Category: blaze media

Ted Nugent is known for many things. Subtlety isn’t one of them.

This is a man who treats volume knobs the way toddlers treat bedtime: with open defiance. So when a mosque in his Michigan town began broadcasting the early-morning call to prayer over loudspeakers, Nugent reacted in the way only Nugent would. He turned his back yard into a launchpad for a one-man rock assault.

You don’t need to be religious to see the problem. You only need to have ears.

Excessive? Perhaps. But it tapped straight into a frustration millions feel but rarely voice — not loudly, anyway.

The early-morning Islamic call to prayer echoing through American suburbs isn’t “diversity” or a charming cultural detail. It’s noise — loud, sudden, inescapable noise. It jolts families awake, spooks pets, startles infants, and demands that the entire block adapt.

Nugent’s counterattack may have been a little over the top, but beneath the distortion pedals sits a simple point: Public peace matters. In a free country, quiet hours come first. And no imported custom, however sacred to some, earns an automatic exemption.

Richard Dawkins once called the Islamic call to prayer “hauntingly beautiful.” This from a man who spent decades explaining that God doesn’t exist. It’s a strange kind of aesthetic tourism: Romanticize a religious ritual while rejecting the very religion that produced it. Dawkins was wrong about the existence of God, and he is equally wrong about the Islamic call to prayer.

The call to prayer wasn’t designed as background music, and it wasn’t conceived for multicultural suburbs where everyone keeps different hours and believes different things. It was forged in a seventh-century society where faith and authority were fused, where religion structured public life down to the minute, and where submission — literal, explicit submission — wasn’t merely encouraged but expected.

Islam’s founding worldview assumed a unified religious community, a shared legal and moral order, and a sharp distinction between believers and nonbelievers. That distinction shaped status, obligation, and allegiance.

In the Muslim context, the adhan makes perfect sense. It is a public summons for a public faith, a declaration of dominance over the rhythm of the day, and reminder that life moves according to Allah’s schedule — not yours. It reminds everyone, believer or not, that the community’s obligations take precedence over the individuals’ preferences.

But transplant it into America (or any predominantly Christian society), and it makes zero sense. The operating systems and expectations are different. The very idea of a faith dictating the morning routine of people who don’t share it runs directly against the grain of Western life.

RELATED: Why progressives want to destroy Christianity — but spare Islam

AlxeyPnferov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

This is the part Dawkins missed entirely when he praised the adhan.

It’s easy to romanticize a sound when you encounter it on holiday, filtered through distance, novelty, and sand-warm nostalgia. It’s quite another when it is broadcast at 5 a.m. into a neighborhood that never agreed to have its eardrums shattered before the coffee even brews.

Dawkins hears melody, but he ignores meaning. He praises the tune while overlooking the text, which was never written for pluralism. It was written for a social order in which Islam set the terms — and nonbelievers either complied or faced the consequences.

You don’t need to be religious to see the problem. You only need to have ears.

The adhan doesn’t float gently on the breeze. It is projected through megaphones with the explicit purpose of commanding attention. It is designed to override the soundscape of daily life. Barking dog? Buried. Garbage truck? Drowned. Your alarm clock? Irrelevant. The Islamic call to prayer cuts through everything because that is precisely what it was built to do.

And that is where the first collision occurs. In America, no foreign religion should be granted the right to reorder everyone’s routine. Christianity, which most readers know intimately, offers a useful contrast. Church bells ring, yes, but briefly and symbolically. They don’t deliver multi-minute recitations meant to summon or correct anyone.

But with fewer bells ringing, other sounds inevitably move in to fill the void. These include ones far louder, far longer, and far less rooted in America’s traditions.

There’s a difference between freedom of religion and freedom to dominate the public square.

In a predominantly Christian society, faith is personal, chosen, and interior. Prayer happens inside churches, inside homes, inside hearts — not broadcast across rooftops as compulsory ambience. The Western idea of worship is reflective and voluntary. The call to prayer, by contrast, is commanding and public by design.

Sound, as Ted Nugent knows well, is anything but neutral. A community’s soundscape shapes its psychology. People become anxious, irritable, exhausted, and far more prone to accidents when their sleep is disrupted. After all, we prosecute noisy neighbors for far less.

Yet Western elites recoil at the idea that a religious practice might be subject to the same standards as the guy who revs his motorcycle at midnight. If anything, a more intrusive and more extended ritual deserves more examination — not less.

Although I truly dislike what Islam represents, this isn’t about hatred. It is about the delicate, daily compromises a pluralistic nation depends on. When one group insists on broadcasting its obligations to everyone else, the common ground cracks, the social contract comes apart, and people start to feel like strangers on their own streets.

The call to prayer has no place in polite society. There’s a difference between freedom of religion and freedom to dominate the public square. One belongs in America. The other never will.

​Christianity, Christian, Prayer, Ted nugent, Islam, Call to prayer, Islamic call to prayer, Faith 

If you’ll indulge one more cabin story, it’s only because remodeling an unlevel structure may be the clearest metaphor for the challenges caregivers face — and, I suspect, for the condition of America itself.

Out here in rural Montana, you learn quickly that when a project needs doing, you can pay a lot for it, wait a long time, use duct tape, or learn to do it yourself. Usually it’s some combination of the four. And while I’ve adapted to that reality, certain home-improvement tasks still give me the willies — mainly anything with a blade spinning fast enough to launch lumber toward Yellowstone National Park.

There is something life-giving about facing the hard thing in front of us instead of avoiding it.

Who knew you needed a helmet to cut boards?

I’ve been a pianist longer than I’ve been a caregiver, and since my hands pay the bills, I prefer to keep all my fingers intact. Let’s just say that when it comes to carpentry, I can really play the piano.

Recently we removed an old door in our cabin and needed to rebuild the wall. Help was delayed, so I decided to tackle it myself. The wall wasn’t the problem. The miter saw was. When I noticed the blade catching the afternoon light, it looked downright smug.

It knew.

Still I’ve met many builders in our county, and only one is missing a finger. Thankfully none answer to “Lefty.” If they can keep their body parts, maybe I can too. My rule is simple: Measure 17 times, cut once — and do it slowly.

So I got to work. In an old cabin nothing is plumb, so my level and I argued for quite a while. Even so, the studs went in, something close to square took shape, and despite a few caregiving interruptions, the wall was framed by sundown.

I was proud of myself. I took pictures. I bragged a little. Some builders may roll their eyes, but I’d do the same if they bragged about playing “Chopsticks.”

But it wasn’t really the blade. It was the fear behind it — the fear of getting something wrong, of creating a problem I couldn’t undo. And that fear isn’t limited to carpentry. When we let fear or anxiety keep us from picking up the tool and learning, whole parts of our lives remain unfinished.

We live in half-built cabins — studs exposed, projects stalled, confidence untested because we never moved toward the thing that intimidates us.

America was built by people who weren’t afraid to try hard things. They carved farms out of wilderness. Built railroads with crude tools. Raised barns without safety manuals. When something broke, they fixed it; when they didn’t know how, they learned anyway. Imperfectly, but persistently.

That spirit carried us for generations. Today we struggle to find it.

We’ve created a culture that treats effort as optional and discomfort as a crisis. We warn people not to push themselves. We offer labels and excuses instead of encouragement. We outsource everything, including our resilience. Hard things are treated as unsafe instead of character-building.

Many believe our greatest dangers are political, economic, or global. Maybe. But something quieter may be worse: We are losing the courage to try.

I say that as someone who has spent 40 years as a caregiver. Disease, trauma, addiction, aging — none of it yields to effort or skill. Day after day, fighting a battle you cannot win wears down confidence. Caregiving rarely gives you the satisfaction of a finished job or something tangible you can hold in your hands.

RELATED: My crooked house made me rethink what really needs fixing

kudou via iStock/Getty Images

But tackling something you can finish, even if it makes the hair on your neck stand up, pushes back against that erosion of self-reliance. There is courage in doing the thing we’d rather avoid. When we take on something small but intimidating, we rediscover a steadiness we thought we’d lost — not bravado, not swagger, just the quiet certainty that we can still learn, grow, and accomplish something in a world that feels increasingly out of control.

And sometimes the payoff is simple. It’s something you can point to. That framed doorway in my cabin isn’t perfect, but it stands as proof that I stepped toward something unfamiliar and did it anyway. In a culture that avoids discomfort, even one small visible victory becomes fuel for courage. It tells you that you can do the next thing too.

As Emerson put it, a person who is not every day conquering some fear has not learned the secret of life. There is something life-giving about facing the hard thing in front of us instead of avoiding it.

That is the spirit America needs again — not bluster or political chest-thumping, but ordinary people choosing to try the hard thing right in front of them.

I will probably always be nervous around saws, but that doorway reminds me that courage often appears in the quiet places where we decide to try.

And there is absolutely no shame in wearing a helmet.

​Opinion & analysis, Homeownership, Ralph waldo emerson, Courage, Virtue, Caregiving, Caregivers, Montana, Life 

Never has it been more obvious that politics are spiritual in nature. The partisan battles over authority, morality, justice, life, and truth can no longer mask the supernatural war raging between good and evil in the unseen realm.

Although the great war has already been won through Christ, the forces of good often lose earthly battles because Christians refuse to enter the fray. Progressives have a zeal and commitment to their doctrine more ferocious than the majority of Christians these days.

We’re “dealing with a rival religion,” says Steve Deace, BlazeTV host of the “Steve Deace Show.”

“If you aren’t as convicted in yours, you cannot defeat [your progressive opponents]. They’ll just keep beating you.”

So what needs to happen in order to flip the script?

To explore this query, Deace spoke with former U.S. senator, author, and devout Christian Jim DeMint.

“The great divide in Washington and across America really comes down to whether or not you believe the Bible is true. Our whole culture, all of Western civilization, is built on Judeo-Christian ideas that come from the Bible,” says DeMint. “Everything from the moral laws that we see in the Old Testament to how families are formed to marriage, concepts of compassion and charity — everything we take for granted as a country is derived from the Bible.”

Twenty-five years ago, both parties acknowledged and respected this reality, he says. But today, that isn’t true. One party has departed so far from any sort of moral standard that it fights for nationwide abortion through all three trimesters, equating the barbaric murder of babies to essential health care.

When these progressive policies are successful, it’s a win for Team Satan, but Christians at large tend to just shrug and hope for better days.

But they need to pick up their sword and fight. “Pastors and Christian leaders and folks who call themselves Christians [need] to step out of the shadows and start to participate more in deciding how we’re governed as a nation,” says DeMint.

DeMint has a brand-new book out that tackles this subject. Titled “What the Bible Really Says: About Creation, End Times, Politics, and You,” it dives into how centuries of theological misinterpretation and church tradition have neutralized the Bible’s explosive political power, leaving Christians defenseless in today’s spiritual war. It also argues that returning to the plain, unfiltered text of Scripture can re-arm believers to fight and win the battles over authority, life, marriage, justice, and truth that now define our culture.

Today’s churches are often too “watered down,” “lukewarm,” and “you-centered” to be effective in the political sphere, Deace adds.

But if Christians got biblically serious, they’d see that Washington’s war is God’s war.

“Republicans have their flaws, and I spent most of my time in the House and the Senate criticizing Republicans for not doing what they said they were going to do, [but] their platform is built on Judeo-Christian concepts. But the Democrat platform is not,” say DeMint.

But while political victories should be important to Christians, they aren’t the end-all, be-all. “We can’t win the battle that way,” says DeMint.

The real battle remains in each individual heart, where people must finally settle the question DeMint keeps asking: Is the Bible actually true — or isn’t it? Because until we bet our lives that every word is God-breathed, we’ll keep losing the culture to a rival religion that is far more convinced of its own lies.

To hear more of Deace and DeMint’s conversation, watch the episode above.

Want more from Steve Deace?

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

​Steve deace, Steve deace show, Blazetv, Blaze media, Spiritual warfare, Jim demint, Progressive religion, Christianity, Lukewarm christians 

At least two are dead and others were wounded after a shooting Saturday at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, the New York Times reported.

An active shooter was reported just after 4:30 p.m. near the Barus and Holley engineering building on Hope Street, officials at the Ivy League college said, according to Fox News. Police were still searching for the shooter, who was described as a man dressed in black, the Times said.

‘It is imperative that all members of our community remain sheltered in place.’

Providence Mayor Brett Smiley told CNN that the doors of the engineering building where the shooting took place were unlocked since numerous final exams were being held there, according to the Times: “Based on what we heard from officials at Brown, anybody could have accessed the building at that time.”

Providence Fire Chief Derek Silva told the Times that two of the shooting victims were found dead at the scene.

Eight other shooting victims were being treated at Rhode Island Hospital, a spokeswoman told the Times, adding that six were in critical but stable condition, one was in critical condition, and another was in stable condition.

However, Smiley later announced that a ninth injured victim was identified, the Times said in a subsequent update, and that victim suffered non-life-threatening injuries from “fragments” related to the gunfire.

RELATED: VIDEO: 3 dead, multiple victims injured in North Carolina mass shooting; suspect reportedly flees by boat

Smiley declined to provide any information about the victims, including whether they were Brown students, the Times said.

Brown University officials said just before 8:30 p.m. that the “campus continues to be in lockdown, and it is imperative that all members of our community remain sheltered in place,” the Times added.

Providence Deputy Police Chief Timothy O’Hara said police believe they are looking for a single gunman, the Times also said, adding that no weapon had been recovered and officials did not know what type of gun was used.

Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee (D) said he spoke to FBI Director Kash Patel and that local, state, and federal officers were all searching for the gunman, the Times reported: “Everyone is working under the same goal right now — to keep everybody in that area safe and also to pursue” the attacker, McKee added to the paper.

This is a developing story; updates may be added.

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

​Brown university, Providence, Rhode island, Fatal shooting, Mass shooting, Ivy league, Police, Shooter at large, Crime 

While the children may be nestled all snug in their beds, with visions of iPhones dancing in their heads, I hope, dear parents, that you will think twice about the gift of technology this Christmas.

No doubt a shiny new smartphone, Nintendo Switch, Meta Virtual Reality headset, or cool AI toy will be at the top of many children’s and teens’ Christmas lists this year. However, these “gifts” can arrive with hidden costs: anxiety, sleep loss, social pressures, addictive algorithms, exposure to pornography, a connection to predators, and development of a gaming addiction.

Many parents buy the myth that their child is immune from online risks or think that relying solely on parental controls will be enough.

To that end, Enough Is Enough just released its Naughty and Nice List of Holiday Gifts for Children and Teens that provides a much-needed guide of gifts to buy and to avoid. Perhaps it’s no surprise, but AI toys, smartphones, and Roblox gift cards are on the “naughty” list.

Even in my own family, I know that resisting the pressure to give tech products is strong. My grandsons want Roblox gift cards, so they can continue to play the online games they have enjoyed for years.

But the so-called “reward” of tech does not always outweigh the risks. The reality is that the online exploitation of minor children is a global pandemic, and it’s growing exponentially worse, year after year.

At the very foundation, an internet-connected device is literally handing a child both the good, bad, and dangerous digital world — no guardrails, no safety net, no filters. A gaming platform will inevitably lead to increased screen time, possibly even leading to an online gaming disorder — now a DSM-5 mental disorder. Virtual reality is designed to feel real and may even become preferable to a teen.

Digging deeper, the risks are even greater than parents might realize. Many parents buy the myth that their child is immune from online risks or think that relying solely on parental controls will be enough.

But consider these sobering facts:

Younger and younger children are being targeted “on an industrial scale” by internet groomers, with a three-fold increase in imagery showing 7- to 10-year-olds. Global financial sextortion is one of the fastest growing crimes targeting children, in particular minor-aged boys. The Surgeon General’s Advisory on Social Media and Youth Mental Health indicated social media could pose a “profound risk of harm” to the mental health and well-being of children, stating it’s a “defining public health challenge of our times.”

Predators use social media and even online gaming sites to groom children. A California man was recently sentenced for luring minors through Snapchat before sexually assaulting them. The FBI reported that a 22-year-old man used Discord to groom minors and sexually extort them.

The aforementioned Roblox — a gaming platform extremely popular with children — enables predators to contact children and is facing over 35 lawsuits as a result. The platform was described by Hindenburg Research as an “X-rated pedophile’s hellscape.”

Parents should rethink buying Roblox gift cards this holiday season.

Moreover a congressional hearing where two Meta whistleblowers testified confirmed every parent’s worst nightmare: If their children have used Meta’s virtual reality devices, their children have likely been sexually exploited.

RELATED: How smartphones expose your kids to predators — and why Congress must step in

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Parents need to be aware of the growing trend of AI toys, falsely marketed as safe and educational for kids as young as 2. Most AI toys are powered by the same AI technology that has already harmed children, and the embedded chatbots are programmed to listen and speak with the child like a trusted friend and mimic human emotions. Examples include: Loona Robot Dog and Smart Teddy.

Recently, an AI teddy bear marketed to children told a tester “where to find knives, pills, and matches when asked … spoke graphically about sex positions, sexual kinks, and ‘teacher-student role-play.’”

As our society becomes increasingly tech-focused, parents are becoming more aware of the negative impact tech can have on their children. But can they win the battle with their kids over the latest tech and more tech time?

Schools nationwide are rapidly embracing smartphone-free schools because they are distracting to students. Many schools are reporting success, and even students themselves have seen the benefits of not having their phones on them during school hours.

Some parents are wisely rethinking handing their phones to their children as a way to calm or distract them. One couple used a smartphone to pacify their 6-month-old daughter, saying they’d hand it to her frequently. Despite that the phone worked to calm the little girl down, the parents eventually realized it wasn’t what they intended, saying their daughter was “zoned in” on the phone.

They may think you’re the Grinch, but the rewards of a tech-free holiday are great.

You may be asking: If not an internet-connected tech gift, what do you suggest?

I realize that deciding on something else to give will take a little creativity.

Many children — especially older ones — enjoy experiences. Teens may relish time spent with their families taking a cooking class, going bowling, going to sporting events, or trying out an axe-throwing venue. Children of any age could appreciate an outing to a retro arcade, new board games, books, or art kits.

Even an outing to their favorite restaurant — where quality time can be spent with mom or dad — is a great option. In lieu of a material present, some families have successfully planned a place to visit or vacation together.

Instead of using the holidays to reinforce potentially unhealthy tech habits or introduce new tech gifts, consider delaying tech by not giving in to the notion that children need tech to be happy and productive. Grandparents my age remember fondly a merry childhood well before the computer and internet technologies were invented.

They may think you’re the Grinch, but the rewards of a tech-free holiday are great. And maybe, just maybe, your children will have sugarplums instead of iPhones dancing in their heads.

​Big tech, Virtual reality, Roblox, Children, Protect children, Christmas 

Watch out, speed demons — the open road might be getting a little less free.

Arizona, known for its sun-soaked, sprawling highways, may soon become the first state to offer a high-tech alternative for habitual speeders: a “digital ankle bracelet” for your car.

With this new technology, Arizona may be taking the first step toward a future where cars themselves enforce the law.

Lawmakers are considering a bill that would allow drivers at risk of losing their licenses to keep their privileges by installing devices that actively prevent their vehicles from exceeding posted speed limits.

The proposal, spearheaded by Republican state Representative Quang Nguyen, would let drivers voluntarily equip their cars with speed-limiting technology. The system relies on a combination of GPS and cellular signals to determine the legal speed on any given road. Electronics connected to the car’s engine control unit then prevent the vehicle from exceeding that limit, no matter how hard the driver presses the accelerator.

Speed bump

For practical reasons, the technology does include an override mode that permits a temporary 10 mph boost up to three times per month, giving drivers a limited margin to react in emergencies or avoid accidents.

Nguyen estimates the devices would cost around $250 to install, with a daily operating fee of roughly $4. He has been working closely with companies that manufacture the technology, including Smart Start and LifeSafer, to ensure the system is effective and reliable. This makes me wonder if he owns a piece of the company or has stock in the company.

Under the bill, which Nguyen plans to formally introduce when the state legislature reconvenes in January, participation is optional — probably Nguyen’s earlier attempt to make it mandatory was a nonstarter.

Slow lane

Arizona is not alone in exploring this approach. Virginia, Washington State, and Washington, D.C., have already enacted similar laws. In Virginia, courts can require drivers with multiple speeding violations or reckless driving convictions to install electronic speed-limiting devices as an alternative to license suspension. Washington State has adopted a comparable program, giving judges discretion to mandate the technology for repeat offenders while monitoring compliance.

In Washington D.C., the program is more limited but aims to reduce repeat speeding among drivers with multiple moving violations. Meanwhile, Wisconsin is currently considering similar legislation.

These programs highlight a growing trend: Rather than grounding drivers entirely, some states are experimenting with technology as a way to enforce safe driving without taking away mobility. Proponents argue that these devices could prevent serious accidents while still allowing drivers to maintain employment, care for families, and perform other essential daily tasks. The technology also provides courts with a tangible tool to ensure compliance, rather than relying solely on citations and license suspensions.

RELATED: Spinning out at Discount Tire’s Treadwell test track

Discount Tire

Machine learning

However, critics remain cautious. Some transportation and safety experts question whether the technology is advanced enough to accurately detect all posted speed limits. GPS mapping errors, temporary speed changes in construction zones, or malfunctioning sensors could cause a car to slow unexpectedly or fail to limit speed when needed, creating new safety risks. Privacy advocates also worry about how these devices track and store location data, raising concerns about government overreach or potential misuse.

From a practical standpoint, the legislation raises fundamental questions about the balance between personal responsibility and technological enforcement. Supporters argue it offers a lifeline to drivers who repeatedly violate speed laws but are otherwise safe, while critics maintain that it may encourage riskier behavior by transferring accountability from the individual to the machine.

There’s also the question of fairness. Not all drivers have access to new technology or the financial resources to participate in a program that charges daily operating fees. While $4 per day may seem modest, over a month or a year, it could be prohibitive for some families, effectively limiting the program to more affluent drivers. Additionally, the optional nature of the program could create inconsistencies across jurisdictions, leaving some habitual offenders unmonitored while others are under constant technological supervision.

Whether the measure passes will depend not only on lawmakers’ assessment of safety and effectiveness but also on public perception. Speeding remains the most common moving violation in the United States, and habitual offenders are a persistent concern for states nationwide. With this new technology, Arizona may be taking the first step toward a future where cars themselves enforce the law — but whether that future is practical, safe, or desirable remains up for debate.

At the very least, it’s a bold experiment in road safety and personal responsibility, one that could reshape the way states think about controlling speed without grounding drivers entirely. As the legislature prepares to weigh the bill, motorists, safety experts, and privacy advocates alike will be watching closely, asking the same question: Can a car truly keep its driver out of trouble, or is this just another way to shift accountability from human judgment to technology?

​Speed limit, Speed limiters, Big tech, Lifestyle, Surveillance state, Nanny state, Arizona, Align cars 

President Donald Trump promised “very serious retaliation” after an “ISIS attack” that killed two U.S. Army soldiers and one U.S. interpreter interpreter Saturday in Syria.

Fox News reported that a lone Islamic State gunman carried out the ambush, which also left three others wounded. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said that “the savage who perpetrated this attack was killed by partner forces.”

‘Let it be known, if you target Americans — anywhere in the world — you will spend the rest of your brief, anxious life knowing the United States will hunt you, find you, and ruthlessly kill you.’

“We mourn the loss of three Great American Patriots in Syria, two soldiers, and one Civilian Interpreter,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, according to the cable news network. “Likewise, we pray for the three injured soldiers who, it has just been confirmed, are doing well. This was an ISIS attack against the U.S., and Syria, in a very dangerous part of Syria, that is not fully controlled by them.”

Trump added that “the President of Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa, is extremely angry and disturbed by this attack. There will be very serious retaliation,” Fox News noted.

Trump also said Saturday to reporters outside the White House that “this was an ISIS attack on us and Syria. And again, we mourn the loss, and we pray for them and their parents and their loved ones,” the cable news network reported.

Hegseth added on X: “Let it be known, if you target Americans — anywhere in the world — you will spend the rest of your brief, anxious life knowing the United States will hunt you, find you, and ruthlessly kill you.”

Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said on X that the attack in the town of Palmyra “occurred as the soldiers were conducting a key leader engagement. Their mission was in support of ongoing counter-ISIS/counter-terrorism operations in the region. The soldiers’ names, as well as identifying information about their units, are being withheld until 24 hours after the next of kin notification. This attack is currently under active investigation.”

RELATED: Trump warns Israel about interference in Syria after deadly raid, airstrikes

The cable news network added that there are about 900 U.S. troops in Syria.

More from Fox News:

The U.S. had eight bases in Syria to keep an eye on ISIS since the U.S. military went in to prevent the terrorist group from setting up a caliphate in 2014, although three of those bases have since been closed down or turned over to the Syrian Democratic Forces.

On Monday, tens of thousands of Syrians flooded the streets of Damascus to mark the first anniversary of the Assad regime’s collapse.

Those celebrations came a year after former Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad fled the capital as rebel forces swept through the country in a lightning offensive that ended five decades of Assad family rule and opened a new chapter in Syrian history.

The Associated Press reported that Saturday’s attack on U.S. troops was the first to cause fatalities since Assad’s fall.

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

​Trump, Donald trump, Retaliation, Isis attack, Islamic state, Syria, Us service members killed, Us civilian killed, Ambush, Us military, Us army, Politics 

The government shouldn’t be in the business of buying junk food for school children.

Of all the positions splitting Americans today, you wouldn’t expect this one to be controversial. And yet this is the plate we’ve been served.

Each side accuses the other of not caring about disadvantaged children — while both sides insist that no one should dictate what counts as ‘healthy’ food.

The Healthy SNAP Act of 2025 is currently awaiting action in the Senate Agriculture Committee, where it has sat since Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced it in February, with no markup or vote scheduled.

Even so, the bill — now championed by Republicans — has revived a familiar argument: Who should decide what children eat, and why do voters reverse their positions depending on which party proposes the rules?

Lunch lady

President Obama enacted his wife’s Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act in 2010 with the stated goal of providing USDA-approved nutritious meals to school children and combating childhood hunger and obesity. Michelle Obama advocated for children to have access to more vegetables, fruit, whole grains, and milk — and less sugary soda and junk food — which she claimed were especially hurting impoverished children.

“Think about why someone is OK with your kids eating crap,” she said at the time. “Because here is the secret — if someone is doing that, they don’t care about your kid.”

Conservatives pushed back, suspecting Mrs. Obama of ulterior motives and calling the law an instance of government overreach. Whose business was it what children ate? Surely not the first lady’s.

There was a lot of fear (or hope) that when Trump got into office, he would overturn all that the Obamas had done and “simplify” the lunch menu.

No (burger) kings

The new president did not disappoint. Throughout his first term, President Trump steadily rolled back Obama-era school-nutrition standards. The USDA first relaxed rules on whole grains, sodium, and flavored milk in 2017 and finalized those changes in 2018. In early 2020, it proposed further revisions to ease fruit and vegetable requirements and expand options like pizza and burgers, drawing renewed national scrutiny.

Those efforts were partially blocked in court, and the underlying Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act remained intact. But the political terrain shifted over the next few years: Rising concern about obesity and chronic disease, new dietary-guideline updates, and state-level experiments with SNAP restrictions created an opening for conservatives to reframe nutrition policy as a matter of fiscal responsibility and public health rather than federal overreach.

Menu change

Fast-forward to 2025, and the same movement that once dismissed “nanny-state” lunch rules now promotes the Healthy SNAP Act — an initiative that mirrors Michelle Obama’s nutrition goals almost point for point.

All that’s changed is the politician behind the policy. That alone seems to be enough to flip public opinion. Voters who once said junk food was victimizing impoverished children now attack nearly identical proposals coming from the Trump administration.

The Healthy SNAP Act of 2025 would bar SNAP benefits from being used for the very same foods Michelle Obama targeted in 2010. According to Congress.gov, SNAP recipients would not be able to use benefits for “soft drinks, candy, ice cream, or prepared desserts, such as cakes, pies, cookies, or similar products.”

RELATED: $500 million in SNAP funds is reportedly spent on fast food because of state program

Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Where’s the beef?

Foods purchased with SNAP would have to meet nutritional standards based on sugar, fat, and salt content. In structure, the bill is strikingly similar to the Obama-era reforms. The only real difference is whose name is on it.

The same people who supported Michelle Obama’s restrictions now vehemently oppose nearly identical measures from Trump. Meanwhile those who once denounced government interference now applaud the idea when framed as a conservative reform. Each side accuses the other of not caring about poor children — while both sides insist that no one should dictate what counts as “healthy” food, unless their politician is doing the dictating. Party comes first, safety second, liberty somewhere further down the list.

Some liberals now argue that children deserve a treat — that SNAP should not limit junk-food purchases at all. But SNAP has always been regulated. In most states, fast food, hot deli meals, vitamins, alcohol, and tobacco have long been prohibited. WIC is even more restrictive to ensure mothers receive high-quality, protein-rich foods.

SNAP decision

Government aid will always come with rules. Whether it should include “treats” is a matter of personal philosophy. SNAP already provides incentives to buy fresh produce at farmers markets. Families can still make simple desserts within existing guidelines.

And any parent can spend a dollar on an occasional donut or soda if that is truly important to them — while still ensuring that children have reliable access to nutritious meals funded by taxpayers, who can rest easier at night knowing we are ensuring a better future for children.

Reasonable readers at this point should be asking themselves what they, as voters, really care about when it comes to policies like this. Would any of this be a discussion if voters thought less about who was in office? We all should be asking ourselves what it is we truly value and act accordingly.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — who in March introduced a similar, and in some respects even broader, bill of his own — put it this way:

“It makes no sense that taxpayer dollars are being used to fund an epidemic of obesity and diet-related illness in low-income communities. My bill ensures that this assistance program actually supports health and wellness, not chronic disease.”

His words sound eerily interchangeable with what Michelle Obama was saying 15 years ago. It makes one wonder if perhaps we don’t need to bicker over politics as much as we do. Maybe our differences aren’t as pronounced as we think — at least when it comes to the health of American children.

​Snap, Welfare, School lunches, Michelle obama, Junk food, Donald trump, Mike lee, Rand paul, Nutrition, Children’s health, Public education, Lifestyle, Where’s the beef? 

Just over a year ago, the headlines were everywhere: Three Mile Island Unit 1 was coming back online as the Crane Clean Energy Center. A site that once defined an entire industry’s future has done it again, this time as a symbol of hope, optimism, and unity as we move toward a reliable and clean energy future.

For us, young professionals in the nuclear industry, this moment showed what’s possible when communities come together. From union members and business leaders to viral social media posts and major media outlets, everyone celebrated the announcement of the restart. In a society often defined by polarization, this was a rare moment of shared pride and common purpose.

We know that America’s ability to deliver reliable, emissions-free energy will define the nation that Gen Z will lead tomorrow — politically, economically, and environmentally.

As 2025 draws to a close, nuclear energy sits at the center of a new national conversation — one driven by optimism, innovation, and a shared commitment to a cleaner future. Public support for nuclear energy is at historic highs, with six in 10 Americans in favor of its expansion. Companies that defined Gen Z’s childhood, like Meta, Google, and Amazon, are partnering with nuclear producers to power the data centers that keep our digital lives running. For Gen Z, this isn’t just about keeping the lights on: It’s about building a future where clean energy powers our ambitions, our communities, and our planet.

Growing up, many of us felt politics was a binary choice — two parties, two options, and endless division. But today, nuclear energy stands out as something different: a safe haven for young people across the political spectrum. It’s one of the few issues drawing support from both sides, with the Biden and Trump administrations both advancing policies that strengthen nuclear energy’s role in America’s energy mix.

For Gen Z, that bipartisanship represents progress, not politics. We know that America’s ability to deliver reliable, emissions-free energy will define the nation that Gen Z will lead tomorrow — politically, economically, and environmentally.

Now it’s up to all of us to seize this unique opportunity and recognize nuclear power’s potential to redefine America’s energy conversation. Nuclear energy is more than a technology — it’s a catalyst for unity, resilience, and innovation. It can deliver on our generation’s hopes for a cleaner, fairer, and more sustainable world.

Nuclear power doesn’t just create reliable, emissions-free energy: It offers countless societal benefits. Generating stations do more than generate electricity. They can also support system add-ons that produce clean water through desalination and help yield valuable medical materials for diagnosing heart disease and providing crucial cancer care.

When we think back to history class, we learned about iconic generational causes like the space race and the wonders that could be unlocked in the internet age. Each generation had something tangible to rally around, something that brought people together to move the world forward. For Gen Z, that unifying cause can be nuclear energy: a reliable, emissions-free solution that defines progress for our time.

RELATED: 5 truths the climate cult can’t bury any more

Photo by Joe Sohm/Visions of America/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

We’ve seen it firsthand. We both took the leap to work in the nuclear industry, and more specifically, on a historic nuclear restart. Three Mile Island Unit 1 in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, closed for economic reasons in 2019, hurting hundreds of families whose livelihoods depended on it.

Yet as energy demands surged, the world rediscovered nuclear energy’s critical role. This momentum led to the announcement of the unit’s restart exactly five years after being shut down.

We are both at the beginning of our careers and hope the momentum we’re seeing now will carry forward for future generations. Being part of the nuclear renaissance, which is turning into a national movement, has filled our young careers with pride and purpose.

Whether you are Gen Z or not, clean nuclear energy can be a uniting force in a divided world. The bipartisan support, private investment, and widespread public acceptance happening today didn’t happen by coincidence — it happened because people came together to focus on what works. We can’t afford to lose that momentum. Let’s build on it to create the next-generation cause: a nuclear energy-powered future.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published at RealClearWire.

​Three mile island, Nuclear energy, Gen z, Opinion & analysis, Crane clean energy center 

President Donald Trump obliterates Venezuelan drug boats smuggling loads of fentanyl into the United States, and the left accuses him of starting a war.

But it’s Venezuela’s narco‑terrorist regime that’s declared war on the United States, Mark Levin says, and President Trump has every right to respond as he sees fit.

Levin condemns radical left-wing pundits, like MS NOW’s Rachel Maddow, for accusing the Trump administration of starting a war with Venezuela.

“I don’t understand why we’re going to war with Venezuela, and I’m not sure the administration is even bothered to try to come up with anything even internally coherent,” she whined on the December 2 episode of “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

“Let me help you out, dingbat. Let me help you out,” Mark Levin fires back. “They are smuggling more drugs in the United States directly and through Mexico and with communist China than any other country on the face of the earth.”

For the first time in decades, he says, we have a president who actually takes seriously the Monroe Doctrine — an 1823 policy long abandoned or rejected by weak prior administrations that essentially says, “If something goes on in our hemisphere that affects our country, it’s our business, and we’re going to do something about it,” even if that means military action.

The accusation that Trump committed a war crime by striking a Venezuelan drug boat twice is just “sick” Democrat nonsense, Levin says.

“If another government … headed by a narco-terrorist is using the power of that government and the resources of that government, of that country, to kill American citizens — it doesn’t matter if they do it with fentanyl drugs; it doesn’t matter if they do it with biochemicals; it doesn’t matter if they poison our water or whatever — these are acts of war,” he asserts.

He then mocks the pearl-clutching Democrats shedding fake tears because narco-terrorists aren’t being politely handcuffed and read Miranda rights.

It’s really simple, he says. “Look at that, a drug boat’s coming. I think we’re going to blow it out of the water. Yes.”

The Constitution, Levin says, gives the president, as the commander in chief, the right to order military actions (like blowing up Venezuelan drug boats) without a formal declaration of war.

He explains that throughout American history, the majority of military actions issued by presidents occurred without Congress declaring war first.

Back in 1801, President Jefferson launched a full overseas naval war against the Barbary pirate states, which were attacking and kidnapping American merchant ships and sailors, without any formal declaration of war.

Calling Trump a war criminal is just proof that it’s not about democracy or the Constitution for Democrats. It’s about ideology.

“They’re on the side of the enemy,” Levin says.

Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of “the Great One” — Mark Levin as you’ve never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Mark levin, Levin, Blazetv, Blaze media, Venezuela, Drug boats, Narcoterrorists, Fentanyl, Fentanyl crisis, Trump, Rachel maddow, Levintv 

The Trump administration’s National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent exposed a terrifying reality about the fallout from former President Joe Biden’s open border crisis.

‘That number, alarmingly, remains unknown at this time.’

During a Thursday Committee on Homeland Security hearing, Kent testified that, under the Biden administration, thousands of foreign nationals with known or suspected terrorist ties were allowed into the country.

“Despite the progress that we’ve made so far in the Trump administration, the threat posed by terrorists of all brands remains very high right now,” Kent said in his opening statement before lawmakers.

He explained that the country is facing “a persistent threat from the individuals that were allowed into this country by the previous administration.”

Kent noted that the most significant threat “is the fact that we don’t know who came into our country in the last four years of Biden’s open borders.”

“What we have identified is alarming,” he stated, adding that the federal government recently issued a warning about the heightened risk of terrorist attacks, particularly posed by ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

RELATED: White House makes touching gesture to honor assassinated National Guard member, allegedly by CIA-linked Afghan

Photo by GUILLERMO ARIAS/AFP via Getty Images

“So far, NCTC has identified around 18,000 known and suspected terrorists that the Biden administration let come into our country,” Kent revealed.

He accused the prior administration of having “facilitated” the entry of individuals with ties to jihadi groups, including the Afghan suspected of attacking National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., on November 26. The attack resulted in the death of 20-year-old National Guard member Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, while Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe was wounded.

“That Afghan was brought into the country as a group of over 100,000 Afghans who were brought here during the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. These individuals, despite what has been reported, were not vetted properly to come into the United States,” Kent said.

RELATED: Wajahat Ali says quiet part out loud in attack on Trump’s re-migration plan: ‘Mistake that you made is you let us in’

Photo by GUILLERMO ARIAS/AFP via Getty Images

He stated that the NCTC is working with the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI to track down individuals with ties to terrorist organizations. However, he noted that the 18,000 figure does not include foreign nationals who came into the U.S. illegally through the open border.

“That number, alarmingly, remains unknown at this time,” Kent remarked. “We’re trying to figure out who those individuals are as well.”

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

​News, Joe kent, National counterterrorism center, Nctc, Terrorism, Terrorist, Terrorist attack, Isis, Al-qaeda, National security, Biden administration, Biden admin, Open borders, Border security, Immigration crisis, Illegal immigration crisis, Illegal immigration, Immigration, Department of homeland security, Dhs, Fbi, Rahmanullah lakanwal, Sarah beckstrom, Andrew wolfe, Politics 

Atlanta police officers from a special unit were seen on dashcam and bodycam videos converging upon and tackling a homicide suspect who was armed with a handgun modified as fully automatic, police said in a video released earlier this month.

Police said officers with the Auto Crimes Enforcement Unit were alerted to a homicide suspect driving in the area of Pickfair Way SW near Ashwood Avenue NW on Oct. 28.

‘Ram our f**kin’ car?’

The officers located the suspect’s vehicle and then used their patrol vehicles to box in the suspect’s vehicle, police said.

However, the suspect rammed patrol vehicles in front of him and behind him in an attempt to escape before fleeing from his vehicle while armed with a handgun that had been modified to be a fully automatic weapon, police said.

RELATED: 15-year-old Florida female caught on police bodycam video bashing cop car — with a shovel: ‘You kidding me?’

Image source: Atlanta Police Department video screenshot

While running from his car, the suspect threw the gun into an adjacent wooded area, after which officers took him down to the street.

RELATED: Cop driving patrol car doesn’t mess around when he spots alleged gunman on the run — and reaching for his waistband

Image source: Atlanta Police Department

“Get your ass on the ground!” one officer yelled at the suspect.

Once lying upon the street, the suspect quickly gave himself up, telling the arresting officer, “You got me!’

But the officer rubbed in the arrest just a bit, telling the suspect as he handcuffed him, “You done f**ked up, son! … Ram our f**kin’ car? We ain’t the normal police, pimp!”

RELATED: Motorist in jaw-dropping video actually admits to officer why he crashed ‘on purpose’ into back of his parked police vehicle

Content warning: Language:

Police said the suspect was identified as 37-year-old Keith Hawkins, who was wanted for his involvement in a homicide that occurred at 700 Eloise Street SE on April 9.

Hawkins was charged with murder, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (two counts), possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, possession of a machine gun, willful obstruction of law enforcement officers, and operating a vehicle without insurance, police said.

RELATED: Florida female going wrong way on interstate claims husband was driving. Then cops find rather large hole in her story.

Image source: Atlanta Police Department

Hawkins was taken to the Fulton County Jail for processing, police added.

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

​Crime thwarted, Atlanta, Arrest, Bodycam video, Dashcam video, Modified handgun, Fully automatic, Keith hawkins, Murder charge, Homicide, Aggravated assault charge, Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon charge, Possession of a machine gun charge, Auto crimes enforcement, Crime 

Netflix has announced an $80-plus billion plan to buy Warner Bros. Discovery — a move that would give the streaming giant control of some of the biggest entertainment franchises in America. Executives celebrated the deal, promising consumers “more of what they love.” In reality, the merger would create a monopolistic monster. For millions of Americans already frustrated with Netflix’s ideology and influence, this feels like a bridge too far.

This isn’t some routine corporate merger. It is an attempt to build an unstoppable cultural behemoth. Netflix is already the largest streaming platform in the country. Absorbing Warner Bros. — one of Hollywood’s oldest and most important studios — would allow the company to tower over its competitors and control a massive share of American storytelling.

The Netflix-Warner Bros. merger would confer unprecedented cultural and economic authority on a company already mired in national controversy.

Antitrust concerns are obvious and bipartisan. Lawmakers in both parties have called the deal an antitrust “nightmare.” Consumers have already filed a class-action lawsuit arguing that the merger would gut competition. But there is another reason conservatives in particular are sounding the alarm: the cultural power Netflix has accumulated — and how it intends to use it.

The culture-war dimension

In recent years, Netflix has dominated the streaming world and, by extension, much of the debate over ideological influence in entertainment. The company has been at the center of national fights over gender, sexuality, race, and the politicization of children’s programming.

Elon Musk triggered a viral backlash when he urged millions of followers to cancel Netflix, accusing the platform of pushing a “woke agenda” into entertainment and slipping social messaging into children’s content. Musk tapped into a widespread, simmering frustration: the belief that major corporations no longer reflect the values of ordinary American families.

Netflix’s programming choices have not eased those concerns. The company has showcased transgender and nonbinary themes in children’s shows, celebrated DEI ideology internally, and proudly curated LGBTQ+ collections “for families.” Sometimes this yields unintentional comedy — like a new show about a transgender coal miner — but other times, the messaging feels more deliberate and invasive.

Now imagine giving the company control of Warner Bros. The concern isn’t only economic. It’s cultural. A combined Netflix-Warner empire would shape what stories get made, which values get promoted, and what kind of entertainment future generations will inherit.

What happens to theaters, communities, and creators?

Warner Bros. has long been a pillar of American cinema. Local theaters depend on major studios to draw families out of their homes and into shared cultural experiences — some of the last common spaces in American life. Netflix, by contrast, has built its kingdom on isolation: individual screens, algorithmic curation, the slow erosion of communal entertainment.

If Netflix takes control of Warner Bros., expect shorter theatrical windows, more straight-to-streaming releases, and a slow decline in the local theaters that hold American communities together. The result: fewer choices, weaker alternatives, and consumers trapped paying whatever the merged company demands.

Netflix insists this won’t happen. History suggests otherwise.

Creators and workers see what’s coming

Hollywood’s creative class understands the danger. Director James Cameron has warned that the merger would flatten artistic diversity and silence competing voices. Industry unions fear that a single corporation controlling both production and distribution will decide which projects get funded, which careers move forward, and which ideas make it to the screen.

A company with that much power can shape the entire pipeline of culture.

RELATED: Can conservatives reclaim pop culture?

Photo by Danny Martindale/FilmMagic

The government must stop this

Regulators have noticed. President Trump has expressed concern that the combined company would wield too much market power. The Department of Justice and consumer advocates are preparing for an aggressive antitrust review. Critics across the political spectrum warn that prices will rise, competition will collapse, and consumers will lose.

Americans want competition — not cultural empires run by a handful of executives who impose ideological agendas while claiming neutrality. They want storytellers who reflect a diversity of values and views, not corporate gatekeepers who see entertainment primarily as a delivery system for political messaging.

The Netflix-Warner Bros. merger threatens all of this. It would confer unprecedented cultural and economic authority on a company already mired in national controversy.

The Trump administration should block the merger.

Americans are tired of corporations that profit from their attention while ignoring their concerns. Allowing one company to dominate such a massive share of American entertainment would weaken the industry and harm the country.

The government must stop this power grab before the damage becomes irreversible.

​Netflix, Warner bros., Paramount, Streaming, Monopoly, Opinion & analysis, Antitrust, Class action lawsuit, Transgender, Woke hollywood, Elon musk, Cancelation, Merger 

Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck is tired of hearing the term “radical Islam” — as he doesn’t believe it accurately describes the threat we’re facing.

“This is a political philosophy. Political Islam. It’s not radical. It’s just a political philosophy. And that political philosophy, just like communism, wants to dominate the world,” Glenn explains on “The Glenn Beck Program.”

“Unlike communism, political Islam is so incredibly arrogant,” he says. “It’s inevitable to them. Why? Birth rates … and they think we’re stupid,” he continues.

In an interview on the “Righteous & Rich” podcast, one Muslim explains how the religious group is building an Islamic community in Texas — and what he says only proves Glenn right.

“You cannot make it exclusive, like, non-Muslim is not allowed. … What we’re doing, there’s something called association fee. I don’t know what it’s called in Dubai, like your maintenance fee that you pay yearly,” the man explains.

“The service fee to cut the grass, to remove the snow, and whatnot. So that service fee — we’ll put there, 75% of the service fee you’re paying goes to the masjid. Automatically, if you are a practicing Christian, I would advise you, why help the Muslims?” he continues.

“So, this is the way they manipulate the Kafirs,” Glenn explains. “The Kafirs are you, the non-Muslim people, the infidels. … That’s how they make it an exclusive Muslim community.”

However, this isn’t surprising, because Islam teaches that Muslims can lie to “infidels.”

“You can lie,” Glenn says, “if it helps Islam.”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

​Upload, Video phone, Camera phone, Sharing, Free, Video, Youtube.com, The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Glenntv, Sharia law, Islam, Islamification of america, Muslims, Texas muslims, Islamic takeover, Islamic takeover of texas 

The liberal-dominated Australian parliament passed an amendment to its online safety legislation last year, imposing age restrictions for certain social media platforms.

As of Dec. 10, minors in the former penal colony are prohibited from using various platforms, including Facebook, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, X, and YouTube — platforms that face potential fines exceeding $32 million should they fail to prevent kids from creating new accounts or from maintaining old accounts.

Australian kids were quick, however, to find a workaround: distorting their faces to appear older.

‘They know how important it is to give kids more time to just be kids.’

Numerous minors revealed to the Telegraph that within minutes of the ban going into effect, they were able to get past their country’s new age-verification technology by frowning at the camera.

Noah Jones, a 15-year-old boy from Sydney, indicated that he used his brother’s ID card to rejoin Instagram after the app flagged him as looking too young.

Jones, whose mother supported his rebellion and characterized the law as “poor legislation,” indicated that when Snapchat similarly prompted him to verify his age, “I just looked at [the camera], frowned a little bit, and it said I was over 16.”

RELATED: App allegedly endangers ICE agents — now its creator is suing the Trump administration

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Photo by DAVID GRAY / AFP via Getty Images.

Jones suggested to the Telegraph that some teens may alternatively seek out social media platforms the Australian government can’t regulate or touch.

“Where do you think everyone’s going to?” said Jones. “Straight to worse social media platforms — they’re less regulated, and they’re more dangerous.”

Zarla Macdonald, a 14-year-old in Queensland, reportedly contemplated joining one such less-regulated app, Coverstar. However, she has so far managed to stay on TikTok and Snapchat because the age-verification software mistakenly concluded she was 20.

“You have to show your face, turn it to the side, open your mouth, like just show movement in your face,” said Macdonald. “But it doesn’t really work.”

Besides fake IDs and frowning, some teens are apparently using stock images, makeup, masks, and fake mustaches to fool the age-verification tech. Others are alternatively using VPNs and their parents’ accounts to get on social media.

The social media ban went into effect months after a government-commissioned study determined on the basis of a nationally representative survey of 2,629 kids ages 10 to 15 that:

71% had encountered content online associated with harm;52% had been cyberbullied;25% had experienced online “hate”;24% had experienced online sexual harassment;23% had experienced non-consensual tracking, monitoring, or harassment;14% had experienced online grooming-type behavior; and8% experienced image-based abuse.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in a statement on Wednesday, “Parents, teachers, and students are backing in our social media ban for under-16s. Because they know how important it is to give kids more time to just be kids — without algorithms, endless feeds and online harm. This is about giving children a safer childhood and parents more peace of mind.”

The picture accompanying his statement featured a girl who in that moment expressed opposition to the ban.

The student in Albanese’s poorly chosen photo is hardly the only opponent to the law.

Reddit filed a lawsuit on Friday in Australia’s High Court seeking to overturn the ban. The U.S.-based company argued that the ban should be invalidated because it interfered with free political speech implied by Australia’s constitution, reported Reuters.

Australian Health Minister Mark Butler suggested Reddit was not suing to protect young Aussies’ right to political speech but rather to protect profits.

“It is action we saw time and time again by Big Tobacco against tobacco control, and we are seeing it now by some social media or Big Tech giant,” said Butler.

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

​Australia, Censorship, Social media, Technology, Free speech, Subversion, Sydney, Reddit, Tiktok, Youtube, Facebook, Threads, Snapchat, Politics 

State lawmakers, desperate to address America’s sky-high drug prices, have turned their fire on pharmacy benefit managers. Their chosen tools — outright bans in Arkansas and suffocating regulations in Indiana — will not rein in drug costs. They will close pharmacies, however. And disabled Americans will feel the pain first and worst.

For millions of people living with disabilities or chronic illnesses, the neighborhood pharmacy isn’t just a place to pick up a prescription. It is a medical anchor — often the only dependable access point in a fragmented health care system.

Policy leaders must hold three truths at once: Drug prices are too high, access is too fragile, and for disabled Americans, both problems collide.

When states make it harder for pharmacies to operate, they aren’t tightening consumer protections. They are tightening a noose around the patients they claim to protect.

Proximity is key

Healthy, mobile adults can switch pharmacies with mild frustration. Disabled Americans can’t. They rely on stable, nearby pharmacy relationships to manage complex regimens, limited transportation, and conditions that make in-person care indispensable.

A person with epilepsy juggling multiple medications cannot suddenly travel to a pharmacy two towns over. A disabled veteran with hearing loss cannot sit on hold for an hour to fix a refill problem. A parent caring for a child with developmental disabilities needs a pharmacist who knows her family and can explain changes — especially potential interactions — face to face.

For disabled patients, proximity isn’t convenience. It is continuity, safety, and sometimes survival.

Long before I served as commissioner for the Administration on Disability at Health and Human Services, I was a teacher who learned that real service depends on presence. You must know the person in front of you. The same holds true in every field: the banker who helps you fix a missed payment, the pastor who walks beside his congregation. Their influence comes from relationship.

Pharmacists are no different. They cannot be replaced with apps, compliance checklists, or centralized call centers. Their work depends on knowing their patients — and being close enough to serve them.

What happens when pharmacies disappear?

Imagine telling a cancer patient he now needs to drive 20 miles for treatment because a state ban forced his local pharmacy to close.

Imagine telling a parent managing her child’s seizure medications that she must start over with a new pharmacy because the compliance burden became too much to stay open.

Imagine telling a stroke survivor who no longer drives that “it’s only a few minutes farther.” For many disabled Americans, a few minutes farther means losing independence — or tipping into crisis.

Pharmacies provide far more than prescriptions. They monitor complex drug regimens and catch dangerous interactions. They manage refills when cognitive disabilities make self-management difficult. They offer immediate, walk-in guidance when something feels wrong. They coordinate with doctors on sudden changes. And maybe most importantly, they provide calm, in-person clarity that no software platform can match.

Lawmakers say they want to help, but they are ignoring what disabled Americans need most: stable, nearby pharmacies that can remain open.

RELATED: The maligned and misunderstood player that Big Pharma wants gone

Oleg Elkov via iStock/Getty Images

Access is a crisis

Drug prices in America are too high. Disabled Americans feel that burden more than anyone because they use more medications, more often, and for longer durations. Many rely on mail-order programs and already face delays and shortages.

So yes, policymakers should push for lower prices. They should demand transparency from pharmacy benefit managers so patients know what they are paying. They should pressure pharmaceutical companies to create pricing structures that serve consumers instead of shareholders.

But none of that will matter if the pharmacies disabled Americans depend on are regulated out of business.

Policy leaders must hold three truths at once: Drug prices are too high, access is too fragile, and for disabled Americans, both problems collide.

You cannot help vulnerable people by making their closest health care providers harder to reach. If states want to protect patients, they should create a regulatory environment where pharmacies can survive — and where the communities that depend on them can too.

​Opinion & analysis, Pharmacy benefit managers, Pharmacies, Health care, Disabled, Regulation, Bans, Prescriptions, Costs, Prescription costs 

A 15-year-old girl told police that a man lured her from the Multnomah County Central Library in downtown Portland to a hotel, where he repeatedly raped her, according to court records.

On Saturday, a witness called police after seeing the girl appearing to be distraught in the downtown area, and when police questioned her, she said she had escaped her captor.

Court records state that she told him she was 15, and he replied, ‘No one has to know.’

She said the man had returned her to the library that day, and she was able to escape after saying she had to go to the bathroom.

Police went to the library and identified a suspect as 23-year-old Nicholas Matthew Tull.

The girl was a runaway and said she met Tull at the library three days earlier, where he offered to give her shelter in exchange for sex. When they went to a nearby hotel, he allegedly kept her against her will and sexually assaulted her for three days.

Tull was arrested, and the girl was treated at a medical center. She also underwent sexual-assault testing.

Court records state that she told him she was 15, and he replied, “No one has to know.”

Police said they were able to recover her purse from his property.

RELATED: Transient illegal alien equipped a ‘rape dungeon on wheels’ to attack women in mountains of California, police say

Court records show that Tull has been charged with three counts of first-degree rape, first-degree unlawful sexual penetration, three counts of first-degree sexual abuse, coercion, and luring a minor.

A local resident told KPTV-TV that there were a lot of problems at the library.

“I’ve noticed a lot of people on drugs, maybe houseless,” Lorenzo Stroud said. “I see a lot of problems, but I see the library people and the security doing a good job of de-escalating rather than being overly aggressive.”

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

​Portland library rape, 15 year old raped, Runaway teen raped, Portland crime, Crime 

Jesus is the reason for the season, but more often than not, it’s Santa who takes front and center stage. A 2,000-year-old baby offering an intangible gift just can’t compete with the big, red-suited, jolly man and his sleigh full of toys in the mind of a child.

That’s one of several reasons Allie Beth Stuckey doesn’t do Santa with her three kids.

On this episode of “Relatable,” Allie presents a compelling case for ditching the man in the red hat and putting Jesus back on the throne of Christmas where He belongs.

Santa invites confusion

While Allie acknowledges that Santa is a “Christian liberty issue,” meaning “we have freedom as Christians to disagree,” she feels personally convicted to forgo the tradition to avoid confusing her children.

Santa “is a form of deceit,” she says.

“We want our kids to trust us … and it can cause this kind of dissonance or confusion in a child when we tell them that someone is real, is giving them gifts, is watching them … is taking a tally of the good deeds they do, the bad deeds they do … and then allocating gifts in accordance to their behavior — and then to tell them one day that that system of morality around Christmastime doesn’t exist,” she argues.

“I do believe that that causes, even if just for a moment, mistrust between the parent and child” and “confusion about what is actually true … about the mysterious and supernatural realm.”

But “causing mistrust through deceit” isn’t even the biggest issue, she says. Santa can also cause “theological confusion” in developing children.

Santa and God have a lot in common, Allie explains. Both see us when we’re sleeping, know when we’re awake, and know if we’ve been bad or good, but the key difference is Santa takes his gifts away when we fail to be good, whereas God, infinite in grace and mercy, does not dangle salvation as a carrot in front of us to keep us behaving.

Santa “is a legalistic form of Christ” and a “counterfeit form of God,” says Allie.

And then there’s the flip side of this pitfall. Children might view God as a kind of Santa Claus, who gives them material gifts in exchange for obedience or good deeds, turning Him from the perfect and holy king of kings and the savior of humanity into a “feel-good” bringer of happiness.

In either case, the similarities between the two figures can deeply confuse malleable children who are still learning to distinguish between fact and fiction, while simultaneously sowing distrust between them and their parents.

Santa distracts from Jesus

Allie’s second reason for ditching St. Nick is that he draws the focus away from Christ.

“Santa Claus is the one who will give you all of your immediate desires and will fulfill all of the temporary pleasure that you long for because he is giving you something in the form of a tangible gift. … It’s no wonder that we as people, but especially children, have such a hard time actually focusing on Christ — the real gift-giver,” she says.

To Santa sympathizers who argue that his mysterious nature “makes Christmas really magical” and stimulates children’s imaginations, Allie says that we can still foster imagination in our kids without lying to them.

And further, “The reality is that there is already a beautiful mystery of Christmas that no one truly understands,” she says. “We are natural people who were intersected by the supernatural when Jesus became Emmanuel, God with us, made flesh. That is the mystery of Christmas.”

“And so why would we create a counternarrative to that? A cheapened narrative, a legalistic narrative that gives all of the wrong lessons about morality and about what saves you and about what satisfies you and about what fulfills you?” she asks.

But Santa doesn’t just distract kids from the true Christmas story; he also distracts parents, who are stressed and spread thin trying to maintain the Santa narrative through elaborate gift displays, Elf on the Shelf, staging half-eaten cookies, and dodging pesky questions from their kids.

“It seems like when that starts to be the taker of our joy or the source of our stress and our energy and not discipling our kids and telling them what the advent, the coming of the Lord, actually means in their lives, well, then we have veered into idolatry,” Allie warns.

To hear the rest of her argument, as well as ways Christians can still incorporate Santa into their Christmas season without losing focus on what matters, watch the full episode above.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

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

​Relatable, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Allie beth stuckey, Blazetv, Blaze media, Christianity, Santa claus, Saint nicholas, Kris kringle, Christmas, Jesus, Nativity, Advent, Christmas season 

Lee Strobel doesn’t mind those who question his midlife Christian conversion.

Strobel’s shift from an atheist to rock-ribbed Christian came to life in 2017’s “The Case for Christ.” The film, based on his life story, showed how Strobel’s efforts to debunk the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the legal editor of the Chicago Tribune had the opposite effect.

‘There is evidence that points — compelling [evidence] — to the truth of biblical miracles and contemporary supernatural encounters. I’m not afraid of that.’

He says his shoe-leather reporting confirmed the resurrection. Looking back, Strobel tells Align his change of heart ruffled some professional feathers.

“After I became a Christian at the Chicago Tribune, somebody told me later that they overheard somebody in the newsroom say, ‘What happened to Strobel? He became a Jesus freak, like, overnight,’” Strobel says, laughing.

Miracle miles

Now, Strobel is back on the big screen with “The Case for Miracles,” in select theaters Dec. 15-18 via Fathom Entertainment. The film finds Strobel and director Mani Sandoval hitting Route 66 in an old Ford Bronco to swap stories and reflect on modern-day miracles.

Among the most poignant? A young woman with severe multiple sclerosis who is able to leave her hospice bed following a crush of community prayers.

It’s part travelogue, part documentary, and Strobel only wishes he had time to share even more remarkable stories on-screen.

“We had to leave out so many good ones. … We had another case documented by medical researchers … a guy who was healed from a paralyzed stomach,” he says. “He was prayed for, felt an electric shock go through him, and for the first time was able to eat normally.”

“He’s fine to this day,” he adds. “It’s the only case in history of its kind of [someone] spontaneously healed from this stomach paralysis.”

Meeting in the middle

Strobel says the film offers two very different perspectives on modern-day miracles given the key players involved.

“Mani grew up in a Pentecostal home. There was an anticipation that the miraculous would take place,” he says. “I was an atheist [growing up].”

The film is based on Strobel’s 2018 book of the same name, but he hopes the Fathom Entertainment release reaches a broader audience beyond his loyal readers.

“I think that cinema is the language of young people,” he says. “If we want to share this account, this evidence of the miraculous with a young generation, what better way than on the big screen? Among younger people, there’s something about a film that register deeply with them. … We should seize opportunities to communicate to those outside the faith.”

RELATED: Lee Strobel’s top supernatural stories to challenge your atheist friends

Blaze Media

Creative control

And the timing couldn’t be better. Faith-friendly films and TV shows are all the rage in today’s pop-culture landscape. Think the groundbreaking series “The Chosen,” along with the upcoming “Passion of the Christ” sequel from Mel Gibson.

Both Netflix and Prime Video are producing faith-friendly content, and recent hits like “Jesus Revolution” flexed the power of spiritual stories.

“It satisfies me on a creative level when I see films that deal with very important topics, like the existence in God, in a way that’s creative and that aren’t going to make people cringe but sit forward in their seat and anticipate what’s coming next,” he says.

And that creative explosion has only begun, Strobel predicts.

“In three, four, or maybe five years, we’re gonna see stuff where we say, ‘Oh, I never thought of doing that,’” he says of the genre.

The incredible made credible

Strobel isn’t a filmmaker by trade. He’s a busy writer, having penned more than 40 books that have been translated into 40 languages.

Strobel, like the late Charlie Kirk, doesn’t mind interacting with skeptics on- or off-screen. He welcomes it. The book on which “The Case for Miracles” is based starts with an extended dialogue with noted atheist Michael Shermer.

Strobel eventually befriended Shermer, who has a cameo in the film version of “Miracles.”

“I let him have his say,” he says of their early exchanges. Strobel is confident in his faith and the miracles he sees flowing through it.

“There is evidence that points — compelling [evidence] — to the truth of biblical miracles and contemporary supernatural encounters,” he says. “I’m not afraid of that.”

For Strobel, a miracle requires four key elements:

Solid medical documentation;Multiple, credible eyewitnesses who have no motive to deceive;A lack of natural explanation; andAn association with prayer.

Meet all four requirements, he says, “and maybe something miraculous is going on.”

Strobel doesn’t mind that some of his former colleagues may question his religious conversion. He’s comforted by the fact that he has company in that regard.

“I’ve seen so many journalists coming to faith. … I think God is stirring something in the culture right now,” he says.

​Faith, Abide, Entertainment, Lee strobel, Movies, Faith-based, Apologetics, Christianity, The case for miracles, Culture, Miracles, Align interview 

The mother of a slain pregnant woman found in a Michigan forest has confessed to committing grisly acts against her daughter and her unborn grandson, according to new court documents. The case also has taken a shocking twist as sordid accusations of illicit family affairs have emerged.

As Blaze News reported earlier this month, 22-year-old Rebecca Park — who was approximately 38 weeks pregnant — was reported missing Nov. 4, according to the Wexford County Sheriff’s Office.

‘Your baby is gonna die.’

Following weeks of intense searches for the missing pregnant woman, Park’s body was found in the Manistee National Forest on Nov. 25 — just three days after she was due to give birth. However, Park’s child was no longer in her womb.

The Michigan Department of Attorney General stated that 40-year-old Cortney Bartholomew and 47-year-old Bradly Bartholomew “lured” Park to their home in Wexford County. Cortney Bartholomew is Park’s biological mother, who gave up her daughter for adoption as a young child; Bradly Bartholomew is her stepfather.

“The couple then allegedly tortured Park in an attempt to remove the unborn infant, resulting in the death of both,” the attorney general said.

According to MLive, Wexford County Prosecutor Johanna Carey said, “Mr. Bartholomew brought Rebecca to their home, forced her into another vehicle, and took her into the woods, where they stabbed her, forced her to lie on the ground while they cut her baby out, ultimately causing her death and the death of the baby.”

Cortney initially denied any involvement in the murder of her daughter, according to police.

However, Cortney later confessed to cops that Park was still conscious when she cut the baby out of her daughter while Bradly held a knife to her throat, according to court documents.

Cortney claimed she cut the baby out of Rebecca in an attempt to save the child so she could then take him to his father, court documents allege.

According to a probable cause affidavit obtained by UpNorthLive, “When she cut the baby out, Cortney said that Rebecca was still conscious, and Bradly was holding the knife to her throat.”

Court docs added that Cortney told Rebecca to lie back and said, “Your baby is gonna die.”

The affidavit said Bradly told law enforcement that the baby was not alive when the child was cut out of the womb. Cortney informed investigators that the baby was not breathing or crying when the child was removed from the womb, court documents state.

Court docs also indicate that Bradly told detectives that after Cortney couldn’t revive the baby, she said, “The bitch killed my baby.”

According to the affidavit, Bradly accused Cortney of killing her daughter because she wanted another child, but the couple couldn’t adopt because he’s a convicted sex offender.

“Bradly agreed that he believes that Cortney is capable of slicing open her own flesh and blood and taking a baby out,” the affidavit reads. “He agreed that Cortney is obsessed with wanting another baby in her care and custody.”

When Cortney asked about her grandson, who had just been cut from his mother’s womb, Bradly replied, “Oh, I stuck him in a cooler, stuck him in a trash bag, threw him in the trash,” the affidavit states.

RELATED: Stunned judge reveals fate of woman involved in deadly kidnapping of 2 young sisters found in a pit — 1 did not survive

“I slit her f**king throat, bitch deserved it,” Cortney claimed her husband told her, according to Law & Crime.

In a strange twist, Cortney allegedly admitted to having a romantic relationship with her daughter Rebecca’s fiancé — 43-year-old Richard Falor — who also is the father of Rebecca’s unborn child.

“Cortney then reports how Rebecca and Richard Falor were initially dating, and [when] they broke up, a relationship between herself and Richard then commences,” the affidavit indicates.

Court documents claim Cortney rejected Falor and that he then resumed his relationship with Rebecca.

“Cortney also reported that Richard had returned to her residence and raped her, forcefully, causing her to have a miscarriage of the baby she was carrying,” the affidavit states, adding that “a report of this incident was made with the sheriff’s office, however, Cortney said Richard was not charged.”

Cortney claimed that Falor had been abusive and aggressive with Park, and she encouraged Rebecca to leave him.

The affidavit reads, “[Cortney] again claimed that this was a revenge plot because she had a sexual relationship with Richard and because Richard got Bradly put in jail. She claimed that Bradly wanted to hurt Richard.”

The 18-page probable cause affidavit alleges that Falor turned in Bradly last year on a sex offender registration violation.

Bradly received a 180-day jail sentence for an unspecified violation related to his being on the sex offender registry, according to court records obtained by People magazine.

Court documents indicate that Cortney told authorities that Bradly said Falor also deserved what’s coming to him, and it “just happened to be your daughter that’s going to pay for it.”

Cortney claimed Bradly told her that he planned to cut the baby out of Rebecca right in front of Falor after doing an internet search about C-sections, court docs say.

The stepfather asserted that Rebecca’s sister — 21-year-old Kimberly Park — also had a “relationship” with Falor.

“Bradly reported that Kimberly is jealous of Rebecca, and that he is aware that Kimberly has had a relationship with Richard in the past,” the affidavit states.

Over the last two weeks, Rebecca’s mother, stepfather, sister, and fiancé have been arrested.

People magazine reported that Kimberly has been charged with tampering with evidence, lying to a police officer, and filing a false report. She is on house arrest after her bail was reduced from $750,000 to $5,000.

Falor was charged with distributing methamphetamine, according to the New York Post. He pleaded not guilty Dec. 2.

Cortney and Bradly each were charged with one felony count of first-degree premeditated murder, one felony count of murder, one felony count of torture in a place of confinement, one felony count of conspiracy to commit torture, one felony count of assault of a pregnant woman with the intention to cause miscarriage or stillbirth, one felony count of conspiracy to commit assault on a pregnant woman with the intention to cause miscarriage or stillbirth, and one misdemeanor count of removal of a dead body.

If convicted of any of the felonies, the pair faces up to life in prison.

Court records identify Bradly Bartholomew as a habitual offender, which could result in harsher penalties.

The Bartholomews were jailed without the possibility of bond.

Court appearances by Cortney and Bradly have been postponed until Jan. 13, 2026, WWTV-TV and WWUP-TV reported.

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

​True crime, Rebecca park, Rebecca park mother, Rebecca park update, True crime news, Crime, Michigan