/Getty Images

The revelation that Microsoft created Windows with browser-tracking spyware baked directly into the OS is neither shocking nor acceptable. A feature that can monitor a hacker’s browsing activity is a fatal flaw that makes every user susceptible to unwarranted surveillance and government overreach. This is especially egregious when you take into account what this could mean for something like the age-verification bills that are currently at Capitol Hill.

Imagine what would happen if states begin to pass age-restriction laws. Instead of turning over their IDs, citizens would use a VPN to access the internet by routing their connection to a nonrestrictive state — a clear violation of the new law. A Windows PC would detect this behavior, and it could inform the government of such an infraction, resulting in legal repercussions.

At that point, there’s no going back.

How to disable GDID

This is usually the part of the story where I try to deliver some good news — a solution to keep you, your devices, and your rights safe from Big Tech and/or the government. Unfortunately, there isn’t much that can be done here.

GDID is built directly into Windows. It is assigned to your device whether you use your Microsoft account to log in or you use a local account. It is also persistent, meaning that once assigned, it doesn’t change. That identifier is attached to your computer and you for the rest of its life, and when you get another Windows PC, the next identifier will follow you too.

The only way to avoid it is to choose a different PC platform altogether.

Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) recently made headlines when she claimed during an interview on ABC’s “This Week” with Jonathan Karl that “Woke 1 was crazy.” She was specifically referring to the extreme progressive rhetoric and positions of the 2020 COVID lockdown era, particularly calls to defund or abolish the police.

Some have interpreted the DSA member’s words as evidence that the left is entering a more sane, commonsense phase — but BlazeTV’s Christopher Rufo believes the opposite is actually true.

On this episode of “Rufo & Lomez,” Rufo and co-host Jonathan Keeperman sit down with foreign policy expert Zineb Riboua to dive into what Rufo predicts is the left’s next phase — a movement that will make the pinnacle of wokeism look tame.

“It's long been my thesis that what's next on the left is the ideology of Third-Worldism,” says Rufo.

Riboua breaks down what that term entails. “Third-Worldism is really about seeing everything through a very specific lens, where you show who is the colonizer, who is the colonized, who is the oppressor, the oppressed.”

This “very binary” way of thinking, she explains, pits “the global north” against “the global south,” with the explicit goal of seeing the latter “triumph.”

But this isn’t the massive shift some interpret it to be, she says. Third-Worldism, Riboua explains, is just “a different form” of the left’s longtime goal to take money and power from the West and give it to other groups via redistribution, reparations, and shifting power.

“My kind of pet theory is that there's also just a change in racial focus,” Rufo adds, highlighting 2020’s BLM era, which was hyper-focused around “black America's historical grievances [and] historical oppressions” — an era whose “leadership class” ultimately “collapsed.”

Rufo wonders if Third-Worldism is simply the shifting of the left’s racial focus off of black America and on to the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia.

“Is it just a racial shift in the subject — seeking the same policies, yes, but seeking a kind of stronger leadership class?” he asks Riboua.

“While it's true that there is a change in ... which race we're going to give priorities for, I think that what is, I think, more fundamental about Third-Worldism is that it positions things in a way that anyone who feels oppressed can join,” says Riboua.

“In a way, Third-Worldism is much more, I would say, inclusive of all these grievances against anything that is Western and de facto imperial, patriarchal even though things are obviously very much complicated in history,” she adds.

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

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.