Decent Newsroom
Sign In

Article Not Found

The chapter could not be found.

Try searching or paste a Nostr address (naddr)

If you have the article's Nostr address (naddr), paste it in the search box below. We'll attempt to fetch it from the relays and add it to our index.

Looking for people? Search users

by Blaze Media

Former Muslim's warning about Islam leaves Glenn Beck STUNNED

Islam is widely known as a religion, but former Muslim and Ideological Defense Institute founder Danny Burmawi doesn’t believe that’s actually what it is.“When people think of Islam, they think of Christianity,” he tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck.“No, when you think of Islam, think of the United States of America. Think of France, China, because Islam is a state. Now, that state has a religion,” he says.“It has a constitution. It’s called Sharia. Just like the constitution of the United States. It has a population. They’re called Muslims. So Muslims are not analogous with Christians. It’s analogous with Americans,” he continues.“We must look so incredibly ignorant and stupid,” Glenn says in response. “Because they say it in their mosque. They say it out loud. ‘We are going to take over. We will have Sharia.’ That means overthrow the constitution of whatever country they’re in.”“And they’ve done it in country after country after country,” he continues.“We just don’t see it. We’re not willing to stand up and speak the truth,” he adds.However, Burmawi explains that the majority of Muslims do not adhere to the extremist beliefs of the few, because if they wanted “to adhere to everything that Islam teaches,” they would be better suited living with ISIS.“Islam is not practical at all, and Muslims, they have cognitive dissonance. I was a Muslim. I’m telling you that confusion, you don’t know how to live in the word because your belief system is completely contradictory with the reality around you,” he tells Glenn.“So you ignore it,” he continues. “However, if we have 1% out of the five, six million Muslims in America, only 1% who are faithful, who are willing to carry out all the teachings of Muhammad, then what is that, like 50,000 people?”“You have literally 50,000 ISIS terrorists living in America today just at 1%,” 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.

Cover image for Former Muslim's warning about Islam leaves Glenn Beck STUNNED
by Blaze Media

If leftists can’t cancel 1776, they’ll cancel the founders one frame at a time

A Democrat state senator in Nebraska last month decided to remove portraits of America’s founders from the Capitol in Lincoln. Security footage shows state Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh taking down images from an exhibit designed by PragerU, marking the nation’s 250th year with portraits of Declaration signers and prominent women.“Celebrating America during our 250th year should be a moment of unity and patriotism, not divisiveness and destructive partisanship,” Republican Gov. Jim Pillen wrote on Facebook. “I am disappointed in this shameful and selfish bad example.”The left now treats America’s founding principles as cover for sin rather than a constraint on it.I’m disappointed too. But I’m not surprised. The left has poured gasoline on the founding for years.In 1927, historians Charles and Mary Beard published “The Rise of American Civilization,” portraying the American Revolution as a struggle driven less by ideals than by economic self-interest. Their Progressive Era “economic interpretation” challenged what they saw as romanticized narratives about the founding and helped shift elite opinion toward suspicion of the founders’ motives.Nearly a century later, the left moved from economic critique to moral indictment. Slavery became the founding’s “original sin.” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said the United States was “created” in large part “on racist principles.” The New York Times championed Nikole Hannah-Jones’ project urging schools to teach that America’s true founding occurred not in 1776 but in 1619, when the first enslaved Africans arrived. That framework recasts the Revolution less as a rebellion against tyranny than as a defense of slavery’s economic advantages.Then came 2020. In Portland, mobs tore down statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Protesters smeared them with graffiti and slapped a sticker on Washington’s forehead: “You are on Native land.”My new book, “Trump’s Superpower: A Historical Novel About the Founding Fathers & One Founding Mother,” stages a rebuttal in story form. I bring the founders down from heaven to participate in a re-enactment of the founding on its 250th anniversary. They collide with modern America in darkly comic ways. Ben Franklin gets arrested for misgendering someone. George Washington fixes his teeth. Will Lee, Washington’s enslaved valet, discovers online commentary and becomes a social media sensation.Those scenes deliver laughs, but the book’s center holds a serious conversation: Did America become what the founders hoped it would become? That debate carries its own evidence against the modern indictment. These men believed they were handing Americans tools — freed from Britain’s rule and debts — to pursue their own dreams and build lives worth living.RELATED: America tried to save the planet and forgot to save itself omersukrugoksu via iStock/Getty In the book, Thomas Jefferson and the others see Jefferson’s memorial for the first time and learn about the campaign to cancel him. Franklin reads the moment with unnerving clarity. “I am beginning to think,” he says, “that they’re not trying to discredit us as people so much as to dishonor us for what we achieved. In a way, they are denouncing not only the founders but the nation we founded and the Constitution we left behind.”Jefferson’s Declaration insisted that rights come from God, not man, and that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In his first draft, Jefferson also condemned Britain’s role in the slave trade, accusing King George of waging “cruel war against human nature itself” by trafficking human beings. The Continental Congress struck the passage, fearing disunity on the eve of war.That context matters. The founders lived amid contradiction and compromise, yet they articulated principles that gave later generations the moral language and constitutional structure to attack slavery, defeat it, and expand rights. The left now treats those principles as cover for sin rather than a constraint on it. That inversion forms the point of the portrait-taking: It’s not merely about flawed men. It’s about discrediting the founding itself.Lately, watching riots in Minneapolis and other blue cities tied to federal immigration enforcement, I wonder if we will even make it to July 4. Blue jurisdictions openly defying federal authority in 2026 sounds uncomfortably close to the pattern of states putting themselves above the Union in 1860.The country should treat that warning seriously — not as a pretext for more cultural demolition, but as a reason to recover what America’s founders built: a constitutional order that binds us together, even when we want to tear it apart.

Cover image for If leftists can’t cancel 1776, they’ll cancel the founders one frame at a time
by Blaze Media

Sharia courts are here — and Americans need to wake up

Americans shouldn't wait until Sharia courts become widespread before deciding where they stand — and Brigitte Gabriel is doing everything in her power to help them see the threat before it's too late. Gabriel tells BlazeTV host Nick Freitas that she was shocked to relive her upbringing in Lebanon — where her home was attacked by Islamic extremists — on 9/11, when her daughter sat watching the towers fall on the news and asked her, “Mommy, why did they do this to us?”“And I found myself, Nick,” she explains, “looking into my daughter’s eyes and repeating to her the exact same words my father said to me when I was a 10-year-old little girl, laying wounded in a hospital in Lebanon, hooked up to IVs on both arms, one blood bag in one arm, one IV in another, asking my father, ‘Why did they do this to us?’” “And my father told me, ‘They hate us because they consider us infidels, and they want to kill us.’ Here we were two generations apart, two continents apart. I had to look into my daughter’s eyes and repeat to her the same words my father said to me,” she continues. “That day I was reborn as an activist,” she adds, noting that this is why she started the Act for America foundation in 2002. This foundation serves to “organize people in chapters nationwide to teach them how they can impact policy at their local level.” Not only does the foundation now have over 5 million members nationwide, but it has successfully passed 300 bills at the federal and state level. And the latest bill it is putting through Congress is the Preserving Our Constitution Act of 2026. “It says no Sharia courts are allowed to operate in the United States. We are building the firewall to make sure that this does not happen,” Gabriel explains.Freitas warns that this could easily become a problem for the U.S., as in the U.K. right now, there are 84 Sharia courts. “Please understand that when Brigitte here is talking about Sharia courts in the United States, it is an inevitability unless you’re proactive,” Freitas says. “Because the moment they start going, and you haven’t prepared yourself for this, now all of a sudden, they win a couple of cases in court, and nobody wants to challenge them, and they start setting them up everywhere.” However, Gabriel has some bad news. “The Sharia courts are already operating in the United States,” she says. “The first Sharia court was established in Richardson, Texas, in 1991. Since then, we have documented 150 cases judged under Sharia law in the United States in 23 states.”This is why in 2009, Gabriel got to work on the American Laws for American Courts bill, which says that “no law that is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution would be allowed to be practiced in an American courtroom.” “We were able to pass that law in 13 states,” she explains. “We’ve been fighting this battle for a long time,” she adds. “Making the Argument with Nick Freitas” is available on BlazeTV+, YouTube, and major podcast platforms.Start watching Nick Freitas NOW at blazetv.com and use the promo code NICK for $20 off your BlazeTV+ subscription.

Cover image for Sharia courts are here — and Americans need to wake up
by Micael · Edited

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY (1933)

How did "the land of the free and the home of the brave" become "the land of the greedy and the home of the slaves"? April fifth, 1933, is the answer.

Cover image for UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY (1933)
by Micael

BITCOIN IS A PERFECT REPUBLIC

While governments spend like there's no tomorrow and devalue their currencies to the limit a silent network continues to grow. It needs no approval. It doesn't ask permission. It just works. It's called Bitcoin. And it's not just money. It's a perfect republic. A real republic, without ballot boxes or parties, without licenses or favors. A system of rules that cannot be corrupted or rewritten. A space where private property is protected with mathematics and energy, not promises. Where no one rules over anyone, and everyone is equal before the code, its constitution. Bitcoin has its own division of powers, like any well-designed republic: - The code is the legislative branch. It defines the rules: twenty-one million, scheduled reduction, adjustable difficulty. They do not change by majority. They are not negotiated. They are clear, predictable and visible to all. - The miners are the executive branch. They execute those rules, validate transactions, secure the network. They do not govern. They do not legislate. They only comply with technical precision. - Nodes are the judiciary. They verify. They confirm. They reject what does not conform to protocol law. They do not buy. They don't shut down. Here's how it works. Simply, elegantly and resiliently. In a world where trust is in crisis, Bitcoin offers certainty. In an era of inflation and surveillance, it offers ownership and privacy. Its architecture is underpinned by something firmer than laws: by mathematics, energy and a network of shared principles. It doesn't need to be defended. It needs to be understood. Bitcoin does not impose. It invites. It does not demand faith. It offers verification. It is an open network that operates around the clock. A republic without borders where anyone can participate. Here, no one gives you rights: you already have them. All you need is a private key to exercise them. Bitcoin is evidence that as the old system runs out of steam, this digital republic becomes the only sensible option.

Cover image for BITCOIN IS A PERFECT REPUBLIC
by Blaze Media

The socialists want a new Constitution. Believe them.

As the midterm elections approach, democratic socialism is attracting renewed attention as an alternative to America’s constitutional order. Recently elected officials in Seattle, Colorado, and New York City, along with dozens of others, identify as democratic socialists. Membership in the Democratic Socialists of America has surged, and a recent CNN poll found that a third of Democrats now identify with the movement’s political program.The goals of the DSA and the promises made in campaign rallies should be understood by all Americans for exactly its aim: a complete overhaul of the U.S. Constitution and the governing laws that have ensured our freedoms for the last 250 years.A ‘new society’ that eradicates the right to religious liberty is a familiar step down an extremely dark path.This is not an esoteric challenge to our economic system. It’s a threat to our entire republic.At the core of all socialist movements, historically and contemporarily, is the supremacy of the collective over the individual, where the state assumes the role of controlling guardian to determine what is “best for society,” squelching individual liberties, all in submission to this ideological monopoly.As such, the one thing totalitarian governments will never allow is an appeal to a higher authority than the government. There can be no authority higher than the state. That is why socialist-controlled governments have always viewed religious liberty as a threat and target it as one of the first freedoms to dismantle.That’s why Virginia Democrat Senator Tim Kaine’s remarks during a 2025 hearing deserve attention. The former Democratic Party vice presidential nominee said he found "extremely troubling" "the notion that rights don't come from laws and don't come from the government, but come from the Creator."The American founding says otherwise.The Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal” and “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.That formulation is not ornamental. It establishes a limit on government.If government grants your rights, government can redefine them or take them away. If rights exist before government, then government is bound to respect them.That’s why religious liberty is the first right protected in the Bill of Rights. Without the right of conscience, all other liberty disappears.Members of the DSA counter this assessment by pointing to its Religion and Socialism Working Group outreach to the faith communities. In their own words, “DSA’s Religion and Socialism group is open to DSA members of all faiths whose socialism is in some way inspired by their spiritual identity.” In other words, religion is welcomed and approved only if it agrees with the DSA’s socialist ideology, which in essence, then, is a state-endorsed church. All opposing religious viewpoints need not apply.RELATED: ‘Reign of terror’: One-third of Democrats give thumbs-up to Trump assassination Anna Moneymaker/Getty ImagesIn the old Soviet Union, state regulations defined how religious organizations could function, what they could say, and when they could meet. Eventually, church doors were closed, sectarian schools were closed, and religious leaders were incarcerated, all because socialist regimes cannot allow organizations or the populace to appeal to a higher authority than the government.The commonly repeated pattern with all socialist movements begins with ideological propaganda denouncing all viewpoints that don’t fall in lockstep with its platform. In the case of the DSA, that means throwing out the old and fundamentally changing the very foundations of our government, including religious liberty.But that’s just the start. In the DSA’s program for the current year, the objective is quite clear: “Our goal is to put workers in charge of the government through a new democratic constitution …” and “Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.”This “new society” would eliminate the three co-equal branches of government that provide essential checks and balances. Gone are the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that protect the rights of all Americans.Religious liberty is foundational to a country that values individual freedoms. It defines the relationship between citizens and government by limiting the government’s power and protects freedom of conscience. It is inseparably linked to broad civil liberties including free speech, parental rights, academic freedom, and freedom of assembly.None of these rights can exist without the foundation of the right of conscience: religious liberty. A “new society” that eradicates this most important right is a familiar step down an extremely dark path. What we need instead is a recommitment to a society that understands and cherishes the liberties protected in our founding documents that have defined us as the “land of the free.”

Cover image for The socialists want a new Constitution. Believe them.
by Blaze Media

BlazeTV host shares 3 personal experiences PROVING the Islamification of America is happening RIGHT NOW

BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales has been sounding the alarm on the Islamification of the United States — the deliberate plan to replace traditional American culture, laws, and national identity with Islamic values, cultural practices, and Sharia-influenced demands — but she fears people aren’t taking the threat seriously enough.On this episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” Sara shares three personal experiences that make it clear just how far the plan to Islamify America is already underway. #1: Meta banned Sara’s anti-Sharia ad Sara is the vice president of Texas Family Project, a conservative advocacy organization dedicated to strengthening the state of Texas by prioritizing parental rights, protecting the innocence of children, and reforming how the state government and its institutions view families.When TFP recently tried to purchase an ad from Meta (Facebook and Instagram), it was denied.The ad simply stated: “Sharia has no place in Texas.”“[Sharia law] is incompatible with this country ... the Constitution ... the laws in the state of Texas,” says Sara. “That should be something very simple and noncontroversial. We're not saying ‘get out if you're brown. Get out if you're Islamic. Get out if you're Muslim.”’Even still, Meta rejected TFP’s ad request with a message stating, “Your ad contains content that is not allowed on Meta’s advertising platforms.”“You're not allowed now to say on Facebook, on Meta, that Sharia law has no place in this country, in the state of Texas. That's how far we're in with this whole Islam thing,” says Sara.#2: Dallas suburbs turning into foreign enclaves“The Texas Muslim population is approximately half a million people. By the way, these are conservative estimates ... but just know I believe it's far larger, far larger,” says Sara. “I walk around in the DFW suburbs — Plano, Richardson, Irving, Carrollton. I don't see anyone like me,” she adds.“I don't want that to sound like, ‘Oh, if they have a different color skin, they can't be here.’ No — it's just like they're speaking different languages; they're wearing clothing that we don't wear here in America.”On top of these huge cultural differences, Sara’s experience with these foreign-born Texans hasn’t exactly been up to the Lone Star State’s hospitality standards.“They have no intention of speaking to me or becoming friendly with me. That is very clear,” she says.#3: Public school sending multi-language ‘holiday’ emails Sara displays an email about a “holiday party” from a large public school in the DFW metroplex. As you can see in the tweet below, the message is available in multiple languages, including Farsi, Urdu, Arabic, Pashto, and Spanish. — (@) “They couldn't call it the ‘Christmas party’ ... [and] why do we need that many translations for a school newsletter in America?” scoffs Sara.“How is this Texas? How is this America?”While the examples above are personal to Sara, her list of ways Texas is rapidly changing under Islamic influence goes on and on. To hear more about the dangers Texans — and Americans at large — face as the country becomes increasingly inhabited by people whose religious doctrine commands them to kill anyone who refuses to convert, watch the full episode above.Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Cover image for BlazeTV host shares 3 personal experiences PROVING the Islamification of America is happening RIGHT NOW
by Blaze Media

Sen. Schmitt offers glimmer of hope after birthright citizenship 'mistake' from SCOTUS

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."President Donald Trump issued an executive order on his first day back in office making it U.S. policy not to issue citizenship documents to a person whose mother was unlawfully in the country and whose father was neither an American citizen nor a permanent resident at the time of the person's birth.'The Court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country's future.'This order has been at the center of a legal battle that culminated in the U.S. Supreme Court's determination on Tuesday in Trump v. Barbara that "children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause."Unwilling to suffer the fallout of the high court's ruling, some conservatives are looking for legal ways to prevent America from cheapening citizenship and becoming a spawning ground for opportunistic foreigners.Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt (R) noted in the wake of the consequential ruling that "the majority tried to constitutionalize unlimited birthright citizenship. But Justice Kavanaugh MAY have left Congress a door."Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a partially dissenting opinion:The Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does contravene a federal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a). Congress could — consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment — amend § 1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.RELATED: SCOTUS rules on Trump's birthright citizenship order Sen. Eric Schmitt. Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty ImagesRecognizing that the high court's decision "will destroy the republic" but is unfixable with ordinary legislation, Schmitt advocated that "we must do what the Constitution commands in moments of national crisis: We must amend the Constitution and restore American citizenship. We must again put 'We the People' first.""When the Court entrenches its mistake as a constitutional command, the remedy must match the injury," the Missouri senator wrote. "Congress can propose an amendment under Article V, and the states can ratify it. That process is purposefully difficult. It requires two-thirds of each chamber of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states."The senator announced that he is filing legislation to amend Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.Schmitt's proposed "American Citizenship Act" would clarify the meaning of the Citizenship Clause such that a person born in the United States would be "deemed subject to a foreign power if neither parent of such person is a United States citizen or has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence at the time of such person's birth."The act would not apply retroactively to persons already born."That amendment will restore the original American understanding of citizenship. It will restore the right of the American people to define their own political community," Schmitt said. "And it will ensure that citizenship once again reflects allegiance, permanence, and membership in the American nation."The clarification proposed by Schmitt appears to be in keeping with the longstanding American understanding of the clause referenced by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent in Barbara.Alito, like Justice Clarence Thomas, railed against the majority's apparent revisionist history and suggested that the court broke from tradition in its interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," taking it to mean "subject to the laws that apply to everyone who is present within the country's borders."The conservative justice stressed that this interpretation presents at least three "fatal problems" on textual grounds:"It gives the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship test a meaning that plainly differs from that in the Civil Rights Act, even though it is beyond any reasonable dispute that Congress did no such thing";"The Court cannot explain why the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer citizenship on children born in the United States to tribal Indians"; and"The Court cannot explain why the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States applies to naturalized citizens." Alito said in conclusion that "the Court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country's future."President Donald Trump suggested that the Supreme Court's mess could be cleaned up "in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President."He stressed that "no long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary!"Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Cover image for Sen. Schmitt offers glimmer of hope after birthright citizenship 'mistake' from SCOTUS
Return to Homepage