Citizen Sourced

Beginning in March–April 2026, families attending Marine Corps graduations at Parris Island will face ICE screening at the gates.¹ While the government cites legal authority under federal immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1357) and standard base security rules,² the real issue isn’t legality—it’s judgment. A Marine Corps graduation is a sacred national moment, not an immigration checkpoint. Blending security screening with immigration enforcement shifts the purpose of the gate from protecting people to evaluating who “belongs,” creating fear and discouraging families—especially immigrant families—from attending.¹ Even without arrests, the presence of ICE sends a damaging message: that the families of those willing to serve the country may still be treated with suspicion.¹ ³ It also blurs the line between military honor and domestic enforcement—something officials themselves have acknowledged is unprecedented in recent memory.³ The government may have the authority to do this—but using it her...

In a March 13 Pentagon press briefing, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made headlines with a stark declaration about the ongoing conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran. Statements like “no quarter, no mercy for our enemies” have sparked alarm among international law scholars and civil liberties advocates because of what the phrase “no quarter” actually means in the laws of war¹. For much of modern history, “no quarter” has been understood in military contexts to mean an order that enemy combatants should not be taken prisoner and must be killed even if they are incapacitated or have surrendered². Under established international humanitarian law — the body of legal rules governing conduct in war — issuing such a directive is more than aggressive rhetoric; it is expressly prohibited and considered a war crime¹ ². The prohibition against declaring that “no quarter will be given” dates back at least to the 1907 Hague Convention, an early 20th‑century treaty to which the...

I saw a post recently that got people talking: it linked Iran—ancient Persia—and its 47 years under the Islamic regime to Isaiah 45, and then suggested that President Trump, as the 47th president, is a modern-day Cyrus. I get why people find that tempting, but it’s worth taking a closer look. Isaiah 45 is really clear about who it’s talking about. God calls Cyrus, a pagan king of Persia, His “anointed,” because He positioned him to free the Jewish exiles and rebuild Jerusalem¹. That was a very specific mission at a very specific time. Connecting it to a modern U.S. president just doesn’t line up. In the Bible, “chosen ones” aren’t just anyone in power. They’re people God directly appoints for a divine purpose with eternal or covenantal significance. Think Cyrus¹, David², or Jesus Christ³. Modern presidents, including Trump, are elected through political systems—not by God in the same sense. So any claim that Trump is “God’s chosen one” is just human speculation, not biblical fact. The ...