Category: blaze media

There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why, on paper, a local Utah police officer allegedly turned into a frog.

The claim comes from the Heber City Police Department in Heber City, Utah, where officers are reportedly looking to save time on their paperwork, as writing police reports typically takes personnel between one and two hours per day.

‘I’m not the most tech-savvy person, so it’s very user-friendly.’

In order to save on man-hours, Heber City PD began testing new software that can take bodycam footage and generate a police report based on the audio and video.

The new artificial intelligence program did not take long to malfunction though, as just a few weeks into its trial in December, a police report stated that one of the local officers had shape-shifted into a frog during an investigation. It turns out the software picked up on audio that was playing on a TV screen present during the incident.

“The bodycam software and the AI report-writing software picked up on the movie that was playing in the background, which happened to be ‘The Princess and the Frog,'” Sergeant Rick Keel told FOX 13 News, referring to the 2009 animated Disney film.

Keel then stressed, “That’s when we learned the importance of correcting these AI-generated reports.”

RELATED: Police shoot New Jersey man who allegedly charged them with machete — then find gruesome scene inside his home

Photo by Michael Kovac/FilmMagic

The department reportedly began testing two AI programs in early December, named Draft One and Code Four.

Draft One comes from company Axon, founded by American Rick Smith. On its website, Axon promises to “revolutionize real-time operations,” but is responsible for generating the Disney-themed police report. The program reportedly works for both English and Spanish languages — and apparently for princesses too.

Blaze News reached out to Axon for comment.

Sgt. Keel told reporters that he has saved about six to eight hours per week since employing AI to do his paperwork.

“I’m not the most tech-savvy person, so it’s very user-friendly,” he said.

Code Four, however, was created by two MIT dropouts who are just 19 years old: George Cheng and Dylan Nguyen. That program also claims it can transform “bodycam to reports in seconds.”

Code Four reportedly costs $30 per officer, per month.

RELATED: Diversity quota allowed UK man with child rape accusations to become a cop — he then committed more horrific rapes

Photo by Scott Brinegar/Disney Parks via Getty Images

According to Dexerto, AI policing programs have already caused issues elsewhere in the United States. For example, the outlet reported last October that armed police officers swarmed a 16-year-old student outside of a high school in Baltimore after an AI gun-detection system falsely claimed the boy had a firearm.

It turned out after police arrived on scene that the teen was actually holding a bag of Doritos.

Blaze News reported on the increased use of AI monitoring software in schools in early 2024, when an Arkansas district announced it would use over 1,500 cameras at its schools.

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

​Return, Bodycam fotoage, Police, Ai, Utah, Ai program, Artificial intelligence, Disney, Tech 

At Turning Point USA’s annual AmFest, BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey and Senior Director of TPUSA Faith Lucas Miles dove into one the most pressing spiritual issues facing our nation right now: weak pastors.

Miles calls them “trembling pastors.” They aren’t necessarily “traitorous” in that they’re deliberately spreading ideas antithetical to Scripture, but they also aren’t “true pastors” willing to boldly speak truth no matter the cost.

These men, fearful of dividing their congregations or financial loss, steer clear of politically charged subjects.

But the problem with that approach is that so many political issues today are theological at their core. Abortion, marriage, gender, race, and justice have deep spiritual implications, but because these issues appear on the ballot, many pastors turn a blind eye to them and fail to lead their congregations.

But Allie and Miles argue that truth only prevails when pastors courageously lead in all areas.

“I remember one of the things that Charlie [Kirk] said to me is that courage is easy. All you have to do is say yes. You don’t have to have a degree on the wall; you don’t have to have a bunch of money; you don’t have to have good looks. You just have to be willing to say, like, ‘Here I am, Lord. Send me,”’ says Miles.

“I think we need more pastors to do that. … What we’re trying to do at TPUSA Faith is be that voice coming alongside of them and saying, ‘Rise up, you mighty valiant warrior. It’s time to get in the fight here.”’

One type of weak pastor Allie says she sees a lot of are those unwilling to touch anything related to race. They’ve “got it on abortion; they’ve got it on marriage and gender,” she says, but “the racial social justice stuff” is where they “totally fumble the ball.”

This was especially apparent during 2020, when the death of George Floyd set off a social justice movement that razed entire cities to the ground. During that time, there were so many pastors who “sounded so much like BLM or the world when it came to race and justice,” she tells Miles.

Miles says that while he has grace for the pastors who posted black BLM squares before it came out that it was “Marxist, anti-family, anti-God organization,” his sympathy ends with those who never repented.

“I’ve not seen one of these guys go back and repent of that and actually acknowledge this,” he says.

While it’s easy to write this off as pride, part of the problem is lack of education.

Many of these pastors simply “don’t know the history of liberation theology. They don’t know that it’s a hybrid between Marxism and Christianity. They don’t know about James Cone. They don’t know about this idea of crucifying the white Jesus,” says Miles.

To learn more about how TPUSA Faith is walking alongside pastors, educating and encouraging them to boldly proclaim truth and, as Charlie Kirk is famous for saying, “make heaven crowded,” watch the full interview above.

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.

​Relatable, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Allie beth stuckey, Tpusa faith, Tpusa, Amfest, Amfest 2025, Lucas miles, Charlie kirk, Weak pastors, Theology, Politics theology, Blazetv, Blaze media 

The failure of both Democrat and Republican plans to extend or partially replace enhanced Obamacare subsidies offers a clear lesson: Escaping an entitlement trap almost never happens.

Yes, the House of Representatives on Thursday voted to extend the COVID-era Affordable Care Act subsidies that expired at the end of 2025. Seventeen Republicans even joined a unanimous Democratic Caucus in voting for the extension. But Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said Republicans have “no appetite” for an extension — at least not without reforms.

Republicans remain an impediment to the necessary reforms and are working hand in hand with Democrats to bring on economic collapse. Time is not on our side.

The reality is, once government creates a welfare entitlement, logic and sustainability exit the conversation. Politicians do not debate whether to grow the program. They argue only over how much to increase spending and how to disguise the costs. That pattern now governs the fight over enhanced Obamacare subsidies.

Why the premise never gets challenged

When the Senate rejected a nearly identical bill in December, the Wall Street Journal reported that Congress faces “no clear path for aiding millions of Americans facing soaring Affordable Care Act insurance costs next year.”

The Journal’s framing accepts the entitlement premise without question. It treats “aiding millions” as morally self-evident while ignoring the coercion necessary to fund that aid. Government assistance does not materialize from thin air. It transfers responsibility, money, and risk from one group of Americans to another.

Once imposed, that transfer only grows.

Both rejected plans would have sent more taxpayer money to insurers than the ACA already guarantees. With no deal in sight, the Journal observed last month that hope for extending the subsidies is fading. That assessment may be accurate politically, but an extension does not deserve hope. It deserves scrutiny.

How entitlement politics works

Democrats want Republicans to extend an expansion they never voted for of a program they never supported. Republicans respond by proposing modest adjustments to reduce political damage without challenging the underlying structure.

Rep. Max L. Miller (R-Ohio), who voted for the bill, summarized the dilemma perfectly. “I just want to make this abundantly clear: This is a Democratic piece of legislation. It is absolutely horrific. Now, it is the best alternative to what we have at the moment.”

That is how entitlement traps operate.

For decades, big-government advocates have followed a reliable strategy. They create a benefit for a defined group, allow costs to spiral, then dare the opposition to take something away from a newly entrenched constituency. When the moment arrives, those who claim to favor limited government retreat or propose cosmetic reforms that leave the core system untouched.

That dynamic explains why the country remains locked into the socialist ratchet, the uniparty routine, and a political class that acts as tax collector for an ever-expanding welfare state.

RELATED: Democrat senator makes stunning admission about Obamacare failures

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Trapped voters, trapped taxpayers

Entitlements squeeze the nation from both sides. They trap recipients by discouraging work and mobility, and they trap taxpayers by locking future governments into permanent obligations.

The Affordable Care Act stands as one of the most powerful modern examples of this system. The law forced millions into government-regulated insurance markets while guaranteeing insurers a growing pool of subsidized customers. The result was predictable: higher costs, deeper dependency, and a massive political constituency invested in permanent expansion.

Not a single Republican voted for the ACA. They understood what the law would do. Democrats passed it anyway, and it worked exactly as designed.

Who Obamacare was really built to serve

As Connor O’Keeffe has argued at Mises Wire, federal health care policy has long served industry interests. Government interventions channel money toward providers, pharmaceutical companies, and insurers under the guise of helping patients.

Obamacare accelerated that process by mandating coverage and expanding what insurers must provide, driving demand and cost growth in tandem. Once people rely on government assistance to afford insurance, any reduction becomes politically unthinkable.

Republicans now scramble to avoid electoral consequences. House Speaker Mike Johnson says the GOP will advance health care proposals without extending subsidies, yet many lawmakers privately admit that only an extension prevents immediate pain ahead of the 2026 midterms.

That admission exposes the trap. Spending limits become cruel. Taxpayer costs disappear from the conversation. Only the next premium increase matters.

Why conservatives keep losing

History explains where this leads. Entitlement debates almost always end with higher spending. Political power depends on payments to voters. Reducing benefits means losing elections.

Progressives act decisively when in power. Conservatives obsess over procedure and restraint, even as the administrative state grows unchecked.

Last week alone offered two examples. The House overturned President Trump’s March 2025 executive order blocking collective bargaining for over a million federal employees, with 20 Republicans joining Democrats. Even Franklin Roosevelt opposed public-sector unions. Modern conservatives could not summon the resolve to block them.

On the same day, Indiana Republicans declined to redraw their congressional map despite the risk of losing the House and triggering impeachment proceedings against Trump. They clung to unwritten norms while their opponents prepared to exploit the outcome.

RELATED: If conservatives will not defend capitalism, who will?

Leontura via iStock/Getty Images

This pattern defines conservative failure. Republicans manage decline. They preserve a decaying system rather than reverse it.

Donald Trump broke from that habit. A former Democrat, he understands power. Win elections, then act. Trump restored a political energy absent on the right for decades.

His approach to entitlements focuses on restraining growth outside Social Security while expanding private-sector freedom to increase economic output. The goal is not austerity. It is to shrink government’s share of the economy by growing everything else faster.

Reform or collapse

That strategy may succeed or fail. It remains the only alternative to collapse. Without reform, federal spending and debt will overwhelm the system within a decade, possibly sooner. Borrowing costs will explode. Inflation will surge. Control will vanish.

The United States approached that danger under unified Democrat control and Joe Biden’s autopen in 2021 and 2022. Voters halted the slide by electing Republican majorities and returning Trump to the White House.

Trump failed to drain the swamp in his first term, largely because congressional Republicans refused to legislate when they had the chance. In his second term, he has advanced reforms through executive action. Congress has responded with delay and timidity.

The country will escape the entitlement trap one way or another. Reform can arrive through disciplined growth and economic expansion, or through collapse driven by massive overspending.

With their conservative approach to governance, Republicans remain an impediment to the necessary reforms and are working hand in hand with Democrats to bring on that collapse. Time is not on our side.

​Obamacare, Affordable care act, Gop, Democrats, House republicans, House democrats, Opinion & analysis, Subsidies, John thune, Donald trump, Entitlements, Socialized medicine, Medicare for all, Politics, Max miller, Joe biden, Economy, Debt 

When NewsNation reporter Leland Vittert was diagnosed with autism as a child, his father did not treat it as a disability but rather a tool to be sharpened — and Vittert believes this was a huge factor when it came to finding success as an adult.

And while Vittert credits his upbringing for his ability to overcome adversity, it was his college experience that led him to realize he needed to change, not the world.

“I think college was the first time I started realizing that I needed to change, right? Because my dad spent, you know, all those nights that I was so upset saying, ‘Look, when you get older, the same qualities that are making you ostracized and bullied and having all these issues are the qualities that’s going to make you successful later in life,’” Vittert tells Stuckey.

“He was correct in many ways. He did not tell me in eighth grade that an eighth grade middle school classroom is great training for a Washington newsroom, which would later turn out to be very true. Still is,” he continues.

His dad often told him a story about being blackballed from all the fraternities while he was in college.

“He never got a bid at any one of the fraternities that was on campus. And it was a way of sort of explaining to me, right, that he understood the isolation. He understood what I was going through. And the same thing happened to me,” Vittert tells Stuckey.

Vittert was told that he wasn’t getting a bid and called his dad that night.

“It’s snowing at Northwestern, bitterly cold. Tears are freezing on my face. And I called my dad. I said, ‘I’m just like you.’ And then I said to dad, I said, ‘I need to understand that it may not just be everybody else. I’m going to have to change.’ And that really became the college experience,” he explains.

“To me, going to college wasn’t really about learning economics, which I majored in, or journalism, which journalism school is pretty useless. But it was about learning as a person and trying to put all of those lessons that my dad taught me into effect,” he continues.

Vittert found that with hard work, he was able to channel who he was into what he wanted to be — and he found that journalism was one of those industries “that just yield to hard work.”

“If you just work hard and outwork everybody, that is of enormous value in journalism,” he says.

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.

​Sharing, Video phone, Video, Free, Camera phone, Upload, Youtube.com, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Relatable, Allie beth stuckey, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Leland vittert, Newsnation, Autism, Autism diagnosis 

Wikipedia has recently come under the microscope. I take some credit for this, as a co-founder of Wikipedia and a longtime vocal critic of the knowledge platform.

In September, I nailed (virtually) “Nine Theses About Wikipedia” to the digital door of Wikipedia and started a round of interviews about it, beginning with Tucker Carlson. This prompted Elon Musk to announce Grokipedia’s impending launch the very next day. And a national conversation evolved from there, with left- and right-leaning voices complaining about the platform’s direction or my critique of it.

As long as Wikipedia remains open, it is entirely possible for those who think differently to get involved.

As its 25th anniversary approaches, Wikipedia clearly needs reform. Not only does the platform have a long history of left-wing bias, but the purveyors of that bias — administrators, everyday editors, and others — stubbornly cling to their warped worldview and vilify those who dare to contest it.

The “Nine Theses” are the project’s first-ever thoroughgoing reform proposal. Among the ideas:

Allow multiple, competing articles per topic. Stop ideological blacklisting of sources. Restore the original neutrality policy. Reveal the identities of the most powerful managers. End unfair, indefinite blocking. Adopt a formal legislative process.

Such ideas were bound to be a hard sell on Wikipedia. It has become institutionally ossified.

Nevertheless, I was delighted that the discussion of the theses has been robust, without much further prodding from me. Following the launch, Jimmy Wales actually stepped into the fray on the so-called talk page of an article called “Gaza genocide,” chiding the participants for violating Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. I chimed in as well. But the criticism was thrown back in our faces.

This brings me to the deeper problem: Wikipedia is stuck in its ways. How can it possibly be reformed when so many of its contributors like the bias, the anonymous leadership, the ease of blocking ideological foes, and other aspects of dysfunction? Reform seems impossible.

Yet there is one realistic way that we can make progress toward reform.

Above all else, those who care should get involved in Wikipedia. The total number of people who are really active on Wikipedia is surprisingly small. The number editing 100 times in any given month is in the low thousands, and this does not amount to that much time — perhaps one or two hours per week. Those who treat it as a part-time or full-time job — and so have real day-to-day influence — number in the hundreds.

In interviews, I have been urging the outcasts to converge on Wikipedia. You might think this is code for saying that conservatives and libertarians should try to stage a coup, but that is not so. Hindus and Israelis, among others, have also complained of being left out in recent years. The problem is an entrenched ruling class. As long as Wikipedia remains open, it is entirely possible for those who think differently to get involved.

RELATED: Wikipedia editors are trying to scrub the record clean of Iryna Zarutska’s slaughter by violent thug

Photo by Peter Zay/Anadolu via Getty Images

If you are a conservative or libertarian who is concerned about the slanted framing of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, get involved. If you are a classical liberal who is alarmed by the anti-Semitism within Wikipedia — like Florida Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz — it is time to make your presence felt. Wherever you may fall on the ideological spectrum, I call on good-faith citizens to become engaged editors who take productive discourse seriously, rather than scapegoating “the other side.”

Even a dozen new editors could make a difference, let alone hundreds or thousands who might be reading this column. Given that Wikipedia attracts billions of readers, in addition to featuring prominently in Google Search, Google Gemini, and elsewhere, improving the platform will strengthen our collective access to high-quality information across the board. It will bring us closer to truth.

So how do we solve the Wikipedia problem? With you, me, and all of us — individual action at scale.

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

​Opinion & analysis, Wikipedia bias, Leftism, Wokeness, Woke culture, Censorship of conservative voices, Censorship, Nine theses about wikipedia, Larry sanger, Big tech, Woke liberals, Conservatives, Classical liberalism, Freedom of speech, Free speech, Information, Charlie kirk, Assassination, Google, Google gemini, Debbie wasserman schultz, Ruling class, Competition, Tucker carlson, Gaza, Genocide, Neutrality, Jimmy wales, Blacklisting, Elon musk, Grokipedia 

Eating real food is not quite that simple, and might even constitute “bowing to Big Meat,” depending on who you ask.

After Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his department dropped the new federal dietary guidelines — which have been historically referred to as the food pyramid — the recommendation of eating “real food,” including red meat and full-fat dairy, was seen as an attack by many in the dietary sphere.

‘Beef is responsible for 20 times more greenhouse gas emissions per gram of protein than beans.’

The new guidelines emphasized protein (from meat and vegetables), dairy, fruit, and some grains as part of a healthy diet. While some cleverly accused HHS of copying a popular “South Park” scene where scientists simply “flip the pyramid” to solve America’s health crisis, others decided to criticize the guidelines for promoting animal meat intake.

Meat puppets

MS Now, formerly MSNBC, argued that Americans already eat too much meat and claimed that most meat consumed in the country “is already fake.” This was argued by citing an article that claimed selective breeding of cows and chickens constitutes altering “genetic makeup.”

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine spoke out against the new federal guidelines too. The group reportedly criticized the promotion of meat and dairy products, labeling the foods as “principal drivers of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity.”

RELATED: ‘Eat real food’: Trump administration flips ‘corrupt food pyramid,’ encourages meat and veggies over bread and oatmeal

Photo by EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP via Getty Images

I scream

Food Navigator USA took a slightly different approach and claimed the shift in dietary advice was the HHS “bowing to Big Meat” and the dairy industry.

The outlet cited the president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Neal Barnard, who said the guidelines “unjustly condemned processed foods.”

An article from Truthout cited vegan dietitian Ashley Kitchens who unironically claimed the food pyramid was being flipped upside down, calling it “complete ignorance” to encourage more meat and dairy consumption.

“It’s a giant step back from decades of evidence-based nutrition research and science,” Kitchens said.

Butter face

The Center for Science in the Public Interest echoed similar sentiments and said the dietary advice from Kennedy’s HHS is “harmful” for emphasizing “animal protein, butter, and full-fat dairy.”

It is “guidance that undermines both the saturated fat limit” and previous dietary advice to emphasize “plant-based proteins.”

RELATED: RFK Jr. steals the show after hilarious quacking ringtone interrupts White House briefing

Photo by Martin Pope/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Furthermore, Vox called the apparent attitude of the HHS toward vegan diets “hostile and stigmatizing,” while Stanford nutrition expert Christopher Gardner said the promotion of red meat goes against “decades and decades of evidence and research.”

Climate kooks

Lastly, a perhaps predictable approach was taken by Bloomberg, who criticized the guidelines for prioritizing animal products because of how their production affects climate.

“Beef is responsible for 20 times more greenhouse gas emissions per gram of protein than beans, peas and lentils,” the outlet wrote.

This consensus against animal protein from dietary conglomerates in coalition with left-wing news outlets is sure to fuel the widespread belief that the powers that be are pushing toward a world without the luxury of beef.

This is typically argued from an ideological and political standpoint by groups like the World Economic Forum, for example, in articles like “Why eating less meat is the best way to tackle climate change,” “Why you should be eating less meat,” and “You will be eating replacement meats within 20 years. Here’s why.”

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

​Diet, Hhs, Kennedy, Rfk jr, Food pyramid, Health guidelines, Liberals, Eat the bugs, Red meat, Vegan, Veganism, Lifestyle 

The holidays have a way of forcing conversations many families would rather postpone.

Every year, as adult children come home and aging parents gather around the table, familiar signs emerge. Someone struggles with stairs. Someone tires more easily. Someone forgets what was once routine. And with those observations come discussions caregivers know well.

The promise.

“I’ll never put Mom or Dad in a nursing home.”

It is often spoken years earlier, in healthier days, and always with sincerity. At the time, it feels like a declaration of love and loyalty. Assisted living seems distant, unnecessary, and meant for other families, not ours.

The problem is not the promise. The problem is that life keeps changing.

Circumstances change. Strength ebbs. What once worked may no longer work safely or wisely.

Over time, what began as devotion can quietly become more than one person can manage alone. Needs grow. Safety becomes a concern. Medical issues multiply. Caregivers often find themselves trying to do, by themselves, what normally requires trained professionals, proper equipment, and constant oversight.

At that point, the issue is no longer love or loyalty. It’s capacity.

That reality came into focus during a recent conversation with a friend. He had offered a small cottage on his property to help a friend relocate aging parents closer to family. The mother now uses a walker. The father has been her caregiver for years, but serious heart problems have begun to limit what he can safely do.

Still the conversation kept circling back to the same refrain: Neither would ever go into assisted living or a nursing home.

Their adult son is caught in the middle, trying desperately to make everyone happy. That is a fool’s task. In my work with fellow caregivers, I call this the caregiver FOG — fear, obligation, and guilt — because it blurs perspective, narrows options, and makes even familiar paths hard to see. No one wins.

It is like driving into actual fog. Visibility drops. Muscles tense. Judgment narrows. We try to peer miles ahead when we can barely see the hood of the car.

Every highway safety officer gives the same advice: Slow down, turn on the low beams, and stop trying to see five miles down the road.

Caregiving requires the same discipline.

My friend asked what I thought.

I suggested we lower the emotional temperature and start with one concrete issue.

Not the promise. Not the arguments. Not the guilt.

Start with the toilet.

Laugh if you like. It sounds abrupt. But it has a way of clarifying reality quickly.

RELATED: When the soul flatlines, call a ‘Code Grace’

PeopleImages via iStock/Getty Images

The bathroom is often ground zero for caregiving challenges. If the toilet is not safe and accessible, the demands on the caregiver escalate immediately. Transfers become harder. Fatigue compounds. Falls become more likely.

Once the toilet is addressed, you move outward.

The shower. The bedroom. Doorways, lighting, entrances.

Sometimes modest changes are enough — grab bars, a raised toilet seat, a walk-in shower. None of these are exotic ideas. But determining needs honestly requires facing the limits of strength, balance, and endurance as they exist today, not as we wish they were.

While politicians and toilets often deal with similar subject matter, toilets remain refreshingly honest. They simply reveal what actually works.

When families do this, reality follows. Cost. Time. Budgets weighed against needs. Timelines measured against declining strength. What once felt like a moral standoff becomes a practical evaluation.

Fear, obligation, and guilt begin to loosen their grip. In their place come planning, stewardship, and direction.

This matters because emotional decisions often rush families into choices that create larger — and sometimes far more expensive — problems later. We see this dynamic everywhere, including politics. While politicians and toilets often deal with similar subject matter, toilets remain refreshingly honest. They do not respond to intentions, promises, or speeches. They simply reveal what actually works.

Families do not choose assisted living or nursing homes in the abstract. Toilets always have a seat at the decision table.

RELATED: Christian, what do you believe when faith stops being theoretical?

fotojog via iStock/Getty Images

Surveys consistently show that most older Americans want to remain in their own homes as they age. That desire is sincere and understandable. But staying home without meaningful accommodations transfers an enormous burden onto the caregiver. The home may remain familiar, but the cost — physical, emotional, and relational — often rises exponentially.

Most promises are made sincerely. They are also made without a full understanding of how disease progresses, how bodies change, or how deeply caregiving reshapes everyone involved. Honoring a promise does not mean freezing it in time. It means continually asking how we can care well, given today’s realities.

Assisted living is not a surrender of care. In many cases, it is an extension of it. It allows families to return to being sons, daughters, and spouses, rather than exhausted amateur medical staff running on guilt and fumes.

We are not obligated to preserve every arrangement exactly as it once was. We are called to steward what has been entrusted to us — finances, time, energy, relationships, and the caregiver as well.

Circumstances change. Strength ebbs. What once worked may no longer work safely or wisely.

Important decisions are best made with clear heads, honest assessments, and wise counsel — not under the duress and resentment that so often accompany them. The days after the holidays are not a verdict. They are an invitation to slow down, think clearly, seek experienced guidance, and choose what is best not just for one individual but for the whole family.

The path forward is rarely determined by emotion, decades-old promises, or guilt.

More often, it is clarified by something far more unassuming — and far more truthful.

The appliance in the nearest bathroom.

​Opinion & analysis, Caregiving, Caregivers, Elderly, Safety, Bathroom, Toilets, Aging, Promises, Home, Assisted living, Disease, Decline, Guilt, Change, Judgment, Honesty, Love 

Conservatives across the nation are already fretting over 2026’s midterm elections, convinced that a Democrat wave would tie the Trump administration’s hands for the president’s final two years.

But BlazeTV hosts Steve Deace and Daniel Horowitz argue that’s the wrong mindset entirely. Rather than obsessing over winning elections they argue Democrats will almost certainly take, Republicans instead must be laser-focused on enacting permanent, fortress-like reforms right now — while they still hold power — before the window slams shut.

“Will we jam through what it is we came to achieve — enduring victories — and meet the moment before that door slams?” asks Horowitz.

On this episode of the “Steve Deace Show,” Deace and Horowitz lay out a stark warning: Republicans have a narrow window to enact bold, lasting reforms before the inevitable Democratic wave hits in 2026.

A Democrat wave, argues Horowitz, is almost inevitable given that the economy “is really bad” and “going to get worse.”

“I don’t want to hear about the 2026 midterms. I don’t want to hear about the presidential,” he says.

“It’s not a question of how many seats will the Democrats win in a Congress that doesn’t do anything anyway. The question is: Will you use the power you currently have at the federal and state level to cement enduring change, open an economic path, alleviate the demographic time bomb, and build fortresses around policies?”

If the Trump administration fails to make deep, structural reforms that are difficult to reverse before the inevitable swing back at midterms, Horowitz warns that come 2029, we’ll be right back in the same boat we were in in 2021, when the Biden regime ushered in the unholy trinity: “January 6 persecution,” the reign of BLM, and “COVID fascism.”

“In 2021, we had no benefits of the Trump presidency left. We cannot be in that position in January 2029,” he stresses. “So now is the time to sow in tears so we reap in joy.”

Deace agrees and imagines a “doomsday scenario” where the Trump administration fails to make permanent changes and the Democrats win big in the midterms, taking control of both the House and the Senate.

“Not only is President Trump under a constant threat of impeachment, so is Pete Hegseth. So is RFK Jr. So is Marco Rubio. … I have no idea if you can impeach a senior adviser to the president like Stephen Miller. I’m sure they will figure out a way,” he says.

“But on top of that, we then watch them repeal the filibuster in the Senate at the exact same time … so then they can do whatever they want. That outcome cannot be permitted to happen,” he adds.

Horowitz says there are two things that must happen before midterm elections.

“Number one, at the federal level, you have to think of systemic reforms that Trump will go to the mat with Congress” over — full immigration/foreign worker moratorium, repealing Obamacare outright, and capping/devolving welfare programs to the states — so Democrats can’t just flip them back easily when they return to power.

Number two: “Jazz up your base and entice them to actually vote for something in a general [election],” while also focusing on primaries to elect strong, fighter-type leaders who will actually stand firm and build “fortresses” when Democrats come back swinging.

If these two things don’t happen, he warns “we’re going to face the Fourth Reich with nothing but a feather in our hands as a weapon.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the full interview above.

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve’s take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Steve deace, Steve deace show, Daniel horowitz, Conservative review, Blazetv, Blaze media, 2026 midterms, Trump administration, Democrat wave, Blue wave 

Long before he turned his life over to God, Chuck Colson burned with faith.

While working as an assistant to Massachusetts Senator Leverett Saltonstall (R), he met Richard Nixon — then vice president — and, by his own later admission, instantly became “a Nixon fanatic.” That loyalty, unwavering and severe, would become the defining feature of his life. It was also what made him so effective — and so dangerous.

For the first time in his adult life, Colson was forced to confront who he was without title, access, or leverage.

Hopelessly devoted

Colson’s devotion was not opportunistic. It was total. He believed loyalty was a virtue, even when it demanded cruelty. Years later, he would boast that he would “walk over my own grandmother” to re-elect Nixon. The line was meant to shock, but it also clarified something essential: Colson understood obedience as a moral good, independent of mercy or restraint. Colson was not a cynic pretending to believe. He was a believer who believed too much.

In Washington, that made him useful. He became the administration’s enforcer — a man willing to apply pressure, intimidate enemies, and blur lines. Politics, as Colson practiced it, was not persuasion. It was war. And war required soldiers willing to do what polite men would not.

Hatchet man

When Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, the government moved to prosecute him under the Espionage Act of 1917. For Colson, however, the embarrassment Ellsberg caused his mentor merited more than official retribution — it called for something more underhanded.

Colson’s instinct was not rebuttal but destruction: He supported efforts to smear Ellsberg as unstable and dangerous, a campaign that helped create the climate in which Nixon operatives burglarized Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office.

When Watergate collapsed the Nixon presidency, Colson collapsed with it. As legal consequences closed in, a friend pressed a copy of “Mere Christianity” into his hands and forced him to confront what power had allowed him to evade.

He pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and became the first Nixon aide to get jail time. By then, the obedience he had given so freely had nowhere left to land.

Accustomed to command

Colson entered federal prison as a man accustomed to command. Early on, he braced himself for contempt from guards who knew who he was. Instead, one offered something worse: indifference — the unmistakable message that he was not special here and should act accordingly.

It was a small moment, but a decisive one. For the first time in his adult life, Colson was forced to confront who he was without title, access, or leverage. He was not feared or in control. He wasn’t even useful.

And so he began to learn a fundamental lesson of Christianity, one that power obscures: We are not self-sustaining. The first step toward obedience, Colson would later say, is realizing who you are when everything else is stripped away — and how dependent you are on grace you did not earn.

RELATED: ‘Argument accepted’: Dying ‘Dilbert’ creator and Trump ally Scott Adams says he’s becoming a Christian

Scott Adams in 2002. Phil Velasquez/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

Surprised by truth

After his release, Colson avoided the obvious paths. He did not rehabilitate his reputation through commentary. He did not return to politics as a chastened insider. Instead, he committed the remainder of his life to prisoners — men for whom dependence was not temporary.

“Christianity is not about becoming respectable,” Colson later said. “It is about becoming obedient.” Colson’s instinct for loyalty made him a quick study. But his newfound faith didn’t soften his nature as much as it reordered it toward something worthier.

To the end, Colson remained intense, structured, demanding, and — as those who doggedly proclaim the truth tend to be — dangerous.

​Faith, Abide, Christianity, Lifestyle, Conversion, Converts, Chuck colson 

Pope Leo XIV says Western nations need to guarantee the freedom of expression.

The pope gave his “State of the World” speech from the Vatican in Vatican City on Friday and delivered remarks that may agitate some of his more liberal followers.

‘A new Orwellian-style language is developing which, in an attempt to be increasingly inclusive, ends up excluding.’

Real name Robert Prevost, the noted Chicago White Sox fan championed free speech when he explained that words need to once again be used to “express distinct and clear realities.”

This is paramount in order to engage in “authentic dialogue,” the Catholic leader continued, noting that truth-telling is necessary for “preventing conflicts.”

This led Pope Leo into pointing out a “paradox” in modern self-expression in the West, which only strengthens his belief in the idea that freedom of speech and expression should be guaranteed.

“It is painful to see how, especially in the West, the space for genuine freedom of expression is rapidly shrinking,” the pope said. “At the same time, a new Orwellian-style language is developing which, in an attempt to be increasingly inclusive, ends up excluding those who do not conform to the ideologies that are fueling it.”

RELATED: Pope Leo calls out gambling addiction and ‘demographic crisis’ in Vatican meeting

The 70-year-old explained that the inclusivity paradox leads to other consequences, such as the restriction of human rights, including “freedom of conscience.”

Those were not the only remarks the pope gave that were seemingly controversial. Rather, he also spoke strongly against the act of surrogacy.

Leo XIV said that surrogacy amounts to transforming gestation into a “negotiable service” that violates the dignity of both the child and the mother. Surrogacy reduces the baby to a “product,” the pope said, and causes a mother to exploit her body and the generative process, which distorts “the original relational calling of the family.”

RELATED: Catholic priest accused of changing the outcome of the last NFL game of the season

Photo by Simone Risoluti – Vatican Media via Vatican Pool/Getty Images

Observers of the speech, reportedly including 184 ambassadors from states that have diplomatic relations with the Vatican, also heard the pope condemn assisted suicide as a form of “deceptive” compassion.

The leader said that the elderly and isolated — “who at times struggle to find a reason to continue living” — should be offered solutions to their suffering, such as “palliative care … rather than encouraging deceptive forms of compassion such as euthanasia.”

Leo concluded his speech by emphasizing the need for peaceful dialogue and living in truth. He added that a “peaceful world” is built by those who act from humble hearts.

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

​Align, Pope, Pope leo iv, Vatican, Catholics, Catholicism, Faith 

Despite a relationship spanning more than 20 years, President Donald Trump said he will not intervene in Sean “Diddy” Combs’ jail sentence.

Combs is currently serving a 50-month prison sentence after being charged for two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution in 2025.

‘I was very friendly with him. I got along with him great and seemed like a nice guy.’

After the president stated in October that Combs had asked him for a pardon, he recently confirmed to the New York Times that the request came in the form of a letter.

Pardon me

The two-hour interview with the Times serves as the first official confirmation that the letter to the president exists, with Trump allegedly saying he was willing to show it off to reporters, but ultimately did not.

Trump reportedly told the outlet that Combs “asked me for a pardon,” which was “through a letter,” but revealed he is not considering granting the request.

RELATED: Diddy’s Big Circus

Photo by Sonia Moskowitz/Getty Images

“I have a lot of people [who] have asked me for pardons,” the president said in October. “I call him Puff Daddy, has asked me for a pardon,” he added, referring to one of Combs’ previous aliases as an artist.

Friendship ended?

As Blaze News reported, Trump told Newsmax in 2025 that the two had a prior relationship, but Diddy apparently made remarks that turned the president sour.

“I was very friendly with him. I got along with him great and seemed like a nice guy. I didn’t know him well. But when I ran for office, he was very hostile. And it’s hard. Like you, we’re human beings, and we don’t like to have things cloud our judgment. But when you knew someone and you were fine, and then you run for office and he made some terrible statements.”

“He was essentially, I guess, sort of half-innocent,” Trump included.

RELATED: 25 years later, the gaming console that caused so much chaos is still No. 1

Photo by Richard Corkery/NY Daily News Archive via Getty Images

Combs over

Recently, Combs has asked an appeals court to overturn his convictions and release him from jail.

A report from the BBC said Diddy’s attorney made the argument that the producer was improperly sentenced and that his conduct was not criminal in nature.

In addition, photos have resurfaced of Trump and Combs standing side by side, appearing to get along in 1998. The photos were taken at the Mercedes-Benz Polo Challenge in Bridgehampton, Long Island.

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

​Politics, Lifestyle, News, Diddy, Sean combs, Puff daddy, Trump, President, Presidential pardon, Entertainment 

Most drivers don’t expect to hear from the federal government — unless something has gone very wrong.

But this month, more than 168,000 Americans opened their mailboxes to find checks from the Federal Trade Commission, tied to a case that exposed widespread deception in the vehicle service contract industry.

The FTC’s action may be a turning point, signaling that regulators are paying close attention to misleading automotive advertising.

The fallout is significant: More than $9.6 million is being returned to consumers who were misled and often left paying for repairs they believed were covered by CarShield and American Auto Shield.

It’s one of the largest automotive-related refunds of the year — and it raises serious questions about how these companies operate, what consumers should watch for, and whether the settlement goes far enough.

Scam watch

After years investigating automotive scams and pushing for transparency, I can say this case highlights a deeper problem: service contract companies relying on aggressive marketing, inflated promises, and fine print that favors the seller.

In July 2024, CarShield and American Auto Shield — two of the most recognizable names in the extended warranty business — agreed to pay nearly $10 million to settle an FTC complaint. The allegations included misleading advertising, deceptive telemarketing, and coverage claims that didn’t match reality.

Many drivers believed they were buying protection for major repairs, sometimes paying up to $120 a month. When problems arose, they discovered that coverage often disappeared behind exclusions, denials, and carefully crafted contract language.

Cover story

According to the FTC, the companies advertised that virtually all repairs — or all repairs to “covered” systems — would be paid. Drivers were told they could use any repair shop and receive free rental cars during breakdowns. Instead, many were stuck with bills they thought they had avoided.

The FTC argued these claims persuaded consumers to buy service contracts that failed to deliver. Under the settlement, both companies must stop deceptive marketing practices and ensure that endorsements and testimonials reflect real, verifiable customer experiences — an important change given how central celebrity endorsements were to their advertising.

Checks and balances

Refunds are already under way. Checks have been mailed to 168,179 affected drivers and must be cashed within 90 days. No banking information or payment is required. Consumers with questions are directed to the refund administrator or the FTC’s website.

This action is part of a broader FTC push to hold companies accountable in industries where consumers are easily confused or misled. In 2024 alone, FTC enforcement returned more than $339 million to consumers nationwide. Automotive issues remain a major focus because unexpected repair costs can quickly become a financial burden.

Vehicle service contracts — often sold as “extended warranties” — can be useful when offered clearly and honestly. Too often, however, consumers are sold peace of mind that turns into high monthly payments and denied claims, with exclusions overwhelming any real benefit.

RELATED: Ford just lost $20 billion on its EV investment

Bloomberg/Getty Images

New scrutiny

The FTC’s move may signal a shift toward tougher oversight of automotive advertising. Whether it leads to broader industry reform remains to be seen, but companies using vague language and unrealistic promises are clearly facing more scrutiny.

Drivers deserve clear information and coverage that matches what is advertised. This case is a reminder to stay skeptical: If a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Bottom line: Big print gives, small print takes away. Read the contract carefully — because most of these deals simply aren’t worth it.

​Federal trade commission, Carshield, Lifestyle, Consumer scams, Align cars 

Melinda Spencer allegedly took abortion pills, ended the life of her unborn son, and buried his remains in a shallow grave in her backyard.

Yet a law in Kentucky exempting women from prosecution after obtaining an abortion — a law supported by the most influential pro-life organization in the state — appears to have prevented prosecutors from holding Spencer accountable for murder.

If a state refuses to make murder illegal for everyone, then some human beings will remain unprotected by design.

According to court documents cited by local media, Spencer, 35, told Kentucky State Police that the child “was not her boyfriend’s, and she did not want him to find out she was pregnant with another man’s baby.”

To conceal the pregnancy, Spencer allegedly ordered abortion pills online, intending to end the life of her unborn child without medical supervision.

Police say Spencer took the pills the day after Christmas, placed her deceased son in a light bulb box, and buried him in a shallow grave in her backyard. An autopsy determined the child was around 20 weeks’ gestation at the time of his death.

Initially Spencer was charged with first-degree fetal homicide, abuse of a corpse, concealing the birth of an infant, and tampering with physical evidence.

This week, however, Kentucky prosecutors dropped the homicide charge — not because they doubt that Spencer intentionally caused the death of her unborn child but because Kentucky law explicitly prohibits prosecuting a pregnant woman who murders her own unborn child.

— (@)

Miranda King, the prosecutor overseeing the case, acknowledged this limitation directly. In a public statement, she explained that the relevant statute “prohibits the prosecution of a pregnant woman who caused the death of her unborn child.” Spencer still faces the remaining, lesser charges.

King made clear that this frustrating outcome was not her preference.

“I sought this job with the intention of being a pro-life prosecutor but must do so within the boundaries allowed by the Kentucky state law I’m sworn to defend,” she said. “I will prosecute the remaining lawful charges fully and fairly.”

Kentucky is widely regarded as a conservative state with strong pro-life laws. Many Americans assume abortion was effectively banned there after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. This case exposes how incomplete that assumption is.

RELATED: Why the pro-life movement fails without a Christian worldview

jcphoto via iStock/Getty Images

Kentucky’s leading pro-life advocacy organization, Kentucky Right to Life, has long supported laws that shield women from criminal liability for abortion. In practice, this ensures that abortion remains legal for women, even if clinics are closed.

In 2021, Kentucky Right to Life joined more than 70 other pro-life organizations in signing a national letter declaring opposition to “any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women” who obtain abortions.

Since then, the organization has opposed multiple abolition bills that would have established equal protection under the law for unborn children — specifically because such legislation would allow for the prosecution of mothers who willfully procure abortions.

Addia Wuchner, Kentucky Right to Life’s executive director, opposed an abolition bill in 2023 on the grounds that it might expose mothers to criminal charges. She took the same position last year, arguing that women are victims of coercion by the abortion industry.

That framing has deadly consequences.

RELATED: ‘Massive betrayal’: Republicans, pro-life groups push back on Trump’s call to loosen key abortion restriction

Photo by Mandel NGAN / AFP via Getty Images

Following Spencer’s arrest, Wuchner publicly expressed sympathy for the accused, describing Spencer as likely being “on her own” and calling that “probably the greatest tragedy,” before adding that “of course … a child’s life was lost.”

The ordering is revealing. The alleged murder of a child was treated as secondary to the emotional state of the alleged murderer. Empathy displaced justice and accountability.

— (@)

There are cases in which women are coerced into abortions under genuine duress. But coercion cannot be presumed as a universal explanation. By all available evidence, Spencer appears to have acted deliberately. Kentucky law nevertheless forecloses full accountability — and ensures that the central act in this case cannot be adjudicated as homicide.

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe, states like Kentucky have continued to see record abortion levels, largely through self-managed chemical abortions ordered online. Laws that categorically exempt women from prosecution guarantee this outcome.

If a state refuses to make murder illegal for everyone, then some human beings will remain unprotected by design. And when that exemption applies even in cases involving concealment, burial, and admitted intent, justice becomes impossible by statute.

So long as that remains the case, women who willfully kill their unborn children in Kentucky will continue to get away with murder.

​Opinion & analysis, Abortion, Pro-life, Kentucky, Fetal homicide, Melinda spencer, Law, Justice, Abortion pills, Miranda king, Kentucky right to life, Roe v. wade, Dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization, Supreme court, Addia wuchner, Murder, Abolition 

After years of DEI, affirmative action, and replacement-level immigration, some young white Americans are beginning to demand political representation as a group. Conservatives are panicking about this rise in “white identity politics,” but they shouldn’t be surprised at all, says BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre.

“For decades, whites have watched every other group in America successfully demand political action as a block from both the left and the right. Democrats build their entire party around racial grievance, but even conservatives are quick to speak to the needs of minority communities as a collective group,” Auron says.

Even though conservatives are typically anti-identity politics, they nonetheless “cater to them for any group except their core constituency: white Americans.”

Now some of those white Americans are saying, “Enough — we demand the same treatment.”

Massive immigration has brought in large groups of people who naturally stick together ethnically and gain advantages through nepotism and tribalism, Auron explains. This makes pure individual merit, which whites are forced to rely on, a losing strategy, especially when they’re already demonized for their race by universities, corporations, and media outlets.

For years the message has been: “[Whites] aren’t allowed to advocate as a group like everyone else gets to, but they are allowed to be punished as a group.”

The fact that some whites are now calling for ethnic representation is merely “predictable results,” Auron says.

“If conservatives were serious about stopping the rise of collective white identity politics, they would stop lecturing young white people for noticing the obvious. They would instead attack the systemic bias against whites in corporations and academia. … If they were serious, conservatives would initiate an immigration moratorium and would aggressively prosecute ethnic cartels in the United States,” he continues.

“Conservative leaders should be lecturing blacks, Indians, Hispanics, and Jews just as aggressively as they lecture whites about ethnocentrism, if for no other reason than whites, you know, actually vote for the GOP, while all these other groups — outside of Hispanic males in the last election — vote overwhelmingly Democrat.”

“In short, show young white people that they can succeed without ethnocentrism by actually addressing and punishing ethnocentrism that is currently practiced by every other group here in the United States. Gather your courage and talk to the minorities who are already practicing the very behavior you claim to fear.”

To hear more of Auron’s commentary and analysis, watch the video above.

Want more from Auron MacIntyre?

To enjoy more of this YouTuber and recovering journalist’s commentary on culture and politics, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The auron macintyre show, Auron macintyre, White identity politics, Identity politics, Ethnocentrism, Ethnic bias, Blazetv, Blaze media, Dei, Affirmative action 

A violent repeat offender brutally beat up elderly whites and Mexicans in a racially motivated attack in Arizona earlier this week, officials said.

In fact, 62-year-old Derek Kirven admitted to police he was targeting white and Mexican victims at the Escalante Multi-Generational Center in Tempe, KPNX-TV reported, citing newly filed court documents.

‘At that point, he essentially lost control. … He started to assault these people by punching them, throwing them to the ground.’

The station said Wednesday’s assault left several victims with serious injuries, including broken bones.

Tempe police said Kirven walked into a members-only area around 9 a.m. and was asked to leave because he was not a member, KPNX reported.

“He tried to come in, and he was told to leave because he was not a member, and then around 11:30 a.m., he came back,” Officer Jessica Ells told the station.

Police said that’s when Kirven snapped and began attacking people, many of whom were seated and waiting for lunch, KPNX said.

“At that point, he essentially lost control and began attacking all the members who were inside the center,” Ells added to the station.

“He started to assault these people by punching them, throwing them to the ground.”

You can view video of the attack here. A city of Tempe security guard eventually detained Kirven until police arrived, the station said.

One victim suffered a broken wrist, and another was left with a broken nose, KPNX said, citing court documents. A third victim — who has autism and suffers from seizures — was punched and knocked to the ground, the station noted.

What’s more, some victims were using walkers and had no way to defend themselves, police added to KPNX.

RELATED: Video: Female bully towers over and beats up elderly woman on Florida bus. Victim is left ‘battered and bruised’: Sheriff.

A fourth victim’s hearing aid, valued at $4,000, was damaged, the station said, adding that the victim was concerned the attack may have aggravated a previous open-heart surgery.

More from KPNX:

During an interview with police, Kirven said he felt staff asked him to leave because he is black, according to court documents.

He told detectives he intentionally targeted white and Mexican people and said he hoped more than one of them would die from their injuries, court documents show.

Court documents also state Kirven told police he would assault people again if given the chance.

Court papers indicate Kirven used racial slurs when referring to the victims and toward a Hispanic detective during the interview, KTVK-TV reported, adding that investigators said he called another detective names like “confederate,” “hillbilly” and “white trash.”

According to police reports, staff at the center offered Kirven a membership earlier Wednesday morning, but he did not have identification, the station said.

Kirven has an extensive criminal history in Arizona and New Mexico, KPNX said, citing court documents. The station added that he served time in New Mexico’s prison system for aggravated battery several years ago.

KPNX also said records show Kirven is a transient with felony convictions across multiple states, including kidnapping and aggravated battery, and he had two outstanding warrants at the time of his arrest.

Kirven was booked on multiple counts of aggravated assault, disorderly conduct, trespassing, and criminal damage, KTVK reported.

Kirven is now in the custody of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and is being held on $500,000 bond, KPNX said.

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

​Physical attack, Elderly victims, Racism, Racially motivated attack, Arizona, Arrest, Jailed, Race, Repeat offender, Crime 

Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that Western civilization is on the brink of collapse. The values that built it have been ripped up and condemned as antiquated, imperialist, or white supremacist.

But instead of despairing, Westerners ought to take heart in one trait the West has exemplified time and again: resilience.

Historian Allen Guelzo, co-author of “The Golden Thread” book series, tells BlazeTV host Steve Deace that “unlike other civilizations, which have risen, reached a certain peak, and then gone rapidly into decline, the Western tradition … has shown a remarkable resilience to rise, to falter, to look like it’s about to slide downwards maybe into the abyss of forgetfulness, but yet somehow finding the way to recover itself.”

This bouncing back has happened over and over again, Guelzo says.

“We had a moment like that at the end of the Roman Empire when it appeared that we were about to disappear into what is commonly called the Dark Ages,” he recaps.

It happened again after the Black Plague of the 1300s wiped out “two-thirds of the European population” and again after the Thirty Years’ War left so much death and chaos in its wake, it appeared that “violence and power were about to stamp out any notion of law and inquiry.”

In more recent years, the West faced two World Wars and the greatest genocide in Western history.

And yet, in all of these cases, “there was something which bounced back in this Western tradition,” Guelzo remarks optimistically.

Today, we stand at yet another “civilizational moment” where destruction is knocking at our door.

Guelzo is hopeful our future will mirror our resilient past, but for that to happen, people — especially younger generations — must cultivate an interest in history.

“History itself tells us who we have been. What we are today is what we were in the past,” he says. “The great Marcus Tullius Cicero … once said that anyone who remained ignorant of their history was condemned perpetually to live as a child, and I think that’s true.”

“The Golden Thread” series, which Guelzo co-authored with former Harvard history professor James Hankins, are exactly the kind of books that will spark an interest in Western history.

“It is a good deal more than just long lists of names, dates, places — which is the kind of thing that most people tell me they dread about history,” Guelzo laughs. “These books are also full of ideas; they are full of philosophy; they are full of art; they are full of great paintings; they are full of music.”

“It’s full of color. It’s full of life. It’s full of acknowledgments that the Western tradition has sometimes put its foot down wrongly. It’s made mistakes. People have suffered for that, and yet, even with that, the vitality of that tradition has been one of recovery; it has been one of uplift; it has been one that promotes human flourishing,” he adds.

It is this knowledge that can save Western civilization from collapse, Guelzo tells Deace.

“We can save it because it has been saved before.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve’s take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Steve deace show, Steve deace, The golden thread, Allen guelzo, History, Western civilization, Fall of the west, Blazetv, Blaze media, Western history 

Let’s face it: $20 trillion is a lot of money.

One would expect a big bang to follow the spending of 20,000 billion dollars. It’s a lot of money! In fact, it’s pretty much the total present value of America’s GDP.

The American economy sent trillions to our south and east — putting America second, hollowing out the American middle class, and neutralizing the American dream.

This is the total amount spent globally — largely by Europe and the United States — in a coordinated effort by the developed world to decarbonize the global economy. China, in contrast, sold windmills and solar panels worldwide while opening a new coal-fired power plant every month.

What was the net effect of this “Green” Marshall Plan? Hydrocarbon consumption continued to increase anyway. All that was achieved was a tiny reduction, just 2%, in the share of overall energy supplied by hydrocarbons. Put simply, as the energy pie got bigger and all forms of energy supply increased, hydrocarbons ended up with a slightly smaller share of a larger pie.

We also saw the deindustrialization of the European and American economies — not just with higher prices at the gas pump and on electric bills, but a stealth green tax that was passed on to consumers on everything. This is the culprit of our American and global affordability crisis. So much treasure and pain for a 2% reduction in the share of hydrocarbons.

Ironically, a byproduct of this Green Hunger Games was political populism.

What a waste. The worst bang for the public and private buck ever. Yet the Chicken Little believers of the Church of Settled Science and the grifters who profited from it will still sing in unison that it failed because they did not go far enough. If only the global community spent and regulated more!

In contrast, the Marshall Plan (1948-1951) rebuilt a decimated Europe into an industrial, interconnected, and peaceful powerhouse. It was a great success by any measure. At the time, its price tag was huge: $13.3 billion in nominal 1948-1951 dollars, equivalent to approximately $150 billion in today’s dollars.

Since a trillion is such a large number, let’s divide $20 trillion by an inflation-adjusted Marshall Plan of $150 billion, and we have 133 Marshall opportunities. Money was not the problem. To give a sense of the comparative bang for buck, by the Marshall program’s end, the aggregated gross national product of the participating nations rose by more than 32% and industrial output increased by a remarkable 40%.

President Trump has been on the global funding rounds and has secured more than $18 trillion in foreign investment. That’s roughly the equivalent of 120 Marshall Plans — just 13 shy of $20 trillion — to be invested here and nowhere else.

Unlike NAFTA, through which the rich got richer under the banner of free markets in exchange for cheaper consumer goods, Trump’s policy is a recipe for prosperity for all Americans.

RELATED: Trump administration saves billions in simple move globalists and climate activists alike will hate

Photo by David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Making these investments a reality in America will require a growing army of blue- and white-collar workers. With the wealth that it creates, our debt could be paid down and, finally, retired. Social Security and Medicare would be placed on a solid footing for time immemorial. All our public obligations to one another would be met by ever-growing prosperity, not by borrowed money and suffocating debt service.

Nothing approaching this level of intentional investment in a single country has ever been done. Yes, a similar tranche of greenbacks was burned with no discernible environmental benefit and great economic hardship for all. And yes, the American economy, under the guise of comparative advantage, sent trillions to our south and east — putting America second, hollowing out the American middle class, and neutralizing the American dream.

Trump’s plan is the opposite of both failed experiments. Like the original Marshall Plan, Trump’s is a recipe for the reindustrialization of the American economy and military, and it is not going to be fueled by windmills and solar farms but with hydrocarbons and uranium. That’s the Trump plan. It has merit.

Yet if we look at the polls, Trump is under water, and his base is showing signs of stress fractures. You bring peace to the Middle East, stop six other wars, and bring in some $20 trillion in America First investments within your first year, and you come home to find yourself under water and called a “lame duck.” Democracies are known to be fickle and hard to please, but this is still rich — and it will result in poverty if it continues.

Without the use of Trump’s tariffs and dealmaking, there would not be $20 trillion looking to onshore in the United States. You can blame Trump for higher costs on bananas and coffee, but it is the cost of electricity and health care — not the cost of coffee and bananas — that is roiling kitchen-table economics.

Vice President JD Vance recently made the right call for popular and populist patience. Those who are impatient should look at the offsets already passed, such as no taxes on Social Security, tips, and overtime. That helps pay for bananas and coffee and then some.

The sovereign wealth funds that are presently lining up on our shores are coming here based on promises made by a can-do president speaking for a can-do nation. While Trump is a can-do guy, are “We the People” still a can-do people? Or do we at least want to return to becoming a can-do people again?

The “can’t-do” forces are legion, and they are the ones now championing the affordability crisis they caused. When America was a can-do nation, we built the Empire State Building in a year. Today, it would take years to get a permit.

RELATED: From Monroe to ‘Donroe’: America enforces its back yard again

Photo by Jim WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

Those willing to invest such money will require some certitude that the power they will need will be there to “build, baby, build.” If not, the money and the opportunity will pass before they have the possibility to take needed root.

And what about us, the American family, worker, and business continuing to struggle under the legacy of throttling energy privation? In short, we all have a common good — a shared interest — in righting the wrongs that control our grid and our nation’s future.

The good news is that a bill was introduced in the House during the government shutdown. It’s called the “Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act.” Unlike Obamacare, which clocked in at 903 pages, this bill is a lean 763 words. If it becomes law — and it should — it would change everything for the better, unlike Obamacare, which is a recipe for unaffordability.

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act was missing this one thing. His short- and long-term America First ambitions would be significantly strengthened by making this energy bill law before the midterms. Executive orders don’t provide the energy security these investors require or the American people deserve.

$20 trillion is a lot of money. Coming to our shores is a new lease on the American experiment as we enter our 250th birthday, hopelessly divided and broke. Let us come together to solve not just the affordability crisis but also set the conditions for greatness for the next 250 years.

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

​Opinion & analysis, Green energy, $20 trillion, Boondoggle, Environmentalism, Climate change alarmism, Climate crisis, Global warming, Hysteria, United states, Gross domestic product, Economy, National debt, Interest, Affordability crisis 

By the time of its collapse in 1991, the Soviet regime had overseen a democide of tens of millions of Russians, thrown millions of people into the regime’s hellish Gulag labor camp system, and spent nearly 70 years brutally persecuting those at odds with dissenting views, especially Christians.

Stephen Colbert, the departing host of CBS’ “The Late Show” who pushed COVID-19 vaccination during the pandemic, recently suggested that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn’t all bad on account of its purported feminism.

‘Russia and the Soviet Union were the vanguard of world feminism.’

During her Monday appearance on Colbert’s show, Soviet-born reporter Julia Ioffe peddled her new book about the feminist experiment in the USSR — a “fairy-tale country” whose communist regime forced women to work, legalized abortion, ushered in no-fault divorce, and took other efforts to transform men and women into interchangeable units of labor devoid of strong loyalties outside the state.

“I remember seeing Soviet posters basically saying, ‘In the West women are not allowed to do any of this,'” Colbert told Ioffe. “There was a forward-looking feminist agenda to the communist enterprise.”

RELATED: Domestic extremist or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the mom

Julia Ioffe and Stephen Colbert. Photo by Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty Images.

“I think a lot of people forget, including Russians, that Russia and the Soviet Union were the vanguard of world feminism,” said Ioffe.

Ioffe’s apparent efforts to paint the Soviet Union as the “vanguard of world feminism” didn’t get past critics.

Newsbusters noted that whereas women’s right to vote, which was granted by the Provisional Government that replaced Tsar Nicholas II in 1917, was taken away by “Colbert’s Soviet poster children” after the October Revolution, 15 American states allowed women to vote before 1917, and the 19th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1920 without suffering the country to communism.

Although Ioffe acknowledged that women’s right to vote in the USSR became “largely irrelevant very quickly,” she suggested to Colbert that there were other perks made available to women under the totalitarian regime, including access to free higher education, abortion, child support, no-fault civil divorce, and paid maternity leave.

Ioffe noted further that the regime gifted roughly 800,000 women, mostly teenage girls, the responsibility to fight in active combat during World War II.

Colbert, apparently upset to learn that the USSR’s efforts to maximize the utility of women to the state dissipated over time, asked, “Why did it go away?”

“Because men,” answered Ioffe.

“I’m so sorry,” said Colbert.

Colbert, who recently told fellow travelers that a 2028 presidential run was not in the works despite speculation to the contrary, is leaving “The Late Show” in May.

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

​Woke, Soviet, Ussr, Russia, Julia ioffe, Stephen colbert, Communism, Feminism, Retarded, Politics 

The District of Columbia wasn’t supposed to be like this. Hard as it is to believe today, the capital was set apart as its own district not to make it an untouchable bureaucratic citadel, but to make it work for all Americans. Unattached to any one state and free from the control of any one constituency, our government was supposed to serve the whole country.

Decades of misunderstanding, however, have muddled this design. Federalization gives us a fighting chance of restoring it.

Perhaps the most prudent solution would be to subsume the District’s entities into the federal government.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government resided in Philadelphia until a military mutiny prompted it to leave. With this in mind, the framers proposed an optional federal district.

Under the proposal, Congress could create a capital and be vested with “exclusive” legislative authority over it. This would put the government in a position to contemplate and sympathize equally with all Americans. The states approved. And so the framers’ proposal was ratified under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution. Congress then placed the capital along the Potomac River, and D.C. was organized in 1801.

Confusion soon followed. Congress tried many approaches to local governance and settled on a semi-independent model, enacted as the D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973. This established a congressionally appointed judiciary and a popularly elected city council, mayor, and attorney general. Under home rule, D.C. could make its own law, albeit with congressional oversight.

The founders warned us about this model, however. They anticipated that self-governance would embarrass, impede, and endanger the federal government.

This failure predates Trump

Trump derangement syndrome has only vindicated this position. In 2017, D.C.’s attorney general joined litigation against Trump’s so-called Muslim ban. Then in 2020, D.C. painted a “Black Lives Matter” memorial along 16th Street NW, flipping an urban bird at the Trump White House. And in 2025, the District’s attorney general protested Trump’s public safety initiative, contesting his right to seize the Metropolitan Police Department and deploy the National Guard across the city.

One might overlook these obstructions if the District’s fierce independence enabled it to ensure safe and efficient self-governance. But that doesn’t describe D.C. In 2023, a Senate staffer traversing the northeast part of the city was knocked to the ground and repeatedly stabbed in the head and chest. Then in May 2025, two embassy interns were murdered outside the Capital Jewish Museum. The following month, a congressional intern was fatally shot in the Mount Vernon Square neighborhood.

Nor is partisanship the only problem. D.C. behaves almost as poorly when Democrats wield federal power. In April 2024, pro-Palestinian protesters erected an encampment at George Washington University (a federally chartered school). City officials refused to remove the protesters for two weeks even though their disruptions interfered with students’ final exam preparations.

Bringing the capital to heel will ultimately require legislation. There’s already a proposal to repeal home rule. It’s a great start, but the proposal doesn’t detail how D.C. would operate afterward — not a promising omission when Congress tends to be so ineffective.

Perhaps the most prudent solution would be to subsume the District’s entities into the federal government. Then Congress need not work from a blank slate by creating new bodies for local governance. Instead, D.C.’s city council could become an advisory body to recommend local laws. This would meet the Constitution’s requirement that Congress make the laws without requiring it to fuss over the minutiae of local governance.

This idea won’t appease locals who want equal electoral representation to that enjoyed by other Americans, if not greater. We know that D.C. residents (or, more accurately, the Democrats in their ears) seek D.C. statehood. But if it’s a state they’re after, then they should entertain retrocession or repeal the District’s charter. Illegitimatizing the Constitution to preserve the mock state is not the way to go.

Forcing the issue through the courts

Knowing that Democrats in Congress will object on these grounds to any discussion of federalization, we should use litigation to force a solution on this matter. The difficulty with litigation is finding a plaintiff — a D.C. resident who believes in a federal capital and whose case wouldn’t be easily dismissed by local judges seeking to avoid the issue. But with so many conservatives currently serving in D.C. under the Trump administration, now might be the time to bring a suit.

The right litigant has two ways to attack home rule — challenge D.C.’s lawmaking power or neutralize its prosecutorial authority. The lawmaking approach likely faces two objections. First, judges might question how Congress’ ultimate legislative authority under home rule meaningfully differs from exclusive authority under the Constitution. Second, they might raise the constitutional liquidation theory, which posits that the post-enactment tradition fleshes out constitutional indeterminacies.

RELATED: Six questions Trump and conservatives can no longer dodge in ’26

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Neither objection holds water. For one thing, exclusive legislative authority means what it says — one body enacts the law. Using D.C.’s city council as a think tank wouldn’t violate this principle, because only Congress would oversee legislation from introduction to enactment. But home rule fails because Congress shares its authority with another body. In fact, a law could exist under home rule without Congress touching it at all. The Constitution doesn’t envision such an anomaly.

Relatedly, liquidation presupposes that a constitutional provision is ambiguous. But here, the framers couldn’t have written a clearer provision. Congressional authority over D.C. is exclusive; that means only Congress can exercise it. And so even though Congress has handed lawmaking power to D.C. on multiple occasions, viewing this abdication as indicative of the Constitution’s original meaning would only sanction congressional laziness and cowardice.

A limited win that still matters

The prosecutorial approach would open a more straightforward path to a more limited victory. The pitch is simple: The D.C. attorney general is a federal creation. And yet he is elected and can sue the federal government at will. This flouts the appointment process, as well as the president’s power to remove officers and direct executive-branch entities. Now would be the perfect time to press this argument, as the Supreme Court aims to clarify the president’s removal power later this term and the D.C. Circuit recently questioned whether “the District possesses an independent sovereignty that can give rise to an Article III injury from actions of the federal government.”

The only issue is that D.C. could still make law. But some of that law will be unenforceable if the attorney general cannot prosecute. Hence, a small win — but a win nonetheless.

Congress has subverted the Constitution by entertaining home rule. The results have been ugly and will get uglier. District residents will grow increasingly radical in their demands for self-governance. The framers, in their wisdom, didn’t create a sovereign D.C. — they bequeathed us a federal city to preserve a neutral national government. We should restore that vision.

Editor’s Note: A version of this article was published originally at the American Mind

​Dc, Dc home rule, Trump, Congress, Constitution, Opinion & analysis, Washington d.c., Lawsuit, The courts, Attorney general, Self-government, American mind, Capital, Black lives matter, Crime 

A man who was allowed to become a police officer despite child rape accusations was later convicted of a horrific campaign of rape that included a child under 13 years of age.

The victims of 24-year-old Cliff Mitchell described him as “the devil” and “a pathetic excuse of a man” over the horrific abuse he committed as a U.K. police officer.

‘You are the devil. You disgust me. I hope you suffer for the rest of your life.’

Even worse, Mitchell was allowed to become an officer despite the past child rape allegations because he fit a diversity quota when officials were driving to recruit more officers.

Mitchell’s application was denied in 2020 over the 2018 allegations, but an admission panel overturned the decision and allowed him to join the force.

Prosecutors said Mitchell used a knife to kidnap one of his victims in Sept. 2023. He tied her arms with cable ties and put tape over her mouth before raping her. Mitchell laughed at her cries and told her no one would believe her because he was an officer.

Mitchell was convicted of 10 counts of rape, 4 counts of rape of a child under 13, one count of kidnap, and a breach of a non-molestation order.

“You deserve to spend the rest of your life in a cell because you are a serious danger to every woman walking the streets,” one of the victims said to Mitchell in court. “You are the devil. You disgust me. I hope you suffer for the rest of your life.”

The other victim, who said she lives in fear, also excoriated him in court.

“I’m holding you to account for your actions; you took away my self-worth,” she said. “You are a pathetic excuse of a man.”

RELATED: School credit ‘recovery’ plans are apparently being misused for racial equity — and disadvantaging students even more

“Cliff Mitchell is clearly a deeply troubled young man. … (His) serious offending appears to have arisen for desire for control,” Mrs. Justice May said at his sentencing. “The fact he was a police officer, albeit for a short time, will make imprisonment a harsher experience for him.”

Astoundingly, the drive for diversity and an increased demand for recruitment led to other questionable people being allowed to become officers.

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

​Diversity hire rape, Uk cop commits rape, Rape diversity, Cliff mitchell child sex rape, Politics