Category: blaze media

A friend of mine, Tessa, spent her teenage years aboard a 71-foot sailing yacht with her family, a vessel that demanded real seamanship. Long before GPS, her father read the stars, charts, and maps with the precision of a seasoned navigator, steady with a sextant and calm in a storm.

Life aboard that yacht was demanding but wonderful. The family and small crew sailed from port to port, creating memories that lasted a lifetime. Her father handled the galley as confidently as the sails. Every meal bore his touch in equal parts skill, joy, and flair.

‘Stay. I’ll teach you.’ Those words are the melody of mercy and the quiet assurance that keep weary caregivers from giving up.

After many months, he decided to bring another hand on board to help with the sailing and cooking. While docked in the south of France, Tessa met a young man living alone on a boat in dry dock. He was surviving on oatmeal and sharing it with a cat. Something about him stirred her compassion, and when she learned he had sailing experience, she introduced him to her father.

Seeing potential, the captain asked a simple question.

“Can you cook?”

“Sure, I can cook,” the young man replied.

To find out, the captain assigned him a meal for the family: pork chops, potatoes, and vegetables. When the food was served, everyone quickly realized the truth. The meal was so bad that they threw it overboard.

The family and crew sat silently, watching to see what the captain would do. He had every right to send the young man away — throw him overboard like the meal. But he did not.

He smiled. “Stay,” he said. “I’ll teach you.”

And he did.

That moment changed the young man’s life. From then on, he learned from the master day after day in the ship’s galley. When his time with the family ended, he carried a letter of recommendation that earned him a position in a fine restaurant. Years later, he managed a marina, bought one, and built a good life — all because one man refused to throw him overboard.

I already knew Tessa’s father, so hearing that story from her carried special meaning. I could picture the scene, the tension in that little galley, the expectant faces, the quiet pause before the verdict. But what the captain did was more than kindness; it was redemption. He saw failure, yet chose to restore and teach.

What a great picture of the gospel.

Christ finds us floundering in our own sin. We may bluff our way on board, convinced we can handle life. But when the Master steps into view, our self-made confidence collapses.

And here is the wonder: the Redeemer does not leave us in shame. He saves us, then teaches us.

That order matters. Salvation first, sanctification after. We are not accepted because we can learn; we are taught because we’ve been accepted.

That is grace. And it’s also the heart of many caregivers’ journeys.

Most caregivers never planned this voyage. Some of us bluff our way on board, thinking we’ve got this figured out. Others climb aboard unaware of how poor our skills really are. But it doesn’t take long to find out — we come up short.

We think we can “cook” until the storm hits, a diagnosis, a disability, an accident, and we realize we’re in over our heads. The meals we serve, our best efforts, often come out burned and bitter.

But Christ, the steady Captain, doesn’t throw us overboard. He teaches us, patiently and personally, in the galley of daily struggle.

C.S. Lewis once observed that God is not content to leave us as we are; He is shaping us into something far better than we imagined. That shaping often happens in the quiet, ordinary places where so many caregivers live.

Some of His lessons come softly: how to sit in silence beside a hospital bed, how to pray when words run dry, how to rest even when sleep won’t come. Others are harder, such as learning to forgive those who don’t understand or to accept help when pride tells us to refuse.

Over time, we learn, not because we are gifted, but because He is faithful.

Every caregiver I know can point to moments when someone showed them that same mercy: a nurse who stayed late to explain a procedure, a pastor who listened instead of lectured, a spouse who forgave a sharp word. Each of them reflected the Redeemer’s voice: “Stay. I’ll teach you.”

RELATED: The BLT that broke my brain (and exposed a bigger problem)

Photo by Fritz/ClassicStock/Getty Images

Tessa’s father not only knew his way around his ship’s galley; he knew his way around any kitchen. His name is Graham Kerr, and the world knew him as “The Galloping Gourmet.”

But this story isn’t about fame or food. It’s about redemption that becomes instruction — grace that saves, then sanctifies.

Christ does that with us. He is not merely a teacher or navigator; He is the One who walks on water and calms the seas. He doesn’t choose us for our skill; He redeems us for His glory. And He doesn’t give up when we burn the meal.

For family caregivers, that’s good news. We don’t have to be perfect; we only have to stay aboard.

“Stay. I’ll teach you.”

Those words are the melody of mercy and the quiet assurance that keep weary caregivers from giving up. Under the Master’s hand, even our failures serve His purpose.

​Sailing yacht, Cook, Acceptance, Gospel, Christ, Opinion & analysis 

Joe Rogan is undoubtedly the most popular podcaster in the world, hosting intriguing and expansive conversations about topics ranging from politics to sports — and everything in between. Rogan’s influence over the culture cannot be overstated.

That’s why his recent comments about Jesus, the Bible, and church are so notable.

‘I’m sticking with Jesus on that one. Jesus makes more sense. People have come back to life.’

Before this year, many had long assumed Rogan was a firm agnostic based on various on-air proclamations and statements. But 2025 seemed to signify what can only be described as a spiritual shift in the host’s life.

Specifically, Rogan’s recent statements about Christianity aren’t merely pointed and effective; they actively dismantle and challenge some of the most absurd atheist arguments against the Christian faith, with Rogan’s responses to Jesus, the Big Bang, and other related issues raising eyebrows.

Intrigue over his spiritual journey kicked into high gear in May when Christian apologist Wesley Huff, who appeared on “The Joe Rogan Experience” in January, revealed that Rogan had started attending church on a “consistent” basis.

Not long after this stunning news, Rogan delivered remarks that went mega-viral when he openly bolstered belief in Jesus’ resurrection and casted doubt on the Big Bang theory.

“It’s funny, because people will be incredulous about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but yet they’re convinced that the entire universe was smaller than the head of a pin and for no reason that anybody’s adequately explained to me — that makes sense — instantaneously became everything? OK,” Rogan told fellow podcaster Cody Tucker, noting that the Big Bang isn’t as credible as some believe.

RELATED: Like, subscribe, and spread the good news: Joe Rogan helps gospel go viral

Rogan quoted late ethnobotanist Terence McKenna, who reportedly once made notable comments about the debate over faith and science — comments with which Rogan agreed. Ultimately, when juxtaposing Christ’s story with science’s claims about creation, the podcast host said there’s a clear winner.

“That’s McKenna’s great line … the difference between science and religion is that science only asks you for one miracle … the Big Bang,” Rogan said.

“I’m sticking with Jesus on that one. Jesus makes more sense. People have come back to life.”

These comments were just the beginning, though, because Rogan again dove into similar issues on another recent episode of his show. In fact, he addressed his church attendance and said he sees incredible benefits from being present inside houses of worship.

“It’s a bunch of people that are going to try to make their lives better. They’re trying to be a better person,” Rogan said.

“I mean, for me — at least the place that I go to — they read and analyze passages in the Bible. I’m really interested in what these people were trying to say, because I don’t think it’s nothing.”

It’s this latter quote that’s most notable, because Rogan was speaking to the essential issues of the Christian faith — the questions core to the debate over biblical truth. Is scripture real or filled with fables? Are the stories we read in the Bible rooted in eternal truth — or are they mere allegories and fictitious sentiments?

While Rogan said “atheists and secular people” will go out of their way to dismiss the Bible, the mega-popular podcaster offered a checkmate of sorts, asserting that there’s more happening in the pages of the New and Old Testaments than these critics are willing to recognize.

“I hear that among self-professed intelligent people, like, ‘It’s a fairy tale.’ I don’t know that’s true. I think there’s more to it,” he said. “I think it’s history, but I think it’s a confusing history. It’s a confusing history because it was a long time ago, and it’s people telling things in an oral tradition and writing things down in a language that you don’t understand, in the context of a culture that you don’t understand.”

And he wasn’t done there. Rogan went on to herald Christianity as the “most fascinating” of all religions, noting that Jesus’ life, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection are all hallmarks that differentiate the faith.

“Christianity in particular is the most fascinating to me, because there’s this one person that everybody agrees existed that, somehow or another, had the best plan for how human beings should interact with each other and behave,” he said.

“He didn’t even protest,” Rogan said. “[He] died on the cross, supposedly for our sins. It’s a fascinating story. What does it represent, though? That’s the real thing. What was that? What happened? Who was Jesus Christ, if it was a human being? What was that? That’s wild.”

RELATED: Is Joe Rogan’s podcast becoming a platform for Christian truth?

Ponder the fact that the most popular podcaster on Earth is seeking, asking important questions — and offering compelling arguments to push back on so much of the atheistic nonsense that has dominated our discourse.

From the media to Hollywood, we have endured decades of ludicrous absurdity, with many folks forcing down our throats secular humanism and anti-Christian folly. And now an unlikely hero — a podcaster not previously known for faith chops — has emerged and is taking the world along for his personal journey.

My only hope is that we all start to pray for Rogan’s faith, life, and spiritual growth. His platform is massive, and his foray into the Christian faith — if it persists — could be key to helping further shift young people and older generations to move closer to the Lord.

​Joe rogan, Jesus, God, Bible, Christianity, Joe rogan podcast, Faith 

Most people know by now that our smart devices are spying on us — collecting data every time we purchase something, visit a website, or engage with social media content. But few understand just how invasive these little voyeurs really are. Turns out our secret watchers are picking up on our personality traits and taking detailed notes on our routines — even learning which side of the bed we sleep on.

Some skeptics dismiss this massive breach in privacy under the premise that they have “nothing to hide” or that the government already knows everything about them anyway. But their flippancy is a grave mistake, says retired Navy SEAL and Blackwater founder Erik Prince and retired Marine and Big Tech insider Ryan Patterson.

Not only are criminals using data to target and exploit people, rogue government agents can and do weaponize data against citizens. We saw it happen with Ad-IDs during the corrupt January 6 investigation.

“Highly politicized federal agents run amok because if you give a jackass a gun and a badge, you get a bigger jackass,” says Prince, condemning the 2024 FISA expansion under Joe Biden as a warrantless digital dragnet that turns every American’s phone into an open book for government “fishing expeditions.”

These scoundrels, he says, can build a case based on someone’s commercial data. If they “went to a school board meeting,” “a political rally,” or “a controversial sermon,” that information can be used to shape narratives.

“They use this data to get the probable cause to then unleash the rest of the government — the people that can hack, the people that can get a search warrant, the people that can enter your home,” adds Patterson.

When the Patriot Act passed after 9/11, letting the government spy on Americans with fewer checks, even liberal tech friends in San Francisco called it a “slippery slope,” he says.

“If we start allowing our government — whichever party — to criminalize things they couldn’t see before, but now can because of this data, it’s really scary.”

Prince calls it “antithetical to a free society” and “worse than George could even imagine.”

But targeting political opponents might not even be the most nefarious use of commercial data. There’s growing speculation that rogue agents also use it to groom potential killers.

“If I were in the CIA and I had access to Google, which I imagine they do, I could say I need 25 people in Texas who are unstable, really don’t like Donald Trump, have a gun, good shot. … I could probably have that in a couple of minutes, and then I could say now let’s turn them into killers — Manchurian stuff, but you don’t need to bring them to Russia; they won’t even know that they’ve been turned,” says Glenn.

“It’s terrifying because they know you better than you know yourself.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the full interview 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.

​Glenn beck, The glenn beck podcast, Erik prince, Ryan patterson, Blazetv, Blaze media, Fisa, Government surveillance, Orwell, Big tech, Smartphones, Spying technology 

When it comes to replacing your daily driver, “used” is often the smartest buy. A low-mileage model from a few years back can save you real money while offering nearly all the same features. And as long as you do your homework, a well-maintained used car is every bit as serviceable as something brand new.

But that might not be true for much longer.

In states without strong right-to-repair protections, shops are already reporting cases where newer vehicles simply can’t be serviced without dealership intervention.

Automakers are steadily locking down the data that modern cars generate. If they succeed, independent repair shops, do-it-yourself mechanics — and your wallet — will feel the squeeze. The stakes are enormous: 273,000 repair shops, 900,000 technicians, and 293 million vehicles could be affected.

Stick with me. By the end of this, you’ll know exactly why the national right-to-repair movement is pushing the REPAIR Act — and why it’s worth calling your legislator today.

Gatekeeping data

For decades, car repair was straightforward. The OBD-II port — standardized in 1996 — gave shops and owners direct access to diagnostic data. That openness fueled competition, kept repairs affordable, and protected your right to choose who services your car.

Today’s vehicles are computers on wheels, containing hundreds of microprocessors and dozens of electronic control units. And instead of sending data through that familiar port, cars now stream diagnostics wirelessly through telematics systems. In 2021, half of all vehicles already had this capability. By 2030, McKinsey projects 95% of new cars will be fully connected.

Here’s the problem: That wireless data goes straight to the manufacturer. They become the gatekeeper — deciding who gets access, at what time, and for what price.

Independent shops get shut out or forced to pay steep fees for limited information. Consumers get funneled back to dealerships. And while telematics can offer real benefits — remote diagnostics, predictive maintenance — those perks mostly stay inside the dealership network when automakers control the data.

Drivers pay the price

When manufacturers monopolize data, drivers pay the price.

Higher repair costs: Independent shops must buy expensive, manufacturer-approved tools or subscriptions — or they can’t complete repairs at all. Fewer options: Your trusted neighborhood shop may be unable to work on newer models, leaving you with dealership-only service. Privacy erosion: Every drive generates information on your habits, location, and behavior. Automakers routinely share or sell that data to insurers, advertisers, and third parties — often without clear consent.

In states without strong right-to-repair protections, shops are already reporting cases where newer vehicles simply can’t be serviced without dealership intervention.

The aftermarket fallout

Independent repair is a massive economic engine. Cut off their access to data, and the ripple effects are huge:

Aftermarket parts makers struggle to design compatible components. Innovation slows. Dealers gain monopolies on everything from diagnostics to repairs. Wait times increase while prices rise.

Voters have noticed. Massachusetts passed a telematics right-to-repair initiative in 2020 with 75% approval. Maine followed in 2023 with 84%. Those wins matter — but a patchwork of state laws won’t protect drivers nationwide.

Enter the REPAIR Act

Industry groups — including the Auto Care Association, MEMA Aftermarket Suppliers, and the CAR Coalition — are backing the REPAIR Act (H.R. 906). It’s not radical. It simply updates consumer rights for the connected-car era.

Four core principles drive the bill:

No artificial barriers to repair or maintenance. Owners and their chosen shops get direct access to vehicle-generated data. No manufacturer can mandate proprietary tools or dealer-only equipment. A stakeholder advisory committee keeps the rules current as technology evolves.

The act restores choice. You can repair your own vehicle — or choose any shop you trust. It bans anticompetitive behavior like withholding service information or requiring dealer-exclusive parts. And crucially, wireless data must be shared through secure, standardized, owner-approved channels.

NHTSA and the FTC would set cybersecurity rules. Consumers would receive clear data-sharing notifications. And if manufacturers abuse the system, the FTC can act fast.

RELATED: Right-to-repair sweetens McFlurry but sours when lives are at stake

400tmax via iStock/Getty Images

Skimp my ride

Without the REPAIR Act, the used-car market collapses into uncertainty. Vehicles that require dealer-only repairs will lose value quickly. Planned obsolescence accelerates. And as cars become fully connected, the familiar OBD-II era winds down.

A car you buy in 2025 could be effectively “dealer-locked” by 2030.

Manufacturers argue they need total control for cybersecurity. But secure, standardized data access — the model used globally — proves you can protect vehicle integrity without destroying competition.

The aftermarket already has a workable framework: encrypted data, authenticated access, owner permissions, and interoperable platforms. It’s practical, safe, and ready today.

The price of inaction

Without federal action:

Repair costs rise 20%-50%. Independent shops close. Innovation dries up. Consumer privacy evaporates. The used-car market contracts.

The REPAIR Act reverses all of that. It creates a fair system where manufacturers build the cars — but the aftermarket keeps them running.

Don’t wait. Act.

This affects every driver. Contact your representative and urge support for the REPAIR Act.
It protects choice, savings, and your right to repair in a digital automotive world.

Your car, your data, your repairs. That’s what’s on the line.

​Lifestyle, The auto industry, Used cars, Consumer choice, Automakers, Telematics, Repair act, The right to repair, Align cars 

A Democratic lawmaker admitted to texting with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a 2019 congressional hearing, seeking his advice on how to question President Donald Trump’s so-called “fixer,” Michael Cohen.

Cohen has claimed that Trump tried to conceal a $130,000 hush-money payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels to hide an alleged extramarital affair. Trump has denied these claims, stating that the funds were sent directly to Cohen, his then-personal attorney, for legal expenses. Cohen testified against the president in the case led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D), in which Trump was convicted on all 34 counts of falsifying business records. Trump has filed an appeal seeking to reverse the criminal conviction.

‘During the hearing, Congresswoman Plaskett received texts from staff, constituents and the public at large offering advice, support and in some cases partisan vitriol, including from Epstein.’

Documents released Wednesday by the House Oversight Committee revealed that a member of Congress, whose name was redacted, had been exchanging text messages with Epstein during a February 2019 hearing where lawmakers heard testimony from Cohen.

Epstein’s messages to the lawmaker appeared to indicate that he was watching the hearing live. Although the name of the congressperson was redacted from the committee’s documents, the timing of the messages indicated that the convicted sex predator was texting Democratic Delegate Stacey Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Washington Post reported.

Plaskett’s office released a statement on Friday, admitting that she had been texting with Epstein.

Plaskett reportedly sent a message to Epstein before the hearing. When the hearing began and the live feed started, Epstein complimented the delegate’s outfit.

RELATED: Trump felony conviction in doubt? President files appeal to clear his name

Stacey Plaskett. Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

“Are you chewing,” read Epstein’s message to the lawmaker moments after the camera cut to Plaskett, who was seen moving her mouth in a chewing motion.

“Not any more,” Plaskett responded, according to the documents. “Chewing interior of my mouth. Bad habit from middle school.”

“Cohen brought up RONA – keeper of the secrets,” Epstein wrote at 11:24 a.m. His message seemed to reference Rhona Graff, Trump’s former executive assistant and former vice president of the Trump Organization, although Plaskett did not immediately grasp the reference.

“RONA??” the lawmaker replied.

“Quick I’m up next is that an acronym,” Plaskett asked, appearing to indicate that it would soon be her turn to question Cohen.

RELATED: Sorry, liberals — the Epstein emails don’t nail Trump

Michael Cohen. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

At 12:25 p.m., Epstein suggested the lawmaker ask Cohen about other individuals close to Trump.

“Hes (sic) opened the door to questions re who are the other henchmen at trump org,” he wrote.

When it was Plaskett’s turn to question Cohen, she inquired about Trump’s associates, as Epstein had recommended.

“During the hearing, Congresswoman Plaskett received texts from staff, constituents and the public at large offering advice, support and in some cases partisan vitriol, including from Epstein,” the statement from Plaskett’s office read. “As a former prosecutor she welcomes information that helps her get at the truth and took on the GOP that was trying to bury the truth. The congresswoman has previously made clear her long record combating sexual assault and human trafficking, her disgust over Epstein’s deviant behavior and her support for his victims.”

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

​News, Jeffery epstein, Epstein, Donald trump, Trump, Michael cohen, Stacey plaskett, Politics 

Say what you will about Russell Crowe, but he has never been a run-of-the-mill actor.

At his best, he surrenders to the role. This is an artist capable of channeling the full range of human contradictions. From the haunted integrity of “The Insider” to the brute nobility of “Gladiator,” Crowe once seemed to contain both sinner and saint, pugilist and philosopher.

In a time when truly commanding leading men are all but extinct, Crowe remains — carrying the weight, the wit, and the weathered grace of a bygone breed.

Then, sometime after “A Beautiful Mind,” the light dimmed. The roles got smaller, the scandals bigger.

There were still flashes of brilliance — “American Gangster” with Denzel Washington, “The Nice Guys” with Ryan Gosling — proof that Crowe could still command attention when the script was worth it. But for every film that landed, two missed the mark: clumsy thrillers, lazy comedies, and a string of forgettable parts that left him without anchor or aim. His career drifted between prestige and paycheck, part self-sabotage, part Hollywood forgetting its own.

Exploring the abyss

But now the grizzled sexagenarian returns with “Nuremberg” — not as a comeback cliché, but as a reminder that the finest actors are explorers of the human abyss. And Crowe, to his credit, has never been afraid to go deep.

In James Vanderbilt’s new film, the combative Kiwi plays Hermann Goering, the Nazi Reichsmarschall standing trial for his part in history’s darkest chapter. The movie centers on Goering’s psychological chess match with U.S. Army psychiatrist Douglas Kelley, who becomes both fascinated and repulsed by the man before him. Goering, with his vanity, intelligence, and theatrical self-pity, is a criminal rehearsing for immortality.

The film unfolds as a dark study of guilt and self-deception. Kelley, played with that familiar, hollow-eyed tension of Rami Malek, sets out to dissect the anatomy of evil through Goering’s mind. Yet the deeper he digs, the more he feels the ground give way beneath him — the line between witness and accomplice blurring with every exchange.

Disturbingly human

Crowe’s Goering is not the slobbering villain of old war films. He’s disturbingly human, even likeable. He jokes, he reasons, he charms. He’s a man who knows how to disarm his enemy by appearing civil — and therein lies the horror. It’s a performance steeped in Hannah Arendt’s famous concept of the “banality of evil”: the idea that great atrocities are rarely committed by psychopathic monsters but by ordinary people made monstrous — individuals who justify cruelty through bureaucracy, obedience, or ideology.

Arendt wrote those words after watching Adolf Eichmann, another Nazi functionary, defend his role in the Holocaust. She was struck not by his madness but his mildness — his desire to be seen as merely following orders. Crowe’s Goering embodies that same terrifying normalcy. He doesn’t see himself as a villain at all, but as a patriot — wronged, misunderstood, and unfairly judged. It’s his charm, not his cruelty, that unsettles.

The brilliance of Crowe’s performance is that he resists caricature. He reminds us that evil doesn’t always wear jackboots. Sometimes it smiles, smokes, and quotes Shakespeare. It’s the kind of role only a mature actor can pull off — one who has met his own demons and understands that evil seldom announces itself.

It is also, perhaps, the perfect role for a man who has spent decades wrestling with his own legend. Crowe was once Hollywood’s golden boy — rugged, brooding, every inch the leading man — but the climb was steep and the fall steeper. Fame, like empire, demands endless victories, and Crowe, ever restless, grew weary of the war.

RELATED: Father-Son Movie Bucket List

Getty Images

A bygone breed

With “Nuremberg,” he hasn’t returned to chase stardom but to confront something larger — the unease that hides beneath every civilized surface. Goering, after all, was no brute. He was cultured, eloquent, even magnetic — proof that wisdom offers no wall against wickedness. And in a time when truly commanding leading men are all but extinct, Crowe remains — carrying the weight, the wit, and the weathered grace of a bygone breed.

At one point in the film, Goering throws America’s own hypocrisies back at Kelley: the atomic bomb, the internment of Japanese-Americans, the collective punishment of nations. It’s a rhetorical trick, but it lands. Crowe delivers those lines with the oily confidence of a man who knows that moral purity is a myth and that self-righteousness is often evil’s most convenient disguise.

The film may not be perfect. Its pacing lags at times, and its historical framing flirts with melodrama. But Crowe’s performance cuts through the pretense like a scalpel. There’s even a dark humor in how he toys with his captors — the court jester of genocide, smirking as the world tries to comprehend him.

Crowe’s Goering is, in the end, a mirror. Not just for the psychiatrist across the table, but for us all. The machinery of horror is rarely built by fanatics, but by functionaries convinced they’re simply doing their jobs.

Crowe’s performance reminds us why acting, when done with conviction, can still rattle the soul. His Goering is maddening and mesmeric. He captures the human talent for self-delusion, the ease with which conscience can be out-argued by ambition or fear. “Nuremberg” refuses to let the audience look away. It reminds us that every civilization carries the seed of its own undoing and every human heart holds a shadow it would rather not confront.

Russell Crowe is back, tipped for another Oscar — and in an age when Hollywood produces so few films worthy of our time or our money, I, for one, hope he gets it.

​Culture, Entertainment, Nuremberg, Russell crowe, Rami malek, Wwii, Nazis, Movie review, Hollywood, Review 

Almost every civilization has, at one point or another, practiced child sacrifice. In our rebellion against God and rejection of Jesus Christ, modern America is no exception.

While we may not burn our children like the Canaanites, cut out their hearts like the Aztecs, or drown them like the Gauls, we most certainly sacrifice our children in acts of worship to benefit ourselves.

We cannot afford to overlook the severity of this sin or its stench before the one true and living God.

Take the example of Stevie Nicks, the singer-songwriter best known for her years with Fleetwood Mac. Nicks boasted about the benefits of her past abortion in a recent video posted on social media and described as a “must watch” by the Center for Reproductive Rights.

In recalling her past abortion, Nicks was not filled with regret or shame, but with a sober admission that murdering her own pre-born baby was worthwhile for allowing her to continue her music career.

“Fleetwood Mac is three years in, and it’s big, and we’re going into our third album,” Nicks recounted.

“It would have destroyed Fleetwood Mac,” she said of her baby.

“I would have, like, tried my best to get through, you know, being in the studio every single day expecting a child,” Nicks continued.

“It would have been a nightmare scenario for me to live through.”

RELATED: Fleetwood Mac’s real breakup story: Death before motherhood

— (@)

Rather than making Nicks seem sympathetic in her decision to have an abortion, the video posted by the Center for Reproductive Rights made her look callous. The organization plainly acknowledged that “access to abortion made her life, her art, and her voice possible.”

Nicks admitted to murdering her baby in exchange for career success: She took the life of her own child for the specific reason of pursuing stardom in the music world.

In other words, she committed child sacrifice.

In the same way that past civilizations sacrificed their children to enable abundant harvests, victory over their enemies, or improved rainfalls, Americans sacrifice our children to enable success in our careers, more financial freedom, or fewer inconvenient responsibilities.

But unlike other civilizations, we do not murder our children in the name of any specific false god or demonic entity. Instead we serve ourselves as our own gods — murdering our babies as an act of devotion in the cult of our own autonomy.

We cannot afford to overlook the severity of this sin or its stench before the one true and living God.

Rather than speaking clearly on abortion as child sacrifice, many pro-life organizations over the past few decades have not only downplayed the distinctly spiritual nature of the abortion holocaust, but have insisted that many of its perpetrators are themselves victims.

In speaking about abortion — even writing laws against abortion — many pro-life leaders emphasize the small minority of cases in which women are compelled with threat of life and limb into having abortions.

But in the vast majority of cases, women who have abortions are active participants or even willful initiators, not passive victims compelled into abortions they do not want.

Stevie Nicks is a perfect example. By her own admission, nobody forced her into having an abortion. Nicks willfully chose her music career over the life of her child, and several decades later, she would clearly make the same decision once more.

The notion that all women are categorical second victims of abortion downplays the moral agency women have as image-bearers of God and obscures the justice due to pre-born babies as true victims of abortion.

By defending the legal ability of women to willfully murder their own children, pro-life organizations sorrowfully allow the abortion holocaust to continue, even in conservative states that misleadingly claim to ban abortion.

RELATED: Why defunding Planned Parenthood is a distraction from the real fight

— (@)

Just like men, women are ultimately responsible for their own actions. Just like men, women will one day stand in judgment before God and provide an account for those actions.

Stevie Nicks may publicly boast about her abortion today, but when she stands before a perfectly holy God, she will no longer boast in her decision. And unless she turns from her sins and trusts in Jesus Christ for salvation, she will bear the penalty of her decision for all of eternity.

When pro-life organizations insist that women can only be victims of abortion — and oppose laws that would criminalize abortion for all parties willfully involved — they fail to deter women from committing sin that destroys both their babies and their very own eternal souls.

That is why we must simply make murdering anyone illegal for everyone.

The exact same laws that protect born people from murder must protect pre-born people as well, or else we are denying the truth that pre-born babies are image-bearers of God worthy of equal protection under our laws.

The existing laws against murder deter the vast majority of murders from happening in the first place. If we extend those same laws to apply from fertilization — without loopholes allowing women to enjoy special murder privileges over their pre-born babies — we will deter the vast majority of abortions as well.

God judges nations that commit child sacrifice. America is well on its way to joining the Canaanites, the Aztecs, and the Gauls in the history of nations that murder their own children and are brought to their knees by the God who cannot endure such rebellion forever.

If we want our nation to continue, we must protect all image-bearers of God from murder, criminalizing the unjustified taking of human life for everyone willfully involved.

Rather than rebelling against God, our nation must turn in repentance and faith toward Jesus Christ — abandoning the works of death and once more bowing the knee to the only one who offers everlasting life.

​Stevie nicks, Abortion, Christianity, Christian, Image of god, Fleetwood mac 

A Louisiana middle school boy is facing 10 felony counts for using AI to create fake nude photos of female classmates and sharing them with other students, according to multiple reports. However, one alleged female victim has been expelled following her reported reaction to the scandal.

On Aug. 26, detectives with the Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office launched an investigation into reports that male students had shared fake nude photos of female classmates at the Sixth Ward Middle School in Choctaw.

‘What’s going on here, I’ll be quite frank, is nothing more than disgusting.’

Benjamin Comeaux, an attorney representing the alleged female victim, said the images used real photos of the girls, including selfies, with AI-generated nude bodies, the Washington Post reported.

Comeaux said administrators reported the incident to the school resource officer, according to the Post.

The Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office said in a statement that the incident “led to an altercation on a school bus involving one of the male students and one of the female students.”

Comeaux said during a bus ride, several boys shared AI-made nude images of a 13-year-old girl, and the girl in question struck one of the students sharing the images, the Post reported.

However, school administrators expelled the 13-year-old girl over the physical altercation.

Meanwhile, police said that a male suspect on Sept. 15 was charged with 10 counts of unlawful dissemination of images created by artificial intelligence.

The sheriff’s office noted that the investigation is ongoing, and there is a possibility of additional arrests and charges.

Sheriff Craig Webre noted that the female student involved in the alleged bus fight will not face criminal charges “given the totality of the circumstances.”

Webre added that the investigation involves technology and social media platforms, which could take several weeks and even months to “attain and investigate digital evidence.”

RELATED: ‘A great deal of concern’: High school student calls for AI regulations after fake nude images of her shared online

The alarming incident was brought back to life during a fiery Nov. 5 school board meeting during which attorneys for the expelled female student slammed school administrators.

According to WWL-TV, an attorney said, “She had enough, what is she supposed to do?”

“She reported it to the people who are supposed to protect her, but she was victimized, and finally she tried to knock the phone out of his hand and swat at him,” the same attorney added.

One attorney also noted, “This was not a random act of violence … this was a reasonable response to what this kid endured, and there were so many options less than expulsion that could’ve been done. Had she not been a victim, we’re not here, and none of this happens.”

Her representatives also warned, “You are setting a dangerous precedent by doing anything other than putting her back in school,” according to WWL.

Matthew Ory, one of the attorneys representing the female student, declared, “What’s going on here, I’ll be quite frank, is nothing more than disgusting. Her image was taken by artificial intelligence and manipulated and manufactured to be child pornography.”

School board member Valerie Bourgeois pushed back by saying, “Yes, she is a victim, I agree with that, but if she had not hit the young man, we wouldn’t be here today, it wouldn’t have come to an expulsion hearing.”

Tina Babin, another school board member, added, “I found the video on the bus to be sickening, the whole thing, everything about it, but the fact that this child went through this all day long does weigh heavy on me.”

Lafourche Parish Public Schools Superintendent Jarod Martin explained, “Sometimes in life, we can be both victims and perpetrators. Sometimes in life, horrible things happen to us, and we get angry and do things.”

Ultimately, the school board allowed the girl to return to school, but she will be on probation until January.

Attorneys for the girl’s family, Greg Miller and Morgyn Young, told WWL that they intend to file a lawsuit.

“Nobody took any action to confiscate cell phones, to put an end to this,” Miller claimed. “It’s pure negligence on the part of the school board.”

Martin defended the district in a statement that read:

Any and all allegations of criminal misconduct on our campuses are immediately reported to the Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office. After reviewing this case, the evidence suggests that the school did, in fact, follow all of our protocols and procedures for reporting such instances.

Sheriff Webre warned, “While the ability to alter images has been available for decades, the rise of AI has made it easier for anyone to alter or create such images with little to no training or experience.”

Webre also said, “This incident highlights a serious concern that all parents should address with their children.”

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

​Ai, Ai abuse, Ai nudes, Artificial intelligence, Cybercrime, Deepfake scandal, Revenge porn, School scandal, Tech crime, True crime, Crime, Middle schoolers, Louisiana, Arrest, Felony charges 

Now is a good time for religion in America.

President Trump has established the White House Religious Liberty Commission, led by a diverse group of religious leaders and scholars, including Mary Margaret Bush, Napa Legal’s own former executive director. The commission is identifying some of the nation’s most pressing religious liberty issues and developing plans for action.

Lawmakers should take advantage of the moment to enact durable protections that will outlast any administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court, too, has protected religious liberty in several crucial cases. In Carson v. Makin (2022), the court held that it is unconstitutional to exclude religious schools from generally available government funding programs. In Kennedy v. Bremerton, it found that coach Joseph Kennedy’s postgame prayers did not violate the First Amendment. This year brought additional victories in Mahmoud v. Taylor, where the court upheld parents’ rights to opt their children out of LGBT content in elementary school classes, and Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin, where a unanimous court prevented state officials from favoring some religions over others.

These encouraging developments might tempt Americans to believe that the battle for nationwide religious freedom has already been won.

Yet even with such powerful forces defending religious liberty at the federal level, state laws affecting religious organizations remain critical for ensuring that everyday Americans do not suffer persecution for their firmly held religious beliefs.

Consider what just happened in Washington state.

In 2025, Catholic priests there faced an impossible choice between obeying their faith and complying with state law. A new Washington state statute required clergy to report instances of abuse or neglect they heard during confession, despite the Church’s centuries-old sacramental seal. The law singled out priests while giving others, like lawyers, a pass, and it carried the threat of jail time and fines.

Thankfully, a federal court blocked the law before it could take effect, ruling in Etienne v. Ferguson that the state could not force clergy to violate the sacred seal of confession.

But that case never should have been necessary. Washington’s law reflected the same pattern Napa Legal’s research has uncovered repeatedly: When state laws are weak or hostile to faith-based organizations, those organizations are left vulnerable even when the federal government and Supreme Court appear friendly to religion.

This month, the Napa Legal Institute released the third edition of the Faith and Freedom Index, an analysis of state laws across the country that either help or hinder religious organizations. Whether national politics seem to favor or oppose religious liberty, state laws remain central to its long-term health.

The states with the top overall scores were:

AlabamaKansasIndianaTexasMississippi

The five lowest scores went to:

MichiganWashingtonMassachusettsWest VirginiaMaryland

What distinguishes the states at the top of the list from those at the bottom? Several types of laws come into play. For example, the index’s highest performing states have built frameworks that proactively safeguard religious organizations. Their laws provide broad protections for religious exercise and create environments where ministries can thrive.

By contrast, it’s no coincidence that Washington state ranks near the bottom. The same state that passed one of the most intrusive laws in recent memory also reflects on the Index a legal system that makes it far too easy for governments to intrude on matters of faith.

That is why it is important to strike while the iron is hot. When the federal government is friendly to religious liberty, that is precisely the time to act. Political conditions can change quickly, but good laws endure. Lawmakers should take advantage of the moment to enact durable protections that will outlast any administration.

RELATED: Why Trump’s religious liberty agenda terrifies the left

SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

There are many reasons why state laws remain decisive. First, state statutes can still contradict clear federal precedent. After the Supreme Court struck down Wisconsin’s discriminatory law in Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin, a similar law remained in effect in New York. Religious organizations there had to continue the litigation even after the Supreme Court had essentially decided the issue.

It is also not enough for states to rely solely on constitutional protections or a Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

These safeguards are vital but not sufficient. When a religious organization’s hiring or service conflicts with state “nondiscrimination” laws, it should not have to spend years in court to prove its right to operate according to its beliefs. States can and should pass clear exemptions that prevent such conflicts from ever arising.

Finally, state tax and regulatory codes can have a major impact on whether faith-based organizations thrive. Many religious nonprofits are treated like for-profit corporations, subject to tax regimes and administrative filings, fees, and audits that make it hard for them to operate. States should look closely at such laws and remove unnecessary burdens that divert precious time and resources away from ministry and service.

No matter who sits in the White House or on the Supreme Court, state laws remain a foundation of religious liberty. The Faith and Freedom Index remains an important tool to protect and foster the work of religious organizations and religious liberty in general.

Voters should consider how laws in their states burden religion when they cast their votes. Policymakers should pay close attention to laws that may seem tedious but can make or break the needed work of religious organizations. And our government leaders should work to enact laws that foster religious liberty, so that religion can serve its proper role in contributing to the common good.

​Religious liberty, Religious freedom, Christianity, Christian, Christian persecution, Faith 

Since the 1980s, society has become increasingly heliophobic. Dermatologists warn “there’s no such thing as a healthy tan.” Influencers and celebrities urge us to slather on high SPF products any time we leave the house. Public health agencies like the CDC now list sunscreen as a daily essential alongside seat belts and flu shots.

Is all this solar alarmism really merited?

Dr. Paul Saladino — a double board certified MD, host of the “Fundamental Health” podcast, and author of “The Carnivore Code” — says no. And in fact, it’s the sunscreen itself we should be scrutinizing, he told BlazeTV host Nicole Shanahan on an episode of “Back to the People.”

While sunscreen advocates constantly warn of sun exposure-linked cancers, Dr. Saladino points out that the majority of mainstream sunscreens are ironically full of carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, like benzene, oxybenzone, octocrylene, and avobenzone.

Further, villainizing the sun makes no sense from an “evolutionary, historical, anthropological perspective,” he says. “Most animals have a sense of when they’ve gotten too much sun. This is just intrinsic to life on the earth.”

“You can’t produce vitamin D naturally without sunshine, nor can you produce … melatonin,” Nicole adds.

“Exactly. … We can supplement with melatonin, and we can supplement with vitamin D, but questions remain about whether that’s the same as being in the sun,” Dr. Saladino agrees.

Sun exposure is also critical for our circadian rhythm – our body’s natural 24-hour internal clock that regulates sleep-wake cycles, hormone release, body temperature, and other functions in sync with day and night.

And perhaps most importantly, it just makes us happy. Sunlight is one of the biggest factors in depression risk. “We know that endorphins are produced when you go out in the sun, so these are the feel-good chemicals in our bodies suggestive of some sort of evolutionary mechanism that spurs us as humans to crave the sun in reasonable amounts,” says Dr. Saladino.

On top of that, sunlight triggers the production of nitric oxide in our skin, which widens blood vessels and lowers blood pressure. Dr. Saladino says that “there have been studies in humans” proving the cardiovascular benefits of sun exposure.

And yet despite all the evidence that sunlight is critical to human flourishing, the medical industry continues to demonize it and insists we douse ourselves in toxic chemicals that block sunlight.

So what’s the answer? How do we reap the necessary benefits of sunlight while still protecting ourselves from overexposure?

Dr. Saladino has several suggestions to help you stay safe and healthy:

1. If you feel you need some protection from the sun, try “covering up” or opting for mineral sunscreens, specifically “non-nano zinc oxide” sunscreens. These products sit on the skin’s surface and block UV rays without risk of absorption.

2. As far as sun exposure goes, Dr. Saladino says every person’s limit is different. It “depends on skin tone at base, where you are in the world, and the season,” he says. He recommends using a free app called D-Minder, which calculates your optimal sun exposure time to produce vitamin D without burning based on factors like skin type, location, age, weight, and UV index.

3. For naturally pale-skinned people, he recommends morning sunlight, as there’s less UV rays at that time.

4. Trust your instincts. “Most of us as humans have an intrinsic sense of when we’ve gotten enough sun,” he says. “If you are sitting indoors and the sun looks delicious … and it feels heavenly, your body probably needs that sunlight.”

To hear more of Dr. Saladino’s take on the “anti-sun establishment,” watch the episode above.

Want more from Nicole Shanahan?

To enjoy more of Nicole’s compelling blend of empathy, curiosity, and enlightenment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Back to the people, Nicole shanahan, Dr. paul saladino, Sunscreen, Sunscreen toxic, Blazetv, Blaze media, Health, Sun, Vitamin d 

A leftist former lawmaker was sentenced last month after being convicted of fraudulently obtaining a COVID-19 relief loan.

Ibraheem Samirah, a former Democratic Virginia state delegate, made headlines in 2019 for interrupting President Donald Trump’s Jamestown speech, holding up a sign that read, “Deport hate” and “reunite my family.”

‘The defendant was stealing federal tax dollars at the same time he was deciding how to spend Virginia tax dollars.’

Samirah, 34, was sentenced to three years of probation and ordered to pay $88,000 in restitution after he pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud, according to a Tuesday report from the Washington Post.

Prosecutors argued that the former lawmaker received an $83,000 Paycheck Protection Program loan in May 2020 for his dental practice in Fairfax County. He applied in August 2021 to have the loan forgiven, which would require the PPP funds to have been used for payroll, rent, or mortgage payments.

Samirah claimed that the loan would be used to pay four workers at his practice. However, court documents revealed that his business had no payroll employees. Additionally, it had no active financial account to disburse payroll funds until a few days before applying for the loan.

RELATED: Muslim lawmaker pushes ‘Islamophobia’ narrative, claims hijab pulled off student’s head — despite police noting false statements, no hate crime

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images

Samirah allegedly fabricated payroll and tax records to secure the loan. The funds were distributed through bank accounts belonging to the supposed employees and then transferred into Samirah’s own account, according to prosecutors.

“The defendant was stealing federal tax dollars at the same time he was deciding how to spend Virginia tax dollars,” prosecutors wrote.

RELATED: Cori Bush’s husband accused of stuffing his pockets with taxpayer cash intended for struggling businesses

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Samirah told the Post that he had a “mistaken understanding of the PPP loan process,” which he claimed was “weaponized by Donald Trump’s Justice Department.”

He told the news outlet that he intended to use the cash to hire workers to market his business; however, on the loan application, he claimed that the funds would go to existing employees. He explained that he changed his mind about hiring new workers after realizing the pandemic would be prolonged. Instead, he spent the money on dental equipment and office furnishings, which were not authorized uses of the funds.

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

​News, Virginia, Fairfax county, Donald trump, Trump, Trump administration, Trump admin, Trump doj, Department of justice, Doj, Ibraheem samirah, Paycheck protection program, Ppp loans, Ppp loan, Ppp, Covid, Covid-19, Politics 

Everything you interact with is now built by people who don’t understand you, and your kids are pushed out of the job market.

From the front lines of corporate tech, I can confirm what many Americans already suspect: The H-1B program has produced a workplace disaster. It has compromised security. It has degraded the quality of everyday software. Worst of all, it has crushed the job prospects of American workers.

We don’t need to accept a corporate-designed future in which our industries no longer employ us and the products no longer serve us.

I’ve spent more than a decade inside corporate tech. In that time — especially after COVID — the number of Americans on my left and right has steadily dropped. Meanwhile, offshore offices multiply and more foreign workers arrive under visas. And they’re not doing low-stakes tasks. They’re building internal portals for insurance companies, managing databases that store your medical records, and writing the code behind your bank and utility apps.

Look at the results. Your bank’s mobile app crawls. Basic online bill-pay feels like an endurance test. Everyday American services — airlines, grocery chains, utilities — deploy software that barely works. The root cause sits in boardrooms across the Fortune 500: fire Americans, import cheaper labor, and call it efficiency. Why pay an American engineer $150,000 when an H-1B worker costs $100,000 and can be deported for missing an unrealistic goal?

Here’s the pattern I’ve watched repeat across company after company.

An H-1B hire climbs the ladder to director or vice president. He earns that rise largely by finding “inefficiencies,” which usually means firing Americans. He then pushes leadership to open more H-1B slots or to contract with a “consulting firm” staffed almost entirely from abroad.

Executives applaud because the invoices are low and the offshore teams rarely say no to any request, no matter how impossible. And when the savings look good enough, leadership shutters the American division altogether and replaces it with an “innovation center” in Bangalore. Look at the savings!

The American worker who survives this gets a grim reward: meetings at 6 a.m. to accommodate India Standard Time, an office filled with co-workers who share neither language nor culture, an org chart dominated by unfamiliar and unpronounceable names, and a career path with no upward mobility. And that’s if the worker is fortunate enough to have a job at all. Bleak.

The numbers paint an even darker picture. According to the Cengage Group’s 2025 Employability Report, only 41% of 2024 college graduates found full-time work related to their fields. In 2025, that number fell to 30%. Some analysts blame AI, but the claim doesn’t survive contact with reality. A recent MIT report found that despite $30-$40 billion in corporate spending on AI tools, 95% of organizations show no return on that investment — even though nearly half of office workers already use AI in some form.

RELATED: The H-1B system is broken. Here’s how to fix it.

Photo by DANIEL SLIM/AFP via Getty Images

If AI were truly replacing white-collar workers at scale, why did these same corporations ask the federal government to approve 141,207 H-1B visas in 2024?

The truth is simpler: Importing cheaper, compliant labor remains the easiest way for corporate leadership to cut costs, pad bonuses, and build bigger homes in Southlake — while American workers pay the price.

America is not obligated to subsidize its own replacement. We don’t need to accept a corporate-designed future in which our industries no longer employ us and the products no longer serve us. The American middle class built the modern technology economy. It should not be pushed aside so that executives can chase savings that hollow out the country one layoff at a time.

Enough.

​H-1b visas, American tech workers, Visas, Opinion & analysis, India, America first, Immigration, Higher education, Training, Globalists, Globalism 

Despite the fact that America is in a fertility crisis — the worst ever recorded in the nation’s history — the Economist published a sardonic article on November 6 titled “Make America procreate again: Among the MAGA fertility fanatics.”

Through a cynical and patronizing lens, author Barclay Bram explored the right-wing-propelled pro-natalist movement spearheaded by “tech bros and religious conservatives” who champion having more babies. He cited the Nation’s Joan Walsh — a radical leftist who authored a book titled “What’s the Matter with White People?” — to capture the left’s perspective on this movement: “an insidious project to create a whiter America.”

“White children are the most evil thing that the left can imagine,” says BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre.

While lefties would surely deny this, their actions speak volumes — specifically their action of “importing” and protecting illegal immigrants, which they argue is the solution to the country’s plummeting birth rate. But Auron sees through their lies.

“They have no interest in you continuing to exist because they want to replace you,” he says frankly.

Bram’s piece opens with an anecdote recounting his time with a 32-year-old single trucker named Tim Adkinson at NatalCon, a pro-natalist conference in Austin, Texas. He’s painted as a pitiable, desperate figure for his ambition to rear children, and the convention is framed as a pathetic gathering of weirdos — tech bros, religious zealots, and lonely conservatives — desperately trying to engineer a “baby boom” amid America’s fertility collapse.

“[He’s] literally demonizing people who are trying to solve social problems that are keeping us from having families,” Auron says.

Bram went on to paint the billionaires investing in reproductive technologies and the Trump administration’s push for less expensive fertility drugs as futile attempts to manufacture more families.

“Why is this insidious?” asks Auron.

“Because white people might have kids,” he answers. “That’s why it’s evil. Yeah, they care about the future of the United States. Yes, they’re working to reduce drug prices and create situations where people can stay home with their children … but oh, some of those people might be white. And that’s the problem.”

Not only is this overtly racist, it’s also illogical. If we’re serious about fixing the country’s fertility crisis (and the left claims it is), then more white babies are inevitable, as “white people are still the majority in America,” says Auron.

“But the Economist hates white people. It hates white babies. It doesn’t want white people to have children. They are interested in ethnic cleansing. That’s what they support.”

Bram’s article also mentioned (without critique) the protesters who rallied against NatalCon attendees: “A group of protesters, their faces mostly covered, gathered in the museum courtyard. ‘Nazis off our campus!’ they screamed through a megaphone as conference attendees streamed in. One sign read ‘Eugenicists’ with the word ‘Natalists’ crossed through.”

Auron makes it plain: “So if you want to have babies, you are a Nazi. You are doing Nazi race science if you would desire that Americans have more children. And this really just lays it bare. … Every white baby could be a Nazi. Whiteness is something that is inherently fascist, right? Nazism is sitting in white DNA, so we’ve got to get rid of the white people so we get rid of the Nazis.”

“I keep having to hear there is no great replacement theory … no attempts to push white people out of the United States … except for the article is explicitly stating that every white child is an atrocity.”

To hear Auron’s full breakdown of Bram’s article, watch the full episode above.

Want more from Auron MacIntyre?

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

​Auron macintyre, The auron macintyre show, Blazetv, Blaze media, Pro natalism, Natalism movement, Fertility crisis, The economist, Barclay bram 

A Texas sheriff’s office allegedly arrested a local veteran for a satirical social media post.

The Hood County Sheriff’s Office claimed that he was jailed for felony “online impersonation-name/persona create page” in the third degree. However, the defense attorney contends that his client was arrested for merely posting a political meme.

‘Tech-illiterate Boomer Sheriff Deputies in Hood County, Texas arrested my friend for felony-level trolling.’

On November 5, authorities reportedly arrested Kolton Krottinger, a Navy veteran who operates the Blue Branch Historic Ranch, a veterans’ mental health center in Granbury.

It is believed that Krottinger was detained over an October 2 Facebook post of a fake screenshot designed to look like a real post from a rival local activist. The hoax image featured the activist’s profile photo and name above a message expressing support for then-Granbury ISD school board candidate Monica Brown.

“The Victim states that she does not support Monica Brown for this election and stated that the public is being misled by the post as to what the Victim’s actual beliefs are concerning this particular election race,” the complaint read.

Rob Christian, Krottinger’s attorney, referred to the post as “a meme.”

“After 25 years of experience as a district attorney and criminal defense attorney, I have never seen anyone get arrested for engaging in political speech,” Christian told the Dallas Express.

RELATED: Threads is now bigger than X, and that’s terrible for free speech

Photo By Raymond Boyd/Getty Images

Hood County Constable John Shirley explained to the news outlet that the allegedly impersonated activist “very openly, loudly, and publicly hates” Brown.

“It’s a picture of a political sign that anybody who knows the person whose account this was pasted onto would know that it’s fake and a joke,” Shirley said.

“I’m outspoken about the First Amendment. I believe in the Constitution, I believe in the Bill of Rights,” Shirley continued. “This kind of stuff really smells of authoritarianism.”

State law prohibits using “the name or persona of another person” to “harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten any person.”

While Sheriff Roger Deeds told Blaze News that “this case is still under investigation so I cannot comment further on it,” the sheriff’s office still appeared to reference the case in a November 10 Facebook post.

“The Hood County Sheriff’s Office has been made aware of numerous social media posts with regards to bullying, harassment, threats and similar, directed towards citizens in our community,” a bulletin from the office read. “While certain online posts may seem offensive, cruel, threatening or inappropriate to some, much of what is posted online is protected by the 1st amendment. However, these acts may sometimes constitute a criminal offense, such as the example below, from a recent and notable case.”

The example cited in the office’s announcement referenced Texas Penal Code § 33.07, online impersonation. The sheriff’s office concluded the bulletin by encouraging any additional potential victims to file an offense report.

RELATED: Tommy Robinson has the last laugh after politically motivated terrorism arrest: ‘Free speech won!’

Photo by STR/AFP via Getty Images

The arrest of Krottinger prompted Nate Criswell, former chair of the Hood County Republican Party, to start an online petition to urge the district attorney to drop the charges.

“Tech-illiterate Boomer Sheriff Deputies in Hood County, Texas arrested my friend for felony-level trolling,” Criswell wrote on social media.

Texas attorney general candidate Aaron Reitz also spoke out about the charges.

“From what I can tell, Kolton Krottinger created an obviously satirical meme. Moreover, his conduct doesn’t appear to meet the ‘intent’ requirement under Texas Penal Code § 33.07 (Online Impersonation). On its face, this case seems far outside the scope of the statute’s text, purpose, and precedent,” Reitz said.

Reitz speculated that the charges would ultimately be dropped.

“But that provides little immediate relief and doesn’t undo the current or past injustices that have led to this point,” he continued. “Kolton may also have recourse under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the County has deprived him of his First Amendment rights, which I strongly suspect it has done. The longer this situation continues, the greater the potential liability for Hood County.”

On Wednesday, Brown, the former school board candidate, filed a complaint with the sheriff’s office concerning Krottinger’s arrest and treatment.

“Mr. Krottinger shared a harmless political satire meme related to a local school board election. He was arrested, handcuffed, placed in solitary confinement, classified as ‘high-profile,’ had his phone confiscated, and denied access to social media, which is his livelihood,” Brown wrote.

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

​News, Texas, Granbury, Hood county, Hood county sheriff’s office, Kolton krottinger, Free speech, First amendment, 1st amendment, Roger deeds, Politics 

In 1992, a young Democratic strategist on the Clinton campaign named James Carville coined the now-famous phrase “it’s the economy, stupid.” He directed it to the campaign workers to ensure that they remained laser-focused on kitchen-table issues. In November’s elections, voters delivered that same message, loud and clear, in New York City, Virginia, and New Jersey. The results were not surprising — even the margins were roughly in line with 2017, the last off-year elections in those localities when Trump was president.

The message was clear: Many young voters are hurting economically. Of course, the Trump administration is well aware of this. The government has been digging out of the economic disaster Joe Biden left behind. Compared to Europe and much of Asia, the U.S. is doing better, but the global macro environment is still challenging — especially for young people.

Once again and as ever: ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’

This is why almost immediately after the election, the administration focused on ramping up its communication efforts on the economy. President Trump indicated an urgent need to blow up the filibuster and enact a legislative agenda commensurate with the issues young voters are facing. Trump’s approach was echoed by Vice President JD Vance, who noted, “We’re going to keep working to make a decent life affordable in this country, and that’s the metric by which we’ll ultimately be judged in 2026 and beyond.”

It is useful to do a deep dive into the 2025 election data so that we can learn what happened and how we can be ready with the right political and policy prescriptions to win the much more important midterm elections in 2026.

A coalition of the ‘falling behind’

Contrary to the thinking of most political commentators, Zohran Mamdani’s win in the New York City mayoral race wasn’t about racial identity politics. I’m not saying he doesn’t believe in racial identity politics. It’s quite central to his worldview. After all, this is the guy who tweeted in 2020 that “Black + brown solidarity will overcome white supremacy.” Mamdani’s anti-Israel activities have also been well known and much remarked upon. But that’s not what led his coalition to victory on Nov. 4.

First, Mamdani’s campaign was fundamentally a youth movement. Young women ages 18-29, while a relatively small part of the electorate, gave him 81% of their support. These are staggering numbers. Overall, Mamdani won younger voters under 45 by an incredible 69%-25%, while former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) won voters over 45 by 51%-39%. Just as importantly, Mamdani actually won white voters by one point. He certainly did well with Muslims and in the South Asian community.

It’s possible that Mamdani may in fact be a Third-Worldist or Muslim supremacist, as some have alleged — but these were peripheral issues in electing him, and a look at his coalition suggests that focusing on them would fracture it.

Likewise, feelings about Israel were overblown. While it was a “major factor” in 38% of voters’ minds, it was essentially a political wash, with Mamdani losing 47%-46% among those who felt passionately about the issue. While Israel may be personally important for him, it was not a driving issue for most of his voters.

Mamdani’s coalition is spiritually and geographically rootless. While he did strongly among Muslims (presumably a significant chunk of the 14% of voters of “other religions” that he took 70% of), far more powerful was the 75% he took among the 24% of voters who claimed no religion. For those who have made politics their god, Mamdani is a comforting idol and socialism a powerful liturgy.

RELATED: Mao tried this first — New Yorkers will not like the ending

Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

His is also a coalition of the mobile, anchored by those with shallow roots in New York — and, one might suspect, America. Mamdani dominated among newer arrivals, winning a staggering 82% among those who have lived in New York City for less than 10 years. Cuomo, meanwhile, carried the NYC-born 50%-38%, but that group comprised just 45% of the electorate. Likewise, Mamdani racked up a 59%-34% margin among renters.

The fundamental point that anchored Mamdani’s coalition was the economy: 25% of voters described themselves as democratic socialists, and he won 86% of them. And many appear to have been motivated by jealousy or frustration. He actually won 59% among those who thought the NYC economy was good, but also 59%-34% among those who felt they were personally falling behind. If you were among the one-third of voters who looked around and saw everyone else getting ahead but you, Mamdani was your candidate.

Fifty-six percent of voters said the cost of living was the most critical issue, and Mamdani won 66% of them. If he had only won these voters, Mamdani still would have come within a few percentage points of beating Cuomo (41%-37%). This is an essential message for the GOP to internalize if it wants to win back these voters at the 2026 midterms.

Of the 34% of voters who supported raising taxes, an incredible 86% were for Mamdani. But his coalition is not a working-class coalition. White voters with a degree supported Mamdani 57%-40%, while he took just 26% of white voters without a degree — a group that would have comprised eight out of ten voters in 1950 but just 14% today. Nor was it truly a coalition of the financial elite: Cuomo won 62%-33% among families earning over $300,000 per year.

Kitchen-table issues, again

While the circumstances in New York City were somewhat unique, the story in Virginia was more typical. There was a huge gender gap — which is really a marriage gap — though unfortunately, we have only the gender breakdown since pollsters, for whatever reason, didn’t ask about marital status, despite its enormous effect on women’s votes in particular. Republican Winsome Earle-Sears actually won men 51%-38%, but Abigail Spanberger crushed her among women, 65%-35%. If gender gap patterns here are similar to 2024, Spanberger took approximately 72% of single women’s votes.

Also notable is the incredible failure of tokenistic identity politics to appeal to left-wing identity groups. Earle-Sears, a black woman, took just 7% of the black vote — and, incredibly, just 3% of black women’s votes. Meanwhile, she took 61% of white men’s votes, even while losing by 14.5 points overall.

The lesson for the GOP is simple: Voters want tangible results on immigration, jobs, and affordability.

Spanberger was similarly dominant among youth, winning the under-45 vote 65%-34%, as opposed to a much narrower 53%-47% margin among the 45-and-over crowd. Similarly, we see how much the Democrats have become the party of the elite, with Spanberger winning 68%-32% among those with advanced degrees. Earle-Sears, meanwhile, won 2-1 among the one-third of Virginia voters who are white and do not have college degrees and 80% of white born-again Christians, who made up 28% of the voters.

Earle-Sears won 61%-37% among the 37% who are not affected financially by the shutdowns, while the 20% who are affected went for Spanberger 82%-18%. If you look at those Virginia voters who are only a little or not at all financially affected by federal cuts, Spanberger eked out only the narrowest victory over Earle-Sears. Almost her entire positive margin came from those 20% of voters who are substantially financially affected by federal job cuts. This illustrates in dramatic fashion how much Virginia has become a company town for the federal government, with politics that reflect that fact.

By a 58%-40% margin, Virginians said that the economy was good, but Spanberger won among the 23% who felt they were falling behind, by a 76%-24% margin. Again, we see that those who are unhappy with their place in the current economy went overwhelmingly for the Democrats.

Spanberger also won on kitchen-table issues. Among the 48% who felt the economy was the most important issue, she won 63% to 36%. And among the 21% who said health care was the most important issue, she won an incredible 81% to 18%.

By contrast, Earle-Sears had only a narrow advantage (50%-47%) on the transgender issue despite having made men in women’s or girls’ bathrooms and similar matters a centerpiece of her campaign. While it’s very likely that particular issue had a larger gap when related to men in women’s locker rooms than transgenderism as a whole, as insane as transgenderism is to most Republicans, it does not trump the economy for most swing voters.

RELATED: Accountability or bust: Trump’s second term test

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Carville’s maxim

In New Jersey, once again, we saw economic anxieties come to the fore. Like New York, most people in the Garden State said the economy was not good. But they did not blame the extended period of Democrat governance, including a two-term Democrat governor. Instead, they blamed the Republicans who have been in power for less than a year. Indeed, among the 24% of voters who felt they were economically falling behind, they went 69%-31% for Democrat Mikie Sherrill.

GOP candidate Jack Ciattarelli barely won white voters, 52%-47%, while 68% of Latinos and 82% of Asian Americans voted for Sherrill. For both Spanberger and Sherrill, the Democrats were gifted with almost ideal candidates — experienced, elected congresswomen — given their potential coalition: relatively moderate, affluent white women who could deliver enough red meat to their minority base to turn out most of them while feeling very safe for moderate white suburbanites. Notably, both Sherrill, a Naval Academy graduate and veteran, and Spanberger, a former CIA officer, are married suburban moms, which makes it hard for your average independent voter to portray them as unpatriotic.

One encouraging point was that these results may say less about Republicans and Democrats than one might think. Among a much more Democrat-skewed electorate than in 2024, party favorability for the GOP in New Jersey was only five points under water (46%-51%), while the Democrats (49%-48%) were barely viewed favorably. But a staggering 23% of those with a somewhat favorable view of the Republican Party voted for Sherrill, speaking to her ability to win independent voters.

The GOP retained some gains it made among Hispanic voters in 2024, but overall, 18% of Hispanic voters who voted GOP in 2024 switched to the Democrats in this election. This still represented a significant gain in Hispanic votes for the GOP compared to the last governor’s race in 2021, but it was not enough to keep the race close.

A silver lining

One bright spot from the exit polls after a tough evening for the GOP is that immigration remains a solid issue for Republicans, even with Democrat intransigence. The Trump administration’s aggressive actions haven’t soured voters. Winsome Earle-Sears won 88% among those who considered immigration the most critical issue in Virginia (unfortunately, only 11% of the electorate). Jack Ciattarelli won 72% among voters who cared most about immigration (but again, just 7%).

The economy is the dominant issue, which is why it’s essential to spend more time talking about deporting illegal aliens as a kitchen-table issue that frees up jobs and housing for citizens, while reducing the tax burden on social services.

In each of these constituencies — New York City, Virginia, and New Jersey — Trump’s immigration policies were more opposed than supported. But these are all liberal constituencies in a Democrat wave election. If Trump’s policies polled this well among these constituencies during this election, they still retain solid popular support nationwide.

In New Jersey, 47% said the next governor should cooperate with the president on immigration, versus 49% who said she should not, a virtual tie in a state where the GOP gubernatorial candidate lost by 13 points. By a 15-point margin, Virginians opposed Trump’s immigration policies, identical to the gap in the governor’s race. Even in NYC, 34% of voters wanted the city to cooperate with the Trump administration on immigration enforcement, versus 61% opposed. That 34% number is several points higher than the 30% Trump won in the city in 2024, which represented the highest vote total for a GOP candidate in NYC since 1988.

The lesson for the GOP is simple: Voters want tangible results on immigration, jobs, and affordability. Recent polling suggests that these are the top three issues for 60% of low-propensity voters. If the GOP delivers on these points, it can have a great 2026 midterm election. If not, 2026 will look a lot like 2025.

Once again and as ever: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

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

​Young voters, 2025 elections, Prices, Economy, Opinion & analysis, Democrats, Republicans, New jersey governor race, Virginia gubernatorial race, New york city mayoral race, Zohran mamdani, Andrew cuomo, Winsome earle-sears, Abigail spanberger, Mikie sherrill, Jack ciattarelli, Affordability crisis, Kitchen table issues, Immigration, American mind 

Earlier this week, Blaze News reported about a 79-year-old Los Angeles landlord who fatally shot a naked intruder after the culprit body-slammed him to the ground, breaking his legs.

Well, George Karkoc — the Vietnam veteran who opened fire to protect not only himself but also his tenant, whom he heard screaming prior to the deadly confrontation — spoke to KTLA-TV from his hospital bed about the ordeal.

‘I just thought, “I need to get aggressive,” so I ran into the house and got my gun.’

The incident took place around 7:15 a.m. Nov. 7 in the 4500 block of Tujunga Avenue at a Studio City apartment, authorities told KABC-TV.

Surveillance video captured the intruder walking naked around the neighborhood, KABC said, adding that video also shows him at the front door of a home and grabbing a sign, then continuing to walk.

But soon the suspect entered an apartment — and that’s when things got frightening.

Karkoc told KTLA he heard his female tenant screaming and knew he had to act quickly: “I just thought, ‘I need to get aggressive,’ so I ran into the house and got my gun.”

The station said Karkoc confronted the intruder and tried to reason with him, begging him to stop. But the naked intruder rushed at Karkoc and body-slammed him, KTLA said, breaking both of his legs in the process.

Now seriously injured and pinned to the ground, Karkoc told the station he had to defend himself and that he shot the intruder three times.

Karkoc was rushed to a hospital in serious condition, KTLA said, adding that he was stable after undergoing surgery. The suspect was declared dead at the scene, the station said.

“This incident, although horrible, brought me a great feeling that I was able to do something to protect other people,” Karkoc told KTLA.

On Veterans Day, a group of Los Angeles police officers visited Karkoc in the hospital and thanked him for his service.

RELATED: Church security team member who reportedly shot gunman dead outside sanctuary recalls moment when ‘evil came to our door’

Karkoc’s tenant, Chloe Dzielak, tearfully recounted to KTLA what she saw — and was grateful for her landlord rescuing her.

“He was protecting me,” Dzielak told the station, adding that “he saved my life. I don’t know what would have happened if he wasn’t there.”

Dzielak also told KTLA that while she was terrified and screaming, Karkoc was calm — even while speaking to the naked intruder.

An “Inside Edition” reporter asked Karkoc if his military experience aided him as he assessed the stressful situation, and Karkoc replied, “I certainly know my training helped me.”

RELATED: Crook yells at witness, ‘Hey, old man … get the f**k outta here before I shoot you!’ But ‘old man’ is a concealed carrier.

KTLA added that family members have organized a GoFundMe for Karkoc. His son said his legs, ankles, and hips are full of pins — and there’s a long road to recovery for him. What’s more, Karkoc’s wife has late-stage Parkinson’s disease, and Karkoc’s son added to the station that the couple may need an in-home caretaker for both of them until his dad heals.

“He just keeps his head and takes care of other people around him,” Karkoc’s son added to KTLA. “He’s a hero.”

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

​Crime thwarted, California, Los angeles, Studio city, Vietnam veteran, Self-defense, Protecting others, Physical attack, Fatal shooting, 2nd amend., Guns, Gun rights, Veterans day, Crime 

For most of modern Western scientific history, mind reading has been dismissed as fantasy. It’s a topic mainstream medicine ignores, as it can’t be explained without challenging the materialist worldview — that the universe and everything in it is merely physical stuff — which has dominated science since the Enlightenment.

But one person is changing that. Dr. Diane Hennacy, a neuroscientist and author, says her research proves that mind reading, telepathy, and other paranormal abilities are not only possible, they’re thriving in a very specific population: nonverbal autistic people.

In this riveting interview, Glenn Beck speaks with Dr. Hennacy about mind-bending phenomena that will upend the way you think about human consciousness.

Dr. Hennacy’s research inspired the highly popular podcast “The Telepathy Tapes” — a deep dive into claims of telepathy, savant skills, and other types of extrasensory perception in nonspeaking autistic people.

Most believe that autistic individuals who cannot speak aren’t cognitively functioning at full capacity. In other words, they’re not “all there,” but Dr. Hennacy says the opposite is true. They’re ultra there. Even though autism is the result of a disruption in one’s brain development, the brain doesn’t necessarily fail to develop; it just pivots and develops differently to accommodate for a loss of sensory motor skills.

Her theory is that when autism bars a child from verbal communication and typical cognition, he taps into different kinds of processing. “It’s a more primal sense that I think we all have, but what happens is it gets buried … and it atrophies to some extent,” she explains.

These alternative pathways to knowledge and communication give people abilities the neurotypical world can’t even begin to fathom, like the ability to read minds, communicate telepathically, accurately predict the future, perform complex skills they’ve never been taught, and access hidden information — almost as if they see beyond the physical realm into an immaterial plane of universal knowledge.

Dr. Hennacy gives several examples: a boy who could sense illness in people, children who can read their caretaker’s mind with near perfect accuracy, and people who can perform extraordinary tasks without ever having been taught.

Non-speakers she’s met and studied from all over the world report congregating at a place dubbed “the hill” — an immaterial spiritual space they say is “guarded by angels,” who teach them things.

“If you look at spiritual traditions, [specifically] Eastern spiritual traditions, they talk about a place that sounds just like the hill, and it really is a spiritual realm that you can go to when you reach a certain level of spiritual development,” says Dr. Hennacy.

“In a way, I think that we all come from the hill, and what happens is as we identify more and more with this identity — as Diane or Glenn or whoever … we become more and more disconnected from the source that we come from,” she theorizes.

“Now what we need to do is we need to learn how to climb the hill back up, and I think that these autistic kids, it’s almost like they’re our sherpa guides.”

To hear Dr. Hennacy’s story — how she went from a scientist committed to the materialist paradigm to one of the world’s leading experts in extrasensory perception — and hear more of her stunning research, watch the full interview 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 podcast, Glenn beck, Dr. diane hennacy, Diane hennacy powell, Telepathy tapes, Telepathy, Nonverbal autistic, Blazetv, Blaze media 

Prosecutors are requesting that a woman be imprisoned for three years after her dog mauled a 9-year-old boy because of her negligence.

Patrycja Siarek’s dog Capo was under a muzzle order when she brought it to the Little Norway Park in Toronto where dogs are prohibited. The dog had been previously investigated three times for biting incidents by the city of Toronto.

‘I feel horrible, and it’s my fault. I just feel so bad. I’m so sorry, and I hope that child’s OK.’

Siarek allowed the dog to run off without a leash and without a muzzle before Capo attacked a boy who was with his father.

The dog attacked the boy for approximately two minutes before it let go of the boy’s leg.

Video showed the woman rushing away from the park without identifying herself, but police were able to find her through the help of tips from the public.

Siarek pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing bodily harm and apologized for her behavior.

“I’m just really sorry, I never would want to hurt a child or hurt anybody, I feel horrible, and it’s my fault,” she said in court. “I just feel so bad. I’m so sorry, and I hope that child’s OK. I know it’s my fault Capo died. It’s [a] terrible thing.”

Her attorney argued that there were no children in the area when she arrived and that she had taken off his leash to play fetch when the child approached the enclosure, which had an open door. Siarek also consented to having Capo euthanized.

Assistant Crown Attorney Nathan Kruger asked the court to sentence her to three years in prison and a prohibition against her owning a dog for 10 years.

“It was negligence that resulted in this outcome for the dog. The dog owner’s liability act was to protect the dog. Capo is not legally responsible for his actions. Ms. Siarek was,” said Kruger.

Kruger said that the child had asked his parents if it would have been easier if he had died, after having to face surgery for the injuries sustained.

RELATED: ‘There’s blood everywhere’: Man brutally mauled to death by his own dogs

“She knew Capo was dangerous, knew others considered him dangerous, knew there were legal restrictions on him because he was dangerous, and despite this knowledge, she put members of the public and, indeed, Capo in a very dangerous situation,” he added.

In addition to the restrictions on the dog, Siarek was out on bail for a mischief charge at the time of the attack. She had also been convicted on 15 charges, including fraud, failing to comply peace orders, and obstructing police officers.

The dog was described as similar to a pit bull.

The judge in the case said she would reserve her sentencing decision until next month.

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

​Dog mauls boy, Patrycja siarek, Dog mauling, Pit bull, Crime 

The FBI’s Arctic Frost investigation is confirmation that the left sees conservatives as enemies of the state and is fully intent on treating them as such.

Arctic Frost began in April 2022, with the approval of Joe Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, along with Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and FBI Director Christopher Wray. In November 2022, newly appointed special counsel Jack Smith took over the probe. Smith declared he was focused on the allegations of mishandling classified documents, but Arctic Frost shows he was much more ambitious. He helped turn the investigation into an effort to convict Donald Trump and cripple the Republican Party.

The report indicts Smith for failing at lawfare, not for the lawfare itself.

It was revealed last month that by mid-2023, the FBI had tracked the phone calls of at least a dozen Republican senators. Worse still, with the imprimatur of Justices Beryl Howell and James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Smith issued 197 subpoenas targeting the communications and financial records of nine members of Congress and at least 430 Republican entities and individuals.

The organizations targeted were a “Who’s Who” of the American right, including Turning Point USA, the Republican Attorneys General Association, the Conservative Partnership Institute, and the Center for Renewing America.

Not content with active politicians, these subpoenas also went after advisers, consulting firms, and nonprofits. One subpoena targeted communications with media companies, including CBS, Fox News, and Newsmax. Normally, a telecommunications company should inform its clients and customers about subpoenas. But Howell and Boasberg also ordered nondisclosure orders on the dubious grounds that standard transparency might result in “the destruction of or tampering of evidence” — as if a U.S. senator could wipe his phone records or a 501(c)(3) could erase evidence of its bank accounts.

The scale and secrecy of Arctic Frost are staggering. It was a massive fishing expedition, hunting for any evidence of impropriety from surveilled conservatives that might be grounds for criminal charges. One can see the strategy, typical among zealous prosecutors: the threat of criminal charges might compel a lower- or mid-level figure to turn government witness rather than resist.

But Smith had an even grander plan. By collecting financial records, he was trying to establish financial ties between those subpoenaed and Trump. Had Smith secured a conviction against Trump, he could then have pivoted to prosecuting hundreds of individuals and entities under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. This would have led to asset freezes, seizures, and further investigations.

Smith laid out a road map for crushing conservative organizations that was supposed to be implemented throughout a prospective Biden second term or a Harris presidency.

Fortunately, voters foiled Smith’s efforts.

A false equivalence

The meager coverage of Arctic Frost thus far has compared the scandal to the revelations of Watergate. But the comparison doesn’t hold. Arctic Frost involved significantly more surveillance and more direct targeting of political enemies than the Senate Watergate hearings of 1973 and 1974 managed to expose.

Setting aside campaign finance matters and political pranks, the most serious crimes the hearings exposed pertained to the Nixon administration’s involvement with break-ins and domestic wiretapping.

In the summer of 1971, the White House formed a unit to investigate leaks. Called the “Plumbers,” this unit broke into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, who was the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Transferred over to the Committee to Re-elect the President at the end of the year, the unit then broke into the Democratic National Committee’s offices in the Watergate complex. The hearings exposed the burglars’ connection to CRP — and to the White House.

RELATED: Trump’s pardons expose the left’s vast lawfare machine

Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

The administration also authorized warrantless wiretaps. From May 1969 until February 1971, in response to the disclosures of the secret bombing of Cambodia, the FBI ran a 21-month wiretap program to catch the leakers. This investigation eventually covered 13 government officials and four journalists. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover submitted the wiretapping authorizations, and Attorney General John Mitchell signed them.

As a matter of optics, it was the surveillance of the members of the media that provoked the scandal. Since they were critical of the Nixon administration, it looked like the administration was targeting its political enemies. As a criminal matter, the issues were less about the actions themselves, as it was at least arguable that they were legal on national security grounds. Instead, it was more about the cover-up. When these wiretaps came up in the hearings, Mitchell and others deceived investigators, opening themselves up to charges of obstruction of justice.

A troubling parallel

One aspect revealed during the Watergate hearings could be compared to Arctic Frost. The hearings exposed extensive domestic spying that preceded the Nixon administration. The tip of the iceberg was the proposed Huston Plan of June 1970, which became one of the most sensational pieces of evidence against the Nixon administration. Named for the White House assistant who drafted it, the Huston Plan proposed formalizing intelligence coordination and authorizing warrantless surveillance and break-ins.

Nixon implemented the plan but rescinded it only five days later on the advice of Hoover and Mitchell.

Who were those Americans who might have had their civil liberties affected? It was the radical left, then in the process of stoking urban riots, inciting violence, and blowing up government buildings. The plan was an attempt to formalize ongoing practices; it was not a novel proposal. After Nixon resigned, the Senate concluded in 1976 that “the Huston plan, as we now know, must be viewed as but one episode in a continuous effort by the intelligence agencies to secure the sanction of higher authority for expanded surveillance at home and abroad.”

For years, ignoring the statutes that prohibited domestic spying, the CIA surveilled over three dozen radicals. The military and the Secret Service kept dossiers on many more. The FBI operated COINTELPRO, its surveillance of and plan to infiltrate the radical left, without Mitchell’s knowledge. And as the Senate discovered, “even though the President revoked his approval of the Huston plan, the intelligence agencies paid no heed to the revocation.” This was all excessive, to say the least.

RELATED: Damning new docs reveal who’s on Biden admin’s ‘enemies list,’ expose extent of FBI’s Arctic Frost

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Watergate helped expose a far larger and longer surveillance operation against left-wing domestic terrorists. Comparing this to Arctic Frost suggests that the shoe is now on the other foot: the state regards right-wing groups as equivalent to domestic terrorists. Once, the national security state was abused to attack the left. Now, it’s abused to attack the right. This is hardly an encouraging comparison.

Lawfare for thee, not for me

There’s a third reason that the comparison to Watergate doesn’t hold. In the 1970s, abuses generated a reaction. The Huston Plan, for instance, was squashed by the head of the Department of Justice. Controversial surveillance plans wound down eventually. Wrongdoing was exposed, and the public was horrified, worsening the people’s growing mistrust of government. Lawmakers passed serious reforms to rein in intelligence agencies and defend Americans’ civil liberties.

Survey today’s landscape, and it doesn’t look like there will be any similar reaction. If you’re a conservative staffer, activist, contract worker, affiliate, donor, politician, or lawmaker, you’ve learned about the unabashed weaponization of the federal justice system against you without the presence of any crime. What’s even more disturbing is that this investigation went on for 32 months, longer than Mitchell’s wiretaps.

During that time, no senior official squashed the investigation, and no whistleblowers leapt to defend conservatives. There wasn’t a “Deep Throat” leaking wrongdoing, as there once was in Deputy Director of the FBI Mark Felt. There weren’t any scrupulous career bureaucrats or political appointees in the Justice Department or elsewhere ready to threaten mass resignations over a legally spurious program, as happened to George W. Bush in the spring of 2004.

No telecommunication company contested the subpoenas, as happened in early 2016 when Apple disputed that it had to help the government unlock the iPhone of one of the terrorists involved in the December 2015 San Bernardino shootings. Neither bureaucrats nor corporations are coming to the rescue of the civil liberties of conservatives.

Public opinion won’t help, either. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) has called for “Watergate-style hearings.” But they wouldn’t work. Watergate was a public-relations disaster for the presidency because it spoke to an American public that held its government to a moral standard of impartial activity. Television unified this audience while also stoking righteous fury over the government’s failure to meet that standard.

RELATED: ‘No MAGA left behind’: Trump pardons Giuliani, Powell, others involved in 2020 alternate electors case

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

The hearings were effective only because they reached a public sensitive to infringements of civil liberties and hostile to the weaponization of the state against domestic targets. But 2025 is not 1975. Even if one could unite the American public to watch the same media event, televised hearings on Arctic Frost wouldn’t bring about a major shift in public opinion. In fact, many voters would likely approve of Arctic Frost’s operations.

For one part of the country, lawfare happens and it’s a good thing. Jack Smith’s lawfare does not embarrass or shame the left. If anything, he is criticized for insufficiently weaponizing the law.

To date, the largest exposé of his methods to reach the legacy media, published in the Washington Post, criticizes Smith for prosecuting Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents in Florida (where the alleged crime occurred) rather than in the District of Columbia. It’s an impressive investigative report, assembling aides and experts to showcase Smith’s mistake. Left unstated is the answer to the naïve question: If the offense was committed in Florida, why was it a mistake not to pursue the case in D.C.? Because that was the only district where Smith could guarantee a favorable judge and jury.

To the conservative mind, most Americans still believe that protecting civil liberties matters more than attacking one’s enemies.

The report indicts Smith for failing at lawfare, not for the lawfare itself. In this environment, where lawfare is already taken for granted as the optimal strategy to defeat the enemy, exposing the details of Arctic Frost is like publicizing the Schlieffen Plan’s failure in 1915 and expecting the Germans to be ashamed enough to withdraw. They already know it didn’t work.

Exposing the plan won’t change anything. The election of Jay “Two Bullets” Jones as Virginia’s attorney general is an indication not only of the presence of a fanatic at the head of Virginia’s law enforcement but also of what a good proportion of the Democratic electorate expects from the state’s most vital prosecutor. His task is to bring pain to his enemies.

The 1970s saw the abuses of the national security state generate a forceful public reaction. That turned out to be a rare moment. Instead of a pendulum swing, we have seen a ratchet effect. The national security state has acquired more weapons over the intervening decades, and the resistance to it has grown weaker. This has hit conservatives hardest, because many still imagine that our constitutional culture remains largely intact.

To the conservative mind, most Americans still believe that protecting civil liberties matters more than attacking one’s enemies. From that point of view, American politicians operate under electoral and self-imposed restraints that will impel them to take their opponents’ due process rights seriously or risk being shamed and losing elections. But these restraints are now ineffectual and hardly worth mentioning.

Unlike in the 1970s, there will be no cultural resolution to the problem of lawfare. The problem will only be solved by political means: using power to punish wrongdoers, deter future abuses, and deconstruct the weaponized national security state.

When you’re presumed to be an enemy of the state, the only important question is who will fight back on your behalf.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at The American Mind.

​Opinion & analysis, Arctic frost, Jack smith, Rico, Lawfare, Lawfare against trump, Jay "two bullets" jones, Leftism, Democrats, Republicans, Donald trump, Joe biden, Merrick garland, Watergate, Richard nixon, Deep state, Administrative state, Weaponized justice, Weaponization of the federal government, Fbi, Federal bureau of investigation, Lisa monaco, Christopher wray, Republican party, Media bias, Senate republicans, Tpusa, Conservative partnership institute, Center for renewing america, James boasberg, Beryl howell 

While Democrats forced the longest government shutdown in American history, Senate Republicans continued to implement President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Democrats initially shut down the government for a record-breaking 43 days in an attempt to force Republicans to negotiate on Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year. Over 40 days into the shutdown, eight Senate Democrats eventually caved and voted with Republicans to pass the funding bill Monday night.

‘Democrats stood on the sidelines.’

Senate Democrats walked away from the shutdown with nothing to show for it except for a commitment from Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to hold a vote on ACA subsidies. Notably, this offer was available to Democrats on day one of the shutdown.

As Democrats feigned outrage over the shutdown they started, Thune and his Republican colleagues were hard at work confirming Trump’s nominees and passing legislation with conservative wins.

RELATED: ‘Temporary crumbs’: Out-of-touch Democrat gives stunning rebuke of Trump’s ‘No Tax on Tips’ policy

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

In the early days of the shutdown, Senate Republicans confirmed a batch of 107 of Trump’s nominees in a 51-47 party-line vote. Throughout the shutdown, the Senate also confirmed 11 nominees to serve as federal judges.

Since Trump took office in January, the Senate has confirmed 310 civilian nominations, including high-profile Cabinet members, federal judges, and ambassadors.

The Senate also passed several key pieces of legislation to advance Trump’s agenda during the shutdown while Democrats stood on the sidelines.

RELATED: ‘Pathetic’ Senate Democrats cave, advancing key shutdown vote and prompting intraparty uproar: ‘It’s a surrender’

Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images

Senate Republicans unanimously passed four Congressional Review Act resolutions aimed at addressing and even repealing former President Joe Biden’s energy policies. One resolution even secured the support of Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, who consistently voted with Republicans throughout the shutdown to reopen the government.

The National Defense Authorization Act also got the Senate’s stamp of approval, providing an additional $6 billion in addition to the $25 billion allocated in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to boost the production for crucial munitions like F-35s and shipbuilding.

In addition to bolstering American military dominance, the NDAA “repeals or amends more than 100 provisions of statute to streamline the defense acquisition process, reduce administrative complexity, and remove outdated requirements, limitations, and other matters.”

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

​John thune, Chuck schumer, Donald trump, Senate republicans, Senate democrats, Joe biden, Trump nominees, Senate confirmation, John fetterman, Government shutdown, Democrat shutdown, Schumer shutdown, One big beautiful bill, National defense authorization act, Politics