Category: blaze media

Despite overwhelming support from the American electorate, over the past month Democrats have ratcheted up attacks on Republican-led nationwide voter ID legislation. On Sunday, Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.) slammed the attacks from his party in an appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures.”

During the wide-ranging interview, the conversation turned toward the SAVE Act, a bill that would require voters to show government-issued identification to register to vote in federal elections. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 36 states currently have voter identification laws.

‘As a Democrat, I do not believe it’s radical or extreme to just produce ID to vote.’

Host Maria Bartiromo asked Fetterman, “Why it is so difficult to get the SAVE Act into the portfolio and onto the floor? What’s wrong with having an ID to vote?”

The senator responded, “As a Democrat, I do not believe that it’s unreasonable to show ID just to vote. And I remind everybody that less than a year ago in Wisconsin, they added that to the constitution by a 63%, you know, passing to put that in the constitution, that you have to show ID to vote.”

Fetterman’s statement stands in stark contrast to his fellow Democratic senators, such as Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who went on ABC News’ “This Week” to fearmonger about voter ID laws by saying people “don’t have the proper Real ID, driver’s license, don’t have the ID necessary to vote, even though they are citizens. This is another way to simply try to suppress the vote.”

RELATED: ‘Vast majority’ of Americans of all races agree with Nicki Minaj about voter ID, says CNN analyst

Fetterman responded to those sorts of attacks from members of his party by highlighting the results of a recent Wisconsin election. He said, “They also elected a very, very liberal justice into their supreme court. So it’s not a radical idea for regular Americans to show your ID to vote.”

On February 2, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) labeled the SAVE Act “Jim Crow 2.0” in a Senate floor speech. The minority leader said, “Now as for the SAVE Act itself: It has nothing to do with protecting our elections and everything to do with federalizing voter suppression. The SAVE Act is nothing more than Jim Crow 2.0.”

Fetterman is not buying that characterization: “Those things are not Jim Crow or anything.”

The senator from Pennsylvania’s position is in line with a large majority of American voters. CNN polling analyst Harry Enten recently told his audience, “A photo ID to vote is not controversial in this country. It is not controversial by party — and it is not controversial by race. The vast majority of Americans agree with Nicki Minaj.”

Minaj has also expressed support for voter ID laws.

Enten’s data showed that over 75% of Americans favor a photo ID to vote, including the highest support on record in 2025 at 83%.

In closing, Fetterman said, “As a Democrat, I do not believe it’s radical or extreme to just produce ID to vote.”

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

​John fetterman, Chuck schumer, Save act, Harry enten, Cnn, Maria bartiromo, Wisconsin, Jim crow, Politics 

According to a February 6 CBS News article, “Newly released Department of Justice documents show that investigators reviewing surveillance footage from the night of Jeffrey Epstein’s death observed an orange-colored shape moving up a staircase toward the isolated, locked tier where his cell was located at approximately 10:39 p.m” — an observation, CBS says, that has gone “previously unreported by authorities.”

In addition, the CBS reports that an “FBI memorandum” suggests that video footage reviews conducted by the FBI and other examiners “led to disparate conclusions” — the FBI logged the mysterious orange shape as “possibly an inmate,” while the inspector general’s report recorded it as “an unidentified [corrections officer]” carrying orange “linen or bedding.”

Glenn Beck is sincerely puzzled by these FBI reports. “Inmates at 10:39 are not going around in that area, outside of their cell, so FBI, that doesn’t make sense,” he says.

Further, “we now know … [the FBI] knew that bedding is delivered the shift before this. … No one is allowed on that floor at 10:39,” he adds.

Even more shocking to Glenn is that then-Attorney General Bill Barr publicly stated that “no one entered” Epstein’s housing tier the night of his death, which was then reiterated by former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino last summer during a “Fox & Friends” interview. These statements are seemingly called into question by the revelations made by CBS.

However, the most jaw-dropping revelation in the article, says Glenn, centers on shocking new details from corrections officers Tova Noel and Michael Thomas about the noose — or rather the lack of one — on the night Epstein reportedly took his own life.

According to the article, records of Thomas’ interview, which were released in the latest Epstein document dump, indicate that he told investigators he discovered Epstein in his cell early on August 10 and that he “ripped” him down from the hanging position. However, when asked about the noose, Thomas could not recall taking off a noose. Noel, who was reportedly standing at the entrance of Epstein’s cell at the time, told investigators that she did not see a noose either.

The noose, reported CBS, has “never been definitively identified,” and the one collected at the scene was later determined “not to be the ligature used in Epstein’s death.”

“All right: First, you had us believe that it was a paper noose. Now you’re saying the paper noose that was found was not the noose that killed him. In fact, you can’t find the noose — the paper noose — and this one was later added to the scene. By whom?” asks Glenn.

He is astounded that Epstein’s death was ruled a suicide by the chief medical examiner just six days later despite failure to identify the actual instrument that caused his death.

“You don’t have the … suicide weapon. The weapon that you do have, the noose, is not the noose that killed him. No explanation on how that arrived later at the scene. … You have a blurry figure going up in the middle of the night, and you can’t identify that individual … and yet you rule this a suicide?” he asks in disbelief. “That is fascinating to me.”

“I mean, there’s just no way to square this circle. There’s no way to do it. You cannot, with any credibility, say, ‘Yeah, this guy committed suicide,”’ he scoffs.

“There’s a reason why we don’t believe the government. There is a reason, and it’s this kind of crap.”

To hear more of Glenn’s commentary and analysis, 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, Jeffery epstein, Epstein files, Cbs report, Blazetv, Blaze media, Epstein, Epstein suicide 

While James Fishback, a Florida Republican gubernatorial candidate, has seen a good deal of campaign success since the launch of his campaign in late November, he has also seen a great deal of resistance — and potentially intimidation.

On Sunday night, Fishback’s campaign alleged that a fire was “intentionally set” near his house, where he and his team were working.

‘I’ll be hosting a rally in my own backyard tomorrow night.’

Emma Wright, Fishback’s campaign manager, posted an official statement less than an hour after the alleged incident.

“Shortly after 5:50 p.m. on Sunday, a fire was intentionally set in his side yard and began spreading toward his home, where Mr. Fishback and members of his staff were working. We are grateful to the Madison County Fire Rescue for their swift response and for containing the fire before it damaged his home,” the statement read.

RELATED: Young GOP outsider takes aim at Trump-endorsed candidate in campaign launch to replace Gov. DeSantis in Florida

Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images

Fishback’s campaign also condemned political violence of any kind, stressing that it has “no place in America.”

Fishback quote-tweeted the statement from his campaign manager, adding, “My team and I are okay.”

In a post that has since received 560,000 views, Fishback provided some photos of the scene, including what appears to be a burned area of a yard with the fire department on the scene.

Fishback followed up with a few more posts in the hours following the alleged attack, including an invitation to an unconventional rally.

“I’ll be hosting a rally in my own backyard tomorrow night,” he wrote just hours after the alleged incident on Sunday. “We will not be intimidated.”

Shortly thereafter, he added an invitation to his house for a “backyard rally.” The invitation included what appears to be his home address in Madison, Florida. The rally will be held on Monday night.

Blaze News reached out to Madison County Fire Rescue for comment. The Fishback campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

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

​Politics, Arson attack, James fishback, Florida, Florida governor, Byron donalds, Emma wright, Gubernatorial candidate, Trump, Backyard rally 

Turn on any TV show with a funeral scene. Watch any movie from 1915 to 2026 with a funeral scene.

What do you see? Dignified grieving families all in tasteful, restrained black clothing. The men wear black suits. The women wear black dresses and obscure their faces with a veil, or at least the suggestion of one on a fascinator.

‘Personalization’ is precisely what most of us do not need at a moment of crisis.

You’ll never see a more unrealistic scene on film.

Putting the ‘fun’ in funeral

Very few reading this article have ever witnessed this kind of sober, black-clad mourning in real life. America in the late 20th and early 21st centuries has jettisoned nearly all etiquette as “lol boomer stupid,” and not even the most solemn occasion was spared the vulgarization.

Go to a funeral today and tell me what you see. I’ll tell you what I see: men who should know better walking into the parlor in jeans and name-brand sneakers in day-glo colors. Women wearing tarty outfits that barely cover enough leg to qualify for even the skimpiest Catholic schoolgirl uniform.

Since the hippie-commie takeover of the 1960s, we have decided to let it all hang out, including our backsides and cleavage. No matter what. Nothing is serious. Nothing is sacred. Not even death has enough gravitas to prod the average American into showing respect through sober dress.

It’s time to bring back the black. Contrary to modern glibness about everything, etiquette is not some silly, optional “Boomer” fixation on using the correct utensil at dinner. It’s not an oppressive regime. Etiquette is the word we use for the universally agreed-upon rules of behavior.

All human societies have etiquette. Without it, there is no society, only tribes and warfare. When etiquette is important enough to be codified, it becomes what we call “law.” That, too, is becoming seen as some quaint notion from a bygone era, and we can all look to our cities to see where this road is taking us.

Digging in

For 20 years I was the executive director of a nonprofit called Funeral Consumers Alliance. It was an educational organization and a watchdog group. Think of it like Consumer Reports magazine, but only for the funeral and burial purchase. Our aim was to give people accurate information so they could choose a send-off that was emotionally meaningful and affordable.

Strange as that may sound, contemplate the fact that Americans spend more than $20 billion annually to bury the dead. It’s easy to see how the grieving can be hoodwinked into paying premium prices for scams like “protective caskets” (the claim is that they keep the body dry and preserved; not true) and a host of other purchases that push the tab up to $10,000 or more.

My mentor was the outgoing organization director who became my dear friend. Lisa was a tough old no-nonsense broad. We spent many a night at her kitchen table working while drinking wine and chain-smoking, cracking each other up over the absurdity of the funeral business while figuring out how to arm grieving people against graveside upselling.

Lisa taught me almost everything I know about the subject. When we first met in 2002, she told me how “modern” consumers wanted something different in a funeral. “The Baby Boomers aren’t going to put up with cookie-cutter funerals. They want personalization,” she said.

Graveside groove

Lisa was correct, as I would discover after taking over her job. During my two decades, I spoke with more than 10,000 American families over the phone who needed counseling on funeral arrangements. This gave me a good baseline of understanding of the American mind on the topic of deathways.

The majority who called for advice wanted to avoid overspending, certainly. But the next biggest category of question was, “How do we do this the right way, but also our way?”

This never sat right with me. The more I thought about it, I began to realize why. “Our way” invariably meant conforming to a new set of assumptions about death, assumptions we had adapted en masse at some point in the last 50 years.

To say someone “died” is offensively blunt; “passed away” or simply “passed” is preferred.“Funerals” are gloomy remnants of the Victorian era designed to make everyone suffer. What your friends and family really want is a “celebration of life.”And anyway, who cares what other people want? This is about you — not your loved ones and their messy, depressing grief. “Throw me a big party!”

In other words, we have agreed to pretend that death is just another stop on a soft-focus Life Journey™. If we maintain this fiction, then somehow the deaths of our husbands, wives, and friends won’t be real. Or we won’t hurt as much. We convinced ourselves that there was something pathological about being bereft.

Crisis without crutches

This is all fake. We can’t party away grief, and our efforts to do so have left people in mourning with no guideposts. Like G.K. Chesterton’s fence, we tore down the structures around death without asking why we built them.

Should I send invitations to the funeral or is that not “done” any more? Is it OK if I skip the wake? What kind of photos am I supposed to put in our PowerPoint Tribute™? Is it OK to play the pop standards of the 1950s that my dad loved? Am I wrong to think my granddaughter should not have worn a halter top to my husband’s wake?

Honestly, there’s no need for any of this flailing, but we did it to ourselves by insisting that what mattered most was “personalization.” Well, no. “Personalization” is precisely what most of us do not need at a moment of crisis. We need dependable crutches, and that’s what our former customs did for us.

Sadness welcome

Judith Martin is one of the wisest philosophers of the American mind of the past century. You know her as the arch etiquette columnist “Miss Manners.” Years ago, I read an essay in which she said in more eloquent words the same thing I’m trying to communicate now: Death is no time for improvisation. Funeral customs were support structures that buttressed the grieving, taking pressure off of them so they didn’t have to stand on their own when it was impossible to think through the emotions.

I’m pleased to see that she hasn’t changed her tune. And I’d like to persuade you to take her viewpoint seriously. In her column from March 2025 in the Washington Post, Martin responds to a reader who went all in on the “celebration of life” approach. Martin’s gentle reader asked her if she made a distinction between “funerals” and “celebrations of life.” She also asked Miss Manners if it was acceptable to wear white instead of black.

Martin responded this way:

Funerals used to be set rituals, usually religious ones. Eulogies were given by clergy members, who were unlikely to have known the deceased as well as their relatives and friends and could inadvertently make mistakes — misattributing specific virtues, for example.

She acknowledged that many modern people prefer “celebrations of life,” but find themselves making mistakes in tone at a time of solemnity because they’re preoccupied with putting on a “personalized” performance at the wrong time.

“But there is another danger in the very premise of a celebration of life: the attempt to banish sadness,” Martin wrote.

So please do not mandate cheerfulness. This loss is a tragedy, and grief should not be made to seem out of place. You may succumb to it yourself. The American color of mourning is black, although the code is only sporadically observed (except in cases of funerals for national figures). But Miss Manners is not going to say you should not wear white — a mourning color in other cultures — if it makes you feel better.

I’m going to out Miss-Manners Miss Manners and be a little less gentle to the readers. No, you may not wear white. Or green. Or what “feels comfortable.” The funeral is not about you. It is about standing together with people in sorrow and showing them that you recognize the depth of their loss. It is your moral duty to voluntarily forswear your own comfort and vanity as a signal of respect and love.

Get back into black.

​Manners, Judith martin, Miss manners, Etiquette, Funerals, Celebrations of life, Lifestyle, Funeral consumers alliance, Mourning, Death, Intervention 

For Americans tuning in to watch the Super Bowl on Sunday, there was more than one choice for halftime show entertainment. Viewers could watch Bad Bunny’s halftime show at the Super Bowl, most of which was in Spanish, or they could switch over to Turning Point USA’s counterprogramming on YouTube and other social media platforms.

President Trump apparently watched the former — and quickly made his opinions about the show known.

‘Nobody understands a word this guy is saying, and the dancing is disgusting.’

On Sunday night, Trump attacked the performance via Truth Social.

“The Super Bowl Halftime Show is absolutely terrible, one of the worst, EVER! It makes no sense, is an affront to the Greatness of America, and doesn’t represent our standards of Success, Creativity, or Excellence,” Trump said.

RELATED: Bad Bunny delivers just 1 line in English during Super Bowl LX halftime show

Photo by Kevin Sabitus/Getty Images

He continued, “Nobody understands a word this guy is saying, and the dancing is disgusting, especially for young children that are watching from throughout the U.S.A., and all over the World. This ‘Show’ is just a ‘slap in the face’ to our Country, which is setting new standards and records every single day — including the Best Stock Market and 401(k)s in History!”

Trump added that there was “nothing inspirational” about the show, but that the “Fake News Media” would shower the performance with praise “because they haven’t got a clue of what is going on in the REAL WORLD.”

Trump concluded the post with a familiar call to replace the NFL’s “ridiculous new Kickoff Rule,” a request he has made on more than one occasion when talking about the league.

Turning Point’s alternative show drew as many as 6.1 million concurrent viewers, according to one estimate from the Athletic.

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

​Politics, Super bowl, Super bowl lx, Bad bunny, Trump, President trump, Turning point usa, Super bowl halftime show, Truth social 

A male who last year ran over a Kansas City police officer with an ATV during a traffic stop, then sped away from the scene, has received his sentence.

Kansas City police said they tried to stop a group of ATV riders and motorcyclists committing traffic violations on April 12, 2025, KCTV-TV reported.

‘The noise and the aggressiveness, they’re not following any road rules, you know, they’re blazing through intersections.’

One officer tried to remove Kendall Coleman from his ATV and place him in custody, police told the station, adding that Coleman reversed, causing the officer to fall.

Police said Coleman then lifted his ATV into a wheelie, hit the officer with its front two tires, and ran over the officer with all four tires before speeding away, KCTV reported.

Court documents from last year indicate Coleman called his father — Marc Coleman — the night of the assault, telling him he was in trouble and needed to leave town, KMBC-TV reported.

Investigators used license plate readers to track Marc Coleman’s vehicle traveling west on Interstate 70 into Colorado Springs, KMBC noted.

Authorities told KMBC that prepaid phones were purchased after Kendall Coleman’s phone was disconnected, and surveillance video and other records helped link him to the ATV involved.

An anonymous Crime Stoppers tip ultimately led investigators to Kendall Coleman on April 23, and he was arrested, KCTV reported.

You can view video of the assault on the police officer in the below news video, which aired prior to Coleman’s capture:

RELATED: Blaze News original: A dozen times gangs on motorcycles, ATVs, and bikes harassed, attacked, and killed others

The officer suffered head injuries but has since made a full recovery, KMBC reported.

Kendall Coleman pleaded guilty Thursday, KMBC reported.

Prosecutors dropped an armed criminal action charge against Coleman — who is 28 years old — as part of a plea deal in which he pleaded guilty to second-degree assault and aggravated fleeing, KCTV said, citing Jackson County Circuit Court records.

KMBC also said Coleman originally had been charged with first-degree assault.

Jackson County Circuit Judge Adam Caine sentenced Coleman to 12 years in prison, KCTV said, citing court documents.

Coleman remained in the Jackson County jail Thursday evening and was awaiting transfer to the Missouri Department of Corrections, KCTV added.

A restaurant owner down the street from where the assault took place told KMBC that ATV riders have been a problem: “The noise and the aggressiveness, they’re not following any road rules, you know, they’re blazing through intersections.”

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

​Atv, Police officer injured, Arrest, Prison sentence, Kansas city, Ran over, Crime 

The Department of Justice is apparently no longer willing to play ball with U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, the Washington, D.C.-based activist judge who has spent the past year frustrating the Trump administration’s efforts to keep suspected criminal noncitizens out of the homeland.

This turning point, signaled in a court filing last week, all but guarantees a showdown between Boasberg and government attorneys in the case J.G.G. v. Trump on Monday — and a possible return to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Quick background

President Donald Trump issued a proclamation on March 15 invoking the Alien Enemies Act and declaring Tren de Aragua “a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.”

The Trump administration subsequently deported hundreds of suspected Venezuelan gangsters — many of whom were credibly accused of murder, robbery, rape, and other crimes — to El Salvador, where they were placed in a Salvadoran prison for terrorists.

‘Defendants intend to immediately appeal.’

In July, the administration had Venezuelan deportees who were imprisoned at the Terrorism Confinement Center repatriated to Venezuela, where they were welcomed home by Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, who has since been deposed.

The deportees’ safe return home evidently wasn’t enough for Boasberg and other activists back in the U.S., including the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the suspected foreign gangsters.

RELATED: Federalism cannot be a shield for sanctuary defiance

Photo by El Salvador Press Presidency Office/Anadolu via Getty Images

In December, Boasberg — an Obama-appointed judge who initially tried to stop the deportations and previously helped the Biden FBI spy on Republican lawmakers’ phone records — certified the Venezuelan deportees as a class and ordered the administration to offer them legal relief abroad.

DOJ punches back

DOJ lawyers noted in a filing last week that Boasberg’s demands were unworkable.

For starters, the government lawyers pointed out that remote hearings for all of the suspected Venezuelan gangsters would “present insuperable legal bars and substantial practical problems that together render this an untenable and unacceptable proposal.”

Besides there being “no legal basis for holding remote habeas hearings without custody,” the lawyers noted that the U.S. “cannot enforce perjury or other procedural rules in Venezuela, or even verify the identity of the witnesses.” Additionally there would be no way of ensuring that sensitive or classified information implicated in the proceedings could be protected over “potentially unsecure lines in foreign settings.”

In light of these and other problems with remote hearings, the lawyers noted that “the only jurisdictionally proper means of permitting new habeas proceedings would be for aliens to return to United States custody.”

Bringing the Venezuelans back for proceedings, however, “presents grave national security and foreign policy impediments” — not least because the deportees “have been determined to be members of a foreign terrorist organization” and may lack passports or identity documents.

The lawyers suggested that taking the Venezuelans back into custody would require “diplomacy with top leaders in the Delcy Rodriguez interim regime or foreign sovereigns in third countries and thus raise separation of powers issues.”

Satisfying Boasberg’s order would threaten “material damage to U.S. foreign policy interests in Venezuela” as it would inject an “extremely complicated issue into what is already a delicate situation, potentially negatively affecting U.S. efforts toward stabilization and transition that aim to benefit tens of millions of Venezuelans,” added the lawyers.

The DOJ effectively concluded by telling Boasberg to pound sand: “If, over Defendants’ vehement legal and practical objections, the Court issues an injunction, Defendants intend to immediately appeal.”

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

​Tren de aragua, Boasberg, Activist judges, Judgest, District court, Justice department, Doj, Deportation, Immigration, Foreign terrorist organization, Terrorist, Obama, Politics 

America has always protected lawful protest. It has never protected persecution. Some communities now blur that line on purpose, and anyone who cares about civil rights, religious freedom, or the rule of law should be alarmed.

Most recently, agitators stormed Cities Church in Saint Paul, near Minneapolis, during a worship service to protest U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids around the Twin Cities. Federal authorities, including the Department of Justice, are investigating the incident under civil rights laws that protect religious exercise at places of worship. Several people, including journalists present, have been arrested or charged in connection with the disruption.

You don’t need to agree with the worshippers in Minnesota or California to defend their rights. Civil liberties mean nothing if they apply only to causes we like.

This wasn’t an isolated incident. Peaceful worshippers have faced unlawful harassment before.

Last year, in March and September, Christian and Jewish worshippers in Southern California gathered peacefully to pray, sing, and express deeply held religious beliefs about Israel and the Jewish people. They came to worship. A coordinated campaign of intimidation met them instead: blocked entrances, screaming mobs, bullhorns blaring sirens, graphic signs aimed at children, physical assaults, and targeted harassment designed to make worship impossible.

First Liberty Institute filed a detailed federal complaint describing how the disruptors planned and coordinated these attacks and then celebrated them afterward. They registered for church events under fake names, infiltrated the Mission Church, screamed accusations of “genocide” and “Nazism” at Jewish and Christian worshippers, and resisted removal. Outside, others blocked exits and forced families — including children and seniors — to run a narrow gauntlet just to reach their cars.

At another interfaith service, agitators surrounded vehicles, jumped on worshippers’ hoods, laid dolls in driveways while calling Jewish guests “baby-killers,” and blared sirens for hours to drown out prayer and preaching.

That conduct is flatly illegal. It is also a transparent attempt to cloak intimidation in the First Amendment.

The First Amendment does not authorize people to physically interfere with worship, intimidate attendees, or use force and coercion to silence beliefs they despise. Congress recognized that principle when it passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) made sure the law would protect religious exercise at places of worship from exactly this kind of obstruction. When mobs block entrances, assault worshippers, or deliberately prevent services from being heard, they break the law.

RELATED: When worship is interrupted, neutrality is no longer an option

Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

These incidents also reveal something darker: the targets and the motive.

The worshippers were Christians and Jews united by shared religious convictions about Israel. For Jewish attendees, support for Israel is not a political slogan; it is woven into faith, daily prayer, and identity. For Christian congregations, support for the Jewish people flows from sincerely held theological beliefs. Targeting those beliefs through harassment and violence is religious discrimination.

History shows where this road can lead. When officials tolerate intimidation against one disfavored group, it spreads. Our complaint documents a surge in anti-Semitic attacks nationwide since Oct. 7, 2023, along with a widening hostility toward anyone who publicly stands in solidarity with Jews. Persecution works the same way every time: isolate the target, then punish anyone who refuses to abandon the target.

The aftermath should chill every American. The complaint alleges that organizers vowed to continue, posted videos on public Code Pink channels boasting about their actions, and shared images of worshippers online to expose them to further harassment. Churches canceled events. Interfaith groups struggled to find safe venues. Ordinary people began to fear worship in their own communities.

The Free Exercise Clause means little if mobs can intimidate Americans into silence inside their own sanctuaries.

RELATED: A protest doesn’t become lawful because Don Lemon livestreams it

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images

On Monday, victims of this harassment will testify before President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission. The commission plans to issue a detailed plan to protect religious liberty in coordination with the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

You don’t need to agree with the worshippers in Minnesota or California to defend their rights. Civil liberties mean nothing if they apply only to causes we like. The moment we excuse intimidation because we sympathize with a protest’s message, we abandon equal freedom under the law.

Courts now have an opportunity — and an obligation — to draw a firm line. Peaceful protest belongs at a respectful distance, not inside sanctuaries. Reasonable debate belongs in the public square, not enforced through threats, coercion, and attempts at injury. If mobs get to decide who may worship freely, no one is safe.

​Opinion & analysis, First amendment, Freedom of religion, Free exercise, Religion, Freedom of speech, Freedom of the press, Don lemon, Face act, Minnesota, Cities church protest, California, Interfaith, Worship, Law and order, Anti-ice protests, Minneapolis, St. paul minnesota, Department of justice, Journalists, Rule of law, Persecution, Christianity, Christians, Jews, Donald trump, Religious liberty commission 

In a recent poll from Pew Research Center, a whopping 71% of Democrats said they favored requiring photo ID to vote — a shocking departure from what Democrats like Chuck Schumer appear to believe.

“We’ve got to get this done and we’ve got to get it done very quickly. The SAVE Act is an abomination. It’s Jim Crow 2.0 across the country. We are going to do everything we can to stop it,” Schumer told reporters.

“How is it Jim Crow to ask for ID, a picture ID? That’s what the SAVE Act is. That you’d be required to have picture ID to go in and vote or to register to vote and then to vote. OK, that is not unreasonable,” Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck explains.

“You need a photo ID to get a driver’s license to drive a car, or to renew your driver’s license, or replace your lost license, get a learner’s permit. You need a photo ID to rent a car, to pick up a rental car, even if you prepaid it, to buy car insurance, to file auto insurance claims, to register your vehicle, transfer your vehicle’s title,” he continues.

But that’s not all, as Glenn also points out that you need a photo ID to get a parking permit, use car sharing apps, buy an airline ticket in person, to board a commercial flight, and enter the TSA pre-check.

“Is it Jim Crow to ask for photo ID as they scan your eye? Is it racist to ask for photo ID when you check a bag at the airport or when you rent a U-Haul truck or a moving truck, buy a bus or a train ticket in person? Is that really ‘no blacks’?” Glenn asks.

“No blacks can ever go on the bus or the train or an airplane. Really? Really? No, it’s just too hard for them to get a photo ID,” he says, joking, “What a racist.”

And of course, the list of reasons one might need a photo ID is never-ending.

“You want to open a bank account. You want to withdraw a large amount of cash. You want to cash a check, even your own check at many banks … you need a photo ID to deposit cash, to wire money,” Glenn says.

“But let’s get into your daily life of just housing. You want to rent an apartment, you need a photo ID. No blacks have ever rented an apartment? Really? No Hispanics, no blacks. It’s racist to say we need a photo ID voting, because you can’t get a photo ID somehow or another,” he continues.

“Yet you need one to rent a house or an apartment or to apply for public housing,” he adds.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

​Upload, Video, Sharing, Video phone, Camera phone, Free, Youtube.com, The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Chuck schumer, Save act, Jim crow, Photo id, Voting id, Voter id, Immigrants, Black people, Racism, Racism accusation 

Bad Bunny — real name Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio — used the Super Bowl LX halftime show to deliver a political message. That’s his right. The part worth discussing is the NFL’s decision to underwrite it, package it as entertainment, and beam it into tens of millions of living rooms as if it were part of the deal fans signed up for.

As Martínez Ocasio demonstrated at halftime, he is an unrepentant Puerto Rican leftist, following a familiar script in the tradition of Griselio Torresola and Oscar Collazo of the 1950s and the Macheteros of the 1970s: grievance, agitation, and a convenient villain.

If the NFL is now acting as an advertising agency for political organizations, shouldn’t the IRS take a fresh look at the tax advantages that help the league operate like a monopoly?

Bad Bunny uses hip-hop instead of bullets or bombs, but he is still selling the same posture — righteous rage, revolutionary cosplay, and a political edge aimed squarely at Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

What irritates even more is the sponsor of this performance: the National Football League, allegedly as American as an institution can be — and certainly as profitable. It rakes in enormous revenue under a legal regime that has long treated the league like a protected creature of Congress. Then it rakes in more when corporations pay obscene sums for skyboxes and “experiences” and promptly write much of it off as a business expense. Nothing says “shared sacrifice” like a luxury suite tax deduction.

All of that would be tolerable if the league stuck to what it does best: organize a children’s game for adults, staffed by small groups of millionaire “college graduates” sprinting around a 100-yard patch of turf while the rest of us yell at referees and pretend we understand the salary cap.

Instead, the NFL now wants to be your civic tutor. The league has decided that the score isn’t enough; it also needs slogans — mostly in Spanish — delivered to a mostly non-Spanish-speaking audience that paid for tickets, cable packages, streaming subscriptions, and, in many cities, the stadium itself.

In recent years, the NFL has plastered the experience with political catechisms: “Black Lives Matter,” “Say Their Names,” “I Can’t Breathe,” “Justice,” “Equality,” “Freedom,” “Power to the People,” “Justice Now,” and “Sí se puede.” Now, thanks to Bad Bunny, the league has added:

“Quieren quitarme el río y también la playa / Quieren el barrio mío y que abuelita se vaya.” (“They want to take away my river and my beach / They want my neighborhood, and they want grandma to leave.”)“Aquí mataron gente por sacar la bandera / Por eso es que ahora yo la llevo donde quiera.” (“They killed people here for flying the flag / That’s why I carry it wherever I go.”)“De aquí nadie me saca, de aquí yo no me muevo / Dile que esta es mi casa, donde nació mi abuelo.” (“No one’s going to run me out of here — I’m not going anywhere / Tell them this is my home, where my grandfather was born.”)“Fueron 5,000 que dejaron morir y eso nunca e nos va a olvidar.” (“They let 5,000 people die, and we will never forget that.”)

Those lines don’t function as “art in the abstract.” The NFL presented them as civic messaging — without bothering to ask the audience.

RELATED: Bad Bunny delivers just 1 line in English during Super Bowl LX halftime show

Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images

Why am I being subjected to a deluge of unpaid political commercials when all I wanted to do was watch millionaire athletes dramatically move an oblong ball around? Maybe enjoy a few big hits, a few bad calls, and, yes, perhaps place a wager without getting a sermon at halftime? Is that really too much to ask?

And once the NFL decides one side gets free political advertising, why stop there? Why shouldn’t every cause group get a slot? At least we’d have clarity. “Tonight’s halftime: The Coalition for Whatever.” Next year: “The League of Extremely Loud People.” Keep going until the entire broadcast becomes a charity auction for ideologies.

Then there’s the implicit holier-than-thou attitude of the players and performers who shill on cue for “the right side of history.”

Nothing screams ‘liberation’ like outsourced production under an authoritarian regime.

If the NFL wants to present its stars as moral authorities, maybe the league should be required to release the supporting documentation. Police reports. Court records. Paternity suits. The pharmaceutical list required to keep a battered body functioning after one too many concussions. Divorce filings that reveal what the slogans never will.

After all, a convicted dogfight organizer or a wife-beater looks ridiculous wearing “Say Her Name!” or “Justice Now!” on his back — and the league has fielded enough of those case studies to fill a warehouse.

RELATED: Bad Bunny, Green Day, and ICE: ‘The most political Super Bowl ever’

Photo by Jaydee Lee SERRANO/AFP via Getty Images

Add another layer of absurdity: Many of the league’s millionaire geniuses take a knee against “oppression” and “slavery,” with stern faces and closed-fist salutes, while remaining blissfully indifferent to the fact that their uniforms, sneakers, and promotional trinkets come from supply chains tied to modern forced labor. Yes, geniuses. Nothing screams “liberation” like outsourced production under an authoritarian regime.

At that point, the old Marxist-Leninist label becomes less a slogan and more a job description.

Lenin is often credited with the phrase “useful idiots.” Whether he coined it or not, the category exists for a reason: privileged Westerners eagerly carrying propaganda for movements that despise the civilization that makes their privilege possible. The NFL has decided that this is not merely acceptable, but brand-enhancing.

One more thing: If the NFL is now acting as an advertising agency for political organizations, shouldn’t the IRS — along with state and local tax authorities — take a fresh look at the tax and regulatory advantages that help the league operate like a monopoly?

Now would be an excellent time.

​Opinion & analysis, Super bowl lx, Bad bunny, Halftime show, Benito martinez ocasio, Entertainment, Woke sports, National football league, Nfl, Puerto rico, Nationalism, Leftism, Griselio torresola, Oscar collazo, Macheteros, Terrorism, Irs, Nonprofit, Tax exemption, Stadiums, Subsidies, Professional sports, Football players, Spanish, Lenin, Marxist-leninist 

Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl LX halftime show was nearly entirely in Spanish. In fact, the artist only said one line in English.

‘The only thing more powerful than hate is love.’

The rest of the English-speaking was left to singer Lady Gaga, who appeared as a wedding singer for some Puerto Rican nuptials before dancing with Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio, aka Bad Bunny.

Singer Ricky Martin also made a guest appearance during the well-shot and well-produced performance that saw Bad Bunny sing on top of a pickup truck, a convenience store, and throughout a grass maze.

Bad Bunny did not wear a dress — but the show did include two men dancing sexually with each other up against the truck as Ocasio performed on the roof. Other than that, the only likely contentious part of the performance was that it was almost completely in Spanish.

Bad Bunny performed a medley of songs, taking obvious pride when he sang about his native territory of Puerto Rico, and held the flag high.

However, the singer did stop at one point to say just one sentence in English: “God bless America!”

RELATED: Liberal media goes after comedian for not knowing everything about Bad Bunny: ‘I don’t care’

Photo by Kevin Sabitus/Getty Images

Bad Bunny yelled the line before shouting out around a dozen other countries, including Canada.

As a crowd followed the singer off the field, background performers carried and waved flags that were seemingly limited to North and South American countries.

At the same time, Levi’s Stadium’s video screen in Santa Clara, California, read, “The only thing more powerful than hate is love,” in plain black letters.

Elsewhere, Turning Point USA’s alternative, “The All-American Halftime Show,” garnered millions of views across different platforms — particularly on YouTube, as more than 4.4 million viewers tuned in concurrently to watch artists like Kid Rock, Brantley Gilbert, and Lee Brice.

RELATED: Bad Bunny, Green Day, and ICE: ‘The most political Super Bowl ever’

Photo by Kevin Sabitus/Getty Images

Rock band Green Day’s pregame performance could possibly be considered controversial, given the band’s heavy anti-President Trump bias, but they seemingly exhausted their political statements the night before when they told ICE agents during a performance to quit their jobs.

To celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States, the public address announcer at Levi’s Stadium spoke about the Declaration of Independence before the singing of “America the Beautiful.”

Cheers for troops in the Middle East capped a fairly patriotic opening ceremony for the game.

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

​Fearless, Politics, Super bowl, Halftime show, Super bowl lx, Bad bunny, Ice, Green day, Immigration, California, Sports 

If Friedrich Hayek taught us to inquire about who should decide and Abraham Lincoln taught us to ask to what end, then the question of immigration compels us toward a third and inescapable question: Where is the line drawn?

The principles of subsidiarity and federalism demand that matters should be resolved at the lowest level of authority competent to manage them. Much of what the national government has usurped would be more wisely and justly managed by the states, local communities, families, and institutions of civil society.

A nation that treats its laws as optional, its borders as permeable, and its citizenship as devoid of meaning invites the very chaos that destroys liberty.

The Constitution itself was framed to embody this division of powers, preserving the vitality of local self-government against the dangers of centralized tyranny.

Yet subsidiarity is not an absolute doctrine, nor is federalism morally sovereign. America’s founders never regarded federalism as an end in itself, but as an instrument ordered toward justice, liberty, and the common good.

When the claims of federalism or local autonomy come into conflict with the equal dignity of the human person, federalism must yield. This is the profound teaching of the Civil War. That great conflict established beyond doubt that there are moral limits that no level of government — federal, state, or local — may transgress, even under the guise of divided sovereignty. The principle of human equality proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence sets a boundary that no appeal to states’ rights or local preference can override.

Before 1861, the defenders of slavery advanced an argument we hear echoing in our own day: that each state must be free to decide for itself the very foundations of republican government. The Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford lent its sanction to this view regarding slavery. But Lincoln repudiated it utterly.

He understood that the rights of man do not vary according to geography or popular vote. The self-evident truth that all men are created equal declares that no majority, no state legislature, no municipal council may lawfully decree some men unfit for liberty on grounds that deny their humanity. To enslave a man is to violate his natural rights; to nullify federal authority in matters essential to national existence is to dissolve the Union that secures those rights.

Lincoln did not abolish federalism — he preserved it by subordinating it to the higher law of nature. Federalism endures insofar as it is grounded in moral truth and serves to perpetuate a regime dedicated to equal natural rights.

This distinction becomes decisive when we turn to immigration. It concerns not merely internal policy but the very nature of the American political community: who may enter, under what conditions, and by whose authority.

The power over naturalization and the regulation of foreign entry are among the essential attributes of sovereignty, which the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) has expressly delegated to the federal government. Borders define the “We the People” whose consent forms the government. A people that cannot control its own borders or decide who can become a citizen cannot long govern itself justly or preserve equality under law, our regime’s moral foundation.

The federal government exists not to confer human dignity (which is inherent in every person) but to secure it among the specific members of the polity. Human dignity demands that no one be enslaved or deprived of life and liberty without due process; it does not entail an unqualified right to enter any political community or claim automatic citizenship.

The right to migrate is not the same as the right to enter any country of one’s choosing. Conflating the two dissolves the distinction between universal natural rights and the particular rights of citizens, a distinction the founders carefully preserved.

RELATED: Civil war chatter rises when Democrats fear losing power for good

Photo by Sean Bascom/Anadolu via Getty Images

The real question for us is not merely whether authority is federal or local, but whether policy is directed toward justice, human dignity, and the nation’s common good. Lincoln saw that democracy unbounded by moral limits becomes incoherent and self-destructive. A nation that treats its laws as optional, its borders as permeable, and its citizenship as devoid of meaning invites the very chaos that destroys liberty.

Federalism is a means to the end of justice; it is not a refuge from moral duty. Local communities may not, under color of autonomy (sanctuary cities), nullify the Union’s authority over matters essential to its preservation — any more than Southern states could nullify the Fugitive Slave Clause or obstruct the enforcement of laws necessary to national integrity.

These acts of interposition — driven by radical professional activists and their followers in cities like Minneapolis — echo the nullification and secession doctrines Lincoln condemned as fatal to the republic. In his 1861 Annual Message to Congress, he accurately described the true nature of such “principles”: “rebellion thus sugarcoated” that has “been drugging the public mind.”

The lesson of Lincoln and the founders is unchanging: Decentralization without moral anchors descends into anarchy; centralization without moral purpose hardens into despotism. True statesmanship orders power toward the permanent truths enunciated by the Declaration of Independence. Only then can the American experiment endure as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people — and dedicated to the Declaration’s proposition “that all men are created equal.”

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

​Opinion & analysis, Abraham lincoln, Federalism, Immigration crisis, Immigration and customs enforcement, Mass deportations, Ice raids, Subsidiarity, Union, Anarchy, Rebellion, Civil war, Declaration of independence, Natural rights, Equal rights 

On a recent appearance on Fox News, Dave Landau poked fun at Bad Bunny — the Super Bowl’s halftime show performer of choice.

“What this comes down to is, you look at somebody like Bad Bunny, or you look at somebody like Trevor Noah. They don’t actually have the ability to talk trash in their own countries, so they come to America, make a great living, living the American dream, insulting our country, because they know in their homeland they would be killed for doing the very same thing,” Landau said to host Greg Gutfeld.

Media Matters caught on to Landau’s error — which is that Bad Bunny’s home country is the United States — and put him on blast.

But Landau isn’t concerned with their ire.

“They put out this so people would let me know that Puerto Rico is a territory ’cause I clearly would have no idea of such things,” he tells BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”

Now, he tells Gonzales that he’s receiving death threats because “Media Matters is a horrible company.”

“Talk about how you are funded by George Soros. Do that, Media Matters. Keep complaining about white billionaires, too, to tell your people that white billionaires are a problem when you’re funded by white billionaires,” he says.

“Where did you think that Bad Bunny was from?” Gonzales asks.

“I thought Colombia,” Landau responds. “Here’s why. I don’t care. Even when I was here, I think it’s very obvious that I wasn’t actually watching the news. I was just trying to find stories. All I knew about Bad Bunny was they said he didn’t speak English. And the left, that is, was worried that ICE was going to take him at the Super Bowl because he’s an illegal.”

“That’s all I heard from the left,” he explains.

“Turns out he’s from Puerto Rico,” he says.

“God, you’re racist,” Gonzales jokes.

“Exactly. I’m a monster,” he adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

​Free, Upload, Video, Sharing, Camera phone, Video phone, Youtube.com, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Sara gonzales, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Bad bunny, Superbowl 60, Greg gutfeld, Fox news, Liberal media, Media matters, Dave landau, Comedian, Comedy 

A study published Monday in the Milbank Quarterly, an esteemed peer-reviewed health policy journal, indicated that ultra-processed foods “share key engineering strategies adopted from the tobacco industry, such as dose optimization and hedonic manipulation.”

While the overlap in approach and fallout is striking, it’s also unsurprising given the industries’ entanglements. After all, tobacco companies like R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris acquired food companies such as Kraft, General Foods, and Nabisco in decades past.

‘Not simply natural products but highly engineered delivery systems.’

UPFs are defined by the NOVA food classification system as “industrial formulations made entirely or mostly from substances extracted from foods (oils, fats, sugar, starch, and proteins), derived from food constituents (hydrogenated fats and modified starch), or synthesized in laboratories from food substrates or other organic sources (flavor enhancers, colors, and several food additives used to make the product hyper-palatable).”

Grocery stores are replete with UPFs, which include store-bought biscuits; frozen desserts, chocolate, and candies; soda and other carbonated soft drinks; prepackaged meat and vegetables; frozen pizzas; fish sticks and chicken nuggets; packaged breads; instant noodles; chocolate milk; breakfast cereals; and sweetened juices.

Numerous studies have linked UPFs to serious health conditions.

A massive peer-reviewed 2024 study published in the BMJ, the British Medical Association’s esteemed journal, for instance, found evidence pointing to “direct associations between greater exposure to ultra-processed foods and higher risks of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease-related mortality, common mental disorder outcomes, overweight and obesity, and type 2 diabetes.”

RELATED: ‘A giant step back’: Liberals rage against red meat after new food pyramid guidelines release

Photo by Patrick T. Fallon / AFP via Getty Images

In the new study published this week, researchers from Harvard University, Duke University, and the University of Michigan noted that like cigarettes, UPFS “are not simply natural products but highly engineered delivery systems designed specifically to maximize biological and psychological reinforcement and habitual overuse.”

The researchers identified a number of commonalities between ultra-processed foods and beverages, which apparently now dominate the supply across much of the globe, and ultra-processed cigarettes.

The primary reinforcer in ultra-processed cigarettes is nicotine, which is optimized for rapid delivery. UPFs also have primary reinforcers optimized for rapid delivery, namely refined carbohydrates and added fats.

Just as the nicotine dose in ultra-processed cigarettes is standardized — 1% to 2% by weight — “to balance reward and aversion,” the researchers noted that refined carbohydrates and fats are precisely calibrated in UPFs to “maximize hedonic impact.”

“On a biological level, carbohydrates and fats activate separate gut-brain reward pathways. Refined carbohydrates stimulate dopamine release via the vagus nerve, whereas fats do so through intestinal lipid sensing and cholecystokinin signaling,” said the study. “When consumed together, their effects are supra-additive: the mesolimbic dopamine response can rise to 300% above baseline, compared with 120% to 150% for fat alone.”

“This makes UPFs with high levels of refined carbohydrates and added fats some of the most potently rewarding substances in the modern diet,” added the study.

In both ultra-processed cigarettes and food, the reinforcers are reportedly rapidly absorbed or digested; the reward is short-lived, leading to a desire for more; flavorants and sweeteners are added to processed ingredient bases to amplify appeal; risks of use abound.

The researchers noted further that both the tobacco and food industries have also worked diligently in their marketing to “create the illusion of reduced harm while preserving their core addictive properties.”

“Many UPFs share more characteristics with cigarettes than with minimally processed fruits or vegetables and therefore warrant regulation commensurate with the significant public-health risks they pose,” said the paper.

The researchers indicated that their analysis demonstrates “how UPFs meet established addiction-science benchmarks, particularly when viewed through parallels with tobacco.”

The apparent aim of such scholarship is to provide the “basis for policies that constrain manufacturers, restrict marketing, and prioritize structural interventions.”

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

​Health, Ultraprocessed foods, Upfs, Food, Poison, Diet, Eating, Lifestyle, Cigarettes, Big tobacco, Obesity, Politics 

Although it received scant media attention, the FBI foiled a plot by members of the pro-Palestinian Turtle Island Liberation Front to bomb Southern California businesses on New Year’s Eve.

Most Americans have probably never heard of the term “Turtle Island,” a name said to be used by some indigenous communities to describe North America. “Turtle Island” proponents view the United States as a nation founded on stolen land and express solidarity with a host of anti-American positions and groups — most notably pro-Palestinian activists who support dismantling “colonizing” and “oppressive” power structures.

These ideas are being promoted by organizations that pressure school administrators to implement anti-American educational material.

TILF’s attempted terror attack shows the natural ends of the group’s subversive ideology: hatred, division, and violence. And unfortunately, teachers who view their role as agents of social change are now disseminating these ideas through the country’s K-12 schools in an effort to turn America’s students into child soldiers on the front lines of the country’s culture war.

Curricula such as liberated ethnic studies — a benign-sounding program that encourages students to view the world through an oppressor/oppressed lens and to treat their peers accordingly — is one such vector. Turtle Island is frequently cited in school curricula in the form of land acknowledgements, as well as in school meetings and school board notices on how to “support teachers of color.” The phrase also appears in lesson plans on “the social construction of race” that seek the “inclusion of Black and Latino studies in the public school curriculum.”

In 2021, a whistleblower provided Defending Education with photographs of a classroom at Los Angeles Unified School District’s Alexander Hamilton High School, where posters included “in 2020, make Israel Palestine again and make America Turtle Island again,” “F**k the Police,” and “F**k Amerikka, this is native land.” While those responsible ultimately removed the material under pressure, it is certain that those materials would have remained if not for withering public pressure.

Unsurprisingly, professors promote these ideas in college courses nationwide.

At the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, students can take a course called “Critical Indigenous Theory,” in which “indigenous” is described as a “comparative, interdisciplinary, and global project that exceeds the material conditions of Turtle Island …” One of the required readings for that class is “Inter/Nationalism: Decolonizing Native America and Palestine.”

The University of Texas offers at least five courses with explicit land acknowledgements to Turtle Island, while at the University of California, Irvine, a doctoral candidate wrote a 300-page dissertation on the development of liberation schools on Turtle Island.

While examples abound of academics forcing radical ideas on impressionable university students, it is particularly galling for this to take place in the nation’s taxpayer-funded universities.

It is important to recognize that these ideas aren’t occurring organically. They are being promoted by organizations that pressure school administrators to implement anti-American educational material.

Consider the Great Schools Partnership, which provides professional development to K-12 school districts. The GSP’s self-proclaimed goal is “redesigning” public education with anti-American propaganda, including a 2020 blog post that preached about the need to “Decolonize Education” on “Turtle Island” while smearing Christopher Columbus.

There’s also the Zinn Education Project, a so-called history program coordinated by Rethinking Schools and Teaching for Change, which refers to Turtle Island in its abortion advocacy.

One of the most concerning examples of Turtle Island’s negative influence is through its connection to Teach Palestine, an organization corrupting K-12 education with anti-Israel propaganda. Teach Palestine’s sixth-grade lesson plans emphasize the need to “talk about Palestine and Turtle Island in the same breath.”

RELATED: Why are we playing by the rules with people who follow no rules at all?

Photo by Joshua Lott/Washington Post via Getty Images

Through incendiary rhetoric about the perceived injustices indigenous people suffer, Teach Palestine actively encourages students to believe that their country and its history are inherently evil. While the organization doesn’t explicitly endorse violence, its partisan framing, one-sided view of history, and portrayal of Israel and the United States as oppressive colonizers could lead some, like the suspected TILF bombers, to justify violent resistance.

We’re already seeing the effects of this brainwashing destabilizing America.

Anti-Israel protests erupted on college campuses in the wake of the October 7, 2023, massacre in Israel, resulting in Jewish students across the country being violently attacked by their peers. Many of the 18- to 21-year-olds complicit in these riots seemed to genuinely believe they had the moral high ground and that they were “liberating” their campuses from “oppressive” power structures.

Their skewed logic and hatred are the inevitable result of forcing anti-American ideological frameworks on young students, rather than encouraging pupils to think critically for themselves or teaching the basics of history, science, and mathematics — areas where American students are increasingly falling behind.

Without critical thinking and basic education, future leaders and voters become frighteningly easy to pressure into despising their country — and into treating violence as a legitimate answer.

The fact that 2026 nearly started with a Turtle Island-inspired bombing should be a wake-up call for our leaders to address this crisis in the months ahead.

​Education, Dei, Turtle island, Pro-palestine, Land acknowledgement, Critical theory, Great schools partnerships, October 7, Opinion & analysis, Leftism, Critical race theory in classrooms, Public schools, Colleges and universities, Anti-semitism, Diversity equity inclusion, Anti-american propaganda 

On Friday, January 30, the U.S. Department of Justice released a massive trove of over 3 million pages of documents, along with roughly 180,000 images and 2,000 videos, related to investigations into Jeffrey Epstein.

This third file dump — the largest to date — has drawn intense attention due to its massive scope and the unverified but sensational claims linked to high-profile figures, including President Trump, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, and Prince Andrew, among others.

On a recent episode of “Relatable,” BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey shared her three biggest takeaways.

Allie first delivers an important preface: “Some of the files do mention prominent figures. … They have not been tied to any wrongdoing, any substantiated criminal activity in connection with this case. It is important to note that a mention of a famous individual does not necessarily mean that they were involved in Epstein’s nefarious activities,” she says, noting that much of what is currently going viral is “uncorroborated tips” from anonymous sources, many of which have been deemed “not credible” by the FBI.

That said, there are still plenty of lessons we can take away from the information we were given.

Lesson #1: “Notice the nature of sin.”

“Sin makes you stupid. Lust, envy, selfish ambition — they all have a way of arresting our thinking. And Satan does his most effective work by overplaying the benefits of sin in our minds and downplaying its eventual consequences,” she says.

“These powerful people in science, medicine, business, finance, and politics all got caught up in Epstein’s web, and they were enticed by this promise of connection and greater power and maybe unfettered pleasure in a lot of cases.”

“Some of them probably didn’t intend to be involved in a criminal enterprise,” says Allie, “but little by little and small justification by small justification, they found themselves connected to an evil person, and, in some cases, they themselves started practicing evil things.”

Lesson #2: “Recalibrate our definition of success.”

Allie cautions against chasing wealth, power, and fame, as they can be a slippery slope into “ruin and destruction.” Sometimes when we’re denied by man — a promotion, invitation, or endorsement that would have given us a boost — there’s a good chance that it ends up being “God’s protection” over us.

She points to Jesus’ admonition in Matthew 19:24: “Again, I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God,” as well as Paul’s warning in 1 Timothy 6:9-10: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pieced themselves with many pangs.”

“The seeking of wealth and power for the sake of wealth and power has a way of crowding out godly affections and replacing those affections with idolatry,” she summarizes.

“So we should thank the Lord for what he gives and what he takes away, knowing that his glory and our holiness is ultimately his goal. So we recalibrate the definition of success.”

Lesson #3: “Be grateful for a Christian civilization.”

“There are Jeffrey Epsteins throughout history across a wide variety of cultures. In fact, in many non-Western nations today, child marriage or raping underage girls is not seen as perverse. It’s not seen as criminal,” says Allie. “The reason the West and the United States has a general consensus around the evil of pedophilia is because of Christianity.”

In the ancient world, she explains, children were often aborted, left outside to die, killed after birth, or forced into labor or prostitution.

“They didn’t possess the physical strength that was lauded by Rome, and they didn’t possess the full intellect or the logos that was lauded by Greece, so they were treated as kind of subhuman,” says Allie. “And it wasn’t until Christians introduced the world to the imago dei and preached this radical message of equality before our creator that slowly but surely the world changed how it saw children — not as animals but as these vulnerable people in need of extra protection.”

“The revulsion to Jeffrey Epstein and his ilk, whose actions are incredibly common throughout history, is actually evidence of the vestiges of the Christian conscience that forged the West and inspired the words that we read in the Declaration of Independence.”

To hear more, watch the full episode above.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

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

​Relatable, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Epstein, Jeffery epstein, Epstein files, Epstein documents, Blazetv, Blaze media 

Gary Cooper never played obnoxious, overbearing characters. He played men who weighed their words and meant them. In a trade of display, he mastered stillness. His screen presence was immense, but acting was only one part of his story — a story that led, in the end, to God.

Born Frank James Cooper in 1901, he was shaped by Montana ranch life and the reserve of English boarding schools. Before studios dressed him in costumes, life dressed him in discipline. He could ride, shoot, and stand his ground. These weren’t skills for the screen so much as habits of character.

‘I am not afraid,’ he said — and meant it. Of all the famous lines he spoke on screen, none carried the force of those four words.

His rise came just as Hollywood grew fond of show and swagger. The 1930s and 1940s rewarded fast talkers and flashing smiles. Actors like James Cagney, who barked and lunged through gangster films, or Errol Flynn, who fenced, flirted, and filled the frame with movement. Even romantic leads like Clark Gable leaned on charm and chatter. Movies prized motion. Dialogue came in bursts.

Quiet authority

Cooper worked the other way. In “High Noon,” while other Western heroes would ride out guns blazing, his marshal waits. He listens. He walks the town. He watches the situation unfold before choosing when to act.

In “Sergeant York,” his courage comes with doubt, which is why it feels believable. Alvin York begins as a hard-drinking farm boy with a taste for trouble. Faith interrupts his life, forcing him to wrestle with Scripture and conscience at the same time. When war comes, he goes only after weighing the cost. He fights to protect others and to return home to build a life.

Where others faced the camera with frantic talk and expansive gestures, Cooper stripped things down to presence and timing — long pauses; spare looks. His characters hesitated when others hurried.

Today, that strong, quiet type survives mostly as a memory. Clint Eastwood is still with us. But age has pushed him to the margins, and Hollywood no longer revolves around figures like him. The figure Cooper made famous is now more likely to be mocked than admired. His characters would be called rigid or out of date, even emotionally vacant.

Ease and appetite

That judgment says more about the present than it does about him. Cooper showed that a man proves himself not by how loudly he speaks, but by what he is willing to carry. He also learned that responsibility, without something higher to live for and answer to, becomes empty and isolating.

Although Cooper was raised Episcopalian, faith didn’t shape his early adult life. Religion was part of the scenery, not the script. Hollywood rewarded ease and appetite, and Cooper followed the flow. He drank too much. He leaned into a long pattern of adultery. Fame made temptation easy, and he rarely refused it.

His wife, Veronica “Rocky” Balfe, was a committed Catholic, as was their daughter, Maria. Their marriage entered rough water, and Cooper knew exactly why. Guilt was no longer abstract. In 1953, during a trip to Rome, he met Pope Pius XII at the Vatican. The meeting didn’t convert him on the spot, but it unsettled him. Faith stopped being a background habit and became a serious concern. He began to ask whether the life he had built could support the way he was living. The answer was no.

Back in America, Cooper grew close to Father Harold Ford, a priest the family called “Father Tough Stuff.” The nickname fit. Ford was unimpressed by movie stardom. He spoke of duty, devotion, and sacrifice, setting aside the celebrity and addressing the soul.

RELATED: Malcolm Muggeridge: Fashionable idealist turned sage against the machine

Washington Post/Getty Images

The strength of surrender

Cooper listened. What began as a conversation became routine. He started to pray. He returned to confession. He accepted limits where he had lived by impulse. In 1959, he formally entered the Catholic Church. There was no announcement tour. Faith entered his days quietly, through prayer and self-control.

When cancer arrived, belief stopped being optional and became essential. As illness closed in, the habits he had learned rose to the surface. He spoke of God’s will without panic and of the future without fear. There was no display in it, only resolve — the kind of courage that comes from faith in something higher. “I am not afraid,” he said — and meant it. Of all the famous lines he spoke on screen, none carried the force of those four words.

Cooper died on May 13, 1961, at the age of 60. He was buried in a Catholic cemetery in Southampton, New York, beneath a plain stone marker. His path wasn’t easy, but it reached a clear end. What began in excess finished in order.

For Christians, Cooper leaves behind a simple lesson. Faith shows itself in what a person does. You keep your word. You stay when leaving would be easier. Belief appears in conduct long before it appears in language.

He failed, corrected himself, and tried again. After running hard in the pursuit of pleasure, he stopped, knelt down, and looked upward. He defined himself by what he accepted and what he refused. Cooper is gone, but the example remains — a timely lesson from a timeless actor.

​Faith, Abide, Christianity, Lifestyle, Conversion, Converts, Gary cooper 

In my more cynical moments, I’ve suspected that Valentine’s Day owes its longevity less to romance than to a choreographed alliance between the greeting card, chocolate, and lingerie industries. The day has been thoroughly commercialized, and many men, myself included over the years, have approached it with well-intended but often ham-fisted earnestness.

Still beneath the marketing and the eye rolls, Valentine’s Day has come to serve as a pause for many couples. A moment, however imperfectly executed, to tend the fire of intimacy. Over time, lasting loves tend to look at it less as a performance and more as a reminder, a deliberate effort to say, “You matter to me,” even when the words come out crooked.

Common things are seldom viewed as precious. Only a deep bond leaves one person willing to shoulder what the other no longer can.

For family caregivers, however, Valentine’s Day carries a different weight altogether.

In my writing, I often focus on the broader applications of the lessons caregiving teaches. Sometimes though, it’s important to speak directly to a particular group. This is one of those times.

I’m talking about couples where one person is carrying more than their share of the relationship. Not because of indifference or neglect, but because the other, though still alive, is unable to do so. Dementia, disability, illness, injury, or unrelenting pain has shifted the balance. The love remains, but the weight cannot be borne evenly.

Holidays already do this to families. Christmas and Thanksgiving often force a reckoning with decline and loss. Valentine’s Day pierces a little deeper. It is intimate by design. And when one person must carry the relationship alone, the sadness can feel sharper, more personal, and harder to explain.

Caregiving requires reframing. Not denial or pretending. Not putting on a happy face. Reframing means stepping back far enough to see the relationship writ large, not merely through the narrow lens of present limitations. It means recognizing that the ache itself testifies to something rare.

Common things are seldom viewed as precious. Only an uncommon love produces this kind of sorrow. Only a deep bond leaves one person willing to shoulder what the other no longer can.

Over the years, I’ve offered a suggestion that sometimes catches people off guard. “It is OK for caregivers to buy their own Valentine’s Day card.”

Choose the one your husband or wife would have picked for you if they could. At this point in your life together, you already know the words. You’ve learned them through years of shared history, private humor, ordinary sacrifice, and quiet fidelity. Find the card that says what your spouse would have said, and mail it to yourself. Not as an exercise in self-pity, but as a tribute to the love you share.

I remember the first time I mentioned this on the air many years ago. When I finished, I glanced through the studio glass and saw tears filling my producer’s eyes. He was caught in a hard place, married to someone struggling with alcoholism. It is a chronic impairment, one that quietly turns a spouse into a caregiver, though few people think to call it that. He understood immediately what I meant. Not the card itself, but the recognition of love still present when reciprocity has gone missing.

Fix your spouse’s favorite meal, even if you have to help them eat it. Set the table, even if there is only one place setting that feels fully present. Play the song you once danced to or hummed together through the years.

Pining over what is no longer possible can undo a caregiver. But choosing instead to rest in the magnitude of a love that inspires such devotion can steady you. That choice does not eliminate the tears. Nothing in this life will, and that is not a bad thing.

Some things are heartbreaking because they are too beautiful for our hearts to contain this side of heaven. “Sadness” is too small a word for that kind of ache.

Near the end of “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader,” C.S. Lewis gives Lucy a moment of language-defying clarity when she catches a glimpse of Aslan’s country. Struggling to explain what she feels, all she can say is, “It would break your heart.” When someone asks whether she means that it is sad, Lucy answers, “No,” because what she has seen is not tragic at all. It is simply too glorious for her heart to hold.

PULL: The people carrying addiction’s weight rarely get seen

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

This is where scripture speaks with quiet authority. The Christian promise is not that God will make all new things, discarding what was. The promise is that He will make all things new. The love you lived, the faithfulness you showed, the care you gave, none of it is wasted.

So this coming Valentine’s Day, if you find yourself in a hospital room, an assisted-living facility, a nursing home, or at your own kitchen table with only one place setting that feels fully occupied, allow the tears to come. Read the card your spouse would have sent. Eat the meal you would have shared. Listen to the music that once marked your life together.

And set another card on the table, the one you would choose for the person who changed your life so profoundly that you now carry the love entrusted to you when he or she no longer can.

Remember this as well. There is one who loves you both more fiercely than our hearts can understand. He sees every tear. He keeps account of every sacrifice. And He will indeed make all things new.

As scripture reminds us, “A cord of three strands is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12).

​Valentine’s day, Caretakers, Love, Caregiving, Holidays, Life together, Opinion & analysis, Caregivers, Faith, Endurance, Perseverance 

What millions of Americans are about to witness as they sit down for wings, football, and cold beers “might be the most political Super Bowl ever,” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere warns on “Stu Does America.”

An article from the Associated Press explained that “the NFL is facing pressure ahead of Sunday’s game between the Seattle Seahawks and the New England Patriots to take a more explicit stance against the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement.”

“More than 184,000 people have signed a petition calling on the league to denounce the potential presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Super Bowl, which is being held at Levi’s Stadium in the San Francisco Bay Area. The liberal group MoveOn plans to deliver the petition to the NFL’s New York City headquarters on Tuesday,” it continued.

“Anway, no plans for ICE immigration enforcement at the Super Bowl, sources say. So, once again, this is a totally manufactured controversy,” Stu comments.

And the Super Bowl’s half-time performer, Bad Bunny, has been very vocally anti-ICE — which Roger Goodell was questioned about in a recent press conference.

“Bad Bunny made a pretty clear anti-ICE statement at the Grammys last night. What are you expecting in terms of political statement, whether that’s from Bad Bunny or Green Day or any of the other performers?” a reporter asked Goodell.

“Listen, Bad Bunny is, and I think that was demonstrated last night, one of the great artists in the world. And that’s one of the reasons we chose him. But the other reason is, he understood the platform he was on and that this platform is used to unite people and to be able to bring people together with their creativity, with their talents, and to be able to use this moment to do that,” Goodell responded.

“I think Bad Bunny understands that, and I think he’ll have a great performance,” he added.

“It’s such a funny thing to watch theoretically serious people have a serious conversation about someone named Bad Bunny. It’s just such a strange world we live in,” Stu laughs, before pointing out that at the Grammys, Bad Bunny used the win to protest ICE.

“Before I say thanks to God, I’m gonna say: ICE out,” Bad Bunny said as he accepted the award for best musica urbana album.

The beloved alternative band Green Day is also performing at the Super Bowl — and Stu believes they’ll be political as well.

“Their opinions might be dumb, but they really think they’re important,” Stu says. “So, I will be shocked if at the very least we don’t have anti-ICE pins or something like that, but probably more than that from Green Day.”

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu’s lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Video, Free, Sharing, Video phone, Camera phone, Upload, Youtube.com, Stu does america, Stu burguiere, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Super bowl 60, Super bowl political, Ice, Bad bunny, Green day, Bad bunny ice, Bad bunny grammys, Green day politics, American idiot 

General Motors’ fourth-quarter earnings were widely framed as a show of confidence in an electric future. The company absorbed billions in losses and reaffirmed its strategy, and analysts largely applauded its resolve.

Beneath the optimistic headlines, however, was a less reassuring reality: The all-electric transition is proving significantly more expensive, more fragile, and more politically exposed than automakers originally promised.

What stands out most is GM’s refusal to abandon the all-electric narrative, even after acknowledging the scale of the financial setback.

EV shock

In the report, released January 27, GM disclosed $7.1 billion in EV-related losses tied primarily to reshaping its electric-vehicle production plans. While much of the charge is non-cash, it represents real losses on capital GM invested in EV plans that are now being abandoned or restructured.

These figures are not a minor course correction. They are an acknowledgment that even the industry’s most experienced players misjudged the pace, cost, and risk of electrification.

The disclosure followed Ford’s admission that its EV push has resulted in roughly $20 billion in losses. The contrast between the two companies is not the size of the miscalculation but the response. Ford has slowed timelines and reset expectations. General Motors, under CEO Mary Barra, has chosen to absorb the hit and continue forward.

According to GM, roughly $6 billion stems from changes to its EV manufacturing strategy, including canceled supplier contracts and unused equipment originally intended for electric-vehicle production.

Another $1.1 billion reflects the restructuring of its China joint venture. Combined with an October 2025 filing tied to abandoned EV plans, GM has now recognized approximately $7.6 billion tied to its EV strategy in 2025 alone.

Full speed ahead?

Despite those numbers, coverage of GM’s earnings leaned positive. Reports emphasized the company’s balance-sheet strength, its ability to manage the charges, and its position as a leading EV seller in the United States. In that framing, the financial setback was treated as a painful but manageable step toward an inevitable electric future.

CEO Mary Barra reinforced that narrative, saying she has no regrets about GM’s EV strategy, which remains the automaker’s “north star.” She cited regulatory changes in 2025 as more disruptive than tariffs and argued that GM’s rapid production reorganization limited the damage.

That explanation is telling. It underscores how policy-driven the EV transition has become, with automakers increasingly responding to regulations, incentives, and geopolitical shifts rather than consumer demand alone.

Facing facts

While GM’s long-term direction may remain the same, what has changed is the implicit acknowledgment that the transition will take longer and cost more than originally forecast, particularly as incentives fade and infrastructure gaps remain unresolved.

That tension is visible in the sales data. GM’s fourth-quarter EV sales fell 43% year over year, totaling just 25,219 vehicles. That decline complicates claims that the financial hit reflects only temporary turbulence. It points instead to continued consumer hesitation driven by price, charging access, and concerns over long-term ownership costs.

The full-year picture is more mixed. GM’s EV sales for 2025 rose 48% to 169,887 vehicles, making it the second-largest EV seller in the U.S. behind Tesla. Those figures support claims of progress, but they also highlight how uneven adoption remains — often buoyed by incentives and fleet purchases rather than steady, organic demand.

China adds another layer of uncertainty. Once expected to anchor global EV growth, the market has become far less predictable due to regulatory shifts, fierce local competition, and rising geopolitical tension. GM’s decision to restructure its joint venture there reflects a broader reassessment of international exposure, not simply EV headwinds.

RELATED: Test drive: 2026 Dodge Charger Sixpack Plus

Stellantis

Stand by your plan

What stands out most is GM’s refusal to abandon the all-electric narrative, even after acknowledging the scale of the financial setback. Barra has argued that adoption will accelerate as charging infrastructure improves. That may prove true, but it assumes infrastructure expansion will continue without the level of government support that initially fueled growth — and that consumers will remain patient as prices stay high and technology continues to evolve.

From an industry standpoint, GM’s experience is less about failure than timing. Automakers were pushed — politically and culturally — to commit early and publicly to electrification. Those that hesitated were criticized. Now, the cost of being first is coming into focus. Retooling factories, securing battery supply chains, retraining workers, and complying with shifting regulations require enormous capital, and those investments do not disappear when demand softens.

There is also a credibility question. When executives express no regrets after multibillion-dollar setbacks, investors and consumers are justified in asking whether earlier forecasts were grounded in market realities — or shaped more by political alignment than consumer readiness.

Cautionary tale

GM’s experience should also serve as a cautionary tale for policymakers. Mandates and incentives can accelerate innovation, but they cannot force consumer acceptance on a fixed timetable. The EV transition will happen, but not on command and not without detours.

For General Motors, the challenge now is alignment. The company has the scale, engineering talent, and brand equity to compete in an electrified future. What it cannot afford is a prolonged mismatch between production plans and real-world demand. The $7 billion reckoning is more than an accounting event. It is a reminder that the road to an all-electric future is longer, bumpier, and far more expensive than advertised.

Consumers are watching closely. They are not rejecting electric vehicles outright — but they are demanding better value, better infrastructure, and more honest timelines. If those signals are ignored, this reckoning may be only the beginning.

​Auto industry, Lifestyle, Evs, Mary barra, General motors, Align cars