Category: blaze media

In protest of President Trump’s State of the Union address, Democrats held their own “People’s State of the Union” featuring Joy Reid — and BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales was easily able to infiltrate it before getting kicked out after trolling the former MSNBC host.

“Now obviously, President Trump is the troller in chief, and I just try to learn from him like a young Padawan. And I just thought, you know what? I’m gonna do a little trolling as well,” Gonzales explains.

While there, Gonzales squeezed in some interviews with the audience — one of whom was dressed in an inflatable cat suit.

“So do cats, is their official position that they don’t like Donald Trump?” Gonzales asked the cat attendee.

“They definitely don’t like this guy,” the cat responded, holding a sign of JD Vance.

Another man was holding a sign that read, “MAGA is Putin’s tool.” When Gonzales asked how MAGA is Putin’s tool, the man responded “Figure it out. If you can’t figure it out, you’re part of the problem.”

“I mean, I feel like you would want to educate people as to exactly how that is,” Gonzales shot back, adding, “You don’t want to educate people? … How much you were paid to be here tonight?”

“Fifty bucks and a bottle of Crown Royal,” he answered.

“Really? Does George Soros pay that to you?” she pressed, before he yelled back, “Fascist maggot, get the f**k out of here.”

After briefly heckling Reid, who took the stage and immediately began celebrating Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Gonzales was kicked out of the event — missing a performance by Reid and another woman singing.

“You guys can hear the claps,” Gonzales comments, adding, “There’s nobody there.”

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.

​Free, Upload, Video phone, Video, Sharing, Camera phone, Youtube.com, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Sara gonzales, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Sara gonzales clips, Peoples state of the union, State of the union, Joy reid, Democrats, President trump, Jd vance 

Michael Jordan is now dominating a new sport, and has started off 2026 by breaking records.

Jordan’s 23XI racing team settled an antitrust lawsuit with NASCAR in December, after alleging the racing organization is a monopoly that uses unfair practices to decide which teams are guaranteed participation.

Now that Jordan’s team has acquired that guaranteed (chartered) status, they have hit the ground running and immediately set an all-time record in 2026.

‘It’s time for change.’

In the 77 years of NASCAR racing, no team has ever won the first three races of a season until Jordan’s 23XI team. Astoundingly, driver Tyler Reddick has won the Daytona 500, EchoPark Speedway, and the Circuit of the Americas to start the 2026 season, despite having zero first-place finishes in all of 2025.

“It’s time for change,” Jordan told Fox NASCAR reporter Jamie Little after the race. “Time for change, and the guys feel the same thing. Tyler came in with the most pressure, I guess. Everybody expected him — or he had a chance — to win three in a row, and that’s the hardest one to win. He kept to his strategy, and man, the guys put together a great car.”

Jordan gave all the credit to his team and drivers, saying, “I just put up the money. I’m just a competitor.”

“That’s what it’s about — winning.”

RELATED: Michael Jordan sues NASCAR but is dealt major legal blow just 2 days before his driver competes in Cup Series championship

Just under Reddick at the top of the standings is another one of Jordan’s drivers, Bubba Wallace. Wallace drives car No. 23, representing the number Jordan made famous during his time in the NBA with the Chicago Bulls.

Reddick drives car No. 45, a number Jordan briefly wore when he came out of retirement in 1995, before switching back to 23 in the playoffs that year.

“It’s one race, but it was so important, so fitting that we were able to get three in a row and make history,” Reddick said after the race, per NBC Sports. “Just trying to remember everything that I knew was going to be important there at the end and just tried to minimize the mistakes.”

RELATED: It’s personal: Michael Jordan is more charitable than the media tells you

Photo by Logan Riely/Getty Images

Jordan’s lawsuit, which included team Front Row Motorsports, challenged NASCAR’s charter program that consists of 36 charter teams who are guaranteed to compete in the field of 40 for each race.

The remaining four spots are decided by a rather complex system that differs depending on the race. In general, non-chartered teams typically compete in a qualifying race or win a spot based on their qualifying time.

As Fearless reported in 2024, Jordan’s side argued that the unpredictability of being an non-chartered team meant the possible loss of drivers and sponsors from week to week, while binding the teams to the specific series (NASCAR), its tracks, and suppliers.

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

​Fearless, Racing, Michael jordan, Nascar, 2026, Stock car, Daytona 500, Sports 

A Reuters/Ipsos poll that concluded on Sunday revealed that the joint U.S.-Israeli regime-change strikes are unpopular with most Americans.

While Republicans are apparently more supportive of the military campaign than their counterparts, the new poll found that such support is largely conditional and far less than for the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts.

The new polling is consistent with surveys conducted last month, which indicated that Americans were not particularly keen on the prospect of a new series of U.S. military strikes against Iran.

For instance, an SSRS/University of Maryland poll, conducted from Feb. 5 to Feb. 9, found that 21% of respondents favored an attack, 49% were opposed, and 30% were unsure. An Economist/YouGov poll found that 28% of respondents supported and 48% opposed the U.S. taking military action in Iran.

Despite strong public headwinds, the U.S. joined Israel in hammering the Shiite nation anyway, destroying numerous military assets and assassinating top Iranian officials over the weekend while sustaining numerous casualties.

According to the new Reuters/Ipsos poll, 27% of respondents said that they approved of the strikes, 43% signaled disapproval, and 29% said they weren’t sure.

‘We expect casualties.’

Broken down by party affiliation:

55% of Republicans approved of the strikes, 32% said they were unsure or skipped the question, and 13% said they disapproved;7% of Democrats said they approved, 19% said they were unsure or skipped the question, and 74% said they disapproved; and19% of individuals in the “other” camp said they approved, 38% said they were unsure or skipped the question, and 44% said they disapproved.

The support for the present conflict pales in comparison to American support for the Iraq war prior to and following the March 20, 2003, invasion.

A poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News just prior to the invasion of Iraq found that 71% of Americans supported going to war. An Ipsos-Reid poll conducted in the two days leading up to the invasion found that roughly nine in 10 Republicans and half of Democrats supported going to war.

The Pew Research Center revealed days later that “support for the decision to go to war has remained steady at about seven-in-ten since the fighting began.”

A total of 56% of respondents said that Trump “is too willing to use military force to advance U.S. interests.” Nearly a quarter of Republicans — 23% — agreed with this statement.

RELATED: Columbia University distances itself from ‘death to America’ student group

US Central Command

The poll found that 42% of Republicans would be less likely to support the military campaign against Iran if it leads to “U.S. troops in the Middle East being killed or injured.”

U.S. Central command indicated that as of Monday morning, four American service members had been killed in action.

Six more service members were nearly killed on Sunday in an apparent friendly-fire incident in which three U.S. F-15E Strike Eagles were shot down over Kuwait. CENTCOM noted that all six aircrew personnel “ejected safely, have been recovered, and are in stable condition.”

In an interview on Sunday with the New York Times, President Donald Trump discussed the casualties sustained so far in the conflict and suggested that there will likely be more.

“Three is three too many as far as I’m concerned,” Trump said. “If you look at projections — they do projections — it, you know, it could be quite a bit higher than that.”

“We expect casualties,” Trump added.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll also found that 45% of respondents, including 34% of Republicans and 44% of independents, would be less likely to support the campaign if domestic gas or oil prices spiked.

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

​Polling, Poll, Iran, Iran strikes, War, Donald trump, Iranian, Tehran, Khamenei, Republican, Midterms, Foreign entanglements, Intervention, Regime change, Regime change war, Politics 

The last month has brought renewed attention to crime lords allegedly stealing $3.5 billion from California’s hospice system. Congress and the Trump administration are investigating, and rightly so. The dying deserve dignity, not to have their safety net looted.

But hospice is not the only target — and not every thief wears a ski mask.

The federal government does not have to accept California’s bookkeeping tricks.

Across California, politicians and their allies exploit Medicaid — a federal program meant to help the poor — to paper over budget holes they created. They do it through a bureaucratic “shell game” that shifts billions while patients and taxpayers pick up the tab.

The mechanism is called an intergovernmental transfer. Local public providers or government agencies spend Medicaid funds. The state then counts that spending as its own and uses it to draw matching federal dollars. When that money arrives, the state sends it back to the same providers as higher reimbursements. Those providers end up receiving more than they originally spent, even though the state did not put up additional state funds.

This scheme has driven ambulance reimbursements into the stratosphere.

Between 2022 and 2024, the cost of publicly funded ambulances in California soared from $339 to $1,168 per trip. The state now asks for 2026 reimbursements to rise to more than $1,600. That increase means more than $1,200 per ambulance ride that does not go to patient care. It pads the state’s books and props up obligations like California’s failing pension system.

This is not a straightforward street scam. It is worse: legalized looting with official letterhead.

Families pay the price. Patients pay the price. Honest providers pay the price.

Imagine what that extra $1,200 per ride could do if it went where Medicaid dollars are supposed to go: patient care, staffing, equipment, response times. Now imagine what happens when ambulance companies that are not connected to the right politicians cannot compete and start shutting down. When that happens, the people harmed will not be the insiders who designed the system. It will be the sick, the poor, and the vulnerable.

I know what it means to depend on a functioning safety net.

My brother has level 3 autism spectrum disorder — the most severe diagnosis. He is nonverbal. He cannot feed himself, dress himself, or use the bathroom without help. My parents cannot leave him home alone because he can wander into danger. Keeping him safe requires 24-hour supervision.

My parents knew what that meant. They also knew they wanted him at home, not in an institution.

Medicaid and In-Home Supportive Services, which helps cover the cost of at-home care, made that possible. Those programs kept our family together. They gave my parents a way to provide love and stability that no facility can replicate.

It has still been hard. The work never ends.

RELATED: Dr. Oz exposes alleged fraud in Los Angeles — so Gavin Newsom calls for investigation into his ‘racially charged’ claims

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

My brother’s diagnosis hit my parents like a crisis. They answered with courage. They had more lucrative opportunities elsewhere, but they stayed with the Army because it was the only employer that could guarantee my brother’s access to health care.

We are a military family. We understand service and sacrifice. We also understand the moral bargain behind safety-net programs: Taxpayers step up so that families in crisis do not collapse.

That bargain fails when politicians treat Medicaid as a slush fund.

These financial shell games cost taxpayers billions and create nightmares for families like mine who follow the rules. This is not robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is robbing Peter and leaving Paul on the street.

Americans should be sickened by the heartlessness of anyone who steals from programs designed to serve the vulnerable — whether the thieves are organized crime syndicates or the well-connected insiders who know how to work California’s bureaucracy. Hospice exists so that people can die with dignity. Ambulances exist to get patients to care quickly. Neither exists to generate money for the state and its chosen beneficiaries.

Here is the good news: Congress and the Trump administration have started digging into hospice abuse. The bad news is that those investigations and policy changes can take years.

Ending Medicaid ambulance intergovernmental transfer abuse could be done in a matter of days.

The federal government does not have to accept California’s bookkeeping tricks. President Trump can direct federal agencies to stop approving these inflated reimbursement schemes and demand reforms that put patients first. One signature could force California to stop gaming Medicaid and start serving the people the program was built to help.

​Opinion & analysis, California, Gavin newsom, Fraud, Medicaid, Ambulance, Reimbursements, Red tape, Shell game, Autism, In-home support services, Accounting, Hospice, Waste fraud and abuse 

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced Sunday that the U.K. will allow the U.S. to use British military bases for limited defensive strikes targeting Iranian missile sites, reversing an earlier refusal amid escalating U.S.-Israeli operations against Iran.

In a prerecorded video statement released through official channels, Starmer said the decision was made to prevent Iran from launching missiles across the region that could kill civilians, endanger British nationals, and strike uninvolved countries.

‘Over the last year alone, they have backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil.’

“The United States has requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose,” Starmer said. “We have taken the decision to accept this request to prevent Iran firing missiles across the region, killing innocent civilians, putting British lives at risk, and hitting countries that have not been involved.”

RELATED: Israeli officials say Khamenei is dead. Update: Trump confirms.

Photo by Jonathan Brady-WPA Pool/Getty Images

Starmer emphasized in a previous announcement that the U.K. is not participating directly in offensive strikes, which began in late February targeting Iranian military facilities, nuclear sites, and senior leadership. Instead Britain has focused on defensive actions, including intercepting Iranian missiles aimed at allies in the Gulf.

Starmer also acknowledged the danger the Iranian regime poses: “Even in the United Kingdom, the Iranian regime poses a direct threat to dissidents and to the Jewish community.” He continued, “Over the last year alone, they have backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on U.K. soil.”

RELATED: ‘Painful days’: Iran kills US troops as Trump threatens decapitated Iranian regime

(Photo by Jonathan Brady-WPA Pool/Getty Images)

Starmer described Iran’s actions as increasingly reckless and dangerous and said the decision is consistent with international law under the doctrine of collective self-defense. The government published a summary of its legal advice supporting that position.

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

​International politics, War, Iran, Uk, Starmer, Uk prime minister, Military, Politics 

I was living in Brooklyn at the time. I was 40-ish. I went home to Oregon for the Christmas holidays, and one of my siblings suggested we go skiing.

We were a skiing family when we were kids. In my teens, I skied nearly every weekend for several months of the year. I got pretty good at it and have fond memories of those days.

I remembered a doctor on TV saying something like: ‘Most injuries I see are older people trying to do things they did when they were young.’

But I had not skied or ridden a chairlift in 20 years. The idea of going again seemed really fun. Why hadn’t we thought of this before?

Toys in the attic

Most of my old ski stuff was still around my parents’ house. I found my slightly rusted skis in the attic. My old Nordica ski boots still fit. I dug up some musty ski gloves and a ski hat and some old goggles. I wasn’t going to look fashionable or current, but I had the necessary stuff to ski down the mountain.

I would be like the eccentric older guys I occasionally rode the chairlift with when I was a teenager. Guys with ancient-looking skis and out-of-date parkas and mittens. Skiing wasn’t a social activity for them. They didn’t mind looking out of place. They were just there for the skiing.

Runnin’ up that hill

My siblings and I drove up to Mt. Hood Meadows and bought our lift tickets. We rode up the chairlift, which all by itself was thrilling.

To actually ski felt weird at first. I did a couple of snow-plow turns, then a couple of real turns, and then I was more or less back to form.

The ski trails were mostly the same. I remembered them from high school. But other things had changed. The skis were shorter and oddly shaped. People wore helmets. There were snowboarders to contend with. And of course, everyone was younger and speedier than I remembered.

After a couple easy runs, I was feeling pretty confident. I decided to check out some of the more difficult trails. So I dragged my brother over to one of the black diamond runs.

Looking down into it, I was shocked by how steep and formidable it looked. I used to ski down this? And then some 12-year-old shot past me and went flying straight down the face of it.

I decided against following him, and instead we found a trail that went along the ridge. Here we encountered a “jump.”

This was not a jump like you see on TV, where you do two back flips and a triple twist. This was a little bump off to the side of the trail, where if you could build up enough speed, you might go two or three feet into the air and land six feet from where you started.

Still, I’d loved jumps when I was a kid. My body reacted to the sight of it so strongly, I immediately sped up and steered right at it.

Unfortunately, it turned out to have a badly shaped landing. You basically stopped dead when you hit. I nearly rolled forward out of my ski boots. It was so jarring, I felt queasy in my stomach.

And then I had to get out of the way, so someone else could have that same experience.

Slow your roll

So that’s how it went. I found that I got bored cruising the easy runs. But whenever I tried something hard, I was outmatched.

After lunch, I made the decision to stick to the intermediate runs. I would do like the other middle-aged people, carving wide, graceful turns, taking it easy, getting into that elder-skier groove.

But then my problem became speed. Each time I did a run, I went a little faster. Soon, I was going a little too fast. But I couldn’t resist that downhill racer sensation.

And then I fell. I don’t know how. I must have “caught an edge.” One moment, I was leaning into a turn, and the next, I was face-planted into the hard pack.

I came to my senses with a face full of snow and my skis, hat, and goggles scattered all around me.

My brother pulled up behind me. He was scared. He said my wipeout looked bad. I told him it felt bad. Though as far as I could tell, I wasn’t seriously injured.

I sat there for several minutes, making sure I was OK. Then I rose to my feet. Eventually, I put my skis back on. Very gingerly, we made our way down.

But by the time we reached the chairlift, I felt fine. I was OK. And there was still time for a couple more runs. I assured my brother I could continue. And we got back in line.

RELATED: I was a ‘problem student’ — until all-male Catholic school let me be a boy

Alex_Bond/Bettman/Getty Images

Dazed and confused

Riding the chairlift was when I realized something wasn’t right. My brain seemed slow. I couldn’t seem to focus. I would look at things and not really see them. Everything felt weird and slowed down and unreal.

I must have a concussion, I thought. So I gave myself a simple concussion test. What was my phone number? I thought about it. I thought about it more. I had no idea.

What about my address? What city did I live in? I couldn’t seem to hold any clear thought in my head.

I explained to my brother what was happening. He was concerned. We did one last easy-does-it run. Then we headed home.

Dark night of the soul

That night, back at my parents’ house, I did the concussion protocols. I stayed awake for 12 hours, took aspirin, drank water, lay on the living room couch, perfectly still, with a dark towel over my eyes. I now had a very sore neck and back. I could barely move. I probably had whiplash.

I was OK in the end. But that was a scary day. As I lay silent and still on the couch, I remembered a doctor on TV saying something like: “Most injuries I see are older people trying to do things they did when they were young.”

That was definitely me. I guess I learned my lesson. But I’d also learned the lesson that — for me at least — the desire to do those things, even when I KNEW I SHOULDN’T DO THEM, could be overwhelming.

In other words, it was best for me to stay off the ski slopes entirely. And maybe take up some new activities, things I’d never done before. Like softball. Or surfing. Or golf. Activities where memories of youthful glory wouldn’t get me into trouble.

​Lifestyle, Skiing, Sports, Men, Aging, Blake’s progress 

Columbia University — an institution whose radicalism frequently spills out into the streets of Manhattan — is trying to distance itself from Columbia University Apartheid Divest after the coalition of student extremists echoed Iranian dictator Ali Khamenei’s go-to motto following his assassination on Saturday.

CUAD, a coalition of anti-Israel student groups that purportedly operates “outside of the purview of a registered student organization,” didn’t take the news of Khamenei’s death particularly well, calling it “devastating news.”

‘Columbia has not, and will not, recognize or meet with the group.’

In another social media post, which has since been deleted, the student group wrote, “Marg bar Amrika.”

This Persian phrase, which means “Death to America,” was one of the dead ayatollah’s go-to slogans.

“The slogan and shout of ‘Death to the U.S.’ by the Iranian nation has strong logical and rational support and stems from the Constitution and fundamental thoughts that brooks no injustice and oppression,” Khamenei stated a decade ago. “This slogan means death to the policies of the U.S. and arrogant powers and this logic is accepted by every nation when explained in clear terms.”

CUAD noted in a subsequent tweet that was taken down by Elon Musk’s X for violating the platform’s rules, “X forced use[sic] to delete our ‘marg bar amrika’ tweet in order to gain back access to our account but the sentiment still stands.”

RELATED: ‘Painful days’: Iran kills US troops as Trump threatens decapitated Iranian regime

Photo by Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images

The university — which had its accreditation threatened last year over its alleged “indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students” and is paying the federal government over $220 million to settle investigations into alleged discrimination on campus — rushed to denounce CUAD’s “violent, abhorrent language.”

Columbia emphasized that “‘CUAD’ is not a recognized student group and is not affiliated, in any fashion, with the University”; “the matter has been referred to law enforcement for further investigation”; and “there is no evidence, at this point, that anyone currently in control of this social media account is a Columbia student, staff, or faculty member.”

While it is unclear who presently mans the radical group’s social media accounts, Mahmoud Khalil — a Syrian-born radical and former Columbia University graduate student who is presently fighting potential deportation by the Trump administration to Algeria — previously identified himself as a spokesman for CUAD.

The university, which has been home to anti-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests in recent days, noted that it denounced the group last July, making clear “Columbia has not, and will not, recognize or meet with the group that calls itself ‘Columbia University Apartheid Divest’ (CUAD), its representatives, or any of its affiliated organizations.”

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

​Iran, Khamenei, Columbia university, Divest, Apartheid divest, University, School, Radical, Radicalism, Islam, Iranian, Death to america, New york city, Politics 

Early Sunday morning, a foreign-born radical armed with a pistol and a rifle allegedly opened fire outside Buford’s Backyard Beer Garden in Austin, killing two individuals and wounding 14 others.

Authorities indicated that the now-dead suspect, identified as 53-year-old Ndiaga Diagne, drove around the area several times in an SUV before taking aim through a vehicle window at patrons outside the bar.

‘This act of violence will not define us.’

Austin Police Chief Lisa Davis noted during a press conference on Sunday that after the initial shooting, the suspect parked his SUV nearby, then opened fire with a rifle on unsuspecting pedestrians. Police intercepted the suspect as he made his way down East 6th Street and fatally shot him.

Once the dead suspect’s vehicle was identified, the APD’s bomb squad ensured that there were no explosives present.

Austin Mayor Kirk Watson lauded the work of the first responders and police officers who rushed into action on Sunday morning, noting that they “saved countless lives.”

While law enforcement is still investigating the shooter’s motives, Alex Doran, an active special agent with the FBI’s San Antonio field office, noted that “there were indicators … on the subject and in his vehicle that indicate potential nexus to terrorism.”

RELATED: Fetterman joins GOP lawmakers in praise of Iran strikes; Massie joins Democrats in condemnation

Photo by Stephanie Tacy/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Doran would not comment on the nature of those “indicators.” However, a law enforcement official told CNN that the dead suspect was wearing a shirt with an Iranian flag design on it as well as a hoodie emblazoned with the text, “Property of Allah.”

A law enforcement official told the New York Times that a Quran was recovered from the suspect’s vehicle.

The Department of Homeland Security reportedly indicated that Diagne entered the U.S. on a B-2 tourist visa in March 2000 and was naturalized in April 2013, seven years after his marriage to an American citizen.

A law enforcement official familiar with the investigation told CNN that the suspect, who was arrested in 2022 on a charge of collision with vehicle damage, is originally from the Sunni Muslim nation of Senegal.

On Sunday afternoon, federal and local authorities reportedly raided a house outside Pflugerville, roughly 30 miles north of the shooting, where the suspect apparently resided.

While officials did not immediately name the victims, University of Texas at Austin President Jim Davis said in a statement on Sunday that among those impacted by the shooting are “members of our Longhorn family.”

Ryder Harrington, a Texas Tech Red Raider, was ultimately identified by loved ones as one of the decedents.

A GoFundMe page raising funds for the Harrington family noted that “Ryder was a beloved son, brother, and friend whose kindness and presence touched countless lives. From the moment he joined our brotherhood, he brought a light that was impossible to ignore.”

Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows (R) noted, “From all accounts, Ryder was exactly the kind of young man who made a difference without even trying — full of life, loyal to his friends, proud to be a Red Raider and a Texan, and someone who showed up for the people around him.”

“This act of violence will not define us, nor will it shake the resolve of Texans,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said in response to the shooting.

“To anyone who thinks about using the current conflict in the Middle East to threaten Texans or our critical infrastructure, understand this clearly: Texas will respond with decisive and overwhelming force to protect our state,” added the governor.

Abbott indicated further that on Saturday, he directed the Texas Military Department to activate service members to work with federal and state partners to “safeguard our communities and critical infrastructure” and tasked the Texas Department of Public Safety and Texas National Guard with intensifying patrols and surveillance.

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

​Crime, Islam, Senegal, Terrorism, Shooting, Austin, Texas, Abbott, Iran, Iran strikes, Radicalism, Extremism, Mass shooting, Ndiaga diagne, Politics 

Imagine someone walks into your town with a proposition: Rezone large swaths of residential and farmland. Hand out tax breaks. Let us build ugly, noisy facilities for chatbots — facilities that will devour nearly a quarter of the power supply.

Then, before you run him out of the room, he adds a final promise: Do not worry. We will pay our own way.

Argue about the projections if you want. Do not tell the public they will not pay more for data centers. They already do.

That is the rope-a-dope Americans are supposed to accept from the government-tech oligopoly, even as politicians insist that data centers will not cost the public a dime.

Sensing a growing backlash against the data-slop colonization of rural America, President Trump promised during the State of the Union that every data center company will pay its own way. Awareness of the problem helps. The president’s pledge does not.

Facts on the ground point in the opposite direction: consumers already pay for data centers, the economics make “paying their own way” implausible at scale, and the industry fights efforts to put that promise into law.

The scope of the problem

The hyperscale build-out being stacked on top of roughly 4,000 existing facilities is not a “burden” on the grid. It is an industrial-scale demand shock.

MIT Technology Review reports that AI alone could soon consume as much electricity as 22% of all U.S. households. Boston Consulting Group projects data center energy needs of up to 1,050 terawatt-hours annually by 2030 — about 120 gigawatts on average. That figure exceeds current U.S. nuclear capacity by roughly 23%.

To put it in plain terms, the United States has about 97 gigawatts of nuclear capacity across 94 reactors. If the high end of OpenAI’s hyperscale ambitions materializes, those facilities alone would require roughly 36% of total U.S. nuclear capacity.

Now scale it out. Clearview estimates that if the 680 planned data centers get built and become operational, they would require the energy equivalent of 186 large nuclear power plants.

That should end the fantasy that these companies can “pay their own way” while drowning in debt, burning cash, and chasing thin margins.

These are not last decade’s data centers, either. Bloomberg reports that only 10% of facilities today draw more than 50 megawatts. Over the next decade, the average new facility will draw well over 100 megawatts. Nearly a quarter will exceed 500 megawatts, and a few will top 1 gigawatt.

Electricity is only the first bill. This demand shock forces major grid upgrades: transmission lines, transformers, substations, and capacity expansions. Utilities do not eat those costs. They pass them on to taxpayers — that is, us.

Wood Mackenzie estimates that AI-driven build-outs will push transformer demand beyond supply by about 30% this year, driving costs up and delaying projects. Consumers will pay for that, too.

RELATED: How data centers could spark the next populist revolt

Photo by Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

We already pay for data centers

Consumers already pay. Any serious fix starts with admitting it.

Yet Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has the nerve to tell Americans that nobody has paid higher prices because of data centers.

Grid operators say otherwise.

Bloomberg reports that in areas within 50 miles of significant data center activity, wholesale prices have risen by as much as 267% over five years, with more than 70% of recorded price spikes occurring near that activity. Dominion, the largest utility in Virginia — home to “Data Center Alley” — cited data center demand as a factor in proposing a base-rate increase that would add $8.51 a month to typical residential bills in 2026 and another $2 a month in 2027. That comes after rates already surged 13%.

Then look at PJM, the nation’s largest grid. Monitoring Analytics, PJM’s independent market monitor, says consumers will pay $16.6 billion to secure future power supplies from 2025 through 2027, with about 90% of that bill tied to projected data center demand. Monitoring Analytics called it a “massive wealth transfer” from consumers to the data center industry.

Costs spread across state lines. Maryland transmission infrastructure helps serve Northern Virginia’s data centers. In Baltimore, some residents have seen steep bill increases over three years, with additional increases anticipated starting mid-2026. Across the PJM region, capacity charges spiked 833% for the 2025-2026 period as supply struggled to keep up with these behemoths.

Texas faces its own version. ERCOT expects data center demand to exceed 22,000 megawatts by 2030, which could push wholesale rates up 22% or more, even before population growth enters the equation.

Argue about the projections if you want. Do not tell the public they will not pay more for data centers. They already do.

That reality explains why the industry resists any effort to put teeth behind its “we will pay our own way” pledge. Oklahoma state Rep. Jim Shaw (R) introduced HB 3724, which would have required data centers to pay their own way. Every Republican on the committee voted it down.

So the next time the pitch arrives — that you will not pay a dime extra once the facilities go live — treat it as marketing, not math.

Do not trust. Only verify.

​Opinion & analysis, Artificial intelligence, Ai data centers, Power grid, Nuclear power, Water, Zoning, Farmland, Housing, Supply and demand, Big tech, Donald trump, Costs, Affordability, Electricity bills, Mit technology review, Nuclear capacity, Texas, Maryland, Baltimore, Oklahoma, Jim shaw 

It’s been a little over a year since President Trump began his second term and enacted a wave of tariffs that rattled the global economy. After observing the impacts, Glenn Beck is finally ready to say three words: “I was wrong.”

For years, he opposed tariffs, believing that free markets were the answer. And while he still believes free markets are the ideal — as they’re “not just efficient” but also “moral” — he realizes in retrospect that they cease to work when the players cheat. Tariffs, he admits, are “not a sin” but a necessary “strategy” to protect American industry from nations that are attacking its economy through trade.

On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn explains his change of heart.

He first recaps history: America’s founders funded the government mainly through tariffs instead of income taxes, and Abraham Lincoln and early Republicans used them to protect young industries and build the nation into an industrial powerhouse. Tariffs only got a bad name after the 1913 income tax shift and the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs (blamed for worsening the Depression), while post-World War II free trade succeeded because the U.S. dominated the global economy.

But that era of “effortlessness, American dominance” has ended.

“Here’s what I failed to see,” says Glenn. “Free trade works when all of the players are playing free. … It works when your trading partners are not subsidizing industries, manipulating currencies, stealing intellectual property, weaponizing supply chains, using slave labor.”

“There comes a time when you then have to look at it and say, ‘OK, wait a minute, wait a minute — now we own the markets, but everybody else has weaponized trade against us. And now we’re hollowing out our own industrial base; we’re financing our adversaries’ rise,’” he adds.

Today he sees “the bigger picture that Donald Trump is doing with tariffs.”

“I have had very long conversations with the president about tariffs. He has been remarkable … because he’s been honest,” says Glenn.

“He has the vision to see the world economically as it truly is, but also the vision to see economically, business-wise, how it can be,” he explains.

“[Trump] understood tariffs are not just punishment and higher prices, OK? You use tariffs strategically as leverage, as negotiation — tariffs as industrial policy without the bureaucracy; tariffs used strategically, not universally; tariffs used as a tool to bring trading partners to the table; tariffs being used to build domestic capacity.”

Glenn highlights Trump’s repeated claim that foreign countries have committed to investing $18 trillion in U.S. factories since the start of his second term (roughly half the national debt).

“Let’s say half of that is true. That’s pretty remarkable. You know what that will do? That will rebuild our industrial base, which we hollowed out because we didn’t have tariffs!” he exclaims.

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, Trump, Trump tariffs, Tariffs, Blazetv, Blaze media 

On Friday, in an open letter to the 119th Congress, I joined more than 100 economists and public policy experts from universities, think tanks, and businesses across the country urging practical reform of the Highway Trust Fund. Our message is straightforward: Congress can — and should — take incremental, bipartisan steps now to put the fund on a stable, sustainable path.

The Highway Trust Fund long embodied a simple user-fee compact: People who use the roads pay for them. That bargain delivered predictable funding and reinforced fiscal discipline.

Congress has repeatedly patched the shortfall with transfers from the general fund, which papers over the problem while weakening the principle that made the system durable.

Now the system is fraying. Fuel taxes have not kept pace with inflation, rising construction costs, or improved fuel efficiency. Electric and hybrid vehicles — a growing share of the fleet — often contribute little or nothing through fuel taxes. Congress has repeatedly patched the shortfall with transfers from the general fund, which papers over the problem while weakening the principle that made the system durable.

Congress does not need to solve every long-term challenge in one bill. It can make meaningful progress in the next surface transportation reauthorization, which lawmakers must pass by Sept. 30.

First, lawmakers should reinforce the user-pay principle by ensuring all road users — including drivers of electric and hybrid vehicles — contribute a fair share through transparent, enforceable mechanisms. Fairness demands no less. When some users effectively get an exemption, the burden shifts to everyone else or to taxpayers at large.

Second, Congress should improve price sensitivity. Heavy commercial vehicles impose disproportionate wear and tear on highways and bridges. User fees should better reflect vehicle weight and road impact. That change would improve fairness and send clearer economic signals about infrastructure costs. A system that reflects actual use and damage is more rational — and more defensible.

Third, legislators should evaluate a transition from per-gallon fuel taxes to mileage-based user fees. A well-designed road-usage charge would ensure payments reflect miles driven and vehicle characteristics.

Any transition must preserve the core user-pay principle while avoiding disproportionate burdens on low-income households, small businesses, and farmers. State pilot programs show mileage-based systems can protect privacy and maintain public trust. Congress should build on that experience rather than delay modernization.

Fourth, Washington should reduce reliance on general-fund bailouts and set clearer expectations for revenue reform in the next major reauthorization cycle. Temporary patches undermine fiscal responsibility and create uncertainty for state planners and private investors.

RELATED: Trump is getting the job done for American truckers

Photo by Chris Kleponis/Polaris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Revenue reform alone will not secure the system. Transportation infrastructure now depends on digital systems that guide vehicles and manage logistics. America’s economy relies heavily on GPS-enabled positioning and timing. Disruptions to systems overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation would ripple across freight networks, emergency services, and daily commutes.

China and Russia have shown the capability to interfere with satellite systems and GPS signals. A prolonged outage would cost billions of dollars per day. Vehicles sold in the U.S. should incorporate tested backup positioning technologies to guard against such threats.

Supply-chain security also demands attention. Chinese firms such as BYD and CATL dominate global battery production. The concentration of manufacturing — and embedded telematics — in companies subject to influence by the Chinese Communist Party raises legitimate concerns about espionage and strategic vulnerability.

The U.S. should expand domestic battery production and charging infrastructure, reducing dependence on foreign-controlled systems that can compromise data security and resilience.

Finally, Congress should pursue sensible federal deregulation to reduce the needlessly high cost of transportation projects — and require state and local partners to do the same. Streamlined permitting, faster reviews, and fewer duplicative requirements would stretch every Highway Trust Fund dollar and deliver projects faster.

These proposals are not partisan. They are practical steps rooted in fiscal responsibility and national security. A stable source of funding for roads is not merely a budget issue; it is essential to economic competitiveness, national mobility, and public safety. By reinforcing the user-pay principle, modernizing revenue mechanisms, protecting digital infrastructure, and strengthening supply chains, Congress can signal a shared commitment to safeguarding America’s transportation future.

The 119th Congress has an opportunity to restore the Highway Trust Fund’s integrity. Lawmakers should seize it.

​Opinion & analysis, Highway trust fund, Funding, Gas taxes, Mileage tax, Fee for service, Transportation department, Transportation funding, Infrastructure, Interstate, Bridges, Roads, Fuel efficiency, Electric vehicles, Congress, Budget 

Japan transformed from an expansionist military power to a pacifist state within a decade after World War II, adopting a firmly non-nuclear posture after suffering atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet Japan possesses one of the most advanced civilian nuclear infrastructures in the world, technically capable of creating nuclear weapons.

As debates in the United States intensify over alliance commitments and burden-sharing, questions about the credibility of America’s extended deterrence are growing. If that credibility weakens, Japan may find itself increasingly alone in deterring China, North Korea, and Russia.

As Japan becomes more militarized, nuclear pacifism may begin to be replaced with nuclear realism.

Japan is already reinterpreting elements of its postwar restraint, evident in the modernization of the Japan Self-Defense Forces and the acquisition of long-range counterstrike capabilities for “deterrence by punishment.” Will Japan do the same with nuclear weapons?

The nuclear threshold is near

Japan lacks nuclear warhead expertise, dedicated delivery systems, and secure nuclear testing infrastructure, but it does have the industrial, material, and financial resources to begin a nuclear weapons program.

Japan possesses full-scale nuclear fuel cycle facilities, accumulating over 45 metric tons of separated plutonium, enough to make thousands of nuclear weapons. Japan is projected to increase reliance on fast breeder reactors; these reactors produce more plutonium than they consume.

Japan is also building facilities that eliminate the need to outsource its spent fuel for reprocessing, allowing Japan to domestically produce separated plutonium. Some analysts estimate that Japan could develop a small nuclear arsenal within a year.

Despite Japan’s nuclear latency, it has not crossed the nuclear threshold. Other than public consensus and constitutional restraints, Japan is held back by technical and financial costs. Japan needs to develop nuclear weapons design expertise, delivery systems, and secure infrastructure, all financially and politically costly endeavors.

Furthermore, Japan’s civilian nuclear facilities operate under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. That makes it difficult to run a clandestine nuclear weapons program. While the costs are substantial, they are not prohibitive for a country with Japan’s industrial and technological capacity. Given its advanced nuclear power program and infrastructure and increasingly sophisticated military, Japan can develop the technical requirements for a nuclear weapons program in short order.

Hedging nuclear bets

Japan is a nuclear latent power, so the central issue is intent. Japan adopted what strategists call “insurance hedging,” entailing a cost-benefit analysis of U.S. extended deterrence to determine whether relying on U.S. nuclear weapons is worth the risk of Japan not having its own. Should U.S. extended deterrence fail or be perceived as too weak, Japan will claim insurance by developing nuclear weapons for its own protection.

Japan became an insurance hedger for two reasons: It wants the option to develop nuclear weapons and does not want to forgo U.S. extended deterrence. Japan relies on U.S. extended deterrence for security, but pursuing nuclear weapons could remove Japan from America’s nuclear umbrella.

RELATED: Trump’s Iran gamble: Peace Prize or Persian Gulf firestorm

Photo by Tajh Payne/US Navy via Getty Images

Insurance hedging allows Japan to stay within U.S. extended deterrence while preparing for the possibility of abandonment or failure by the United States. Nuclear latency serves as leverage. If U.S. security guarantees weaken, Japan would retain the ability to respond independently.

Nuclear latency was always the plan

Japan’s nuclear latency is not an accident. As early as the 1950s, Japan deliberately preserved nuclear latency while relying on the United States for deterrence. Japan understood the deterrence value of nuclear weapons, especially in a security environment surrounded by nuclear powers and potential nuclear powers.

For Japan, the United States would serve as its nuclear deterrent, which allowed Japan to maintain its pacifist posture. Nuclear pacifism is still dominant in Japanese strategic culture, but as Japan becomes more militarized, nuclear pacifism may begin to be replaced with nuclear realism.

If U.S. extended deterrence no longer offers Japan the protection it needs, and domestic consensus against nuclear weapons is resolved, Japan could shift in favor of nuclear weapons. To create the JSDF, Japan reinterpreted Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution; Article 9 is an explicit “Renunciation of War” mandating that Japan never maintain “war potential.” Japan once reinterpreted Article 9 to build the Self-Defense Forces. Reinterpreting nuclear pacifism would be far more controversial, but not unprecedented.

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

​Japan, Nuclear weapons, Nuclear power, Usa, China, Military buildup, Japan self defense forces, Pacifism, Nuclear deterrence, Opinion & analysis, National defense, Self-defense, War, Pacific ocean 

The combined bombing campaign that began in Iran Saturday morning, decapitating senior leadership and hammering military targets across the map, may look like a massive undertaking.

And it is — for Israel.

Iran looks like an existential threat.

It is — for Israel.

An invasion does not run on slogans. It runs on fuel.

For the United States, the existential threat sits elsewhere. Iran has financed and fueled anti-American violence for 47 years — from the 1979 hostage crisis to the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983, from Hezbollah and the Houthis to the IED pipeline that chewed up Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Trump on Saturday morning laid out a clean rationale for turning the mullahs’ war machine into mulch and ending, once and for all, Tehran’s nuclear obsession.

Still, the bigger strategic picture points east — to China.

Beijing’s global ambitions rise and fall on one commodity that keeps modern economies alive and modern militaries moving: oil. If you want to understand why pressure on Iran matters beyond the Middle East, start with the tankers.

Xi Jinping has ordered the People’s Liberation Army to be ready for Taiwan by 2027. Call it an invasion timeline or call it a readiness deadline — the intent reads the same.

China has spent years preparing the battlefield: artificial islands to extend maritime control, relentless air and naval exercises that rehearse the encirclement of Taiwan, and a missile force built to hunt U.S. ships and push America back behind the horizon.

That missile layer — DF-21s and DF-26s — supports the bigger concept: anti-access/area denial. China wants to make U.S. intervention costly, slow, and uncertain. It wants American commanders staring at a clock they cannot beat.

Washington answered with its own doctrine and its own race against time. The U.S. built concepts like AirSea Battle doctrine and pushed Agile Combat Employment — a dispersed, resilient approach designed to survive missile salvos and keep aircraft flying. The Air Force started rehabilitating old Pacific airfields and expanding access across Guam, Saipan, and especially Tinian, because the next war in the Pacific will punish concentration.

Then Orange Man Bad made two moves in two months that hit Xi exactly where he lives. Not more nasty rhetoric on Truth Social or posturing. Logistics.

First, the United States seized Nicolás Maduro and dumped him in a Brooklyn jail. That operation did more than embarrass a dictator. It jolted the real-world flow of Venezuelan crude — and with it, a slice of China’s import stream that Beijing prefers to keep quiet, rebranded, and discounted. Analysts peg Venezuela’s contribution to China’s seaborne crude imports in the low single digits, roughly 3% to 5% depending on the year and the counting method. In Beijing’s world, even “small” percentages matter when the margin for error narrows.

Second, the joint strike campaign against Iran instantly put a hand on another lever: Iranian exports.

RELATED: Israeli officials say Khamenei is dead. Update: Trump confirms.

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images

China buys the bulk of Iran’s shipped oil. Various trackers place Iranian barrels at roughly 10% to 15% of China’s seaborne crude imports in recent years. Tehran sells because it needs the cash. Beijing buys because it wants the discount. Trump’s move did not need to “block” every barrel to land the message. It only needed to introduce uncertainty, disruption, rerouting, insurance spikes, interdiction risk, and political friction. Oil markets react to fear faster than to facts.

Put the two together, and the math starts to hurt: a meaningful share of China’s oil — not symbolic, not academic — now sits under pressure from U.S. action in Venezuela and Iran.

That creates a Taiwan problem.

An invasion does not run on slogans. It runs on fuel. It runs on shipping. It runs on industrial output. It runs on a domestic economy that stays stable while the military gambles. Xi can build missiles all day long, but he cannot launch an island war on an economy gasping for discounted crude.

So yes, the current Iran campaign matters for the obvious reasons: international terrorism, Hezbollah, the Houthis, the nuclear program. Those are legitimate reasons for “Epic Fury.”

Trump’s larger play hits the supply lines that make China’s invasion timetable plausible.

In only two months, Trump has put Xi in the position of a man getting a testicular palpation from a recalcitrant physician in a hurry.

Do not distract him. He might clench.

I think Trump wrote a book about it, or he should. Call it “The Art of the Squeal.”

​Opinion & analysis, Donald trump, Iran, China, Ayatollah ali khamenei, Dead, Xi jinping, Taiwan, Oil, Missiles, Missile defense, Venezuela, Nicolas maduro, Grand strategy 

On Sunday, February 22, 21-year-old Austin Tucker Martin, who authorities say breached the secure perimeter of President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort armed with a shotgun and a gas can, was reportedly shot and killed by the United States Secret Service. President Trump was not at his Florida residence at the time of the incident.

Christopher Rufo, BlazeTV co-host of “Rufo & Lomez,” has been surprised by the lack of public outrage about this third assassination attempt on President Trump.

“What I found so fascinating is that this story, which in any other time period in American history would be a huge national story [and] dominate headlines, seemed to pass through the news without much of a blip,” says Rufo.

But this story should be of interest to everyone, he argues, not only because “anyone who is attempting an assassination against the president of the United States represents a fundamental threat to the political order,” but also because there seems to be a strange and dangerous pattern at play.

Both Thomas Matthew Crooks, who shot President Trump in the ear at his Butler, Pennsylvania, rally back in July 2024, and Austin Martin have some striking similarities, Rufo suggests.

Both were “bookish, young, white men, glasses, had some trouble, you know, fitting into the kind of high school social order. … The reporting indicated that at least at some point in their recent past they were pro-Trump or pro-MAGA. Then they have, for whatever reason, some psychological break, and they end up trying to assassinate the president,” he explains.

“The evidence to me suggests that online radicalization is at least a significant part of this.”

But co-host Jonathan Keeperman thinks there’s another factor fueling the recent political violence: the “copycat effect.”

Once people “see someone doing something that is getting attention, the attention-seeking person then will just go copy that same behavior because what they actually want, what they’re actually after, is that kind of attention,” he says.

“And so by ignoring these people, by pushing them out of the headlines, we’re actually preventing more of this from happening in the future,” he suggests.

Keeperman also ponders the possibility that by trying to sleuth around and identify what’s fueling these acts of political violence we’re actually doing more harm than good.

“We’re in a fallen world with fallen people, and they’re lunatics, and they commit violence, and it’s terrible, and it’s tragic. But maybe, actually, our insistence that there’s something more to mine from this … or there’s some meaning beyond just the fact that they’re lunatics, is itself a kind of conspiratorial delusion that we’re enacting in order to make sense of what is otherwise insensible,” he posits.

But Rufo isn’t convinced that attention-seeking or unpredictable lunacy is the root of the political violence we’re seeing. To hear his counterargument, watch the full episode above.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Rufo, Rufo & lomez, Chris rufo, Jonathan keeperman, Blazetv, Blaze media, Austin tucker martin, Thomas matthew crooks, Trump, Trump assassination attempt, Political violence 

President Donald Trump exchanged threats with remnants of the Iranian regime ahead of the second day of the joint U.S.-Israeli regime-change strikes on the West Asian nation.

Tehran, evidently keen to test Trump’s resolve despite losing most of its military and political leaders in Saturday’s assassinations, sought to make good on its tough talk with continued retaliatory strikes in the region, killing at least three Americans, at least nine Israelis, and multiple victims in neighboring Arab states.

‘We will hunt you down, and we will kill you.’

The U.S and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury on Saturday, aerially assassinating Iran’s top brass — including the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the head of Iran’s foreign intelligence unit, and the regime’s adviser on the war with Israel — and destroying hundreds of “regime targets” including an Iranian Jamaran-class warship.

Following confirmation that their dictator, Ali Khamenei, was killed in the initial strikes, multitudes of Iranians gathered in Tehran’s Enghelab Square to mourn his demise while remaining elements of the regime vowed revenge.

Iran promptly responded with retaliatory strikes in Bahrain, Qatar, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, and Oman — in several cases targeting U.S. military assets.

Abolfazl Shekarchi, a spokesman for the Iranian military, stated, “God willing, we will give a lesson to the U.S. and Israel that they have not experienced in their history,” reported the Iranian state-linked Tasnim News Agency.

RELATED: Israeli officials say Khamenei is dead. Update: Trump confirms.

Photo by Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images

Amidst more bluster from Iranian regimists who formed a transitional council to lead the country following Khamenei’s death, President Donald Trump noted on Truth Social shortly after midnight on Sunday, “Iran just stated that they are going to hit very hard today, harder than they have ever hit before. THEY BETTER NOT DO THAT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IF THEY DO, WE WILL HIT THEM WITH A FORCE THAT HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE!”

Like Trump, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth made abundantly clear precisely what fate awaits those who’d target American forces: “We will hunt you down, and we will kill you.”

Iran — whose media alleged that over 200 people, including 145 children, were killed in the initial joint U.S.-Israel strikes — did not heed Trump’s warning.

On Sunday morning, the decapitated regime launched another wave of missile and drone attacks on Israel and American military assets, including the U.S. Fifth Fleet’s headquarters in Bahrain.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reportedly claimed in a statement on Sunday that the Iranian military will continue to act “with power” and “frustrate the enemies as always.”

Pezeshkian reportedly also characterized the attacks “by the American-Zionist axis” as a “declaration of open war with Muslims, especially Shiites in the world.”

Amid the latest round of Iranian retaliation strikes, U.S. Central Command indicated that “as of 9:30 am ET, March 1, three U.S. service members have been killed in action and five are seriously wounded as part of Operation Epic Fury.”

‘These are painful days.’

“Several others sustained minor shrapnel injuries and concussions — and are in the process of being returned to duty,” CENTCOM noted further. “Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing.”

After bombarding Tehran overnight, the Israeli Air Force announced late Sunday morning that it had “begun another wave of strikes in the heart of Tehran.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated, “Our forces are now striking at the heart of Tehran with intensifying force, and this will only grow even stronger in the coming days. That said, these are painful days.”

The U.S. has similarly executed another round of strikes against Iran, reported CBS News.

Trump told CNBC on Sunday that the American operation in Iran is “moving along very well, very well — ahead of schedule.”

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

​War, Regime change, Regime, Iran, Tehran, Khamenei, Arabian sea, Centcom, Foreign entanglements, Donald trump, Israel, Iranian, Politics 

The New Testament didn’t just shape Christian belief — it shaped early Christian life. And with it came a set of names that feel surprisingly modern and usable, even if most of them never made it into mainstream naming culture.

Here are 10 New Testament names worth a second look.

1. Phoebe

Romans 16:1-2

Phoebe was a deaconess in the early church and the trusted courier of Paul’s letter to the Romans — likely the first person to read and explain it.

Her name means “bright” or “radiant.” Familiar today, but often disconnected from its biblical roots.

Famous Phoebes: Phoebe Cates, Phoebe Waller-Bridge

2. Silas

Acts 15–18

Silas was a missionary companion of Paul, sharing imprisonment and persecution during the church’s earliest expansion.

Derived from Silvanus, meaning “wood” or “forest,” Silas is biblical without sounding overtly religious.

Famous Silases: Silas Robertson, Silas Marner (fictional)

3. Clement

Philippians 4:3

Mentioned briefly by Paul, Clement later becomes associated with Clement of Rome, one of the earliest Christian leaders outside Scripture.

The name means “gentle” or “merciful,” with strong early-church pedigree.

Famous Clements: Clement Attlee (British prime minister)

4. Justus

Acts 1:23; Colossians 4:11

Justus appears multiple times in the New Testament as a respected believer and associate of Paul.

Meaning “just” or “righteous,” the name is sturdy, Roman, and underused.

Famous Justuses: Justus von Liebig (chemist)

5. Junia

Romans 16:7

Junia is praised by Paul as “outstanding among the apostles,” making her one of the most intriguing figures in the early church.

Her name is Roman, elegant, and only recently rediscovered by modern readers.

Famous Junias: Mostly confined to antiquity

6. Aquila

Acts 18

Aquila, alongside his wife Priscilla, was a teacher and missionary who helped instruct Apollos.

The name means “eagle.” Strong, Roman, and distinctive.

Famous Aquilas: Aquila Kyros (composer)

7. Rhoda

Acts 12

Rhoda is the servant girl who famously forgets to open the door for Peter because she’s too excited about announcing his arrival.

Her name means “rose.” Brief appearance, lasting charm.

Famous Rhodas: Rhoda Janzen (author)

8. Apphia

Philemon

Apphia is greeted by Paul as a respected member of the church, likely a leader within her household.

Soft, domestic, and genuinely rare.

Famous Apphias: None — true deep cut

9. Tertius

Romans 16:22

Tertius is the scribe who physically wrote Paul’s letter to the Romans and signs the letter himself.

The name literally means “third.” Historically fascinating, practically bold.

Famous Tertii: Mostly confined to antiquity

10. Sosthenes (most uncommon)

Acts 18; 1 Corinthians 1:1

Sosthenes appears as a synagogue leader who later becomes a Christian associate of Paul.

The name means “of safe strength.” Impressive, ancient, and very much for the brave.

Famous Sosthenes: Almost exclusively ancient figures

See our list of 10 underrated Old Testament names here!

​Baby names, Abide, Lifestyle, Bible, Christianity, Faith, New testament 

According to an old African proverb, “The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.”

BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre is concerned this same dynamic is playing out among America’s younger generations today. Many young people feel scorned by policies and systems that favor older generations and immigrants while barring them from owning homes, starting families, and pursuing careers.

As housing prices skyrocket, wages remain flat, jobs get shipped overseas, and immigration transforms the workforce, political figures keep touting record stock-market levels as evidence of widespread economic success. But inflating asset values is far from the same thing as genuine national well-being.

If something doesn’t give soon, will our young folk lose hope in the system and start trying to destroy it?

On this episode of “The Auron MacIntyre Show,” Auron dives into this pressing question.

“The French Revolution was horrific, but it happened in part because the king really was making bad decisions. The Russian Revolution was an absolute nightmare, but it did happen because the czar was not doing a good job and was ignoring the needs of the people,” says Auron.

“The systems you’re operating have to benefit most of the people involved because if they don’t, there will eventually come a time where everyone either checks out or decides that they don’t want to play this game anymore,” he warns.

When this happens, the results usually end up being “much worse” than the original predicaments that caused them.

Right now, the younger generations are being given the same advice that made older generations financially successful: “Work harder,” “[increase] your skill set,” “[put] your time in,” and “[make] wise financial decisions.”

While this is still “good advice to the individual,” says Auron, it’s no longer applicable to the masses due to how policies have shifted over time.

“You can’t keep running the entire economy for Boomers and the laptop class. … There has to be a buy-in or eventually people will get violent or apathetic — and you can’t be angry or surprised when that ultimately happens,” he says.

“The affordability issue is going to be the issue. It just is. Like that and immigration are going to be one and two for probably the next 10 years at least, and so any Republican administration, any Trump administration, any (let’s hope) JD Vance administration — they’re going to have to address this problem,” Auron urges.

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

Want more from Auron MacIntyre?

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

​The auron macintyre show, Auron macintyre, Affordability crisis, Stagnant wages, Housing market, Blazetv, Blaze media 

I did not arrive at this argument as a theorist or as a commentator looking for a clever angle. I arrived at it through the wreckage of 2020.

After I investigated the November 2020 election in Arizona and Nevada, the Department of Justice subpoenaed me. In February 2023, I spent six and a half hours testifying before a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. That experience did not change my political outlook. It changed my sense of how exposed the country has become — and how unwilling key institutions have been to confront the exposure directly.

Do Americans still govern themselves, or do we merely perform self-government while hostile forces — foreign and domestic — shape outcomes behind a screen?

The debate returned with new urgency this week. The Washington Post reported Thursday that election integrity activists are urging the Trump administration to issue an executive order on elections. It’s about time. Executive action has become the only plausible instrument for a rapid national response, because the states have entrenched incentives to resist meaningful reform and foreign enemies have worked diligently to undermine and defeat us.

For anyone with eyes to see, war has come. It has not arrived in the form Americans expect when they hear the word. It does not always appear wearing uniforms, wielding declarations, or mobilizing divisions. It arrives through political warfare, cyber capabilities, influence operations, and domestic agitation. It arrives through a border that stops functioning, a culture that stops teaching civic loyalty, and an election system that produces outcomes a large share of the country considers illegitimate.

A global conflict now runs through the heart of America’s public life. Communist China and other hostile regimes mean the destruction of the United States, and they pursue that goal with patience, strategy, and resources.

Alongside that global conflict, a domestic conflict has hardened into something close to open civil war, with one side committed to sovereignty, law, and national continuity, and the other side increasingly willing to use institutional leverage, street agitation, and demographic transformation to break the existing order.

This domestic conflict matters for a practical reason: It makes free and fair elections difficult if not impossible to conduct in 2026 and 2028 absent radical steps to secure them.

Can America have a fair election in 2026?

Three fronts define the challenge. First, the United States must conduct elections that Americans can recognize as legitimate. Second, Immigration and Customs Enforcement must regain the ability to deport the millions of illegal aliens who entered the country during the Biden years, despite organized resistance. Third, foreign enemies must be denied the ability to wage war on America through cyber sabotage, influence operations, and electoral interference.

These fronts converge on one question: Do Americans still govern themselves, or do we merely perform self-government while hostile forces — foreign and domestic — shape outcomes behind a screen?

Start with elections, because everything else depends on them.

Self-government requires two things that cannot be faked. First, a border defines citizenship. Second, an election defines consent.

A republic cannot survive without both. Yet Americans now live under conditions that invite doubt about each: a border that failed catastrophically, and an election system that many citizens no longer trust.

Fair elections demand friction. They demand procedures that annoy activists and frustrate bureaucrats. They demand a system that ordinary citizens can understand. A voter should show identification, vote on a paper ballot, and watch that ballot be counted by human beings under observation by other human beings.

Perfection will never exist. The point is not perfection. The point is transparency, auditability, and public confidence grounded in procedures citizens can see and grasp.

For most of American history, paper ballots provided that confidence. Americans knew what happened in the counting room because the counting room did not function like a proprietary black box. Election modernizers sold the country a different idea: Computers make things fast, efficient, and secure. The experience of the last decade, culminating in 2020, has left that promise in ruins.

RELATED: ‘Dead on arrival’: Chuck Schumer says Dems will ‘go all out’ to defeat voter ID bill

Photo by Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images

A massive intelligence failure

Since November 2020, the corporate legacy media has insisted that the U.S. election system operates as “absolutely secure” and that widespread fraud does not exist. That claim collides with common sense.

The vast majority of Americans now vote through an election ecosystem built on machines, scanners, tabulators, centralized databases, and software layers that few officials can explain and fewer citizens can independently audit. This ecosystem does not eliminate fraud. It relocates fraud into places the public cannot easily see.

Electronic voting systems invite manipulation because they rely on computers. Computers obey code. Code gets written, altered, updated, patched, and maintained by people with incentives, biases, and vulnerabilities. Any system dependent on code and opaque tabulation invites distrust — and it invites actors with resources to exploit it.

Hardware alone raises the first national security issue. Election machines rely on electronic components manufactured in communist China or Taiwan. China is an enemy nation. A hostile regime’s manufacturing ecosystem should not sit inside critical infrastructure, and elections sit at the heart of critical infrastructure. When Americans hear that the parts driving their voting system originate in China, many react with disbelief. That reaction is rational.

Software raises a second issue. Major election technology has been developed, maintained, or designed across foreign jurisdictions — Venezuela, Canada, Serbia — with American developers in the mix. Even when parts of that reporting prove disputed or exaggerated in public debate, the broader fact remains: A modern electronic election system creates a sprawling supply chain of hardware and software dependencies that pushes election integrity far outside the direct control of any voter, precinct worker, or local official.

An enemy regime does not need to ‘flip votes’ to win. It can accomplish its goals by shredding trust, delegitimizing outcomes, and pushing Americans toward internal conflict.

Ownership and investment raise a third issue. The purchase and financing structures surrounding major election vendors have generated persistent public questions, including questions about foreign investment exposure and the presence of overseas investors with legal obligations to their own regimes. The press largely refused to investigate those questions in any serious way after 2020. Instead, it treated the questions themselves as illegitimate — which encouraged distrust rather than resolving it.

How did such systems enter American elections in the first place?

The answer points to intelligence and counterintelligence failure.

Modern warfare is not limited to bombs and bullets. Modern warfare includes political warfare, cyber operations, influence campaigns, and the exploitation of social fractures. Any hostile regime with the ability to damage American legitimacy has an interest in doing so. An enemy regime does not need to “flip votes” to win. It can accomplish its goals by shredding trust, delegitimizing outcomes, and pushing Americans toward internal conflict.

U.S. counterintelligence should treat election seasons as high-value windows for hostile activity, because elections present the most valuable target in American political life. Yet the United States behaved as if such threats belonged in the realm of conspiracy rather than standard national-security planning.

Warnings existed before 2020. HBO’s 2020 documentary “Kill Chain: The Cyber War on America’s Elections,” produced primarily in 2019 by Finnish computer programmer and documentarian Harri Hursti, laid out vulnerabilities in electronic voting systems.

The film included Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), each of whom criticized election technology and raised concerns about trust, auditability, and system integrity. The documentary’s premise focused on the fear that Russia would steal the election for Donald Trump. In other words, prominent Democrats publicly argued that electronic systems could not be trusted — right up until those arguments became politically inconvenient.

The documentary’s partisan framing does not matter. The underlying point does: A computer-based system can be manipulated, and the mere possibility of manipulation creates a legitimacy crisis for any contested outcome. A republic cannot function when half the country believes the outcome was engineered by an opaque system.

The ‘most secure election’ canard

So did the 2020 election turn on electronic manipulation?

Many Americans concluded that it did, and they did so because 2020 produced anomalies too glaring to ignore. Yet a thorough federal investigation never followed.

The federal government had rightful authority to investigate election-system vulnerabilities. The FBI could have pursued fraud and foreign interference. The DHS, through its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, treated election systems as critical infrastructure. Yet a week after the election — during a national outcry over procedures, chain of custody, observation access, and statistical anomalies — CISA Director Chris Krebs declared 2020 “the most secure election in American history.” Even granting him good faith, that claim outpaced what any official could responsibly know so soon.

Other institutions looked away. Attorney General Bill Barr declined to pursue serious claims. Trump’s White House lawyers and advisers, even those acting in good faith, lacked the expertise and institutional leverage needed to conduct a forensic inquiry across multiple states with complex systems. Many figures around Trump seemed unwilling to risk their careers or reputations on a fight that would trigger institutional retaliation. Conventional thinking did the rest: Americans struggle to imagine a national election stolen in plain sight, so they default to official assurances.

That vacuum created a predictable outcome: Private citizens stepped in.

Some acted from patriotic concern for the republic and a desire to find the truth. Others took advantage of the crisis. Some appeared to function as disinformation agents — whether knowingly or not — by flooding the public with claims so sensational that they discredited serious inquiry. The “satellite” stories and overseas melodrama that circulated after 2020 served that function. They distracted from real questions and gave the establishment an easy excuse to dismiss anyone demanding transparency as a crank.

RELATED: 3 debunked Democrat claims about the SAVE America Act

Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Private efforts did surface real issues, and three of those deserve attention because they remain unresolved and because they point to reforms that do not depend on proving any single theory about 2020.

First, Americans learned how foreign-linked, opaque, computer-based voting systems had become standard. Citizens do not need a technical degree to grasp the problem. A system that depends on foreign supply chains, foreign-linked software development, and proprietary tabulation cannot command broad public trust. That fact alone constitutes a crisis for a republic.

Second, the 2020 election demonstrated how mail voting can be exploited at scale. Universal mail ballots moved through broken voter rolls, weak chain-of-custody practices, and uneven signature verification. COVID became an excuse for suspending or weakening procedures that existed for a reason: they protect legitimacy.

Clark County, Nevada, offers an example. Under normal settings, its signature-verification system rejected large numbers of ballots. Election officials reportedly lowered the resolution settings, contrary to accepted procedures, until nearly any signature could pass. That decision converted signature verification into a formality. Officials then treated this relaxation as a practical necessity. Citizens experienced it as a violation of the rules.

Third, private investigators in several states identified batches of paper ballots that did not match standard stock or standard folding patterns consistent with mailed ballots. Ballots that arrive flat, unfolded, and printed on different paper invite suspicion of outside mass printing. Even when officials insist on benign explanations, the failure to address the optics and the forensics with urgency undermines trust.

Taken together, these issues required an information campaign to persuade Americans that 2020 was conducted fairly. That campaign did not succeed. Large numbers of Americans believed the election was stolen or unfair. The Biden administration governed under a cloud of contested legitimacy, and the country absorbed four years of anger, cynicism, and institutional fracture.

That experience leads to a basic conclusion: An election system that requires a nationwide propaganda effort to sustain credibility is not a healthy system.

‘Too big to rig’

A common retort now surfaces: If the system was rigged in 2020, how could Trump possibly have won in 2024?

Two explanations fit what Americans saw.

First, a second theft risked systemic crisis. The country watched what happened after 2020. Many Americans believed the election had been stolen. They watched the anger. They watched the institutional crackdown. A repeat in 2024 could have produced a political breakdown that would have paralyzed governance across the country. Even actors with capacity to manipulate outcomes would have had to consider the consequences.

Americans should not have to live in a state of permanent suspicion, asking whether unseen forces fought over tabulation pipelines and database integrity.

Second, unprecedented monitoring and deterrence efforts likely raised the costs of misconduct. Trump predicted a victory “too big to rig.” That line became a strategy: Overwhelm the system with turnout, recruit and train observers, litigate in advance, pressure states for reforms, and limit the number of ballots floating through the mail. Even if 2020 did not turn on cyber manipulation, the mere perception that it might have done so forced new defensive measures in 2024.

Either way, the central point stands: Americans should not have to live in a state of permanent suspicion, asking whether unseen forces fought over tabulation pipelines and database integrity. A free people deserves an election system that does not invite that question.

The Constitution assumes a union of one people with a functioning constitutional order. That assumption is now strained. Progressive states increasingly treat federal authority as illegitimate on immigration and law enforcement. Elected officials in California, Illinois, New York, Washington, Oregon, and other states have signaled hostility toward the Trump government and toward the idea of enforcing border sovereignty. Those attitudes bleed into election administration, because election administration has become another front in political warfare.

Congress has taken partial steps. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, requiring proof of citizenship, and the Make Elections Great Again Act, mandating voter ID, move in the right direction. Yet those steps do not remove the core vulnerability: electronic voting systems and electronic tabulation.

A system without electronics removes entire classes of risk. It also restores something modern reformers discount: visible legitimacy.

RELATED: Running out the clock won’t save the majority

stuartmiles99 via iStock/Getty Images

A common-sense proposal

The country needs a clean national standard for federal elections: paper ballots, Election Day voting, transparent counting, and credible oversight.

Congress could impose such a standard. Congress likely will not, at least not in time for 2026. That reality pushes attention toward executive action.

One option is direct and blunt: The president should prohibit electronic voting machines and electronic tabulation in federal elections, invoking national security and foreign-interference risk.

President Trump already recognized the danger of foreign interference. Executive Order 13848, issued Sept. 12, 2018, declared a national emergency with respect to foreign interference in U.S. elections and authorized sanctions. That framework is triggered after an election. Americans learned in 2020 that post hoc remedies come too late. The country needs preventive action before the next vote.

A new executive order should declare that foreign supply-chain exposure and the risk of foreign cyber and influence operations make electronic voting systems unacceptable for federal elections. The goal is not to accuse every state of corruption. The goal is to remove the tool that makes corruption scalable and invisible.

A second executive action should mandate a uniform protocol for federal elections across the states:

Paper ballots, printed and secured under strict chain-of-custody rules.Photo identification for in-person voting.Voter rolls audited and cleaned to reflect real voters.Election Day voting as the norm.Absentee ballots limited to military voters and genuinely confined citizens.Counting conducted by humans under observation by credentialed observers.Transparent reporting at the precinct level in real time.Livestreamed counting wherever feasible to increase confidence and deter misconduct.

This system is not fancy. That’s part of its appeal. It replaces complexity with clarity. It makes manipulation difficult because manipulation requires people, presence, and risk.

Blue states will resist. Some on the left and right might scream about “states’ rights.” The very idea that states have rights has lingered far too long in American politics.

Election integrity cannot be separated from immigration enforcement. Both turn on the same principle: citizenship and sovereignty.

States do not have rights. Natural rights belong to citizens, not state governments. State governments hold delegated powers and duties. When state systems undermine citizens’ rights — including the right to participate in a credible election — the federal government has a duty to protect the constitutional order.

Article I, Section 4 assigns states authority over the “times, places and manner” of congressional elections, subject to congressional alteration. That clause presumes good-faith administration inside a stable union. It did not anticipate election systems dependent on foreign-linked technology, hostile supply chains, and opaque software. Remember: The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

A third, indispensable step must follow: federal oversight.

State election boards disqualified themselves in 2020 by treating citizen observation as illegitimate and by creating closed systems that blocked transparency. Americans watched officials cover windows during counting in Philadelphia. That image damaged confidence more than any argument could repair. When officials treat observation as an enemy, they signal that legitimacy is negotiable.

Federal oversight should include well-constituted teams of observers with legal authority to monitor chain of custody, ballot handling, and counting procedures. Those teams should include lawyers, trained observers, and experienced election administrators. Federalized law enforcement can provide security and enforce access rules.

One drastic but increasingly necessary option is the federalization of each state’s National Guard during federal elections, with a narrow and disciplined mission: secure facilities, protect chain of custody, enforce lawful observer access, and deter intimidation or obstruction by any side. The goal is not militarization. The goal is legitimacy in a period when legitimacy has become a target.

Critics will call this authoritarian. Critics will say it overrides federalism. Critics will claim it inflames tension. Those critics miss the current reality: The existing system inflames tension precisely because it generates doubt.

Paper ballots counted in public calm tension. Electronic systems managed behind bureaucratic walls inflame tension.

RELATED: ‘Prove it’ isn’t an insult. It’s a standard.

Photo by David Williams/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Why this is absolutely necessary

Election integrity cannot be separated from immigration enforcement. Both turn on the same principle: citizenship and sovereignty.

Over four years, the Biden administration facilitated an invasion of the United States by an estimated 15 to 25 million illegal immigrants. Blue-state governors aided and abetted this effort through sanctuary policies and open defiance of federal enforcement. This was not a routine policy dispute. It was a deliberate attempt to transform the country politically and culturally. The strategy had a clear political logic: create a new demographic reality, then use that reality to entrench power.

No serious person doubts the long-term plan behind mass illegal migration: regularize the status, grant legal residency, and push toward citizenship. Even if that path takes time, the political intent is obvious. A massive new voting population would permanently alter the political balance of power in favor of open borders and against national continuity.

If the illegal immigrants are not made citizens, the next phase follows: turn deportation into a trigger for civil conflict. That conflict is already taking shape in the resistance to ICE operations. Activists and political officials treat immigration enforcement as illegitimate. They mobilize street pressure to block lawful federal action. They use the language of “human rights” to justify lawlessness.

In parallel, American culture has produced generations of citizens who no longer see themselves as heirs of a constitutional republic. Many now see themselves as political actors engaged in permanent struggle against “systems.” They do not treat citizenship as a loyalty. They treat it as a tool. When pop figures declare that no illegal immigrants exist on “stolen land,” they echo a narrative taught for decades: America is an illegitimate country that must be dismantled or reduced.

This ideology fuels the street-level insurrection now forming around immigration enforcement. Add professional agitators — Antifa networks, hard-left organizations, Islamist activist groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and communist organizations — and the result is predictable: chaos, intimidation, and violence in major cities.

Americans can argue about policy outcomes for the rest of their lives. They cannot argue forever about whether votes were counted honestly and still remain one country.

ICE faces a logistical reality. Deporting tens of millions requires manpower, detention capacity, transport capacity, and employer enforcement that makes illegal employment untenable. The current number of ICE agents cannot accomplish this alone. Even if the administration doubles agent capacity to 44,000, success depends on collapsing the job market for illegal labor. Without employer enforcement, millions of illegal immigrants will bet on survival in the underground economy until 2028, hoping for amnesty under the next Democrat administration.

This reality intersects with elections. A country cannot run a credible election while tens of millions of illegal immigrants remain embedded in communities — including key swing congressional districts — while activists and elected officials defy enforcement, and while the meaning of citizenship erodes. Election integrity becomes a secondary casualty of a deeper sovereignty crisis.

National security magnifies the urgency further.

At minimum, roughly 200,000 Chinese nationals entered the country during the Biden-era migration surge. The vast majority of them were military-age men. Some of these men have the appearance of members of a military force. Communist China has declared political warfare against the United States and has the capability to sabotage critical infrastructure, from power grids to water systems. If hostile operatives sit inside the country at scale, what stops them from targeting soft points in civil life: malls, theme parks, public events, transport nodes?

A nation cannot treat this as a hypothetical. America must treat this as an operational planning problem.

A lack of decisive action sends signals. It signals to illegal immigrants that they can wait out enforcement. It signals to the insurrectionist left that street violence will succeed. It signals to hostile states that the United States lacks the will to defend its own sovereignty.

In this environment, President Trump’s insight that elections may need to be “nationalized” deserves serious consideration.

RELATED: If Fulton County ran clean elections in Georgia, it should welcome sunlight

Yuri Gripas/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images

A final consideration

Communist China spends tens of billions annually on intelligence and influence operations inside the United States. It has declared a people’s war against the United States and has built a cyber force tied to the People’s Liberation Army that approaches 1 million personnel. It operates through partners and proxies — including cyber-capable regimes such as Iran — and it has relationships with authoritarian governments that have served as nodes in the election-technology ecosystem, including Venezuela.

Even if every component of the U.S. election system were designed and built inside the United States, electronic systems would still carry unacceptable vulnerabilities. Any networked system can be penetrated. Any tabulation system can be targeted. Any system that produces outcomes through proprietary code and opaque databases invites distrust — and provides adversaries with leverage.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has taken a keen interest in election vulnerability, including the ongoing investigation in Georgia. Her mandate includes preventing foreign intelligence services from influencing American elections. Her recommendations will matter. So will the willingness of the administration to act on the principle that legitimacy is not a public-relations problem. It is a national security problem.

America’s enemies wage political warfare to undermine confidence in the U.S. political system. America must respond with counter-political warfare and with reforms that deny adversaries their most useful tool: doubt.

This returns us to the war framing because the war framing describes the stakes without exaggeration.

The United States is not drifting through a normal partisan season. The United States is fighting for continuity as a sovereign republic. Foreign enemies want Americans to lose confidence in their own system. Domestic radicals want Americans to lose confidence in their own inheritance. Both sides benefit when elections produce outcomes that half the country cannot accept.

A republic cannot survive repeated legitimacy collapse.

The remedy is not complicated. It is common sense.

Paper ballots. Election Day, not week. Photo ID. Clean voter rolls. Human counting under observation. Transparent reporting that citizens can verify. Federal oversight strong enough to deter obstruction and fraud. An executive posture that treats election integrity as national defense, not as a procedural hobby left to 50 different bureaucracies.

Americans can argue about policy outcomes for the rest of their lives. They cannot argue forever about whether votes were counted honestly and still remain one country.

It is clear that our enemies engage in political warfare to undermine the confidence Americans have in our political system. We must wage a robust counter-political warfare campaign to thwart our enemies. This has not been a consideration of American policymakers in the past. No large-scale challenge such as the vulnerability of our voting system existed during the Cold War. This challenge exists now, and how America addresses it over the coming months may well decide the future of our republic. Let us pray that common sense prevails.

​Opinion & analysis, Elections, Election integrity, Save america act, Donald trump, 2020 election, Stolen election, Election fraud, China, Chinese communist party, Chinese influence, National security, Voting, Voting irregularities, Electronic voting machine, 2026 midterms, Intelligence, Political warfare, Illegal immigration, Illegal aliens voting, Invasion, Joe biden, Open borders, Mass deportations, Nationalization, Antifa, Democratic party 

Police in Huber Heights, Ohio, said an officer initiated a traffic stop Monday, but the driver fled on foot.

Police said the officer briefly lost sight of the suspect but quickly established a perimeter in the area.

Police told the station the suspect actually made it several apartments away before officers caught up to him and arrested him.

“As luck would have it, ‘Oscar the Grouch’ — as we’ve nicknamed our suspect — appeared at just the right place and the right time,” police added.

True enough. Police video shows an understandably freaked-out sanitation worker backing off and pointing at a just-opened trash bin behind a garbage truck.

The object of the worker’s shock was the suspect in question, and video shows him popping up and jumping out of the container — and then making a run for it.

RELATED: Stolen car goes airborne ‘Dukes of Hazzard’ style amid police chase — but occupants sure ain’t no Bo or Luke

Police said “thanks to the impressive athletic ability and swift response” of a second officer, the “suspect was safely apprehended.”

Police added that “the suspect was taken into custody without injury to anyone involved.”

WHIO-TV reported that the suspect has since been identified as 27-year-old Jonathan McMillan.

Police told the station the suspect actually made it several apartments away before officers caught up to him and arrested him.

WHIO said McMillan was booked into the Montgomery County Jail on obstructing official business and resisting arrest. The station added that he also had a warrant from Miami County.

As for the original traffic violation that sparked the cartoonish ordeal?

WHIO said police gave McMillan just a warning for it.

How’s that for a “Sesame Street” episode in the making?

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

​Arrest, Garbage truck, Huber heights, Ohio, Police, Trash can, Video, Trash container, Crime 

Can demons shape-shift to appear like aliens?

According to BlazeTV writer and producer Josh Jennings, yes. When he was a young teenager, he says, he was visited by an alien-like entity that terrified him so deeply that it took years for him to recover.

On this episode of “Strange Encounters” with BlazeTV host Rick Burgess, Josh shares his harrowing experience.

When he was 14 years old, Josh’s family moved into a “fixer-upper” he describes as having had “some strange stuff done in it.”

“The lower half had been a house; the upper part had been a boarding house. … And in one of the rooms upstairs, there was a room where there was all kinds of satanic imagery written on the walls,” he says.

Even though his parents kept the sinister room a secret from Josh and his siblings, “painted over” the dark symbolism, and “[prayed] for any demonic spirits to go away,” evil still had a foothold in the home.

For a time, life in the house seemed normal, but then one night when Josh was asleep in his room, the peaceful facade shattered.

“So I’m dreaming about baseball, and in my dream, somebody hits, like, a pop fly. And I hear the crack of the bat, and it instantly wakes me up and I’m fully alert,” he recounts.

“I’m looking at my window, and then something catches in the corner of my eye and I look up at my closet. And there, floating in the air, was a head. It was just a human head, except this thing was not human. It had very thin green skin, and it kind of had an inner glow. And it had short, cropped black hair, and when I looked at it, it bared its teeth at me.”

It’s been 27 years since this event occurred, and the sinister entity’s teeth are still the detail Josh remembers with the most clarity.

“Every tooth in its mouth was about an inch long, and it had, like, a pearly iridescence to it,” he recalls.

“This thing snarled at me, and it was between me and my door, so there was no way to get away from it. And so I did what any self-respecting 14-year-old boy would do, and I threw the covers over my head and turned my face to the wall and began just to pray, just to pray that God would make it go away. And when I eventually got the courage to look again, it was gone.”

But the alien-like entity isn’t even the wildest part of Josh’s story.

Later in life, he discovered that these types of encounters had been happening to people in his family for at least “two generations” before him. Both his parents and grandmother had experienced similar demonic run-ins that disrupted their sleep.

“That incident had a profound effect on my life,” says Josh, noting that he developed a “drinking problem that spanned about a decade” because it became so difficult to sleep at night.

“I would lie awake at night, afraid to close my eyes and afraid to open my eyes. So whichever state they were in, I was afraid to do the opposite of that,” he tells Rick.

A few years later, however, Josh had another supernatural encounter, but this time, he believes the entity was an angel that may have been protecting him from another demon-alien encounter.

To hear the story, watch the episode above.

Want more from Rick Burgess?

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

​Strange encounters, Blazetv, Blaze media, Rick burgess, Strange encounters with rick burgess, Spiritual warfare, Demonic, Aliens, Ufos