Growing up just outside Galway City, life in the West of Ireland was exactly what the postcards promised. It was a beautiful place, with generous people and a great spirit.

I use the term was deliberately. That Galway, and the Ireland it represented, is officially dead and buried — a lot like the Irish language itself.

Liberals love to romanticize this migration by drawing parallels to Ireland’s own history of exodus.

Galway recently elected its first black mayor, Helen Ogbu, a Nigerian-born former social worker. The local and international media immediately fell into a state of rapturous, celebratory euphoria, framing it as a textbook example of a modern, inclusive Ireland, complete with a self-congratulatory pat on the back for everyone involved.

But beneath the surface-level applause and the performative progressive high-fives, the mood on the ground isn’t exactly celebratory. These rapid-fire changes are fueling a deep dread about what being Irish even means any more, besides holding the right passport.

Demographic rewrite

While Rotimi Adebari, another Nigerian, became Ireland’s first black mayor back in 2007 in Portlaoise, Galway’s latest civic milestone cements a broader trend. This is less a blending of cultures than a demographic rewrite.

For anyone who remembers the not-so-old days, these lightning-fast shifts feel like the systematic gutting of everything we used to call home. It’s a brutal reality that local broadcasters prefer to completely ignore, though American commentator Tyler Oliveira recently traveled to Ireland to document this unfolding madness firsthand.

As his dispatches note, almost a quarter of Ireland’s population is now foreign-born. Watching the footage, it’s impossible not to recall Donald Trump’s infamous 2015 declaration regarding immigration in America: “They’re not sending their best,” he said. “They’re sending people that have lots of problems. … They’re bringing drugs; they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.

Trump was speaking about the U.S. southern border, but looking at the insanity unfolding in Dublin and parts of the rural West, he might as well have been describing modern Ireland. The influx has brought an undeniable undercurrent of low-IQ degeneracy from parts of Africa and the Middle East, fundamentally altering the safety of communities that used to leave their front doors unlocked.

Locals only

Ireland is gripped by a crushing homelessness crisis, but if you look at the people actually sleeping in cardboard boxes in city centers, they are far less likely to be from foreign lands than born-and-bred locals.

There’s a sickening irony to the history here. Our ancestors, including my own family in the West, fought, bled, and died to kick the British Empire out, only for the current generation to willingly open the gates to a different kind of conquest.

To be fair, it wasn’t the ordinary Irish people who made this choice, but a political class utterly beholden to Brussels and the EU bureaucracy. When Angela Merkel opened the floodgates in 2015, a cowardly, compliant Irish government offered to take its share of the burden, setting off a chain reaction that has left the country unrecognizable.

The magnet pulling people in is a bizarrely generous welfare state. While working-class Irish citizens struggle to put food on the table, the system rolls out the red carpet for foreign arrivals. In Oliveira’s documentary, one migrant casually admits to receiving a €1,200 monthly cash allowance. To an outsider, €1,200 (roughly $1,400) a month might not sound like an extravagant fortune, but when it is paired with free housing, medical care, and education, it means you are essentially being subsidized by the Irish taxpayer to do absolutely nothing.

Kick me, I’m Irish

Liberals love to romanticize this migration by drawing parallels to Ireland’s own history of exodus. When Conan O’Brien visited his ancestral home in Ireland, he spoke about the real courage it took for generations of Irish people to cross the Atlantic for a better life, noting, “People leave not because they think: ‘Hey, I just want to go have fun in America.’ They leave because they have to.” The pro-immigration lobby uses this exact sentiment as a shield, arguing that today’s arrivals are just the modern equivalents of the 19th-century Irish.

They’re not. That comparison is utter nonsense. The historical Irish diaspora weren’t greeted by a waiting welfare check, free medical cards, and state-subsidized housing; they stepped off the boats into starvation, hostile “No Irish Need Apply” signs, and manual labor that regularly killed them. Furthermore, modern migration has become a cynical game of regional arbitrage. As Oliveira’s interviews reveal, many migrants openly admit to using Portugal as a soft entry point into the EU, obtaining papers there before immediately making a beeline for Ireland’s superior welfare benefits.

What we are witnessing is the absolute, spectacular failure of Western liberalism. Notice that his toxic brand of pathological altruism doesn’t exist in Africa or Asia. It is an exclusively Western suicidal pact — a bizarre cultural mental illness where nations willingly subsidize their own erasure while smiling for the cameras. Ireland is simply the latest country to gladly sign its own death warrant, completely convinced that disappearing is the ultimate form of progress.

​Lifestyle, Migrants, Immigration, Europe, Ireland, Nigeria, Welfare state, Letter from ireland 

If you’re not familiar with the power of a simple yellow pencil and what it can teach about economics, freedom, and the limit of government power — then Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck is here to help.

“I’m holding a pencil. Yellow, six sides, little pink eraser at the top. And we’ve used these our whole life,” Glenn begins.

“The cedar comes off a mountain in the Pacific Northwest. It’s cut by a steel saw. That steel came from an iron ore in Minnesota, smelted with coal hauled by the rails by people who are long dead,” he says.

“The graphite comes out of the ground in Sri Lanka, and it’s mixed with clay from Mississippi. The little band up at the top, that used to be copper from Chile, zinc from Canada. The yellow paint, the rubber that never once met a rubber tree in its life,” he continues.

“All of these things, thousands of people on five continents that don’t speak the same language, who never met, who’d probably cross the street to avoid each other … these people couldn’t agree on lunch, and they built the pencil,” he adds.

The point, Glenn says, is that “no one was in charge.”

“There’s no department of pencils in a marble building deciding how much graphite Sri Lanka needs to mine this year. Nobody on the planet wakes up at 3:00 in the morning in a cold sweat thinking, ‘Dear God, does Ohio have enough erasers?’ Nobody does,” he says.

“So here’s how you explain capitalism and socialism. If no one is smart enough to plan a pencil, nobody … it just happens. Who exactly do we figure is smart enough to plan an entire economy?” he asks, before citing the economist Friedrich Hayek.

Glenn notes that Hayek “spent his life on this one idea,” which was that “the knowledge that it takes to run an economy doesn’t live in any one place.”

“It’s scattered across millions and billions of heads. It’s the welder who can feel a batch of steel running brittle. It’s the grocer who notices that young families are starting to move in, and they got all these kids, so I better stock up on more diapers. It’s the farmer that can read the sky,” he says.

“None of them could write down what they know. They couldn’t fill it out in a form. They’d lose the form. But they act on it every single day,” he adds.

However, when you introduce a central planner, Glenn explains, even the ones with the most sincere hearts will fail.

“And that’s when the bread line happens. Bread lines are real, and it happens the same way every single time,” he says.

“It’s like a band that only knows one song. That’s what socialism is,” 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.

​Capitalism, Economics, Economy, Freedom, Glenn beck, Pencil test, Socialism, The glenn beck program 

If you want to glimpse the future of artificial intelligence, don’t start in Silicon Valley. Start in a South Korean factory.

According to the International Federation of Robotics, South Korea now has 1,012 industrial robots for every 10,000 manufacturing workers — the highest robot density in the world. Put another way, roughly one in every 10 manufacturing “workers” is now a robot.

For now, however, even the world’s most advanced humanoid robots still struggle with tasks that young children perform effortlessly.

That startling figure is one piece of a much larger story stretching from American AI labs to South Korean factories, Chinese assembly lines, and Indian garment workshops.

For most Americans, the AI revolution is something that happens on a screen. We think of ChatGPT writing emails, Claude summarizing reports, or Google Gemini answering questions. The race appears to revolve around Silicon Valley companies building ever more capable language models.

But the next phase of artificial intelligence is becoming much more physical.

Instead of asking how machines can write like humans, researchers are asking how they can move like humans — how they grasp a coffee mug, fold a shirt, stitch a collar, or crack an egg without crushing it.

That challenge has created an unexpected global division of labor: America builds the brains, South Korea builds the bodies, China provides the classroom, while India supplies the teachers.

Together, they’re revealing something surprising: the future of artificial intelligence depends on ordinary human beings.

South Korea: Building the bodies

If robotics has an epicenter, it may well be South Korea.

The country’s dominance in robotics didn’t emerge from nowhere. It grew out of decades spent building some of the world’s most advanced automobiles.

The same expertise that allows South Korean companies to manufacture electric motors, precision steering systems, sensors, braking technology, and other high-performance automotive components translates remarkably well to humanoid robots. Goldman Sachs Research estimates Korean companies could account for roughly 30% of global humanoid robot production by 2035, either by manufacturing robots directly or supplying the critical components that allow them to move.

Yet South Korea’s embrace of automation has also exposed its tensions.

This week, Hyundai workers overwhelmingly voted to authorize strike action after contract negotiations stalled, with robots emerging as a central issue for the first time.

The union isn’t simply demanding higher wages.

It wants guarantees over how artificial intelligence and humanoid robots will be introduced onto factory floors, arguing that workers deserve a voice before machines begin performing jobs currently done by people.

The dispute centers on Atlas, the humanoid robot developed by Hyundai-owned Boston Dynamics.

While company executives describe Atlas as a way to perform dangerous, repetitive, and physically demanding work, union leaders see a machine that could eventually replace the people who build Hyundai’s cars.

The disagreement captures the paradox facing much of the developed world.

Countries like South Korea desperately need automation. It has one of the world’s fastest-aging populations and one of its lowest birth rates, creating labor shortages that robots may eventually help fill.

Yet the workers whose jobs are most vulnerable understandably want assurances that they won’t become casualties of the technological transition.

Child’s play

For now, however, even the world’s most advanced humanoid robots still struggle with tasks that young children perform effortlessly.

Finding a coffee pot, identifying its handle, lifting it correctly and pouring without spilling remains astonishingly difficult for a machine.

The bottleneck is no longer the body or the brain. It is experience.

Engineers can now build remarkably capable robot bodies and increasingly sophisticated AI models. What they can’t manufacture is the accumulated experience that allows humans to navigate the physical world almost without thinking. Like a child learning to walk — or an apprentice learning a trade — robots improve only through repeated interaction with the real world.

RELATED: Your child’s new best friend might be a Chinese surveillance device

akinbostanci/Getty Images

China: Generating the experience

South Korea may lead the world in robot density, but China wins on sheer scale.

According to the International Federation of Robotics, China had 2.027 million industrial robots operating in its factories in 2024. It installed another 295,000 robots that year alone, accounting for 54% of global robot demand.

That scale gives Beijing an enormous advantage in the next phase of AI.

Unlike ChatGPT, which learned from enormous quantities of text on the internet, humanoid robots must learn by interacting with the real world. Every object they grasp, every obstacle they navigate, and every task they complete generates valuable information that helps improve future models.

China has more of that real-world classroom than anyone else.

Part of the urgency stems from demographics. After decades of the one-child policy and collapsing birth rates, China faces one of the fastest-aging populations in history. Its working-age population is projected to shrink dramatically over the coming decades, threatening the labor force that powered its manufacturing rise.

Humanoid robots have become one response. Every robot deployed today becomes another teacher for tomorrow’s robots. More deployment generates more real-world data, and better data produces better AI models.

Better models create more capable robots, which in turn generate even more data.

In the race toward physical AI, experience itself has become a competitive advantage.

India: Supplying the trainers

If South Korea is building the machines and China is putting them to work, India is asking who benefits from the knowledge that makes them possible.

Across the country, companies are asking factory workers, construction laborers, delivery drivers, and homemakers to wear head-mounted cameras while they go about their daily routines.

No gesture is too small to escape the camera’s eye: how a garment worker guides fabric through a sewing machine, how a mason carries bricks across uneven ground, how someone folds laundry, washes dishes, packs a lunch.

The recordings — known as “egocentric data” — have become one of the world’s most valuable resources.

Many workers reportedly weren’t told exactly why they were being recorded; in fact, some laughed when cameras were first strapped to their foreheads. That laughter changed to unease as they realized they were teaching machines that might someday replace them.

Labor advocates have raised new questions. If a worker’s lifetime of accumulated skill is converted into an AI dataset worth millions of dollars, should that worker share in its value?

Can consent really be voluntary if refusing to wear the camera could jeopardize someone’s livelihood?

And who owns years of accumulated know-how once it has been converted into a commercial AI dataset?

For perhaps the first time, the routines of ordinary life are becoming economically valuable in their own right.

Skills that were never considered professions — sewing a collar, folding towels, washing dishes, preparing meals, gripping an egg without breaking it, carrying heavy materials safely — are becoming indispensable training material for the world’s most sophisticated robots.

Indian startup Neocambrian AI estimates it could require 100 million hours of first-person human activity before machines approach human-level dexterity.

The irony is impossible to miss.

As artificial intelligence becomes more sophisticated, researchers are discovering just how difficult it is to replicate the quiet competence of ordinary people.

We, robot

The AI revolution has often been described as a triumph of silicon over flesh. Instead, it is becoming a lesson in just how remarkable ordinary human beings really are.

The machine doesn’t know what an ordinary person knows: how tightly to grip an egg, how to instinctively shift its weight while walking across uneven ground.

These are forms of embodied wisdom acquired through years of living in a human body.

Christianity has long insisted that human beings are not merely minds that happen to inhabit bodies. In Genesis, mankind is introduced not simply as a thinker but as a worker — cultivating a garden, naming animals, building a family, and exercising stewardship over creation.

These are not incidental tasks. They are ways human beings express creativity, responsibility, and love.

One of the strangest consequences of the AI revolution is that it is reminding us of the enduring dignity of the same ordinary human work it seeks to replace.

​Ai, Ai race, Automation, China, Culture, Humanoid robots, Hyundai, India, Lifestyle, Robotics, South korea, Workers, Tech 

The debate over autonomous weapons has started from the wrong premise.

Critics ask whether the United States should permit machines to kill. Advocates frame the question as whether we can afford to fall behind adversaries who will deploy such systems regardless. Both sides treat autonomous lethality as a novel moral category that demands a novel governing framework.

The United States will field autonomous systems regardless of whether the public debate reaches a satisfying resolution.

The U.S. military already possesses such a framework, however. It has been used for decades, it scales naturally to autonomous systems, and the public debate would improve considerably if both sides understood these realities.

The military governs the use of force through weapons control statuses, a graduated system that every air defense operator and ground commander knows by three commands. “Weapons hold” authorizes engagement only in self-defense or under specific order. “Weapons tight” authorizes engagement only against targets positively identified as hostile. “Weapons free” authorizes engagement against any target not positively identified as friendly.

A commander sets the status based on mission, threat, and environment, as units within his command may operate under different statuses depending on the situation. The framework already calibrates lethal authority to circumstance. It does not require a soldier to seek individual approval for every trigger pull, because the controlling judgment comes from the posture the commander has set rather than in each discrete engagement.

This structure maps directly onto the problem of autonomous weapons.

The objection that a machine cannot exercise the contextual judgment that distinguishes a combatant from a civilian, a threat from a bystander, has force only in environments where discrimination is genuinely difficult — precisely the condition the weapons control framework already addresses.

The Taiwan Strait and downtown Tehran are not the same operating environment, and no serious framework should govern them in the same way.

Consider the contrast. An autonomous system operating in the Taiwan Strait is tasked with engaging naval vessels in a declared conflict zone where civilian traffic is minimal. Every surface combatant of a certain signature is presumptively hostile and faces a discrimination problem that is nearly trivial. The environment is uncluttered, the targets are large and militarily unambiguous, and the consequences of restraint include the loss of American ships and sailors to adversary missiles that outpace any human operator’s reaction time.

A weapons-free or weapons-tight posture for autonomous engagement in that environment is defensible on the same grounds that justify those postures for human-operated air defense.

The same autonomous system operating in a dense urban environment such as downtown Tehran, where combatants and civilians occupy the same streets, should operate under weapons hold, which requires a human to authorize each engagement. The environment dictates the posture, and the framework already exists to make that determination.

RELATED: The empire cannot drone-strike its way out of decline

ATTA KENARE/AFP/Getty Images

The Pentagon has, in fact, started to incorporate this framework into existing policy. Directive 3000.09, updated in January 2023, requires that autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force. It also requires that the design of such systems confine each engagement to a time frame and geographic area consistent with commander and operator intentions.

The directive presupposes that the appropriate level of human control varies with the system and mission rather than holding constant across all cases.

What the directive does not yet do, and what the public debate has not yet grasped, is connect that variation to the weapons control vocabulary the force already uses, which would render the entire question legible to commanders, policymakers, and the public in terms the military has been employing for generations.

Adopting this approach requires trusting the military to set the posture, which is the crux of the matter for a public institution. The objection that the U.S. cannot trust commanders to calibrate autonomous lethal force responsibly proves too much.

We already trust those same commanders to calibrate human lethal force through an identical framework — one that, when commanders adopt the wrong posture, produces civilian casualties.

An autonomous system governed by the same logic inherits the same accountability structure, because the commander who sets a weapons-free posture for an autonomous system owns the consequences exactly as the commander who sets it for a battery of human-operated interceptors.

A public institution governing an autonomous force must establish this policy explicitly rather than allow it to emerge on a case-by-case basis from procurement decisions and after-action reviews.

The military should state as a matter of doctrine that autonomous weapon systems operate under weapons control statuses set by the responsible commander; that the status a commander may set for a given system depends on the discrimination difficulty of its operating environment; and that the most permissive postures remain available only in environments where the discrimination problem is genuinely simple.

RELATED: The AI gold rush could become an incumbent graveyard

Tasha Art/Getty Images

This codification would accomplish two things that the current ambiguous debate does not. First, it would give commanders a clear and familiar vocabulary for governing systems that would otherwise arrive without doctrinal handholds. Second, it would give the public a transparent standard by which to hold the institution accountable, because a weapons control status is a decision with a name and an owner rather than a diffuse property of an algorithm that no one can identify.

The alternative is not a world without autonomous weapons. Adversaries are building them, the technology is proliferating, and the United States will field autonomous systems regardless of whether the public debate reaches a satisfying resolution.

The alternative to adopting a clear framework is fielding these systems under an ambiguous one, in which the absence of explicit doctrine forces operators and engineers to improvise the hardest decisions in the moment rather than letting commanders govern them in advance within a system the nation has already validated across decades of use.

The military knows how to use lethal force. The framework is sound, familiar, and accountable. The task now is to apply it deliberately to new autonomous systems rather than assume that such systems require the country to invent its ethics of force from scratch.

Editor’s note: This article appeared originally at the American Mind.

​Autonomous warfare, Drones, Us military, Weapons free, Taiwan strait, Iran, Russia, China, Military drones, Opinion & analysis, Pentagon 

A data center already under attack from locals has announced a move that probably will only make residents more upset.

American company Hyperscale Data Inc. has a data center in Dowagiac, Michigan, that residents say is too loud. A class action lawsuit filed in May says a constant hum from the facility is overwhelming.

‘… create a unique environment for developing and evaluating next-generation AI systems.’

Neighbors said that they can hear the data center’s cooling systems and fans from inside their home, limiting whatever they want to do on their property.

“I’m walking [my son] more than a mile away to get away from the noise,” one man said, per WSBT.

Piling onto this already (allegedly) burdensome data center is a recent announcement that Hyperscale Data will employ Chinese robots at the facility.

Hyperscale and its subsidiary company Omnipresent Robotics are reportedly partnering with Chinese robotics firm Agibot PTE Ltd to get components for 30 OPR-R2 humanoid robots, Data Center Dynamics reported.

Set for deployment in Q3 2026, the bots are intended to support the “development of embodied artificial intelligence applications, autonomous workflows, and advanced robotics systems.”

RELATED: The KIDS Act would turn web browsing into a TSA line

Mustafa Yalcin/Anadolu/Getty Images

While the OPR-R2 bots are not listed on Agibot’s website, their top model of humanoid bot (the Agibot A2 Ultra) is about five-and-a-half feet tall and just over 150 pounds. It comes with three cameras — head, chest, and waist — a microphone and a speaker.

The bots are described as a “rising star” in the entertainment industry, as well, and are recommended for brand ambassadors and performances.

As workers, the machines will reportedly be assigned to the Omnipresent Robotics’ Model Training Laboratory, where they will work “side-by-side” with data center employees to mimic their movements, also described as real-world training.

“The company believes the integration of humanoid robots with high-performance AI computing infrastructure will create a unique environment for developing and evaluating next-generation AI systems capable of operating in real-world environments,” Hyperscale said, per DCD.

RELATED: GOP bill aims to gut online censorship funds — and where the money is going will shock you

Jason Alden/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Hyperscale’s chairman said that the company believes “physical AI” is the future of AI, with “tomorrow’s AI systems” needing to be capable of understanding and interacting in the physical world.

As for the data center itself, it sits at approximately 617,000 square feet and takes about 28 megawatts of power. According to DataCenters.com, there are 12 other data centers within 50 miles of the facility.

Hyperscale Data is currently trading at around 17 cents per share at the time of this writing.

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

​News, Data center, Michigan, Chinese robots, Tech 

Charlie Kirk’s death has affected people across America, and Vice President JD Vance is no exception.

In an interview with BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey, Vance revealed that Kirk’s passing is what inspired his family to grow even more.

“So this has been sort of an ongoing conversation, as it probably is with all families with a lot of kids, and you know, I remember when we had our first kid and you go from zero to one, I was like, I’m never doing this again,” Vance tells Stuckey.

“It was such a shock to the system,” he explains, noting that his oldest was a “tougher” baby.

“And then we had number two and number three. And now I’m just all like, I would have nine kids,” he says.

Vance’s wife, Usha, just turned 40, which, he points out, has made it a little harder.

“The older that you get, the harder it is on the body. And so she was kind of like, you know, I don’t really know that I want to be pregnant again. Like I’d love to have a fourth baby; I don’t want to be pregnant again with all the spotlight,” he explains.

“And you know, when Charlie died … we fly out the morning of the 11th, pick up his body in Utah, and then fly him and Erika and some of the family back to Arizona. And you know, there’s so many things I remember from that moment, and you know, you see Erika and you want to say something profound, but what can you possibly say? There’s just nothing to say,” he continues.

However, what he recalls Erika saying is what changed his mind about having a fourth baby.

“She sort of just makes this observation through her tears that she really wishes they had had more kids. They have two little kids who have actually stayed here a number of times since Charlie passed away. And for me, at least, that really drove it home,” he says.

“For me, it was like, we have to have a fourth baby, and she got pregnant like six weeks later,” he adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Relatable, Allie beth stuckey, Erika kirk, Jd vance, The blaze, Charlie kirk, Usha vance, Relatable with allie beth stuckey 

America is in a dire generational predicament. A day is coming — soon — when Gen Z, a generation known for distrust and disillusionment, will be deciding whether this experiment called America is still worth saving or if we’ve earned our place in the ash heap of history.

On this episode of the “Steve Deace Show,” Deace addresses 23-year-old Ben’s question that no older generation wants to look at: What happens when the older generations are gone and Gen Z takes over?

His response is one of the most honest, chilling, and ultimately challenging things he has ever said on air.

“Given what the American left wants to do to us as a people and how obvious they are making it, if systemically we have deceived our own people so much and we have disappointed them and gaslit them so much that an entire generation emerges that pulls the plug on our side, then we will deserve at that point whatever we have coming to us,” says Deace bluntly. “It’ll be sad, it’ll be tragic, but it is what it is.”

Even so, he isn’t panicked in a worldly sense.

“The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. There’s only one perpetual kingdom. … Every generation, every nation eventually gets its tombstone in the ash heap of history,” Deace declares.

“I try to be as honest as I can possibly be, but you know, I can’t fix everything. Not by a long shot. So if the end result of this is that your generation has just been so systemically lied to that you tap out and the result is that the Democrats and the left plant the flag, that would suck. But would we sit here and say that’s necessarily undeserved?” he asks.

“I know it’s deserved right now,” co-host Todd Erzen chimes in.

But despite the betrayals and gaslighting, Deace believes sticking with Trump and the current MAGA movement is the only realistic option right now, even with all its flaws.

“Hear where we’re coming from, and then you decide for yourself if you think we’re right,” he says to Ben and other Gen Zers.

“A lot of you young men aren’t married yet and don’t have kids yet, and so you’re not thinking yet in terms of 20-, 30-year increments,” he explains.

“It’s not that I don’t see the betrayals that you’re bringing to my attention. It’s not that I’m unaware of the gaslighting on several fronts. It’s not that I think Donald Trump tiptoes between the raindrops,” Deace continues.

“It’s that there’s not another army for me to go serve in. There’s not another alternative for me to go enlist in to punch back at the spirit of the age that wants to end my way of life before I can pass it on to my kids and grandkids.”

The older a person gets, he explains, the more he or she begins to realize how little time there really is. Becoming a parent and then a grandparent especially puts things into perspective.

“Your time starts getting shorter for the mark I can really leave for [children and grandchildren] and what I’m going to leave behind and what messes I’ll leave them to clean up that I could have confronted myself,” says Deace.

“There’s not another army for me to go in and enlist in. The only meaningful opposition in America and in the West of the spirit of the age is Trump and his movement.”

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve’s take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Steve deace show, Steve deace, Gen z