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 

The receptionist asked me to verify my date of birth.

I gave her Gracie’s.

For years, I have encouraged fellow caregivers to pay attention to their own health rather than waiting until a crisis forces the issue. This experience has only reinforced that conviction.

She glanced down at the chart in her hand and then back at me with a puzzled expression. Before she could say anything, I caught myself.

“Oh … that’s my wife’s birthday.”

After 40 years as a family caregiver through surgeries, appointments, hospital admissions, medications, insurance forms, and enough medical paperwork to clear a small forest, I had automatically answered with the date I have given thousands of times before.

This time, however, I was the patient.I was at the cancer center for imaging and treatment planning in preparation for radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Thanks to routine screenings and excellent physicians, it was caught early. The prognosis is excellent.

Still, it felt strange.

I have spent most of my adult life in hospitals because of someone else. This time, they called my name.

Looking around the waiting room, I realized I was easily the youngest man there. That does not happen to me very often anymore. Later, one staff member told me most of their patients are in their 70s and beyond. Sometimes, they see men in their 60s like me, and every so often someone in his 50s.

For this visit, I was the new kid.

I took a chair off to the side, careful not to intrude on this fraternity of men who seemed to know the ropes. They reminded me of the old men who gathered at Nick’s grocery and gas station near my childhood home in rural South Carolina. As a boy, I would stop in for a soda and candy bar while they held court around the coffee pot, solving problems that ranged from weather and crops to politics and church business.

The subjects changed from day to day. The cadence never did.

Men of a certain age possess a remarkable conversational gift. They can begin with trout streams and end with urologists without anyone noticing where the turn occurred.

RELATED: Caregivers should not have to lie to prove compassion

Yuliia Konakhovska/iStock/Getty Images

True to form, this conversation drifted toward prostate cancer, treatments, and the assorted indignities that accompany aging. One fellow described an examination during which the sheet covering him slipped.

Before he could react, the nurse matter-of-factly told him, “Don’t worry. If I see something I’ve never seen before, I’ll kill it.”

Such is the sort of thing you expect to hear in a cancer clinic in Montana.

The men laughed.

I raised an eyebrow and thought, “How comforting.”

But I still laughed.

Soon enough, they called me back. The technicians positioned my legs, explained the process, and slid me into a machine that looked remarkably like something from an old “Star Trek” episode. If memory serves, it resembled the device that kept Spock alive after somebody stole his brain.

After the instructions were complete, they eased me into position and left the room.

A few minutes later, one of the technicians returned looking slightly sheepish.

“We have a bit of a challenge.”

“Do tell,” I replied.

“There’s a gas bubble.”

The expression on my face evidently communicated that I was not following.

She delicately clarified.

“It’s in … you.”

“Oh.”

I considered several responses, including one with my outstretched index finger that would have made my four brothers proud and the medical staff considerably less appreciative. Fortunately, decades of maturity prevailed.

“What do you recommend?” I asked.

“Maybe take a walk and see if anything happens.”

So there I was, strolling through the halls of a cancer center, trying to solve a problem that five boys growing up under one roof would have regarded as entirely manageable without professional consultation. At times, our household rivaled the campfire scene in “Blazing Saddles.”

The problem was that they had instructed me to drink a substantial amount of water beforehand to achieve the proper imaging. Solving one problem too enthusiastically threatened to create another.

Men over 50 approach certain situations with caution for good reasons.

Eventually, however, everything worked itself out.

Ahem.

The imaging was completed, the planning was finished, and in a few days, I will return to begin treatment.

As I left, I noticed the bell hanging in the hallway. I have seen bells like that before. Patients ring them when treatment ends.

Lord willing, I will ring that bell myself within a month.

RELATED: The song that lets sorrow tell the truth

Sanghwan Kim/iStock/Getty Images

Driving home, I thought about those older men in the waiting room. None of them appeared eager to be there, but neither did they seem intimidated by it.

They knew where to park. They knew where the coffee was. They knew which jokes were worth telling.

In short, they knew the territory.

Eventually, if you stay on any road long enough, you stop asking for directions and start giving them.

One day, perhaps sooner than I would like to admit, I may be the guy telling stories to the new kid who walks through the door — even if the story involves a gas bubble that needed to be walked off.

For years, I have encouraged fellow caregivers to pay attention to their own health rather than waiting until a crisis forces the issue. This experience has only reinforced that conviction.

Prostate cancer is often called a silent disease.

Mine was.

Fortunately, silent does not have to mean deadly.

​Cancer, Caregiving, Hospitals, Opinion & analysis, Waiting room, Aging, Mortality, Family, Faith, Health care 

The United Kingdom is constitutionally a Christian nation.

Its king, Charles III, is “supreme governor” of the Church of England — England’s established church — and an ordinary member of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Anglican bishops serve as members of the House of Lords, and the Anglican church’s legislation requires parliamentary oversight.

‘If we’re serious about the future of this country, we shouldn’t shy away from that heritage.’

The United Kingdom — whose flag is an amalgam of Christian crosses — is not, however, a majoritively Christian nation.

A Labour Force Survey survey conducted in summer 2025 found that only 44% of adults in Britain identified as Christian, down from 54% in early 2018. The 2025 British Social Attitudes survey found that just 5% of all adults attend a Christian service on a weekly basis.

Elements of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party and Rupert Lowe of Restore Britain have discussed in recent months bolstering or at least maintaining Britain’s Christian identity. If serious about such a project, they might have to consider the matter of Christian representation in top government leadership roles.

RELATED: ‘Beyond evil’: Nightmarish report reveals full scale of mass Islamic rapes of ‘250,000’ white British girls

Richard Baker/In Pictures/Getty Images

The home secretary is the fourth most senior political office in the U.K. government after the prime minister, chancellor of the exchequer, and the foreign secretary. Yet a publicly self-identified Christian has not held the position for nearly a decade.

The current home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, is an avowed “practicing Muslim.” Her six immediate predecessors were either non-Christians or individuals who do not appear to have publicly identified as Christian:

Yvette Cooper, the current foreign secretary who in 2015 chose to affirm allegiance to the Crown rather than swear an oath on a holy book, which Christian Today noted at the time is usually done by nonbelievers;James Cleverly, the current shadow secretary of state for housing, communities, and local government, who identified himself in a parliamentary debate last year as “an atheist” and “a humanist”;Suella Braverman, a practicing Buddhist who served in the post from Sept. 6, 2022 to Oct. 19, 2022, and again from Oct. 25, 2022 to Nov. 13, 2023;Grant Shapps, a Jewish politician who was in the role for only a few days during Liz Truss’ tumultuous final days as prime minister, then later served as secretary of state for defense;Priti Patel, a practicing Hindu from an Indian family who migrated to the U.K. via Uganda, who now serves as shadow secretary of state for foreign, commonwealth, and development affairs; andSajid Javid, the son of Pakistani Muslim immigrants who reportedly referred to himself as a “Muslim Home Secretary” but also claimed “not to practice any religion.”

Blaze News did not receive comment from Cooper or the Home Office.

While the religiosity of Amber Rudd — home secretary from 2016 to 2018 — has not been publicly advertised, there is no mystery about former home secretary and Prime Minister Theresa May’s affiliation. May — in the post from 2010 to 2016 — made clear on multiple occasions that she is a practicing Anglican.

Of the current and past seven chancellors of the exchequer dating back to 2016, two have been self-identified Christians; two hail from Muslim backgrounds; one is a practicing Hindu; and the other two have kept their religiosity out of the public eye.

Of the eight foreign secretaries the U.K. has had dating back to 2016, one — Cleverly — is an avowed atheist; one — Cooper — has signaled she might be a nonbeliever; four — David Lammy, David Cameron, Boris Johnson, and Jeremy Hunt — have identified as Christians; one — Liz Truss — has said she shares Anglican values but doesn’t practice the faith; and one is an apparent enigma — Dominic Raab, who has a Jewish father, was raised in the Anglican Church, and married a Catholic, has expressed uncertainty about which boxes to check for “diversity questionnaires” with regard to his family.

As for prime ministers going back to 2016, half — Johnson, May, and Cameron — have been Christian, and the other half — Keir Starmer, Rishi Sunak, and Liz Truss, are, respectively, an atheist, a Hindu; and what statisticians refer to as a none.

The character of these so-called great offices of state have — like the public they represent — tended in recent years not to be Christian in character. The Christian character of the nation is, however, something that politicians right of center have fixated on in recent months despite polling indicating that the public is generally unfussed about the nation’s de-Christianization.

Reform’s Home Affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf said in a February interview with the Times (U.K.) that renewing Britain’s Christian faith was essential to tackling the “crisis of meaning culturally,” especially among young men.

Yusuf emphasized that Christianity was “core to the history and the DNA of the country” and the country was losing its Christian values because of the “sheer quantities of people that came to the country in a short period of time.”

“Regardless of whether somebody is of faith or not, or which faith they follow, I think the Christian heritage of this country is very important, and protecting our heritage and our culture is important. Otherwise the country is not a country; it’s just an economic zone,” added Yusuf.

Danny Kruger, a Reform UK member of Parliament, said months earlier that he would “love us to be a more confidently Christian country that acknowledges its Christian heritage. A society aligned more closely with the teachings of Jesus would be a happier one.”

Reform UK is not the only outfit signaling a keenness to reverse the U.K.’s atrophying Christianity.

Rupert Lowe, leader of the Restore Britain party, stated earlier this year, “Britain is a Christian country, and under a Restore Britain Government — it will remain a Christian country.”

Like Reform’s Yusuf, Lowe has identified mass immigration — particularly from Muslim countries — as a factor driving Britain’s de-Christianization. He has, accordingly, advocated for halting mass immigration and reversing the “islamification of Britain.”

Neither Reform UK nor Restore Britain immediately responded to Blaze News’ requests for comment.

Even the Conservative Party has expressed a need to return to Christianity — if not to the roots then to its fruits.

Conservative Party Leader Kemi Badenoch stated in April, “Britain was built on a foundation of Christian values that have guided our institutions, our laws, and our sense of right and wrong. If we’re serious about the future of this country, we shouldn’t shy away from that heritage, we should be confident enough to embrace, promote, and defend it.”

David Jeffrey of the University of Liverpool published a dashboard last year that provides some sense of how many members of Parliament are Christian on the basis of their public affiliation, their public speech about their affiliation, and what text they swore in on. The dashboard suggests that as of last year, 54.7% of MPs were Christian; 36.4% were nones; 3.9% were Muslims; 2% were Jewish; 1.9% were Sikh; 0.9% were Hindu; and 0.2% were Buddhist.

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

​Religion, Christianity, Britain, United kingdom, Rupert lowe, London, Parliament, Faith, Nigel farage, Reform uk, Restore britain, Politics 

Steven Spielberg’s 2026 sci-fi thriller “Disclosure Day” about a whistleblower exposing a government cover-up of extraterrestrial life is performing strongly at the box office with over $160 million worldwide to date.

BlazeTV host Rick Burgess has been suspicious about this summer blockbuster since he first saw the previews. Not only is the timing a bit odd in light of the government’s ongoing declassification of UFO-related files, but Spielberg’s own comments about how real disclosure could rattle the faith of many people has Rick’s guard up.

The movie reflects this theory, as many characters wrestle with doubts about God’s divinity and humanity’s place after learning about aliens.

Rick, who argues “aliens” are most likely angels or demons, believes that even if aliens proved to be otherworldly beings, it would not affect believers like Spielberg predicts.

“If it turns out like in the movie that they’re straight up people from somewhere else and they’re not demonic and they’re not angelic, this notion that somehow that’s going to rattle our faith … it’s just not so,” he assures.

True Christians, Rick argues, know that everything is created by God.

“The Scriptures tell us even in Genesis that God is the creator. He is the beginning and the end of all things. If space people show up from another planet or another galaxy, it doesn’t change what we believe about God,” he says.

Believers already know that a great cosmic celestial war between God’s forces of good (angels) and Satan’s forces of evil (demons) rages invisibly all around us.

“So if there’s another bunch from somewhere else, I don’t know what their situation with God may or may not be, but their existence doesn’t equal God doesn’t exist,” says Rick.

But one thing is certain, he says: “What Satan is hoping that we’ll take from this … is that if space people show up, and they’re really something, they must have created us, not God.”

To hear more of Rick’s analysis of Spielberg and “Disclosure Day,” watch the full episode above.

Want more from Rick Burgess?

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

​Strange encounters, Rick burgess, Steven spielberg, Disclosure, Spiritual warfare