Police Investigate and Determine Alleged Hate Crime Didn't Happen

I Would Bet on Trump Striking Iran Soon, and 'Limited' Will Not Be in the Vocabulary

This was the modest video that kicked it all off in April 2005.

In the aftermath of DHS assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin announcing her resignation, MS NOW reporter Jacob Soboroff accused her of spreading misinformation when, in fact, he was the one misinforming his viewers. Antonia Hylton filled in for Chris Hayes on Monday's All In show. She began by asking Soboroff what it has been like having to interact with McLaughlin to get information about immigration issues. He began by taking a shot at ex-DHS secretary Kirstjen Nielsen from the first Donald Trump administration: "It's been a bit of deja vu quite frankly, and I think that Tricia McLaughlin comes from a long line, I think it's fair to say, of Trump administration officials dealing with immigration policy that have been less than forthright with the truth." Referring to the other anti-Trump guest, former Trump DHS official Miles Taylor, Soboroff continued: And Miles Taylor knows this well and has spoken out since his time in the administration about this to Kirstjen Nielsen, who Miles worked for during the first family separation policy during the first Trump administration -- very famously said, "We do not have a policy of separating families at the border, period." That was on June 17, 2018. And the American people are not stupid -- they saw right through it. It has been previously documented by NewsBusters that in June 2018 Nielsen forthrightly announced that those who crossed the border illegally would be detained and separated from their children, but Soboroff prefers to harp on one of her answers to a question to portray her as dishonest. The MS NOW reporter then repeated more previously debunked information when he claimed that illegal alien Narciso Barranco did not swing his weed whacker at Border Patrol agents in Los Angeles even though there is video of him doing just that. Here's Soboroff: And Tricia McLaughlin has basically taken a similar posture with the American people. The stories that I have reported on, whether it was Narciso Barranco, the landscaper who was violently detained outside of that IHOP in Santa Ana, California. She accused him of attacking agents with a weed whacker, despite the fact that the video showed him retreating. Hylton then went to Taylor, who fretted about who would replace McLaughlin, and then claimed that DHS is violating constitutional rights. When getting his chance to follow up, Soboroff complained that immigration enforcement has been too harsh all the way back to the Clinton administration, and talked up liberal protesters pushing congressional Democrats to go further in enacting laws to protect illegal aliens. Earlier in the day, on Ana Cabrera Reports, reporter Vaughn Hillyard accused McLaughlin of exaggerating how many ICE detainees had criminal records even though his own network has been recently highlighting a CBS News study reporting that more than 60 percent of detainees had either been convicted or charged with non-immigration crimes, which is close to what McLaughlin has repeatedly cited in her television appearances. Here's Hilliard: "She is somebody who has suggested that DHS data had shown that the great majority of the individuals who had been deported and detained under the Trump administration were convicted criminals. Much of that data that was put out there came into deep questions as you began to unwrap some of the numbers." Transcripts follow: MS NOW's All In with Chris Hayes February 17, 2026 8:08 p.m. Eastern ANTONIA HYLTON, FILL-IN HOST: I guess, take us down memory lane. You and I -- we both have worked with and spoken to Tricia McLaughlin a decent amount over the past. So what has it been like for you trying to report out your stories and get to the truth in your interactions with her? JACOB SOBOROFF: You know what, Antonia? It's been a bit of deja vu quite frankly, and I think that Tricia McLaughlin comes from a long line, I think it's fair to say, of Trump administration officials dealing with immigration policy that have been less than forthright with the truth. And Miles Taylor knows this well and has spoken out since his time in the administration about this to Kirsten Nielsen, who Miles worked for during the first family separation policy during the first Trump administration -- very famously said, "We do not have a policy of separating families at the border, period." That was on June 17, 2018. And the American people are not stupid -- they saw right through it. They stood in the streets and they protested. And Tricia McLaughlin has basically taken a similar posture with the American people. The stories that I have reported on, whether it was Narciso Barranco, the landscaper who was violently detained outside of that IHOP in Santa Ana, California. She accused him of attacking agents with a weed whacker, despite the fact that the video showed him retreating. He was never charged with a crime for doing that. Any Lucia Lopez, the 19-year-old coming home from Babson College who was deported to Honduras while she was going to see her parents in San Antonio -- she defended that deportation despite the fact that the administration later admitted they did it in error. Even Nory Sontay Ramos, who I reported on that high school star student track star who was taken at a routine immigration check, and she defended those types of immigration hearings as well. The American people know exactly what this administration is doing. Doesn't matter how many times Tricia McLaughlin tried to defend it. The list goes on and on and on. I can think of many more examples. We don't have enough time to go through all of them -- the ones in which she didn't tell the American people the truth about what we could plainly see with our own eyeballs. (...) HYLTON: Do you think her departure signals a real change strategically in terms of the way policy is going to roll out? Or do you think we're going to get someone else who just brings more of the same? MILES TAYLOR, EX-DHS OFFICIAL: I shudder to think who comes next. And -- and you and Jacob both know this incredibly well, but I have to align with what Jacob said at the top of the program. The administration, whether it was the first Trump administration or this one, has tried to portray that cruelty is a consequence, an inadvertent consequence of policies that Renee Good, that Alex Pretti, that family separation, that all of these things are unfortunate mistakes. That is not true. That's where the lie machine starts at DHS. It's where it started when I was there. The cruelty, as has been said often, is the point here. It is the point. And -- sometimes they let the mask slip and they say that. In private they do. And in public, you've been seeing that happen more and more where they admit the point is to deter the political opposition. You say, "Wait a second, I thought this was about immigration." "Oh, well, we also want to send ICE to the polls." And I think that McLaughlin has only continued that tradition. She's probably become more of a little Trump than the other little Trumps in the administration. But what she hasn't been able to cover up in her tenure is that there has been an extraordinary violation of constitutional rights by this department, and that's because we've had people brave enough to take one of these and to go outside and to film it. And I do want to say something about this shutdown, because Republicans are going to say Democrats are holding the government hostage. I want to clarify something, and I'm not a Democrat. I'm saying this as someone who's watched this -- who's been in that department in two presidential administrations. Democrats aren't demanding policy changes. They are demanding compliance with the United States Constitution. There have been violations by this department of the 1st Amendment rights of Americans and the 4th Amendment rights of Americans and the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans and the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment. And those are just the ones that come to my mind right now. This isn't about Democrats and Republicans. This is about whether the Constitution is still a viable document in this country or not. And DHS is at ground zero of that debate. HYLTON: Well, Jacob, to Miles' point there, do you think that this laundry list, the list of demands that Democrats are sending to Republicans right now, when you talk to voters, to protesters that I know you speak with every week, do you think they see those demands as actually being enough because so many of them are just sort of basically what other law enforcement agencies already have to do and comply with day in and day out. Do they think that this list is enough, given just the outrage, the horror that there is just so deeply felt across this country right now? SOBOROFF: Not people who have spent enough time thinking about the system to understand that where we are today is a product of decades of bipartisan, deterrence-based, punitive-based immigration policy that started in the modern era in the Clinton administration, and under every President of the United States -- Democratic or Republican -- cruelty was used as a tool of immigration enforcement. No amount of unmasking ICE agents, no amount of identifying themselves, is going to change the fact that we have a for profit detention system largely in the United States of America that criminalizes people who come here seeking a better life, treats them as points on a bar graph or a chart, or talks about them like they're the weather, the flow, the surge, the inundation, the invasion, in the words of this administration. Joe Biden promised a wholesale departure from the cruelty of the first Trump administration -- fair, safe, humane, orderly immigration policy. And we ended up back here. I think the American people are very skeptical, and that is why you are seeing people in the streets in the numbers that we have seen in Minnesota, in Charlotte, in Chicago, here in Los Angeles, outside the hallways of 26 Federal Plaza in New York, because it's not enough, frankly, to rely on our lawmakers going to Capitol Hill and saying they're going to change things. We've been hearing that for decades as it comes to immigration. And I think that the American people now have not only are they not stupid, and what Tricia Mclaughlin has been telling them they know is not true, but they know it's going to take a lot more than relying on elected officials to go up to Capitol Hill and change the immigration system and the cruelty that we've been seeing in the streets. (...) Fox's America's Newsroom September 9, 2025 10:10 a.m. Eastern TRICIA McLAUGHLIN, DHS ASSISTANT SECRETARY: Seventy percent of those illegal aliens who have been arrested under this administration have prior convictions or pending charges. And that doesn't even include those who have been arrested who don't have rap sheets in the U.S. but have rap sheets in their countries of origin. They might be a gang member -- they might have a human rights violation against them. (...) Fox's America Reports November 11, 2025 1:19 p.m. McLAUGHLIN: In Chicago, we've seen fantastic results -- the arrests of about 5,000 illegal aliens, 70 percent of which are -- have past criminal convictions or pending criminal charges against them. (...) Fox's America's Newsroom January 19, 2026 9:08 a.m. McLAUGHLIN: The facts on the ground, Dana, is that 70 percent of those that have been arrested under the Trump administration -- seven, zero -- either have prior criminal convictions or pending criminal charges against them. That does not even include known or suspected terrorists of which we've arrested over 1,000. That doesn't include gang membership -- that doesn't even include being wanted for a violent crime in your country of origin or a third country. (...) MSNOW's Katy Tur Reports February 9, 2026 2:48 p.m.  (discussing a study by CBS News that more than 60 percent of arrestees either had criminal convictions or criminal charges in addition to "civil immigration violations") JACOB SOBOROFF: The larger picture is what we have seen anecdotally over and over and over again. They are not going after the worst of the worst, and you cannot institute the largest mass deportation program by going after only the worst or the worst. KATY TUR: Is it because there are not that many of the quote, unquote "worst of the worst" to go after -- that if you wanted to do mass deportations, if you want to exceed the number of deportations that President Obama did, if you want a million people a year, that you're going to have to get people who are not violent criminals? (...) MSNOW's Ana Cabrera Reports February 17, 2026 11:32 a.m. VAUGHN HILLYARD: She is somebody who has suggested that DHS data had shown that the great majority of the individuals who had been deported and detained under the Trump administration were convicted criminals. Much of that data that was put out there came into deep questions as you began to unwrap some of the numbers.

All the major broadcast networks — ABC, CBS, and NBC — broke in Friday morning with special reports on the Supreme Court’s 6-to-3 ruling declaring most of President Trump’s landmark tariffs unconstitutional. Unsurprisingly, ABC was almost ebullient in touting the ruling as “devastating,” “huge,” and “monumental” in hampering Trump’s presidency. Correspondent Devin Dwyer — who took over as the lone Court reporter at ABC after Terry Moran’s axing — said this was “one of the most significant decisions on presidential power in decades” ABC’s court reporter Devin Dwyer on SCOTUS deeming most of Trump’s tariffs illegal... “This is one of the most significant decisions on presidential power in decades. The supreme court just moments ago, in a 6-to-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, invalidated… pic.twitter.com/ermtNU5trX — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 20, 2026 Dispatch and SCOTUS editor and ABC legal analyst Sarah Isgur was even more explicit: .@SCOTUSblog editor/@ABC legal analyst @WhigNewtons on the SCOTUS ruling against most of Trump’s tariffs... “This has been a Supreme Court that has really been shrinking down executive power. We saw them do this during the Biden administration with his student loan debt… pic.twitter.com/4Ukxhcp77n — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 20, 2026 Of course, chief White House correspondent and Biden regime apple polisher Mary Bruce was almost giddy in touting the ruling as a “devastating,” “huge blow to this White House and to this President” with this entire presidency “now coming into question” with the tariff revenue possibly having to be refunded. ABC’s @MaryKBruce celebrating the Supreme Court striking down most of Trump’s tariffs... “Devastating is right. This is a huge blow to this White House and to this President. Trump, in the lead up to this decision, had said that a ruling against his tariffs would be ‘devastating… pic.twitter.com/S5PZpwYHkK — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 20, 2026 “There is a lot of questions about what happens to the money that has been collected so far...What happens to other issues, like, for instance, pharmaceutical prices....[I]t is the ripple effects of this will be tremendous. What does it mean for the manufacturing here in the U.S....I can tell you this: Based off of the President’s comments in the lead up to this, while we haven’t gotten a reaction from him just yet, he certainly is likely to be deeply frustrated and angry about this decision,” she added. After correspondent Elizabeth Schulze pointed to the business fallout from small, medium, and large businesses that could become “very messy and very complicated,” chief Washington correspondent and four-time anti-Trump author Jonathan Karl boasted this was “both a monumental decision and frankly, an obvious one”: ABC’s @JonKarl on the SCOTUS decision about tariffs... “This is both a monumental decision and frankly, an obvious one. I mean, it seemed clear from the day that Donald Trump came out and announced his so-called reciprocal tariffs on the rest of the world, or most of the world,… pic.twitter.com/SawFe4jzHo — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 20, 2026 CBS spent nearly 13 minutes on-air, starting with longtime legal correspondent Jan Crawford framing it as “the most significant U.S. Supreme [Court] loss for a U.S. President, I think, in modern history” but should be seen as “a deeply divided issue” even within the 6-3 breakdown .@JanCBS Crawford on SCOTUS ruling most of Trump’s tariffs are unconstitutional... “This decision is 6-to-3, invalidating President Trump's use of the sweeping tariffs imposing tariffs on almost every trading partner worldwide. This is the most significant U.S. Supreme [Court]… pic.twitter.com/YGHq6IUN9r — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 20, 2026   “But the bottom line Tony, a major defeat for the President. I think you can put that right up there with some of the most significant Supreme Court losses by a U.S. president in history,” she emphasized. CBS Evening News anchor Tony Dokoupil came back to her at the end and she reiterated something she has long said about the Supreme Court, including on December 28’s Face the Nation: WATCH: @JanCBS Crawford argues this tariff ruling shows people should quit saying this Supreme Court is wholly beholden to Trump... “And what this says is that all of these people who have been saying that this is a Supreme Court that’s in the tank for Donald Trump, need to take… pic.twitter.com/qYkJhuEiMG — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 20, 2026 Following more explanation of the Court’s reasoning from legal analyst Jessica Levinson, senior White House correspondent Ed O’Keefe floated possible alternative approaches the White House could take because the ruling will impact “not only the economic agenda, but arguably the foreign policy agenda...because the hope here at the White House, at times, was to be able to use the threat of tariffs as sort of a coercive tool to get their way with certain countries[.]” Chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett and chief business and tech correspondent Jo Ling Kent offered historical and economic reactions, respectively (click “expand”): GARRETT: Well, the Supreme Court is well aware of the Constitutional history of generating revenue, a power explicitly reserved to Congress in its origination in the Constitution. And before, we had an income tax in this country, we raised revenue principally through tariffs. And there were lots of conflicts that previous Supreme Courts dealt with about the legality of those tariffs. That precedent is a backdrop for this. President Trump has jawboned and criticized this Court, saying if you rule against me you’re going to destroy our economy, waging a very aggressive public relations campaign. But the Court cares what the Constitution says and what precedent says. It’s interesting to note, Tony, this 1977 law that Jan and others have referred to grew out of a crisis with Iran after the Iranian revolution, and it has been used principally to freeze assets or to levy sanctions. The Trump administration told the Supreme Court it had almost unlimited powers to impose tariffs, not just as an economic matter but as a diplomatic cudgel. And what the Court said and I think this is important. Summarizing the administration’s argument before it, “that view would represent a transformational expansion of the President’s authority over tariff policy. It is also telling,” the court wrote, “that in the IEEPA’s half century — that’s the law of existence — no president has invoked the statute to impose any tariffs, let alone tariffs, of the magnitude of this magnitude and scope.” So essentially, what the Court is saying is we have a Congress. Congress is negotiate laws with presidents, as this law was negotiated. If you follow that law, you can do it. If you expand way beyond that law, you can’t. And to Ed’s previous point, there’s another law in 1962 — law — the Trade Expansion Act, there’s a section 232 there. This President — previous presidents have used that to impose tariffs. There are many remedies this administration could look to and the trade representative, Jamieson Greer has said many times, if we lose in the Supreme Court, we have other remedies to advance our tariff agenda. This is not the end of the tariff conversation under this administration, but it is a setback significantly on this variant of using tariffs the way the President has attempted to enforce them. (....) KENT: [M]y phones are exploding right now with reaction from small business owners across the country we’ve been interviewing people about these tariffs for over the last year. And Emily Ley, a small business owner in Sarasota, Florida, tells me she’s thrilled. She’s relieved. It gives us clarity. She runs a very successful stationery and planner business. Another business owner, Beth, in Zumbrota, Minnesota, Southern Minnesota, she runs Busy Baby Mat and she says she’s seeing major relief that this is bittersweet. She just signed another $13,000 check to — you know for these tariffs to China last week. And now she feels like maybe she can start seeking a refund. Now when you pull back, how much does the average American household paid for these tariffs, you can see it’s about $1,700, according to the Yale Budget Lab. So what happens next? If this continues to move a pace, we expect overall prices, which could be good news for consumers to drop. But that won’t happen quickly. We also expect to see perishable items your fruits and veggies, they actually might go down in price a little bit more quickly. You might see durable goods like your tech products and furniture see a slight decrease as well. And you can see overall the price increases that you may be facing at home due to tariffs across the board there especially in apparel, things that are imported from overseas. But if you’re looking for a Trump tariff refund, if you will, as an individual family member, for example, that’s probably off the table. But we do expect businesses to start seeking tariffs and perhaps forming class action lawsuits to get this money back. As a result of this ruling those companies could get refunds from the Treasury. But overall, the small business reaction has been overwhelmingly positive, saying they feel that they’re thrilled and they’re relieved. NBC was on the air for just over nine minutes and was relatively muted but matter-of-the-fact in relaying the ruling. Chief legal correspondent and Saturday Today co-host Laura Jarrett emphasized the right-of-center justices who voted against the constitutionality of Trump’s tariffs, combining for half the majority that delivered “a major blow to the centerpiece of the President’s economic agenda” and could have ripple effects with forthcoming class-action lawsuits by affected companies. Senior White House correspondent Garrett Haake said he could not “overstate how important these tariffs were as a tool for President Trump” in “address[ing] trade deficits, to try to bring money into the U.S. government...sending back out to the American people in the form of refund checks or to use to fund other programs...and he has claimed repeatedly that the tariffs have helped him solve global conflicts around the world[.]” Jarrett herself wrapped by quoting from Justice Gorsuch’s concurring opinion and stating executive authority is the theme of this Supreme Court term (click “expand”): Yeah, it’s interesting just to see Justice Gorsuch complaining in his concurrence here knowing the criticism that could be on the way at least from a political standpoint and he says, “all I can offer them that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people are funneled through the legislative process for a reason. Yes, legislating can be hard and take time and, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some passing problem arises, but the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design, essentially saying the Constitution was set up this way, having the legislative branch be the one that can levy taxes. And the President, of course, can enforce the laws. He can regulate some imports, but he can’t go too far, and the Constitution does that by design. (....) Well, and this whole term, if you think about it, is the Supreme Court taking a hard look at some of the things Donald Trump has done that have never been done before, like trying to fire a member of the Federal Reserve board, Lisa Cook. It’s another big case on the docket. He’s tried to fire her. He’s tried to fire a woman who was on the FTC. They obviously have other big questions concerning his birthright citizenship plan. So, this is really the term of SCOTUS and the President, and how they see executive authority. At least as it results to tariffs, [this] is a big blow. To see the relevant transcripts from the network special reports on February 20, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

MS Now’s fun haters at Morning Joe had an interesting recap on Friday of the previous day’s Olympic events, where the U.S. women’s hockey team defeated Canada in a dramatic overtime comeback to win the gold medal, and American figure skater Alysa Liu also took home gold. Forcing politics into sports, ESPN talking head Pablo Torre, the hockey women proved one can cheer on America without embracing a certain nameless president, while host Joe Scarborough and New York Times opinion writer Eugene Robinson argued it was ironic for “MAGA World” to celebrate an immigrant. Torre declared that “the thing I marvel at not only is the way that, oh, wait a minute, maybe there's the possibility of a global village in some capacity. Still, when I watch these games, maybe there's the capacity for us to celebrate American dominance in a way that feels genuine as opposed to, you know, a series of lies to prop up a certain administration.”   Former ESPN talking head Pablo Torre says of the U.S. hockey women winning gold, "maybe there's the capacity for us to celebrate American dominance in a way that feels genuine as opposed to, you know, a series of lies to prop up a certain administration." Joe Scarborough adds, "I… pic.twitter.com/9Ik9Jitnug — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 20, 2026   Team USA has always been a key part of American monoculture, which is why some athletes’ desire to opine on politics has been so disappointing. If liberals such as Torre let their feelings about Trump overpower their feelings for the country, that says more about them than it does Trump. However, the hot takes were just beginning. Scarborough told Robinson that “It was really inspiring. I will say how hilarious that the sort of MAGA, online MAGA World were celebrating Alyssa Liu's gold medal without a hint of any irony. Celebrating the immigrant. Who they were celebrating as an American, you know, USA, USA. Which, of course, that's basically proving the point that we've been making all along, that Ronald Reagan made in his final speech to America, that we are strengthened by immigrants.” The context for this is that Liu’s father fled China for his role in supporting the Tiananmen Square protests and has been stalked by Chinese spies ever since. It also comes as American-born skier Eileen Gu chose to dump her country and compete for her mother’s China, America’s biggest rival in the world today. Gu, who has no problem speaking out against Trump, is not prepared to discuss China’s genocidal repression of the Uyghurs. Of course, Scarborough left all that out. As for Robinson, he agreed with Scarborough and while cracking himself and Scarborough up, declared, “Oops. Yes, they, you know, they're celebrating this. You know, ‘We're supposed to hate this, but we can't hate it because USA, USA.’ So, you know, it's—it was crazy. Those were two amazing moments yesterday, though.” Beyond being a gold medalist, conservatives' embrace of Liu as a role model has to do with the contrast she provides with Gu. One is a story of patriotism and assimilation, while the other is a story of betrayal for money. Liu and Gu are a great snapshot of the immigration dilemma: some immigrants move to America and instill their children with the virtues of America and some don’t. The problem is Morning Joe only wants to talk about one side of the equation. Here is a transcript for the February 20 show: MS NOW Morning Joe 2/20/2026 9:02 AM ET PABLO TORRE: But finally we get to the Olympics— JOE SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. Yeah. TORRE: —and in the Olympics, look, the thing I marvel at not only is the way that, oh, wait a minute, maybe there's the possibility of a global village in some capacity. Still, when I watch these games, maybe there's the capacity for us to celebrate American dominance in a way that feels genuine as opposed to, you know, a series of lies to prop up a certain administration. But also what it's like when you don't choke under pressure. It's amazing. These are not athletes who are going to make millions of dollars in their lives. This is it. And when you see Americans do this— SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. TORRE: — it is. It's the best of us in a sincere way for a couple of weeks. JOE SCARBOROUGH: It really is. And Gene Robinson, it was really inspiring. I will say how hilarious that the sort of MAGA, online MAGA World were celebrating Alysa Liu's gold medal without a hint of any irony. Celebrating the immigrant. TORRE: That's right. SCARBOROUGH: Who they were celebrating as an American, you know, USA, USA. Which, of course, that's basically proving the point that we've been making all along, that Ronald Reagan made in his final speech to America, that we are strengthened by immigrants. EUGENE ROBINSON: Oops. Yes, they, you know, they're celebrating this. You know, “we're supposed to hate this, but we can't hate it because USA, USA.” So, you know, it's—it was crazy. Those were two amazing moments yesterday, though.

BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey recently revisited a question the late Charlie Kirk often asked her in interviews — one that is often the topic of heated debate among Christians.“For some reason, every time I did an interview with Charlie Kirk, he loved to ask this question because he knew what I was going to say, but he loved for me — I guess as a Christian woman — to answer it,” Stuckey recalls.The question, Stuckey says, is “Can women be pastors?”“The short answer is no. No,” she says, citing 1 Timothy 2:12-14.“He is speaking within the context of talking about the orderliness of the local church. ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor,” the verse reads.“He goes all the way back to creation. And whenever we see anyone in scripture in the New Testament go back to creation, that tells us that this is grounded in something that is unchanging,” Stuckey comments.“For example, in Genesis 9, when God commands the death penalty for a murder, he goes all the way back to the creation reality that man was made in God’s image. That is still true today, which is why I believe we should still give the death penalty for murder,” she explains.“The simple fact that he goes back to Adam and Eve tells us something really important. So the question is, ‘What can women do biblically?’ Women are encouraged to teach other women and to teach children,” she continues.And while Stuckey herself notes that she speaks out publicly, she says that “capability does not equal calling.”“Obviously, I can talk. Obviously, I can explain things. I like to communicate. I love the word of God. I love breaking things down. But I am not called to be a pastor in a local church. I am not called to preach in a pulpit in a local church,” she explains.“That is not my role. That is not any woman’s role,” she 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.

In a world where millions claim to be Christians while living lives indistinguishable from anyone else, it’s critical to understand the importance of authentic faith. It’s a bit more than “all you have to do is believe” (explained here), which is an unsupportable position according to scripture and Jesus’ own words.But a companion misunderstanding is that you should never question your own faith. Some even say it’s a sin to do so.As you examine your thoughts and attitudes and actions in the clear light of scriptural teaching, the Spirit will show you things to work on — guaranteed.But again — that’s not what the Bible says.The apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, told them to test themselves to see if they were in the faith — “examine yourselves!” he exclaimed (2 Corinthians 13:5). It’s never wrong to thoughtfully examine our own hearts to ensure we’re on the right track.So having established that it’s not wrong — and in fact, it's desirable to examine ourselves — let’s answer the million-dollar question: How do we know we are saved?1. Understand what happens at salvationObviously, you won’t know if you’re saved if you don’t know what being saved means. It means that God has freely given you:Eyes to see the truth of the gospel. You sincerely believe that Jesus lived, died, and rose again to pay for your sins.A heart to repent. You recognize your sin separates you from a holy God, and you want to pivot to a life in relationship with your creator. You want to align with His plans for your life, not your own.In that moment when those things happen, God does a miracle:He brings a dead person to life.He wipes your slate clean (even the sins you’ll still commit) because they were all nailed to the cross, so you are now justified — you are officially “righteous” because you are cleansed.You are saved from eternal separation from God (hell).God Himself, the Holy Spirit, comes to dwell in you, and the process of your sanctification (becoming more like Christ) begins. (It will take your whole life!) The Holy Spirit also seals you in Him, which means you will never lose this salvation.You are promised that one day you will be glorified, which means when you die, you will be free of all worldly cares and sins and will be in the very presence of Jesus.So in light of the mind-boggling gifts you, the new believer, have just been granted — how else do you know you’re saved?2. Learn to recognize the presence of the Holy SpiritIn his letter to the Ephesians, Paul says:In Him, you also, after listening to the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation — having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. (Ephesians 1:13-14)The Bible is clear that the Holy Spirit indwells us at the moment of salvation. It is not something that comes later, as some mistakenly teach. His presence in us is indeed proof of our salvation:However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. (Romans 8:9)And later in that same chapter:For as many as are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. ... The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God. (Romans 8:14, 16)So — the Holy Spirit in us helps us know that we belong to God. How, exactly?Well, are you different than you were before you believed? Or more accurately, do you desire to be different, to love and serve the God who saved you? (Because it’s always about the heart’s desire, not some perfect behavior.)If you want to change your life to align with God, that prompting is coming from the Holy Spirit. The Spirit’s assurance works in tandem with something else though.3. Use scripture as a mirrorAre you reading and studying the Bible? Again — more precisely — do you have the desire to do so, even if you struggle to find a place for that in your busy schedule? Because the Holy Spirit will convict you of your need to be in the Word. If you’re feeling that prodding, that is itself an assurance of salvation. The Holy Spirit is in you, working.And when you obey that prompting, He will illuminate the Bible for you to help you begin to become more like Jesus. As you examine your thoughts and attitudes and actions in the clear light of scriptural teaching, the Spirit will show you things to work on — guaranteed.If you are wanting to be in the Word and wanting to obey the Spirit’s leading to change as you learn — that is a powerful assurance of your salvation.RELATED: The laws freaked-out AI founders want won't save us from tech slavery if we reject Christ's message Photo by Bloomberg/Getty Images4. Seek out other believersAre you in relationships with other believers? Are you going to or at least looking for a church? This life can’t be lived sitting on the sofa watching screen church — it requires real human interaction due to (among other things) the commandment Jesus gave us to love one another, which is impossible from your comfy couch.Again, it comes down to obedience. The Spirit will prompt you to seek out other believers, because God designed us to be in those relationships, serving and loving each other, and being served and loved.If you’re obeying Him in this, that is also a powerful assurance that you are saved, because stepping into an entirely new group of people we’ve never met before —which is how most of us start finding a church — does not come particularly easy to anyone.5. Check your life for 'fruit of the Spirit'The Bible brims with teaching about fruit — we’re supposed to produce good fruit as followers of Jesus. More on this here, but for now, let’s look at what the Bible explicitly calls out as the “fruit of the Spirit” living in us (Galatians 5:22-23):LoveJoyPeacePatienceKindnessGoodnessFaithfulnessGentlenessSelf-controlJohn MacArthur calls this “attitude fruit” — the attitudes we should begin to exhibit once we are saved. So that’s the fruit of the Spirit — attitudes the Spirit helps us develop.But in that same chapter of Galatians, Paul also lists some opposites. “Deeds of the flesh” he calls them, which include:Sexual immoralityImpuritySensualityIdolatrySorceryEnmitiesStrifeJealousyOutbursts of angerSelfish ambitionFactionsEnvying dissensionsDrunkennessCarousing“and things like these”So are you more characterized by deeds of the flesh or the Spirit?Or again let’s ask the right question — which do you desire to be more characteristic in your life? If it’s the good stuff, that is a desire implanted by the Holy Spirit within you — again, an assurance of salvation. And He will help you transform that desire more and more into reality, which will strengthen your assurance as well.6. See how others have tackled this questionQ: What are some of the signs of genuine saving faith?A: From the excellent website gotquestions.orgQ: What kind of things do and do not prove the genuineness of saving faith?A: From Grace to You, John MacArthur’s website7. Take heart from the words of JesusAs I’ve written before, the question isn’t “will you believe in Jesus?” The question is “will you follow Jesus?”If you repented and believed (described above), and now your desire is to follow Him and become more like Him — that desire is from the Holy Spirit within you, and you are assuredly saved. As Jesus said:My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish — ever; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one. (John 10:27-30)A version of this essay previously appeared on She Speaks Truth.

President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice is moving to denaturalize a former mayor in Florida for allegedly misrepresenting his identity and immigration history to become a U.S. citizen.Philippe Bien-Aime was first elected mayor of North Miami in 2019, but resigned in 2022 to lead an unsuccessful bid for the Miami-Dade County Commission.'The complaint alleges that this defendant built his citizenship on fraud — using false identities, false statements, and a sham marriage to evade a lawful removal order.'The DOJ filed a denaturalization case against Bien-Aime on February 18.Prosecutors state Bien-Aime “willfully misrepresented his identity and immigration history throughout the naturalization process,” WTVJ reported.Department of Homeland Security records, including fingerprint comparisons, found that Bien-Aime was previously ordered removed from the U.S. under the name Philippe Janvier, court documents claimed.An immigration judge found in 2000 that Janvier entered the U.S. by fraudulently using a photo-switched passport. The judge ordered his deportation to his country of birth, Haiti. RELATED: Kentucky driver’s licensing scandal: 5 charged for allegedly illegally issuing licenses to immigrants in exchange for cash Photo by J. David Ake/Getty Images“In 2001, Bien-Aime was placed in removal proceedings and ordered removed under the Janvier identity,” a DOJ press release read. “He appealed the removal order, but he withdrew the appeal, representing that he had returned to live in Haiti. In reality, Bien-Aime remained in the United States and, using the new name and date of birth, married a U.S. citizen to obtain permanent resident status."The DOJ claimed the marriage was fraudulent and invalid because he was already married to a Haitian citizen."After making numerous false and fraudulent statements in adjustment and naturalization proceedings, he naturalized in 2006 under the Bien-Aime identity," the department stated.RELATED: Stopping the steal: Sen. Lee, Republicans demand Election Day integrity ahead of SCOTUS fight over 'rolling' ballot counts Photo by John Moore/Getty ImagesIf the DOJ’s denaturalization case against Bien-Aime is successful, it could raise legal questions about his time in office, WTVJ reported.Peterson St. Philippe, Bien-Aime’s attorney, told the Miami Herald, “We believe it is appropriate to address the allegations through the judicial process rather than through public commentary. We trust that any reporting will reflect that the matter remains unresolved and that no findings have been made.”North Miami Mayor Alix Desulme told the news outlet that he and his administration were unaware of the claims against Bien-Aime.“The complaint alleges that this defendant built his citizenship on fraud — using false identities, false statements, and a sham marriage to evade a lawful removal order,” said U.S. Attorney Jason A. Reding Quiñones for the Southern District of Florida. “The fact that he later served as an elected mayor makes the alleged deception even more serious, because public office carries a duty of candor and respect for the rule of law.”“This administration will not permit fraudsters and tricksters who cheat their way to the gift of U.S. citizenship,” stated Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the DOJ’s Civil Division. “The passage of time does not diminish blatant immigration fraud.”Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

CNN's Jake Tapper Notes Kash Patel Was Interviewed by His Former Deputy Director and Gets Some Reminders