Category: blaze media

Researchers from the nation that likely unleashed COVID-19 unto the world have transformed mosquitoes into flying syringes.

Some researchers, including a group at the Bill Gates Foundation-backed Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands, have already attempted in recent years to fashion mosquitoes into flying vaccine delivery systems with human targets in mind.

‘Mosquitoes bite many things other than bats.’

Now, scientists at the state-controlled Chinese Academy of Sciences — an institution that has a strategic partnership with the People’s Liberation Army Academy of Military Sciences — have targeted bats, purportedly designing mosquitoes to instead deliver recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus-based rabies and Nipah vaccines to the flying mammals.

Like rabies, Nipah virus is a potentially deadly virus found in animals. Whereas rabies has nearly a 100% fatality rate in humans once symptoms manifest, the estimated case fatality rate for Nipah virus ranges from 40% to 75%.

The Chinese scientists’ study, published on March 11 in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances, noted that bats, “representing ~22% of all mammalian species, are natural reservoirs for a wide range of zoonotic viruses, including coronaviruses, rhabdoviruses, and paramyxoviruses. Their unique physiological and immunological traits enable them to harbor pathogens without showing clinical symptoms, making them critical players in the emergence of infectious diseases.”

The scientists claimed that immunizing bats, especially in the wild, could possibly prevent transmission of the rabies and Nipah viruses to humans and other animals but acknowledged that “achieving this goal presents substantial challenges due to the wide geographic distribution, diverse diets, and large colony sizes of bat populations.”

RELATED: Damning study of over a million kids finds myocarditis only in the vaccinated

Photo by Zabed Hasnain Chowdhury/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Recognizing the impracticality of individually jabbing multitudes of bats and ruling out bat-culling as “counterproductive,” the Chinese scientists instead created vaccines using a weakened form of the vesicular stomatitis virus that can infect insects and mammals alike.

They fed vaccine-laden blood to lab-adapted Aedes aegypti mosquitoes and subsequently detected the vaccine both in the whole mosquitoes and in their salivary glands for over two weeks. The vaccine-laden mosquitoes reportedly delivered the vaccines as intended and provided test bats and rodents with immune protection.

The study claimed that “this innovative approach offers a scalable and efficient solution for immunizing wild bats, addressing critical challenges in disease control and bat conservation.”

Through this experiment, researchers hope that there will be reduced spillover of the Nipah and rabies viruses from bats to humans or livestock.

Aihua Zheng, a Chinese virologist who worked on the study, told NPR, “The advantage is if we immunize the population, the transmission of the virus will be decreased or eventually eliminated.”

However, that outcome is by no means certain. Plus, there are other problems associated with such vaccine-infused mosquitoes.

Daniel Streicker, a professor of viral ecology at the University of Glasgow who was not involved in the study, expressed concern to Chemical and Engineering News over possible risks of such proposed vaccination initiatives.

“Mosquitoes bite many things other than bats, including humans,” Streicker said, adding, “There’s still an issue that you’re removing individual consent.”

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

​Mosquito, Mosquitoes, Insect, Virus, Pathogen, Science, Bats, Vaccination, Vaccine, Flying vaccines, China, Covid-19, Politics, Biowarfare 

At the Munich Security Conference in February, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) suggested that once Donald Trump leaves office, things can return to normal — back to whatever existed before Trump.

While other Democrats eyeing the White House struggled to distinguish themselves, Newsom revealed a different problem. They looked unready to lead. He looked unwilling to lead at all.

The question isn’t whether Donald Trump disrupted a prior equilibrium. It’s whether those who seek to lead are prepared to lead amid friction, scarcity, and opposition.

Munich isn’t a campaign stop. It’s a security summit. Leaders gather there to talk about cyber warfare, artificial intelligence in military systems, energy instability, supply chain fragility, and the security posture of the West.

Threats don’t wait for electoral cycles.

Newsom’s implication was simple: Wait this out. Wait for a different administration. Wait for political alignment. Wait for conditions to improve.

But what, exactly, are we waiting for?

Are adversaries pausing their ambitions until our politics settle? Are supply chains stabilizing on their own? Does instability take a sabbatical while we sort out elections?

California sits on enormous capacity that intersects directly with these challenges — from artificial intelligence to aerospace to energy systems. If it were its own nation, its economy would rank among the largest in the world.

In that room, Newsom had a chance to say something simple: We can help today.

He could have said: We have political frictions, yes — but here’s what California can put on the table right now. Here’s what’s on the showroom floor and what’s in the stockroom.

Leadership doesn’t wait for better conditions. It works with the conditions at hand. That isn’t political. It’s true.

Trump has faced headwinds since re-entering politics in 2015: media opposition, legal battles, congressional resistance, impeachments, cultural hostility — even a bullet. Whatever one thinks of his tone or policies, he didn’t suspend action until the pressure eased.

Resistance didn’t become an excuse.

George Washington didn’t wait for favorable conditions before leading a fragile Continental Army. He faced shortages, division, and superior opposition. Conditions were rarely ideal. Resources were rarely sufficient. He acted anyway.

Entrepreneurs launch in recessions. Athletes train in bad weather. Reformers work when opposition is loudest.

Adversity doesn’t excuse stagnation so much as it reveals character.

Years ago, I knew a pastor who believed his preaching would rise once he moved into a larger sanctuary. His pitch to the building committee was brazen and simple: “Frame me better, and my sermons will improve.”

They didn’t. His messages were weak before the new building, and they stayed weak afterward. The platform changed. The man did not.

Conditions don’t create conviction. They reveal it.

RELATED: I walked away from California Democrats to keep my sanity

Photo by Julia Beverly/WireImage

I see the same instinct in family caregivers walking through chronic impairment: “We just have to hold on.” “Once this season passes.”

The assumption stays the same: When hardship lifts, life begins.

But for many, this is the life.

Waiting for better conditions is surrender, not strategy.

The apostle Paul wrote large portions of the New Testament from prison. Confinement didn’t suspend his calling. Chains weren’t an excuse. He didn’t wait for a “new Caesar.” He wrote anyway.

That’s the dividing line.

One posture says: Once the obstacle is removed, I’ll begin.

The other says: I’ll begin here. Now.

Newsom’s remarks reveal more than a political calculation. They expose a familiar instinct: the belief that productivity begins once hardship fades. But adversity rarely fades on schedule.

History doesn’t pause. Adversaries don’t pause. Life doesn’t pause.

The question isn’t whether Trump disrupted a prior equilibrium. It’s whether those who seek to lead are prepared to lead amid friction, scarcity, and opposition — or whether they are waiting for a version of normal that isn’t coming back.

Leadership shows up in the arena — or on the battlefield — but rarely in the green room.

​Gavin newsom, Donald trump, Foreign policy, Democrats, Leadership, Iran war, 2028 election, Opinion & analysis, Munich security conference 

Netflix’s five-part sci-fi series “Stranger Things” — a twisted tale of undercover government experiments, evil supernatural creatures, and a sinister parallel dimension — is one of the streaming service’s most successful and profitable shows in its history.

Despite its heavy supernatural horror elements, occult-adjacent references, and gory violence, “Stranger Things” has been popular among some Christian audiences that appreciate its spiritual warfare parallels, good vs. evil themes, and subtle nods to biblical concepts like sacrifice and resurrection.

But are these Christians just inventing a loophole to participate in sinful entertainment?

On this episode of “Strange Encounters,” BlazeTV host Rick Burgess addresses this controversial subject.

The answer to whether Christians should watch “Stranger Things” is a complicated one.

“Is the show satanic or demonic? Not really, because the separation of good and evil seems to be there pretty clear,” Rick says, “but it can be troubling because there are some scary things in it.”

Additionally, the show includes profanity and language that takes the Lord’s name in vain.

“But do they mock Jesus? Not really,” Rick says. “There’s actually an episode when they discuss getting the church involved against this evil force that they’re fighting against.”

But even if the show leans more into sci-fi than true paranormal horror and uses secular language without overtly blaspheming Christ, does that mean Christians should watch it?

For younger kids, Rick’s answer is no.

“If the kid is younger than 15, probably not,” he states.

For one, the show features characters and concepts that could be deeply unsettling and terrifying to a younger audience — “monsters … that could cause nightmares,” he warns.

Second, there are LGBTQ+ themes, as two of the main characters are homosexual and embraced for their lifestyles.

Third, “astral projection” — the occult belief that a person’s consciousness or spirit can intentionally separate from their physical body and travel through an astral plane or other dimensions — is part of the “Stranger Things” plot line.

For these reasons, younger audiences are better off keeping their distance from the show, according to Rick.

But what about older kids and adults? Can they watch this popular series without opening themselves up to demonic forces?

“I would say it should be under a yellow flag caution more than a red flag,” Rick says, suggesting that participation or avoidance should be determined by personal conviction.

Citing Brent Crowe’s book “Chasing Elephants,” he says, “When dealing with what entertainment we allow in our lives from a spiritual standpoint, there’s questions to ask,” the most important being: “Does it have any redeeming quality?”

“You have to be careful being really legalistic about, ‘If it’s R, I’m not watching it.’ Well, then you wouldn’t have watched ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ Why is it rated R would be kind of the road you would go down,” he advises.

To hear more of Rick’s biblical wisdom regarding what kinds of entertainment Christians should and should not partake in, watch the full episode above.

Want more from Rick Burgess?

To enjoy more bold talk and big laughs, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Strange encounters, Strange encounters with rick burgess, Rick burgess, Stranger things, Netflix, Spiritual warfare, Entertainment, Blazetv, Blaze media, Demonic oppression 

For millennia, we have all more or less understood one thing about forgiveness: You cannot demand it.

You can ask for it. You can plead for it. You can try to earn it. But the moment you insist that someone owes it to you, you have misunderstood the thing itself.

You can command a Christian to forgive because he has been given a new heart. You cannot litigate him into loving his enemy.

Sam Ridge, a philosopher at the University of California San Diego, thinks that conventional wisdom is wrong. In a recent paper, he argues that there are cases in which a wrongdoer has “a right to be forgiven by their victim.”

In other words, forgiveness can be understood as a claimable moral asset — not just something one hopes for, but something one may, under certain conditions, press for. That may sound tidy in a philosophy seminar. It sounds far less plausible beside a bloodstained cross and wounds that still bear a name.

Promise ring

Ridge’s argument begins with promises. “Promises generate rights,” he writes. And since “we can promise to forgive,” it follows that “we can have a right to be forgiven.”

He then pushes beyond explicit promises. Long habits of forbearance, he argues, can create expectations and implicit commitments inside relationships. Over time, those too may harden into something like a right. Philosophers, he says, have been wrong to treat forgiveness as if it were always the victim’s exclusive property.

From a Christian standpoint, there is something here to appreciate. Ridge is at least pushing back against the modern cult of grievance, where outrage becomes a vocation and to forgive is to cede power. He is right to insist that resentment cannot simply be nursed forever. He is also right to note that relationships impose real obligations and that promises are not decorative sounds. In a culture that treats every vow as provisional, the suggestion that words bind has the ring of sanity.

But having glimpsed the truth that forgiveness cannot be purely discretionary, Ridge reaches for the bluntest tool in the secular toolbox: rights language.

RELATED: Mary Clarke: Beverly Hills socialite who traded haute couture for a habit

Eudist Servants of the 11th Hour

Forgiveness fix

The move also fits a broader cultural drift. In recent years, forgiveness has steadily been reframed in therapeutic terms. Harvard researchers now explain that “forgiveness is good for us,” meaning it lowers stress, improves mental health, and stabilizes relationships.

In popular self-help language, the advice is even simpler: Forgive so you can heal; forgive so you can move on.

Once forgiveness is treated primarily as a psychological good, it becomes easy to assume that people ought to supply that good to one another. Ridge’s argument may simply be the next step in that progression: If forgiveness benefits everyone, why shouldn’t the offender have some claim to it?

The result is philosophically clever and spiritually tone-deaf.

Debt relief

The trouble with Ridge’s proposal appears in at least three places.

The New Testament does not picture forgiveness as a debtor’s legal claim against the heart of his neighbor. It presents forgiveness as an act flowing from divine mercy: “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.” Christian forgiveness is commanded, yes, but it is not coerced. It grows out of a heart that knows it has been forgiven more than it will ever be asked to forgive.

That is the first problem with Ridge’s view. He treats forgiveness as a morally chargeable transaction. I promised; therefore you can bill me. We have a pattern; therefore you can invoice me again. But Scripture treats forgiveness not as a payable debt but as the fruit of regeneration. You can command a Christian to forgive because he has been given a new heart. You cannot litigate him into loving his enemy. You can wring out an apology. You cannot compel the release of a grudge.

Your word and God’s word

The second problem is more basic. Ridge blurs the line between keeping one’s word and performing a spiritual act. If a father tells his daughter, “I promise to forgive you,” then yes, he has taken on a real obligation. He ought to master his anger, repent of bitterness, and restore goodwill where he can.

But it does not follow that the daughter acquires a standing right to demand what only grace can genuinely produce. Ridge’s own formula — “We can promise to forgive. Therefore, we can have a right to be forgiven” — slides too quickly past that distinction. The pressure falls first on the father’s conscience before God, not on the daughter’s ability to cash a promissory note.

His friendship examples make the same mistake in softer form. Old friends do owe one another patience, mercy, and readiness to reconcile. If a man refuses forgiveness after decades of mutual forbearance, then yes, something real has broken down. But what has broken down is not best described as a hidden contract. It is a failure of charity, of character, of fidelity to the shape of friendship itself. Friendship is sustained by habits of mercy, not by enforceable claims.

Crucifying pride

The third problem is where Ridge’s framework leads, once applied to what he calls “moderate wrongdoing,” the ordinary failures “we have all committed and, regrettably, will commit again.” Those are precisely the daily arenas in which Christ calls people to crucify pride and extend mercy before they feel like it. Once those moments are reframed in the language of rights, forgiveness begins to sound less like grace and more like entitlement: I repented; I made amends — now you owe me.

That posture may satisfy a theorist. It corrodes the virtue itself.

The philosophers Ridge is pushing against — figures like Lucy Allais, Cheshire Calhoun, and Charles Griswold — were right to sense the danger. Many of them describe forgiveness as supererogatory: admirable, fitting, sometimes morally beautiful, but not something the offender may demand as a matter of right. As Ridge himself notes, there is “near universal agreement” on this point. They understood something Ridge does not fully reckon with: Forgiveness can be morally urgent without becoming something the offender may properly claim. The instant it hardens into entitlement, something essential has already been lost.

More demanding, more humane

To be fair, Ridge does try to hedge the claim. He confines it to a certain band of offenses. He concedes that some acts may be unforgivable in practice. He also insists that victims retain “leeway” and cannot be pushed into immediate or shallow reconciliation. Those are sensible guardrails. But his own framework undermines them. Once forgiveness is grounded in rights talk, the victim’s conscience becomes one more obstacle to be managed, pressured, and eventually treated as suspect for failing to deliver on schedule.

The Christian alternative is both more demanding and more humane.

It says to the wrongdoer: You are not entitled to your neighbor’s forgiveness; you are entitled only to throw yourself on the mercy of Christ.

It says to the victim: You are not entitled to nurse hatred forever; you are commanded to forgive as you have been forgiven.

But that command comes from God, not from the person who hurt you.

And it reminds both parties that a wounded relationship is not a contract to be litigated, but a place where grace, repentance, truth, and sometimes hard boundaries must coexist — not a ledger of claims and entitlements.

​Forgiveness, Christianity, Philosophy, Sam ridge, Lifestyle, Sin, Faith 

Pierre Poilievre may be taking a page from Donald Trump’s playbook. For American audiences, Poilievre is Canada’s Conservative leader and top challenger for prime minister — a sharp-tongued critic of liberal governance who has fused free-market economics with a populist political style.

Trump’s appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience” podcast was widely credited — fairly or not — with helping him connect with voters outside the traditional media bubble. Now, with his own poll numbers tightening, Poilievre has stepped onto the same stage, betting that a long-form, unfiltered conversation can do what scripted interviews often cannot.

Poilievre didn’t just avoid the risks his critics predicted; he made the format work for him. Like Trump before him, he used Rogan’s show not as a gauntlet, but as a platform.

If that was the strategy, it worked.

Worth the risk

It’s hard to pinpoint the high point of Poilievre’s appearance on Rogan’s show. There were several.

Before the interview — recorded, not live — Canada’s media class warned that it was a risk. Two-plus hours with Rogan, they suggested, could expose Poilievre to awkward questions or even embarrassment on the world’s most popular podcast, which also commands a massive Canadian audience.

There was little reason for concern.

Rogan opened by praising Poilievre as “a very reasonable, intelligent person” — a rarity in politics, he added — before launching into a broad critique of Canada’s recent direction. It set the tone: friendly, expansive, and largely unhostile.

They quickly turned to the now-famous “apple video,” a viral exchange between Poilievre and a British Columbia reporter that has become political folklore. What began as a would-be “gotcha” ended with Poilievre — casually eating an apple — deflecting accusations of populism and comparisons to Donald Trump. The clip circulated widely, hailed by supporters as a small master class in message discipline.

Poilievre told Rogan he hadn’t thought much of the moment at the time and didn’t even realize he was being recorded, assuming it was a routine print interview. The footage, captured by his own staff, was initially posted online without much notice before suddenly going viral weeks later, turning the exchange into an unlikely political talking point.

Mind your own business

Over two and a half hours, the conversation ranged widely — from martial arts to Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying program.

On euthanasia, Poilievre struck a more serious tone, arguing that public policy should emphasize helping people endure hardship rather than steering them toward death. He suggested the system should be oriented toward preserving life and ensuring that vulnerable people are not nudged toward assisted suicide as a default outcome.

He also revived a theme he has largely shelved since 2023: the idea of a “mind your own business” approach to government.

Poilievre framed the role of Parliament as limiting state power while expanding individual freedom — focusing government on core responsibilities like infrastructure, defense, and public safety while otherwise leaving people alone to live their lives. He added that if he were to build a party from scratch, it would embody that philosophy.

RELATED: ‘I couldn’t believe it’: BC tribunal orders ex-school trustee to pay $750K over trans ‘hate’

David Krayden | NurPhoto/Getty Images

Fight club

At one point, the dynamic flipped. During a discussion of the UFC and martial arts, Poilievre began quizzing Rogan on his own background, demonstrating an unexpected fluency in the subject — and even offering details about Bruce Lee that appeared to catch Rogan off guard.

The performance was confident, relaxed, and at times surprisingly deft.

Poilievre didn’t just avoid the risks his critics predicted; he made the format work for him. Like Trump before him, he used Rogan’s show not as a gauntlet, but as a platform.

It’s the kind of appearance he may wish he had done sooner — and one he’ll likely repeat as he continues his bid to become Canada’s next prime minister.

​Culture, Pierre poilievre, Joe rogan, The joe rogan experience, Donald trump, Letter from canada 

Frank Meyer’s fusionism combined free-market libertarianism and religion-friendly traditionalism to create the modern conservative movement. As a political alliance against the threat of communism, the movement served its purpose. But the principles that undergirded Meyer’s synthesis were not an adequate basis for attaining and sustaining national power.

The difference between the defeated Barry Goldwater faction and the victorious Ronald Reagan coalition was the vote of white Catholic Democrats alienated from their former party by its anti-anti-Communism and embrace of the three A’s: amnesty (for draft evaders), acid, and abortion.

We need a clearer, more uncompromising articulation of a pure MAGA doctrine that distinguishes our agenda from the libertarians and so-called principled conservatives.

Those former Democrats did not want smaller government, so Reagan preserved, for them and the country, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with generating ever-larger deficits.

Meyer’s synthesis, however, was not as new as is often claimed: In important respects, it represented 19th-century Bourbon Democracy spruced up for the post-World War II era. What distinguished the Bourbons from the Republicans (and from the populist Democrats) was their commitment to smaller government, free trade, and cheap labor. That meant unfree labor in the 1850s and more-or-less free labor once the South was successfully “redeemed” from Republican rule and black civil rights enforcement after the Civil War.

What America needs today instead is fissionism. We need a clearer, more uncompromising articulation of a pure MAGA doctrine that distinguishes our agenda from the libertarians and so-called principled conservatives.

MAGA in foreign and security matters means using American power to secure American interests. Foreign policy is not the application of abstract principles, which are worse than useless in international relations. What were Franklin Roosevelt’s principles or Andrew Jackson’s or Teddy Roosevelt’s? Their guiding star in foreign policy was not principle but the ruthless pursuit of results.

As for draining the swamp, the trench warfare over DOGE and U.S. attorney appointments proves that deconstructing the administrative state requires a pro-Trump Senate. But the current Senate remains beholden to the uniparty. If you are happy with your “principled conservative” senator obstructing the president, then you are on the other side.

Against those screaming for lower taxes and less government at all costs, protective tariffs are core to MAGA — and for that matter, core to the Republican Party before it was taken over by Reagan, a former Democrat and fusionist. MAGA demands an economic policy geared toward national greatness. It means an end to regulations engineered to cripple the U.S. economy in the name of DEI, apocalyptic climate alarmism, or the latest elite neurosis.

Targeted regulations and tariffs to onshore our supply chains and rebuild the American industrial base? Absolutely. That has been Donald Trump’s consistent agenda since he first started commenting on public affairs in the 1980s. If the “principled conservatives” fail to recognize this, that exposes their own ideological blindness, not a flaw in the MAGA platform.

RELATED: Will Republicans fight for the SAVE Act — or fold again?

Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT / AFP via Getty Images

Fundamentally, “principled conservatives” don’t want America to be stronger and freer if it means traditional Republican governance. They prefer Bourbon Democracy: small government, cheap goods, cheap labor (citizens and noncitizens alike), and dependence on others — once Britain or the North, now China — for industry, including vital defense-related manufacturing. As for the world, China can do what it wants. Anything else would require the old guard conservatives to compromise their precious “principles.”

People who don’t want the United States to be reliant on China, as Mississippi was on Manchester in 1850, or Manchester, New Hampshire, in 1890, should see “principled conservatives” as political opponents — allies of the Democrats. They are helping to destroy Trump and everything the president stands for.

Does drawing clearer partisan lines mean shedding potential support required for electoral victory? That is a very real risk. The compensating benefit is that once we know what we want, we can accurately identify our allies and band together to address the crises of our time.

A “principled conservative” administration would have preferred Big Pharma to RFK Jr. and MAHA. A “principled conservative” administration would make no room for a Tulsi Gabbard, an Elon Musk, or any other heterodox defector who wants to restore American foreign and security policy and advance American power, national honor, and national freedom.

Fissionism means drawing clear battle lines, dividing what was once the “conservative movement.” The “principled conservatives” can keep their pristine — and currently useless — “principles.” I am on the side of America, which means the side of Trump.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

​Frank meyers, Fusionism, Democrats, Ronald reagan, Donald trump, Nevertrump, Maga, Doge, Principled conservatives, Big pharma, Rfk jr, Opinion & analysis, Principles, The right, Republicans, Gop 

Millions recently read about normal-guy Paul Conyngham’s resourcefulness when it was revealed he did what doctors couldn’t in creating an effective, customized vaccine for his dog stricken with terminal illness, but far fewer caught the later-revealed fact that while ChatGPT was credited as the AI model Conyngham used to navigate the labyrinth of mRNA vaccine creation, it was actually Grok that produced the final, winning design.

Perhaps “normal guy” is an understatement. Conyngham is an Australian tech entrepreneur. When his adopted dog Rosie was diagnosed with terminal cancer, he paid a lab $3,000 to perform DNA sequencing analysis on both Rosie and the precise cancer Rosie was fighting. Then, he used AI tools such as AlphaFold to process the sequencing analysis. Finally, he deployed Grok to design the bespoke mRNA vaccine, which was ultimately produced by university partners (evidently available for consult or perhaps inspired by Conyngham’s devotion to his dog).

What are the odds that this is all just going to spontaneously work out?

Despite his unusual skills and network, however, Conyngham didn’t go viral for those. Rather, his story resonated because his can-do sense of initiative is something anyone can tap into, with potentially lifesaving results. At the time of this writing, despite doctors’ predictions, Rosie the dog is alive and thriving. Her illness has not entirely abated, but her owner’s ingenuity and persistence, combined with his layman’s agility around LLMs, has reduced the most life-threatening tumors by 75%.

How then, from this straightforward set of events, did ChatGPT wind up taking the credit until the record was corrected weeks later? When I asked Grok (which, being made up of timelines, is pretty reliable in accessing and reassessing events), I got the rather noncommittal suggestion that the misattribution was due to institutional inertia.

Perhaps.

Hungry for more, I dug into a much deeper human analysis of the man-saves-dog episode. Jordan Hall, another tech entrepreneur-turned-philosopher, posted a series of viral X articles addressing the economic shift to a total, global AI underlayer to the economy (and thus, every aspect of human life). In his second installment, “The Great Transition: The Divine Economy,” Hall sketches his vision for a coherent implementation of AI into this overarching position of importance.

RELATED: Use an anonymous account online? AI can now reveal your identity.

Photo Credit Olga Novikova/Getty Images

Readers are strongly encouraged to read Hall’s series of articles in its entirety. It’s fascinating and endlessly ponderable. All told, in anticipation of a global upheaval of biblical proportions — yes, we’ve heard this for years; despite the wait, it’s coming — Hall suggests we’ll turn the wheel over to the Church.

“The Church has always been an economic institution,” he argues, “whether it acknowledged it or not. Mutual aid, vocational, formation, capital pooling, trust networks — these are ancient practices. What changes now is that AI collapses the constraints that made those practices uncompetitive against industrial-scale consolidation. On Earth as it is in Heaven.”

In the case of Rosie and her owner, just a few questions illustrate the complexity and potential for malfeasance in our AI age. Who owns the Grok-derived vaccine recipe? Who owns Rosie’s DNA? Can it be sold? Who should benefit? If DNA data is “scraped” in some manner similar to how novels, television shows, and musical recordings are more or less pilfered, what are the limits of DNA and data ownership, if any? Can it be simply destroyed, in the same way the owner of a patch of grass can burn it should he so desire?

Hall’s analysis implies that, in the end, these are spiritual questions that can only be answered spiritually — and people hungry for fast answers they can trust will turn to the place where such answers have been on offer for thousands of years.

For now, Rosie’s owner was able to slip through the cracks of institutional, veterinary, and judicial red tape using wit and, let’s face it, the collective human affection for dogs. Hall predicts a situation where the collective, decentralized power of human faculties — made hyper-potent via leveraging AI and functioning on the timeless spiritual foundation of the Church — robustly addresses the AI age’s vast issues of greed, misallocation, misuse, and abuse of resources. Restricted to the secular level, discussions about these problems almost always find themselves mired in the dialectic between Marx and Smith, communism versus capitalism. Unable to innovate our way out of the impasse, will our eyes turn at last to the divine economy?

If a few years pass, the AI compactor consolidating everything into data will likely squeeze out new, perhaps unimaginable forms of computational power. The fight to capture and control that power is raging right now. Looking at the brokers, politicians, and players, accounting for history and human nature, what are the odds that this is all just going to spontaneously work out — such that good-willed efforts like those of Conyngham continue freely, without surveillance or exploitation? We’ll soon see if we’re willing to adopt the forms of social organization it takes to keep cyberspace so free, open, and fruitful.

​Tech, Ai, Grok, Chatgpt, Artificial intelligence, Paul conyngham 

President Donald Trump has his own solution to solve the stalemate in Congress that is causing a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.

Democrats sparked the partial shutdown on February 14, refusing to pass the FY2026 DHS appropriations bill while calling for reform at Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

‘They will do Security like no one has ever seen before.’

The reform demands are a protest of the deaths of anti-ICE activists Alex Pretti and Renee Good, but they ignore the fact that ICE is already funded through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed in 2025.

Still, Democrats have rejected a DHS funding bill (for the fifth time on Friday), withholding funds from TSA and FEMA.

With many TSA workers not being paid during the partial shutdown, the lack of staffing has had a trickle-down effect to travelers. For example, at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, passengers faced screening wait times of up to two hours this week, according to CNN.

All the turmoil has President Trump brainstorming possible solutions, and on Saturday afternoon he suggested throwing ICE into the mix.

“If the Radical Left Democrats don’t immediately sign an agreement to let our Country, in particular, our Airports, be FREE and SAFE again, I will move our brilliant and patriotic ICE Agents to the Airports where they will do Security like no one has ever seen before,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

RELATED: ‘Moral failure’: Pressure mounts as Congress prepares to leave town despite urgent DHS stalemate

Trump said placing ICE agents at airports will also mean that they will conduct “the immediate arrest of all Illegal Immigrants who have come into our Country,” pinpointing one nationality in particular.

There would be “heavy emphasis on those from Somalia,” the president wrote. He added that Somalians have “totally destroyed, with the approval of a corrupt Governor, Attorney General, and Congresswoman, Ilhan Omar, the once Great State of Minnesota.”

“I look forward to seeing ICE in action at our Airports,” Trump concluded.

RELATED: White House offers concessions to end DHS shutdown — but Dems still choose illegal aliens over unpaid American TSA agents

Photo by Elijah Nouvelage/Bloomberg via Getty Images

According to Politico, lawmakers will remain in D.C. with a district work week looming from March 30 until April 10. This means DHS personnel could go unpaid for another three weeks if Congress does not quickly come to an agreement.

With over 61,000 TSA employees affected by the partial shutdown, at least 366 officers have quit, with many working unpaid. This has led to a record high 10.22% absentee rate set on Monday, according to CNN.

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

​News, Trump, Ice, Tsa, Airports, Dhs, Congress, Democrats, Politics 

After years of a media-driven pressure campaign over pay and treatment, WNBA players have secured a significant salary increase. On March 18, the league and its players’ union (WNBPA) announced their verbal/tentative agreement on a new collective bargaining deal that will dramatically increase player salaries by tying pay to revenue shares.

But given that the WNBA has long been financially propped up by the NBA and has only recently started generating enough revenue to trigger player revenue sharing (and potentially turn profitable), Jason Whitlock sees the league’s new deal as undeserved welfare disguised as earned success.

“Nothing that happened with the WNBA and their CBA agreement had anything to do with proper business or these women getting what they’re owed or what they’ve earned or what they deserve. This is being given to them to execute an agenda,” he says.

On this episode of “Fearless,” Whitlock exposes the corruption behind this new WNBA agreement and calls out ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith for pandering to the “alphabet agenda.”

“They want the next group of leaders to all be in support of the alphabet movement, the disruption of the nuclear family, the destruction of the nuclear family, the destruction of a Christian culture, and so they are making alphabet mafia soldiers the heroes and leaders for your kids,” says Whitlock. “That’s what this is all about.”

He pokes fun at ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith for enthusiastically celebrating the landmark deal on a recent episode of “First Take,” during which he praised Nneka Ogwumike (Seattle Storm forward and president of the players’ union) for her leadership, telling her sister Chiney Ogwumike that Nneka “has set a standard,” “deserves to be applauded,” and that the agreement is “a damn good deal.”

But the truth, says Whitlock, is that this deal had nothing to do with Nneka Ogwumike or any genuine achievement.

“Two things are responsible for them getting overpaid: Caitlin Clark and the alphabet agenda,” he says.

“We just gave the welfare sport more welfare money. The WNBA is a welfare sport. It’s no different than women’s soccer. That was a welfare sport for 40 or 50 years,” Whitlock continues, exposing the pattern of “take money away from men, give it to women” to create “more lesbian feminist leadership.”

He accuses Smith of pandering to the WNBA: “He’s applauding it out of arrogance, foolishness, the desire to remain in power, the desire to remain in the good graces of the feminist and the alphabet mafia people that actually control his salary, control his platform.”

“This is what selling out looks like.”

To hear more of Whitlock’s commentary, watch the video above.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Fearless, Fearless with jason whitlock, Wnba, Nba, Stephen a smith, Wnbpa, Cba, Wnba cba, Blazetv, Blaze media, Whitlock, Jason whitlock, Espn, First take, Espn first take, Feminist agenda, Lgbtq, Alphabet mafia, Caitlin clark, Nneka ogwumike 

Everything you think you know about the function of the human brain is wrong — and Dr. Iain McGilchrist, author of “The Master and His Emissary,” is sitting down with BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre to explain why.

According to McGilchrist, the modern belief that the left hemisphere is “verbal and rational and dependable” while the right hemisphere is “air fairy,” “emotional,” and “not very dependable” is a farce.

“All of that is completely wrong. In fact, it’s almost the inverse of the truth,” he tells MacIntyre on “The Auron MacIntyre Show.” “The right hemisphere, as I will explain, is far more dependable, far more stable, and the left hemisphere is prone to emotional outbursts of a very narcissistic kind.”

“It is prone actually to anger and to disgust and self-righteousness and emotions of that kind,” he explains.

And because of how important the brain is to each and every living being, the science surrounding it deserves to be challenged — which is exactly what McGilchrist is doing.

“In the left hemisphere, you see things that you already know what they are and you know you want to get them. They’re fixed, they’re isolated, they’re in a way fragmentary, they’re decontextualized, and they’re examples of a kind,” McGilchrist tells MacIntyre.

“Meanwhile, the right hemisphere is seeing a completely different world. It’s seeing a world in which nothing is ever fully certain,” he says, adding, “It always might be something different.”

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, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Neuroscience, Iain mcgilchrist, Right hemisphere, Left hemisphere, Brain, Neurology, Neurologist 

Something revealing — and increasingly dangerous — shows up in the people who still react to Donald Trump as if he were mainly an offense against etiquette rather than a political fact. They study him the way Victorian naturalists might study a rhinoceros loose in the drawing room: with alarm, fascination, and deep concern for the upholstery.

The Iranian strike has brought it out again. After 47 years, Israel and the United States struck back. Trump moved hard, moved fast, and moved before the foreign-policy clergy finished the first round of throat-clearing. Then, after he acted, he turned and pressed allies and other beneficiaries of Persian Gulf oil to help manage the consequences.

Trump derangement syndrome now imposes a cost beyond mere foolishness. It has become a strategic liability.

To the establishment mind, that looks like barbarism. First you convene. Then you posture. Then you circulate papers. Then you hold a conference where several men with rimless glasses say “regional framework” and “off-ramp.” Only then — after adequate procedural embalming — may anything actually happen.

Trump has never shown much interest in being embalmed.

To the establishment, Trump isn’t merely wrong. His vulgar method offends them. He violates process. He makes the priesthood sweat through its linen.

But the plain truth cuts the other way: Many of the traits that make him unbearable to refined opinion make him effective in world affairs. In Iran, effectiveness isn’t a lifestyle preference. It decides whether we end a threat or let it metastasize from theoretical to fatal.

This moment changes the argument. It no longer turns on whether Trump’s style offends the salons of Washington, New York, Brussels, and Aspen. It turns on whether the United States will stop a fanatical regime from acquiring nuclear weapons and blackmailing the world through oil, terror, and fear. The Wall Street Journal editorial board, often critical of Trump, supports his actions against Iran because the alternative looks worse: Iran survives the confrontation with its nuclear ambitions intact and its grip on the Strait of Hormuz strengthened.

So what should we understand about Donald Trump?

He accepts risk. He will do things that may blow up in his face. Most public people spend their careers dodging blame and pinning it on rivals. Trump cares less about pleasing the people who write essays about “norm erosion.”

He’s a developer with a better feel for leverage than for liturgy. A man doesn’t conquer the Manhattan real estate jungle, build a brand out of his own name, or survive bankruptcies, tabloid wars, casino collapses, and the mockery of half the respectable class by worshipping tidy sequencing. His route to wealth didn’t resemble a ballet. It looked like a demolition derby with gold trim.

That history matters. Men shaped by bureaucracies tend to treat legitimacy as a product of process. Men shaped by dealmaking tend to treat legitimacy as a product of outcomes. One group asks, “Was this properly staffed?” The other asks, “Did we get it done?” Washington fills up with the first type and recoils from the second.

Trump also improvises. Washington treats improvisation like a vice. But improvisation belongs to people operating in the realm of consequence rather than memo circulation. Trump rarely arrives with a doctrine polished for a Brussels seminar. He arrives with an instinct, a pressure point, a threat, a phone call, and a willingness to revise in public. That horrifies people who would rather run a failed plan with perfect footnotes than run a messy plan that changes the landscape.

RELATED: While America fights, Europe loses its spirit

Andy Barton/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images

Trump’s critics call this incoherence. Sometimes it is. He can be erratic. He can be excessive. He can mistake motion for strategy. But his critics often commit the opposite error. They confuse caution with wisdom, process with seriousness, and rhetorical tidiness with strength.

And the stakes outrun Trump. Iran has pursued the bomb for years. It lied, concealed, dispersed, negotiated, cheated, and waited. The fairy tale that this menace sat safely contained until Trump disturbed the peace has worn thin. Tehran didn’t become dangerous because Trump acted. Trump acted because Tehran already posed a danger.

That’s why Trump derangement syndrome now imposes a cost beyond mere foolishness. It has become a strategic liability. When a domestic class hates one man so much that it prefers his failure to the country’s safety, it stops functioning as a normal political opposition. It becomes a hindrance to national self-preservation.

If Iran emerges from this conflict still able to terrorize the Gulf, still able to menace the Strait of Hormuz, still dreaming its nuclear dreams, America won’t merely have fought badly. America will have invited the next crisis on a higher rung of danger. A short war that leaves the central threat intact doesn’t qualify as prudence. It amounts to cowardice on an installment plan.

That’s why he makes them crazy. He walks around as a rebuke to the managerial fantasy that calibrated people with soft hands and impeccable credentials can safely “manage” history. Trump reminds them — rudely, constantly, and in public — that moments arrive when nerve beats nuance and the man willing to absorb disorder defeats the man who can only describe it.

And now the insult cuts deeper. He doesn’t just break their rules. In a moment when America can’t afford illusion, he may be right about what winning requires.

​Iran war, Donald trump, Never trumpers, Establishment, Operation epic fury, Operation midnight hammer, Nuclear weapons, Opinion & analysis 

As you can see by the image next to the headline of this story, about a week ago, a vehicle was stopped at a red light on a busy Florida road — facing backward in the left-hand turn lane — and then seconds later proceeded to make the turn while continuing to drive in reverse.

Indeed, multiple callers reported the silver sedan driving in reverse eastbound on SR 100 on March 13, the Flagler County Sheriff’s Office said.

‘I didn’t think that I was that bad … you know what I’m sayin’ … I wasn’t even swerving or anything like that or driving fast …’

The sheriff’s office said its Time Crime Center tracked the vehicle to a Panda Express parking lot, and deputies stopped the vehicle near SR 100 and Airport Road after it had turned around and finally was facing in the correct direction.

The driver — William Murphy III, 47, of Palm Coast — said the car had a mechanical issue, and he “thought the best option” was to drive it backward to AutoZone, officials said.

“Except his mechanical issues evaporated when deputies got behind him … or was it in front of him?” the sheriff’s office quipped.

Let’s jump into the play-by-play.

Deputy (on loudspeaker, following Murphy): “Pull over! Pull over right here! Stop!”

Deputy: “We got multiple people calling [about] you driving in reverse!”

Driver: “The car was stuck in reverse.”

RELATED: Thug on parole accused of breaking into woman’s home, raping her at gunpoint, robbing her is quickly caught because he’s dumb

Image source: Flagler County (Fla.) Sheriff’s Office video screenshot

Driver (stuttering): “I didn’t think that I was that bad … you know what I’m saying … I wasn’t even swerving or anything like that or driving fast …”

Deputy (interrupting): “You were driving backward on the road!”

Driver: “Yeah, it’s the same thing as if you were …”

Deputy (interrupting and chuckling): “No, it’s not, dude!”

RELATED: Dumb shoplifter tries stealing $727.86 in items while 75 police officers are in store for ‘Shop with a Cop’ charity event

Image source: Flagler County (Fla.) Sheriff’s Office video screenshot

With that, the deputies put handcuffs on Murphy, and it’s all over.

RELATED: ‘Brazen’ and brainless: Teen rips off $18,000 in Louis Vuitton merchandise, runs to store exit, knocks himself unconscious after slamming into glass window

Image source: Flagler County (Fla.) Sheriff’s Office video screenshot

Deputies arrested Murphy for habitual driving while license suspended/revoked, officials said, adding that he had more than 10 prior convictions for driving while license suspended/revoked.

Murphy was transported to the Sheriff Perry Hall Inmate Detention Facility, where he later was released on a $1,000 bond, officials said.

Below, you can watch video of the entire ordeal.

RELATED: Dumb twerking teens caught on video vandalizing business. Dumber still? Gang symbols carved into cars lead to arrest.

So far more that 200 commenters have let their thoughts be known about the incident under the sheriff’s office Facebook post, and amusement seems to be the prevailing emotion.

“I mean…old boy drove better than 90% [of the] drivers out here,” one commenter opined.”Florida Man never fails to amaze me,” another user joked.”But he was driving forward before he was pulled over, so his car was not stuck in reverse lol,” another commenter added, stating the obvious.”I mean, it honestly looks like he really is the World’s Best Backward Drive[r],” another user noted.”The cigarette at the end is the kicker…dude’s like, ‘I know how this ends, lemme get a drag real quick,'” another commenter observed.

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

​Florida, Flagler county sheriff’s office, Traffic stop, Arrest, Driving backward, Crime 

Most Americans believe a simple thing about their retirement accounts: If you buy a stock, you own it. Your statement shows the shares. The value rises and falls. And if you don’t panic-sell, the asset is yours.

That’s the commonsense view of investing.

If Americans believe they directly own the assets in their retirement accounts, the law should reflect that expectation — before the next crisis tests it.

But the law doesn’t treat your “ownership” the way most people think. In the modern system, most investors are not the direct registered owners of most securities. They hold contractual rights tied to the investment — not the security itself.

In calm markets, that sounds like a technicality. In a severe financial crisis, it could determine whether your assets stay yours.

How we got here

Decades ago, investors could hold securities in their own names. Physical certificates were common, and ownership was straightforward.

As we explain in our new book, “The Next Big Crash: Conspiracy, Collapse, and the Men Behind History’s Biggest Heist,” that changed as powerful financial interests pushed to redesign the securities system. Big banks and Wall Street institutions worked to centralize ownership and reduce investor rights — changes that received little public attention and limited scrutiny.

Today most securities sit inside the Depository Trust Company system. DTC — through its nominee legal entity, Cede & Co. — appears as the direct registered owner of those securities, not you.

DTC is a subsidiary of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, which is owned by the financial institutions that use it. DTCC is not publicly traded, so ordinary investors can’t own its shares.

RELATED: Bidenflation? Trumpflation? Try unipartyflation

DNY59 via iStock/Getty Images

The ‘security entitlement’ system

The DTC structure was only the beginning. In the 1990s, lawmakers revised Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code — the state-law framework that governs securities ownership nationwide. Those changes formalized what we now have: an indirect holding system built around “security entitlements,” not direct title.

In plain terms: When you hold most securities through a brokerage account, you hold a legal claim against the broker. You typically do not hold specific, segregated property registered in your name.

That distinction matters because Article 8 also sets priority rules when an intermediary fails. If a brokerage pledges securities credited to customers as collateral for financing, the lender can obtain priority over other claimants. When multiple parties assert rights to the same pool of assets, the law decides who stands first in line — and customers are not always first, even when they paid for the investments and believed they owned them.

In the next major crash, if a Wall Street firm uses customer assets to prop itself up, ordinary investors could take heavy losses. And that can be true even if the firm wasn’t allowed to use customer assets that way. Article 8 was written to protect large institutions first and investors second.

Why ‘protections’ may not protect you

Brokerage firms operate under customer-protection and segregation rules. The Securities Investor Protection Corporation offers limited coverage in certain failures.

But those safeguards don’t erase Article 8’s priority structure. SIPC coverage is also too limited to address widespread losses in a broad crisis. And even when a broker violates rules, a secured creditor’s priority claim can survive unless the creditor itself acted in bad faith or colluded.

In a cascading crisis — multiple failures, margin calls, forced liquidations, and liquidity freezes — these limitations stop looking academic. Article 8 determines whether customer assets remain with customers or flow to institutional creditors.

RELATED: Washington printed promises. Gold called the bluff.

Damian Lemanski/Bloomberg via Getty Images

What investors should understand now

For decades, policymakers sold this transformation as technical modernization. Trading volumes rose. Paperwork bottlenecks appeared. Those problems were real.

But the “solution” did more than speed settlement. It changed who holds legal title and who gets paid first when stress hits.

In ordinary times, the structure runs quietly. Investors see statements, dividends, and confirmations, and few ask how the system records ownership.

The difference becomes decisive when an intermediary fails. At that point, priority rules — not your assumptions — govern what happens next.

What must change

There’s still a path forward.

Because the Uniform Commercial Code is state law, state legislatures can strengthen investor protections and clarify priority rules. Reform doesn’t require blowing up modern markets. It requires aligning the legal structure with what ordinary Americans reasonably believe they own.

The next financial crisis will arrive sooner or later. What’s already set is the legal framework that will govern when it does.

If Americans believe they directly own the assets in their retirement accounts, the law should reflect that expectation — before the next crisis tests it.

​Stock market, Market crash, Savings, Retirement accounts, Uniform commercial code, Financial crisis, Opinion & analysis, Ownership 

When BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey first publicly questioned the narrative surrounding dinosaurs, she was called “dangerous” and “disgusting” for attempting to poke holes in paleontology.

But that response only made her “more resolved” in her skepticism.

“It is not that I don’t think that giant animals existed a long time ago. It is just that I don’t think we know what they looked like and that we don’t know what they sounded like. I know we’ve got fossils and different things like that. We actually don’t have any complete fossil of a T-Rex, for example,” she explains.

“We’re just kind of going a little bit on deductive reasoning and vibes. We definitely don’t know that they had scales. We definitely don’t know what a pterodactyl sounded like, and we’re all just supposed to believe it because ‘the science,’” she continues.

And the latest Netflix docuseries “The Dinosaurs” isn’t putting Stuckey’s beliefs to rest either.

“Earth, 66 million years ago during the great reign of the dinosaurs. Majestic creatures, giants and monsters, that can often seem more imagined than real,” Morgan Freeman says in a clip from the docuseries.

“That was an Easter egg right there from Morgan Freedom, that they seem more imagined than real, because they are,” Stuckey comments.

As Morgan Freeman continues to narrate, he also continues to make grand claims about breeds of dinosaurs, which Stuckey points out may as well have the same bone structures as chickens.

“This is a fantasy they have. This is the paleontologist version of ‘Lord of the Rings,’” Stuckey says.

“They Darwined a little too hard, and they came up with this world, and we’re all supposed to trust these people,” she says.

“I saw someone on Instagram say, ‘You’ll believe in the Ankylosaurus, but you won’t believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord?’” she continues.

“You have faith, atheist. You do. You might have more faith than me, because you watch this documentary, and you’re like, ‘This for sure happened,’” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​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, Netflix, Dinosaur skepticism, Dinosaurs, Trust the science, Netflix documentary, Conspiracy theory, Conspiracy 

A high school student is accused of a massive sextortion scheme that allegedly involved coercing underage victims to film themselves having sex.

Investigators say that 18-year-old Zachariah Abraham Meyers posed as an attractive adult film star from the Netherlands on social media platforms that included Snapchat and TikTok.

One of the victims told police they were coerced to film themselves having sex with two separate men. Ten males were filmed on school grounds.

Meyers is a senior at Peters Township High School in Pennsylvania.

After luring the underage victims to communicate with him online, Meyers then tricked them into sharing sexually explicit videos and photos with him, according to investigators.

In two cases, he demanded $500 from the victims after threatening to release the embarrassing material, according to a criminal complaint. One of those victims refused the extortion threat, and Meyers allegedly responded by sending a naked photo of the victim to the victim’s sister on Instagram.

Thirty underage boys were questioned in the investigation, and police said they identified at least 21 victims, of whom 14 sent pornographic images to Meyers. The victims range in age from 14 years old to 17 years old.

He is also alleged to have posed as a man from Arizona and an unidentified woman.

One of the victims told police they were coerced to film themselves having sex with two separate men. Ten males were filmed on school grounds.

Meyers was arrested and booked into the Washington County Jail in February and was charged with 304 felony counts that included:

Trafficking in minors;Sexual extortion;Unlawful contact with a minor;Distribution of child sexual abuse material; andCriminal use of communication facility.

Investigators said there could be additional charges as they continued to analyze the suspect’s devices.

RELATED: Two Nigerian brothers admit to sextortion scam with more than 100 victims, including Michigan teen who committed suicide

“I’m shocked!” said Jason Broveck, a parent of a student at the same high school. “I mean, it’s a lot of information to take in at once. It’s overwhelming.”

Police warned parents that they should keep their children off devices with access to online strangers or carefully monitor any online access children have.

Peters Township has about 23K residents and is located near the southwestern border of Pennsylvania.

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

​Sextortion scheme adult film star, Zachariah meyers sextortion scheme, Massive pennsylvania hs sextortion scheme, Social media sextortion, Crime 

Call it “Hearts of Darkness 2.”

“Lost in Translation” director Sofia Coppola gave us on update on her next film, which was supposed to be a fact-based period drama with regular collaborator Kirsten Dunst. It’s not looking so good.

Harris said Nicki Minaj suffered from a severe case of misinformation, suggesting the hip-hop star may not know simple things, like ‘2+2=4.’

Coppola’s dad famously dealt with everything from typhoons, hookworm parasites, and rampant drug abuse on set to the near-fatal heart attack of his leading man while shooting “Apocalypse Now.”

Now his daughter faces something even worse: life in 2026.

“It felt too sad,” said the Hollywood scion, daughter of “Godfather” director Francis Ford Coppola. “It’s confusing in these dark times. I want to offer some hope and beauty in the world, but then you also don’t want to do something shallow, because it feels like a time for deep things.”

We don’t have much information on the shelved project, but we can guess a working title: “Orange Man Really, Really Bad” …

Spidey sense

We still love Spidey.

The just-released trailer for “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” racked up an impressive 718 million views in just a day. The film, once again starring Tom Holland as the web-slinger, finds our hero trying to reconnect with his former squeeze M.J. (Zendaya).

That’s a rare blast of good news from Superhero Central. Those men in tights haven’t been scoring at the box office like they once did, but Spidey remains untouched by woke nonsense. In fact, “Spider-Man: No Way Home” overdelivered on everything, from fan service to pure fun, to score nearly $2 billion worldwide.

If they can keep Dylan Mulvaney away from the set, this could be the super rebound Hollywood craves …

RELATED: ‘The Faithful’ puts focus on Bible’s female figures

Fox Broadcasting Company

Minaj’s math

At least she didn’t mention Venn diagrams.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris took a swipe at one of the few black female celebrities to embrace President Donald Trump. Empowering, no?

Harris said Nicki Minaj suffered from a severe case of misinformation, suggesting the hip-hop star may not know simple things, like “2+2=4.”

“I think that one of the things about mis- and disinformation is we have to — when we disagree with someone — take that into account in understanding that we may just not be working with the same information.”

To be fair, that might just be the wine talking …

Whoopi’s whoppers

Facts often die of loneliness on “The View.” Or they’re snuffed out with a pillow.

Earlier this week, Whoopi Goldberg got a crash course in Trump Accounts, money set aside for babies that will not only grow but teach them the wonders of our capitalistic system.

That’s called a win-win.

Not for Goldberg, who did the equivalent of putting her hands over her ears when guest co-host Sara Eisen brought up the topic. First, Goldberg complained that the panel wasn’t talking enough about solar energy.

Later, when bombarded with more information about the accounts, Goldberg waved the white flag.

“I’m sorry. For me and until he realizes how this affects all of us as citizens, it’s not enough. But we’re done talking about it,” Goldberg said.

Usually the show’s incessant cross-talk cancels out good information. This time, Goldberg personally saw to it that their audience would come away a little dumber …

ChadGPT

Val Kilmer is making a “comeback” one year after his passing.

A new project, purportedly with the blessing of some of Kilmer’s kin, will feature an AI version of the actor. The upcoming movie, dubbed “As Deep as the Grave” (a little on the nose, no?), will use generative AI to bring Kilmer back to the big screen.

The actor had wanted to star in the project several years ago, but his health complications prevented him from appearing on set.

Problem solved? And it could get creepier. A Swedish company just bought more than a majority share of the late Tina Turner’s musical catalog. According to the New York Post, Pophouse Entertainment also secured her “name, image, and likeness rights.”

And yes, the company in question has dabbled in digital avatars. Who can’t see what’s coming next?

They better be good to her …

Transwominae veritas!

Journos almost hounded John Lithgow out of one of the juiciest gigs possible.

The veteran actor will play Professor Dumbledore in the upcoming “Harry Potter” TV series for HBO Max. Lithgow is 80, an age when steady work isn’t easy to come by for an actor. And here’s a role he’s guaranteed to play for several years.

Perfect! Not so fast.

Reporters have been hounding him for months about the show, demanding that he defend working on a J.K. Rowling project. She famously created the “Harry Potter” series and doesn’t agree with the leftist shibboleth that “trans women are women.”

For that, she has been relentlessly punished. And now it’s Lithgow’s turn.

So many reporters have hounded him over the connection that he nearly quit the series. The subject has and will come up “in every interview I will ever do for the rest of my life.”

He still took the gig. Looks like the left’s favorite spell — transwominae veritas! — no longer holds the power it once did.

​Val kilmer, Entertainment, Hollywood, Ai, Movies, Kamala harris, Donald trump, The view, Whoopi goldberg, Toto recall, Culture 

The litigious hopes of Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California came to a humiliating end on Friday when he dropped a lawsuit against the Trump administration.

Swalwell, who is also a California gubernatorial candidate, had accused the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency of improperly accessing his private information in order to punish his anti-Trump efforts.

‘There’s a reason the First Amendment — the freedom of speech — comes before all others.’

FHFA Director Bill Pulte accused the 45-year-old of mortgage fraud and cited information gathered from the agency.

When Swalwell announced the lawsuit in Nov. 2025, he cast himself as a defender of free speech and a martyr for the cause of constitutional rights.

Four months later, he abandoned the cause.

The filing Friday said that Swalwell and Pulte had agreed to bear their own fees and costs in order to dismiss the lawsuit.

“Director Pulte has combed through private records of political opponents. To silence them,” Swalwell said when he filed the lawsuit. “There’s a reason the First Amendment — the freedom of speech — comes before all others.”

The lawsuit was scheduled to be presided over by U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg, a well-known critic of President Donald Trump who has been accused of political bias by the administration.

Swalwell filed to request the court to order Pulte to withdraw his criminal referral and demanded damages to be awarded for the alleged violations of the Privacy Act.

He quoted George Orwell, author of “1984” and “Animal Farm,” novels dedicated to warning against totalitarianism.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear,” Swalwell posted.

RELATED: Trump says he will fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve if she doesn’t resign

Swalwell also cast himself as a stalwart opponent to Trump in hopes of persuading Democratic voters in California to support his campaign for governor.

The latest polling shows Swalwell taking a slight lead against the other field of Democratic candidates, but his Republican competitors are also surprisingly strong. One Democrat is expected to pull ahead as the others drop out, however.

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

​Swalwell lawsuit against pulte, Swalwell drops lawsuit, Swalwell for governor, Trump defeats swalwell, Politics 

President Donald Trump said he is considering winding down the military campaign in Iran and added that the Strait of Hormuz must be defended by other nations.

The president posted the update on the war with Iran in a statement on Truth Social on Friday, after 21 days of the military campaign.

‘Importantly, it will be an easy Military Operation for them.’

“We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran,” the president wrote.

He went on to say the strikes had completely degraded Iran’s missile capabilities, eliminated its navy and air forces, and destroyed its ability to obtain nuclear weapons. He then addressed the Strait of Hormuz, which has become a contentious issue.

“The Hormuz Strait will have to be guarded and policed, as necessary, by other Nations who use it — The United States does not!” he added. “If asked, we will help these Countries in their Hormuz efforts, but it shouldn’t be necessary once Iran’s threat is eradicated.”

The threat of strikes from Iran has caused oil tankers to stop transporting oil through the strait and sent gas prices skyrocketing across the globe.

He added that the U.S. had accomplished protecting Middle Eastern allies that included Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait.

The president previously demanded that other countries help defend the strait, but claiming that the U.S. does not use it appears to be an escalation of his claim. About 20% of the global source of oil flows through the strait.

On Thursday, a group of European countries and Japan issued a statement condemning Iran’s actions in the strait and pledging to protect the key trade route.

“We express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait,” reads the letter from the nations’ leaders. “We welcome the commitment of nations who are engaging in preparatory planning.”

RELATED: US allies have change of heart on defending Strait of Hormuz from Iranian attacks after oil prices continue to surge

Trump reassured those who might defend the Strait of Hormuz that it would be easy.

“Importantly, it will be an easy Military Operation for them. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” he added.

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

​Strait of hormuz, Trump on strait of hormuz, Oil prices skyrocketing, Trump winds down iran war, Politics 

The president of a Latin American country is under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for his alleged drug trafficking ties, according to a New York Times report.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro has called President Donald Trump a “barbarian” for ordering lethal strikes on boats in the Caribbean identified by the U.S. as participating in drug trafficking.

He also warned against reviving ‘the age of the Crusades.’

On Friday, the Times cited three people with knowledge of the investigation into Petro by at least two U.S. attorney’s offices.

The investigations focus on whether Petro’s presidential campaign solicited donations from drug traffickers and held meetings with traffickers. The report said the probes are in the early stages, and it’s not clear whether they will result in criminal charges.

The report said the two U.S. attorney’s offices investigating Petro were in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Petro, who is a leftist and former member of Colombia’s M-19 guerrilla group, has criticized the Trump administration for promoting a “white, Christian, Western civilization.” He also warned against reviving “the age of the Crusades” and added that such efforts could lead to an “enormous level of violence within each society.”

Trump said back in December, “Colombia is a major manufacturer of drugs, meaning cocaine,” and warned Petro to “wise up.” Petro and Trump then appeared to settle some of their differences after a meeting at the White House in February.

RELATED: Liberals pounce to defend drug cartels after Trump reveals strike on drug-running gang members near Venezuela

Petro has also touted his administration’s efforts at combating and defeating drug traffickers, including the seizure of 3,300 tons of cocaine and the handing over of 800 drug traffickers to the U.S.

Representatives from both prosecutors’ offices declined to comment, and a spokesperson for Petro did not respond to a comment request, according to the Times.

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

​Colombian president gustavo petro, Trump vs petro, Doj investigates petro, Trump in latin america, Politics 

This morning, news broke that Chuck Norris — the legendary martial artist and action star best known for “Walker, Texas Ranger” — died at age 86.

Glenn Beck was in the middle of recording his morning show when he got the news of Norris’ passing. He stopped everything in that moment to reflect on the life and legacy of his dear friend.

“We have known each other for the longest time. He was one of the most giving men I have ever met,” Glenn says, fighting tears.

“Here’s a guy who is known all over the world, is a mega-star. Everywhere he goes, everyone loves him. And he was Chuck. He was just a normal guy who dedicated himself to making the lives of children better,” he continues.

Glenn highlights Norris’ nonprofit “Kickstart Kids” — a character development program that integrates karate instruction into the school day, teaching core values like discipline, respect, responsibility, and honesty to middle and high school students in dozens of public schools across Texas to help them build strong moral character and avoid negative influences.

“It changed kids,” Glenn says.

He then shares a heartfelt story about his own son’s experience being shepherded under Norris’ wing.

“My son was really struggling when he was younger, and we were over at Chuck and Gena’s house. And we stayed overnight, and the next morning I see him and my son walking outside,” Glenn tearfully reminisces.

“He said, ‘I’m sending somebody to your house because I see greatness in you, and I know you’re struggling. I’m sending somebody to your house to get you started on your black belt because once you learn this discipline, everything will change in your life.”’

This kindness, Glenn says, extended to every child Norris met.

The magic of Chuck Norris, he says, is that he reached the pinnacle of stardom but wasn’t changed as a result of fame and fortune.

“I can’t tell you I have met a bigger star than Chuck Norris … and a more regular guy than Chuck Norris,” he says.

“He has left more than jokes on how tough he is behind. He has left a legacy of good and strong young men and women.”

To hear more — including the hilarious story behind the virality of Chuck Norris jokes — watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, Blazetv, Blaze media, Chuck norris, Chuck norris death