Day: December 2, 2025
Comer targets Walz in new House investigation, citing nearly $1B in alleged Minnesota fraud
The House Oversight Committee under Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., has opened a probe into Minnesota’s handling of a massive COVID-relief program
Imagine That!
It’s funny how things work out. What we think will never happen does and what we think should happen never materializes. That’s one of the reasons the social engineering our government too often attempts these days is almost universally a bad idea. We think we know how things will work out, but we are almost always wrong. It’s like Dirty Harry said.
The post Imagine That! appeared first on The Hugh Hewitt Show.
‘Chatbot Jesus’ is a digital fake — and churches are falling for it
Artificial intelligence now offers “Chatbot Jesus,” personalized prayers, AI-generated sermons, and even virtual pastors charging monthly fees. Some see these tools as a lifeline for shrinking congregations. Others claim they offer new ways to evangelize.
The church must speak plainly: We are not called to relevance. We are called to righteousness. Scripture commands believers to “test all things; hold fast what is good.”
People are not abandoning faith because the church lacks modern technology. They are leaving because they are starving for truth in an age of deception.
Technology itself is neither holy nor wicked. The printing press, radio, livestreaming, and Bible apps have all served ministry. AI that organizes calendars, translates languages, or answers simple questions is just another tool.
Crossing a biblical line
Trouble begins when technology imitates divinity. An app that invites people to “talk with Jesus” steps into territory Scripture reserves for the living God alone. Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice” (John 10:27). Only the Lord speaks with the authority of Matthew 24:35: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.”
No chatbot can make that claim.
The danger becomes obvious when apps offer simulated “conversations” with Judas or Satan. God forbids consulting spirits, mediums, or conjured voices (Leviticus 19:31; Deuteronomy 18:10-12). Why would the church encourage digital re-creations of what Scripture calls an abomination?
Convenience or relevance cannot override explicit biblical commands.
You can’t outsource the Holy Spirit
Some pastors now admit they use AI to help write sermons. Others market “avatar” versions of themselves. But ministry has never centered on polished prose. It has always centered on God’s power — His breath, His Spirit, His Word.
Paul wrote, “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power” (1 Corinthians 2:4).
You cannot automate the power of God. You cannot outsource the voice of the Holy Spirit. You cannot download anointing.
A sermon is not literary content to be refined by software. It must be birthed in prayer, wrestled through in Scripture, and delivered in obedience. As Jesus said, “Apart from Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). That includes preaching.
Tech won’t save us
Axios reported that up to 15,000 churches may close this year and that 29% of Americans now claim no religion. That trend calls for actual spiritual renewal, not AI simulations of Jesus.
People are not abandoning faith because the church lacks modern technology. They are leaving because they are starving for truth in an age of deception. The early church grew because believers “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship … and fear came upon every soul” (Acts 2:42-43). They witnessed repentance, signs, wonders, and transformation — none of which machines can produce.
True revival begins where the early church began: holiness, unity, prayer, obedience, and the power of the Holy Spirit.
A distortion of Christ
False voices proclaiming truth are not new. The only novelty is that they are now automated. The central danger of “AI spirituality” is doctrinal corruption. What sources shape these chatbots? What ideology trains them? If systems learn from shallow teaching or progressive theology divorced from Scripture, they will preach a distorted Christ.
When AI “hallucinates” — and all current systems do — it can hand users outright lies.
Jesus warned, “Beware of false prophets … you will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15-16). Paul warned that if anyone preaches “any other gospel … let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). From Genesis onward, the devil has counterfeited God’s voice. AI can and will preach an “other gospel” if it draws from anything other than Scripture.
RELATED: God-tier AI? Why there’s no easy exit from the human condition
gremlin via iStock/Getty Images
Believers must remain discerning. “Do not be deceived” (1 Corinthians 15:33). “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit” (Colossians 2:8). Those who build their faith on machine-generated counsel risk building a house on sand rather than the Rock (Matthew 7:24-27).
A servant, not a shepherd
Tools can organize schedules and streamline communication. They can assist brainstorming. But preaching, prayer, prophecy, discipleship, deliverance, and counsel belong to the life of the Spirit — not the cold logic of machines.
Technology must remain a servant. It must never become a shepherd. Only the good shepherd, Jesus Christ, leads His people.
Jesus said, “I am the door of the sheep,” “I am the good shepherd,” and “I lay down My life for the sheep” (John 10). No AI pastor and no “Chatbot Jesus” can claim any of that.
Revival will not come from faster processors or stronger large language models. It will come when God’s people “humble themselves,” pray, seek His face, and turn from their wicked ways (2 Chronicles 7:14).
The world does not need a digital imitation of Jesus. It needs the real Jesus — the one who, as Hebrews 13:8 tells us, “is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
Team Mace hits back at former top adviser for bashing governor hopeful over Trump disloyalty: ‘Didn’t raise a dime’
Republican Rep. Nancy Mace’s South Carolina gubernatorial campaign set its sights on a former consultant after he took to social media to air his grievances.
Austin McCubbin, a longtime Republican operative and former adviser to Mace’s campaign, dramatically exited her team on Monday, accusing the candidate of being disloyal to President Donald Trump. In a lengthy post on X, McCubbin claimed Mace “decided to turn her back on MAGA” only to “hug the political cactus that is the Rand Paul + Thomas Massie wing of the Party.”
‘When he demanded $10,000 a month for “services” and was told no, he ran straight to X.’
“My name has been used publicly, while going back on her word to pay me, to trade on my Team Trump status and to work on her behalf with the White House, and I am 100% breaking with her campaign out of loyalty to the President,” McCubbin said.
Mace’s campaign strongly pushed back and painted a much different picture than what McCubbin was claiming.
“Mr. McCubbin didn’t raise a dime for the campaign or, better yet, never even bothered showing up,” a spokesperson for Mace’s campaign told Blaze News. “When he demanded $10,000 a month for ‘services’ and was told no, he ran straight to X. Good luck with that.”
RELATED: ‘You’re a piece of s**t’: Nancy Mace and Cory Mills clash in heated exchange after failed censure
Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images
“Nancy Mace has stood with President Trump since Day ONE. Mr. McCubbin said it himself: ‘Nancy Mace will be the most pro-Trump and America First Governor in the country.'”
Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Mace reiterated this narrative on social media, calling McCubbin “tone-deaf” and “out of touch.”
“The feeling when a political ‘consultant’ demands $10k per month to give you bad advice you’ll never use… and they cry on social media when you turn them down…” Mace said. “Those who rely on the elite. The powerful. The establishment. Are completely out of touch. Tone Deaf. To the needs of the powerless.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
It’s not ‘racist’ to notice Somali fraud
Last week, my colleague Ryan Thorpe and I broke a story about widespread fraud committed by Somalis in Minnesota. Members of the state’s Somali community allegedly participated in complex schemes related to autism services, food programs, and housing, which prosecutors estimate have stolen billions of taxpayer dollars. Even worse, some of the cash has ended up in the hands of Al-Shabaab, a terrorist organization in Somalia.
The story quickly reached the White House. Within days, President Trump announced that he was revoking Temporary Protected Status for all Somali migrants in Minnesota.
Progressives have suggested that our reporting and the subsequent policy change were “racist.” While many of those indicted in these schemes are Somali, these critics argue, the federal government should not hold Minnesota’s Somali community corporately responsible for the actions of individuals.
Little Mogadishu in Minneapolis has a real problem, and it is about time that our government began facing it.
This criticism is superficially appealing, but it isn’t persuasive on closer inspection.
First, a description of the facts should not be measured as “racist or not racist,” but rather as “true or not true.” And in this case, the truth is that numerous members of a relatively small community participated in a scheme that stole billions in taxpayer funds. This is a legitimate consideration for American immigration policy, which is organized around nation of origin and, for more than 30 years, has favorably treated Somalis relative to other groups. It is more than fair to ask whether that policy has served the national interest. The fraud story suggests that the answer is “no.”
Second, the fact that Somalis are black is incidental. If Norwegian immigrants were perpetrating fraud at the same alleged scale and had the same employment and income statistics as Somalis, it would be perfectly reasonable to make the same criticism and enact the same policy response. It would not be “racist” against Norwegians to do so.
Further, Somalis have enormously high unemployment rates, and federal law enforcement has long considered Minneapolis’ Little Mogadishu neighborhood a hot spot for terrorism recruitment. We should condemn that behavior without regard to skin color.
The underlying question — which, until now, Americans have been loath to address directly — is that of different behaviors and outcomes between different groups. Americans tend to avoid this question, rely on euphemisms, and let these distinctions remain implied rather than spoken aloud. Yet it seems increasingly untenable to maintain this Anglo-American courtesy when the left has spent decades insisting that we conceptualize our national life in terms of group identity.
The reality is that different groups have different cultural characteristics. The national culture of Somalia is different from the national culture of Norway. Somalis and Norwegians therefore tend to think differently, behave differently, and organize themselves differently, which leads to different group outcomes. Norwegians in Minnesota behave similarly to Norwegians in Norway; Somalis in Minnesota behave similarly to Somalis in Somalia. Many cultural patterns from Somalia — particularly clan networks, informal economies, and distrust of state institutions — travel with the diaspora and have shown up in Minnesota as well. In the absence of strong assimilation pressures, the fraud networks aren’t so surprising; they reflect the extension of Somali institutional norms into a new environment with weak enforcement and poorly designed incentives.
The beauty of America is that we had a system that thoughtfully balanced individual and group considerations. We recognized that all men, whatever their background, have a natural right to life, liberty, property, and equal treatment under the law. We also recognized that group averages can be a basis for judgment — especially in immigration, where they can help determine which potential immigrant groups are most suitable and advantageous for America.
RELATED: Chip Roy’s immigration blitz hits the lawless left and the squish right
Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
These principles are in tension but not in contradiction. As a sociological matter, a policy of equal rights for all individuals will result in unequal outcomes among groups. This is not a sign of injustice per se. It is an inevitability. No two groups are the same, and therefore, no two groups will have the same outcomes in a system of individual liberty and equality.
The firestorm around the Somali fraud story was so intense precisely because it forced this question into the spotlight. For decades, America has given Somali immigrants special privileges through TPS. We have expected Somalis to play by the rules, contribute to the country, and assimilate into the culture. Some individuals have certainly done so, but as the fraud story suggests, many others have not. A rational government would amend its policies accordingly.
We can see the same process playing out in other parts of the world. In the United Kingdom, mass immigration from incompatible cultures is creating a civilizational crisis. Rather than replicate the policies of our sister country, we should accept reality and adopt a more thoughtful policy, which recognizes cultural norms as a reasonable measure of capacity to assimilate and to contribute.
The president should stand firm. Little Mogadishu in Minneapolis has a real problem, and it is about time that our government began facing it.
Editor’s note: This article appeared originally on Substack.
Leftist war on pro-life pregnancy centers faces Supreme Court reckoning
Women across America want real choices. Unfortunately, pro-abortion advocates have spent decades determining what “choice” women should want — while attacking pregnancy resource centers that offer women what they need.
For the past three decades, it has been my privilege to serve as a volunteer and board member at Aid for Women, a network of pregnancy centers and maternity homes in Illinois. The success of pregnancy resource centers like ours in offering women genuine support and resources has made us targets for pro-abortion smear campaigns, lawfare, and even physical attack.
Pro-abortion activists don’t seem to care if women, children, and families are cut off from the support they need.
On Dec. 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that perfectly encapsulates the targeting and harassment organizations like ours have suffered for years.
The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, will determine whether the New Jersey attorney general can arbitrarily demand private donor lists and other confidential information from First Choice Women’s Resource Center without cause.
It’s critical that the Supreme Court rule favorably toward First Choice Women’s Resource Centers and send a warning to those targeting pro-life work nationwide.
Pro-abortion attacks on pregnancy resource centers have escalated in recent years.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, pro-abortion radicals unleashed a summer of rage that included physical violence on nearly 100 pregnancy resource centers nationwide. These attacks were shocking to those of us stepping up to meet the need post-Dobbs, especially after fresh polling revealed that 60% of post-abortive women said they would have preferred to parent if they had more resources and support.
We were baffled why anyone would want to cut off support networks for women, many of whom clearly wanted to choose life, at a time when increased limits on abortion made our work more essential than ever. Even in blue states that do not have a single restriction on abortion, pro-abortion politicians have striven to strangle our support networks and shut us down.
Those of us at Aid for Women felt each of these attacks personally. Even still, we had no idea that we would soon experience pro-abortion “rage” firsthand.
This past August, our center staff served countless babies and moms, oblivious to the Democratic National Convention that was being held in our state.
At that convention, former Vice President Kamala Harris’ Democrat nomination acceptance speech fearmongered about President Trump’s abortion agenda, alleging that Trump and his allies would endanger women and their rights.
Just hours later, one of Aid for Women’s Chicago pregnancy centers was badly vandalized, with doors cemented shut and red paint thrown on the windows, graffiti reading, “Fake Clinic! The dead babies are in Gaza.” The political vitriol from the DNC undoubtedly inspired the physical attack on our center.
Unfortunately, the vandals only succeeded in hurting the very women they claim to champion.
The following day, a dozen pregnant mothers who had booked prenatal appointments at Aid for Women were unable to be seen by the organization’s physician and nurse practitioners due to the vandalism. Dozens more could not visit to pick up the diapers, formula, infant and maternity clothing, and household supplies that Aid for Women provides — all free of charge and all without any government assistance. Every service and item given to pregnant women is provided through the generosity of donors.
RELATED: The FDA’s deadly betrayal of pro-life America
STEFANI REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images
What those attacking our center failed to realize is that many of our clients live below or just skimming the poverty line. Some have housing insecurity. And their inability to access our center for the care that they needed likely affected them dramatically.
Unfortunately, pro-abortion activists don’t seem to care if women, children, and families are cut off from the support they need.
As we approach oral arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Center, Inc. v. Platkin, the attacks on centers like ours serve as a powerful reminder that those offering alternatives to abortion have become punching bags of abortion extremists that will do anything to stop lifesaving work and promote abortion.
For example, the New Jersey attorney general is alleged to have singled out First Choice Women’s Resource Center because of its pro-life and Christian views. New Jersey officials allegedly have spent months harassing First Choice with crippling administrative requirements, threatening legal sanctions if the organization refused to produce private donor records and other private information — all of which is confidential to protect those involved from the very real threat of pro-abortion retribution.
Compounding this injustice was the shocking truth that New Jersey officials did not have a just cause for this burdensome lawfare and still have not submitted any evidence of wrongdoing by First Choice or any of its associates.
Despite this, donors and volunteers engaging in charitable work face the possibility of intimidation and retribution for putting their money — and their time — where their mouths are.
It’s critical that the Supreme Court end this unfair lawfare against First Choice and draw a line to stop pro-abortion attacks on pregnancy resource centers once and for all.
Kim Chiu explains decision to file qualified theft case vs sister Lakambini Chiu
Kim Chiu said that filing a case against her sister, Lakambini Chiu, is one of the “most painful steps” she has taken in her life.
GMA Network wins big at Anak TV Seal Awards 2025
Several programs and personalities of GMA Network earned recognition at the Anak TV Seal Awards 2025.
Alden Richards reveals his greatest fear in life
Alden Richards revealed his greatest fear in life: to grow old alone.
