New polling from Pew Research shows a massive contrast in opinions about Israel between younger Republicans and their older allies.

The polling, conducted in late March, additionally showed not only the typical divide between conservatives and liberals with regard to support of Israel, but also a growing, unfavorable view of Israel and President Donald Trump’s ability to handle relations with Israeli leaders.

‘Across all US adults, 60% have an unfavorable view of Israel.’

While the majority of Republicans still have a favorable view of Israel, younger party members are currently showing the lowest level of support of any demographic.

For Republicans over 50, just 24% have a “very/somewhat unfavorable” opinion of Israel. That number is 57% for the 18-49 age group, up seven points in just one year, and showing a glaring 33-point difference within the party.

Democrats are more unified about their dislike of Israel. Just four points separate the two age groups, averaging out to an 80% negative view of the country overall.

Across all U.S. adults, 60% have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53% in 2025, Pew Research reported.

When it comes to confidence in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the sentiment among young Republicans remains the same. When asked if they have confidence in Netanyahu to “do the right thing regarding world affairs,” just 25% of Republicans 18-49 have some or a lot of confidence, while 58% said they have “not too much” or none at all.

RELATED: MEMBERS ONLY: Pro-Palestine posting no problem with ‘penis,’ claims fired Kate Beckinsale

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Republicans over 50 are confident in Netanyahu by a net of 66%, with just 30% having a net negative level of confidence in him. This demographic has the most confidence in Prime Minister Netanyahu.

At the same time, more than 75% of Democrats have little or no faith in the Israeli leader’s ability to do the right thing.

Moreover, according to the poll, Republicans have the biggest contrast in opinions when it comes to the importance of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

RELATED: Israel ramps up attacks on Middle East target despite US-Iran ceasefire

Gergely BESENYEI/AFP/Getty Images

In terms of those who said the conflict between Israel and Hamas is important to them personally, Republicans over 50 years old found it important most often at a rate of 69%. That was 12 points more than the second-highest group, which was Democrats over 50 years old.

Republicans ages 18-49, however, were the demographic most likely to say the conflict was not personally important to them at 41%, seven points higher than Democrats of the same age.

In the end, Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to have confidence in President Trump’s handling of the United States’ relations with Israel, with nearly three-quarters either somewhat or very confident in him.

More than 80% of Democrats polled said they were not too confident or not at all confident in Trump’s handling of the situation.

The survey was conducted March 23-29 and involved 3,507 U.S. adults.

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

​News, Polling, Israel, Netanyahu, Trump, Palestine, Hamas, Republicans, Liberals, Democrats, Conservatives, Polls, Politics 

Conspiracy theories are swirling after several prominent U.S. scientists and defense researchers with ties to classified aerospace, nuclear, and UFO projects died or mysteriously vanished under suspicious circumstances in recent years.

Rumors about cover-ups, assassinations, and even stranger theories are ramping up, and now even mainstream outlets are beginning to take notice.

On a recent episode of “Pat Gray Unleashed,” Pat, Keith Malinak, and Jeffy watched and reacted to a recent segment from Fox News host Will Cain, who laid out seven of the most striking cases and asked the obvious question: Are these incidents connected, or is this just a tragic coincidence?

Cain presented the following cases of scientists and defense researchers who died or disappeared under suspicious circumstances:

Carl Grillmair: Caltech astrophysicist who worked on a NASA-supported space telescope project and infrared systems; “shot and killed at his home just two months ago.”Frank Maiwald: Senior scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab; “died nearly two years ago, but his cause of death has never been made public.”Monica Reza: NASA/JPL-connected aerospace scientist; disappeared while hiking in California last summer.William McCasland: Retired Air Force major general who formerly commanded the Air Force Research Lab and oversaw classified aerospace R&D; vanished from his home in February 2026. He had a direct professional connection to Monica Reza through funding her earlier materials research project.Melissa Casias: Worked an administrative role at Los Alamos National Lab with security clearances; has been “missing since last summer.”Anthony Chavez: Longtime Los Alamos National Laboratory employee; disappeared while out for a walk in May 2025.Nuno Loureiro: MIT plasma and fusion physicist; shot and killed in December 2025 at his home in Brookline, Massachusetts, after answering the doorbell.

Cain noted the overlap in their sensitive research ties, pointing out the same handful of institutions — NASA, Air Force Research, Los Alamos Laboratory — and asked: “Could they be connected, or is this something else entirely?”

Pat calls the entire situation “bizarre” and reacts with his trademark skepticism. To hear his full take and what he thinks might really be going on, watch the episode above.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat’s biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Pat gray, Pat gray unleashed, Blazetv, Blaze media, Ufo, Nasa, Los alamos, Missing scientists 

Students have always enjoyed flaunting revolutionary politics — the posters, the slogans, the Che Guevara T-shirts.

Like gender fluidity and ultimate frisbee, these radical affectations often don’t survive graduation. It’s a tale as old as time: One day you’re shouting into a bullhorn; the next, you’re typing on Slack.

Members also earn ‘rays’ on a Sunrise patch as they progress through the ranks — a visible marker of participation and standing within the organization.

What does endure, however, is the sophisticated political machinery designed to harness this youthful fervor and put it into action.

‘Political revolution’

This week, watchdog group Defending Education published internal documents outlining a coordinated push for political upheaval from one of the country’s most visible youth activist organizations.

The Sunrise Movement is a 501(c)(4) environmental organization that describes itself as “a movement of young people fighting to stop the climate crisis.”

But slides leaked to Defending Education from a March 17, 2026, membership meeting reveal a highly structured and strategic operation calling for a “political revolution” and “structurally chang[ing] the foundations of this country” — language that goes well beyond climate advocacy.

The message is as simple as it is sobering: The goal is not reform, but replacement.

The revelation here is not the Sunrise Movement’s rhetoric. “Revolution” is already central to the group’s public-facing language; its homepage describes itself as part of a broader climate revolution. What the slides add is clarity: That “revolution” is not just metaphor, but a program laid out in concrete terms, from pressure campaigns and mass noncooperation to institutional targeting.

Defending Education

Path to a ‘New System’

The goal: “Eco-socialism, [a] multi-racial democracy, and Green New Deal legislation.”

A section titled “On the Road to Revolution” lays out a path to a “New System” — including passing Green New Deal policies and “ending the billionaire 2-party system.”

The slides also describe a strategy of “repolarizing” the country. One passage calls for “get[ting] majority of society out in the streets and an explosion in voting,” arguing that “we need to repolarize society” to move people away from what it describes as a “(corrupt) system” and toward a new one with “more democracy.”

Target: Hilton

The materials also outline how that shift is meant to occur in practice — through a sequence of escalating actions tied to specific campaigns.

It begins with a March 28 No Kings event and builds toward a May 1 national strike. In between: sustained pressure.

A slide titled “Hilton to May Day” points to coordinated economic disruption, including efforts to target “ICE enabler” Hilton Hotels over its alleged ties to immigration enforcement. Tactics listed include public boycotts, so-called “wide awake actions,” and coordinated booking and canceling of hotel reservations — designed to impose financial and reputational costs.

Defending Education

‘Dawn’ to ‘Dusk’

The slides also lay out what the group calls its internal “culture” — a set of guiding principles members are expected to adopt. The language reads less like loose organizing advice and more like a shared creed: “Nothing about us without us,” “Motivate the base, isolate the opposition,” and “It is our duty to fight for our freedom, it is our duty to win.” The effect is to define not just tactics, but a common vocabulary and moral framework for participants.

Another section details a tiered membership structure, with clearly defined ranks — “Dawn,” “Morning,” “High Noon,” “Afternoon,” and “Dusk” — each tied to specific benchmarks: recruiting new members, completing actions, attending meetings, and undergoing training. Advancement comes with increasing responsibilities, access, and internal status.

Members also earn “rays” on a Sunrise patch as they progress through the ranks — a visible marker of participation and standing within the organization. The structure resembles a formal pipeline, designed to scale participation and develop organizers over time.

‘Full Dictatorship’

The presentation outlines three possible futures, each portraying the current system as compromised and the stakes as existential — conditions that, in the materials’ framing, justify escalation.

The most extreme — “Full Dictatorship” — imagines Donald Trump consolidating power, using the military against opponents, and restricting speech.

The function is clear: Escalation isn’t optional. It’s required.

Defending Education

Defending Education

Defending Education, formerly Parents Defending Education, has focused on political activity in schools — curriculum, student protests, and institutional ties to advocacy groups.

Defending Education was founded in 2021 amid a surge of parental backlash to politicized curricula and school policies. The group uses public records requests, whistleblower tips, and document releases to surface what it describes as ideological activism inside education systems.

RELATED: Defending Education gives parents tools to fight leftist indoctrination

In recent years, it has zeroed in on the overlap between student organizing and outside advocacy groups — arguing that protests framed as grassroots are often supported and shaped by national networks. The Sunrise materials, it says, fit that pattern.

The Sunrise Movement has been linked to student walkouts, including protests tied to immigration enforcement. What the newly released slides add, Defending Education argues, is a clearer picture of how that organizing is structured and scaled.

“While calls for a ‘political revolution’ by left-wing activist groups are not unique, these coordinated plans to put economic and social pressure on universities … should raise serious concerns,” said Rhyen Staley, director of research at Defending Education.

“Our academic institutions should be places of higher learning … not weaponized or punished to achieve a ‘structural change’ to the political foundations of this country.”

Defending Education

Pushing left

Founded in 2017, the Sunrise Movement helped drive the Green New Deal into the political mainstream through protests, sit-ins, and youth mobilization.

The Sunrise Movement operates as a decentralized network of local “hubs,” many based on college and high school campuses. That structure has allowed it to scale quickly — turning student energy into coordinated national campaigns.

Since its founding, the Sunrise Movement has proven itself an effective pressure group within Democrat politics, helping push climate policy from the margins to the center of the party’s agenda. Its early backing of the Green New Deal helped turn what was once a fringe proposal into a defining litmus test for progressive candidates.

The group also played a visible role during the 2020 election cycle, applying sustained pressure on Joe Biden and his campaign to adopt more aggressive climate positions. While not all of its demands were met, Sunrise and allied activists helped shape the administration’s climate framework — demonstrating that its model of protest plus pressure can move policy, not just headlines.

Its strategy has consistently blended electoral pressure with direct action. What the newly released slides suggest is a continuation of that model, but with a more explicit emphasis on escalation and institutional leverage.

For a generation told that it is inheriting a world on the brink, the climate is the cause. For groups like Sunrise Movement, the target is something more immediate: the system itself.

What emerges is not just a campaign for the planet, but a bid to reshape political power around a broader program of systemic change.

​Lifestyle, Culture, Defending education, Culture war, Sunrise movement, Activism, Environmental activism, Radical politics, Education, Counterrevolution 

A man convicted for raping an elderly woman and tying her up will spend decades in prison after Ohio police were able to find one thumbprint from the crime scene.

Columbus police said they were called to the Eastmoor neighborhood on Jan. 13 on reports of a rape.

‘This is the nightmare every woman fears. I cannot think of a worse set of facts.’

The 87-year-old woman told police that she awoke to find a man in all black and wearing a ski mask standing over her. He raped her and then tied her up before leaving her in her kitchen.

It took her about three hours to free herself, and then she discovered that he had stolen her car from a detached garage.

Detectives said they were able to identify a suspect through a thumbprint that was found on a bottle of disinfectant wipes. The suspect lived only a few blocks away from the victim.

They arrested 31-year-old Miguel Rodriguez Rolon two days later.

Family members of the victim said she used a walker to get to the court stand and testified against Rolon.

He was found guilty in March of two counts of rape, one count of kidnapping, and one count of aggravated burglary. He was sentenced to at least 84 years in prison.

RELATED: Thug who brutally raped 94-year-old in broad daylight had just been released after other rape charge was dropped, police say

Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Chris Brown excoriated Rolon and called his crime “completely evil” during sentencing.

“It is completely evil to rape an 87-year-old woman. This is the nightmare every woman fears. I cannot think of a worse set of facts,” Brown said. “You’re the reason we build prisons in this country.”

Her family said she still faces a long rehabilitation process, but they are happy that justice was served in the case.

Rolon will also have to register as a Tier III sex offender.

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

​Miguel rodriguez rolon, Rape of elderly man, Ohio elderly rape, Rapist gets 84 years in prison, Crime 

U.S. Special Forces recently rescued a pair of downed airmen in Iran. As the stories begin to be disseminated, many in the audience — but sadly, not all in the West, or in America — will listen and read with awe, pride, and patriotism. Most will do so at least until the next exciting event comes along.

Where does the moral imperative of ‘no one is left behind’ come from?

The day after the rescue, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated President Donald Trump and the Americans who pulled off this daring, high-risk mission. Netanyahu said, in part:

All Israelis rejoice in the incredible rescue of a brave American pilot, by America’s dauntless warriors. This proves that when free societies muster their courage, and their resolve, they can confront seemingly insurmountable odds, and overcome the forces of darkness and terror. This rescue operation reinforces a sacred principle: No one is left behind.

The prime minister’s words were appropriate and inspiring. He stated, as have other early reporters, that the Israelis and Americans share “a sacred principle: No one is left behind.” But so far, has anyone — including Netanyahu — made an effort to convey what I suggest to be the single most important piece of information relevant to this — or to any — rescue mission?

Where does the moral imperative of “no one is left behind” come from?

It comes directly from the Book of Genesis. There we read — no less than four times — that God created man in His own image.

In these passages, mankind is said to bear the Imago Dei, the image of God. This means that the individual person, regardless of status, wealth, merit, or demerit, possesses inherent value and dignity. That is why in the West — where the Jewish and Christian scriptures historically were foundational — our rock-solid commitment has been to ensure “no one is left behind.”

If one doubts this assertion, look no further than the military traditions in the non-West — though some in the non-West have adopted Western military values (if not civil values in certain cases), particularly in the Far East.

The reality has been, historically, that outside of the West where the cultural understanding of the Imago Dei was foundational, individual persons were valued only insofar as they were of some use to the community, society, or the state.

In the military context, it was perhaps not surprising that in the Korean conflict, the Soviet military placed rescue as a low priority for its MiG-15 pilots.

Among the many danger signs in the West for decades has been the adoption and implementation by governments of ideas and practices grossly antithetical to the scripture-based teachings of individual dignity, which flow from the image of God in man — from abortion and euthanasia to the depriving of liberty of conscience and freedom of religion.

RELATED: I saw the sky light up over Dubai. The real shock came next.

AFP/Getty Images

The neo-Marxist-based diversity and cancel culture movements have contributed their share to this destructive trend.

So while most once-traditional markers of the West are losing ground, the “sacred principle” expressed by Prime Minister Netanyahu, for now, remains compelling among certain Western militaries, especially America and Israel.

This no-one-left-behind principle was prominently displayed in the air for the first time during the Korean conflict, by which time technological advances made combat rescue a realistic option. The foremost technological advance for this mission was the same type of aircraft that rescued our two Airmen in Iran — the helicopter.

During World War II, as my mentor, friend, and noted air power historian Dr. Earl H. Tilford Jr. wrote, “An aircrew member downed behind enemy lines was virtually certain of capture or death.” But in Korea, a few years later, the young U.S. Air Force’s Air Rescue Service demonstrated with employment of its H-5 and H-19 helicopters and SA-16 amphibian fixed-wing aircraft that combat air rescue was viable.

It was also in Korea that the Air Rescue motto and the Rescue culture were born. Every Rescue member understood that should the unthinkable happen to a U.S. or U.N. airman, and he was forced to leave his aircraft over enemy territory or the adversary’s waters, Rescue crews would risk their lives to fulfill their motto, “That Others May Live.”

But to return to the moral imperative once more. As I wrote in 2020:

In one rescue attempt in December 1969, a total of 336 sorties were flown in support of one F-4 navigator downed near Tchepone, Laos. One pararescueman died, several others were wounded. Of 10 helicopters damaged in the operation, five never flew again. As [Tilford] wrote, “Yet no one asked if the life of one man was worth all the effort.” The question was unnecessary.

The question was not required because the Western culture of the day — though it was beginning to fade — affirmed the inherent dignity of the individual, created in the image of God.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

​Iran war, Moral imperative, Airmen rescue, Pararescue, Operation epic fury, Trump, Israel, Benjamin netanyahu, U.s. special forces, Opinion & analysis 

For decades, we have been told that we may not be able to end abortion, but we can reduce it. Political reality requires patience. Incremental laws, strategic compromises, and careful coalition-building will, over time, bend the curve downward.

Fewer abortions this year than last. Fewer still the next. This is what we’ve been told, but the numbers are not bending in the right direction.

The same movement that insists on the humanity of the unborn defends strategies that refuse to treat that humanity as legally binding.

In 2020, the United States saw roughly 930,000 abortions. By 2024, annual abortions had surpassed 1 million again. Monthly averages have continued to rise, moving from roughly 88,000 per month in 2023 to nearly 100,000 per month by 2025 — estimated at over 1.1 million abortions a year.

This is not the trajectory we were promised.

Even in a post-Dobbs world — after decades of work, millions of dollars, and countless political victories — abortion remains not only legal in much of the country, but increasingly accessible.

According to the standard used to justify compromise, the results of our efforts have been thoroughly unimpressive.

If compromise is justified because it reduces abortion, what happens when it does not? If the entire framework rests on pragmatic outcomes, then those outcomes must be honestly measured. If they fail, the justification collapses with them.

The central question, though, was never whether compromise works. The central question is whether compromise is obedience.

Scripture is not silent on this. “To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). That statement assumes that what is right is already understood — and then confronts the refusal to act on it.

That is where the abortion debate now stands.

RELATED: At its core, the abortion debate is very simple

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

For decades, the pro-life movement has argued — rightly — that the unborn child is fully human. Not partially or potentially human. Not a life that becomes valuable later. A human being, made in the image of God, from the moment of conception.

And yet, that premise is not applied in law.

Equal justice is withheld. Justice is knowingly delayed. Entire classes of human beings are acknowledged in rhetoric and denied in practice — through heartbeat bills, 20-week bans, and fetal pain bills.

The same movement that insists on the humanity of the unborn defends strategies that refuse to treat that humanity as legally binding.

To know that a child is fully human and yet defend a legal framework that allows that child to be killed is not a lesser evil. It is a greater evil — because it is compounded.

Scripture goes further. When knowledge increases, so does accountability. When leaders teach truth, they are bound to it. And when they fail to act on what they teach, they do not merely err — they invite judgment.

We have been told to evaluate abortion policy on outcomes alone. But Scripture does not separate outcomes from obedience. It ties them together. God does not bless disobedience because it is politically strategic.

When disobedience is institutionalized — when it becomes the operating principle of a movement — the results should not surprise us.

RELATED: The collapse of conservatism nobody wants to admit

Blaze Media Illustration

Abortion does not decrease under compromise because compromise is not a neutral tool. It is a moral decision. It trains a culture to tolerate the very evil it claims to oppose. It teaches legislators to delay what they confess is urgent. It forms a people who say that the unborn are fully human, while structuring their laws as though they are not.

This is why the numbers do not tell the story we were promised. Not because the strategy was insufficiently refined, but because it was fundamentally misaligned. The issue is not that we have failed to compromise enough. It is that we have compromised at all.

God does not require political feasibility. He requires obedience.

Obedience does not ask how much injustice can be tolerated while we make progress. It asks what justice demands — and then establishes it.

Until that shift is made, the pattern will remain. More laws, more campaigns, more assurances of progress — and the same or worse results. Not because we lack the power to change it, but because we refuse to apply what we already know to be true. Until we do what is right, we should not expect the numbers to change — because God does not bless disobedience. He judges it.

That is why we must fight to establish equal justice under the law for our preborn neighbors — not by regulating abortion, but by abolishing it.

​Abortion, Roe v wade, Dobbs v. jackson, Pro life, Scripture, Obedience, Republicans, Political compromise, Opinion & analysis