Category: blaze media

Those license plate cameras hanging over highways and intersections are no longer just reading plates.

New technology now allows some of them to detect the electronic devices traveling with you: your phone, smartwatch, Bluetooth headphones, infotainment system, AirTags, and even some pet trackers.

Collect enough data points, and it becomes possible to identify where someone works, where they live, and who they regularly travel with.

In other words, the goal is no longer simply to identify your car. It’s to identify you. And most drivers have no idea this capability already exists.

Easy reader

Most Americans are familiar with Automatic License Plate Readers. Police departments, toll authorities, and private companies have used them for years. They photograph license plates, log the time and location, and store that information in massive databases.

These systems were originally sold as tools to find stolen vehicles and assist in Amber Alerts. But the databases have grown enormously, storing billions of scans and increasingly being used for purposes far beyond their original mission. Civil liberties groups have been raising concerns about that expansion for years.

According to Flock Safety, one of the largest providers of these systems, its cameras capture multiple frames of video and use motion detection to identify vehicles. The company says it does not use facial recognition technology and that its cameras are not designed to identify individuals.

Yet that distinction is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain.

ALPR cameras use optical character recognition technology to convert license plate images into digital text and compare that information against databases of vehicles of interest. Increasingly, however, the cameras are doing much more than simply reading plates.

Electronic fingerprint

Now, here’s where things get serious.

A defense contractor called Leonardo has been promoting a system called SignalTrace. It turns license plate cameras into advanced vehicle-tracking technology by combining plate information with signals transmitted by nearby electronic devices.

Even if you never gave permission for anyone to access your phone, smartwatch, Bluetooth devices, or your vehicle’s Wi-Fi system.

SignalTrace is essentially an add-on sensor that can be attached to existing license plate cameras. Instead of simply reading a plate, it searches for wireless signals coming from nearby devices: Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, RFID, and other identifiers.

Drive past one of these systems and it may detect the electronic signatures coming from your phone, smartwatch, Bluetooth headphones, infotainment system, AirTags, tire-pressure sensors, or other connected devices.

The system then links those electronic identifiers to a license plate. Leonardo calls this your “electronic fingerprint.”

In plain English, the goal is to connect vehicles with the electronic devices and people associated with them.

May the Fourth be with you

According to documentation referenced by multiple publications, SignalTrace isn’t limited to roadside cameras. The technology can also be deployed in parking garages, transportation hubs, event venues, and other public locations where wireless devices are present.

That means these systems can continue gathering information even when a vehicle isn’t the primary focus.

This raises two obvious questions.

First: Who controls the information about where you go and what devices you carry with you?

And second: How much of this surveillance is consistent with Americans’ expectations of privacy?

Privacy advocates argue that technologies like this raise serious Fourth Amendment concerns because they allow governments to collect detailed information about people’s movements and associations without individualized suspicion or a warrant.

Modern problems

That debate is only becoming more important as vehicles themselves become increasingly connected.

Modern cars already collect enormous amounts of information, including location data, driving behavior, route histories, voice commands, vehicle diagnostics, and in some cases information gathered through interior cameras and driver-monitoring systems.

Critics worry that systems like SignalTrace add yet another layer to an already expanding data ecosystem.

Most drivers don’t realize that they don’t fully control much of the information their vehicles generate. Manufacturers often determine who can access that data, whether it can be shared, and how long it is retained.

Now, layer SignalTrace on top of all that.

Not only can manufacturers collect information from connected vehicles, but external surveillance systems may now be able to detect the devices you bring into the car and tie those identifiers directly to your license plate.

Over time, that creates a remarkably detailed picture of your movements and routines.

RELATED: The latest ‘solution’ to reckless driving could limit freedom for all of us

United Archives/Getty Images

Pattern of life

Privacy experts often refer to this as “pattern of life” surveillance. Collect enough data points, and it becomes possible to identify where someone works, where they live, who they regularly travel with, and even sensitive locations they frequently visit.

Leonardo says the technology captures identifiers and frequencies, not the contents of calls or messages. That may be technically true. But once detailed information exists inside a database, history shows that its use often expands over time.

So what does this mean for ordinary drivers?

It means the privacy expectations many Americans still have on public roads may be changing quickly.

It means the data ecosystem surrounding your vehicle is becoming larger and more interconnected.

And it means lawmakers need to have serious conversations about who can collect this information, how long it can be stored, and what can be done with it.

I’m not saying every police department will abuse these capabilities tomorrow. But once the technology exists and the infrastructure is already in place, the temptation to use it more broadly becomes very real.

We’ve seen that happen with other surveillance tools.

Protect yourself

So what can you do right now?

First, familiarize yourself with your vehicle’s privacy and data settings. Many cars allow you to disable certain forms of data sharing or location tracking.Second, be mindful of Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. If you’re not using them, consider turning them off. These are precisely the types of signals systems like SignalTrace are designed to detect.Third, if you use AirTags, fitness trackers, or pet trackers, understand that those devices can also become part of your electronic footprint.Fourth, when you sell or trade your vehicle, factory-reset the infotainment system and remove all paired devices. Many people leave enormous amounts of personal information behind without realizing it.Finally, support serious data-privacy legislation and efforts to give consumers greater control over the information their vehicles generate.

Because technologies like this rarely arrive with a major announcement.

They appear quietly in police budgets, vendor contracts, and infrastructure projects.

And by the time most people notice, the system is already in place.

Bottom line: Your car is supposed to work for you, not the other way around. When surveillance systems start linking your license plate to the devices you carry every day, it’s worth paying attention — and asking some hard questions before these technologies become the new normal.

I’ll keep watching this space and bringing you updates as more departments adopt or test these systems. And I’ll let you know about the wins too.

If you’re wondering, “Where are all these cameras?” you will be shocked. Check out websites like deflock.org, an open-source project mapping license plate readers. Or look on eyesonflock.com, an aggregating Flock Safety Transparency Portal data, and haveibeenflocked.com, where you can enter your plate number to find out more.

​Airtags and trackers, Connected vehicles, Data control, Fourth amendment, License plate cameras, Privacy concerns, Surveillance systems, Electronic fingerprint, Tech, Flock cameras, Leonardo, Signaltrace, Automotive 

A new report from Punchbowl News has revealed new details about the recent hospitalization of longtime Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Last month, news broke that McConnell was hospitalized on June 14. Spokesperson David Popp released a statement that day that said little more than that the senator had been “admitted to the hospital” and that he was “receiving excellent care.”

The dispatcher requests ‘ALS’ services, which Thompson said referred to ‘Advanced Life Support.’

No updates have been released in the weeks since. However, a Punchbowl News report released Wednesday revealed that McConnell was “unconscious” when first responders were sent to his home in Washington, D.C.

The report cited an emergency dispatch recording shared on X by D.C. journalist Desirée Thompson. Thompson claimed the recording came from “Washington, D.C., Fire and EMS dispatch.”

On the recording, the dispatcher requests “ALS” services, which Thompson said referred to “Advanced Life Support.” The dispatcher also notes that the emergency relates to someone who is “unconscious.”

Blaze News reached out to McConnell’s office to confirm that the senator had been unconscious at the time and to learn the current status of his condition and whether he has been discharged from the hospital. The office did not respond.

RELATED: Longtime GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell hospitalized

Photo dated June 1, 2026, featuring Sens. Mitch McConnell and Jim Justice of West Virginia; Nathan Posner/Anadolu/Getty Images

Punchbowl News reported that multiple senators, including Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), have claimed to have spoken with McConnell. Thune said the day after McConnell’s hospitalization that McConnell remained “dialed in to what’s going on” in the Senate.

Thune’s office did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News about whether he has been in touch with McConnell since that time.

McConnell’s health has been the subject of concern for years. The 84-year-old has apparently frozen up, tripped, fallen down stairs, and used a wheelchair on multiple occasions, including in early June. Back in February, he checked himself in to a hospital after experiencing “flu-like symptoms.”

About 10 days before his latest hospitalization, a noticeably frail-looking McConnell required assistance from two men as he made his way through the U.S. Capitol to vote on a reconciliation bill, a photo showed. His most recent message on X was posted on June 12.

McConnell announced in early 2025 that he would not seek another term.

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

​Mitch mcconnell, Kentucky, Politics 

The Supreme Court’s decision in the birthright citizenship case cannot be sugarcoated: It is a disaster.

Illegal immigration drives many of the problems that afflict the nation — cultural decline, political brinkmanship, the rise of socialist and communist policies, social fragmentation, strained schools and hospitals, and damage to the job market, to name only a few.

Getting back on track requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement to focus resources on targets and operations that can yield large numbers of removals.

But birthright citizenship adds a uniquely destructive incentive. It rewards illegal immigration itself by bestowing sacred American citizenship on the children of people who should not be here in the first place.

Birthright citizenship creates a multiplier effect. It turns one act of illegality into a generational claim on the country. To put it in terms some of my more interventionist friends may understand, the proponents of illegal immigration have secured state-sanctioned weapons of mass reproduction.

Even after this setback, much can be done to mitigate the damage. Fortunately, the solution is not only politically viable; it was promised.

The solution is mass deportation, now with a particular focus on illegal aliens who are expectant parents or already have children.

The Supreme Court’s ruling does nothing to grant amnesty to the parents of would-be citizens if those parents are here illegally. Deporting expectant parents shuts off birthright citizenship before it happens.

For illegal aliens who already have children with ill-gotten birthright citizenship, the parents should be deported with their illegal-alien family unit. They can choose to abandon their children in the United States, which would be a condemnable moral failure, or take their children with them.

To make things easier, the Oversight Project has already put together the “Keeping Families Together Plan: How to Deport After the Birthright Citizenship Case.”

The administration remains far off target on fulfilling its mass-deportation agenda. The numbers are not there. Getting back on track requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement to focus resources on targets and operations that can yield large numbers of removals.

That means high-density enforcement.

Worksite enforcement against illegal labor operations at Republican-protected sanctuary farms, factories, and industrial hubs would produce large numbers of arrests and deportations. Enforcement at high-density physical locations obviously yields more results than chasing one alien at a time.

This is not happening at the necessary scale because the special-interest lobby supporting these industries is a major financial backer of the Republican Party.

But as far as I know, no special-interest lobby for the parents of anchor babies funds Republican elections. I have been surprised before, but this should be an easier political fight.

RELATED: 1776, not 1608: What the Supreme Court got wrong on birthright citizenship

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call Inc./Getty Images

It has been difficult to persuade the Trump administration to turn fully toward worksite enforcement. Perhaps the outrage over the Supreme Court’s decision can now be channeled into concrete action to mitigate the damage.

If the court had ruled the other way, presumably these removals would already be happening. If birthright citizenship for illegal aliens is truly the civilizational threat its critics claim it is, then the Trump administration must use every available tool to address it even under this now seemingly permanent constitutional framework.

Other steps will be necessary to address birthright citizenship gained through means other than crossing the border illegally. Temporary visitors and birth tourism should be targeted. So should more exotic abuses, such as a communist Chinese billionaire allegedly mailing sperm to California to impregnate women and produce American-citizen children for him.

There is no shortage of mitigating measures available: tightening rules for temporary visitors, banning birth tourism, and perhaps even banning the use of the mail system for communist Chinese sperm.

For those here illegally, the answer is more straightforward.

The Trump administration should fall back in love with its signature campaign promise to carry out the largest deportation operation in American history.

Illegal aliens cannot have anchor babies here if they are deported first.

The solution is sitting right in front of us.

Mass deportation.

​Birthright citizenship, Scotus, Supreme court, Trump, 14h amendment, Amnesty, Oversight project, Mass deportation, Visas, Opinion & analysis 

President Donald Trump spoke candidly about his rallies that used the hit “Y.M.C.A.” song after the death of one of the Village People.

Trump said the song became a big hit once again after he started using it, which began during his 2020 presidential campaign.

‘There’s nothing gay about that.’

Campaign stops and anti-lockdown protests that featured the “Y.M.C.A.” song — as the president did his signature dance — made the Village People’s hit synonymous with Trump rallies.

On Tuesday morning, just one day before his 75th birthday, Village People co-founder and Texas native Victor Willis passed away.

“It is with profound sadness that I must announce the death of my husband, VICTOR WILLIS,” wife Karen Huff-Willis wrote on Facebook, per CBS News.

Willis’ wife described his death as the result of “a short, but aggressive illness” and requested privacy.

Trump was quick to offer his condolences early in the morning on Wednesday, taking to Truth Social to post kind words about the disco singer.

“He was a great and happy guy who loved that I used his groups song, YMCA, at my Rallies,” Trump wrote. “It became a ‘monster’ hit, again, 30 years after its original launch. Many singers and groups wanted to get on board at the Rallies after all of the Rally Attendance Records were set – The crowds were, and are, enormous – But Victor and the group was there for us right from the beginning!”

RELATED: How an NYC socialite’s riches preserve America’s beautiful, bustling past

Gari Garaialde/Redferns

Willis described in late 2024 how financially beneficial the re-emergence of the song had been, saying on his social media page that the boost from Trump had “been great.”

“Y.M.C.A. is estimated to gross several million dollars since the President Elect’s continued use of the song. Therefore, I’m glad I allowed the President Elect’s continued use of Y.M.C.A. And I thank him for choosing to use my song,” Willis wrote.

Trump continued on Wednesday, saying of the Village People, “They loved the action, and we loved them and their great and uplifting song.”

The president concluded, “We will think of Victor every time YMCA is played, like today, and all throughout this July Fourth Birthday week. My condolences to his wonderful family and group, Victor Willis will be sorely missed.”

RELATED: ‘They’re animals’: Trump UNLOADS on ‘godless Communists’ taking over the Democratic Party

While it has been widely assumed “Y.M.C.A.” is about gay men and has been colloquially referred to as the gay national anthem, Willis denied this and said the song was simply about hanging out with friends.

Particularly, Willis stated the line “You can hang out with all the boys” was “simply 1970s black slang for black guys hanging out together for sports, gambling or whatever. There’s nothing gay about that.”

Three Village People albums went platinum in the U.S.: “Macho Man,” “Cruisin’,” and “Go West.”

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

​Politics, Trump, Ymca, News 

The 2024 U.K. general election surprised a lot of people, not least the Labour Party itself.

Sir Keir Starmer did not so much come to power with a mandate from the electorate as benefit from Britain’s absurd first-past-the-post voting system. Labour secured a massive 174-seat majority on just 33.7% of the vote.

Apparently, a 16-year-old is wise enough to choose the next government, but a 15-and-a-half-year-old is too fragile to look at a meme on X without state intervention.

This “loveless landslide,” as it has been called, happened because everyone was fed up with the Conservatives pretending to be conservative while presiding over record immigration and historically high taxes, while the emerging Reform Party split the vote on the right.

Look back in anger

Brits tend to vote tactically. Voting in this country is about getting rid of someone you hate or voting for someone you hate a bit less to prevent someone you hate a lot more from gaining power.

When he stood on the steps of Downing Street almost two years ago, Starmer declared that the country had voted for “change.” And change the country he did. To paraphrase Churchill, never in the field of politics have so few done so much to make life worse for so many. The prime minister and his Cabinet of credentialed ideological clones immediately set about dismantling the British state. We went from 14 years of chaotic Conservative rule to managed decline overseen by a man so dull he had to beg his shadow to follow him.

Admittedly, he did unite the country — against him.

Within the space of two years, Starmer’s blend of technocratic managerialism and authoritarian overreach had alienated and enraged just about everyone. He was so unpopular that he was even hated by people who didn’t know he existed; people heard the name or saw his face and seemed ready to spontaneously combust with rage.

Ultimately, he did the right thing and resigned on June 22. Ironically, it was only during his resignation speech that he actually showed some genuine human emotion. When his successor, generally considered to be Andy Burnham, takes up the role — the seventh PM in a decade — the revolving door of people fighting for the front seat of a clown car continues.

Unsubscribe

Starmer’s final, desperate attempt to manufacture a legacy before leaving Number 10 was his sweeping social media ban for under-16s. Not content with alienating a generation of working-class voters, he apparently wanted to ensure that the youngest demographic would grow up hating Labour as well.

Just two years ago, Starmer resisted calls to ban children from having smartphones and using social media. So the about-face is nothing new to a man who has changed his mind on dozens of government policies. The former prime minister has made so many U-turns that the clown car is doing donuts at the circus.

According to statements he made during his Downing Street press conference, Starmer took a more draconian approach after meeting with bereaved parents and after evaluating evidence from Australia, which became the first Western country to ban children from social media in December 2025. From early next year, the age limit will be raised from 13 to 16 on platforms including Snapchat, Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube.

Naturally, children were positively overwhelmed with joy by the news that the state was going to become their new moral guardian. When the BBC visited a school to gauge the reaction of under-16s to being kicked off “the socials,” they spoke to a few who agreed with the ban, but they also met a teenager named Isabella. After she revealed that her weekend screen time was nine hours, the reporter asked what she would do with all that sudden time.

In classic British fashion, she deadpanned straight to camera: “Stare at a wall.”

It was a wonderfully sarcastic, meme-ready response that instantly went viral.

RELATED: Britain is paying the price for years of woke ideology

JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP/Getty Images

‘Sheer hypocrisy’

If Andy Burnham becomes prime minister and proceeds to enforce this ban, he will inherit a generation of young people whose first political memory is of a government that exists largely to take things away.

The sheer hypocrisy of the policy is staggering. This is, after all, the exact same Keir Starmer who championed lowering the voting age to 16, solemnly declaring that young people were mature enough to help decide the future of the United Kingdom. Apparently, a 16-year-old is wise enough to choose the next government, but a 15-and-a-half-year-old is too fragile to look at a meme on X without state intervention.

No thought has been put into this ban. The legislation excludes WhatsApp and Signal — so the state’s big-brained solution to online safety prevents a teenager from posting a photo of his friends on a public feed, yet happily lets him participate in group chats with hundreds of peers, swapping the exact same content totally off the regulatory radar.

Besides, kids are not as stupid as we think; they are light-years ahead of tech regulation. Recently a study commissioned by online safety charity the Molly Rose Foundation exposed the reality of these policies. The study — the first to examine teen social media use under a blanket ban — found that 61% of Australian 12- to 15-year-olds who previously had accounts still maintained access to at least one platform.

Don’t get me wrong: Social media is a sewer, overrun with self-righteous liberals and narcissistic attention-seekers posting slop, but it’s an easy target for policymakers. Not everything is the fault of social media. This is a moral panic, a headline-grabbing stunt parading as child protection. Social media platforms, like video games before them and horror movies before that, have simply become the latest scapegoat for wider social problems.

I sympathize deeply with the frustration and anguish felt both by teachers and grieving parents, but child-rearing should not be outsourced to the state any more than the government should declare a national bedtime. It’s a parent’s responsibility to bring up children, not the state’s. If Labour thinks Parliament can legislate a tech-savvy generation into staring at a wall, lawmakers are about to find out exactly how tactical the next electorate can be.

​Andy burnham, Keir starmer, Labour party, Nanny state, United kingdom, Voting age, Lifestyle, Social media ban, Letter from the uk 

While three major socialist victories occurred in New York City this month, the rise of this anti-American movement is not confined to New York — and could spread across the country if left unchecked.

“They’re extremists. They’re so dangerous to our country. How did they do it?” BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler begins on “The Liz Wheeler Show.”

However, Wheeler points out that there is good news — they “can be stopped.”

“It doesn’t necessarily require the cooperation of the do-nothing Republicans in the United States Congress. President Trump can take action himself,” she says.

Wheeler explains that first, Trump “must defund” any college or university that “indoctrinates youth in anti-American ideology.”

“Even private schools, by the way, this doesn’t just apply to state schools. Even private schools accept federally subsidized student loans and research grants from the federal government. Cut it all,” she says.

“The second thing that we need to do is we need to prosecute individuals who indoctrinate kids with communism,” she continues.

“Some people are going to accuse me of wanting McCarthyism 2.0. Yeah, that sounds like a good start. Prosecute them,” she adds.

The third thing Trump can do to stop the wave of Marxists infiltrating the U.S. government is to report those individuals who celebrate tragedies like the murder of Charlie Kirk.

“Tell their parents, report them to their school, to their employer. Make that follow them in our society. It’s not cancel culture. It’s self-defense,” Wheeler says.

“And the fourth thing, infiltrate the radical terrorist groups that are such a looming threat to our country. We just learned … that the ring leader who plotted the mass terror attack that was, thank goodness, thwarted against UFC Freedom 250 at the White House, was an illegal alien,” she explains.

“Infiltrate the radical terrorist groups, the radical trans terrorist groups, specifically the BLM, racial Marxist groups, Antifa, Soros, Roy Singham-funded groups, and break them up because they are the enforcement arm of the ideology embraced by this terrible trio,” she continues.

The fifth thing, Wheeler explains, is that K-12 public schools should have a pro-American, pro-Western civilization, and pro-Christian curriculum.

“So that these children are not vulnerable to the indoctrination of university, so that they’re not prepped and primed and halfway indoctrinated by the time they even get there,” Wheeler says.

“I make this list because it’s important that we understand how this was done in New York City … and that it is a significant threat not just in New York but in cities and states all across the country,” she adds.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Liz wheeler, Democrats, Communism, Mccarthyism, Socialism, Donald trump, Marxism, The liz wheeler show, Conservatives, Zohran mamdani 

Many people have turned away from cigarettes in recent years, opting for “healthier,” smokeless alternatives.

And now the Food and Drug Administration has effectively backed up the claim by changing its regulations — for a crowd-favorite brand, no less.

‘Using ZYN instead of cigarettes puts you at a lower risk of mouth cancer, heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis.’

On Tuesday, the FDA updated its regulations of ZYN nicotine pouches so that the products can be marketed with language suggesting that ZYN, made by Swedish Match USA Inc., is indeed healthier — or are at least less harmful — than cigarettes, as many people might have suspected.

Specifically, the FDA says the label can say: “Using ZYN instead of cigarettes puts you at a lower risk of mouth cancer, heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis.”

RELATED: WARNING: Nicotine may cause focus, motivation, and joie de vivre (which is why they hate it)

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

“FDA’s decision is an important moment for the more than 45 million legal-age nicotine consumers in America,” Philip Morris U.S. CEO Stacey Kennedy said in a statement obtained by CNBC. “Today’s news ensures these adults have access to accurate, science-based information, including FDA-authorized evidence that switching from cigarettes to ZYN reduces the risk of smoking-related diseases like heart disease and lung cancer.”

The new regulation will apply to 10 flavors of the original product line at two different strengths, three milligrams and six milligrams.

The flavors are chill, cinnamon, citrus, coffee, cool mint, menthol, peppermint, smooth, spearmint, and wintergreen.

It apparently does not, however, apply to ZYN’s new flavors, peach, black cherry, and dragonberry, which were teased on ZYN’s Instagram page last month.

“FDA’s review of modified risk products is intended to ensure that adult users have clear, science-based information about the relative harms of tobacco products, so they can make informed choices,” Bret Koplow, acting director of the agency’s Center for Tobacco Products, said in a statement obtained by The Hill.

“Today’s decision allows these products to be marketed with a modified risk claim that informs adults who smoke about the lower risks associated with these products,” Koplow added.

It is important to note that this regulatory update is a marketing authorization, not an “FDA-approval.” The FDA says that “no tobacco product is safe” and instead deals in terms of “relative risk.”

According to the FDA’s website, the application to gain this marketing authorization “must demonstrate that the product will significantly reduce harm and the risk of tobacco-related disease to individual tobacco users and benefit the health of the population as a whole.”

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

​Cigarettes, Zyn, Fda, Politics 

This week while dining at a McDonald’s in South Burlington, Vermont, I went to the men’s room — and for a split second thought I’d entered a wormhole to the 1990s.

Did you ever go to a dance club that was illuminated by black-light bulbs? You know, the ones that glow purple-blue and make dirt and dandruff stand out like Christmas tree lights on your shirt?

My business partner and I were thrown out of a popular chain music supply store by three stoop-shouldered men in their 20s because we refused to wear masks.

That’s what it looked like. It was so dim I could barely navigate to the sink. I glanced up at the ceiling fixtures and sure enough, the bulbs were all dim blue. Why?

The answer will tell you all you need to know about how far my state has fallen.

Sugar crash

Consider this a companion piece to my recent article about sugar heiress Electra Havemeyer Webb and the priceless collection of American art, architecture, and industry she bequeathed to the people of the Green Mountain State.

I’m sorry to report that Mrs. Webb’s 39-acre park of wonders is an island of civility and charm losing its shoreline to blight, criminality, and despair. The same can be said of the other remaining pockets of old Vermont still hanging on.

At first, that men’s room was more puzzling than depressing. I’ve never seen a McDonald’s with a “sci-fi dystopia” decor before.

Then it hit me: This must be one of the gratingly permanent neurotic hangers-on from the days of COVID. Of course!

If such a conclusion would have never occurred to you, you must live in a red state. Or at least one of the relatively saner blue states of the northern plains.

If so, let me explain what those of us in deep Democrat territory lived through during COVID.

New England breakdown

Here in New England, the entire region went clinically insane. Everything shut down. Elderly men wearing masks outdoors on city streets screamed (yes, vocally screamed), “WHERE’S YOUR MASK?!” at people like me who went barefaced on Main Street in January.

People were thrown out of urgent care waiting rooms for not being vaccinated. A doctor implied she would report me to the state health board because I would not promise her that I would obey the governor’s self-quarantine order simply because I visited my family at Christmas.

My business partner and I were thrown out of a popular chain music supply store by three stoop-shouldered men in their 20s because we refused to wear masks. Then the restaurant across the street threw us out for the same reason, while mothers actually clutched their children to their bosom and stared at us as if we were muggers.

Yes, I know this sounds like something out of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” but I’m telling the truth. All of this really happened, and almost everyone went along with it.

Germ warfare

Today, six years later, the neurosis of that era has become the “new normal.” While the incidence has decreased, you still see people every day wearing masks outdoors on the street or alone in their cars. The post office in South Burlington still has not taken down its jury-rigged plexiglass barriers between the counter worker and the customer. The all-caps sign ordering you to STAND HERE is still there.

So naturally I thought the bulbs in the McDonald’s were meant to emit some kind of special germ-killing wavelength. Doesn’t that seem like something the geniuses who came up with all-day face diapers and “six feet apart” would suggest?

I drove 45 minutes home to the outskirts of Montpelier believing I’d figured it out. And then I did a little research.

The dim blue bulbs are not there to banish germs. They are installed to frustrate IV drug users by shining a light that makes it impossible to locate a blue vein under the skin. They are there to stop junkies from making the bathroom their private opium den or — should they overdose — their public deathbed.

“Officials in Philadelphia are handing out blue light bulbs because the glow supposedly masks the blue-tinted lines of veins — making it harder for intravenous drug users to find a vein,” National Public Radio’s Steve Inskeep intoned in 2019. That’s right, a full seven years ago.

You can find quite a bit of mainstream coverage of this phenomenon starting in about 2018. CBS News covered it in 2018, and so did Fortune magazine.

RELATED: How an NYC socialite’s riches preserve America’s beautiful, bustling past

Electra Havemeyer Webb. Slim Aarons/Getty Images; Background: Shelburne Museum

‘Symbolic violence’

And, from what I can tell, most of the more critical follow-up coverage only second-guessed this “important harm reduction measure” because it might make shooting up drugs more dangerous for the poor junkies. I couldn’t find any coverage that even mentioned the more important effect.

That more important effect is the degradation of civil society for normal, respectable people. The capitulation to the tyranny of junkies, criminals, and vagrants. We are a society that will not say: “No. You cannot make a place like McDonalds, which used to be a treat for children, into a no-go zone that arranges itself around the habits of low-lifes without doing a thing to make children and families feel welcome.”

Look at how an Inverse article criticized the blue lights. The article headline called the practice “symbolic violence.”

“But there are some huge problems with this approach,” author Peter Hess wrote. “Research has shown that drug users will still try to inject drugs in a blue-lit bathroom, even if it means they could accidentally miss their vein, which increases the risk of infection or soft tissue damage.”

Stand and fight

Pardon me for not giving a tinker’s damn if some addict gets soft-tissue damage. I’m part of the majority class of normal, productive citizens. We matter too. It is us and our families who pay the price for this, quite literally through taxes confiscated from us to give “safe injection spaces” for people who ought to be in a psychiatric ward. We’re paying a social and morale tax, too, as the world adds bumper cushions for the worst among us while telling law-abiding people to suck it up or get out.

This dystopia-in-a-bathroom story is just one symptom of an ongoing decline in areas governed by Democrats, progressives, and communists.

Burlington, Vermont, once a glittering city on the shores of Lake Champlain, is losing businesses in the tourist district because the city’s progressive mayor and her city council cry crocodile tears for the “unsheltered” community and refuse to hire enough police to crack down on open prostitution and drug crime.

My town, Montpelier, is barely holding on. The 19th-century Victorian Main Street is still there, but its charm is becoming blurrier and harder to see through the accumulation of graffiti, rutted streets, and open homeless encampments and drug dens in the alleys.

Whenever one writes an article like this, the most common reaction is, “Why don’t you just move, then?” My response: “Why don’t you stand and fight for the town you love?”

​Blue states, Burlington, Civil society, Communists, Covid, Homeless encampments, Lifestyle, Vermont, Woke, Intervention 

In the immediate wake of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk’s assassination on Sept. 10, 2025, depraved leftists celebrated in classrooms, in town squares, online, and elsewhere.

Some of those who publicly relished the news of the young father’s murder were publicly shamed, received reprimands, or even lost their jobs.

‘I am very pleased.’

One such radical managed to turn her encounter with accountability into a major payday.

On Sept. 12, 2025, Tamar Shirinian, a Lebanese-born LGBT obsessive then working as an assistant anthropology professor at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, wrote in a Facebook comment about Kirk’s assassination, “The world is better off without him in it,” WVLT-TV reported.

“Even those who are claiming to be sad for his wife and kids … like, his kids are better off living in a world without a disgusting psychopath like him,” Shirinian apparently continued, “and his wife, well, she’s a sick f**k for marrying him so I don’t care about her feelings.”

The radical’s comment soon went viral, prompting a response by the university.

University of Tennessee Chancellor Donde Plowman notified the radical in a Sept. 15 letter that she was being placed on administrative leave pending termination proceedings, stressing that “violence on a university campus wounds the heart of our academic mission, and no statement endorsing a campus shooting can be acceptable to an institution.”

RELATED: Montreal shooter’s alleged manifesto calls for far-left communist totalitarianism, ‘revolutionary terror’

Trent Nelson/the Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images

“By celebrating violence and murder in your social media posts, you have violated the university’s expectations for the people teaching our students,” Plowman continued. “Your decision to post incendiary comments publicly at a time of heightened anxiety reveals that you do not have the competencies necessary to be an effective instructor.”

Plowman highlighted in a subsequent letter dated Sept. 16 the policies the radical had violated warranting her termination.

In her six-page response, Shirinian blamed her nasty comment on Charlie Kirk, claiming that she made the post after seeing one of the murdered man’s quips that had made her “quite emotional” and put her “in a state of grief.” After displacing blame, she proceeded to attack the dead man for several pages.

After attributing 11 other comments to Kirk that “disgusted” her, the foreign-born radical painted herself as the real victim, identifying hate mail messages she supposedly received and complaining about the backlash over her remarks.

Plowman wasn’t buying what Shirinian was selling and saw to the radical’s termination on Feb. 11, just weeks after Shirinian asked the UT Board of Trustees in a letter to reinstate her.

In the termination letter, Plowman wrote, “Your words celebrated a gruesome murder, which horrifically took place on a college campus similar to our own, and then went on to callously demean the grief and loss felt by the widow and young children of the victim while also mocking any grief felt by others who sympathized with the surviving family.”

“The antagonizing tenor of your words makes you a target for potential retributive violence that could put our students and faculty in harm’s way, as well as irreparably damage the public’s trust in our University,” Plowman continued. “I have a responsibility to minimize any such risks.”

Months earlier, however, Shirinian — who was apparently making around $92,000 a year as of January — sued the university, once again pushing her victim narrative and denigrating Charlie Kirk.

In addition to spending roughly nine pages complaining about various things Kirk said before he was murdered, the Oct. 29 lawsuit accused the university of violating Shirinian’s First Amendment rights by “retaliating against her as a professor in a public university for expressing political speech in a purely personal capacity.”

The case was supposed to go to trial In January 2027, but the university blinked.

The university has reached a $1.9 million settlement with Shirinian — a settlement which WBIR-TV reported was approved in a meeting of the UT Board of Trustees Audit and Compliance Committee on Monday.

John Compton, the chair of the board, suggested that continuing litigation would eat up valuable time, attention, and resources that would be better invested in advancing the university’s mission.

While the radical gets a big payday, she will not have her faculty position restored.

Robb Bigelow, Shirinian’s attorney, said the agreement was a “mutually acceptable resolution.”

“We think it recognizes the seriousness of the issues presented while avoiding the time, expense, and stress of continued litigation. We wish the University, its students, faculty, and staff nothing but success going forward,” Bigelow said.

“I am very pleased with the outcome,” Shirinian told WBIR.

The settlement must now be approved by the full UT Board of Trustees and the state, including Governor Bill Lee (R).

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

​Charlie kirk, University of tennessee, Lawsuit, Politics, First amendment 

A 36-year-old mother was charged with manslaughter after her 18-month-old son died in April after choking on unpopped popcorn kernels at her Long Island apartment.

Prosecutors believe Olivia Bithorn was drinking vodka in the bathroom of her unit in Merrick after giving the bag of kernels to her son, Luke Russell Jr., and his 3-year-old sister.

‘Everyone in her life had basically written her off except her husband, who was … trying to make sure she had a place to live and was staying sober.’

The little girl alerted the mother after the boy became unresponsive.

“Her son was blue and cold to the touch,” said Nassau District Attorney Anne Donnelly, who appeared to get emotional at the details.

“They estimate, allegedly, he was dead for over an hour before 911 was called,” she added.

Donnelly said Bithorn was getting sick in the bathroom because she drank too much alcohol. An empty bottle of Tito’s vodka was found at the apartment.

“It’s an accident if you leave the room for a few minutes … but it’s criminal if you actually give your child these kernels to eat and not be present if something happens,” she added.

Prosecutors said Bithorn had a long history of alcohol abuse and put her children at risk because of her drinking problem. She cycled in and out of rehab programs for years, crashed a car, and even disappeared for three days at one point.

She had separated from her husband of three years while battling alcoholism.

“Everyone in her life had basically written her off except her husband, who was trying to, even though they’re separated, trying to make sure she had a place to live and was staying sober,” Donnelly added.

RELATED: Homeless man makes ‘horrific’ discovery near dumpster at Los Angeles parking lot, police say

Her estranged husband was in court but declined to comment as he left.

Merrick is a small hamlet of about 22,000 residents on the south shore of Long Island.

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

​Alcoholism, Baby death, Choking, Long island, Manslaughter, Mother, Crime 

There are moments when an entire ideology reveals itself to the American public — not in a faculty seminar, not in a university land acknowledgment, not in a mandatory “inclusive excellence” module administered by a deputy assistant associate vice provost of DEI, but on a basketball court.

Caitlin Clark being struck in the throat by Alyssa Thomas was one of those moments.

DEI, whether it appears as decolonizing, social justice, critical race theory, BLM activism, or ‘inclusive excellence,’ is not a path to justice. It is a catechism of resentment.

The WNBA later decided the incident was a “non-basketball act,” a useful clarification for those of us who had not noticed that punching a player in the throat is not among the standard fundamentals of the game. Dribbling, passing, shooting, rebounding — yes. Throat strikes — apparently, no.

The referees, however, seemed to be conducting an advanced seminar in nonintervention. They saw nothing. Or more precisely, they saw what everyone else saw and did not think it required interruption.

The WNBA reviewed the play and assessed Thomas a Flagrant Foul 2 with a one-game suspension. Fever guard Sophie Cunningham has publicly said Clark is being targeted and that the league and refs are not protecting her. Meanwhile, Clark’s presence has coincided with major WNBA attendance and ratings growth.

This is where the Caitlin Clark story becomes larger than basketball.

For years, America’s universities have devoted themselves to replacing character formation with grievance formation. Students are taught, with all the solemnity of medieval theologians but none of the metaphysical seriousness, that the world is divided into oppressor and oppressed, privileged and marginalized, white and non-white.

Every inequality of outcome receives the same explanation: whiteness. Every frustration becomes resentment. Every failure gets assigned a villain.

This curriculum does not produce justice. It produces vice.

It teaches envy and calls it “equity.” It teaches resentment and calls it “consciousness.” It teaches contempt for one’s neighbor and calls it “liberation.” It tells young people that the chief moral fact about another person is skin color, then professes shock when people begin treating one another accordingly.

Enter Caitlin Clark.

The WNBA has long existed less as a product of overwhelming public demand than as an institutional cause. It was the league America was instructed to support. Like many progressive projects, it was sustained not by market interest but by moral instruction: Watch this. Celebrate this. Subsidize this. Affirm this.

Then, something embarrassing happened.

RELATED: The latest violent attack on Caitlin Clark exposes the WNBA’s real problem

Erica Denhoff/Icon Sportswire/Getty Images

A player arrived whom the public actually wanted to see.

Clark did not require an ideological sales pitch. She did not need a campus office to explain her importance. She did not need a seminar on representation and patriarchy. She could shoot from the logo. She could pass as if she had seen the play unfold three seconds before everyone else. She brought eyes to the league, filled arenas, moved merchandise, and made casual fans care.

That is precisely the problem.

The DEI imagination can handle excellence only when it can be absorbed into its preferred categories. If Clark’s success could be explained as “white privilege,” the story would be safe. But basketball is a cruelly empirical game. The ball either goes in or it does not. The pass either arrives or it does not. The defense either stops her or it does not. No diversity consultant can revise the box score.

Clark’s excellence is infuriating because it is visible. It is not a theory, a grant proposal, or a paragraph in a strategic plan. It is the fruit of natural ability disciplined by relentless work.

Even family support, private schooling, and access to good coaching do not manufacture Caitlin Clark. They may provide opportunity. They do not produce logo threes, court vision, and competitive fire. Many athletes have access to lessons. Few can do what Clark does.

That fact is intolerable to a culture that has taught itself to scoff at diligence, fortitude, self-control, patience, hope, faith, and love. The old virtues are too demanding because they require personal responsibility. DEI prefers a more comforting doctrine: Your failures are someone else’s fault, your anger is moral insight, and your neighbor’s success is evidence of systemic injustice.

We have seen this moral theater before.

After George Floyd died under the knee of Derek Chauvin, the image played endlessly across America. Universities made it the centerpiece of institutional repentance. Faculty meetings became revival services for Black Lives Matter. Professors who had never shown much interest in moral absolutes suddenly discovered original sin, provided it could be located in “whiteness” rather than in the human heart.

The radicals had their icon. They had their liturgy. They had their marches. They had their administrative decrees.

But what happens when the image does not serve the approved narrative? What happens when the visible act is not a white officer restraining a black man but a black WNBA player striking a white superstar in the throat?

Suddenly, the moral machinery becomes less efficient. The referees miss it. The league responds later. The commentators explain. The defenders contextualize. The public is asked not to notice too much.

But we do notice.

We notice that Clark is not merely guarded. She is battered. We notice that punishment often comes after public outrage rather than during the game. We notice that the league seems oddly embarrassed by the very player who has made it more relevant than ever. We notice that when excellence appears in the wrong demographic package, the apostles of equity become strangely tolerant of abuse.

RELATED: Caitlin Clark gets fist to the throat as WNBA primed to explode: ‘She’s a straight white basketball player’

Justin Casterline/Getty Images

This does not mean every foul against Clark is a racial incident. Basketball is physical. Stars get hit. Great players attract aggressive defense.

But the pattern surrounding Clark has become hard to ignore, and so has the ideological atmosphere in which it is interpreted. When a society is trained to see whiteness as a moral defect, it should not be surprised when white excellence is treated as something to be punished rather than admired.

DEI has trained institutions to cultivate suspicion, bitterness, and selective compassion based on skin color and sexuality. It has trained people to blame their problems on abstractions rather than repent of their vices. It has trained the public to redistribute honor and resentment according to race.

Its hope is not in virtue but in power, not in truth but in control, not in love of neighbor but in the forced rearrangement of social goods around resentment.

Caitlin Clark has become the face of DEI abuse because she exposes the lie. She shows that excellence is not reducible to privilege. She shows that work counts. She shows that talent must be disciplined. She shows that the public will still respond to greatness when it sees it.

And for that, she must be punished.

The throat strike was not merely a foul. It was a parable. It showed what resentment does when it cannot refute excellence. It tries to silence it, intimidate it, and make it pay for existing.

We should learn the lesson. DEI, whether it appears as decolonizing, social justice, critical race theory, BLM activism, or “inclusive excellence,” is not a path to justice. It is a catechism of resentment.

It does not teach us to love our neighbor. It teaches us to hate by skin color.

The answer is public rejection of DEI in all its forms.

​Caitlin clark, Critical race theory, Equity, Opinion & analysis, Sophie cunningham, Whiteness, Wnba, Black lives matter, Racism, Diversity equity inclusion, Lesbians, Derek chauvin, George floyd 

Last week, the Supreme Court voted for the federal government’s ability to remove protections for citizens of Haiti and Syria — and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) isn’t having it.

“We saw today the Supreme Court make a decision that is putting so many people’s lives in jeopardy. And I just came back from a rally with 1199 as I stood alongside a number of Haitian New Yorkers who are concerned about what this means for their status in our city,” Mamdani began in a video statement.

“And frankly, this city, the one that we love, is one that has been built by so many from so many different parts of the world. And that includes our Haitian brothers and sisters, our Syrian brothers and sisters. And we stand here ready to be in solidarity with all of those who are concerned by today’s decision,” he said.

“Now, what that means when it comes to our city is if you are worried about what this means for your status, if you’re worried about what this means for your family, I would encourage you to call our Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs hotline,” he added.

“Notice when the Supreme Court goes on their side, you absolutely must positively follow it. But if it doesn’t go their way, well, then they have all kinds of NGOs that come out of the woodwork to subvert,” Glenn comments.

“Is New York part of the United States or not? Because I’m fine with it. Cut it off … not one federal dollar goes to New York City. I am fine with that,” he continues.

Glenn points out that behind Mamdani is a flag, but it’s not the American flag.

“I just saw a rainbow flag behind him … so he’s got that flag,” Glenn says, explaining that the mayor is threatening “rebellion.”

And President Donald Trump appears to be taking notice.

“The Communists are finally making their move. I’ve been waiting and preparing for this for a long time,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

“I mean, that makes me happy,” Glenn 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, Zohran mamdani, Supreme court, New york city, Immigration, Haiti, Syria, Asylum, The glenn beck program 

The Alaska Supreme Court has delivered the final blow to Republicans’ efforts to keep a Senate challenger by the same name as incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan (R) off the ballot.

In a short order handed down Monday, the court affirmed a ruling from a superior court that Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. must appear on the Aug. 18 primary ballot for U.S. Senate.

‘The only reason he is running is to deceive voters and manipulate Alaska’s election system.’

“The 6/26/2026 order of the superior court directing the Division to include appellee Sullivan as a candidate for United States Senator on the primary election ballot is AFFIRMED,” the order said.

The court remanded the matter to the Division of Elections to determine how J. Sullivan should be listed on the primary ballot.

“A full opinion will be issued at a later date,” concluded the order.

Nate Adams, a spokesperson for Sen. Sullivan, released a statement on the ruling: “We’re disappointed in the court’s decision, because, as the sham candidate Dan J. Sullivan’s lawyers made clear in their legal arguments, the only reason he is running is to deceive voters and manipulate Alaska’s election system.”

“However, we are encouraged by the fact that the Director of the Division of Elections will be able to use her expertise to differentiate between the Petersburg fraud and the incumbent — Senator Dan Sullivan — to the benefit of Alaska voters,” Adams added.

J. Sullivan’s campaign expressed approval of the decision in a statement, saying, “We are grateful for the Alaska Supreme Court’s careful and timely attention to this important expedited matter, and its decision to affirm Judge Matthews’ well-reasoned, thorough order vacating the Division’s unlawful decision to exclude me as a candidate. We expect that the Division will act in full compliance with existing Alaska ballot design law in its preparation of the ballots.”

RELATED: Alaska court reinstates Senate candidate sharing incumbent’s name

A 69-year-old retired teacher, J. Sullivan reportedly registered as a Republican earlier this year and entered the race to oust Sen. Sullivan on May 29, just before the deadline for filing.

He has faced accusations from Sen. Sullivan of coordinating with Democrat operatives to sabotage the senator’s chances of re-election. Sen. Sullivan told CNN earlier this month that J. Sullivan’s candidacy was effectively a Democrat effort to “cheat” and confuse voters in order to increase Democrat challenger Mary Peltola’s odds of winning.

“Democrats recruited a guy by the name of Dan Sullivan. He is a liberal progressive. … He’s donated to Peltola,” Sen. Sullivan said.

He added, “His campaign logo, his letterhead, his website, all had my campaign logo that I’ve had for 13 years.”

In response to J. Sullivan’s candidacy, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Alaska Republican Party filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission and the state’s Division of Elections, respectively.

After Alaska Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom (R) requested an investigation into J. Sullivan’s eligibility, Carol Beecher, the director of the Division of Elections, concluded that J. Sullivan had not filed a genuine “good-faith” candidacy and instead sought to confuse voters by placing two candidates with nearly identical names on the ballot.

J. Sullivan appealed the division’s decision to the Superior Court, where Judge Thomas Matthews affirmed that he met all the qualifying criteria set out by the Constitution and therefore Alaska could not impose an additional requirement on his candidacy. The court further concluded that J. Sullivan’s alleged motives or political affiliations did not bear on his constitutional eligibility to seek office.

The state appealed the decision to the Alaska Supreme Court, which again ruled in favor of J. Sullivan — officially solidifying his place on Alaska’s Aug. 18 nonpartisan primary ballot.

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

​Dan sullivan, Us senate, Politics, Alaska 

An elderly Air Force veteran was assaulted, injured, and robbed after withdrawing cash from an ATM in Pearland, Texas, earlier this month — and cellphone video shows a juvenile taking the victim’s wallet.

A KHOU-TV video report shows the end of the June 19 attack outside a Walgreens, with the victim lying on the ground in a parking space in front of the store.

‘How scary!! I know where this was. I go there when I come into town. But …’

The 79-year-old veteran told the station he thought withdrawing cash from an ATM inside the store was safer. However, he added to KHOU that he suspects he was being watched.

The elderly victim told the station he was jumped as soon as he walked out of the store and that he’s thankful he suffered only minor injuries.

Pearland police on Tuesday confirmed that the suspect seen in a video the department took down from its Facebook page has been identified as a juvenile, and “the investigation is ongoing as officers work to take him into custody.”

Police added that the video was removed because the suspect is a juvenile.

Officers on June 19 responded to a robbery investigation at the Walgreens located in the 11600 block of Shadow Creek Parkway in Pearland, police said.

The investigation revealed that a 79-year-old man had just completed a cash withdrawal from a nearby ATM when he was returning to his vehicle, police said.

At that time, police said, an unidentified black male wearing a white shirt and black pants approached the man who had just withdrawn cash and assaulted him, causing bodily injury.

Police said the suspect stole the victim’s wallet and the cash he had just withdrawn.

Detectives soon identified and arrested two additional suspects involved in the robbery:

Donte Belle, 30, of Houston, was identified as the driver of the getaway vehicle, and he was charged with aggravated robbery, police said.Demondtra Moore, 23, of Houston, was identified as the alleged lookout, and he also was charged with aggravated robbery, police said.

The Special Investigations Unit of the Pearland Police Department’s Criminal Investigations Division is continuing to investigate this case, police said.

A handful of people commented on the KHOU video showing the end of the attack. The following are a few reactions:

“Throw those punks away,” one commenter said.”Damn, I wished that man was armed,” another user wrote.”How scary!! I know where this was. I go there when I come into town. But …,” another commenter exclaimed.

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

​Aggravated robbery, Pearland, Texas, Atm, Walgreens, Elderly victim, Air force veteran, Suspects arrested, Juvenile suspect at large, Crime 

For generations, homeowners have been told that paying property taxes is simply the price of owning a home. But Florida voters may soon have a chance to change that.

A proposed ballot amendment would remove an estimated 60% of homeowners from property tax rolls, a move supporters say would provide long-overdue relief and strengthen private property rights.

“Of course, they’re pushing back on the other side of this. And talking about Oviedo, a bedroom community outside Orlando, has been trying to build a new police station for a decade, but now with this property tax situation, they may not even have a police department to put in the new station,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray explains on “Pat Gray Unleashed.”

“They might have to merge with the county,” he says.

However, Gray is hopeful that Oviedo’s concerns may be ignored.

“In November, Florida voters decide on a ballot amendment that would remove roughly 60% of Florida residents from property tax rolls,” he says. “That’s amazing.”

“Why isn’t that happening in Texas?” he asks.

“Because our governor is a follower,” executive producer Keith Malinak answers.

“If you look at everything, whether it’s COVID or anything, religious stuff, that you’ve seen DeSantis stand up for … Abbott goes, ‘Oh, the water seems fine. I guess now I’ll jump in,’” Malinak says.

“So, maybe this will happen,” he adds.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat’s biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Florida, Governor, Greg abbott, Oviedo, Pat gray, Property taxes, Ron desantis, Texas, Pat gray unleashed 

The arrest of two suspects during San Francisco’s Trans March led to police clashing with marchers who were trying to free the suspects, according to police.

The two suspects were arrested, three marchers were arrested, and two of the police officers were injured while trying to deal with the crowd.

‘People were dancing, children were running around. It was just joyful. And suddenly the police came running. Some of them had their guns drawn, batons out.’

Police said the two were seen vandalizing property with spray paint and that one suspect had assaulted and spray-painted another marcher. When they attempted to arrest the suspects, marchers surrounded them and obstructed the officers in an attempt to free the suspects.

A woman who witnessed the melee Friday told KRON-TV that the police should have let the suspects go rather than fight back against the marchers.

“I’m crying because it was just so shocking to see such a peaceful, beautiful event just be basically run over by police out of nowhere over somebody spray-painting,” said the woman, who wanted to be known by the name Missy.

She said she went to the march with her transgender-identifying child before the police ruined it.

“People were dancing, children were running around. It was just joyful. And suddenly the police came running. Some of them had their guns drawn, batons out,” she added.

Two people were arrested on suspicion of obstruction of police, and three were arrested for alleged vandalism and assault.

“I get that in large crowds police have a heightened sense of awareness and reaction and all of that, but the guy was spray-painting. I just don’t feel it was necessary,” the woman added.

The San Francisco Police Dept. released a statement about the incident:

The SFPD always respects individuals’ First Amendment rights to protest; however, criminal activity will not be tolerated in San Francisco. Additionally, the SFPD is unwavering in its support for the LGBTQ+ community and will continue to protect and serve every community in San Francisco.

One livestreamer recorded himself screaming at police officers and demanding to know why they would arrest transgender-identifying people in the transgender district.

RELATED: California taxpayers are funding gender transition services for homeless illegal aliens: Report

Missy was upset that the police tried to arrest people committing crimes instead of standing by transgender-identifying marchers.

“We don’t need our police officers being unpredictable,” she added. “We need them to stand side by side with us.”

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

​Lgbtq community, San francisco, Trans march, Vandalism, Obstruction of justice, Politics 

The pastor of the New Hope Community Church in Palatine, Illinois, says that he isn’t backing down from preaching the truth after LGBTQ+ activists showed up to protest.

The protesters are angry at messages the church has posted on its digital sign that refer to Pride Month, and they want the church to stop.

‘That gives us the chance to share God’s truth. I wish they’d come every day so we can have conversations.’

One of the messages reads, “We love you enough to tell you the truth,” while another reads, “Ditch Pride, embrace humility.”

“Our goal was to let other residents of Palatine know what this church preaches and that Palatine is better than that,” said Paul Dombrowski of the Northwest Suburban Pride Network to WLS-TV.

“It is important to stand up for those in our community who are being marginalized and who are being ostracized clearly in this way,” said Chelsea Laliberte Barnes, a member of a group named Liberal Moms of the Northwest Suburbs.

Some said they were concerned about the messages because the church is near a school.

The WLS news video report showed that one protester held up a sign reading, “Hate has no home here,” while a report from LGBTQ Nation called the messages “hateful.”

Members of the church came out to defend the innocuous messages and discuss the issue with the protesters.

James Pittman Jr., the pastor of the church, said they would not change their messaging and added that he welcomed the protests.

“That gives us the chance to share God’s truth. I wish they’d come every day so we can have conversations,” Pittman told WLS.

RELATED: NY Pride group disbands after founder is arrested for disgusting alleged crime with minor

The pastor explained that the church’s digital messages would often reflect the season, such as Christmas or Easter, but in June they refer to Pride Month.

WLS noted that LGBTQ activists had also tried to get Palatine city officials to fly a Pride flag outside of city hall but had been rebuffed.

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

​Christianity, Church, Lgbtq, Pride month, Protest, Politics 

Nobody asked us. Not me, not my teammates, not the 18-year-olds who had just arrived at the University of Pennsylvania and found themselves sharing a locker room with Lia Thomas.

Nobody held a vote, nobody sent an email, nobody knocked on the door and said, “Hey, is this OK with you?” They simply instructed us that a man would be joining the women’s swim team and waited for us to get used to it. We never did.

Somewhere along the way, it became the job of a bunch of college kids to fix something the adults in the room had broken.

Plenty of lawyers and pundits will spend the next several weeks dissecting the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in West Virginia v. B.P.J. They will argue about precedent and jurisdiction, but here is what most of them are missing: They were not in that locker room. I was.

Eighteen times a week for an entire season, I changed and showered alongside a male athlete. Eighteen times a week, my teammates and I were expected to act like this was normal.

Voicing concerns was dubbed hateful, and the policy that created this situation in the first place was not. We had earned our spots on the team, but not one person in a position of authority at Penn, the NCAA, or USA Swimming ever pulled us aside and asked how we were handling the situation.

The administration and governing bodies were not interested. The message was quiet but very clear: Your discomfort is not the problem we are trying to solve.

When we tried to raise our concerns, the athletic department told us Thomas’ place on the team was nonnegotiable. Staff members offered us psychological services in an attempt to re-educate us into being comfortable undressing in front of a man. Their solution was not to protect us but to “fix” us.

Somewhere along the way, it became the job of a bunch of college kids to fix something the adults in the room had broken.

That is what I want people to understand when they hear about this ruling: It is not abstract to me. It is not a hypothetical or a talking point. I lived inside the policy the court just ruled states have the right to prohibit.

I can tell you from experience that the “compassionate” framing the other side always reaches for has never once held up to reality.

RELATED: SCOTUS sides with common sense after boys try to play sports with girls

Alex WROBLEWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

Compassion for whom? Not for the female athletes who trained their entire lives and finished one place lower than they should have. Not for the teenager in California who lost a state track title she had earned. Not for my teammates and me who were expected to smile and say nothing while the people making decisions were only concerned about the feelings of one male athlete.

This ruling matters, but it does not automatically fix the issue of the governing bodies and professional organizations that spent the last several years dismantling women’s protections one policy at a time.

The NCAA still allows athletes to compete on an amended birth certificate in some cases, a solution you’d come up with if you were never really trying to solve the problem and never had to share a locker room with a fully grown man.

And worse still, 23 states have no law protecting girls at all.

The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act has been sitting on Capitol Hill for years. Every member of Congress who let it die in committee now has a Supreme Court majority telling them they had the authority to act and chose not to. It is time to finish the job.

I have been waiting for that moment since I was 19.

The court got it right. I just wish it had not taken this long for the people in charge to catch up to what I knew firsthand in my locker room.

​Supreme court, Lia thomas, Women’s sports, Scotus, Ncaa, Upenn, Transgender athletes, Usa swimming, Opinion & analysis 

Chief Justice John Roberts begins the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship opinion in Westminster in 1608 with Calvin’s Case and the English law of royal subjectship.

I would begin in Philadelphia in 1776.

English law rested upon allegiance to the Crown. The American Republic would rest upon the consent of a self-governing people.

Between those two places — and those two moments — lies the American Revolution. And the Revolution changed more than who governed America. It changed the very foundation of political membership.

That is the central problem with the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Barbara. The court’s opinion is learned, careful, and historically rich. Chief Justice Roberts traces the English doctrine of jus soli through Calvin’s Case, Blackstone, a substantial body of antebellum American authorities, and finally United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

It may well become the definitive defense of the conventional understanding of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. But it answers the wrong question.

The issue is not whether America inherited English legal language. It plainly did. The issue is whether America also inherited England’s understanding of political membership.

The majority assumes that the American Revolution left the English understanding of political membership largely intact. The dissents argue that the Revolution rejected that understanding and replaced it with an American conception of citizenship grounded in the consent of the governed. That is the real disagreement in this case.

A new creed

Under English common law, nearly everyone born within the king’s dominions became a natural-born subject. Birth within the sovereign’s territory created permanent allegiance to the Crown because the child was born under the king’s protection. That doctrine made sense in a monarchy. It reflected a world of subjects, sovereigns, dominions, and perpetual allegiance.

But the United States is not a monarchy.

The Declaration of Independence did more than announce separation from Great Britain. It rejected the political philosophy upon which English subjectship rested. Jefferson’s words — that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed” — were not mere rhetorical flourishes. They announced a new theory of political legitimacy.

The Declaration’s closing words made the rejection of perpetual allegiance explicit: The new states were “absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown.”

English law rested upon allegiance to the Crown. The American Republic would rest upon the consent of a self-governing people.

That revolutionary transformation should have been central to the Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Instead, the majority largely assumes that English subjectship and American citizenship belong to the same constitutional lineage. Roberts proves an important proposition: England recognized birthright subjectship. But he does not prove the decisive one: that Americans who had repudiated monarchy intended, less than a century later, to constitutionalize the English law of royal subjectship as the definition of citizenship in a republic.

Mere obedience to law is not the same thing as complete political allegiance.

Justice Joseph Story helps explain why that distinction matters. Story was steeped in English law, but he was not merely Blackstone with an American accent. His great constitutional project was to explain how inherited English legal concepts had been adapted to the institutions and principles of an American republic.

He stands as a bridge between the common-law inheritance and American constitutionalism.

That is the bridge missing from the majority’s account. Roberts reads the inherited legal tradition largely as a line of continuity from Calvin’s Case to Wong Kim Ark. But the American constitutional genealogy runs along a different path: the Declaration of Independence, Story’s adaptation of inherited law to republican constitutionalism, Lincoln’s reaffirmation of the Declaration as the nation’s first principle, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the 14th Amendment.

Abraham Lincoln understood this better than anyone. He did not treat the Declaration as a mere political manifesto. Lincoln treated it as the nation’s statement of principle. In his famous meditation on the Constitution and the Union, Lincoln described the Declaration’s principle of liberty as the “apple of gold,” with the Constitution as the “picture of silver” framed around it.

The frame was made not to conceal or destroy the apple, but to preserve it.

That is precisely the point here. The Constitution must be read as law. But it is American law, not English law. And the 14th Amendment must be read as part of the Constitution’s effort to vindicate the principles of the Declaration after the catastrophe of slavery and Dred Scott.

Preserving the cornerstone

The Reconstruction Congress was not attempting to preserve English constitutionalism. It was completing the work begun in 1776.

The Declaration proclaimed that “all men are created equal.” Dred Scott denied that promise, holding that an entire class of Americans could never become members of the political community. The 14th Amendment repudiated that decision.

But it did so by restoring the principles of the American founding, not by reviving the legal doctrines of the British Crown.

This is why the majority’s repeated description of the Citizenship Clause as “declaratory” does not resolve the question. Declaratory of what? The common law of royal subjectship inherited from England? Or the constitutional law of citizenship that Americans had transformed through the Declaration, the Revolution, and nearly a century of republican self-government?

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, not 1768. It should therefore be interpreted through the constitutional understandings of the American Republic, not simply those of the British Empire.

The Citizenship Clause provides: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” The clause does not simply require birth in the United States. It adds a second requirement: The person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Those words must do real work.

RELATED: The Supreme Court puts border judges back in their lane

Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The majority effectively equates “subject to the jurisdiction” with “subject to American law.” Anyone physically present in the country, except diplomats and members of sovereign Indian tribes, must obey American law. From that premise, the majority concludes that virtually everyone born here becomes a citizen.

But the Reconstruction Congress was speaking of something more profound than traffic laws and criminal jurisdiction. It was defining membership in the American political community.

The debates surrounding the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment repeatedly invoked the ideas of complete jurisdiction, complete allegiance, and undivided political obligation.

Senator Lyman Trumbull, the principal author of the Civil Rights Act, explained that citizenship extended to those who were subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States — not merely to those temporarily answerable to its laws.

Every foreign visitor is obliged to obey American law while here. So is every foreign student, every tourist, every diplomat’s driver, and every person who crosses the border unlawfully. But mere obedience to law is not the same thing as complete political allegiance. If it were, the jurisdictional language would add almost nothing to the constitutional text.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 used slightly different language, extending citizenship to persons born in the United States and “not subject to any foreign power.” The 14th Amendment altered the phrasing, but not the underlying concept of complete political jurisdiction. The point was not mere geography. It was political membership.

That is why the dissents have the stronger originalist argument.

Citizenship in America

Justice Clarence Thomas begins with a question the majority never fully confronts: What did Americans understand citizenship to mean after they had rejected English subjectship? That is the proper originalist inquiry. It is not enough to ask how English courts defined the king’s subjects. The constitutional question is how Americans defined members of a self-governing republic.

The majority’s treatment of United States v. Wong Kim Ark illustrates the same methodological difficulty. Roberts portrays today’s decision as little more than the faithful application of settled precedent. That gives Wong Kim Ark much broader force than it actually possessed.

The case involved a child born in San Francisco to parents who had been lawfully admitted and permanently domiciled in the United States. That holding was sufficient to resolve the controversy before the Court. Whether the Constitution mandates citizenship for children born to temporary visitors or to those unlawfully present was not presented.

To be sure, Justice Horace Gray’s opinion draws heavily on the English tradition of jus soli. But the opinion’s reasoning extended well beyond the facts before it. Its discussion of temporary visitors and the full scope of the Citizenship Clause should be evaluated on the strength of its historical reasoning, not treated as though every observation carried the force of the Court’s holding.

That is especially important because Wong Kim Ark itself looked backward through the English common-law tradition. Today’s Court repeats that move. But whether Justice Gray correctly understood the original meaning of the 14th Amendment remains the very question under debate.

Over the past two decades, Edward Erler, Michael Anton, and I, along with several other prominent legal scholars, have argued that the Citizenship Clause must be understood against the backdrop of the American Revolution rather than the English common law of perpetual allegiance.

That argument does not deny England’s commitment to jus soli. It asks whether the American Revolution rejected the premise on which English jus soli rested.

RELATED: Sen. Schmitt offers glimmer of hope after birthright citizenship ‘mistake’ from SCOTUS

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images

Chief Justice Roberts presents an intellectually serious account of the conventional view. The majority opinion deserves respect for its scholarship and for its careful engagement with difficult historical sources.

But scholarship is only as persuasive as the question it seeks to answer.

Roberts proves that England followed jus soli. He proves that English subjects acquired allegiance by birth within the king’s dominions. He proves that Wong Kim Ark embraced that historical tradition.

What he never quite proves is why the American people, after repudiating monarchy and proclaiming government by consent, should be presumed to have constitutionalized that English doctrine rather than adapting inherited legal language to their own revolutionary understanding of citizenship.

The disagreement between the majority and the dissent is therefore not ultimately about Blackstone, Calvin’s Case, or even Wong Kim Ark. It is about what the American Revolution accomplished. Did it merely transfer sovereignty from the king to the people while leaving the English understanding of political membership intact? Or did it reject that understanding and replace it with citizenship grounded in consent, allegiance, and membership in the American political community?

Justice Thomas places that question at the center of the inquiry. For an originalist, that is exactly where it belongs.

The Declaration of Independence eloquently and definitively answered that question in favor of the doctrine of consent rather than the feudal doctrine of jus soli. In this, its 250th anniversary, it should not have been overlooked.

​Scotus, Birthright citizenship, 14th amendment, 1776, Wong kim ark, Dredd scott, Common law, Declaration of independence, Supreme court decision, Opinion & analysis 

Comedian Druski took the stage at the BET Awards as a flamboyant preacher obsessed with celebrities’ net worths and extravagant displays of wealth. And while it was a joke, BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock believes it exposed something very real about the current state of the black church.

“The black church is now a running joke to the point that the BET Awards can be based off of it. Druski opened up the BET Awards mocking the black church,” Whitlock says, before playing a few clips from Druski’s performance.

In one clip, Druski yelled that “somebody getting impregnated with the Word of God in here, in the front row right here.”

In another clip, he says, “We’ve got so many stars in the building whose net worths are blessed and who God has ordained to bless me. Put Tyler Perry net worth up there. Oh my God! Glory! $1.4 billion dollars! We pulling net worth tonight. Amen.”

“Somebody better donate, amen? Amen. Amen. Who else in the building? We got Stevie Wonder in the building. Put his net worth up there. $200 million,” he continues, with the screen behind him showing Wonder’s net worth in brail.

“This man is mocking the black church, taking God’s name in vain in front of a national television audience on the biggest night in black culture,” Whitlock says.

“I actually think he’s a force for good. He’s holding up a mirror and saying this is the type of clown show we have become,” he continues.

“Druski is using comedy properly to hold up a mirror and say … our behavior is so foolish that the only thing I can do is mock it,” he adds.

While Shemeka Michelle agrees, she also doesn’t think the comedy is for everyone.

“I don’t have a problem with it when it comes to people like us who actually can say this is so sad, that it’s accurate … but I think where my problem would come in at is that so many people won’t see it. They won’t see that this is accurate and this is sad and that there needs to be a change,” Michelle says.

“They will just take it as ‘OK, this is nothing to take serious, and we can continue to just play with God and the church, and it’s something that should be made a joke of,’” she continues.

“That’s what I’m kind of fearful of, that people just won’t have any reverence for God,” she adds.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Jason whitlock, Fearless, Druski, Comedian, Bet awards, Black church, Shemeka michelle, Jason whitlock harmony