Stop Falling for Weaponized Empathy
For all the gullible Christians angrily venting about ICE, your Christian love is not pure. You’re functioning as agents of chaos. Stop it.

For all the gullible Christians angrily venting about ICE, your Christian love is not pure. You’re functioning as agents of chaos.

Weaponized empathy is everywhere right now. And Christian, you have got to stop being so gullible and falling for it.

Seriously, your naivete might feel warm, nice, friendly, and loving. But that’s not how true Christian love works.

I saw a post by the radical progressive “pastor” Benjamin Cremer that was getting shared a lot on Facebook. The post listed all the “un-Christlike things” he claims that ICE is supposedly doing, such as using “children as bait,” “shooting unarmed protesters,” “teargassing families,” and “terrorizing immigrant communities and people of color.”

The whole post went on and on like this, dripping with moral outrage and emotional manipulation. It was a textbook emotional ambush. No argument, no evidence, just big feelings.

What troubles me is that so many Christians were sharing this as though it were wise and insightful. But it’s not—not in the slightest.

The logical holes were so massive you could drive a truck through them. But the author wasn’t making a case for his perspective based on biblical reasoning. His case was based entirely on feelings, and church people fall for that kind of thing all the time.

False teaching almost always bypasses the mind and works directly on the emotions. That’s why scripture warns us to watch out for it. Paul says false teachers “cause divisions and create obstacles” by using “smooth talk and flattery” to “deceive the hearts of the naive” (Rom 16:17-18). That’s exactly what Benjamin Cremer was doing in his post.

He was using emotional manipulation to make error feel like love. It works like a charm on naive people.

That’s a big problem in the modern church. Too many people are gullible, and gullible Christians are causing a lot of harm in the church. These people aren’t blue-haired radical leftists we see at ICE protests in Minneapolis. No, they are ordinary Christians who sit next to you in church on Sunday but are led by their emotions. They are the nicest people you’d ever meet. They just don’t have the stomach to face hard realities. They think being “Christlike” is whatever makes them feel good.

But here’s the truth: it isn’t Christlike to be gullible. It isn’t Christlike to believe and share debunked propaganda. It isn’t Christlike to be led by your emotions. It isn’t Christlike to outsource your critical thinking skills to the left-wing activists in the mainstream media.

So why are Christians so gullible? It’s because they’ve been trained to think “love” means whatever it feels like in their happy place. They assume Jesus just wants us to be nice and get along and never do unpleasant things like hold people accountable for their actions. They equate “love” with their feelings. They assume Jesus wants them to go around and feel sorry for people, no matter what they’ve done to bring harm upon themselves, because Jesus is all compassion and zero accountability. And if people are held accountable in ways that cause them pain, then that is not being “Christlike.”

This thinking is wrongheaded. Biblical love isn’t about pointing your emotions in a particular direction. Biblical love is defined by actions and attitudes prescribed in scripture. How you feel about it is secondary.

Look carefully at Paul’s prayer from the beginning of Philippians. He says, “And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ” (Philippians 1:9-11).

First, notice that Paul is praying that their “love may abound more and more.” That’s clear enough. We’re talking about genuine Christian love. But love isn’t merely an emotion. Paul describes the kind of love he has in mind.

Second, he prays that their love will abound “with knowledge and all discernment.” That’s important. Christian love is a thinking love. Christian love needs to be well-informed. Christian love is discerning; it makes proper distinctions and draws clear moral boundaries. But why is that important?

Third, these things matter so “you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless.” In other words, we need knowledge and discernment to anchor our love in what is good and right. Or as Paul says, to “approve what is excellent.” This is true Christian love, the kind of love that is “pure and blameless.”

Therefore, love that lacks discernment is not pure and blameless. In fact, undiscerning “love” is not real love. It is all feelings and no wisdom. That’s the kind of irrational, undiscerning, corrupted “love” we’re seeing these days from gullible Christians. They hear sad stories and believe them immediately. They don’t realize they’re being lied to and propagandized. They don’t think in biblical categories; they think in terms of their emotions. They equate “loving the stranger” with open borders. They assume every illegal immigrant is an innocent victim and we’re supposed to just “love” on them, just like Jesus would. Since they genuinely feel sorry for people and don’t want anyone to suffer, they assume that must be what Jesus would want them to do. After all, God is a God of love, and they assume God’s love is just as emotional as theirs. This is love without discernment, which causes a lot of harm.

Biblical love is love PLUS knowledge PLUS discernment. In other words, love requires discernment. Period. Discernment is the rope that keeps people tethered to reality. Without it, love becomes a weapon that evil people use against you. Undiscerning love makes people very easy to manipulate. All you need is a sob story to make people feel sad, and Christians will take up their cause.

Without discernment, love gets twisted into a sentimental monstrosity. For the gullible and undiscerning, this kind of pseudo “love” claims the moral high ground. It does have some rhetorical advantages, which is why so many people fall for it. It sounds biblical enough to convince undiscerning people it must be right. But it’s not. These are not arguments or facts. They are ear-tickling slogans, nothing more.

Just as discerning love is pure and blameless, undiscerning love is impure and blameworthy. Obviously, the unhinged rioters and agitators bear the blame for their actions. But their nice,  Christian enablers who feel big feelings of “love” bear some of the blame too. To claim the mantle of Christlikeness in the service of lawlessness is evil, even if the one doing it thinks they are just showing Christian love. Their undiscerning love is just a front for the wickedness they are enabling. So, the blame belongs to those Christians who are so desperate to feel compassionate that they’ll believe anything, question nothing, and call it love.

Christians, we are morally responsible for how we love. We don’t just get to feel sorry for an illegal immigrant and “stand up” for them and call it love. That’s not love, no matter how strongly you feel it. Love does not spread leftist propaganda, “love rejoices with the truth” (1 Cor 13:6).

So, for all the gullible Christians who are angrily venting about ICE, your Christian love is not pure. It is not blameless. You are functioning as agents of chaos. You bear the blame for your irrational outrage, even if you present it as love and care and compassion.

So, I’ll say it again. Being gullible is a sin. Being undiscerning is a morally culpable act. Allowing anti-Christian and anti-American radicals to manipulate you through weaponized empathy is a sin. It is wrong to carelessly wield the name of Christ, making false accusations against law enforcement and making excuses for criminals.

Your emotions and subjective ideas of Christlikeness don’t dictate reality. Truth does. And truth requires discernment, not just feelings. We don’t get to emote all over the place and call it love.

So Christians, stop being gullible. Start being discerning. That’s what real love requires.

Michael Clary is the Lead Pastor of Christ the King Church in Fort Thomas, KY

 

 

No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. – Ayn Rand

Deadly Stockton Flea Market shooting was an act of self-defense during robbery, police say

STOCKTON, Calif. — A shooting at the Stockton Flea Market earlier this month that left two men dead and a woman wounded has been ruled a case of self-defense during a robbery, Stockton police said on Tuesday.

Stockton police said Wednesday that employees at the business involved are not currently being charged, police said.

Two men were killed and a woman injured when gunfire broke out during the Jan. 19 shooting. Both of those who died were involved in the robbery, police said. Police did not have more information to share about the woman who was wounded.

KCRA 3 previously spoke to Salvador Cervantes, a longtime resident and jewelry business owner at the flea market, who recounted the shooting.

He said his son had traded gunfire with one of those involved.

“This individual came, was walking out of my booth with the gun pointing, and I threw myself on the floor when I saw him,” he said. “There was an exchange of fire between my son and them. My son is the one who saved my life for the second time, so I’m pretty much blessed that he was around again for the second time.”

In 2012, Cervantes’ father was shot and killed while selling jewelry at the same flea market.

Stockton police said their investigation is ongoing.

DOJ and ATF Overreach: Weaponizing Patent Law Against the 2A

It’s no surprise to see the federal government trample on gun rights time and again. But the latest stunt from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) takes the cake. On January 26, 2026, the ATF filed a “Statement of Interest” in a purely civil patent infringement lawsuit between Rare Breed Triggers and Hoffman Tactical. This isn’t about crime or national security; it’s a business dispute over intellectual property. Yet here comes Uncle Sam, sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong, all in the name of “public safety.” If this doesn’t scream anti-2A overreach, I don’t know what does.

Let’s back up and break this down for those who might not be knee-deep in the gun world. Forced reset triggers, or FRTs, are engineered triggers that allow for faster semi-automatic firing by mechanically resetting the trigger after each shot. They’re not machine gunssince they require a separate trigger pull for every round, as affirmed by multiple courts. Rare Breed Triggers pioneered the FRT-15, a popular model that lets law-abiding citizens like you and me shoot fasterwithout converting semi-automatic firearms into fully-automatics. Hoffman Tactical, run by inventor Timothy Hoffman out of Tennessee, developed his own version called the Super Safety. It’s similar in concept but differs in design details. Notably, his design has been promulgated via open-source 3D-printable files that empower DIY enthusiasts to make their own.

The beef started when Rare Breed sued Hoffman in late 2025, claiming patent infringement. Rare Breed argues Hoffman’s design copies their tech too closely, while Hoffman counters that his is distinct enough and that no one owns the broad idea of forced resets. This should be a straightforward intellectual property/patent fight in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (case number 1:25-cv-00389-CLC-CHS);  No criminals, no threats to society, just two companies hashing out who gets to profit from a clever invention.

Enter the ATF, stage left. In their Statement of Interest, they declare a “strong interest in promoting the safe use of firearms by the public, and in this particular case, in discouraging unregulated manufacture of forced reset triggers that allegedly infringe Rare Breed’s patents.” They’re urging the judge to grant Rare Breed a preliminary injunction against Hoffman, effectively shutting him down. Why? Because in the DOJ’s rationale, fewer FRTs mean less “danger.” This isn’t neutral advice; it’s a blatant push to limit access to these triggers through the backdoor of patent enforcement.

To understand this meddling, we need to rewind to the ATF’s long war on FRTs. Back in 2021, the agency sent a cease-and-desist to Rare Breed, classifying the FRT-15 as a machine gun under the National Firearms Act.  Rare Breed fought back, and in a landmark 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Cargill v. Garland, the justices struck down the ATF’s bump stock ban, setting a precedent that devices like FRTs aren’t machine guns.  By July 2024, a Texas district court applied this to FRTs, ruling they require multiple functions per shot—not the single pull that defines a machine gun.

Undeterred, the ATF kept up the pressure, seizing triggers and dragging Rare Breed through lawsuits. But in May 2025, under the self-described “most pro-2A administration in history,” the DOJ settled. The feds dropped their cases, agreed to return seized FRTs (including those from Wide Open Triggers, a similar product), and Rare Breed resumed sales. Sounds like a win, right? Not so fast. The settlement had strings attached: Rare Breed promised not to develop FRTs for pistols and, crucially, to “enforce its patents to prevent infringement that could threaten public safety.” In other words, the ATF outsourced its infringement agenda to a private company.

Now, Rare Breed is suing not just Hoffman but several manufacturers of Super Safety designs. YouTube creators and gun forums are buzzing—some call it a betrayal, with Rare Breed torching community goodwill to appease the feds. Hoffman himself received a cease-and-desist in February 2025, pulling his files offline. And the ATF’s intervention? It’s the cherry on top, admitting in essence they’re using this civil suit to curb “unregulated manufacture.”

The ATF has no statutory authority to regulate firearm accessories like triggers in this way. They were created to enforce existing laws, not invent new ones via proxy. Patent law is for protecting innovation, not as a tool for disarmament. Whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge, the bureaucracy finds ways to chip away at our rights. Remember, this “pro-2A” admin settled with conditions that force Rare Breed to police the market, effectively creating a monopoly that limits options for Americans.

The implications are chilling. If the government can hijack private lawsuits to advance gun control, what’s next? Banning aftermarket parts through intellectual property? Ignoring the First Amendment and stifling 3D printing innovations that empower self-reliance? Hoffman’s open-source approach democratizes gun tech, putting power in the hands of the people, not corporations or the state. By backing Rare Breed, the ATF is signaling they want fewer triggers out there, period, regardless of legality.

We can’t let bureaucrats weaponize the courts. Support organizations like Gun Owners of America who broke this story, contact your reps, boycott companies that cave to government pressure, and stay vigilant. The Second Amendment isn’t negotiable; it’s our birthright.

Man killed, another critically injured in apparent self-defense shooting in St. Pete: Police

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. – St. Petersburg police say a Friday evening shooting that left one man dead and another hospitalized with critical injuries appears to be an act of self-defense.

According to SPPD, officers responded to the 900 block of 22nd Lane South shortly after 6:30 p.m.

Investigators say Syltico Morand, 29, and another man were armed when they tried to rob two men who were also armed and sitting in a vehicle parked on 22nd Lane South. A confrontation ensued between the men and Morand and the other suspect with him were shot, SPPD said.

Police say Morand died at the scene and the 30-year-old man with him was taken to the hospital with critical injuries. Officers detained the two men that fired shots from their vehicle. Multiple firearms were recovered at the scene, according to SPPD.

SPPD says the men that were detained have not been charged at this time. Investigators believe the shooting was an act of self-defense.

Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom. It is a very serious consideration, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.–Samuel Adams

The ‘Common Sense Gun Control’ Lie: How Antigun States Restrict Access to the Second Amendment.

Events in Minnesota have created some strange temporary bedfellows. An opponent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s efforts, Alex Pretti, was shot and killed by federal officers. Because he happened to be carrying a firearm while protesting against deportations, the typical talking points coming from many politicians have completely flipped from their typical stances on guns and the Second Amendment.

On the one hand, some Trump administration officials, and later even the President himself, asserted that carrying a firearm at a protest or near law enforcement officers is illegal. Both of those claims are false in Minnesota, with the latter claim being false everywhere else, too. Whether any of this leads to a policy shift remains to be seen, though that seems unlikely. Generally speaking, the second Trump Administration has been very helpful to Second Amendment activists, particularly to those of us in antigun states like California.

But just as the President and a few members of his administration were rhetorically throwing the Second Amendment under the bus, some politicians who have long opposed gun rights suddenly express support for the right to keep and bear arms. This support, of course, is phony.

As all of this was going on, Virginia Democrats were advancing legislation to ban the gun and magazine he carried, along with many other popular firearms. Just like stray comments from President Trump likely don’t indicate any real shift in policy, neither does Democrats suddenly voicing support for the Second Amendment mean that they will be opposing further gun control laws.

Continue reading “”

Functional Illiteracy

The Age of Functional Illiteracy

Functional illiteracy was once a social diagnosis, not an academic one. It referred to those who could technically read but could not follow an argument, sustain attention, or extract meaning from a text. It was never a term one expected to hear applied to universities. And yet it has begun to surface with increasing regularity in conversations among faculty themselves. Literature professors now admit—quietly in offices, more openly in essays—that many students cannot manage the kind of reading their disciplines presuppose. They can recognise words; they cannot inhabit a text.

The evidence is no longer anecdotal. University libraries report historic lows in book borrowing. National literacy assessments show long-term declines in adult reading proficiency. Commentators in The Atlantic, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and The New York Times describe a generation for whom long-form reading has become almost foreign. A Victorian novel, once the ordinary fare of undergraduate study, now requires extraordinary accommodation. Even thirty pages of assigned reading can provoke anxiety, resentment, or open resistance.

It would be dishonest to ignore the role of the digital world in this transformation. Screens reward speed, fragmentation, and perpetual stimulation; sustained attention is neither required nor encouraged. But to lay the blame solely at the feet of technology is a convenient evasion. The crisis of reading within universities is not merely something that has happened to the academy. It is something the academy has, in significant measure, helped to produce.

The erosion of reading was prepared by intellectual shifts within the humanities themselves—shifts that began during the canon wars of the late twentieth century. Those battles were never only about which books should be taught. They were about whether literature possessed inherent value, whether reading required discipline, whether difficulty was formative or oppressive, and whether the humanities existed to shape students or merely to affirm them. In the decades that followed, entire traditions of reading were dismantled with remarkable confidence and astonishing speed.

The result is a moment of institutional irony. The very disciplines charged with preserving literary culture helped undermine the practices that made such culture possible. What we are witnessing now is not simply a failure of students to read, but the delayed consequence of ideas that taught generations of readers to approach texts with suspicion rather than attention, critique rather than encounter.

This essay is part of a larger project to trace that history, to explain how a war over the canon helped usher in an age in which reading itself is slipping from our grasp, and why the consequences of that war are now returning to the academy with unmistakable force.

Richard Fernandez

Marco Rubio’s testimony on the Maduro op before the Senate indicates that the Trump administration very carefully awaited the right operational conditions before risking it, a process that Rubio called a “trigger operation”.

This attitude is likely to govern any action against Iran. Despite the media’s characterization of Trump as stupid and impulsive, the record reveals a decisive but exquisitely thorough command system. Given this, what might the US feasibly attempt in Iran with a reasonable prospect of success? Four types of actions are likely.

Operations to:
1. Further degrade Iran’s nuclear and missile programs through limited strikes or sanctions.
2. Disrupt IRGC command, control, and communications (C3) via cyber or targeted strikes.
3. Conduct decapitation strikes on IRGC or regime leadership.
4. Achieve full regime change or complete IRGC dissolution.

Objectives 1 and 2 have a good chance of success.
Objective 3 has a fair prospect of happening.
Objective 4 is probably out of reach in the very short run. But 1 and 2 would lay the foundation for 3 and the first triple would set up the 4th.

While there is no way to predict American action in Iran, it is likely to be cumulative and sequential with opportunistic branches.