Category: blaze media

The FBI is abandoning General Motors.

For generations, the black Chevrolet Suburban has been a rolling symbol of federal authority. Its size, shape, and presence are instantly recognizable — whether pulling up to a courthouse, idling outside a hotel, or leading a motorcade through city streets. That familiarity, however, is precisely why the FBI’s recent decision to move away from armored Suburbans in favor of BMW X5 Protection SUVs deserves a closer look. Despite the political noise surrounding the change, the rationale behind it is not ideological. It is practical.

While BMW is a German brand, all BMW X-series SUVs — including the X5 — are manufactured at the company’s Spartanburg, South Carolina, plant.

Under FBI Director Kash Patel, the bureau has reportedly ordered a fleet of armored BMW X5 Protection SUVs to replace the Chevrolet and GMC models traditionally used for executive transport. The reasons cited by the FBI are straightforward: The BMWs cost significantly less, attract less attention, and are built in the United States. Taken together, those factors point to a procurement decision driven by economics and operational efficiency — not symbolism or brand preference.

Frugal fleet

According to FBI spokesperson Ben Williamson, vehicle fleet decisions are routinely reviewed based on security needs, usage patterns, and budget considerations. In this case, the BMW X5 Protection was selected after comparing costs and capabilities with other armored options. Williamson said the move could save taxpayers millions of dollars by choosing a less expensive vehicle while still meeting the bureau’s protection requirements.

The cost differences are hard to ignore. Government-spec Chevrolet Suburban Shield vehicles produced by GM Defense have been reported to cost anywhere from roughly $600,000 to as much as $3.6 million, depending on armor level, drivetrain configuration, and mission-specific equipment. Even conservative estimates put a new armored Suburban at around $480,000 per vehicle. By contrast, the BMW X5 Protection VR6 is generally priced between $200,000 and $300,000 — less than half the cost of many armored Chevrolet and GMC alternatives.

When multiplied across an entire fleet, those numbers add up quickly. Savings of $200,000 or more per vehicle matter for an agency under constant pressure to justify spending. From a taxpayer perspective, the question is simple: If the required level of ballistic protection can be achieved for significantly less money, why wouldn’t the FBI pursue that option?

The BMW X5 Protection VR6 is not a standard luxury SUV fitted with aftermarket armor. It is engineered from the factory with integrated ballistic protection designed to meet VR6 standards, including resistance to high-powered rifle fire and explosive threats. These vehicles are already in service with governments and diplomatic protection units around the world, including the U.S. State Department, which uses armored BMWs to protect American diplomats in high-risk regions. This is a proven platform, not an experiment.

Stealth mode

Cost, however, is only part of the story. The FBI has also indicated that the BMWs are less conspicuous than traditional government vehicles. That claim may seem counterintuitive until one considers how closely the Suburban is associated with federal authority. A line of black Suburbans with dark glass immediately signals government transport. Their presence often draws attention.

The BMW X5, even in armored form, blends more easily into traffic — particularly in urban and suburban areas where luxury SUVs are common. It does not carry the same visual shorthand of authority. From a security standpoint, reducing predictability and visibility can be an advantage. A vehicle that does not immediately announce its purpose may attract less attention and lower risk in certain situations.

Critics argue that the publicity surrounding the purchase undermines any claim of stealth, and that may be true in the short term. Over time, however, the novelty fades. What remains is a vehicle that looks like countless others on the road, rather than one that announces its role at a glance.

RELATED: A federal ‘kill switch’ for your car is coming — and neither Democrats nor Republicans will stop it

United Archives/Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

American-made

Another point often lost in the debate is where these vehicles are built. While BMW is a German brand, all BMW X-series SUVs — including the X5 — are manufactured at the company’s Spartanburg, South Carolina, plant. It is BMW’s largest production facility worldwide and one of the most significant automotive exporters in the United States by value. The armored X5s used by the FBI are built by American workers on American soil.

That reality complicates claims that the FBI is abandoning American manufacturing. Both the Chevrolet Suburban and the BMW X5 are products of U.S. factories, assembled by U.S. labor, and supported by domestic supply chains. The distinction lies not in where the vehicles are built, but in how much they cost and how effectively they meet the agency’s needs.

Government fleets have always been guided by pragmatism. Federal agencies regularly reassess equipment based on performance, cost, and evolving threats. The FBI’s decision fits squarely within that tradition.

The emotional attachment to the Suburban is understandable. Introduced in 1935 as the Carryall Suburban, it is the longest-running nameplate in American automotive history and has served military, law enforcement, and civilian roles for nearly a century. But symbols come at a price, and in this case that price appears to have climbed sharply.

Time will tell

Imagining a single Suburban costing as much as $3.6 million is enough to give any budget analyst pause. Even at the lower end of reported figures, the cost difference between an armored Suburban and an armored BMW X5 is substantial. In an era of heightened scrutiny over federal spending, paying more than double for a vehicle that may also be more conspicuous is difficult to justify.

That does not mean the BMW choice is without trade-offs. Long-term maintenance costs, parts availability, and service complexity will ultimately determine whether the savings persist over the full life cycle of the vehicles. German engineering can be expensive to maintain, but heavily armored Suburbans are also highly specialized machines with their own costly upkeep requirements. The true comparison will emerge over time.

What is clear now is that the decision is rooted in cost control and operational considerations — not political signaling. The FBI did not choose BMW to make a statement. It chose BMW because the vehicles were cheaper, less visually obvious, and built domestically.

For taxpayers, the takeaway is straightforward. If a federal agency can meet its security needs while spending significantly less money, that is not a controversy. It is what responsible stewardship is supposed to look like. The badge on the grille may spark debate, but the math behind the decision tells a far more practical story.

​Drivers, Lifestyle, Align cars, Fbi, Chevrolet suburban, Buy american, Bmw, Bmw x-5, Made in america, Auto industry, Kash patel 

A bill advancing through the Massachusetts Senate would make reducing how much people drive an explicit goal of state transportation policy. It is called the Freedom to Move Act.

The bill, SB 2246, does not impose mileage caps on individual drivers. There is no odometer check, no per-driver limit, and no new fines or taxes written into the legislation. Instead it directs the state to set targets for reducing total vehicle miles traveled statewide — targets that would be incorporated into transportation planning, infrastructure investment, and long-term emissions policy.

When reducing driving becomes a formal state objective, personal mobility inevitably becomes something to be managed.

Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts, as it is in many states. From that perspective, lawmakers argue the bill simply aligns transportation policy with existing climate mandates. The state already has legally binding emissions reduction goals, and supporters say those goals cannot be met without addressing how much people drive. SB 2246, they argue, is about planning — not punishment — and about expanding alternatives rather than restricting choices.

Planning … or punishment?

The bill also establishes advisory councils and requires state agencies, including the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, to factor VMT reduction into project development and funding decisions. In theory, this means greater emphasis on public transit, transit-oriented development, walking and biking infrastructure, and land-use policies designed to shorten commutes. Supporters emphasize that the legislation does not ban cars, restrict ownership, or mandate lifestyle changes. It simply provides a framework for offering residents more options.

The practical implications, however, deserve closer scrutiny — especially outside the state’s urban core. In greater Boston, where transit access is relatively dense, reducing car trips may be feasible for some commuters. In suburban and rural areas, the reality is very different. Many residents drive long distances to work because there are no viable alternatives. Families juggle school, child care, medical appointments, sports, and jobs across multiple towns. Small businesses rely on vehicles for deliveries, service calls, and daily operations. For these drivers, “driving less” is not a preference — it’s a constraint imposed by geography.

Future restrictions

Critics also worry that while SB 2246 does not cap individual mileage today, it lays the groundwork for future restrictions. Once statewide VMT reduction targets are established, pressure will mount to meet them. That pressure could influence everything from road funding and parking availability to congestion pricing, zoning decisions, and the collection of driving data. Even without explicit mandates, policy signals matter. When reducing driving becomes a formal state objective, personal mobility inevitably becomes something to be managed.

There is also the issue of trust and execution. Massachusetts has struggled for years to maintain and modernize its public transportation system. The MBTA’s well-documented reliability problems have eroded confidence among riders and taxpayers alike. Promising expanded transit options while existing systems remain fragile leaves many residents skeptical that alternatives to driving will arrive quickly — or equitably.

RELATED: EPA to California: Don’t mess with America’s trucks

Bob Riha, Jr./Getty Images

National trend

From a broader policy standpoint, SB 2246 reflects a national trend. States and cities across the country are experimenting with VMT reduction as a climate strategy, encouraged by federal guidance and funding priorities. The premise is that cleaner vehicles alone are not enough and that total driving must decline to meet emissions targets. Whether that assumption holds as vehicle technology evolves — including hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and increasingly efficient internal combustion engines — remains an open question.

Supporters argue that thoughtful planning now can prevent more disruptive measures later. By gradually reshaping transportation and development patterns, they believe emissions can be reduced without dramatic lifestyle changes. Opponents counter that history suggests incremental planning often leads to more intrusive policies — especially when initial targets prove difficult to meet.

What makes SB 2246 significant is not what it does immediately, but what it signals about the future of transportation policy. It reframes driving not simply as a personal choice or economic necessity, but as a behavior the state has an interest in reducing.

As the bill moves to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, lawmakers will have to weigh climate goals against economic realities, regional disparities, and personal freedom.

Massachusetts residents should pay close attention. SB 2246 may not tell you how many miles you can drive today — but it helps define who gets to decide how transportation works tomorrow.

​Climate change, Drivers, Emissions, Freedom to move act, Lifestyle, Massachusetts, Mileage limits, Align cars 

As Minnesota erupts in protests with cries of racism and tyranny over the recent ICE shootings, BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey says she’s “having deja vu to 2020.”

“Like, are we really doing this again?” Stuckey asks.

“So many women in my DMs have yet again fallen for the very same psychological and political traps that were laid for us in 2020 and, in some ways, were laid for us all the way back in the Garden of Eden,” she explains.

In 2020, Stuckey recalls people suddenly becoming “very feverish about things like masks.”

“We were getting a lot of propaganda. It was almost like Trump’s enemies realized that they can harness this as a tool to try to help him lose the election. And then George Floyd happens, the riots happen, the protests,” she says.

“And, of course, you remember that right away, the reaction by most people, especially in the evangelical world, was to condemn racism, to condemn police brutality, to condemn white supremacy, to almost apologize to their black friends, to post the black square, maybe put their Christian spin on it,” she continues.

Of course, those same people ignored the deaths of young people like Tony Timpa and Justine Damond, who were also unarmed, in non-threatening positions, and killed by police officers.

“But they didn’t have the right skin color. And so they didn’t point to the systemic white supremacy, the institutional racism that has plagued our country since its very beginning,” Stuckey says.

“That’s just not true. That’s not politically true. I mean, black Americans have a large segment of the vote. They almost always vote Democrat. Barack Obama won his election two years in a row. It’s not true that these voices are politically unheard, but that was used by Christians to justify violence and to check themselves and to check their privilege and to commit to being an anti-racist,” she continues.

“And I had read too much Thomas Sowell and too much Walter Williams at that point in my life to buy into that. But I’m telling you, for real, it was really hard. It would have been so much easier at the time to shut up about that and to just not say anything, to just post the black square,” she says.

And while both of the recent ICE shootings have been of white people, they were white people defending the honor of minorities and white people playing into the propaganda that minorities need saving, just like in 2020.

“They’re buying into lies, and they’re very tied to it,” Stuckey 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.

​Camera phone, Free, Sharing, Upload, Video, Video phone, Youtube.com, Relatable, Allie beth stuckey, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, George floyd, 2020 protests, 2026 protests, Anti-ice, Ice protesters, 2020 riots, Covid, Masking, Mask mandates 

Springfield, Ohio, featured prominently in 2024 election-time debates as a case study in the fallout of the Biden-Harris administration’s disastrous immigration policies — a place where President Donald Trump suggested migrants were “eating the pets of the people that live there.”

The blue-collar city, which had a population of just over 58,000 in 2020, was flooded in subsequent years by tens of thousands of Haitian migrants — migrants whom Springfield Mayor Rob Rue admitted “taxed” the “infrastructure of the city, our safety forces, our hospitals, our schools.” According to the city, there are upwards of 15,000 migrants presently residing in Clark County alone.

‘Temporary means temporary.’

Many of the Haitians who overwhelmed Springfield and other American cities initially entered the U.S. illegally but were spared deportation on account of Haiti’s Temporary Protected Status. That status, which Haitian migrants have enjoyed since January 2010 and roughly 350,000 Haitian migrants enjoy today, is set to expire on Tuesday.

In anticipation of a potential immigration crackdown following the designation’s expiration date, Mayor Rue and members of the Springfield City Commission approved a resolution on Tuesday urging federal law enforcement to “comply with city policies on masks and officer identification to preserve the public peace within the community.”

Blaze News has reached out to Mayor Rue for comment.

Former DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas reinstated Haiti’s TPS in 2021, then doubled down in subsequent years, expanding eligibility for protection along the way.

The Trump Department of Homeland Security announced in July, however, that Haiti’s temporary status was coming to an end.

“After reviewing country conditions and consulting with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary determined that Haiti no longer continues to meet the conditions for designation for TPS,” said the announcement in the Federal Register. “The Secretary, therefore, is terminating the TPS designation of Haiti as required by statute.”

RELATED: Trump administration halts visas for 75 nations whose people gobble up American welfare

Photo by Luke Sharrett/Getty Images

While DHS initially sought to terminate the TPS designation for Haiti on Sept. 2, 2025, the termination was blocked and the status preserved until Feb. 3 by the New York-based U.S. district court judge overseeing the case Haitian Evangelical Clergy Association v. Trump.

In November, the DHS noted that “in compliance with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York’s final judgment, the current Temporary Protected Status designation period for Haiti ends February 3, 2026.”

The loss of status would not only mean that previously covered Haitians will lose their work authorization but that they could be given the boot.

Emily Brown, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law’s Immigration Clinic Director, told the Ohio Capital Journal, “At that point, they could potentially be arrested, detained, or put in removal proceedings unless they have already applied for some other form of relief they have in addition to TPS, or that they are applying for in addition to TPS.”

The ACLU of Ohio is among the liberal activist groups panicking over the prospect of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement targeting Haitian migrants in Springfield starting on Feb. 4.

“This despicable surge in lawless ICE officers descending upon Springfield will ignite swells of fear within the Haitian community, terrorize our black and brown neighbors, and cause considerable damage to citizens and non-citizens alike,” stated J. Bennett Guess, executive director of the ACLU of Ohio.

“The ACLU of Ohio urges state and local elected officials to do everything in their power to protect the 30,000 Haitians living in Central Ohio,” he continued.

Prior to Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes — a Biden-appointed lesbian judge who previously worked as a lawyer to fight the first Trump administration’s immigration policy — could decide to suspend the expiration of Haiti’s TPS.

Reyes may be emboldened, after all, by a ruling on Wednesday from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The panel — comprising three Democrat-nominated judges — suggested Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem exceeded her authority when ending the TPS for Venezuela and Haiti.

The appellate court’s ruling won’t have an immediate effect, as the U.S. Supreme Court cleared Noem in October to revoke temporary legal statuses while litigation proceeds.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in response to the appellate court’s ruling, “Temporary means temporary, and this is yet another lawless and activist order from the federal judiciary who continues to undermine our immigration laws.”

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

​Temporary protected status, Tps, Haiti, Haitian immigrants, Haitian migrants, Migrants, Immigration, Illegal aliens, Springfield, Ohio, Deport, Politics 

Something important shifted in this country when a Sunday worship service in Minneapolis was interrupted by protesters. It was a deliberate, premeditated intrusion into a space set apart for worship.

This was not spontaneous. There was planning, agreement, and coordinated action. This sort of strategy requires a different posture.

Churches across the country are already alert. Security teams exist for a reason.

For generations, houses of worship were understood to be off-limits.When that boundary is crossed, we are no longer debating policy. We are testing whether restraint still exists and whether consequences still matter.

The line has been drawn. This is not an issue that can be treated casually or observed with indifference. Anyone who refuses to condemn the coordinated disruption of worship — or, worse, excuses it — has already chosen a side.

Moments like this tempt Christians toward outrage or bravado. But Scripture does not train the church for theatrics. It trains the church for endurance, clarity, and readiness.

This incident likely would not have unfolded the same way where I live in Montana. People here are not especially theatrical about conflict. Responsibility is assumed, and consequences are not abstract. Most folks are armed, and in many churches, that includes the pastors.

The reality beneath that observation is sobering. Churches across the country are already alert. Security teams exist for a reason. In a culture shaped by real church shootings, sudden disruption inside a sanctuary is no longer interpreted as mere protest. Provocation introduced into an environment already conditioned for worst-case scenarios increases the risk of irreversible outcomes.

Every police officer will attest that domestic calls are often the most unpredictable and volatile. Not because violence is inevitable, but because instability compresses time and judgment. When emotions are high and trust is thin, even small disruptions can escalate quickly.

Families who live with addiction or severe mental illness understand this intuitively. They remain vigilant not because they want conflict, but because unpredictability makes it necessary. Boundaries are not set because change is guaranteed, but because safety is required.

A space shaped for reverence, restraint, and peace cannot be treated as if it can absorb chaos without consequence.

In such situations, vigilance and preparedness are not aggression. They are necessary parts of responsible stewardship.

Intimidation rarely seeks hardened targets. Visibility, restraint, and hesitation make certain spaces attractive to disruption. Where ambiguity is denied, intimidation fails.

It is difficult to imagine these kinds of coordinated disruptions taking place in historically black churches. Not because those congregations are hostile, but because intimidation has never been indulged there. Those churches were forged when intrusion and disruption were never theatrical.

This is not a call to intimidation in return. It is a call to clarity.

When tensions rise, someone must lower the temperature. If one side refuses, the other is obligated to establish boundaries for safety.

Anyone who has dealt with addiction understands this principle. Change cannot be forced, but boundaries must still be set. Recovery, incarceration, or death often follow prolonged chaos. These are realities repeatedly observed when destructive behavior is indulged.

RELATED: Don Lemon ARRESTED over apparent involvement in church invasion; Jim Acosta whines

Photo by Arturo Holmes/Getty Images

The people setting boundaries are not the cause of the crisis. They are responding to it.

Scripture never promises that moments like this will not come. Jesus warned His followers that hostility would arrive. Paul urged believers not to avenge themselves, but to overcome evil with good.

Scripture states that what can be shaken will be shaken, so that what cannot be shaken may remain (Hebrews 12:27).

That truth is carried not only in Scripture, but in the church’s hymns.

The soul that on Jesus hath leaned for repose,
I will not, I will not desert to his foes.
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I’ll never, no never, no never forsake.

There is no clenched fist in that stanza. It shows a relief from strain because vigilance has been transferred to someone stronger. Calm is possible, not because the threat is small but because God is not.

So when worship is interrupted and the lines are clearly drawn, the church does not respond with hysteria or silence. It responds with moral clarity, firm boundaries, and settled confidence grounded in an unshakable kingdom. The path for believers is steadiness shaped by truth, restraint, and trust in God rather than reaction to provocation.

The church has never endured because it intimidated back. It has endured because God does not abandon His people.

​Cities church, Minnesota, Minneapolis, Christians, Churches, Radical left, Ice, Trump, Dhs, Ice protest, Opinion & analysis 

One of the most revealing features of modern Christianity — across Catholic, Protestant, and nondenominational churches alike — is how Jesus is so often presented: gentle, affirming, and above all reassuring. He is described primarily as the “Prince of Peace,” a title that appears only once in scripture (Isaiah 9:6), or reduced to a generalized ethic of niceness often summarized as “Jesus is love.”

The problem is not that these ideas are false. It is that they are radically incomplete.

Jesus prays for His followers, not for the world as such. He commands love of neighbor, but He never pretends that truth and allegiance are optional.

Scripture presents God as merciful, gracious, and abundant in goodness and truth (Exodus 34:6), but the same passage insists that He “will by no means clear the guilty.” Love, in the biblical sense, is inseparable from justice.

When Jesus commands His disciples to love one another, the apostle Paul clarifies what this means: to fulfill the law and do no harm to one’s neighbor (Romans 13:8-10). Love is not affirmation of wrongdoing; it is obedience to God’s moral order.

This distinction was not always obvious to me.

Scriptural reckoning

For much of my life, I was a Christian in name only — attending church, absorbing familiar slogans, and assuming that the moral core of Christianity consisted of kindness paired with a firm prohibition against judgment or righteous anger. That changed four years ago when I began reading scripture seriously, first through a Jewish translation of the Old Testament and later through a King James Study Bible in weekly study with a close friend.

We made a simple but demanding commitment: start at Genesis and read every verse, in order, without skipping the difficult passages. We are now in Matthew 6. This approach differs sharply from curated reading plans that promise familiarity with the Bible while quietly filtering out the parts that unsettle modern sensibilities.

Reading scripture this way forces a reckoning.

Anger management

Consider Matthew 5:22, where Jesus warns against being angry with one’s brother “without cause” — a qualifying phrase absent from many modern translations. That distinction matters. Without it, the verse suggests that all anger is sinful. With it, scripture acknowledges a truth borne out repeatedly: Anger can be justifiable, but it must be governed.

Jesus Himself demonstrates this. He overturns tables in the Temple (Matthew 21:12). He rebukes religious leaders sharply. He experiences betrayal, grief, and indignation — yet never loses control. The lesson is not emotional suppression, but moral discipline.

Reading the King James Bible makes these tensions impossible to ignore. Its language is austere and elevated, but more importantly, it preserves a view of humanity that allows for courage, judgment, and resolve alongside mercy. This stands in contrast to many modern ecclesial presentations of Christ, which portray Him almost exclusively as a comforting presence whose primary concern is emotional reassurance.

RELATED: The day I preached Christ in jail — and everything changed

menonsstocks/Getty Images Plus

No more Mr. Nice Guy

But Jesus explicitly rejects this reduction. In Matthew 5:17-20, He states plainly that He did not come to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. The New Testament does not replace the Old; it completes it. The Old Testament establishes the moral and civilizational framework. The New Testament builds the interpersonal life of faith upon it.

Jesus is eternal (John 8:58), one with the Father and the Spirit (John 14). He is not absent from the demanding and often terrifying episodes of Israel’s history. The same Christ who calls sinners to repentance is present when God judges nations, disciplines His people, and establishes His covenant through struggle and sacrifice.

This continuity matters because it exposes the weakness of a Christianity that treats faith primarily as therapy. Churches shaped around likability and marketability inevitably soften doctrine. Hard truths drive people away; reassurance fills seats. The result is a faith that speaks endlessly about peace while avoiding the cost of discipleship.

A pastor at my church recently put it well: It is better to hold a narrow theology — one that insists scripture means what it says — and to extend fellowship generously to those who submit to it, than to hold a broad theology that can be made to say anything and therefore demands nothing. Jesus prays for His followers, not for the world as such (John 17). He commands love of neighbor, but He never pretends that truth and allegiance are optional.

This is why Jesus’ own words about conflict are so often ignored. In Luke 22:36, He tells His disciples to prepare themselves, even to the point of acquiring swords. The passage is complex and easily abused, but its presence alone undermines the notion that Jesus preached passive moral disarmament. Scripture consistently portrays a God who calls His people to vigilance, readiness, and courage — spiritual first, but never abstracted from the real world.

Cross before comfort

Many of Jesus’ parables involve kings, landowners, or rulers — figures of authority, stewardship, and judgment. The Parable of the Ten Minas in Luke 19 is especially unsettling. There Jesus depicts a king rejected by his people, fully aware of their hatred, and describes the fate rebellion would merit if this were a worldly kingdom. The point is not to license violence, but to make unmistakably clear that rejection of Christ is not morally neutral.

Modern Christianity often flinches at this clarity. It prefers a Jesus who reassures rather than commands, who affirms rather than judges. But scripture presents something sterner and more demanding. Jesus does not seek universal approval. He seeks faithfulness. He does not promise comfort. He promises a cross.

As the late Voddie Baucham frequently observed, the cross is not a symbol of tolerance; it is a declaration of war against sin.

The question Christianity ultimately poses is not whether Jesus is kind — He is — but whether He is Lord. And if He is, discipleship is not a matter of sentiment, but allegiance.

​Jesus, Discipleship, Scripture, Bible, Lifestyle, Abide, Align faith 

When the Supreme Court heard arguments earlier this month regarding whether or not laws from Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender athletes from competing on teams aligning with their gender identity are constitutional, many interesting characters showed up outside to protest.

And one of them crashed out while being interviewed by a conservative reporter.

“I think the problem arises when we have females that don’t want to play sports against males, and after their objection, the males are still put on the team anyway,” the reporter said.

“We’re not men. We’re not males,” the man, who calls himself a woman, responded.

“You guys separate sex and gender, don’t you?” the reporter asked.

“Yes, of course,” the man responded.

“So, then you have to acknowledge that you’re male —” she began to answer, before he cut her off to yell, “No! I will never acknowledge that! Never put those words in my mouth!”

“Never put it in my mouth,” he continued.

“I’m putting it in my mouth,” she responded.

“Take it out!” he yelled back, completely deranged. “I am not male.”

“Can I ask you what makes you a woman?” the reporter asked.

“My mind. Even implying that I’m male is an insult, and it spits in my face and that of every other trans person in this place,” the man continued.

When the reporter then addressed the man’s wife, saying her husband was being aggressive and using the pronoun “he” to describe him, the man yelled, “She.”

“You can’t just put lipstick on a pig,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales comments on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”

“No one’s fooled, sir. You’re still a dude. You’ll always be a dude. Deal with it, and get some therapy while you’re at it,” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Camera phone, Free, Sharing, Upload, Video, Video phone, Youtube.com, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Sara gonzales, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Transgenders, Supreme court, Oral arguments, Transgender rights, Trans women, Men in womens sports 

If you think your Windows computer is safe from prying eyes, think again. A new report reveals that Microsoft has the encryption keys to your hard drive, and it can even give them out to law enforcement, including the FBI. Here’s what you need to know and what you can do to stop it from happening to you.

The story

In a stunning breach of personal privacy and security, Microsoft admitted in January that it provided the FBI with the BitLocker recovery keys to three different Windows PCs that were linked to suspected COVID unemployment assistance fraud in Guam. With these keys, the FBI was able to access the files on those devices as part of its investigation.

The good news is that there are several ways to keep both Microsoft and the government out of your precious files.

While it’s always great to see the federal government chase down waste, crime, and fraud, the situation raises concerns over Microsoft’s ability to access the protected files on practically anyone’s Windows PC and provide information to the government without users’ knowledge or consent.

The Redmond tech giant received its first request from a government official during the Obama administration in 2013. Although the engineer who spoke with the official reportedly declined to build a back door into Windows that would give the government unbridled access to user files, Microsoft still admits to turning over BitLocker recovery keys to law enforcement as recently as 2025. According to the report, Microsoft receives approximately 20 access requests from the FBI per year.

What is BitLocker?

BitLocker is the encryption software that comes on most modern Windows PCs. It is designed to protect the files on your hard drive from unauthorized access by locking them with an Advanced Encryption Standard algorithm. The only way to break into a computer protected by BitLocker is to either use the direct route (your login password) or to bypass security measures with a recovery key. Recovery keys for your Windows devices can be linked directly to your Microsoft account, making them accessible to both you and Microsoft itself.

Is your Windows computer at risk?

Whether or not your computer is at risk of government intrusions depends on how BitLocker was set up on your Windows PC.

You are not at risk if …

You use a Windows PC without a Microsoft account. (You haven’t logged into the system with your Outlook email address.)You use a Windows PC with a Microsoft account but you chose a local recovery key backup option at activation.You disabled BitLocker encryption when you set up your PC.

You are at risk if …

You use a Windows PC with a Microsoft Outlook account and you chose to back up your BitLocker recovery key to your account.Your PC is a work machine that’s managed by your employer.

For those at risk, Microsoft promises that it only gives out encryption keys to lawful requests from the government. That said, if Microsoft can access your encryption keys, what’s stopping a hacker from getting them? The problem with storing security keys on cloud servers is that anyone can reach them with the right password, login information, or exploit.

How to stop the FBI from snooping on your PC

The good news is that there are several ways to keep both Microsoft and the government out of your precious files. You can remove your BitLocker recovery key from your Microsoft account with a few simple clicks.

RELATED: With these web browsers, everything on your computer can be stolen with one click

Photo by Matt Cardy/Getty Images

WARNING: There isn’t a way to restore your recovery key once it is deleted. Before following the steps below, make sure you write down your Key ID and Recovery Key, and keep them in a safe place, either in a physical vault or in a trusted digital password manager. Even once your key has been removed from Microsoft’s servers, it will remain active for you to use as needed. That said, here’s how to proceed.

(1) On a web browser, go to the BitLocker recovery key section on your Microsoft account.

Screenshot by Zach Laidlaw

(2) Locate your device on the list. Depending on how many Windows machines you have owned, you may have to scroll to find your current PC.

Screenshot by Zach Laidlaw

(3) Write down your Key ID and Recovery Key somewhere safe. Click the three-dotted “More Options” menu on the right.

Screenshot by Zach Laidlaw

(4) Click delete.

Screenshot by Zach Laidlaw

Your recovery key has now been removed from your Microsoft account. However, due to Microsoft’s content deletion policies, it still may take another 30 days before the recovery key is completely removed from Microsoft’s servers.

Don’t trust your Windows PC

While it is simple enough to prevent government snooping by removing your BitLocker security key from Microsoft’s system, anyone who’s especially concerned about user privacy and security should consider an alternative desktop operating system. Neither Apple nor Google save copies of their customers’ encryption keys, ensuring that user data on Macs and Chromebooks can’t be handed over to the government, even with an official request. Linux machines are also notoriously difficult to crack in terms of digital security. As of today, Microsoft is the only major tech company that keeps encryption keys on hand, making Windows a poor choice for privacy-conscious users.

​Tech 

A Kentucky school teacher — who is accused of having a “sexual conversation” with a child under the age of 12 — has been hit with more severe additional charges, according to authorities.

Sydne Graf is a 36-year-old 5th-grade math teacher at Smyrna Elementary School in Louisville.

‘Graf is now facing serious and shocking child sex abuse charges.’

The arrest citation obtained by Blaze News said that police determined that a “5th-grade math teacher engaged in sexual conversations with a 5th-grade student.”

WDRB-TV reported that the Jefferson County Public Schools Police informed the Louisville Metro Police Department that Graf “engaged in sexual conversations” with the student during a “nontraditional instruction day” with remote learning.

“Detectives were able to review conversations between the juvenile victim and suspect,” the arrest citation states.

“Screenshots and video recordings of the conversations depict images of the suspect as well as her name, Sydne Graf, displayed in the top left corner,” the arrest citation notes.

According to WDRB, “LMPD detectives reviewed the conversations between Graf and the student, which included discussions of oral sodomy with the student.”

Police said Graf was arrested when she attempted to pick up the young student near his home on Dec. 15, 2025.

The arrest citation stated that Graf confessed to having the “previous mentioned conversations” with the minor when questioned by police.

Graf was initially charged with procuring or promoting the use of a minor by electronic means.

However Graf is now facing serious and shocking child sex abuse charges.

Citing court documents, WLKY-TV reported that Graf was indicted on charges of first-degree rape of a victim under 12 years of age, first-degree sodomy of a victim under 12 years of age, unlawful transaction with a minor, and possession of a controlled substance on Jan. 20.

WHAS-TV referenced the arrest citation, which said officers searched Graf’s vehicle and discovered hydrocodone and Adderall pills.

The Louisville Courier-Journal reported that Graf pleaded not guilty to all of the charges on Jan. 21.

Graf is on house arrest with a cash bond set at $500,000.

A judge ordered Graf to have no contact with minors unless supervised by another adult and to have no internet access except on her phone.

RELATED: Middle school teacher hit with 22 charges of sex abuse of 13-year-old — went from ‘mother figure’ to ‘monster’: Court docs

According to WAVE-TV, Smyrna Elementary Principal Amanda Cooper sent a letter to parents regarding the situation.

“We have been made aware that the Crimes Against Children’s Unit (CACU), JCPS PD, and LMPD are investigating an allegation involving one of our staff members,” Cooper told parents.

Cooper said Graf has since been reassigned by the school, and she will not have any contact with students during the investigation.

Cooper noted that she “cannot disclose anything more at this time” because it is an active investigation.

Cooper urged any students with anxiety about the arrest to utilize the school’s mental health practitioner or counselor.

According to the alleged X social media account of Smyrna Elementary School, Graf was previously involved with the school’s wrestling team.

A spokesperson for the Louisville Metro Police Department informed Blaze News that there are no further updates at this time.

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

​True crime, True crime news, Teacher arrested, Bad teacher, Teacher sex scandal, Teacher student sex scandal, Sydne graf, Sydnee graf, Child sex abuse, Rape, Child sex crimes, Crime 

A woman who underwent breast removal surgery at 16 years old was awarded $2 million in the first medical malpractice lawsuit brought by a detransitioner to go to trial.

‘There will be thousands of court cases of children who were mutilated by evil doctors.’

Fox Varian, 22, sued her New York-based psychologist and plastic surgeon, and their respective employers, after regretting the 2019 surgery.

Varian’s attorney contended that the health care professionals misdiagnosed and improperly treated her for gender dysphoria.

The defense claimed that Varian did not express regret about the surgery until years later, filing the lawsuit in 2023. They also argued that it was Varian’s decision to use “he/him” pronouns, change her name, wear a chest binder, and undergo breast removal surgery.

Varian’s lawyer claimed that her psychologist “drove the train” and had been “putting ideas” in her head.

Varian’s mother testified that she opposed the surgery. However, she consented to it because she feared her daughter might commit suicide otherwise. She claimed that Varian’s psychologist intensified her concerns.

RELATED: Trump admin detransitions name on portrait of former Biden official

Photo by Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images

During her testimony, Varian described her reaction to the surgery.

“I immediately had a thought that this was wrong, and it couldn’t be true,” she stated, adding that she has since suffered nerve pain that feels like “searing hot … ripping sensations across my chest.”

“Shame. I felt shame,” Varian said. “It’s hard to face that you are disfigured for life.”

The six-member jury determined that the medical professionals involved overlooked essential steps in assessing whether Varian should proceed with the permanent procedure and failed to communicate adequately with one another.

The jury concluded that these failures were a “departure from the standard of care,” awarding Varian $1.6 million for past and future pain and suffering, and $400,000 for future medical expenses, the Epoch Times reported.

Varian’s attorney, Adam Deutsch, had requested $8 million in damages.

The case was not about whether the surgery was appropriate for a minor. Instead, it concerned whether the health care professionals followed the proper steps to prioritize Varian’s treatment, including delivering an accurate diagnosis.

RELATED: Detransitioner’s heartbreaking story exposes the dark side of ‘gender-affirming care’

Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images

“I have identified 28 detransitioner lawsuits filed to date. Varian v. Einhorn was the first to go to trial and the first to win a judgment, making history,” wrote Benjamin Ryan, an independent journalist who attended the three-week trial.

Elon Musk reacted to Varian’s legal victory.

“There will be thousands of court cases of children who were mutilated by evil doctors, modern day Mengeles,” Musk wrote, referring to Josef Mengele, an infamous Nazi doctor who became known as the “Angel of Death” for his gruesome medical experiments.

“The schools, psychologists/psychiatrists and state officials who facilitated this will pay dearly too,” Musk added.

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

​News, Detransitioner, Detransition movement, Detransitioning, Elon musk, Fox varian, New york, Health care, Healthcare, Trans, Transgender, Transgender ideology, Gender dysphoria, Politics 

There are films that chronicle history, and then there are films that expose the private architecture behind it. “Melania,” the historic new feature film, belongs to the latter category. It is not a campaign film or a political gloss. It is a deeply human account of transition, responsibility, and resolve, told during the most compressed and emotionally demanding stretch of Melania Trump’s life, as she prepared to assume her second term as first lady of the United States.

The film shows the complexity of moving from private life back into one of the most scrutinized public roles in the world.

The film focuses on a narrow but consequential window from January 1 through January 20, 2025, a period that is usually flattened into ceremony and symbolism. Instead, “Melania” lingers in the quiet moments that precede power. It shows a woman balancing the private obligations of motherhood and family with the public demands of leadership. Navigating grief within her own family while preparing to re-enter a national spotlight that rarely affords empathy.

What distinguishes the film immediately is its intimacy. The camera follows Melania Trump through the ordinary and the extraordinary: checking in on her son, caring for her father after the loss of his wife, and preparing to return to public life after years away from the East Wing. These scenes are not dramatized. They are observed. The result is a portrayal that feels restrained, grounded, and unmistakably human.

“Melania” also offers access that has never before been granted to a media project. Viewers are brought into high-level meetings with the Secret Service, detailed White House walk-throughs, and internal discussions about staffing, security, and protocol. The level of access surpasses any prior film or documentary involving the modern presidency, and it does so without compromising the seriousness of the subject.

The film captures the lingering tension in Washington following the failed Kamala Harris presidential campaign. Without editorializing, it documents the complicated interpersonal dynamics and unspoken friction that accompany transitions of power. These moments are subtle, conveyed through body language and silence rather than confrontation, lending the film an unusual credibility.

International diplomacy threads its way into the story as well, most notably through an appearance by Queen Rania of Jordan. Their interaction reflects Melania Trump’s long-standing engagement with global humanitarian issues and underscores the often unseen role first ladies play in shaping state relationships

At its core, “Melania” is about transition. It chronicles how Melania Trump rebuilt her East Wing operation from scratch, assembling a team and setting a tone that was disciplined and intentional. The film shows the complexity of moving from private life back into one of the most scrutinized public roles in the world.

That same precision defined how the film itself came to life.

From the moment the project was introduced to the entertainment industry, it triggered a highly competitive bidding war. Netflix, MGM, Disney, and Paramount all pursued the project intensely, recognizing the rarity of the access and the global interest surrounding Melania Trump’s return to the White House.

Navigating that landscape was Marc Beckman, who has served as Melania Trump’s senior adviser for 25 years. For decades, he has worked closely with her to secure major commercial deals, advance humanitarian initiatives, and shape her public voice. His understanding of media, culture, and negotiation proved critical in steering the project through a crowded field without compromising its integrity.

Beckman brought a long-term, cross-sector perspective to the process. His experience executing campaigns for major global brands and institutions gave him the leverage and insight necessary to evaluate the various competing offers. Together, Beckman and Melania Trump prioritized control, authenticity, and global reach over spectacle.

RELATED: Matt Damon: Netflix dumbs down movies for attention-impaired phone addicts

Photo by Arturo Holmes/WireImage

Ultimately, Amazon was selected as the studio partner. The deal was not the result of any back-channel negotiations involving Donald Trump or Jeff Bezos. It was a strategic choice by a first lady determined to protect her story and ensure that it reached a worldwide audience on her terms.

While “Melania” remains focused on the human dimensions of leadership, it arrives at a time when the first lady has increasingly asserted herself as a force within the East Wing. Her recent efforts to encourage America’s children to pursue curiosity and ambition, including through responsible engagement with emerging technologies like AI, reflect the broader leadership philosophy that underpins the film.

A two-part docuseries, set for release this summer, will expand on the filmmaking process itself, offering behind-the-scenes insight into how unprecedented access was negotiated and maintained and how a project of this magnitude was executed without losing its soul.

In an era of political noise and cultural oversaturation, “Melania” stands apart. It is quiet without being passive and powerful without being performative. More than a film, it is a record of how leadership looks before the world is watching — and why that unseen work matters.

​Melania trump, Melania documentary, First lady, Donald trump, East wing, Amazon, Opinion & analysis 

CNN recently held a town hall where members of the community could express their concerns to Minneapolis officials like Mayor Jacob Frey (D) — but with a little digging, it was revealed that all the randomly selected citizens happened to be Democrat activists.

“President Trump’s comms director, Steven Cheung, did some digging. … Turns out they’ve all donated to ActBlue. Isn’t that incredible?” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”

“ActBlue, the same Democrat PAC that tried to profit off of Alex Pretti’s death,” Gonzales says, reading a text message Americans received from the Democrat platform: “Alex Pretti is the limit. Gov Walz: END THE OPERATION. Stand with us! Donate $50 for 200% MATCH.”

“They’ve never met a terrible tragedy that they have not wanted to profit off of. That’s the ActBlue that we’re talking about. I’m sure it was total coincidence. I’m sure it was a total coincidence that all of these people just happened to be Democrat activists,” she comments.

“These outlets are so irredeemable. They’re actually, like, they’re paying other people to come on the air and spew wild conspiracies. They call us the conspiracy theorists, by the way,” she says.

And in one recent segment on CNN, ex-MSNBC host Tiffany Cross argued that the reason there has been less coverage of the Proud Boys is because all of the Proud Boys went to join ICE.

“There’s a reason why we have not seen a resurgence of the Proud Boys, and that is because I believe a lot of them are likely made ICE officers. Again, I’ve said this on the show before. I’ve not seen any deep-dive reporting into who these people are, but they certainly adopt a lot of the ideology, a lot of the tactics, a lot of the violent tactics, a lot of the wearing masks,” Cross said.

“Did you just say ICE officers are militia?” CNN’s Kevin O’Leary asked, shocked.

“I think you’re stretching a little bit,” he added while she doubled down.

“It’s just something she just concocted,” Gonzales comments, laughing, “in her tiny little mind.”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Camera phone, Video phone, Sharing, Free, Upload, Video, Youtube.com, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Sara gonzales, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Msnbc, Tiffany cross, Jacob frey, Steven chung, President trump, Cnn, Fake news, The trump administration, Minneapolis 

Yesterday, the Atlantic ran an op-ed by Hillary Clinton titled “MAGA’s War on Empathy,” in which the former Secretary of State accused the MAGA movement of twisting bedrock Christian values and embracing a worldview where “compassion is weak and cruelty is strong,” connecting specifically “hard-right Christian influencers” to the violence we’ve seen in Minneapolis.

One of the people in Clinton’s crosshairs is Blaze Media’s own Allie Beth Stuckey, host of the Christian podcast “Relatable.”

Among many grievances, the twice-defeated Democrat took issue with Stuckey’s critical analysis of the sermon delivered on January 21 last year by Episcopal Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde during a post-inauguration interfaith Service of Prayer for the Nation. Budde’s preaching was interpreted by many conservatives, including Stuckey, as a politicization of faith to push progressive views on immigration and LGBTQ+ issues.

“The right-wing Christian podcaster Allie Beth Stuckey called the sermon ‘toxic empathy that is in complete opposition to God’s Word and in support of the most satanic, destructive ideas ever conjured up.’ Toxic empathy! What an oxymoron. I don’t know if the phrase reflects moral blindness or moral bankruptcy, but either way it’s appalling,” Clinton wrote, explicitly describing herself as a Christian.

Now Stuckey fires back at the self-proclaimed devout Mrs. Clinton. In this special “Relatable” episode, she dismisses the hit piece as proof progressives are losing their grip, doubles down on biblical truth over “toxic empathy,” and celebrates the attack as a backhanded compliment.

“First, I just want to make an announcement. I want to announce that I love my life. I love living. I’m happy to be here. That is an important declaration to make anytime you get in the crosshairs of the Clintons, which, to my astonishment, I am,” Stuckey quips, alluding to widely circulated conspiracy narratives tying the Clintons to mysterious deaths.

Though character assassinations like Clinton’s are never ideal, Stuckey celebrates them as proof her message is hitting its mark.

“This article might mention me by name, but it is not actually about me,” she says, “because the truth is, if it weren’t for all of you, Hillary Clinton would not care about me. It is because of your presence, because of your courage, because of your resolve, your influence over this and future generations that Clinton is writing this article.”

And she’s not the first to shoot an arrow at Stuckey. Since her book “Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion” hit the New York Times bestseller list in October 2024, left-wing outlets have been running hit piece after hit piece accusing Stuckey of politically weaponizing the Christian faith.

“The deeper reason [for these attacks] is so incredibly clear to me,” she says, “and that is that we are over the target.”

“We have gotten to the heart of progressive manipulation. We looked at their lies straight in the face that abortion is health care, that trans women are women, that no human being is illegal, and we said, ‘No, I see what you’re doing,’” she continues.

“And now they’re afraid,” she declares.

From 2020 until now, this movement that refuses to allow “emotion to paralyze … critical thinking” has continued to grow, and progressives, realizing that they’re rapidly losing their “monopoly on female compassion,” are in full panic mode, she argues.

“They don’t trot out former Secretary of State, former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, unless they are really worried.”

To Clinton — who seemed to reduce Christianity to mere neighborly love — Stuckey sets the record straight on the faith’s highest virtue: “[Love] is inextricably intertwined with the truth.”

“God is love — 1 John 4:8. He gets to define it. And He tells us what it is in 1 Corinthians 13, and in verse 6, we read that love ‘never rejoices in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth,’” she quotes. “So you cannot have in Christianity love without truth.”

But toxic empathy throws genuine love to the wolves.

“You are so deeply in one person’s feelings that you no longer can think objectively. You no longer consider the person on the other side of the equation, and then you make decisions based on how much you feel for one person rather than on what is true and moral and just,” Stuckey illustrates, giving the example of pro-choicers who, in the name of empathy for the mother, neglect to consider “the existence, the rights, and the pain of the baby inside the womb.”

Love and truth: “This is the dichotomy that Jesus represented. Not unconditional empathy toward every purported victim group,” she clarifies.

Ultimately, Stuckey is grateful for Clinton’s polemic.

“She’s put more eyes on [“Toxic Empathy”],” she says.

But for her, it’s never been about selling books.

“It is about getting Christian women to see what is logically and factually and, most importantly, biblically true about some of the biggest issues of our day and to be able to stand confidently in that,” she says.

She concludes by encouraging Christians to take heart when the Enemy assaults them, reading from Luke 6:22: “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and when they revile you and spurn your name as evil on account of the Son of Man!”

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, Hillary clinton, The atlantic, Toxic empathy, Maga’s war on empathy, Blazetv, Blaze media 

When Donald Trump addressed the World Economic Forum last week, he was draped in the tricolor semiotics of American mythology: a bright red tie blazing against a navy suit and a brilliant white shirt, the azure backdrop proclaiming “World Economic Forum” in relentless repetition.

“We are the hottest country in the world,” he declared, as actual temperatures prepared to plummet to record lows. Yet this apparent contradiction reveals not cynicism but rather a profound understanding of politics and human nature. Trump operates in the order of symbolic truth, where the sign serves not to deceive but to reveal deeper patterns of meaning.

Trump represents the possibility of postmodern politics with a human face. He understands that all communication is mediated by signs, but refuses to let that understanding descend into cynicism or nihilism.

His appearance in Switzerland, swimming in the red, white, and blue of the American flag while surrounded by the gray neutrality of European technocracy, was no accident. It was a deliberate act of semiotic resistance, a refusal to surrender national identity to the homogenizing forces of globalist abstraction. Trump understands intuitively what others labor to learn: In an age of mass communication, the skillful deployment of signs can restore meaning to a world threatened by semantic collapse. His color palette functioned as a vital reminder that symbols still possess power, that representation can serve truth rather than obscure it.

Trump’s brilliance lies in his mastery of semiotic confrontation, the ability to use signs to liberate rather than manipulate consciousness. Consider his campaign trail theatrics. At McDonald’s, adorned with the golden arches apron, Trump still wore a shirt and tie beneath. Sitting in the cab of a garbage truck, Trump sported the municipal worker’s vest over his customary business attire. These are not cynical photo opportunities but rather sophisticated acts of cultural translation that bridge the seemingly unbridgeable divide between elite and populist semiotics.

What emerges is an authentic synthesis of noblesse oblige fused with genuine populist connection, a reconciliation of contradictory class signifiers that reflects the complexity of American identity itself. The suit signals achievement, ambition, the American dream realized; the apron and vest signal respect for work, acknowledgment of service, solidarity with labor.

Worn simultaneously, they create something genuinely new: the sign of a leader who refuses the false choice between solidarity and excellence, who demonstrates that one can honor both hierarchy and equality, and who proves that American success need not require abandoning American roots.

Trump’s authenticity derives from his refusal of pretense. He does not condescend to workers by pretending to be one; instead, he honors them by acknowledging both his difference in standing and his connection. This is transparency in the service of truth, semiotics deployed not to obscure reality but to illuminate it.

Consider the counterexample. Tim Walz, who appeared before cameras in a hoodie and camouflage hat to play video games during the run-up to the 2024 election, reveals the peril of semiotic incoherence. The hoodie is part of the trappings of urban youth culture; the camo hat invokes rural sporting traditions.

These signs do not synthesize but clash. Walz’s campaign costume changes — T-shirts, flannel, the performative hunting expedition where he fumbled with his shotgun — revealed a man attempting to mirror his audience rather than lead it, to reflect rather than project, to follow the focus groups rather than trust his own symbolic integrity.

Trump, conversely, evokes what I have elsewhere argued is the archetypal American cowboy: the figure who mediates between civilization and wilderness, between order and freedom, and who brings justice through strength tempered by wisdom. Like the heroes of John Ford’s Westerns, Trump embodies the necessary tension between competing American values.

While he channels the gangster’s aesthetic — the gilded maximalism reproduced in the Oval Office itself, all gold and grandeur — he transforms this signifier. Whereas Tony Montana’s opulence signified corruption and moral decay, Trump’s aesthetic announces the democratic right to success, the vindication of ambition, and the refusal of WASP austerity that once policed the boundaries of acceptable aspiration.

RELATED: Trump’s space order shows why the Outer Space Treaty must go

Photo by Manuel Mazzanti/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Here we approach the crucial innovation. Unlike the gangster narrative’s tragic arc, Trump has demonstrated that the American story need not end in inevitable decline. He exists not in perpetual limbo but in perpetual possibility, proving that narrative structure itself can be transcended through will and symbolic mastery.

This may be his most profound contribution: the demonstration that we need not accept predetermined endings, that the script can be rewritten, that American optimism can triumph over European fatalism.

We may inhabit a world where most signs are detached from their referents. But Trump demonstrates something more hopeful — that skilled semioticians can reattach meaning to symbols and make signs serve human purposes once again. He produces images that acknowledge their constructed nature while simultaneously insisting on their genuine significance.

Trump’s is not the demagogue’s manipulation — the false sign pretending to be spontaneous truth — but rather the showman’s honest performance that announces its own artistry while delivering authentic emotion and connection.

In this sense, Trump represents the possibility of postmodern politics with a human face. He understands that all communication is mediated by signs, but refuses to let that understanding descend into cynicism or nihilism. Trump is a symbol that remains tethered to the symbolized, a map that guides us toward the territory rather than replacing it, a simulation that points beyond itself toward genuine experience and real accomplishment.

We can celebrate this achievement and recognize that Trump has made explicit what democratic leadership has always required: that political power in the age of mass media must work skillfully with signs precisely to preserve authentic human connection, and that acknowledged performance can be more honest than claimed spontaneity.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published at the American Mind.

​Trump, Semiotics, Medium, Trump brand, Messaging, Wef, President trump, The american dream, Opinion & analysis 

QAnon — the right-wing conspiracy theory claiming that Donald Trump was secretly battling an evil elitist cabal that puppeteers the world — may be in history’s ash heap, but the kind of fanatical, evidence-light thinking that birthed it is still alive and well, says BlazeTV host John Doyle.

Now that cryptic Q messages are a relic of the past, those who hunger for hype and theatrics are sinking their teeth into another paranoia-driven fantasy, this time revolving around Peter Thiel and Palantir — a powerful data analytics and surveillance software company that helps governments and large corporations analyze massive datasets to detect patterns, predict threats, and make decisions.

“According to the people who tend to like this idea … Palantir is essentially part of a vast global conspiracy to deprive Americans, specifically American patriots, of their rights, and that is somehow supposed to benefit Israel,” says Doyle.

People who take this bait usually end up setting their crosshairs on Vice President JD Vance. Thiel hired Vance at his venture firm Mithril Capital after meeting him at Yale, financially backed Vance’s own venture capital firm, Narya Capital, and donated $15 million to his successful 2022 Ohio Senate campaign.

Many well-meaning fringe believers, hardened by years of being hated by America’s “most powerful and prestigious institutions,” says Doyle, hear this and denounce Vance as a controlled political figure installed by Thiel to advance a shadowy agenda of surveillance, authoritarian tech dominance, and anti-democratic control through Palantir’s government contracts.

“On paper, dude, I don’t know. It strikes me as a very sort of typical, like, mentor-mentee kind of relationship,” Doyle counters.

But more importantly, “look at the fruits of this [relationship], though,” he adds. “JD Vance is a senator in Ohio. JD Vance now is the vice president of the United States. He’s doing fantastic work. Things are going very well for us, due in large part to JD Vance.”

Doyle cautions against falling into the right’s anti-Palantir/Thiel conspiracism, as it is ultimately a tactic employed by “people who stumbled into right-wing politics but are themselves spiritually leftists” to sabotage JD Vance’s potential 2028 presidential run by painting him as tool tied to “Big Tech” overlords like Thiel.

Further, he rejects the superstition that Palantir — named after the seeing stones in J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” — amounts to Thiel confessing plans to wield his AI-powered company as a real-world Sauron.

“I am gonna have to disappoint you a little bit by telling you that [Palantir] does not actually give you telepathic powers. Instead what it actually offers is a little bit more mundane, a little bit less romantic. It’s just, like, software platforms that allow clients to make sense of pre-existing data,” says Doyle.

That said, Palantir is indeed working with “intelligence agencies, militaries, some of the world’s largest corporations.”

“It’s pretty clear that Palantir, whatever it does, is operating at the highest levels of society. Much of the U.S. government is running on Palantir software. Maybe we should pay a little bit more attention to that. Fair enough,” Doyle acknowledges.

Even still, it’s unwise to join the anti-Palantir/Thiel crowd for the explicit reason that it was started by leftists who hate anyone and anything considered right-wing.

“Amusingly, it is the fact that several of Palantir’s founders are outspokenly right-wing that the anti-Palantir narratives were spread in the first place. This was not from some kind of principled opposition. … Literally just because Palantir is run by guys who are sympathetic and enthusiastic about right-wing ideas,” says Doyle.

“All [Palantir] does is give you the ability to make sense of your own data,” he declares. If it was doing anything more than that — say, “stealing its clients’ data” — then almost certainly we would know about it due to the sheer number of people on both the left and pseudo-right who are chomping at the bit to dismantle Palantir.

“If that’s happening, there’s no evidence for it,” Doyle asserts. “And by the way, if the federal government wanted to send your data to Mossad — which, for the record, I really don’t think that’s what’s going on — it doesn’t need Palantir to do that. It would just simply do that.”

To hear more of Doyle’s analysis, watch the full episode above.

Want more from John Doyle?

To enjoy more of the truth about America and join the fight to restore a country that has been betrayed by its own leaders, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The john doyle show, John doyle, Qanon, Qanon conspiracy, Conspiracy theory, Blazetv, Blaze media, Peter thiel, Palantir 

As state lawmakers begin to return to office this week, a number of issues will be clamoring for their attention. One of the most important — but perhaps overlooked due to its technical and less attention-grabbing nature — is pharmacy benefit manager reform.

Reform-minded leaders should work with PBMs, leveraging their market power to achieve lower costs for consumers.

Last year, Arkansas became the first state in the nation to ban PBMs, and other states heavily regulated the industry. These efforts are expected to continue in 2026, even as courts raise constitutional questions about the Arkansas law and regulations in Iowa.

I’m a health care broker, so I know PBMs pretty well. They’re easy targets because of the complex process by which they work, as well as the pharmaceutical industry’s years-long campaign to put blame for drug pricing on the industry.

At its core, PBMs’ basic function is straightforward. Because they represent hundreds of thousands or even millions of patients who cannot negotiate with drugmakers on their own, PBMs are able to use their size as leverage to push for lower prices. When the big players reject a high price, a manufacturer has to decide whether it wants to lose access to those patients.

That negotiating leverage also keeps drugmakers from unilaterally dictating the cost of medications, from commonly used drugs like insulin to newer medications like Zepbound and Wegovy. For example, companies gave consumers a New Year’s present of increasing prices for 350 products — but the final costs to patients won’t be known until PBMs have their say.

U.S. health care pricing can be confusing, with even seasoned observers getting lost amid the jargon of rebates, formularies, and spread pricing. Critics often accuse PBMs of adding unnecessary layers of administrative cost or of exaggerating savings. Some of these concerns are legitimate, and the industry’s lack of transparency makes it easy for critics to portray PBMs as the villains keeping patients from being able to afford the medications they need.

But this criticism is better leveled at the drugmakers. They often insist they cannot lower prices because of research costs or regulatory burdens. Yet when Eli Lilly, the first trillion-dollar drug company, found itself boxed out of the CVS network, it suddenly found a way to make its products available more cheaply.

On December 1, drugmaker Eli Lilly cut the consumer cost of its popular weight-loss injection Zepbound, bringing its prices in line with competitor Novo Nordisk’s popular and recently reduced drug Wegovy.

Lilly’s move should be instructive for state and federal lawmakers because it came after Novo Nordisk agreed to lower prices of Wegovy under pressure from pharmacy giant CVS. CVS — through its PBM division, CVS Caremark — had initially tried to negotiate with Lilly, but the drugmaker refused to budge on its pricing, leading CVS Caremark to stop offering Zepbound to clients. But once Novo Nordisk agreed to reduce the price of Wegovy, Eli Lilly suddenly changed its tune.

RELATED: Taxpayers are funding California’s Medicaid shell game

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Lawmakers looking to reduce prescription drug prices should take note.

Like all industries, PBMs have their flaws, but this case showed CVS forcing a needed price correction. And it should be front of mind for lawmakers who, yes, should insist on greater PBM transparency, but also must be aware of both the constitutional limitations on so-called “reforms” and how overregulating PBMs will impact constituents’ drug prices.

As lawmakers look for solutions to Americans’ record-high health care costs, they should realize that any cost-reduction effort must include prescriptions — and that means working with PBMs. Reform-minded leaders should work with PBMs, leveraging their market power to achieve lower costs for consumers while insisting on price transparency and other reforms that reinforce how PBMs are using fundamental market principles to keep drug companies from causing even more harm to Americans’ finances.

​Pbm reform, Pharmacy benefit managers, Gop, Legislative season, Healthcare costs, Drug prices, Pharmacy, Cvs, Opinion & analysis 

Two repeat offenders, a male and a female, have been charged with murdering an elderly woman in Houston earlier this week — and the male suspect reportedly was out on bond when he skipped a court appearance just days before the fatal shooting.

Tajuana Thomas, 38, and Richard Mouton, 34, are charged with capital murder in the shooting death of a 72-year-old woman, police said, adding that the shooting took place in the 4000 block of Lockwood Drive just before 2 a.m. Monday.

‘It’s always disturbing that you could be on parole, get a felony conviction, and still be on parole and not have your parole revoked.’

Officers responded to a report of a shooting at the residence and located three people suffering from gunshot wounds, police said, adding that responding Houston Fire Department paramedics pronounced the victim dead at the scene.

Thomas and Mouton were hospitalized, police said, adding that video shows they were involved in the shooting.

KPRC-TV, citing law enforcement sources, said witnesses told police that Thomas had been upset with the victim — identified in court records as Linda Martinez — because she previously refused to bail Thomas out of jail, and the two “argued about it all the time.”

Law enforcement sources also told the station that Thomas previously lived at the residence where the shooting took place, and the suspects entered the home through an unlocked back door.

Once inside, the suspects — who were wearing masks — allegedly found Martinez asleep on a couch, and sources told KPRC the pair demanded her jewelry while pointing an AR-style rifle at her.

The elderly victim apparently had plenty of fight in her.

RELATED: Violent repeat offender brutally beats up elderly whites, Mexicans in racially motivated attack, officials say

A law enforcement source told the station that Martinez used a revolver to shoot Mouton in the face and Thomas in the hip.

Court records also revealed criminal histories for both suspects, KPRC reported.

Thomas was on bond for misdemeanor terroristic threat, the station said, after a victim in 2022 reported that she had been fired from her job, showed up again, and allegedly told the victim she was going to “beat his ass.”

More from KPRC:

Mouton, a convicted felon, was on parole until 2024, according to court records.

Then in July of 2025, Mouton got arrested for three charges in Harris County: drug possession, felon in possession of a weapon, and evading arrest.

In those cases, he allegedly ran nearly 1,500 feet from a traffic stop while possessing more than 100 grams of marijuana, 5 grams of ecstasy, 11.7 grams of Xanax, 24+ grams of methamphetamine, 3.4 grams of cocaine, and a firearm, according to records.

RELATED: 9-time convicted felon opens fire on man, woman outside Florida home; he allegedly was after money owed to him: Cops

The station said Mouton was released on bond shortly after his July arrest — but added that records indicate he didn’t show up for a court date last week, after which warrants for Mouton’s arrest were filed, KPRC said.

Mouton reportedly skipped court on Jan. 22; Martinez was killed on Jan. 26.

“It’s always disturbing that you could be on parole, get a felony conviction, and still be on parole and not have your parole revoked,” Andy Kahan with Crime Stoppers told KRIV-TV.

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

​Homeowner shoots intruders, Homeowner fatally shot, Capital murder charges, Houston, Elderly woman victim, Home invasion, Repeat offenders, Skipping court, On bond, Crime 

A Louisiana middle school counselor on leave for allegedly sending inappropriate messages to a young girl was found dead at a vacant school Wednesday.

Quinton Dixon, 44, was placed on leave Jan. 15 from Westdale Middle School in Baton Rouge over the messages allegedly sent to a 14-year-old who had previously been a student at the school.

‘The situation is just so unfortunate. We just got to pray for everybody.’

Police sought to speak with Dixon after someone published screenshots of his alleged Instagram messages to the girl. The messages show him asking if the 14-year-old has a boyfriend, telling her she’s attractive, and hinting at their having a romantic relationship.

The girl told police the messages began after Dixon saw her walking home from school and pulled over his vehicle to talk to her. He obtained her information and sent the messages between November and January.

On Tuesday, the Baton Rouge Police issued an arrest warrant for Dixon on four felony counts of indecent behavior with juveniles.

The next day, his body was found at the Glen Oaks Middle School, which is a mostly demolished vacant school in the same school district.

The East Baton Rouge Parish Coroner’s Office found that Dixon died of a “self-inflicted gunshot wound,” confirming he died by suicide.

The parish school system released a statement on the incident.

“We extend our condolences to the school community, family, and loved ones as they process this information during this difficult time,” the statement reads. “Out of respect for the privacy of students and the integrity of ongoing matters, we are unable to share additional details about the employee.”

RELATED: Parents of 11-year-old targeted in murder plot by 5th-graders break their silence: ‘There was a mastermind’

The district said Dixon had been an employee since 2022.

A man named Redell Norman told WBRZ-TV that he coached with Dixon and had gone to Glen Oaks Middle School.

“It’s unfortunate the circumstances of his untimely demise, but yes, I did know him, and the situation is just so unfortunate. We just got to pray for everybody,” he said.

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

​School counselor quinton dixon, Louisiana counselor texts, Texts to 14-year-old, Counselor inappropriate texts, Crime 

While surrogacy is marketed to the masses as a beautiful, life-giving procedure that allows those unable to have children the chance to be parents — BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey has been warning for years that that couldn’t be further from the truth.

And after singer Meghan Trainor posted a photo of herself with tears in her eyes, holding her baby topless in a hospital bed after the baby was carried by a surrogate, Stuckey is sounding the alarm again.

“You see this image, and it looks like a mother and her baby. She’s obviously very happy. That happiness is sincere. This really is her biological child. So she loves this baby. There is absolutely no doubt about that,” Stuckey begins.

“But Christians are not just called to feel. We are not just called to see an image, to feel something, and then to make our decisions, especially big moral decisions that affect vulnerable children based on pictures that make us feel a certain way,” she continues.

Stuckey points out that it’s very important for a newborn to have skin-to-skin contact with the woman who carried the baby in her womb for nine months, because the physiological bond created between the baby and the woman who carried him or her is necessary for the child’s healthy development.

Skin-to-skin contact with the true mother regulates the baby’s heart rate, which makes the baby’s transition earth-side more peaceful. This is how puppies and kittens are treated at birth, but thanks to surrogacy, human babies are not held to the same standard.

Not only does surrogacy rip the child away from its mother and give him or her to a stranger, but surrogate pregnancies are a higher risk for the baby and the surrogate. They are more likely to result in preterm deliveries, late-term miscarriages, and NICU stays.

The last point Stuckey makes is that the surrogacy industry is “inherently exploitative.”

Women who need money are forced to sign a contract that often allows those paying her to abort the baby if they feel like it.

There are also no background checks for those who use surrogates, which is why surrogacy has become a go-to method for child-buying schemes around the world — better known as human trafficking.

“In this case, I assume that Meghan Trainor used her own eggs. So she has to pump herself with a lot of hormones in order to be able to ovulate artificially. And then they harvest the eggs from her body. And then they take this egg and I suppose her husband’s sperm. They put this together in a dish in a lab, and they make not just one embryo but multiple embryos,” Stuckey explains.

“And typically, just like in the IVF process, these embryos are graded. And very often, especially in celebrity cases, you determine the gender of these embryos. You determine if this embryo has some kind of special need like Down syndrome or other kinds of chromosomal abnormalities,” she continues.

“Very often these embryos who are not graded well, they’re graded as weak or something else. They are thrown out,” she adds.

Stuckey calls it “human experimentation” that’s only allowed to happen in the United States because of how lucrative the industry is.

“Creating that brokenness of bond on purpose at the moment of birth, I think, is extremely unethical, immoral, and cruel. Especially when we’re talking about two men that are buying the eggs from one woman and renting the womb of another woman, two separate women, and then taking that child away both from the biological mother and from the only body that he or she has ever known,” Stuckey says.

“And to put that baby on their hairy chest, it’s disgusting. It is immoral in every single way,” she continues, adding, “Again this is more cruelty that we show to human beings than we would ever show to puppies and kittens.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

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

​Camera phone, Free, Video, Video phone, Upload, Sharing, 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, Megan trainor, Meghan trainor, Surrogacy, Ivf, Child exploitation, Human trafficking 

We are told, repeatedly, that woke is dead. Piers Morgan even wrote a book about it, so it must be true. Right?

Wrong.

Strength, by Hollywood’s current definition, must weigh a little over 100 pounds and look perpetually annoyed.

If in doubt, please watch the trailer for “Apex,” due for release in April. With it comes Hollywood’s most exhausted fantasy yet: the indestructible badass woman who outruns youth, outpunches men twice her size, and shrugs off biology like it’s a clerical error.

Mission: Implausible

This time, it’s a 50-year-old Charlize Theron sprinting through the Australian wilderness and scaling cliffs as if she’s Tom Cruise circa “Mission: Impossible 2.” Gravity is optional. Muscle mass is negotiable. Aging, it seems, is strictly forbidden.

We’ve seen this act so many times that it barely registers any more. Swap the title card, rotate the backdrop, keep the same choreography. A lone woman wronged by men. A past trauma. An axe to grind, sometimes literally. Six-foot brutes wait their turn to be neutralized. The music swells. The credits roll. And with them go the eyeballs of nearly every viewer still capable of respecting basic reality.

The point is not that women can’t be strong. Of course they can. Strength is not the issue. Hollywood’s definition of it is. Somewhere along the way, empowerment became synonymous with women cosplaying male action heroes, only with fight scenes that insult Newton and scripts that insult the audience. A petite actress body-checking men built like refrigerators — then calling disbelief misogyny — is not progress.

What makes “Apex” more revealing than irritating is how nakedly it exposes the broader frame. This isn’t about one film or one actress. It’s the result of a steady drip: years of female-driven nonsense poured into every genre until it became the genre. The same beats. The same postures. The same lectures delivered at gunpoint.

Form fatale

Hollywood has always run on formula. Nothing new there. It followed money, copied hits, and abandoned failures without sentimentality. But the formula answered to the audience. If people didn’t buy tickets, the trend was over.

Now the industry treats audience resistance not as feedback, but as something to be corrected — like a behavioral problem that needs retraining. Failure is no longer evidence that the formula is broken. It is treated as proof that the audience is.

Studios like to pretend this is audience demand. It isn’t. It’s institutional inertia. Executives terrified of being accused of regression keep recycling the same safe lie: If the movie fails, the audience is at fault. If it succeeds modestly, it’s a cultural victory.

It’s a system that makes the arrival of the new “Supergirl” later this year entirely predictable. Not because audiences asked for it. Not because there was pent-up demand. Not because anyone ever thought, yes, this is what’s missing. It is arriving because this is what the industry now produces by reflex.

The irony is hard to miss. The original “Supergirl” debuted in 1984, the same year Orwell warned us about systems that repeat lies until they feel inevitable. That film was a commercial and critical dud, quickly forgotten for good reason.

Four decades later, Hollywood appears determined to rerun the experiment, convinced that time, tone, and audience memory can all be overwritten. Don’t expect to be entertained. Expect scowls and sermons in spandex. Strength, by Hollywood’s current definition, must weigh a little over 100 pounds and look perpetually annoyed.

RELATED: FEMPIRE STRIKES BACK: Kathleen Kennedy leaves ‘Star Wars’; is it too soon for fans to celebrate?

Down for the count

We saw the results late last year. The box-office face-plant of “Christy,” the biopic of boxer Christy Martin, made the point brutally clear. Despite opening in more than 2,000 theaters, it scraped together just $1.3 million — one of the worst wide releases on record.

The film stars Sydney Sweeney, an American beauty inexplicably styled like a discount Rocky Balboa. Producers assumed her star power would draw crowds, then forgot why anyone — especially male viewers — watches her in the first place. It isn’t to see her absorb jabs, hooks, and uppercuts like a human heavy bag. It’s when she leans into what she actually is: feminine, magnetic, sexy. No one is buying a ticket to watch a gorgeous woman get beaten senseless.

This is the quiet truth studios refuse to say out loud: Men and women are not the same, and they do not want the same things on screen. Audiences happily watched Liam Neeson bulldoze Europe in “Taken.” They turned up in droves to see Keanu Reeves turn the death of a dog into a four-film genocide in “John Wick.” Nothing motivates a man like canine-related trauma and unlimited ammunition. Those films worked because they leaned into male fantasy without apology.

Equalizer rights?

What audiences don’t want is that same template awkwardly stapled onto a completely different body and sold as innovation. Denzel Washington was excellent in “The Equalizer” — cold, credible, and infinitely cool.

The TV reboot took that precision and desecrated it by turning the role into unintentional slapstick. A morbidly obese Queen Latifah as a silent, unstoppable angel of death is pure absurdity. This is a woman who struggles to climb a single flight of stairs, yet viewers are expected to believe she’s capable of stalking, subduing, and dispatching trained men without breaking a sweat.

Which brings us back to “Apex.” What makes the film accidentally hilarious isn’t Charlize Theron running through the bush. It’s the industry sprinting right behind her, desperately chasing a fantasy that stopped selling years ago. The humor comes from the sincerity. From the absolute faith that this time — finally — it will land.

And it will land. Just not gracefully. More like a Boeing falling out of the sky. Twisted metal, scorched wreckage, and stunned executives wandering around asking what went wrong.

And from that wreckage, there will be no reckoning. No pause. No course correction. Just a quick trip back to the studio lot to greenlight the next movie nobody requested and that everyone will forget.

​Movies, Entertainment, Lifestyle, Culture, Supergirl, Charlize theron, Girlboss, Mary sue, Hollyweird