Category: blaze media

Growing up in a military family, I learned what veterans’ advocacy looked like long before I understood the term.

My father served as general counsel for the California Department of Veterans Affairs. His work was not glamorous, and it rarely attracted public attention. It happened across conference tables, in legal offices, and through countless conversations with veterans trying to navigate an often overwhelming benefits system. He devoted years to helping people who had sacrificed for our country.

This should not be about a T-shirt that ignites a political firestorm on X. It should be about modern solutions that deliver victories for those who have already fought for us.

Watching him, I came to understand that advocacy is not measured by volume. It is measured by results.

California is home to the nation’s largest veteran population, and the cases my father handled reminded me that behind every dispute, delay, or bureaucratic error was a veteran who had fulfilled an obligation to this country.

Those veterans were not looking for political theater. They wanted someone who understood the system and was willing to fight on their behalf.

The most effective advocacy often happens out of sight. It requires drafting legislation that improves access to care, building coalitions around meaningful reforms, providing legal assistance to veterans who cannot afford it, and working with elected officials to remove unnecessary barriers to benefits.

These efforts rarely make headlines. They improve lives.

That is why some developments in the veterans’ advocacy world are so discouraging.

The recent controversy surrounding the Veterans of Foreign Wars’ “Honor the Contract” campaign illustrates how easily attention can shift away from veterans themselves. The campaign’s T-shirt depicted veterans facing a firing squad — an inflammatory image meant to make a political point about how Washington serves veterans.

Whatever message the organization hoped to communicate was lost in the controversy that followed.

House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost (R-Ill.) was right to express concern that this kind of messaging lowers the standard of public discourse.

Veterans’ organizations should be among the country’s most respected civic institutions. They represent Americans who answered the nation’s call to serve, often at extraordinary personal cost.

RELATED: America First means taking care of our own, not another war

Stringer/Anadolu/Getty Images

That moral authority should be used to persuade and educate, not to contribute to the outrage politics already poisoning our national conversation.

The VFW’s campaign suggests a troubling disconnect from what veterans need out of Washington.

Healthy debate is essential for good government. Veterans’ organizations have every right to advocate forcefully for or against legislation. But there is a difference between forceful advocacy and deliberately provocative messaging.

One advances the conversation. The other distracts from it.

The backlog of veterans’ claims has dropped below 70,000 for the first time since 2020. That is progress. But tens of thousands of veterans are still waiting for answers.

They deserve more than symbolic fights and social media firestorms.

This should not be about a T-shirt that ignites a political firestorm on X. It should be about modern solutions that deliver victories for those who have already fought for us.

My father never chased headlines or put politics ahead of people. He spent long hours doing meticulous legal work with the quiet determination to solve problems many veterans could not solve alone.

That example has stayed with me because it reflects the highest ideals of public service.

Veterans’ organizations have accomplished extraordinary things throughout American history by operating according to those same standards. They should strive to uphold them and elevate public discourse rather than mirror its worst tendencies.

The men and women who fought for our country already answered the call to serve. Those who advocate on their behalf should return the favor by delivering results and staying focused on the work that helps veterans most.

​Department of veterans affairs, California, Mike bost, Veterans, Vfw, Veterans advocacy, Veterans of foreign wars, Honor the contract, Americans, Opinion & analysis 

A California restaurant sparked a heated debate after instituting a policy to charge parents who fail to control their unruly children.

Chez Xue is a Chinese restaurant in Foster City — approximately 20 miles south of San Francisco.

‘We are a casual restaurant, but we’re not a Chuck E. Cheese.’

Chez Xue has a policy that warns parents that they may be asked to leave the restaurant if their children are disobedient. The restaurant also cautioned that it will “hold parents financially liable for all damage caused by their children to restaurant property.”

Chez Xue said on the restaurant’s website: “Please control your children.”

“Chez Xue is a family-friendly restaurant,” the site said. “However, we are not a playground.”

“Please ensure children REMAIN SEATED at all times and be respectful of fellow guests and the dining environment,” the restaurant stated.

The notice declared, “Running around, shouting, making noise with utensils, etc. WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!”

“Guests not respecting this policy may be asked to leave,” the Chez Xue restaurant said.

The eatery warned, “We will hold parents financially liable for all damage caused by their children to restaurant property.”

The Los Angeles Times reported that the policy was instituted about a year ago when the restaurant’s owner, You You Xue, caught a customer changing a baby’s diaper on the top of a dining booth in the middle of the restaurant. After that incident, Xue knew he had to do something.

Xue, who does not have kids, got fed up with children “fooling around and basically trashing the place” while parents allowed their kids to be disorderly.

“We are a casual restaurant, but we’re not a Chuck E. Cheese,” Xue told the Los Angeles Times.

The policy recently went viral after a patron posted screenshots of the restaurant’s menu on the X social media platform.

The menu provided examples of “recent damages” caused by children at the restaurant.

In April 2025, parents were charged $327.03 because their child shattered a credit card machine when the kid picked it up and dropped it on the ground.

In December 2025, a kid used a utensil to carve drawings into a tabletop, and the parents were charged $109.38.

The restaurant charged a parent $5.47 after a child broke a teacup in January 2026.

RELATED: New California program demands proof of gayness for $633M in contracts — but a far darker reality lies beneath the hypocrisy

The internet was staunchly divided over the establishment’s policy.

One netizen wrote on X, “If your kids are smashing credit card machines and carving things into furniture, they don’t belong in restaurants. End of conversation.”

Someone else said, “On the one hand, yes, absolutely, please raise respectful kids. In support! On the other hand, kids will be kids, and ~$500/yr in damages feels like a reasonable cost of doing business as a family-friendly restaurant.”

Commenters were vocal on the restaurant’s Instagram page about the policy.

One person wrote, “BRAVO on your policy fining families for disruptive children.”

Another one said, “This is incredibly discouraging for people with children who have disabilities.”

Someone proclaimed, “GREAT POLICY!”

Users on the restaurant review website Yelp were divided on the new policy.

A commenter stated, “Coming on here because I am so happy that the owner is standing up to parents and making them be accountable for their parenting. This is a practice that needs to be serviced everywhere. We have all seen too many examples of parents not watching or caring what their children do! Kudos to you.”

Another person said, “Not a family restaurant! If you want to live in a kidless world, I guess this spot is for you. Don’t forget you were a kid once and I am sure your parents brought you to restaurants before.”

Someone added, “I hope more restaurants implement policies like this. The world and restaurant scene would be a much better place!”

Xue told the New York Post, “My staff, my servers were being forced to parent children on behalf of other parents. That’s not their job.”

Xue added, “Parenting has become so relaxed, and I know if I acted some ways these children are acting, I would have gotten my a** beat.”

“We don’t blame the kids — I’m very proud of the fact that this is an unpretentious restaurant where people can come with their whole families,” Xue explained. “It’s to remind this very small group of parents who are not doing their jobs: Please do your job so we can do ours.”

Xue noted that he takes no pleasure in having to confront parents who are not disciplining their kids.

“I don’t want to be put in that position,” Xue told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s so awkward to go up to a parent and say something so obvious.”

Xue told the Los Angeles Times that the general reaction to the policy has been overwhelmingly positive.

Xue revealed that the number of incidents “has fallen considerably to basically zero” since introducing the policy.

Xue stated, “We said the quiet part out loud. We said something that a lot of people are thinking, and we’ve come forward and spoken on behalf of other restaurants and on behalf of customers who have had a meal ruined by a loud child.”

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

​News, San francisco, California, Parenting, Family, Politics, Restaurant 

After the shocking Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship, a Texas hospital is going viral for advertising childbirth packages for expectant mothers just miles from the U.S. border in Mexico.

“Here in Texas, you have these birth tourism hospitals openly advertising birth packages, and they’re not advertising to Texans,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales explains on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”

“They’re not like, ‘Hey, Texans, come to our birth center. We’re really, really gentle.’ They’re actually advertising to Mexicans in Mexico. You have Mission Regional Medical Center; it’s within miles of the border. It’s advertising birth packages on billboards in Mexico,” she continues.

The billboard Gonzales shows is all in Spanish and boasts $3,950 for a natural birth and $5,525 for a C-section. Even more disturbing, the website the billboard pointed Mexicans to was “havemybabyinTEXAS.com.”

The website was taken down after the billboard went viral.

President Trump also called out the Texas hospital, writing in a post on Truth Social: “Signs and Billboards are being put up all over our Southern Border, and Mexico, advertising BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, with ‘Deliveries starting at $4,000.’ Likewise, similar signs going up all over our Country. Billions of Dollars will be illegally made by this SCAM, with Citizenship going to anyone willing to pay.”

Trump reiterated that “AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS NOT FOR SALE,” before warning that he will be asking for a “Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court.”

“This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision,” he added.

After it drew the ire of the president of the United States, Ross Patterson of the “Drinkin’ Bros” podcast called the number on the billboard to find it was still working.

“They went through the packages and everything else, and you can press five to see what the dollar amount is to come to America and have this baby. Now, after you press the number, it goes to an operator and it turned busy,” Patterson tells Gonzales.

“They took the website down for a little bit and then put it back up. The number is still working,” he says, though the website has been removed again.

“Yeah, it’s getting pretty bleak out here in Texas,” Sara 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.

​Birthright citizenship, Mexico, Supreme court ruling, Us border, Texas hospital, Birth tourism, Pregnancy, Sara gonzales, Ross patterson, Sara gonzales unfiltered 

As I approached the pizza place, I heard someone talking over a loudspeaker. I assumed there was a protest going on. Or a Pride event.

A green-haired woman said: ‘Are you sure God is a He?’

But then I saw what it was: A street preacher was proselytizing and holding a big sign that read, “SINNERS REPENT! OR BURN IN HELL!”

Potty mouths repent!

I’d never seen one of these guys in the wild. Not in Portland. I’ve seen them on YouTube, where they often get into fights with people. Or sometimes, they get attacked.

As I got closer, I could read the large sign and its long list of hell-bound sinners:

PervertsFornicatorsHomosexualsAdulterersPotty mouthsDrunkardsThievesLiarsUsed car salesmen (yes, this was on the list)

The street preacher was a skinny, youngish guy (30?) with a trendy mustache. He wore a cap that said in big letters, “OBEY GOD.”

He was standing on the corner, just outside my pizzeria. At the moment I went inside, he was being yelled at by a short, angry, gray-haired man (50?). I didn’t hear what was being said. I went inside.

Once I had my slice, I sat by the window so I could further observe the adventures of the street preacher and his sign.

By then, the short, angry guy had left. What had he been yelling about? He was probably outraged that a street preacher would dare come plant himself in the middle of the liberal Hawthorne district. And it was June! It was still Pride Month!

We need to have a dialogue

Once the short, angry guy was gone, things calmed down. But other people continued to stop and gawk at the street preacher or engage him in conversation.

For a while, a young woman (25?) was questioning him. She wasn’t yelling, but she seemed pretty worked up.

The street preacher listened to her and seemed to consider what she was saying. I was surprised by how intelligent he looked. Also, he was a reasonably good-looking guy. He wasn’t the pot-bellied, crew-cut fanatic one might expect.

Does God exist?

By the time I finished my pizza slice, a new crowd of people had formed around the street preacher. I went outside and joined the group. I wanted to hear what people were saying.

A middle-aged man wearing cargo shorts and Teva sandals was asking the street preacher questions: If there’s a God, why are there wars? Why is there poverty and disease? And how could God send anyone to burn in hell for eternity? Doesn’t God forgive? Doesn’t He love everyone equally?

To me, these questions sounded like what a 14-year-old would ask. Which made me wonder to myself: “Is everyone in Portland 14?”

RELATED: What was the ‘alt-right’? ‘Whitepill’ clears up the media hysteria

Passage Publishing; Washington Post/Getty Images

What would Jesus do?

Another bystander joined in. He said that Christ didn’t go around denouncing people for their sexual preference. How could the street preacher carry a sign criticizing any people? Jesus would never do that.

The street preacher’s reply was something like: “The true God is a rigorous God. A righteous God. A God who does not tolerate sin. A God who does not excuse liars and perverts. God wants us to be godly. He wants us to live godly lives.”

A green-haired woman said: “Are you sure God is a He?”

The street preacher said: “God is our heavenly Father. He knows what is best for us. It is not our place to negotiate with Him. It is our place to obey Him.”

Classic liberal beliefs

That quieted the nonbelievers for a moment. But then other people chimed in. They espoused the classic liberal belief that “tolerance” and “acceptance” were always best. Who are we to judge?

But the street preacher stuck with his “rigorous” God idea. God had given us simple instructions. It was up to us to follow them. If you think you have a better plan than God … if you think you know better than God … well, good luck with that!

So who won the debate?

I don’t think anyone changed their minds during these discussions. But it was interesting to watch. People were respectful of each other at least. That was nice to see.

The main thing I took away from the debate was how poised the street preacher was. He was deep in enemy territory. But he never lost his cool. And he had clear and succinct responses to every question.

It was the Hawthorne atheists who couldn’t really articulate a coherent position. The best they could come up with was: “If God exists, why are people sad?”

Nor could the onlookers match the street preacher’s moral conviction. They were relativists. They couldn’t say what was “bad” or “good.” Anything could be “good,” if that’s what you were “into.”

Which worked fine in nonbinary, morally ambiguous Portland. But it wasn’t going to win an argument with this street preacher. Not today. Not even with the entire Hawthorne district backing you. This guy was taking on all comers. And he was not backing down.

​Jesus, Portland, Progressivism, Street preacher, Faith, Christianity, Blake’s progress 

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesperson released more details about the lethal shooting of a Colombian man in Maine during an immigration operation.

Details were sparse about the lethal incident in the city of Biddeford early Monday, but in an email statement to Blaze News, ICE confirmed the man was an illegal alien.

‘Were officers threatened? Were the threats rising to the level that justified deadly force? That’s what this investigation is all about.’

“On July 13, 2026, at approximately 7:00 a.m. ET, ICE was conducting targeted surveillance on the last known address of an illegal alien with a final order of removal. An illegal alien departed the residence in a vehicle. ICE law enforcement attempted to conduct a vehicle stop. The vehicle attempted to flee the scene, and fearing for public safety, an officer discharged his weapon,” the statement read.

Maine Sen. Angus King (I) told reporters that the man had been the intended target of the operation. He later said that he had gotten updated information from Sec. Markwayne Mullin of the Department of Homeland Security indicating that the deceased man had not been the target.

“The driver of the vehicle was struck, and emergency services were immediately contacted. He passed away from his injuries,” the ICE statement continued.

The Maine Immigrants’ Rights Coalition released a statement indicating that they had identified the man to be a 26-year-old from Colombia.

They also claimed that he had received authorization to work in the U.S. and had even received a Social Security card. He was later identified as Joan Sebastian Guerrero.

King said Mullin had told him the man “weaponized” his vehicle against the ICE agents, and the senator, who caucuses with Democrats, added that there needed to be a full investigation into the circumstances of the shooting.

“The question is, what did he do with his vehicle?” King said to reporters. “Were officers threatened? Were the threats rising to the level that justified deadly force? That’s what this investigation is all about, and I certainly intend to stay after it to do everything I can to be sure the investigation is as transparent and thorough as possible.”

ICE indicated that both the Biddeford Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had responded to the scene.

“This is a developing situation, and we will update the public when more information is available,” the statement concluded.

RELATED: Sister of man shot by Border Patrol in Arizona tells anti-ICE protesters to stop defending him

A Blaze News request for comment to the MIRC was not immediately answered.

Anti-ICE protests erupted immediately in the wake of the lethal shooting. Some protesters gathered outside the offices of Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins and demanded that she be voted out.

That re-election contest has been tossed into turmoil after Democrat candidate Graham Platner dropped out over numerous scandals that culminated in allegations of sexual assault.

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

​Federal bureau of investigation, Immigration, Immigration and customs enforcement, Maine, Politics 

Medicaid is federally funded and state-run, but the program’s beneficiaries often have the least say in who provides their care and what that care costs.

That’s a built-in flaw. States have every incentive to maximize federal matching funds while federal taxpayers bear much of the cost. The result pits state bureaucrats against Washington’s need to control Medicaid spending — and against taxpayers’ interest in stopping providers, insurers, and contractors from cashing in on weak oversight.

New York’s home-care scandal is not merely a contracting failure. It is a warning about Medicaid’s overall design.

That is why cosmetic Medicaid reforms so often produce more spending, more inefficiency, and more fraud.

Just look at New York.

Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul’s administration botched the reform of its roughly $11 billion Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program, a Medicaid-financed home-care benefit, so badly that federal prosecutors came knocking.

The U.S. Justice Department recently sued the New York State Department of Health and Public Partnerships LLC, the program’s sole fiscal intermediary since 2025. Prosecutors allege that New York’s CDPAP reform, supposedly designed to reduce waste in a billion-dollar program, instead created conditions for an ongoing Medicaid fraud scheme.

Personal care — nonmedical long-term care provided in the homes of elderly and disabled patients — is especially vulnerable to waste and abuse. The reason? It’s difficult to verify that caregivers worked the hours billed or provided the services claimed.

“The service is delivered by unlicensed caregivers in private residences, usually with no on-site supervision,” Bill Hammond of the Empire Center has explained. “The risk is heightened when the aide is a friend or family member of the patient, which is allowed under the popular and rapidly growing [CDPAP].”

New York’s numbers show the scale of the problem.

In 2021, the state employed 138 home-health and personal care aides per 1,000 residents age 65 or older — more than double the national average. New York City employed 236 aides per 1,000 older residents. By 2024, the statewide rate had climbed to 171 aides per 1,000 older residents.

Home care was supposed to reduce New Yorkers’ reliance on nursing homes. Yet the share of elderly New Yorkers living in nursing homes declined more slowly than in almost every other state, while New York’s per capita Medicaid spending on nursing homes remained the highest in the nation and more than double the U.S. average.

RELATED: Medicare red tape turned insurers into villains

NoDerog/Getty Images

Over the decade leading up to 2025, hundreds of fiscal intermediaries emerged to process payroll for CDPAP lay caregivers and perform other administrative duties. These intermediaries eagerly tapped loosely supervised Medicaid dollars.

Many aggressively advertised the opportunity to become a CDPAP caregiver and get paid by Medicaid to care for a family member — eventually at the same legally mandated minimum pay as professionally trained home-care aides.

That helped fuel what Hammond described as “seemingly bottomless and unchecked demand for a costly Medicaid benefit, which has been rising almost 10 times faster than the growth of the state’s elderly population.”

In 2024, New York passed legislation consolidating CDPAP management under a single statewide contractor. The state awarded that role to PPL.

By then, CDPAP relied on nearly 600 intermediary firms, and enrollment had exploded from roughly 12,000 to more than 250,000 between 2015 and 2023.

By shrinking the bureaucracy, New York lawmakers claimed they would restrain CDPAP’s soaring costs. Once again, they promised greater accountability and hundreds of millions of dollars in savings.

They did not deliver.

According to the Justice Department, the procurement process for “one of the most lucrative contracts for administering a Medicaid program in the nation” was compromised from the beginning. Prosecutors allege that “PPL was preselected as the winner through a sham bid process.”

The transition from hundreds of intermediaries to PPL was also disorderly. An unrealistic timeline, evident to both PPL and the Department of Health, disrupted patient care.

Most important, prosecutors allege that “PPL and New York, without explanation, have disregarded key limits the contract imposed on the revenues and profits PPL was entitled to.” Those limits were “central to the goal of saving hundreds of millions of dollars through the CDPAP transition.”

PPL allegedly “siphoned millions of dollars of Medicaid funding,” with the state Department of Health complicit in the ongoing scheme.

RELATED: SNAP may be paying for manicures, bongs, and an obesity epidemic — on your dime

Pete Kiehart/Bloomberg/Getty Images

PPL can be replaced. But another company eager to rent-seek will inevitably take its place unless the incentive structure changes.

As long as federal taxpayers contribute anywhere from $1 to $9 for every $1 New York contributes to fund Medicaid for New Yorkers, state administrations and health officials will remain too complacent about the misuse of taxpayer money.

Any money recovered from this alleged scheme would be dwarfed by Medicaid’s broader improper spending crisis, which may have exceeded $1 trillion over the past decade.

New York’s home-care scandal is not merely a contracting failure. It is a warning about Medicaid’s overall design.

The program rewards states for spending more, obscures responsibility for waste, and leaves taxpayers chasing fraud after the money is gone. Overhauling Medicaid to restore accountability is long overdue.

​Bureaucracy, Fraud, Health officials, Justice department, Medicaid, New york, Nursing homes, Oversight, Obesity epidemic, Kathy hochul, Opinion & analysis 

A former beauty pageant winner, worship pastor, and Christian performer pleaded guilty to committing day care fraud at three businesses in Minnesota.

Jill Mertens, 43, admitted to fraudulently receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Great Start Compensation Support Payment Program, which was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota.

‘We had no idea she was committing any fraud. We didn’t have any idea the day care was in any financial hardship.’

In 2016, Mertens registered three day cares she owned: The Tree of Life Academy in Ramsey and the Creative Stars Academy in Kasson and Rochester.

State data showed that the centers received numerous complaints and violations in recent years.

She received about $425,000 from the program to pay for 23 teachers who did not work at the day cares. She also inflated hours for the employees that she did have.

Mertens won Miss North Dakota and competed in the Miss America pageant in 2001. She went on to become a worship pastor and recorded a contemporary/Christian/gospel album that was released in 2011.

KARE-TV spoke to one couple that said they had prepaid for day care services at one of Mertens’ centers and were cheated when she declared bankruptcy and sold off the centers.

“We had no idea she was committing any fraud. We didn’t have any idea the day care was in any financial hardship,” Joe McInerney of Mantorville said. “Hopefully, she has some time to think about what she did and pay back her debts.”

Mertens agreed to pay back the funds she stole in her plea deal and was released on supervised release.

RELATED: Woman pleads guilty to day care fraud — and also ran Feeding Our Future scam and autism center

A KARE reporter noted in the news video that the plea deal included immunity for Mertens from any other federal investigation that may or may not be going on.

Mertens faces about two years in prison, according to the sentencing guidelines.

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

​Daycare fraud, Feeding our future, Minnesota, Miss america, Plea deal, Politics 

“Inclusive.” “Representative.” “Transparent.” That is how Maine Democratic Party Chairman Charlie Dingman describes the process for selecting a new Democratic nominee after Graham Platner’s withdrawal last week from the U.S. Senate race.

Those are worthy goals. But can a process truly be fair, representative, and transparent when the voters who participated in the June primary will not directly choose the replacement nominee?

Maine voters deserve to know that their vote counts not only on Election Day, but throughout the electoral process.

Under Maine law, Democrats have until July 27 to select a replacement. Rather than hold another statewide primary, party officials will convene a nominating convention to choose the candidate who appears on the November ballot.

That means 601 delegates from Maine’s 16 counties — not the full primary electorate that selected Platner — will choose the replacement nominee.

Primary elections and nominating conventions serve different purposes. A primary gives every eligible voter an equal voice in choosing a nominee. A convention limits that decision to party delegates acting on behalf of the organization.

Both are recognized under Maine law. But they are fundamentally different processes, and the distinction is vital.

The question is not whether Maine Democrats are acting within the law. The question is whether replacing the primary electorate with a convention best preserves public confidence.

Transparency is important. But transparency alone does not answer the deeper question: Should voters or party delegates choose a replacement nominee after a primary?

The circumstances in Maine are unusual, but the broader issue is not.

Political parties across the country have rules for replacing nominees when unexpected vacancies occur. A replacement is necessary. Parties must follow the law. But they should also ask whether their procedures reflect the will of voters as closely as circumstances allow.

RELATED: The media’s Democratic cover-up is collapsing

Chuwy/Getty Images

Following the law is essential. Preserving confidence in the process is essential too.

This is not the first time Democratic voters have watched party leaders make consequential decisions after ballots had already been cast. In 2024, Democratic delegates, rather than primary voters, selected Vice President Kamala Harris after President Joe Biden stepped aside.

Regardless of where one stood on that decision, it raised an enduring question now facing Maine: When circumstances change after a primary, who should choose the replacement nominee?

Election integrity is often discussed in terms of voter ID, ballot security, voter rolls, and timely vote counting. Those safeguards matter because they help ensure elections are conducted securely and accurately.

But election integrity also depends on voters believing their participation shapes the outcome.

When the final decision shifts from the primary electorate to party delegates after voters have already cast ballots, voters are left wondering how much their vote truly counts.

That uncertainty fuels something increasingly common in American politics: cynicism.

A growing number of Americans have adopted a “black-pill” view of politics — the belief that participation is pointless because vital decisions are ultimately made by a small group rather than the broader electorate.

They’re wrong. Voting remains viable.

Yet every time a party shifts a consequential decision from the full primary electorate to a smaller group of delegates after ballots have already been cast, it becomes harder to convince people their participation makes a difference.

RELATED: This is not the ‘red wave’ America needs

Aimee Dilger/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images

Maine voters deserve to know that their vote counts not only on Election Day, but throughout the electoral process.

Election integrity is about more than secure ballots and accurate voter rolls. It is about preserving public confidence that voters, not party insiders, ultimately decide who represents them.

Maine’s experience should prompt lawmakers and political parties to examine whether existing nominee replacement procedures preserve voter confidence when nominees withdraw after a primary.

The question in Maine is not simply who the next Democratic nominee will be.

It is whether voters remain at the center of the process after their ballots have been cast.

The strength of an election is measured not only by how votes are counted, but by whether the voters who cast them still have the final word.

​Primary, Democrats, Graham platner, Americans, Democracy, Kamala harris, Elections, Opinion & analysis, Maine 

For years, Americans have treated the Supreme Court like the nation’s principal.

Every cultural dispute eventually finds its way to Washington, where nine unelected justices are expected to settle questions that neighbors, legislators, parents, and communities no longer seem willing — or able — to resolve themselves.

A free people cannot forever outsource self-government to nine justices in Washington. Sooner or later, our democracy requires citizens to do the hard work themselves.

The Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 decision upholding state laws protecting women’s sports changed more than athletic policy. It reminded America how the Constitution was designed to work.

Much of the public conversation has focused on biological sex and transgender participation in women’s athletics. Those are important questions. But beneath the headlines lies something more significant: The court exercised judicial restraint. Instead of imposing one national standard, it returned much of the debate to the states.

That may prove to be the ruling’s greatest contribution.

Federalism is one of the Constitution’s forgotten masterpieces. The founders never intended America to function as one enormous county governed from Washington. They understood that a nation as large and diverse as ours could remain united because many decisions would be made closer to the people.

California may choose one approach. Texas another. Massachusetts another still.

Citizens remain free to debate, persuade, vote, and, if they wish, relocate to states whose laws better reflect their convictions. That’s the wisdom of our federal constitutional system.

Uniformity has never been America’s highest political virtue. Liberty has.

Federalism has costs. Different states will establish different athletic policies. National competitions may become more complicated. Families moving across state lines may encounter different eligibility rules. Critics are right that legal diversity can create confusion.

But confusion is not democracy’s greatest threat. Centralized power is.

RELATED: Women’s sports finally got a reality check

Oliver Contreras/AFP/Getty Images

Freedom is rarely lost in one dramatic moment. It is surrendered gradually as authority migrates from local communities to distant institutions. The Constitution deliberately resists that impulse because power is safest when it remains close to the people who must live under it.

That principle deserves defending regardless of where one stands on this particular question.

The dissent by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson rested on constitutional and statutory interpretation. Lawyers will debate those arguments for years.

Still, their votes raise an unavoidable question.

Three accomplished women reached a legal conclusion on an issue directly affecting women and girls that many female athletes believe weakens the very protections women’s sports were created to provide.

The issue carries added significance because Justice Jackson’s 2022 confirmation hearing became a defining cultural moment when she declined to define the word “woman,” explaining that she was “not a biologist.” Whether one agreed with her answer or not, the exchange symbolized a culture increasingly uncertain about concepts previous generations regarded as self-evident.

A civilization begins to lose confidence long before it loses arguments.

Women’s sports were never created to diminish men. They were created to protect women.

Biological differences in strength, speed, endurance, bone density, and muscle mass are measurable realities. Separate women’s competitions were established not because women are inferior but because fairness requires meaningful opportunities for women to compete, succeed, and excel.

That principle has served female athletes well for decades.

It also raises an obvious question: Must fairness for transgender athletes require sacrificing fairness for women?

Perhaps America has accepted a false choice.

Athletics already recognizes that fairness sometimes requires separate categories. We separate competitors by age because maturity matters. We separate them by weight because size matters. We celebrate the Paralympics because physical ability matters.

We separate men’s and women’s sports because biology matters.

RELATED: The Supreme Court finally confirmed what I knew all along

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

None of those distinctions is considered discrimination. They are considered fairness.

Rather than forcing one protected group into another’s category, America should consider developing meaningful transgender athletic divisions: state championships, collegiate scholarships, national tournaments, and professional opportunities designed specifically for transgender competitors.

That would expand opportunity without diminishing opportunity.

Surely innovation is better than endless litigation.

The court’s decision did not end America’s debate. The conversation now belongs where representative government intended it to be: in state legislatures, school boards, athletic associations, coaches’ offices, and living rooms across America.

As a Christian, I believe Scripture teaches that humanity is created male and female. I also recognize that many Americans do not share that conviction.

That’s precisely why federalism is vital. It allows citizens with profoundly different worldviews to govern themselves through democratic institutions while remaining united under one Constitution.

That arrangement requires something increasingly rare.

Not outrage. Not hashtags. Not judicial shortcuts. Persuasion.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing separately, argued that biological sex is binary and immutable and warned that denying this reality tells “a lie to the public.” I agree with him.

But whether one agrees with every word or not, his opinion reflects a broader concern: Law cannot remain untethered from objective reality forever. Reality has a stubborn habit of refusing to yield to ideology.

The Supreme Court did not solve America’s cultural divisions. It reminded us whose responsibility they are.

That is the forgotten genius of federalism.

A free people cannot forever outsource self-government to nine justices in Washington. Sooner or later, our democracy requires citizens to do the hard work themselves.

Perhaps the future of women’s sports — and constitutional government itself — depends on whether we still remember how.

​America, Christians, Clarence thomas, Female athletes, Scotus, Scripture, State laws, State legislatures, Supreme court, Trans athletes, Women’s sports, Opinion & analysis 

On Wednesday, July 8, President Donald Trump left Turkey, where he was attending a NATO summit in Ankara with other world leaders to discuss security issues, including the conflict involving Iran. Before the plane departed, reporters who attended the summit were told something odd: Lower your window shades.

When asked about the unusual request, President Trump nonchalantly explained that it was likely due to security reasons.

“You’re probably on a dangerous flight because of the sleazebags that we have to deal with. … I’m number one on [Iran’s] list,” he remarked casually.

Glenn Beck found this moment deeply significant.

As someone who’s received many credible threats over the years, Glenn believes that Trump’s detached comments indicate he’s “made peace” with the deadly implications of having a giant target on his back.

“He is finding a way that he can compartmentalize this and go on with his life and be out in public,” Glenn speculates.

He notes that Trump took his fancy Qatari-gifted Boeing 747-8 to Turkey but returned on the traditional Air Force One, likely because it’s far more heavily armored and equipped with full military-grade protections.

“Turkey shares a border with Iran. Iran has drones and ballistic missiles,” Glenn says, adding that the Qatari plane was sent ahead without Trump on it because “it wasn’t safe bringing [Trump] home past Iran’s front door.”

But Glenn sees this moment as far more than a security footnote. It also reveals how Trump is mentally preparing for the very real possibility that Iran will try to assassinate him and what the deadly difference is between open war and covert murder.

“Now, if Iran killed Trump, if they used a missile and it was executed by the army, it’s not an assassination. … If they bring a guy in out of a uniform and they just have a rocket … and they point it up at the sky and they take [Trump’s plane] out, then it’s murder, it’s terror, and it’s an assassination,” he explains, noting that either scenario would culminate in steep consequences for Iran.

“Four months ago at the beginning of this war, America and Israel killed the top guy, supreme leader, and we called that a strike, an operation, practically a Tuesday,” Glenn continues. “And the president said it out loud that he got Khamenei before Khamenei could get him — same verb pointed both directions.”

“Whose hand is on the trigger” is of paramount importance, he argues, because it determines the difference between “war and murder,” “the soldier and the assassin.”

“[The killing of Khamenei] was done by the uniformed forces of nations in daylight in a war. What Iran has tried to do to Trump was hire a man, cash for killing, arranged in the dark to be carried out by a hired hand who would slip out of the country before the deed was done,” Glenn contrasts. “Not a soldier — an assassin; not a war — murder.”

“The entire point of the laws of war, the thing that separates us from the pit, is that even killing has limits,” he explains. “Who? How? When? In the open or in the dark?”

How we answer these questions determines whether we remain a civilized nation that still believes in rules — even in war — or whether we descend into the kind of lawless chaos our enemies thrive on.

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, Donald trump, Air force one, Iran 

Christopher Nolan’s upcoming adaptation of “The Odyssey” is already generating plenty of controversy, as conservatives are pointing out that the casting of the film is “woke.”

“Christopher Nolan went from making a more realistic “Batman,” which is something that I really enjoyed, especially the first “Batman,” “Batman Begins,” to now making a movie about Greece starring black people,” Dave Landau tells co-host Stu Burguiere on “Stu and Dave Do America.”

The film stars Lupita Nyong’o as Helen of Troy, which both Stu and Dave point out is historically inaccurate for ancient Greece.

“There’s a huge African-American population in ancient Greece,” Stu jokes. “People don’t realize that.”

“I will say, like, historical accuracy is sort of a weird thing. … You go back in the day, maybe some of these people didn’t exist in these civilizations, but this is a fictional story,” he continues. “I mean, you know it’s a myth, right?”

“It is Greek mythology, I understand that, and you want a lot of the people to be Greek, but at the same time, I don’t really care,” Dave says, though he points out there are some choices he doesn’t quite agree with.

“For example, he put in rapper Travis Scott,” he explains.

Nolan also cast “Elliot” Page as Greek soldier Sinon.

“This is part of a long-term process where, you know, Ellen Page is trying to convince us that she’s a he. And, you know, unlike a lot of the people I see walking around that are trans, she’s putting the work in, right?”

In one photo of the cast, Page, who is 5’1″, stood in front of her other cast members in a suit.

“It looks like a suit you would get for a ring bearer,” Dave comments.

“And you’d be like, ‘It’s fine. It’s for one day, and if we keep it, you can grow into it,’” he jokes.

“That’s exactly what it looks like,” Stu laughs. “You know, a couple things I noticed … she looks like a kid that is, you know, trying to wear a suit for the first time around all these adults. And also it’s, like, a huge suit on her.”

Want more from Stu and Dave?

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

​Batman, Christopher nolan, Dave landau, Ellen page, Elliot page, Greece, Lupita nyongo, Stu burguiere, The odyssey, Trans, Travis scott, Stu and dave do america 

The sitting government in the United Kingdom is looking to implement more control over the internet before it leaves office.

The next general election in the United Kingdom is set for 2029, which leaves Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Labour Party plenty of time to continue down the road of online dominance.

‘This is the opposite of “British freedoms.”‘

Last year, the U.K. decided it was time to roll out mandatory digital ID, saying it would protect against illegal employment and stop the infiltration of its borders.

This June, a social media ban on children under 16 years old was announced, backed by that implementation of online ID, which would then force users to prove their age or face an invasion of their camera rolls.

As Blaze Media reported, the idea was to “prevent predators” from exploiting victims, with anyone refusing to submit their ID unable to “take, share, or view nude content.”

Now, the push for further government control of the online world seems to be coming out in full force, especially considering culture secretary Lisa Nandy’s green paper on misinformation, reminiscent of 2019.

Nearly seven years ago, YouTube began its open-air boosting and deboosting of content based on “authoritative” sources. This meant that select news companies would have their content always listed at the top of searches, while independent creators would be pushed down or shadow banned entirely.

Instead of using the term “authoritative,” Nandy’s paper cites “trustworthy” news sources nearly 30 times, which would be placed in “prominence” — mentioned almost 60 times — over other sources online, by decree of government.

RELATED: At America 250, Democrats unveil new surveillance state blueprint

Matthew Chattle/Future Publishing/Getty Images

That brings beleaguered subjects to virtual private networks, thought to be the next target for the U.K. government. VPNs allow users to fake their locations, avoiding data detection and restrictions while making their browsing more private.

This may seem like a small issue, but VPNs are integral to online privacy in the U.K., according to many dissidents.

“VPNs are one of the few remaining tools ordinary British citizens have to protect their online privacy from both the state and big tech,” said Lewis Brackpool, director of investigations for right-wing party Restore Britain.

“Banning them would effectively hand the government near-total visibility into what people read, watch, and say online. This is the opposite of ‘British freedoms,'” Brackpool added.

Brackpool is not the only person who shares this view; in a scathing review of the Labour Party’s handling of online content, outlet Spiked reported that 30 people are arrested every day in England and Wales over social media posts deemed to be “grossly offensive.”

That totals more than 10,000 arrests per year.

RELATED: NANNY STATE: UK’s pointless teen social media ban a fitting legacy for hapless, hated Keir Starmer

Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Some in the Labour Party have denied that a VPN ban is coming, including Baroness Liz Lloyd, who holds the title parliamentary under-secretary of state for the digital economy.

There is “limited evidence on children’s use of VPNs,” Lloyd said this week, per Birmingham Live. She added that the government has no plan to ban them.

However, the Labour Party still launched a consultation to “confront the full range of risks children face online,” which included the options to limit VPN use if it “undermines safety protections and changing the age of digital consent.”

A VPN ban is not about stopping serious criminals; they will still use encrypted apps and offshore services, Brackpool says.

“It’s more about making it harder for normal people to bypass censorship, access unfiltered news, or organize against government policy.”

Brackpool, who has arguably set the tone in the U.K. in keeping the government accountable for its alleged media propaganda push, said that banning VPNs is another way for the state to say, “We don’t trust you with your own internet. We’ll decide what you can access.”

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

​News, United kingdom, Censorship, Vpn, Digital id, Tech 

The United States has a new senator after the sudden and unexpected death of Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator for South Carolina.

Graham’s term will be finished out by his sister, Darline Graham Nordone, who was appointed by Republican South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster.

‘To Lindsey, I miss you more than I can even put into words. But I’m going to do this. I got it.’

Nordone accepted the appointment in a news conference Monday with McMaster in Columbia, South Carolina.

“I want to thank the governor for selecting me to serve the remainder of Lindsey’s term,” she said. “It is such an honor. Lindsey has always been there for me, and now I will be there for him.”

Graham’s death was announced early Sunday morning.

“It is such a privilege to get to finish some of his important work, and I promise to work hard over the next several months to support the president and carry forward the efforts of my brother on behalf of the citizens of South Carolina and the United States,” Nordone continued.

“I know Lindsey thought the world of his staff and colleagues, and with their support, I feel confident. I think this is what Lindsey would have wanted, and I plan to honor him in this way,” she said.

“Now, to Lindsey, I miss you more than I can even put into words. But I’m going to do this. I got it. Thank you.”

Long before his decades-long career in the Senate, Graham lost his mother and father within 15 months in his early 20s. He took on the role of raising and caring for his sister, who was 13 years old at the time. He later became her legal guardian.

“Lindsey assured me that he was going to take care of me, he was going to be there for me,” she said about her brother in 2014. “He never let me down. Never. I don’t see how he did it, to take on the responsibility of raising a little sister.”

A preliminary medical report found that Graham died of an aortic dissection caused by arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

RELATED: Lindsey Graham and Elon Musk feuded over Ukraine and electric car subsidies

Graham had been a vocal opponent of President Donald Trump but became an ally of his after he won the presidency.

“Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the greatest people and Senators I have ever known, is dead!” Trump wrote in a post on social media. “He was always working, and was a true American Patriot. Lindsey will be greatly missed!!!”

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

​Lindsey graham, South carolina, Darline graham nordone, Us senate, Politics 

Longtime GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.) broke nearly a month of silence on Sunday, releasing a statement to update the public on his health after spending weeks in the hospital.

McConnell, 84, said he was hospitalized after suffering “a fall” that left him “briefly unconscious.” He dismissed speculation that the incident was caused by a more serious condition, saying, “I didn’t have a heart attack or a stroke. I don’t have any tumors or hemorrhages.”

‘A short, unedited video of Senator McConnell speaking directly to the people he represents would answer far more questions than another written statement and a single still photograph.’

“I’ve also had to deal with a mild case of pneumonia,” McConnell added.

The press release originally included a photo of the senator in a hospital bed alongside his wife, Elaine Chao. The image was later removed from the statement before being re-uploaded separately to McConnell’s website.

Yet, rather than easing speculation surrounding McConnell’s health, this recent development has only seemed to fuel further uncertainty.

Former Republican Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz shared his own skepticism, writing, “Let’s see you say it. A written statement is far different than saying it on camera.”

In a lengthy X post, Kylie Jane Kremer, former producer for Fox’s Sean Hannity, expressed her frustration with the press release she claims ”still doesn’t answer the fundamental questions about Mitch McConnell’s health.”

“Tax payers have paid McConnell’s salary and healthcare costs for over 49 years! A short, unedited video of Senator McConnell speaking directly to the people he represents would answer far more questions than another written statement and a single still photograph.”

Kremer also addressed Scott Jennings’ unverified claim that he and McConnell “talked for just shy of 20 minutes … about IRAN, UKRAINE, the unfolding situation in MAINE, my visit to the TR Presidential Library, and even a little bit of Senate history.”

“Yet when those claims have been questioned, no independent evidence of those conversations has been made public,” Kremer said.

RELATED: Mitch McConnell’s replacement might be chosen in court first

Sen. Mitch McConnell’s office

On June 14 — the day McConnell was hospitalized — EMS dispatch audio published by an independent journalist suggests medics performed CPR on an “unconscious” individual in “cardiac arrest” at McConnell’s home address. The senator, however, is not mentioned by name in any recordings.

The press release comes just one day after the unexpected passing of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The cause of death has been attributed to an aortic dissection. Graham was 71 years old.

McConnell’s office did not respond to Blaze News’ request for comment regarding the removal and subsequent reposting of the photograph.

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

​Politics, Mitch mcconnell 

A federal judge issued a sharp rebuke against the Trump administration over the settlement that was intended to establish the anti-weaponization fund.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams said Monday that President Donald Trump had committed self-dealing when he sued the Internal Revenue Service for leaking his tax files and reached a settlement with the agency.

‘The facts before this Court demonstrate there was never adverseness between the Parties; there was never a case or controversy.’

Williams said the case “was brought for an improper purpose — to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a ‘settlement’ that had no viable basis in law or fact” in her 56-page ruling.

That settlement was reached in May 2026 after the president agreed to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. It set up a $1.776 billion fund that critics said the president would use to benefit and enrich his supporters and political allies.

“In sum, the facts before this Court demonstrate there was never adverseness between the Parties; there was never a case or controversy; and there was never a question as to who would prevail,” Williams continued.

She accused Trump of “improperly” employing the lawsuit “to justify a particular award in this matter — access to taxpayer funds and exemption from audits and other investigations — which was accomplished by leveraging control over Defendants.”

Williams similarly excoriated the Department of Justice for “abdicating its responsibility to zealously defend the interests of the United States” by agreeing to the settlement.

She also pointed to the $1.776 billion figure as evidence that the settlement amount had more to do with branding than it did a “deliberate and thoughtful” account of damages.

A spokesperson for the president’s legal team released a statement about the ruling.

“The IRS wrongly allowed a rogue, politically motivated employee to leak private and confidential information about President Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization to the New York Times, ProPublica, and other left-wing news outlets, which was then illegally released to millions of people,” the statement reads. “President Trump continues to hold those who wrong America and Americans accountable.”

RELATED: Clinton judge brazenly gives White House ultimatum over Trump’s anti-weaponization fund

The ruling is likely to worsen the chances of Attorney General Todd Blanche being approved by the U.S. Senate. He is scheduled to appear at the congressional hearing Thursday.

Williams was appointed by former President Barack Obama.

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

​Antiweaponization fund, Federal judge, Internal revenue service, Lawsuit, Settlement, Trump administration, Politics 

For many health-conscious Americans, grocery shopping has never been more intimidating. Thanks to the MAHA movement, the curtain has been pulled back on the long list of toxins hiding in most common foods. Many wellness-focused shoppers experience pressure to scrutinize every ingredient label — but without knowing exactly what to look for and avoid, it can be completely overwhelming.

Ashley and Patrick Sullivan, the creators behind the documentary “Breaking Big Food,” keenly understand this frustration. The husband-and-wife duo have spent years exposing the rampant corruption in Big Food, which keeps millions of Americans addicted and sick.

To help struggling shoppers, they created a “Dirty Dozen” cheat sheet for avoiding questionable food additives and ingredients. On a recent episode of “Relatable,” they shared these tips with BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey.

The Sullivans’ “Dirty Dozen” foods to avoid are as follows:

Seed oilsHigh-fructose corn syrupArtificial sweetenersArtificial colorsArtificial flavorsNatural flavorsPreservativesCarrageenanGumsNon-organic coffeeNon-organic cropsNon-organic meats, eggs, and dairy

The cheat sheet explains the reasoning behind each of the ingredients.

“You don’t have to register for anything. You literally just click it, and it’s made for you to keep on your fridge or save it on your phone so that as you are starting to shop down the grocery aisles, you at least have something to reference,” Ashley says.

Many of the ingredients on the list, she explains, are “really disruptive to the gut and the microbiome.”

“I’ve heard a lot of people talk about seed oils and different things, but what would you say is maybe one that doesn’t get enough attention that people need to look out for?” Allie asks.

“I think natural flavors can be tricky,” says Ashley. “Sometimes they can be from naturally derived sources, but specifically if they are used in savory foods, a lot of times it can be code for MSG.”

To hear more, watch the 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, Allie beth stuckey, Maha 

Another immigrant has been shot and killed during an Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation, according to Maine lawmakers.

The circumstances of the shooting and the legal status of the victim are still being investigated, but the Maine Immigrants’ Rights Coalition has identified him as 26 years old and from Colombia.

‘He was in a vehicle, pulled out in the vehicle — and the term the secretary used was “weaponized” the vehicle — and was shot.’

The MIRC also claimed that he had received a Social Security card and was authorized to work in the U.S.

Photos from the scene in Biddeford show a Kia sedan with several bullet holes in the windshield.

“I know that situations like these are alarming and frightening,” said Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat.

One witness said he saw officers with green ICE vests hop out of an unmarked Ford Explorer at about 7:20 a.m. on Monday and surround the white sedan with guns drawn. He heard four gunshots.

Independent Maine Sen. Angus King told reporters he received a briefing from Markwayne Mullin, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, about the shooting. Mullin told him the man had a deportation order issued against him and also had an arrest warrant.

“He was in a vehicle, pulled out in the vehicle — and the term the secretary used was ‘weaponized’ the vehicle — and was shot by an ICE agent,” King said.

“What I said to the secretary was, ‘We want a full, transparent, and open investigation of this matter,’” King added after noting that the agents did not have body cameras recording during the incident.

A press release from the office of Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey, a Democrat, said of the Biddeford shooting: “Initial statements indicate an Enforcement Removal Operations Officer was conducting an enforcement operation related to a final order of removal when the subject attempted to flee in a vehicle in the direction of the officer and was fatally shot.”

Blaze News reached out to the DHS for comment.

RELATED: President of Mexico VOWS to take action over lethal ICE shooting of illegal alien in Houston

Dozens of protesters joined a demonstration at a park after the shooting. Dozens of activists also went to Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins’ office to protest.

“Vote her out!” they chanted.

WMTW-TV news video from the scene shows agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigating the shooting.

“Today, a 26-year-old member of our community is dead following an incident involving ICE,” reads a statement from MIRC Executive Director Mufalo Chitam.

“We are grieving, we are furious, and we will not allow his death to be treated as routine or inevitable,” he added. “How much more harm must our communities endure before those with the power to act acknowledge that this has gone too far?”

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

​Ice shooting, Immigration and customs enforcement, Maine, Anti-ice protest, Politics 

For decades, socialists have held up Sweden as a model for the kind of government they want to build in the United States. But according to Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck, that argument falls apart the moment you look at what actually happened in Sweden.

“During the postwar decades, Sweden dramatically expanded government spending, the taxes, the regulation. By the 1970s and into the 1980s, economic growth slowed way down. Investments weakened; entrepreneurs left,” Glenn says.

“Some of Sweden’s most successful companies and business leaders moved. They just moved out of the country. IKEA relocated ownership to the Netherlands. Tetra Pak moved to Switzerland. Sweden’s relative standing among wealthy nations fell sharply for two decades,” he explains.

Instead of doubling down, Sweden then reversed course.

“Governments from both the left and the right reduced regulations. They reformed the pensions. These are things we’re not doing. They introduced private competition into education. … Today, more than 800 independent schools operate with public funding. Private companies run a substantial share of the Swedish primary health centers,” he says.

“Taxes were restructured. Markets were liberalized. The reforms were not a rejection of the welfare state. They were an acknowledgment that somebody first has to create the wealth to pay for it,” he continues.

“It’s really hard to redistribute prosperity after you’ve regulated prosperity out of existence. And that’s what New York is doing,” 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.

​Glenn beck, Government, Netherlands, New york, Socialists, Sweden, Switzerland, Taxes, United states, The glenn beck program 

Two Kansas parents are accused of leaving their six children — including two infants — in a hot car as temperatures neared triple digits last week; the parents reportedly went inside a Wingstop for up to 30 minutes.

Citing Salina Police, KSAL-AM reported that officers were dispatched to the Wingstop in the 1600 block of South Ohio Street around 2:15 p.m. Wednesday concerning multiple children left in a vehicle in the parking lot for approximately 20 to 30 minutes with no air conditioning and only one window down.

‘A child’s body temperature raises three to five times faster than adults. They just do not have the same regulating capabilities that an adult does.’

KSAL said arriving officers found a vehicle containing two 7-month-old children, a 2-year-old, a 4-year-old, a 5-year-old, and a 13-year-old. The station said the vehicle was not running and had only one window down while the temperature was 97 degrees with a heat index of 102 degrees.

KSAL added that “the parents of the children,” identified as 53-year-old Michael Krueger and 40-year-old Tiffany Krueger, were located inside the business.

Witnesses said the parents had been in the business for approximately 20 to 30 minutes without checking on the children, the station said.

The Salina Police Department confirmed that Michael Krueger and Tiffany Krueger were booked on six counts of aggravated child endangerment, KWCH-TV reported.

Salina EMS responded and evaluated the children, KSAL reported; police also confirmed that all six children were taken into protective custody, KWCH added.

The parents remained behind bars Monday in Saline County Jail.

RELATED: Mother ‘intentionally’ left her toddler in hot car, police say. Now she’s charged with murder.

Chad Scoville of the Salina Fire Department told KWCH that children are more vulnerable to heat than adults.

“A child’s body temperature raises three to five times faster than adults,” Scoville told the station. “They just do not have the same regulating capabilities that an adult does.”

Scoville added to KWCH that temperatures inside vehicles can reach dangerous levels in a short period of time.

“Temperatures can reach deadly levels inside cars within minutes,” Scoville told the station. “Anything can happen at any time, even if you think you’re going to be minutes — that could turn into an hour. We simply do not want to leave … children or pets in unattended vehicles. Period.”

KWCH, citing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said cracking a car window does not help reduce temperatures inside a vehicle. The station’s video report said a thermometer placed inside a car starting at 83 degrees with the windows rolled up reached 108 degrees in approximately 20 minutes.

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

​Kansas, Hot car, Salina, Aggravated child endangerment, Parents, Children left in hot car, Wingstop, Arrests, Crime 

There are threats, and then there are $30 billion threats.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta seems to have the magic wand that could remedy the situation, but the decision is not exactly a case of right and wrong.

‘The proposed transaction will increase output, expand theatrical releases, and enhance competition.’

All my exes live in Texas

The massive $110 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount has the California AG at a seemingly unforgiving fork in the road: either allow it to go through or face an exodus of capital in the amount of tens of billions.

At the same time, Paramount CEO David Ellison is allegedly being pushed by advisers and confidants to consider moving his company’s business out of California. Semafor reported that this would take around $30 billion in planned spending out of state if AG Bonta stops the long-battled merger with his new lawsuit.

If the deal were to go through, Paramount would keep both companies’ lots in California, but if it doesn’t, there are a few distinct possibilities.

The first and most popular choice for companies in recent years has been Texas, where both Oracle and Tesla moved in 2020 and 2021. Oracle then went to Tennessee in 2024, which also offers a lower corporate tax rate than California, but neither of these locations is where Paramount bought new office space.

RELATED: California doles out over $100M in taxpayer money to massive film studios

Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

Strictly business

Last year, Paramount picked up 285,000 square feet of studio space in Bayonne, New Jersey, another option should things fall apart in the Golden State. However, New Jersey joined California’s lawsuit to block the merger, so it remains unclear if the state would still welcome Paramount if it dropped anchor on New Jersey’s shores.

Paramount has defended its intentions by saying the merger is not just good for business, it’s good for the business.

“This merger will create a company capable of investing more aggressively in premium content, theatrical releases, and creative talent at a time when those investments matter more than ever,” Paramount said in a press release provided to Blaze News.

Over the course of several letters, Paramount argued to the California AG that Netflix, Amazon, and Disney have control over the subscription streaming service world, and neither Warner Bros. nor Paramount would be able to “catch up” with the companies without doing “something transformative.”

Paramount added, “The proposed transaction will increase output, expand theatrical releases, and enhance competition with scaled streaming platforms, all of which depend on sustained and growing demand for creative talent.”

Needless to say, Bonta did not agree with these calculations and offered an opposing viewpoint.

RELATED: Hollywood’s Bleeding

Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

Not a fan

In his lawsuit, AG Bonta said the merger could inflict “substantial harm on movie theaters, basic cable distributors and, ultimately, audiences nationwide.”

The merger threatens viewers with higher prices, the AG claimed, while reducing the “variety, quality, and amount of content distributed.”

The following states joined California in its lawsuit: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington.

Paramount representatives did not address questions about the potential of leaving California.

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

​News, Hollywood, Paramount, California, David ellison, Rob bonta, Entertainment