Return to sender.

That’s the message two Republican lawmakers have regarding the Biden’s administration’s $3 billon contract for 55,000 electric postal trucks.

‘I am defunding this billion-dollar boondoggle to stamp out waste in Washington. Tax dollars should always be treated with first-class priority.’

That’s enough to replace a quarter of the USPS fleet. So far, the Wisconsin-based defense contractor Oshkosh has delivered a whopping 93 vehicles.

At at that rate, they should be done by the time we open the first post office on Mars.

Par for the course for any government EV initiative. As are the reported cost overruns. Fortunately, we’ve entered the DOGE age. And two members of the caucus — Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Representative Michael Cloud (R-Texas) — are demanding your money back with the “Return to Sender Act.”

The act seeks to rescind the entirety of the $3 billion, allocated under the Biden administration’s 2022 “Inflation Reduction Act.”

ATTN: Kamala

That’s the same IRA Kamala Harris loved to brag about on the 2024 campaign trail. After all, she cast the tiebreaking Senate vote to pass it. And now she doesn’t mind admitting that the whole thing is really just a backdoor enactment of the Green New Deal, which pushes for a massive shift to zero-emission transport.

The agreement with Oshkosh called for an initial order of 50,000 electric delivery trucks over a three-year period that started in 2022, meaning they’re way behind schedule, with less than 0.2% delivered by late 2024.

And here we thought EVs were more efficient.

“Biden’s EV postal fleet is lost in the mail,” said Ernst, who is also DOGE Caucus chair. “The order needs to be canceled with the unspent money returned to sender, the taxpayers. I am defunding this billion-dollar boondoggle to stamp out waste in Washington. Tax dollars should always be treated with first-class priority.”

Cloud echoed these sentiments, highlighting reports suggesting that the price per truck has jumped from $55,000 to over $70,000.

‘We don’t know how’

Oshkosh is believed to be struggling with the production of the electric Postal Service vehicles, with insiders claiming the contractor is uncertain it can build the trucks effectively under the terms of the former Biden government’s contract. Furthermore, rising costs have compounded the project’s delays.

The Washington Post reported that Oshkosh’s CEO expressed satisfaction with the project’s status, stating the company is “really happy where we are.” However, internal sources revealed challenges, with one individual commenting, “We don’t know how to build a damn truck.”

Mail bomb

A USPS spokesperson defended the initiative, stating that fleet modernization is central to the Postal Service’s “Delivering for America” plan — a 2021 strategy to revamp the struggling USPS with new tech and a greener fleet to meet federal emission cuts by 2030.

The USPS reiterated the commitment to environmentally sustainable vehicles, aligning with financial and operational considerations, and affirmed that deliveries of new vehicles remain on schedule.

As the “Return to Sender Act” progresses, it will serve as a focal point for discussions on fiscal responsibility and the role of oversight in government-funded initiatives. This fight isn’t just about mail trucks — it’s a test case for whether Biden-era green spending can survive a new wave of Republican oversight, especially with the 2026 midterms looming.

​Lauren fix, Usps, Inflation reduction act, Doge, Joni ernst, Michael cloud, Gop, Lifestyle, Green initiative, Oshkosh, Align cars 

On Valentine’s Day this year, 26-year-old conservative influencer Ashley St. Clair posted on X that she had given birth to Elon Musk’s 13th child five months prior. A whirlwind of drama immediately followed with Elon allegedly ignoring St. Clair and refusing to acknowledge the child. A few days later, St. Clair submitted two petitions to the New York Supreme Court: a paternity petition to legally establish Musk as the father of her son and a custody petition seeking sole legal and physical custody.

Neither petition has been granted.

Fast-forward a couple of months, and now the drama is even messier. Yesterday, St. Clair was spotted outside her Manhattan apartment handing over the keys to her black Tesla Model S to a representative from Carvana, an online auto sales company. She told a Daily Mail reporter that she was selling the $100,000 vehicle because Elon Musk had cut her child support by 60%.

“I need to make up for the 60% cut that Elon made to our son’s child support,” she said.

Musk, responding to an X post by Laura Loomer, in which she called St. Clair a “gold digger,” said, “I don’t know if the child is mine or not, but am not against finding out. No court order is needed. Despite not knowing for sure, I have given Ashley $2.5M and am sending her $500k/year.”

Which narrative is closer to the truth? Is Musk an absent, penny-pinching father? Or is Ashley St. Clair really just a gold digger?

Pat Gray wades into the public scandal.

“He’s given her $2.5 million and $500K a year. I’m sorry, if you can’t get by on that, I can’t help you. I mean, that’s more than enough child support,” he says.

“Unleashed” producer Kris Kruz points out that the Tesla St. Clair sold, as well as the Manhattan apartment she’s living in, were both paid for by Musk.

What Elon needs to do, says Pat, is just take the paternity test to find out if all this headache is even necessary.

To hear more of the panel’s commentary and see some of the back and forth between St. Clair and Musk, watch the clip 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, Ashley st. clair, Elon musk, Baby mama, Elon musk children, Blazetv, Blaze media 

“Top Gun” is Tom Cruise’s movie, but Maverick never could have soared without Lieutenant Tom “Iceman” Kazansky goading him on.

The same could be said of the film’s decades-in-the-making sequel: Without Val Kilmer reprising his role, “Top Gun: Maverick” wouldn’t have flown so high.

‘I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, “… I drank what?”‘

The 2022 film proved to be Kilmer’s last. Robbed of the ability to speak by throat cancer, Kilmer still managed to summon that old chemistry with Cruise. Rivals turned friends, but still marked by their differences: the tightly controlled perfectionist vs. the showboating risk-taker.

The Iceman goeth

Observe the two men’s careers, and you notice that the roles are reversed. Cruise is the meticulous planner, unwilling to leave the slightest detail to chance. His sheer discipline has helped him remain not just one of the last standing ’80s stars but one of the last viable movie stars, period.

As for Kilmer … he initially didn’t want the Iceman role and tried to sabotage his audition. He got the part anyway. Bigger parts followed, and he played them with memorable, unpredictable intensity.

But in the process he developed a reputation for being “difficult” on set, with multiple directors vowing never to work with him again. He was finished as a leading man long before he got sick.

No matter. Yes, Kilmer is famous for playing Batman and Jim Morrison, but the tributes in the wake of Kilmer’s death at 65 this week suggest that his most beloved work was done in smaller roles: Doc Holliday in “Tombstone,” Robert De Niro’s partner in crime in “Heat,” a kind of guardian angel Elvis in “True Romance.”

All fine choices. But as long as we’re assembling the Kilmer canon, I’d like to submit his top-billed performances in two movies that have since fallen into semi-obscurity: 1985’s “Real Genius” and 2004’s “Spartan.”

A wisecracking ‘Genius’

They couldn’t be more different. “Real Genius” is a classic ’80s slobs vs. snobs comedy, following in the footsteps of “Animal House” and “Caddyshack.” The difference is that the “slobs” are all elite-level brainiacs, way smarter than you or me.

And that’s a good thing. “Compared to you, most people have the IQ of a carrot,” one character tells another. This is not a movie that finds measuring intelligence “problematic.”

It’s also not a movie to sacrifice wit for shock, despite its requisite raunchiness. As the movie’s prodigy turned slacker hero, Kilmer wanders through the film with a winning nonchalance, getting off wisecracks that sound positively Marx brothers-esque compared to today’s potty-mouthed dreck.

“So if there’s anything I can do for you — or, more to the point, to you — just let me know.”

“I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, ‘… I drank what?'”

And this endearingly hokey response to a professor’s demand that he “see more of you around the lab”: “Fine. I’ll gain weight.”

Kilmer makes it work.

A ‘Spartan’ action hero

The actor employs his laid-back cool to altogether different effect in “Spartan,” a global thriller with the claustrophobic intimacy of a play by David Mamet — who did in fact write and direct this one.

Kilmer plays Scott, a brutally efficient Secret Service agent enlisted to find the president’s daughter, kidnapped by sex traffickers. A big part of the movie’s pleasure is Mamet’s script; he allows the characters to pursue their mission without the kind of dumbed-down, expository dialogue that is usually inserted for the benefit of the audience.

The result is that we’re constantly straining to catch up to these professionals, fittingly played by unpretentious, seasoned pros like William H. Macy and Ed O’Neill, as they do their jobs. As the plot thickens and betrayals emerge, their confusion begins to mirror ours.

One thing that movies seem to have forgotten today is the art of suspense. The calm before the storm is just as important as the storm itself. Here Kilmer radiates calm; his measured yet charismatic performance keeps us hooked.

And he still manages a few good zingers amid the oblique Mametian philosophizing. When a colleague offers his name, Kilmer cracks, “Do I need to know that? If I want camaraderie, I’ll join the Masons.”

​Tribute, Culture, Hollywood, Val kilmer, Deaths, Tombstone, Real genius, Spartan, David mamet, Val kilmer: 1959-2025 

This week, Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, announced his organization’s support for President Trump’s trade policy. That includes backing Trump’s use of tariff threats to secure better trade deals with foreign nations.

The announcement reflects a broader shift underway at Heritage. Once a pillar of the conservative establishment, the think tank has moved toward a more populist, “America First” approach that challenges the traditional Republican consensus on trade.

We are a nation, not just a market. The only test that matters is whether a policy puts Americans first.

Predictably, critics from the old guard — such as Jonah Goldberg and John Podhoretz — emerged from their irrelevant holes to denounce Heritage for its betrayal of “conservative principles.” But these men, who haven’t conserved a blessed thing, have lost sight of a foundational truth: Economies should serve nations — not the other way around.

In theory, free trade eliminates barriers to the flow of goods and services across borders. The promise is that open markets lead to greater competition, more efficiency, and lower prices for all. British economist David Ricardo developed the idea of comparative advantage to support this model, arguing that trade benefits both countries when each focuses on what it produces most efficiently.

As scholar Neema Parvini has noted, however, Ricardo’s theory rested on key assumptions — most notably that labor and capital would remain largely fixed. That assumption no longer holds.

Ricardo never imagined a world where illegal immigration surged across borders or where corporations moved profits overseas to build factories in lower-cost countries. In fact, he warned against detaching economic decisions from national loyalty.

Ricardo believed a man’s attachment to his country would lead him to accept smaller profits at home rather than seek higher returns abroad. He viewed that sense of national loyalty as a natural barrier against global capital flight — and a necessary one. It would be a tragedy, he warned, if that bond ever broke.

The economist most often cited by free trade absolutists understood that theoretical models only work when grounded in reality. In Ricardo’s view, trade made sense only if individuals valued their nations more than the pursuit of maximum profit.

In an ideal world, workers and corporations would prioritize national loyalty over global opportunity, and all countries would reduce trade barriers. But we do not live in that world.

Many nations — even U.S. allies — routinely use tariffs and subsidies to give their domestic industries an edge. They do this while benefiting from a global trading system that operates securely and reliably, largely at America’s expense.

These countries act unapologetically in their national interest. The United States should do the same.

Free trade is not a moral imperative or an inherent good. It is an economic policy rooted in a theory about how trade functions. Those who promote it without question often ignore both the historical context in which Ricardo developed the theory and the realities of today’s global economy.

If free trade benefits the American people, we should pursue it. If it does not, we should adopt a policy that does.

Political theorist Russell Kirk argued that conservatism should never become ideological. Its first obligation is to the well-being of a particular people. Conservatism isn’t about abstract ideals or academic formulas — it’s about preserving a way of life, grounded in real communities and traditions.

Those who champion theory over lived experience are not conservatives. They are ideologues cloaked in the language of the right, often more interested in intellectual posturing than in preserving American life.

This is why rigid, neoconservative approaches to trade have so often failed. They claim to “conserve,” but in practice, they have eroded the very institutions and livelihoods they were meant to protect.

These ideas have been tested — and failed. For decades, the United States has acted as the only major economy fully committed to ideological free trade. The results have been disastrous.

Other nations talk about free trade but act in their own interest. They impose tariffs, protect key industries, and prioritize their citizens. They live in the real world — not in an academic simulation. It’s long past time for the United States to do the same.

Economists and other academics play an important role in society, but — as the COVID-19 catastrophe made clear — they should not have the final say in public policy. Experts offer valuable insights, but their knowledge often applies narrowly to specific fields. They tend to struggle when asked to apply that knowledge in broader, real-world contexts.

That’s why nations are governed by statesmen, not scientists or economists.

An economist may point out that producing antibiotics in China reduces costs. But that same economist cannot weigh the national risk if China, the sole supplier, becomes the source of a disease that only those now-imported antibiotics can treat. In that scenario, no amount of economic efficiency will save American lives.

Shifting U.S. trade policy to protect American interests does not betray conservative principles — it affirms them. The first duty of conservatism is to preserve the American people and their way of life.

Conservatives should adopt economic policies that serve that goal, but we must never treat those policies as ends in themselves. The economy is a tool, not a purpose.

Neoconservatives may mourn the loss of ideological purity, but their abstractions should not define national policy. We are a nation, not just a market. The only test that matters is whether a policy puts Americans first.

​David ricardo, Free trade, Fair trade, Tariffs, America first, Heritage foundation, Kevin roberts, Jonah goldberg, John podhoretz, Neocons, Economics, National interest, National security, China, Trade deficit, Middle class, Globalism, Opinion & analysis 

You can’t litigate your way out of an invasion.

Removal is not considered a criminal punishment but an administrative consequence of sovereignty. If it were treated as a form of punishment, it would require due process and could take months to remove even the worst offenders. We see that happening now, and we can no longer afford these delays.

President Donald Trump should challenge overreaching court rulings and use resources more effectively to maximize the number of removals.

End judicial tyranny

Imagine you are a liberal judge on the federal bench. You know the political system — including all three branches of government and both major parties — grants you sweeping authority to dictate policy through an injunction. Regardless of legal precedents, constitutional constraints, rules of standing, or national security concerns, you can issue an opinion that instantly becomes “the law of the land.” Why wouldn’t you exploit that power like a judicial version of Kim Jong Un?

By cutting through the legal obstacles, ICE could apprehend and remove individuals in a single step.

At some point, we must stop blaming judges for legislating with impunity and start holding the other branches accountable for not just relinquishing their own power but for enabling judges to usurp the law. As St. George Tucker wrote in his commentaries on the Constitution, “If we consider the nature of the judicial authority, and the manner in which it operates, we shall discover that it cannot, of itself, oppress any individual; for the executive authority must lend its aid in every instance where oppression can ensue from its decisions.”

If President Trump is unwilling to simply ignore these lawless rulings, he should at least insist that Congress include a provision in a must-pass bill to eliminate all judicial review for deportations. At a minimum, lower courts should be removed from the process entirely. Unless a plaintiff files a habeas petition claiming the individual is actually a citizen or has been misidentified, all removals should be final.

We already have several million immigrants with criminal convictions living in this country, at least eight million who entered during Joe Biden’s term, and many others who arrived earlier. If we continue to extend this level of due process — whether through administrative courts or Article III courts — we risk undermining our sovereignty. This explains why Trump is averaging only a few hundred thousand removals annually at the current pace.

How did President Dwight D. Eisenhower manage to remove more than one million illegal aliens in just a few months in 1954 — after the passage of the modern Immigration and Nationality Act — without facing endless lawsuits? Today, every deportation becomes a legal battle.

Eisenhower’s administration had fewer resources, just 800 Border Patrol agents, and primitive technology. Still, they got the job done because they believed in themselves and in the nation. They also understood that you don’t repel an invasion through litigation. Our immigration system was never designed to grant full due process to individuals here illegally, and that principle should be clarified in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

When court proceedings — even in administrative courts — are required, Immigration and Customs Enforcement currently must provide detention space for each person it apprehends rather than taking them directly to the point of removal. By cutting through the legal obstacles, ICE could apprehend and remove individuals in a single step.

But how?

Maritime removals

Trump is currently using military and commercial flights to remove illegal aliens. Most flights carry only 100 to 200 passengers and are difficult to secure against potential unrest. They also cost more, rely on airports in potentially hostile countries, and require additional personnel.

A better option might be to use Navy and Coast Guard vessels from ports in Florida and Texas, which sit along the Gulf Coast toward Latin America. The president could also call on the Department of Transportation’s National Defense Reserve Fleet. This force of about 100 ships receives nearly $1 billion in annual appropriations and can be activated within 20 to 120 days for emergency sealift operations during wartime or in response to disasters.

The NDRF includes mostly cargo ships and tankers. Its Ready Reserve Force — comprised of 41 vessels — provides extra shipping capacity or rapid deployment for U.S. military forces. These ships are stationed at 18 ports, including three in Texas and one in Florida.

This fleet features National Security Multi-Mission Vessels, each able to carry 1,000 people — far more than the roughly 100-person capacity of a C-17 plane or the 150 to 200 seats on most commercial aircraft. These ships can stay at sea for 14 days without resupply and include medical facilities, enough space for 60 cargo containers, a helicopter landing pad, and roll-on/roll-off vehicle capacity. They could be activated immediately and based at a designated port along the Gulf of America.

By using these vessels, President Donald Trump could transport far more unauthorized immigrants for removal at a lower cost than air travel.

Call up National Guard

One major obstacle to large-scale deportations is a lack of detention space. Shifting to maritime operations would shorten the time illegal aliens spend in custody by reducing reliance on deportation flights. Newly apprehended people would enter detention as those previously held depart.

Yet, Trump doesn’t need hundreds of billions of dollars to build new detention facilities. During Operation Desert Storm, U.S. forces suddenly found themselves guarding 65,000 Iraqi prisoners of war who surrendered en masse. The military constructed temporary detention sites practically overnight. Trump could replicate this approach by ordering the National Guard to set up outdoor facilities near Gulf Coast “deportation ports.” It’s an inexpensive, efficient way to get the job done.

Trump will have only one shot to get mass deportations done right. If he deports just a few hundred thousand people each year despite a mandate to address the crisis, critics will say mass deportations are unworkable and push for amnesty. Now is the time for Trump to use every tool and resource at hand to meet that mandate.

​Donald trump, Mass deportations, Federal courts, Nationwide injunction, Judicial tyranny, Airlines, National guard, Airplanes, Ship, Dwight d. eisenhower, Operation wetback, Ports, Immigration and customs enforcement, Border crisis, Border wall, Detention centers, Opinion & analysis 

President Donald Trump followed through on his promise to hit many countries with new tariffs during a “Liberation Day” ceremony at the White House Wednesday.

The president brought out a large banner displaying the new rates of tariffs for many countries including Ukraine, China, the European Union, and Japan.

‘The pharmaceutical companies are going to come roaring back, they’re coming roaring back, they’re all coming back to our country because if they don’t, they got a big tax to pay!’

Trump accused trading partners of taking advantage of the U.S. and claimed that tariffs would bring billions of dollars in new revenue to the federal government while encouraging more domestic investments.

“From this day on, we’re not going to let anyone tell us American workers and families cannot have the future that they deserve. We are going to produce the cars and ships, chips, airplanes, minerals, and medicines that we need right here in America,” said Trump to the audience at the Rose Garden.

“The pharmaceutical companies are going to come roaring back, they’re coming roaring back, they’re all coming back to our country because if they don’t, they got a big tax to pay!” he added. “And if they do, I’ll be very happy, and you’re gonna be very happy, and you’re gonna be very safe.”

Every country in the world will have their tariffs increased by 10%, and some will have tariffs increased up to 49%.

Critics of the tariffs accuse the president of indirectly but unilaterally raising taxes on the public without authorization from Congress.

“With today’s announcement, U.S. tariffs will approach levels not seen since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which incited a global trade war and deepened the Great Depression,” read a statement from Scott Lincicome and Colin Grabow of the Cato Institute.

The new tariffs led to a steep drop in stock market futures.

Democrats have floated a resolution to oppose Trump’s tariffs, and some Republicans have signaled support, but it is unlikely to be successful with the Republican-led House and opposition from the president.

“Donald Trump’s reckless tariffs will cause chaos in our economy, raise prices for consumers, and hurt hardworking American families,” wrote Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California. “This is not a strategy — it’s the largest tax hike on the American people in history.”

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

​Trump liberation day, Trump tariffs, Global tariffs, Scott lincicome tariffs, Politics 

A debate erupted over a man arrested for leaving his children alone at a fast-food restaurant in order to go to a job interview, and former NFL star Antonio Brown sided with the dad against his critics.

24-year-old Chris Louis is accused of leaving his three children without supervision at a McDonald’s in Augusta, Georgia, on March 22. A witness saw Louis at about 4:30 p.m. and called police, who detained him at about 6:18 p.m.

‘She said he was at a job interview and that they had been homeless since November.’

Louis told police they had walked to the restaurant from his apartment because he didn’t want the children, ages 1, 6, and 10, to walk back alone. He also said he doesn’t own a car. The witness said that Louis had left and returned once briefly and left again.

Louis was arrested and charged with deprivation of a minor, while the children were released to their mother.

The incident sparked a national debate, with some accusing Louis of abusing the children and others defending him for seeking employment.

Brown opened a GoFundMe donation account for the man and donated $1,000 of his own money.

“Leaving his kids wasn’t right… but not everyone has the $ or help for child care,” wrote Brown on social media. “Chris was on the Pursuit of Happiness & sometimes ppl just need help.”

When details from the police report appeared to contradict the claim that he had been at a job interview, Brown said he would verify the story before releasing the funds.

“Spoke to his girlfriend this morning,” he wrote. “She said he was at a job interview and that they had been homeless since November. No funds will be sent to family till story is verified.. if can’t verify story.. I will have @gofundme refund the money to everyone who has given.”

Brown had raised $60K for Louis after only 23 hours.

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

​Antonio brown on gofundme, Gofundme for chris louis, Augusta mcdonalds arrest, Dad leaves children for interview, Politics, Sports 

A training video from Pastor Andy Stanley’s North Point Community Church has been leaked to the public — and to Allie Beth Stuckey’s horror, it’s not biblical in the slightest.

“This training that they are now implementing, that they are now showing to their youth leaders at their church called ‘Transit’ is very troubling to me, because it uses words that sound good while ultimately not affirming what scripture actually says about LGBTQ identity,” Stuckey says on “Relatable.”

The training videos, which were supposed to be private, seem to instruct the youth leaders to ignore self-declared transgender status of children and teenagers in order to make kids struggling with gender deception more comfortable.

“We know that middle school can be complicated. Students are growing up fast and need a place where they can learn how God sees them,” the Transit website states. The training videos include Transit director Britt Kitchen instructing small group leaders on how to handle issues related to their upcoming teaching series on sexuality.

“If we found out that OK, North Point is addressing this issue from a biblical perspective, they’re not ignoring it, I would be applauding and saying, ‘Yes,’” Stuckey says, “However, how they go about this I really, really disagree with.”

Kitchen begins the videos by giving three main principles that the youth leaders try to emphasize as they teach middle schoolers about topics related to sexuality. The first is to “honor God with your body,” the second is “don’t be mastered by anything,” and the third is “don’t sexualize any relationship outside of marriage.”

While Stuckey agrees with all three of these principles, it’s not the principles themselves but the explanations that she takes issue with. Like when Kitchen begins discussing sexual identity — he never supports his statements with biblical teachings.

“Now, gender dysphoria, this is a weird term. We don’t hear this a lot. Basically, this is the clinical term for anyone who is unsure about their gender,” Kitchen says in the video, adding, “Dysphoria is the opposite of euphoria. Euphoria is joy, happiness, content, and excitement. Gender dysphoria is like they’re not comfortable, they don’t have joy over it, they’re not sure where they land.”

“I mean, how many people honestly have ‘joy’ over their gender?” Stuckey asks. “Even putting this dichotomy up there, euphoria or dysphoria, I think causes a lot of confusion because you might have a kid out there that’s like, ‘Well, I don’t feel euphoric about being a girl or boy,’ especially in middle school.”

“I mean, that automatically is going to make kids wonder, ‘Well, what am I categorized as? If I’m not euphoric, then am I really transgender?’ But this is not the definition of gender dysphoria, by the way,” she continues.

In the video, Kitchen also discusses a real-life scenario where a family left their church and began going to North Point Community Church because their previous church wouldn’t “affirm” their child’s identity.

“He is saying that it was wrong that their local church would not affirm this child in being the opposite sex, would not call this child by pronouns that do not correlate with his God-given biological reality, and this person, who is the head of middle school ministry at North Point Church in Atlanta, led by Andy Stanley, is saying that was wrong, that church was not a safe place, that person, that child, had to pretend to be something else,” Stuckey says, shocked.

“That is sowing confusion in those kids,” she continues, adding, “That is so damaging to their understanding of God, and themselves, and others, and reality, and morality.”

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.

​Camera phone, Free, Sharing, Upload, Video, Video phone, Youtube.com, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Relatable, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze online, Blaze media, Pastor, Youth pastor, Church, Lgbtq in the church, North point community church, Pastor andy stanley, Christianity 

A 17-year-old has been charged with first-degree intentional homicide after allegedly shooting and killing his parents and living with their corpses for nearly two weeks, according to Wisconsin police.

Waukesha police found the bodies of the parents of Nikita Casap on Feb. 28 after a relative asked for a welfare check on the family at their home on Cider Hills Drive.

Police said they found a video recording of Casap lighting candles near the body of his stepfather and then recording the corpse.

Police believe that the teenager killed his mother, 35-year-old Tatiana Casap, and his stepfather, 51-year-old Donald Mayer. He had been missing from school for two weeks without excused absences, according to the criminal complaint.

The teenager was arrested after running a red light in WaKeeney, Kansas, more than 800 miles from the home.

Casap was driving his stepfather’s Volkswagen Atlas and had a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum in his possession, according to police. They also found spent casings in the car as well as the identification cards of the two victims.

Investigators said that Mayer’s body was found under a pile of clothing in a first-floor office, while the body of Casap’s mother was found under blankets and a towel in a hallway.

The teenager allegedly shot his mother once in the neck and twice in the stomach on Feb. 11 before shooting Mayer in the back of the head.

Police said they found a video recording of Casap lighting candles near the body of his stepfather and then recording the corpse.

“So you can see him there. I can literally see the rotten body there,” he said on the video, allegedly.

He left the home on Feb. 24, according to location records, and drove through various states in his stepfather’s car with $14,000 in cash.

Prosecutors said Casap was a flight risk because he had been communicating with someone in Russia about fleeing to Ukraine after committing the crimes.

“It appears this individual was trying to flee the jurisdiction — not only this state, but this country,” said Waukesha County Court Commissioner Christopher Bailey.

NBC News says the teenager’s attorneys did not return a request for comment, and neither did the district attorney’s office.

He is being held on bail of $1 million.

Video of the home can be viewed on the news report from WTMJ-TV on YouTube.

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

​Niita casap murder, Son murders mother and stepdad, Waukesha family murders, Son lives with parent corpses, Crime 

A viral cellphone video shows a Florida sheriff’s deputy driving into a teenage bike rider, then tackling him and then handcuffing him.

But the Broward County Sheriff’s Office gave WTVJ-TV a reason for Monday’s incident in Deerfield Beach.

The teen who was taken down was part of a group of bike riders pulling dangerous stunts along Hillsboro Boulevard and impeding traffic, the sheriff’s office told WTVJ.

The clip shows about 10 young males riding bikes in an intersection when the driver of a blue SUV makes a sharp left turn, running into — and apparently over — a bike rider’s rear wheel, appearing to crush it. A number of hoots and hollers follow, and the bike rider tries to get away. But the masked deputy emerges from the SUV, tackles the teen, and puts handcuffs on him — much to the chagrin of the kid’s comrades.

Here’s another video of the incident, shot from the opposite angle, and it shows an additional 10 to 15 bike riders the first video doesn’t capture.

The teen who was taken down was part of a group of bike riders pulling dangerous stunts along Hillsboro Boulevard and impeding traffic, the sheriff’s office told WTVJ.

Sheriff’s officials added to the station that the teen in question was taken to a hospital as a precaution and later released to his family with a juvenile civil citation.

WTVJ said other youths were cited for violations, including disobeying red lights and not wearing bike helmets.

The sheriff’s office added to the station that the incident underscores the ongoing, organized pattern of reckless behavior by groups of juvenile bicyclists that encourages and rewards dangerous stunts and activities on busy South Florida roads.

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

​Teen bike riders, Florida, Broward county sheriff’s office, Deerfield beach, Deputy, Teen tackled, Teen handcuffed, Viral video, Deputy drives into teen, Citations, Crime