The Bishop of Rome and earthly head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis, has passed away. He was 88 and has died after a lengthy, lingering illness.

He was the first Jesuit pope and the first pope to have been born in South America (he was born into an Italian family in Argentina). As the Jesuit order and the Roman Catholic Church in South America both tend to lean to the left, so also did the twelve years of his papacy. 

Pope Francis’ papacy often sparked controversy, much of which he himself sparked. He received much criticism over one particular comment, which the Vatican later explained was his own personal opinion and not the Church’s position. The Catholic Herald reported in September 2024 that Pope Francis had declared that “all religions are a path to God.” He explained: “They are like different languages in order to arrive at God, but God is God for all. Since God is God for all, then we are all children of God. If you start to fight, ‘my religion is more important than yours, mine is true and yours isn’t’, where will that lead us? There’s only one God, and each of us has a language to arrive at God. Some are [Sikh], Muslim, Hindu, Christian, and they are different paths [to God].” 

Francis was apparently contradicting both Jesus’ statement: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6), as well the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church’s Second Vatican Council, which emphasized that it was “the burden of the Church’s preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.” (Nostra Aetate 2, 4) The Catholic Herald noted that in making these remarks, the pope had set aside his prepared remarks and was speaking extemporaneously. 

Even his official papal statements, however, also included a great deal of material that led people to wonder if the age-old question that was supposed to imply that the answer was obvious—“Is the Pope Catholic?”—actually now admitted of a negative response.

Argentine President Javier Milei derided him as a “Communist” and even as “the representative of the evil one on earth.” In 2023, Pope Francis responded to a series of dubia (“doubts”) that Cardinals Walter Brandmüller and Raymond Leo Burke, along with the support of three other Cardinals, Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, Robert Sarah, and Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, had sent him the previous year, asking him to clarify his position on five issues where he had appeared to depart from the actual teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Vatican News identified these as “the interpretation of Divine Revelation, the blessing of same-sex unions, synodality as a constitutive dimension of the Church, the priestly ordination of women, and repentance as a necessary condition for sacramental absolution.” 

The most striking aspect of this incident was neither the questions nor the pope’s answers, but the fact that it had happened at all, and that it had been necessary to question the guardian and anchor of the Roman Catholic faith over his own adherence to that faith. There was no parallel to this in modern times, and it exemplified how much Francis was a very different kind of pope from the great majority of his predecessors.

Related: During Holy Week, the World Council of Churches Promotes Christianity — Nah, Just Kidding…

Francis also followed a leftist line on most of the burning political issues of our day. In 2016, he declared that someone who built a border wall was “not a Christian.” In February 2025, he sent a letter to the U.S. bishops, excoriating Trump for securing America’s southern border. He repeatedly insisted that welcoming any and all migrants was a Christian duty, and rejected “any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality.”

The pope worked hard also to build bridges with the international Islamic community, downplaying Islamic jihad terrorism, ignoring the rampant Muslim persecution of Christians in the Middle East and Africa, and even obliquely justifying the 2015 murders of cartoonists of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo who had lampooned the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Francis said that “it is true that you must not react violently, but although we are good friends, if [an aide] says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch, it’s normal. You can’t make a toy out of the religions of others. These people provoke and then (something can happen). In freedom of expression, there are limits.” This was, in essence, a submission to Islam’s blasphemy laws, which would, if followed, mean the end of free societies. 

Before his final illness, Pope Francis had been planning to travel to Nicaea, the site of the first ecumenical council in the year 325, for the 1700th anniversary of this all-important council, and for joint Easter celebrations with the spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. “His Holiness Pope Francis wishes for us to jointly celebrate this important anniversary,” Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew explained, and there had even been talk of the two Churches, which have been in schism with one another since 1054, agreeing to a common date for Easter, or even reuniting. But this was not to be.

What will the Roman Catholic Church do now? Will it continue to follow in the way of Pope Francis, or will it heed the call of millions to return to a more traditional approach to the faith? The world watches and waits.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 29 books, including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad, The History of Jihad, and The Critical Qur’an.

ChatGPT is warping undergraduate brains.

By now, most North Carolinians are at least somewhat familiar with Generative AI (GenAI). As tech journalist George Lawton explains, GenAI “uses sophisticated algorithms to organize large, complex data sets into meaningful clusters of information in order to create new content, including text, images and audio, in response to a query or prompt.” It is the foundation of numerous platforms, including Open AI’s ChatGPT and Dall-E, as well as Google’s Gemini. And it is either a bane or a boon, depending on one’s perspective—especially, perhaps, in the field of education.

GenAI is either a bane or a boon, depending on one’s perspective.Since OpenAI publicly released ChatGPT-3.5 in November 2022, students have increasingly relied on GenAI to complete assignments. According to a recent survey, 88 percent of full-time undergraduates admitted to using GenAI for assessments. Administrators and instructors are still struggling to meet the challenges that GenAI presents. (When) is it acceptable for students to use GenAI? (How) should students be permitted to use it? (How) should we address GenAI in our classes? (What) should we teach our students about it?

Responses at the institutional level in North Carolina seem to have been, generally speaking, prudently cautious.Responses at the institutional level in North Carolina seem to have been, generally speaking, prudently cautious: providing overviews of the technology, recognizing its shortcomings, situating it within the context of academic integrity, and ultimately deferring to individual instructors to make their own specific policies. See, for example, Duke University’s statement on Artificial Intelligence Policies, UNC-Chapel Hill’s Research Generative AI Guidance, Wake Forest University’s Academic Integrity FAQ, and Wake Tech’s Generative Artificial Intelligence policy.

Instructors’ attitudes toward student use of GenAI run the gamut, but they seem to fall into either of two broad categories.

• The Alarmist Attitude: This response is grounded in the view that GenAI is more than merely disruptive of current practices but is potentially apocalyptic in its consequences for education as a field. Policies and approaches revolve around preventative and punitive measures, the underlying goal being, essentially, to criminalize GenAI.
• The Accommodationist Attitude: This response is grounded in the view that GenAI is a revolutionary breakthrough that not only can and will but even should be used by students for greater efficiency and increased productivity. Policies and approaches revolve around incorporating GenAI training into the curriculum, the underlying goal being, essentially, to embrace GenAI.

As things currently stand, a strictly alarmist approach is untenable, a never-ending game of whack-a-mole that the instructor is destined to lose. On the other hand, rushing to embrace GenAI through an overly optimistic, accommodationist approach can lead only to unintended consequences that we can neither predict nor even imagine. At this time, the most prudent approach to take with students would seem to be this: Recognize that GenAI is a potentially beneficial tool but actively discourage students from using it by focusing on the very real costs of such reliance.

Educating students on the limitations and liabilities of GenAI is a good way to start. So-called AI hallucinations are the most glaring example, but they are far from the most significant. Even more consequential are the various biases baked into many GenAI platforms. A 2024 UNESCO analysis suggests that “AI-based systems often perpetuate (and even scale and amplify) human, structural and social biases,” particularly with respect to gender. A 2024 paper published in the journal Nature similarly argues that certain platforms “are known to perpetuate systematic racial prejudices, making their judgements biased in problematic ways about groups such as African Americans.”

On the other hand, as the authors of a widely-reported U.K.-based study observe, “OpenAI’s wildly popular ChatGPT artificial-intelligence service has showed a clear bias toward the Democratic Party” in the U.S. and leftist political parties in other countries. And a 2023 study conducted by German researchers similarly found that ChatGPT has a “pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientation.”

The agonizingly direct approach that GenAI takes in responding to prompts often results in painfully formulaic presentations.There are other, less easily measurable shortcomings, as well. The agonizingly direct approach that GenAI takes in responding to prompts often results in painfully formulaic presentations that follow predictable patterns and routinely employ the same, often slightly unusual, rote terms and phrases. These presentations also tend to be essentially expository in nature, even when the platform is prompted to “analyze” or “evaluate,” and are frustratingly superficial. ChatGPT’s “arguments,” for example, often comprise broad, vague generalizations with little to no context, support, or insight. In other words, the biggest problem with GenAI for students isn’t that it’s a serial fabulist, a sexist, a racist, or a leftist partisan: It’s that it’s a predictable writer and a shallow “thinker.” And it’s training our students to become the same—or worse.

The recent past offers an analogous situation—and a cautionary tale—that we might learn from.The recent past offers an analogous situation—and a cautionary tale—that we might learn from. When Google really took off circa 2000, we were told with breathless excitement that it was “democratizing access to knowledge” and “putting information at our fingertips,” so that answers were never more than “a click away.” Students, it was said, had been liberated from the drudgery of rote memorization and arduous expeditions through library stacks. Now, the cheerleaders trumpeted, students and their teachers could focus on the real point of education: critical thinking.

The problem is that this has simply not been borne out. This is because, as tutor and author Erica Meltzer noted in a 2013 blog post, “factual knowledge is actually the basis for higher level thinking. […] Critical thinking emerges from the scaffolding provided by rote knowledge; it can’t be divorced from it.” Accordingly, students haven’t become stronger, deeper, more insightful critical thinkers simply because they have immediate, virtually unfettered access to information.

But it’s worse than that. In 2011, Betsy Sparrow, et al., published a seminal study in which they found that one of the “cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips” through Google is that we don’t remember the information that we use Google to access. A 2024 meta-analysis of such studies provides further evidence that this so-called “Google effect” (or “digital amnesia”) “may lead to changes in cognitive and memory mechanisms.”

In other words, Google disincentivizes and even impedes actual learning.

There’s already mounting evidence that something similar is at work with GenAI. Students and “knowledge workers” are increasingly relying on GenAI for “cognitive offloading.” That is, they are “outsourcing” to ChatGPT and similar platforms the tasks of acquiring and applying knowledge: the tasks, in other words, of critical thinking. GenAI cheerleaders, like the Google prophets of yesteryear, tell us that this is a good thing, because now students will be able to engage in even higher-order critical thinking. History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.

Once again, the opposite seems to be the case. A recent study by Dr. Michael Gerlich “revealed a significant negative correlation between frequent AI tool usage and critical thinking abilities, mediated by increased cognitive offloading.” Furthermore, “younger participants exhibited higher dependence on AI tools and lower critical thinking scores compared to older participants.”

Nor, according to Gerlich, are young people using “the cognitive resources freed up by AI for innovative tasks.” They’re passively consuming other content, mostly for entertainment. These findings are in keeping with those of a recent German study, which concluded that undergraduates who used GenAI “large language models” (e.g., ChatGPT) for information-gathering “demonstrated lower-quality reasoning and argumentation in their final recommendations compared to those who used traditional search engines.”

GenAI disincentivizes and impedes critical thinking.In other words, GenAI disincentivizes and even impedes critical thinking.

This is what students need to be taught about GenAI before they’re taught anything else—if, for the time being, they are taught anything else. But for this to mean anything to them, they must also be taught the value of critical thinking. They must be taught, for example (to take a 10,000-foot view), that

• Strong critical thinkers are better able to evaluate the credibility and reliability of information sources and to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate information;
• They are better able to recognize logical fallacies and cognitive biases—including their own—and are more immune to manipulation;
• They are more insightful, more self-aware, and more creative;
• They are more effective communicators and are better able to make persuasive, convincing arguments;
• They are better problem-solvers and decision-makers;
• They are more capable, more confident, and more independent.

Nor are the benefits of these things confined to the classroom or the workplace. They are far more important in our daily lives than students realize. Critical thinking enables us to do more than earn higher grades and find more lucrative employment; it empowers us to live easier, freer, more autonomous, more productive, more satisfying, more fulfilling, more fully human lives.

If there is a solution to the problem of GenAI, it doesn’t seem to lie in finding ever more creative ways of short-circuiting students’ use of it or exacting ever more severe penalties. It also doesn’t seem to lie in teaching students how to use it for “cognitive offloading” so that they engage in the kind of “better” critical thinking that they’ve never been equipped or trained to do. The solution is persuading students that the costs of relying on GenAI to minimize their cognitive load are more far-reaching than they know—and that they far outweigh the benefits.

David C. Phillips is an English teacher who lives in Greensboro, North Carolina.

Trump border czar Tom Homan said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that he found it concerning Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) traveled to El Salvador on the “taxpayer dime” to meet Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

Partial transcript as follows: 

JONATHAN KARL: Senator Van Hollen is obviously got a chance to meet with him, but he had to travel to El Salvador to get any information. Does that concern you at all? I mean, these are people sent by — I mean, in his case, sent by the United States, and not even a U.S. Senator, in his case, could get any information about his whereabouts or the condition of his incarceration without actually going down and making the trip to El Salvador himself?

HOMAN: Well, he obviously knew his whereabouts because he went there to see him. But you know what bothers me more than that is a U.S. Senator traveled to El Salvador on taxpayer dime to meet with an MS-13 gang member, public safety threat, terrorist. I mean, in the meantime, the day before he traveled, an illegal alien was arrested for murder, was released to the streets rather than honoring an ICE detainer in his very own state. What concerns me is Van Hollen never went to the border the last four years under Joe Biden, when he had a 600% increase in sex trafficking in women and children. You have a record number of known inspected terrorists crossing that border. You had a quarter of a million Americans die from fentanyl overdose because of the open border. You had over 4,000 illegal aliens died making that journey, which is an historic record. What shocks me is he’s remained silent on the travesty that happened on the southern border. Many people died, thousands of people died. I met with hundreds of Angel moms and dads who buried their children that were murdered by illegal aliens. How many Angel moms and dads has he met in the state of — in the state of Maryland? That’s what concerns me.

KARL: He says that he has done this because the issue here is due process, and it’s following a court order. That — you know, the Supreme Court has said that the administration needs to facilitate his return so he could get through, have his chance at due process.

HOMAN: I think, and I understand the facilitate – but he’s also in the custody, he’s a citizen, and a national of the country, so El Salvador would certainly have to cooperate in that. But again, I’m out of the loop on that. I’m not an attorney. I’m not litigating this case. We’ll do whatever the, you know, the law says we have to do. What I think — I stand by the fact I think we did the right thing here. We removed a public safety threat, a national security threat, a violent gang member from the United States. ICE intelligence says he’s an MS-13 gang member. A confidential information says he’s an MS-13 gang member. The country of El Salvador says he’s an MS-13 gang member. I think he’s exactly where he should be.

Follow Pam Key on X @pamkeyNEN

It’s a good thing Rob O’Neil ventilated Osama bin Laden’s head and did not take him into custody, or else Democrats would be forming a conga line of stupidity to march into whatever prison he was being held in to demand his release. Not immediately, they’d wait until President Donald Trump expressed pride that the terrorist leader was no longer able to kill Americans, and that would be enough to set off the left, which has a policy of being against anything Trump supports, no matter how bad it makes them look. They’ll try to deny it, but we must ensure it is never forgotten and make them choke on what they’ve done and who they’ve become.

First off, people need to go to town halls Democrats are hosting across the country and publicly demand to know where these Democrats fall, with illegal alien gang members or with Americans?

More than that, since these illegal alien Democrats are now favoring every American, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, has been credibly accused of physically attacking his wife on multiple occasions, they need to be asked if they still “believe all women?” As I see it, there are only two options: Democrats are rallying to bring an illegal alien domestic abuser back to the country, or they are calling his “loving wife” a liar who filed a false police report, thereby necessitating the prosecution of her for that act. There is no third option.

Which is it?

They won’t answer that question because they likely won’t be asked it. Democrats only go on CNN and MSNBC; asking a question like that would get you fired.

The Supreme Court is siding with illegal aliens now. The court is lost, the “Justices” are not protecting the rights of Americans, they are siding with our enemies. Not only did I never think I’d see the day, but the concept of the day has seemed so foreign to me that contemplating it was impossible.

One user on X put it perfectly, “If a Democrat president can import 15-30 million immigrants each time they hold the White House… But Republicans can’t deport them…. That’s it for this country. It’s over. Your ‘conservative principles’ are meaningless because they pertain to a dead entity.”

…

The “progressive” left used just to be wrong, misguided, or whatever you wanted to call it. That philosophy has become a cancer on the country to the point that the few remaining semi-sane Democrats are terrified to speak out against it.

It doesn’t matter, the extremists are coming for them too, with the co-Chair of the DNC (formerly the co-Chairman, but they’ve wiped gender from everything) announcing he wants the party to fund challengers to Democrats who won’t obey the radicals. A purge – leftists love a good purge, just ask Stalin, Hitler, and Mao – is what they’re talking about. They aren’t calling for the deaths of their dissenting party members like their ideological forefathers did, but the road they are goosestepping down only leads one place, and it’s pretty awful.

If we don’t message better, and to everyone, to beat these progressive impulses before they seize power, it will get ugly, really ugly, trust me. Nothing good happens further down the road, nothing.

These people need to be thrown out of office; it must be made clear that their ideas have no place in a civil society. They are welcome to leave the country along with the people they favor, but individual liberty is the guiding principle in the United States of America. We’ll happily help them pack, I’d even favor subsidizing moving them to whatever leftist Utopia they think they can go to or create, but their fascistic instincts will be squashed here.

A big dose of their own medicine is long overdue, highlighting every dangerous aspect of their policies and turning everyone against them by any means necessary.

They have turned against Americans and America. If no Democrat is willing to stand up inside their party, everyone must stand up to their party. If that ship can’t be righted, it needs to be sunk.

Townhall, Derek Hunter

Communist regimes wage war on religion to assert total control, yet the stories of faith, persecution, and resistance remain powerful truths the world must remember.

In the left’s perverse ideology, the status of “victimhood” is to be prized (especially if it does not actually have to be endured), for it serves as a powerful cudgel over their alleged “oppressors.” That this constitutes but another flimsy pretext for leftists to grasp power is revealed by the fact that actual victims of political persecution are ignored and erased from the public square and the historical record. Why? Because these actual victims have experienced religious persecution by communists.

Be it in the former Soviet Union where the Bolsheviks summarily executed Russian Orthodox priests and expropriated religious property; or in today’s People’s Republic of China (PRC) where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues its genocide of the Uighurs and persecution of the Catholic Church; or in Nicaraguan where the Sandinista National Liberation Front (Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional, FSLN) persists in its “war” on the Catholic Church, the communist imperative to eradicate religion is alive and unwell, and—despite notable, courageous exceptions, such as Bianca Jagger, who forcefully condemned the religious persecutions waged by regime of communist dictator Daniel Ortega and “co-president” (and wife) Rosario Murillo—rarely recorded and reported.

It was not always this way.

It is beyond question that communists hate God. Indeed, they openly avow their atheism and violently oppress religion to eradicate it. Consequently, for decades, the vast majority of American liberals were steadfast opponents of communism and, in fact, provided the first line of defense against communist infiltration of labor unions and other American private and public institutions.

No longer.

A 2022 Victims of Communism Foundation poll told a disturbing tale: 30% of Generation Z has a favorable view of Marxism, and just 63% of Gen Z and Millennials believe the Declaration of Independence better guarantees freedom and equality than the Communist Manifesto. Truly, yesterday’s liberal is not today’s progressive, who is largely sympatico with the aim, if not the means, of communism’s attempts to subjugate religion to the state.

The modern left has its origins in the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s intellectual cesspool. Suffice it to say for our purpose here, the left is following his directive to establish a “civil religion,” the state dogma one must believe over and above any religious tenets. If one fails to do so, the individual will be “forced to be free”—a euphemism for punishment and/or execution.

Ergo, the virulently atheistic communists’ ideological imperative to wage war on God to crush religion beneath their totalitarian boot heel. Nor, for that matter, will the result be any better in non-communist nations when religious freedom is subordinated to the state by virulent secularists erecting their own civil religion and demanding public obeisance to it, lest one face state-sanctioned consequences. (Sadly, even in the minds of many leftists who claim to be devout believers, when push comes to shove, they will subordinate their religious beliefs to accommodate their leftist ideology.)

Still, why must communists and virulent secularists “coexist” with religion? We go back to the beginning—the left’s simplistic “life hack” that gives their lives meaning and (mis-)direction, i.e., the victim vs. oppressor paradigm, and its imperative to “liberate” from the chains of the existing, intrinsically inequitable, and, yes, evil society so that humanity will be perfected and a terrestrial Eden achieved.

The font of this irredeemably “corrupted” civilization that has precluded human happiness is?

God.

Or more accurately, the poisonous superstition called God and the cults this myth has spawned to oppress and corrupt humanity. Hence, in a postmodern recreation of man’s fall in the Garden of Eden, believing only in themselves and their ideology—in sum, believing themselves gods—communists and their fellow traveling atheists and secular humanists must free humanity—whether they like it or not—from religion… from God.

The communists’ logic is elementary and insidious: where there is no God, one can and must render only unto Caesar, unto the state, unto the communists.

But there is a God. And His work on earth is in good and faithful hands. To wit:

Back on March 6, 2024, writing at First Things amidst the glooming ignorance of communist persecutions, Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco made a heartening announcement:

“I’ve asked the Benedict XVI Institute to launch a new multiyear project telling the story of these heroic martyrs of communism—in liturgy and hymns, but also in paintings, poetry, plays, videos, and essays, partnering with the Victims of Communism museum in Washington, D.C., among others.”

Recognizing the danger communism posed to all religious believers, Archbishop Cordileone posed the crux of the matter: “Why do so few Americans pay attention to the horrors of Marxist-leaning regimes? For me, an even more troubling question is, why do Catholics know so little about the martyrs and victims of the brutalities of communism?”

The archbishop cited an obvious culprit but expressed that this did not excuse or prevent our power to rectify the situation:

“We have become overly dependent on secular media and artists to tell our story… As the secular culture becomes more hostile, or simply indifferent, to religion, it is time to rediscover the arts as a center for evangelization. We must once again sing our own songs and tell our own stories so that we can share the truth, goodness, and beauty of faith with the world.”

It is, then, as it always has been and remains: God’s work on earth must truly be our own. And we must perform our tasks, regardless of their arduousness and the hour, for, as Archbishop Cordileone cautions:

“The arc of communism may be long and it may disguise itself under different names, but it begins with the false promise that government without God can usher in utopia and ends with persecution of the Church for daring to speak out against oppression on behalf of the forgotten…

“Shut down the Church, because otherwise the forgotten and the persecuted will have a voice.”

In America, come this joyous Easter Sunday, the church doors will be open, as will the doors of any religion that so desires. For those who enter to worship, let us reverently give voice to the forgotten, the tormented, and the murdered “modern martyrs of communism.” Through the grace of our merciful God, may you ever be remembered.

T.G. McCotter, American Greatness

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to weigh in on one of the most significant legal power plays in recent memory: whether individual federal trial judges can continue issuing nationwide injunctions that derail national policy. The high court’s move could mark a turning point in the Trump administration’s effort to rein in what it sees as activist judges stifling the will of the elected government.

John Yoo, a law professor at UC Berkeley and former Justice Department official, broke down the issue during an appearance on Fox News, where he explained the gravity of the situation and why the Supreme Court is now stepping in.

“This is about who controls all those… and there’s about 675 federal trial judges spread out all over the country,” Yoo said. “And some of them have been bringing the federal government, bringing President Trump’s agenda to a screeching halt, even though they don’t have anybody, say, who works for the government or any of the illegal aliens or any of the spending in their own courtrooms.”

In recent years, liberal activists have filed lawsuits in strategically chosen jurisdictions where they know they’ll find a sympathetic judge. The result? Leftist district judges, with no direct connection to the underlying policy or parties involved, have been able to issue injunctions blocking Trump administration directives nationwide—from immigration enforcement to federal spending priorities.

Recommended: Tom Homan Schools Joe Scarborough on Border Security, and it Was Epic!

“What’s going on here, I think it’s important to understand, is that the Supreme Court is already signaling that they’re very sympathetic to the Trump administration,” Yoo said. “The Supreme Court scheduled oral argument for May 15th.”

That date raised eyebrows among legal observers, as the Court typically stops hearing arguments by April and shifts to issuing decisions in pending cases. The fact that the justices have called for arguments in May suggests the urgency and significance of the issue.

“It never hears cases in May,” Yoo explained. “Usually, they’d be done their business and they’d be sending out opinions by now. They’ve called basically a special session in order to hear President Trump’s claims that there should not be unlimited nationwide injunctions, but that they should be under the control of the Supreme Court.”

The specific case revolves around Trump’s executive order targeting birthright citizenship, but Yoo emphasized that the justices may not even reach that policy question. The real issue is the unchecked legal activism that’s allowed district court judges to assume authority over foreign policy, immigration, and federal hiring and spending.

“Whether you agree or disagree with President Trump’s order on birthright citizenship,” Yoo said, “they may not even get to the question, because the key thing here is for the Supreme Court to put an end to the 675 trial judges who all think they can run foreign policy, spending and hiring throughout the federal government.”

That date raised eyebrows among legal observers, as the Court typically stops hearing arguments by April and shifts to issuing decisions in pending cases. The fact that the justices have called for arguments in May suggests the urgency and significance of the issue.

“It never hears cases in May,” Yoo explained. “Usually, they’d be done their business and they’d be sending out opinions by now. They’ve called basically a special session in order to hear President Trump’s claims that there should not be unlimited nationwide injunctions, but that they should be under the control of the Supreme Court.”

The specific case revolves around Trump’s executive order targeting birthright citizenship, but Yoo emphasized that the justices may not even reach that policy question. The real issue is the unchecked legal activism that’s allowed district court judges to assume authority over foreign policy, immigration, and federal hiring and spending.

“Whether you agree or disagree with President Trump’s order on birthright citizenship,” Yoo said, “they may not even get to the question, because the key thing here is for the Supreme Court to put an end to the 675 trial judges who all think they can run foreign policy, spending and hiring throughout the federal government.”

If the court sides with the Trump administration, it could dramatically reshape how federal power is contested in the courtroom and restore constitutional limits on unelected judges meddling in national affairs.

Join the fight for constitutional integrity! As the Supreme Court prepares to tackle the crucial issue of judicial authority, your support is vital. By becoming a member of PJ Media VIP, you help uphold our mission to ensure that elected officials—not unelected judges—control national policy. Together, we can restore balance to our legal system and protect the democratic process. Join us today!

“He’s a great columnist. I think he’s terrific.”  – Mark Levin

Matt Margolis is a conservative commentator and columnist. His work has been cited on Fox News and national conservative talk radio, including The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Mark Levin Show, and The Dan Bongino Show. Matt is the author of several books and has appeared on Newsmax, OANN, Real America’s Voice News, and even CNN.

It has been said, if you do not accept Jesus as God, you must think Him either a lunatic or a liar. In his book Mere Christianity, the great C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) wrote, “A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.”

At the final meal Jesus ate with His disciples immediately before His death, He made His deity and sovereignty over events extremely clear: “I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He” (Jn. 13:19).

He knew the end from the beginning; how long He would live; what He would accomplish; and how, when, where, and why He would die. He was neither a lunatic nor a liar. He was the God-Man who orchestrated everything.

The final meal was a Passover Seder held in an upper room in Jerusalem that Jesus selected in a miraculous way (Mk. 14:13–16). More transpired there than most people realize: Jesus made statements only God can make. Then, in the Garden of Gethsemane, He agonized over what He was about to face, as only a human being can do.

Communion and Covenant

At the Seder the night He was betrayed, Jesus told His disciples, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the dish will betray Me” (Mt. 26:23). “‘It is he to whom I shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped it.’ And having dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Iscariot” (Jn. 13:26).

Yet, Jesus chose Judas: “I know whom I have chosen,” He said (v. 18). Earlier, He told them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” (6:70).

That night, He also instituted the Lord’s Supper, or communion: “As they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body’” (Mt. 26:26). Under the Levitical system, a portion of the sacrifices was eaten. Jesus was making the connection that He was the sacrifice.

Then He instituted the New Covenant God had promised the Jewish people centuries earlier through the prophet Jeremiah. The disciples knew all covenants were instituted by blood. “He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant [cf. Jer. 31:31], which is shed for many for the remission of sins’” (Mt. 26:27–28; cf. Isa. 53:10–11).

Words of Comfort

After Judas left, Jesus spoke to the remaining 11 disciples, imparting many of His most comforting words—all of which point to His deity; and the disciples, who were Jewish, believed Him (Jn. 14—17). Otherwise, they would have thought Him insane and never would have remained steadfast in their faith until death.

Heaven. “In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you” (14:2).

Salvation. “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (v. 6).

His Deity. “He who has seen Me has seen the Father. . . . Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me” (vv. 9, 11).

Prayer. “Whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (v. 13).

The Holy Spirit. “I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—the Spirit of truth” (vv. 16–17). “The Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you” (v. 26). “He will convict the world of sin. . . . He will guide you into all truth” (16:8, 13).

His Resurrection. “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also” (14:19).

His Return. “If I go . . . I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also” (v. 3).

Inner Peace. “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid” (v. 27).

Persecution. “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. . . . But I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you” (15:18–20).

“The time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me” (16:2–3).

Trouble. “These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world” (v. 33).

His Glory. Then Jesus prayed to the Father: “I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (17:4–5). Either Jesus existed in glory with God “before the world was,” or He was delusional.

In Gethsemane

After the Passover, Jesus and the 11 apostles departed. They crossed “the Brook Kidron, where there was a garden, which He and His disciples entered” (18:1).

There, Jesus prayed to the Father, dreading the physical and spiritual anguish that awaited Him. In His humanity, He fell on His face and prayed, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will” (Mt. 26:39).

In His deity, He knew He was about to experience something even worse than crucifixion: complete separation from the Father, as the Father poured out on Jesus all His wrath and punishment for sin for all humankind. “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21; cf. Isa. 53:5–6).

Jesus’ time in prayer must have been excruciating. Finally, He told the disciples, “The hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going. See, My betrayer is at hand” (Mt. 26:45–46). Despite the agony, Jesus stayed the course, as He was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8).

Like a composer conducting a symphony he wrote himself, Jesus orchestrated the events leading to His crucifixion, fulfilling the prophecies in His Word. Everything unfolded exactly as He had predicted.

We so often focus on the truth that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (Jn. 3:16). The flip side is that Jesus so loved the world He willingly came. His sacrificial death was the tremendous price He paid to redeem lost humanity from the penalty of sin. And His resurrection is the tremendous guarantee we have that those of us who believe in Him will have eternal life.

As C. S. Lewis said, “You must make your choice.” Lewis made his: “Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.”

Tom Simcox is the Church Ministries training coordinator and a Bible teacher for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry.

Some politicos predict a forthcoming “civil war” within the Democratic Party between AOC types and more “moderate” types. Faulty premise: There are no moderates in the Democratic Party. There is no moderation in that movement. The Democrats on the Supreme Court (and federal courts) ALWAYS rule hard left. Every single Democrat in Congress ALWAYS votes the hard Communist way.

Republicans (excluding Trump) wobble and retreat; Democrats never do. Rank and file Democratic voters, even if they don’t agree with every single Communist position, will continue to say, “Whatever stops Trump — I am there.” If Trump died tomorrow, they would say the exact same thing about J.D. Vance. “Whatever stops Republicans — I am there.”

To patriotic lovers of individual liberty, always be aware: Your love of liberty must be stronger than the leftist hatred of America and its remaining freedoms. Because the hatred of leftists is bottomless and limitless.

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on X at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, @DrHurd on TruthSocial. Dr. Hurd is also now a Newsmax Insider!

U.S. Customs and Border Control has reported the number of border crossings between the U.S. and Mexico in March were the “lowest in history.”

The report highlighted, “U.S. Border Patrol’s apprehensions along the southwest border for the entire month of March 2025 were lower than the first two days of March 2024.”

The contrast in apprehensions from illegal border crossing attempts under the Trump administration compared to the previous year is startling. “March is the second consecutive month in which U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) averaged the lowest daily nationwide apprehensions in history at approximately 264 per day in March. This is 20% lower than the 330 daily nationwide average apprehensions in February and 94% lower than 4,488 per day average from March 2024.”

The headline of a Wall Street Journal report on Saturday makes the point, “Border Crossings Grind to Halt as Trump’s Tough Policies Take Hold.”

The Journal reported one man it interviewed had hoped to be approved for legal immigration but he felt that opportunity is at least for now, not an option. “The door is closed,” he said. The Venezuelan added, “There’s no more hope for entering legally as long as Donald Trump is there, and anyone telling you otherwise is lying.”

The Journal reported that many would-be immigrants who thought they might have been able to gain entry to the U.S. are now stuck in Mexico. Many are turning around to return to their home country.

.S. State Department carries information on its website about how people are able to legally cross U.S. borders and properly gain legal status to be in America, including “special immigrant categories.” 

Jim Mishler ✉

Jim Mishler, a seasoned reporter, anchor and news director, has decades of experience covering crime, politics and environmental issues.

As the Trump administration attempts to choke off exports of strategically important computer chips to China, experts say the effort might well backfire, fueling innovation at Chinese firms that could help them seize the world semiconductor market.

“What’s actually happening is that the US government right now is handing China a big win as it tries to get their own chip business going,” said Jack Gold, principal analyst at J.Gold associates.

“Once they’re competitive,” he told AFP, “they’ll start selling around the world and people will buy their chips.”

When that happens, he added, it will be difficult for US chip makers to reclaim lost market share.

Silicon Valley semiconductor star Nvidia and its US rival Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) expect big financial hits from new US licensing requirements for semiconductors exported to China, they notified regulators this week.

Nvidia expects the new rules to cost it $5.5 billion, while AMD forecast it could sap as much as $800 million from the company’s bottom line, according to filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Administration officials told Nvidia it must obtain licenses to export its H20 chips to China because of concerns they may be used in supercomputers there, the company said.

The United States had already restricted exports to China, the world’s biggest buyer of chips, of Nvidia’s most sophisticated graphics processing units (GPUs), designed to power top-end artificial intelligence models.

Nvidia essentially developed the H20 chip for the Chinese market, aiming to maximize performance while meeting previous US export rules, but the new licensing requirements pose a roadblock, according to Gold.

For AMD, the new US export control measure applies to its MI308 GPUs, which are designed for high-performance applications like gaming and artificial intelligence, it said in a filing.

When that happens, he added, it will be difficult for US chip makers to reclaim lost market share.

Silicon Valley semiconductor star Nvidia and its US rival Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) expect big financial hits from new US licensing requirements for semiconductors exported to China, they notified regulators this week.

Nvidia expects the new rules to cost it $5.5 billion, while AMD forecast it could sap as much as $800 million from the company’s bottom line, according to filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Administration officials told Nvidia it must obtain licenses to export its H20 chips to China because of concerns they may be used in supercomputers there, the company said.

The United States had already restricted exports to China, the world’s biggest buyer of chips, of Nvidia’s most sophisticated graphics processing units (GPUs), designed to power top-end artificial intelligence models.

Nvidia essentially developed the H20 chip for the Chinese market, aiming to maximize performance while meeting previous US export rules, but the new licensing requirements pose a roadblock, according to Gold.

For AMD, the new US export control measure applies to its MI308 GPUs, which are designed for high-performance applications like gaming and artificial intelligence, it said in a filing.

Newsmax Money/AFP