Donald Trump did not invent political trolling, but he may be its most gifted modern practitioner. His opponents still do not understand the tactic, which is why he runs circles around them. To understand trolling, we must see the larger ideological conflict of our time.

For Christians, trolling poses a serious moral question. It can seem cruel: a digital version of poking someone until he explodes, then laughing at the explosion. It also often involves deception. Does that violate the Ninth Commandment? How can deliberate provocation be reconciled with Christ’s command to “love your neighbor”?

When the guardians of tolerance demand that dissenters be silenced, love may even require a well-placed troll.

The answer begins by defining the term carefully.

The internet term “trolling” appears to draw on fishing, not the monster under the bridge. A fisherman drags bait through the water and waits for a fish to bite. A political troll places rhetorical bait before an opponent and waits for an angry, thoughtless response. The Oxford English Dictionary defines trolling as “posting antagonistic or disingenuous messages to provoke a hostile or annoyed response” and more broadly as behavior “intended to provoke or deceive.”

Political trolling is public mockery meant to elicit a response that exposes a contradiction, wastes an opponent’s time, and strips an ideology of undeserved authority. Legitimate trolling therefore presupposes that some public figures and ideologies deserve public mockery.

An effective troll identifies a contradiction in a public figure or ideology, frames it provocatively, and waits. The target becomes flustered and responds thoughtlessly, confirming the original criticism. Rather than merely accusing an opponent of hypocrisy, the troll induces him to demonstrate it before an audience.

This is not the same as insulting strangers for entertainment. Nor is trolling a license to lie, defame, threaten, or mock private suffering. It is more like misdirection in war or sports, used to confuse an opponent and reveal his weaknesses. No one accuses a quarterback of lying when he fakes a handoff, and no one expects a general to warn the enemy about a surprise attack.

Sun Tzu taught that warfare depends on knowing both your enemy and yourself. Schopenhauer cataloged the rhetorical tricks people use to appear right. The troll draws on both insights, arranging the contest so the opponent reveals his weaknesses to the public and loses respect.

RELATED: Silicon Valley is building a god in its own image

Gremlin/Getty Images

Christians recognize the distinction between just and unjust wars. Not every use of force is murder, and refusing to defend the innocent is not an act of love.

Rhetorical warfare is also real. Words can deceive, intimidate, indoctrinate, and destroy reputations. Institutions use language to disguise coercion as compassion and discrimination as inclusion.

Not every Christian is called to fight a kinetic war, and not every Christian is called to fight a rhetorical one. Some lack the temperament, position, or skill for public confrontation. That is no disgrace. A soldier without discipline endangers his own side, and so does a would-be internet warrior with a social media account and three cups of coffee.

But Christians cannot pretend that no conflict exists. Christian and anti-Christian visions of God, humanity, sexuality, justice, freedom, and authority compete for control of our institutions. They cannot both prevail. The question is not whether society will be governed by a moral vision, but which moral vision will govern it.

The Bible does not condemn every use of ridicule. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal, suggesting that their god might be occupied or asleep. Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees “whitewashed tombs.” Public teachers promoting public falsehoods were exposed so their teaching and authority would lose the audience’s respect.

We can identify a pattern for legitimate trolling. Its proper target is a public figure advancing a destructive ideology. Its method is ridicule aimed at hypocrisy. Its immediate purpose is to provoke a revealing response. Its true audience is not the target but the people watching. The goal is to protect the vulnerable from harmful ideologies that lead souls to perdition.

RELATED: Did Lindsay Clancy lose her mind — or her free will?

David L. Ryan/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

Publicly exposing the absurdities of ideologies such as critical theory or LGBTQ activism gives those who might be led astray an opportunity to reconsider. Stripping an ideology of its unearned authority can turn the audience toward truth and away from leaders and systems that lead to destruction.

I am not recommending that everyone take up trolling. But we should not treat an ideological war as less consequential than a sporting contest, where teams talk smack and use fake plays and misdirection to win.

When opponents of Christianity seek to censor biblical teaching and replace it with Marxist dialectics and LGBTQ sexual ethics, exposing their public leaders to laughter and ridicule is part of the conflict. Their panicked responses can display their folly. The purpose is to protect the vulnerable and persuade those who recognize the emptiness of the anti-Christian position.

Love of neighbor does not require helping a hypocrite preserve his disguise. Sometimes love requires argument, and argument requires confrontation. Trolling can protect your neighbor from wolves in sheep’s clothing. When the guardians of tolerance demand that dissenters be silenced, love may even require a well-placed troll — and the patience to let your opponent prove your point.

​Christians, Donald trump, Political trolling, Ust war, God, Humanity, Sexuality, Justice, Freedom, Bible, Lgbtq, Marxists, Trolling, Opinion & analysis 

We live in an age of extraordinary psychological misery. Depression, anxiety, and suicide are tearing through younger generations, with young women facing some of the steepest increases in emotional turmoil. Wherever modern society faces a crisis, someone inevitably turns it into a business opportunity. As the old saying goes, never let a good crisis go to waste.

Enter the “sickfluencer.”

Many blend real physiological ailments with bizarre spiritual woo-woo.

A growing number of young women have discovered that illness can be more than a medical condition. If channeled correctly, it can become an identity, a source of online status, even a full-time occupation. Social media algorithms reward creators who document every symptom, diagnosis, flare-up, and hospital visit, turning private suffering into public content.

Sharing practical medical advice online is a natural response to a confusing and infuriating health care system. Seeking peer support during a legitimate medical crisis has saved many lives over the decades. That’s not the problem. The issue lies in the scale, the algorithmically amplified reach, and the strange, solemn worship followers bestow on these digital creators. People line up in comment sections to canonize young content creators for simply surviving another afternoon with irritable bowel syndrome.

In the U.S., creators like Chronically Jaquie have built massive YouTube followings by broadcasting the daily minutiae of life with rare, hard-to-diagnose conditions like Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. Viewers tune in by the hundreds of thousands to watch intravenous line flushes, pharmacy hauls, and tearful hospital admissions. With Jacquie, privacy is optional, and boundaries are little more than silly suggestions.

Across the Atlantic, British TikTokers turn National Health Service waiting rooms into backdrop sets for short videos. They rack up millions of views while filming their own intravenous drips.

A broken system

The medical establishment deserves plenty of criticism from the public. Too often, doctors desperately attempt to reduce every ailment to a quick prescription. When a pill fails to work, instead of asking better questions, they simply write another prescription for a different drug designed to numb the pain without ever addressing the root cause.

This cycle drives exhausted patients — many of whom are young women seeking real support — straight into the open arms of internet wellness gurus and self-diagnosis forums.

The tragedy begins when these desperate souls swap a trained physician for a severely disturbed, wholly unqualified stranger on a smartphone screen.

Many of these online figures blend real physiological ailments with bizarre spiritual woo-woo. A creator will start a video explaining her legit autoimmune diagnosis and end it by hawking $80 jars of energized water meant to align her pelvic chakras. The transition from medical patient to crystal-clutching shaman happens fast when the viewer count drops.

RELATED: California plays parent with its latest social media ban

Sean Rayford/Stringer/Getty Images

Social media platforms are built to monetize hyper-fixation. A teenager posting about her newfound allergy to tap water receives 50 views. But the moment she frames that allergy as a rare, untreatable cosmic curse, her view count jumps to 500,000. The brain learns very quickly that remaining ill pays the rent. Getting better means returning to an entry-level office job and virtual oblivion.

This financial incentive creates a perverse performative cycle. Creators curate their medical portfolios like LinkedIn resumes. They list rare syndromes in their bio sections like prestigious academic degrees. A new diagnosis brings fresh brand deals for designer mobility aids and holistic detox teas. The audience doesn’t want recovery, and the reason why is simple: Recovery ruins the show’s narrative arc. This is the first time in history that it has paid to be a perpetual victim. And with some sickfluencers, it pays very well indeed.

Followers build parasocial relationships with these personalities, treating their daily suffering as an ongoing soap opera. Fans defend their favorite sickfluencers with ferocious loyalty, attacking anyone who dares to ask basic questions about the validity of a dubious home remedy. The comment section becomes a digital sanctuary where illness is the ultimate form of social currency.

Perverse incentives, twisted rituals

Traditional religious institutions used to channel this very human impulse, directing it toward the recognition of a higher power. Today, the internet has replaced the divine with 18-year-olds broadcasting from their bedrooms, sharing breathless horror stories while strapped to IV poles. The devotion remains identical, complete with ritualistic viewing hours and monetary offerings sent directly through app payment features.

Medical professionals now find themselves arguing with patients who trust an unverified influencer more than a lab blood test. A doctor spends 10 years in medical school only to be informed by a temperamental teenager that her custom blend of essential oils and unpasteurized goat milk is curing her self-diagnosed rare blood disorder. I’m not asking you to sympathize with the medical establishment. Rather, I’m asking you to acknowledge the absurdity of the times we live in — the most enlightened of times, some argue.

The long-term consequences of this movement could prove costly. Thousands of impressionable young people genuinely believe that an incurable, identity-defining illness is the fastest path to fame and financial independence. They are opting out of normal life milestones in favor of a permanent, curated patient status. They are sick, incredibly so, in more ways than one.

Human beings crave connection. They actively seek meaning and a way to explain their pain. The modern internet took those basic human needs and engineered a marketplace that pays people to stay sick forever. Until the algorithms stop rewarding this madness, the sickfluencer industry will continue to thrive, one sponsored hospital vlog at a time.

​Lifestyle, Influencers 

For 1,500 years, a tiny sheet of gold lay folded inside a copper case in what is now central Turkey.

Archaeologists found it this summer at Türkmen Karahöyük, an ancient settlement in Konya province. The gold is just 0.1 millimeters thick, and researchers believe it probably carries a passage from the Bible.

The inscription begins by invoking St. Titus, followed by the Greek acclamation rendered in Latin letters: ‘Holy, holy, holy!’

Which passage? They don’t know yet.

Christianized charm

The fourth- or fifth-century Christian amulet likely belonged to a young child and was worn or carried for protection, according to excavation co-director Michele Rüzgar Massa. He compared its purpose to a nazar boncuğu, the traditional charm against the evil eye.

“Inside a copper box, we found an extremely thin gold sheet, only 0.1 millimeters thick, most likely carrying a passage from the Bible,” Massa said.

While Massa said amulets of this kind are rare, he did point to one particularly intriguing precedent from Germany.

That amulet has already been read — and its message revealed that Christianity had reached northern Europe decades earlier than previously thought.

Taken to the grave

The so-called Frankfurt Silver Inscription is roughly 1,800 years old. Archaeologists discovered the tiny silver amulet beneath the chin of a man buried in a Roman cemetery at Nida, in what is now Frankfurt. He had apparently worn it around his neck and taken it with him to the grave.

Inside was a wafer-thin silver scroll too fragile to unroll.

After years of efforts to decipher it, researchers finally made a breakthrough using high-resolution CT scanning, digitally reconstructing the crumpled foil piece by piece.

What emerged were 18 lines written entirely in Latin. The language was sophisticated enough that archaeologist Markus Scholz, an expert in Latin inscriptions at Goethe University Frankfurt, believes its author was an accomplished scribe.

Some portions remain damaged, and their reconstruction is disputed. But what survives amounts to a remarkably explicit Christian profession of faith.

Quoting St. Paul

The inscription begins by invoking St. Titus, followed by the Greek acclamation rendered in Latin letters: “Holy, holy, holy!” Then comes Jesus Christ, identified as “Son of God” and “the Lord of the world.” The prayer asks for protection and well-being for the man who has “surenders to the will of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

And it closes with words drawn from St. Paul’s letter to the Philippians: Before Jesus Christ “all knees” bend — the heavenly, the earthly and the subterranean — and every tongue confesses him.

The inscription dates to roughly A.D. 230 to 270, making it the earliest known evidence of Christianity north of the Alps. Other reliable evidence of Christian life in that part of the Roman Empire is dated at least 50 years later.

Christian amulets themselves are hardly unknown. Scores survive from late antiquity, many from Egypt, where the dry climate preserved papyrus and parchment that disappeared elsewhere. They range from scraps bearing a few words of Scripture to elaborate protective texts invoking Christ, saints, angels, psalms, and the Gospels.

RELATED: Is this Noah’s ark? Clues emerge at mysterious remote site

Robtoz/iStock/Getty Images

Ancient tradition

The practice was much older than Christianity. Amulets were commonplace across the ancient Mediterranean, and Christians adapted the custom to their own faith. Theodore de Bruyn, author of “Making Amulets Christian: Artefacts, Scribes, and Contexts,” describes the surviving objects as evidence of both continuity with older amulet traditions and the introduction of distinctly Christian forms.

Some surviving examples mix Christian language with older religious formulas. Others quote Scripture directly: The opening words of the Gospels, the Lord’s Prayer, and Psalm 91 were among the texts Christians carried for protection.

Against that background, the Frankfurt inscription is strikingly Christian. There are no invocations of pagan gods and none of the religious mixing found on many ancient amulets. It invokes Christ, God, and St. Titus. And its use of Latin rather than the Greek or Hebrew more commonly found on amulets of the period makes it more unusual still.

Controversial practice

Apparently plenty of Christians wore these things.

“The surviving amulets and the critiques leveled against them by religious elites indicate that the practice was very common among late antique Christians,” argues scholar Megan Nutzman in Biblical Archaeology Review.

One source of such critiques was St. John Chrysostom, who preached against Christians resorting to charms and amulets when they were sick, regarding the practice as dangerously close to superstition and idolatry. Yet the practice persisted. Sacred words weren’t merely read or recited. Some Christians folded them up, put them in tiny cases, and carried them against their bodies.

The Turkish amulet is several centuries younger than the Frankfurt find. Its inscription, if there is one, remains unread. For now, the amulet is a reminder that even in 2026, the story of early Christianity is still being written — or, more precisely, unearthed.

​Amulets, Archeology, Biblical archaeology, Early christianity, Early church history, History, Pagan, St. john chrysostom, St. paul, Turkey, Faith 

Democrats often shy away from the terms communist or socialist while throwing the term fascist at conservatives, and BlazeTV host Nick Freitas points out that they might be right to deny those labels — but not for the reason they would think.

“You will see Democrats go, ‘You know, I’m not a communist. I don’t like communists. No, I’m a capitalist, but I do want all these massive government welfare programs, and I want the government micromanaging the economy, and I want them controlling industry,’” Freitas tells co-host Christian Hines.

“So you’re not a communist,” he continues. “That’s true, because a communist would want the complete state ownership or a socialist would want the complete state ownership of all these industries,” he continues, adding, “You’re a fascist.”

“Economically, there is something to be said about how there are substantial numbers of Democrats who … I would not call them communists economically, I would call them fascists economically,” Hines agrees.

“It’s a loaded term … but economically they do believe in basically corporatism, the fusing of the private and public sector,” he adds.

“This is the difference between people that have actually studied fascism and people that just use it as like a social slur,” Nick says, pointing out that there are “elements of the fascist movement” that are more associated with the right and some that are more associated with the left.

“But if you actually look at like what the tenants were of the fascist party initially, I mean, none of it looks conservative,” he explains.

“For instance, they wanted a guaranteed minimum wage. They wanted guaranteed state-supported retirement. They wanted labor unions and workers to have a greater say with respect to how industry was organized and run. They wanted universal suffrage,” he continues.

“Every single one of them you would have put in a left-wing camp,” he 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 NICK40 for $40 off your BlazeTV+ subscription.

​Communist, Democrats, Fascist, Socialist, Nick freitas, Christian hines, Blazetv show 

The New Age is one of the most influential forces shaping modern culture today — especially as it relates to women. From tarot cards and astrology to crystals and manifestation, this dark amalgamation of “paganism, the occult, mysticism, and elements of religions like Buddhism and even Christianity” is beckoning millions into darkness that presents as light, warns BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey.

On this episode of “Relatable,” Allie warns against two New Age concepts that are rapidly gaining popularity: star-seeds and spirit children.

Most New Age propaganda, Allie explains, presents itself neutrally in forms like “self-help,” “self-love,” or “self-healing,” which is why so many Christian women are lured in. But in the biblical worldview, the self is the problem.

When people get that backwards and place “the god of self … on the throne, our desires take the driver seat, no matter the cost,” Allie warns, giving the example of how a woman’s autonomy is often the justification for abortion.

This belief that one’s personal desires justify any action, she explains, is rooted in an ancient idea now popular in New Age thought called “pre-existence” — the claim that the soul existed before this life and chose its body, family, and main life circumstances in order to grow through those chosen experiences.

Star-seeds and spirit children are deeply tied to this framework.

According to New Age thought, a star-seed is a soul that didn’t originate on Earth but supposedly came from another planet, star system, or dimension and incarnated here to help awaken or advance humanity. Similarly, a spirit child is the soul of a child that supposedly exists before conception and may even choose or communicate with its parents.

These ideas, Allie argues, are perversions of scriptural truths.

“This idea that you existed before, that you are special, that you are chosen, that you have this higher calling … those are counterfeits of what we are told in Christianity and a perversion of what we’re told that you’re made in God’s image, that you were chosen by the God of the universe before the foundations of the earth,” she says, citing Jeremiah 1:5 and Ephesians 1:5.

But even people who don’t buy into star-seeds and spirit children can still be affected by the same ideologies, Allie warns.

“You start to see how even if someone doesn’t believe in a star-seed, how this idea of children having this kind of divine authority about them can affect and justify how people see parenting and good and evil and abortion and all of that,” she says.

She gives the example of a “popular liberal deconstructionist influencer” who justified her abortion by saying that she had communicated with her unborn child, who apparently validated her decision to abort it because it would “come back” one day.

She then plays a clip of Dr. Maria Rothenburger — a therapist and psychic medium — claiming that aborted children are “often totally understanding” of their parent’s decision to abort them. “Sometimes they’re quite loving, and they want to convey it’s completely fine,” she said on a podcast from 2022.

“Imagine … how anxiety-inducing that would be if your morality and your choices are dependent upon a voice that you hear in your head that you’ve attributed to the soul of the baby inside you rather than just going to the word of God,” says Allie.

“This is simply a justification for sin and a way to build a callous on your heart against sin, but a spiritual one,” says Allie.

In addition to “pre-existence,” secular dualism — the idea that the soul and body are separate entities — is also fueling much New Age thought.

In this belief system, Allie explains, the soul is defined heavily on feelings and how one wants to identify; it’s seen as the “true self” that is superior to the body, which is treated like “a bag of bones” or a “vessel for the soul” to live in.

“So what you do to the body really doesn’t matter that much within this worldview of secular dualism because the soul is the real self, and the body is kind of just arbitrary,” she says, noting that this ideology is often used to justify transgenderism.

Christianity, however, teaches something very different about the body and soul.

“Christianity teaches that the body is the dwelling place for the Holy Spirit, that we were made bodily in the image of God. … We read that in Genesis 1:27, and we read that this body is ours to steward. One day there’s going to be a resurrection of the body. That’s how much it matters,” Allie emphasizes.

“Our bodies are living sacrifices to worship the Lord, so we reject this idea that who we really are is defined by our feelings on the inside [or] by this kind of loosely defined spirit. We are identified by both body and soul as His image-bearers.”

To hear more, watch the episode above.

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.

​Allie beth stuckey, Biblical worldview, Christianity, New age, Blazetv show 

On August 10, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) signed Chapter 188, “An Act Prioritizing Patient Access to Care,” changing state law governing abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy. The new law removes the previous list of specific circumstances and allows a physician to perform an abortion based on the physician’s professional judgment.

I understand that heartbreaking medical situations exist, and those families deserve compassion, dignity, and excellent care. But the law also raises a larger question that America cannot keep avoiding: While government works to expand access to abortion, are we working just as hard to expand a woman’s ability to choose motherhood?

Saying ‘choose life’ is only the beginning. We must be prepared to answer the next questions.

I founded Auntie Angie’s House because I have met women who did not need another political argument. They needed help.

Some needed a safe place to live. Some needed food, transportation, prenatal support, or help getting back on their feet. Others simply needed someone to stand beside them long enough to believe that an unexpected or difficult pregnancy did not mean their future was over.

Today, Auntie Angie’s House counts 101 babies whose mothers chose to continue their pregnancies with support from our work.

That number means more to me than any slogan ever could.

One hundred and one babies means 101 individual lives, 101 stories, and 101 reminders that what looks impossible in one frightening moment can look very different when a mother is surrounded by real support.

This is why I believe the abortion debate is incomplete.

We hear constantly about protecting “choice.” Then let us be serious about creating choices.

A woman should have the choice to keep her baby without becoming homeless. She should have the choice to continue school or work. She should have access to prenatal care, transportation, child care, food, safe housing, and postpartum support.

She should not feel that abortion is the only answer because she is poor, alone, frightened, or unsupported.

If we truly trust women, then we should trust them enough to invest in every option available to them, including motherhood.

That is the model we have tried to build at Auntie Angie’s House. We do not serve women by shaming them. We meet practical needs so that fear does not have to make the decision.

RELATED: Chelsea Clinton put a price tag on abortion

Anthony Kwan/Getty Images for MEBO Group

Our work was recognized by Fulton County with a proclamation declaring May 1 “Auntie Angie’s Day.” I am grateful for that recognition, but the real accomplishment is the mother who arrived afraid and later held her baby with hope. It is the woman who realized she was not alone.

Government should learn from those stories.

Imagine if every state that devoted political energy to expanding abortion access brought the same urgency to maternal housing. Imagine if pregnant women in crisis could immediately access temporary housing, prenatal care, job assistance, and postpartum services.

Imagine if no woman felt pressured toward abortion because she could not see a financially survivable path to motherhood.

I am pro-life, but I also believe the pro-life movement has a responsibility beyond opposing abortion. Saying “choose life” is only the beginning. We must be prepared to answer the next questions: Where will she live? How will she eat? Who will help with the baby?

Massachusetts has made a policy decision about abortion after 24 weeks. People will debate that law from every political and moral direction. My challenge is broader: If lawmakers believe women deserve support in making difficult pregnancy decisions, then support cannot begin and end at the door of an abortion provider.

America should make an equally powerful commitment to the woman who wants to keep her child. I can point to 101 reasons why. At Auntie Angie’s House, those reasons have names, faces, mothers, and futures.

The next woman facing an impossible decision deserves to know there is another door she can walk through. She deserves more than a political talking point. She deserves help.

​Abortion, Auntie angie’s house, Maura healey, Pro life, State law, Postpartum care, Prenatal care, Pregnant women, Massachusetts, Opinion & analysis, Child care 

A night out at a club ended with a Florida man suddenly feeling extremely tired and “funny” after bringing a woman home — and later discovering his nearly $100,000 Rolex was gone, according to police. A woman was arrested as investigators examine four other Miami-Dade cases involving similar allegations, including one alleged victim possibly being drugged.

Lynda Mae Crouse, 32, was arrested last Friday by a Seminole Police Department officer in Hollywood while responding to an unrelated trespassing matter, according to an arrest affidavit People magazine obtained.

One of the alleged victims in Miami underwent toxicology testing and tested positive for zolpidem — a prescription sleep aid taken orally to treat insomnia.

Police said Crouse was arrested on an outstanding Broward County warrant and was transported to the Broward County Sheriff’s Office jail.

Crouse was charged with second-degree grand theft, which is a felony, and released the following day after posting $2,500 bond.

Crouse met a man at the Carousel Club shortly after midnight April 12, according to a probable cause affidavit filed by the Hallandale Beach Police Department.

The Carousel Club is a 14,000-square-foot, open-air entertainment and hospitality venue located trackside at Gulfstream Park in Hallandale Beach.

The pair exchanged Instagram account information before going their separate ways, according to police.

Then the man ordered an Uber vehicle to pick up Crouse from the woman’s home less than two hours later to bring her to his residence, according to an affidavit Fox News obtained.

Once Crouse arrived at the man’s home, the two consumed several alcoholic beverages in his living room, according to the document.

The man told police he went to his bedroom to change clothes when he suddenly began feeling “funny” and “extremely tired,” the affidavit stated.

According to the affidavit, the man heard a distinct “clapping sound” coming from the living room while Crouse was alone.

When he returned to the living room, Crouse was “acting different” and abruptly announced she was leaving, the document said.

The man said he fell asleep within minutes of her leaving.

RELATED: Woman accused of $100,000 Patek Philippe watch theft in June arrested again for allegedly stealing Rolex and hiding it inside genitals

Erikona via iStock/Getty Images

He awoke several hours later and told police during a sworn recorded statement that he still was feeling lingering effects of an unknown substance, according to the document.

The man told police he checked the Rolex box in his living room and found the watch was missing.

The affidavit said the alleged victim provided police with a signed appraisal for the watch — a gold 40 mm diamond-bedazzled Rolex Presidential featuring baguette diamond hour markers — that valued the timepiece at $98,400, according to the affidavit.

The man identified Crouse in a six-person photo lineup, according to the affidavit.

The man did not seek medical treatment, and a toxicology test was not performed on the alleged victim.

Investigators believe Crouse used a similar scheme on at least four other occasions in Miami-Dade County, police said.

The affidavit said Crouse targeted men wearing expensive watches at bars or nightclubs, then went back to their homes or hotel rooms before the alleged victims discovered their watches were missing.

One of the alleged victims in Miami underwent toxicology testing and tested positive for zolpidem — a prescription sleep aid taken orally to treat insomnia.

Investigators noted that the effects described in that case were similar to those reported by the alleged victim in Hallandale Beach.

A judge ordered Crouse to have no contact with the alleged victim.

Police said the investigation remains ongoing.

The Hallandale Beach Police Department did not immediately respond to Blaze News‘ request for comment.

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

​Florida, Rolex watch, Arrest, Grand theft, Crime 

Some still remember when Google defined itself by a simple motto: “Don’t be evil.” When Google reorganized under Alphabet in 2015, the new parent company adopted the somehow less confidence-inspiring, “Do the right thing.” Another phrase with a lower bar also made the rounds — “to organize the world’s information” — but rest assured, that was never the motto. It was simply … uh … the mission statement.

Anyway …

The AI doomers’ strange brand of apocalypticism is: Let’s create an evil god so we can save the world from it.

It took until this week for some of the most powerful voices in tech policy to circle back explicitly to a prime directive: Avoid hellacious acts. For that, thank the AI doomers, whose strange brand of apocalypticism — let’s create an evil god so we can save the world from it — finally breached technology insider-dom and splashed across the political timeline.

The high-stakes soap opera has, as usual, deeper currents than the news feed can convey. But the key development is that the White House and its allies moved at warp speed to establish a few basic touchstones that take us back to the good old days of not being evil.

Trump has received most of the attention for memeing his stern-looking self above the caption “Americanism, Not Effective Altruism!” But his vice president captured the matter in a single line that’s tough to beat. “If you’re building Frankenstein,” he said, “stop!“

Note the emphasis. Trying to build an evil god — for instance, one with a statistically nonzero chance of wiping out the human race — is fortunately still considered axiomatically evil. But JD Vance’s reference underscores that trying to build a “new man,” even with the best of intentions, is also evil.

According to the doomers, the best way to save the world from evils they might create is for the rest of us to give them some form of planetary governing control. Vance endorsed a more commonsense approach: The best way to spare the world from evils you’re responsible for is to … not do them in the first place.

RELATED: Silicon Valley is building a god in its own image

Gremlin/Getty Images

The vice president may, like every one of his predecessors in living memory, carry a pronounced partisan identity. But his folksy-clever line echoes in anti-doomer rhetoric now blaring from the industry’s rooftops. Microsoft, of all places, recently published its own rulebook for what not to build. On X, Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman promoted the new “Humanist AI Code of Conduct,” which insists AI “is not conscious and should not be designed to imitate consciousness. It should,” Microsoft avows, “be engineered to avoid representing as though it has feelings, subjective preferences, or intrinsic motivation.”

Microsoft also flatly states: “We reject the pursuit of legal personhood, or the idea that models might deserve welfare, or be entitled to rights.” No Frankensteins here!

Or rather, no Frankenstein’s monsters — which means no Dr. Frankensteins running amok in the lab.

At Palantir, outspoken CTO Shyam Sankar made a similar point in a 2025 interview. “I think the secularists in Silicon Valley are filling the God-shaped hole in their heart with AGI,” Sankar said.

“The people who have religion are the most skeptical” of the doomers’ build-a-god-and-save-the-world-from-it thesis — which, yes, does itself resemble an inverted religion. For “the people who are kind of transhumanists,” Sankar concluded, “it becomes what they wish were true.”

Even Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, not known for Bible-thumping, recently struck an economic note with more than a whiff of spirituality.

“If we’re not confident about the safety of the products, like all companies … if you build a product or a service and you’re not confident in its functionality, capability, or safety, then don’t release it,” he said. “And so that’s a very obvious thing to do. You pace yourself until you are confident you’re releasing something that the market would appreciate. The market forces are already there. We don’t need any new laws. We don’t need new regulations.”

RELATED: Poll: Most think AI could do this to humanity — but don’t agree on what to do about it

da-kuk/Getty Images

Translation: Hear a little voice in your head, or more likely, your heart? Whispering, “No, this product is bad”? Don’t take it to market.

Turns out, you can just not do things!

Of course, Huang’s logic is a bit deceptive. We would like to believe the market will punish bad people for taking bad things to market, but that is not always how it works. As we speak, present-day Dr. Frankensteins are transplanting human brain organoids into mice engineered to lack most of their cerebral cortex, allowing the human tissue to occupy much of the vacant space and wire into the animals’ nervous systems.

No, doctors! Bad! Evil! Don’t!

Except they are. In the end, it matters that people examine their own hearts for evil before looking elsewhere and pointing fingers. But spiritual insistence alone will not keep society on the rails. It is not enough to scowl at our mad doctors, however good their intentions, as their creations erode the boundaries around our sacred human bodies and being — supercomputers or no.

​Ai, Frankenstein, Doomerism, Apocalypse, Trump, White house, Jd vance, God, Microsoft, Ai person, Palantir, Experiments, Opinion & analysis 

Every place has its own language. I don’t mean accents or vocabulary. I mean the unwritten rules that tell you how people see the world. I grew up in the South, where sarcasm is practically a sacrament and no good story should suffer from a shortage of embellishment.

Montana speaks differently.

Even the humor has a Montana accent: direct and to the point.

People here don’t waste words. They tell you what they know and leave the rest alone. We’ve been coming to this valley since the 1980s and have lived here full-time for more than seven years, long enough to know I’ll never stop learning Montana.

One of the first pieces of advice I received was, “Drive at the speed you’re comfortable slamming into the ditch at.” Direct and to the point, particularly in winter.

Our tiny town used to consist of a post office and a combination bar and restaurant. Then the bar burned down. That left the post office as our social center, where neighbors catch up on the news, solve the world’s problems, and occasionally create new ones.

On my way to Bozeman, I stopped in. After chatting with friends by the postal counter, I said, “I’d better get going. I need to pick up Gracie’s prescriptions.” Without missing a beat, our postmaster asked, “Would you mind picking up some Imodium for me?” The group chuckled as I said, “Sure.” Even the humor has a Montana accent: direct and to the point.

A few days later, Montana spoke again. Our cabin can be seen from the county road, nearly 10 miles from pavement. My father-in-law’s house lies above us, hidden among the pines. People don’t end up there by accident.

Our son Gray was cleaning his grandfather’s garage when an older pickup came winding through the trees. It stopped when the occupants spotted him. The older passenger leaned out the window. He was missing enough teeth that you noticed before he finished his first sentence.

“I’m looking for Don,” he said.

“There isn’t a Don here,” Gray replied.

RELATED: The myth of the ‘good person’

Calvindexter/Getty Images

The man muttered that it had been a long time since he had been up this way and figured he had gotten turned around.

Then both men got out of the truck. The younger man was every bit of six-foot-four. Gray felt the hair rise on the back of his neck. His pistol was nearby. With bears and mountain lions plentiful around us, that was nothing unusual. But Gray never reached for it. He simply eased back a step and watched. The older man seemed perturbed. The younger man said nothing.

Without another word, they swapped places in the truck and eased back down the driveway toward the national forest. Gray immediately called and said, “Dad, I think they may have been casing the place.” I called the sheriff’s office to see if they had heard about these fellows. After dispatch took the message, I watched the truck come down from the forest and idle on the road in front of our cabin. Then it headed down the mountain. Soon afterward, the deputy called. I repeated the story.

The line went quiet. Finally, he said, “Well … we’ve got a fellow who goes around looking for Don …”

I waited. “But he’s usually over in the Pony area.” Pony sits on the other side of the mountain. Same county. Different side of the range.

Another pause. “I wonder if it could be the same guy.”

Every Southern instinct in me wanted to go full Bob Newhart. “Y-you … you think?”

Inwardly, my Southern commentary was still running. How many “looking for Don” fellows do you have around here? Is this some kind of franchise, and has this guy wandered out of his territory?

Instead, I held my tongue and answered in my best broken Montanan. “You know … it might be.”

The deputy happened to be driving up our road and offered to intercept them. Since they were already heading down the mountain, I declined. “We’ll handle it if they come back,” I said.

No lecture about escalation. No reminder to stay inside. No warning to leave everything to trained professionals.

RELATED: Why I played ‘Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah’ at a funeral

Pressmaster/Getty Images

Just one word. “OK.” Direct and to the point.

After 35 years in Nashville, I never imagined telling a deputy, “We’ll handle it,” or hearing him agree. He assumed I could exercise good judgment. If I needed help, he’d come. Until then, he trusted me to handle my own place.

That economy of words defines the humor, the advice, and the lifestyle. As another election season pulls us into its riptide, we could use a little more of that.

I’ve watched people move here because they wanted to live in Montana, only to try to make it more like the place they left. I’ve found it’s better to let Montana change me. Out here, help isn’t just around the corner. You prepare, pay attention, fix what you can, and exercise good judgment because the nearest help may be 30 miles away. You also help your neighbor, especially if Imodium is involved.

And if those two fellows ever wander back up to our place? Well, after 35 years in Music City, I’ll know exactly what to tell them.

They’re looking for Don in all the wrong places.

​Montana, Langauge, Poeple, The south, Directness, Experience, Silence, Wilderness, Humor, Music city, Tennessee, Pony, Opinion & analysis 

When Nick Freitas engages with young men, they often have the same complaint: The culture made them the scapegoat for its ills — and now they feel lost and don’t know what to do about it.

While he doesn’t deny young men’s predicament or blame them for it, Freitas does put the responsibility to do something about it on their shoulders.

The truth, he says, is that the institutions that shape the culture deliberately broke young men’s spirits by convincing society that masculinity was “bad, evil, toxic, horrible, and [needs] to be repressed” and then turned around and sold the young men they villainized toxic escapes, like social media, gaming, and pornography.

The path to a fulfilling life is still there, though — but it’s theirs to find and take.

On this episode of “Rufo & Lomez,” Freitas and fellow BlazeTV hosts Chris Rufo and Jonathan Keeperman talk through why so many young men have checked out — and why reclaiming faith, family, and responsibility is the way back.

It’s both “confusing and horrific” for young men, he adds, to try to make it in a world where they’re “emasculated” in order to be more acceptable to a culture that will reject them regardless.

The message so many young men receive today, says Freitas, is: “By the way, even after you’ve been emasculated, nobody’s going to want to sleep with you … corporations don’t want to hire you either.”

“So once you understand that they have legitimate grievances that are truly unique to their experience, well, now we can start to talk about, OK, how do we deal with this?” he continues.

Dealing with it, however, begins with rejecting the “escapes” offered by the same institutions that villainized men in the first place. Doomscrolling social media, pornography, and video gaming, for example, may offer temporary relief, but they ultimately prevent men from finding the fulfilling path they desire.

“One of the big things that I tell men is that look, I get my identity first and foremost through my Christianity. Why? Because it’s eternal. … I always have identity, meaning, and purpose. I never lose it, and it cannot be taken away from me,” says Freitas.

When the culture inevitably condemns a Christ-centered identity, it’s men’s job to say “screw the culture” and continue to “pursue” what is godly, he continues.

“Ultimately, if young men choose to do that en masse, the culture will follow,” Freitas says. “The reason why there’s been such a push not just to diminish men but to elevate women is because it’s the only way you can’t get self-correction.”

Choosing the righteous path, however, is no easy thing.

“There’s pain involved in doing that,” Freitas acknowledges.

“You will be punished in society for doing that, but the more people who do it and the more critical mass you reach, the more things shift.”

Already, the tides have begun to turn.

Freitas cites an NBC News Decision Desk Poll of 18- to 29-year-olds that compared Trump and Harris voters on what they consider a successful life.

“The number-one thing for young men that voted for Trump was having a family; it was number six for women,” says Freitas.

Male Harris voters, however, placed family in 10th place, while female Harris voters put it in second-to-last place.

“That really gives me encouragement,” says Freitas.

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Culture, Family, Masculinity, Young men, Faith, Nick freitas, Jonathan keeperman, Chris rufo, Blazetv show