The New Jersey congressman who missed more than 140 votes has finally revealed the mystery “medical issue” that kept him from his congressional duties.

Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (N.J.) last voted in Congress on March 5 and then went missing for three months without a full explanation of his absence.

‘There is no timeline for recovery, only the work of getting better one day at a time.’

On Tuesday, Kean said in a speech on the floor of Congress that he had been diagnosed with depression and told to stay in the hospital for treatment.

“Several months ago, due to health concerns, I entered the hospital for some testing. I did not believe that this would result in a long-term stay,” he said. “I was given the diagnosis of depression.”

Kean said his doctors recommended that he stay in the hospital to treat his depression.

“They explained to me that this would be the fastest way to recovery, and to be honest, I was hesitant. I didn’t think that I had time for it. … Like many people, I believed that I could simply push through,” Kean continued. “But I agreed to follow my doctor’s recommendations again, not believing that it would result in a long-term stay.”

Kean was pressed for details about his absence from Congress in April and said only that he had been dealing with a “personal medical issue.”

He said Tuesday that he had hoped to seek release earlier but his treatment dragged on.

“As the over 48 million of my fellow Americans being treated for this illness have come to discover, there is no timeline for healing. There is no timeline for recovery,” he added, “only the work of getting better one day at a time.”

Kean won the primary for his re-election campaign during the time he was gone.

RELATED: GOP congressman sort of reappears after going AWOL for months, missing over 100 votes

Kean reiterated his message on social media.

“I’m a private person by nature, so sharing my story wasn’t easy. But if speaking openly about what I’ve been through helps even one person know they’re not alone, then it was worth it,” he wrote.

“I’m deeply grateful for the prayers, kindness, and support I’ve received,” Kean concluded.

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

​Depression, New jersey, Politics, Tom kean 

After 40 years in Congress, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has revealed what comes next.

Pelosi has announced the Nancy Pelosi Institute for Representative Democracy at University of California, Berkeley, which the school described as a “nonpartisan” academic center set to open in January 2027.

During her speakership in 2009, House Democrats achieved an all-time congressional record for party-line voting.

“I viewed this as a liberation for me from the political, not politics, but partisanship,” Pelosi, 86, told CNN in an article published Monday. “Because you’re going to an academic institution. It’s about what our founders had in mind with our Constitution, and it’s a beautiful story to tell.”

The institute will sit inside Berkeley’s political science department, focusing on research, civic engagement, and training future leaders, according to UC Berkeley. Pelosi is slated to co-teach a course on Congress beginning in spring 2027, while the institute will also run a visiting fellows program and an annual forum for prominent leaders.

Pelosi agreed to personally raise $25 million toward the school’s broader $50 million campaign — a target she said she hit “quite easily.”

Pelosi said the idea of a bipartisan academic center particularly intrigued her. “I loved it because they talked about human rights in the U.S. and in the world, addressing the challenges to our democracy, the climate, and economic income inequity,” she said of Berkeley’s pitch.

Pelosi, who was first elected to Congress in 1987 and became speaker 20 years later, has been no stranger to squeezing out members of her own party who stepped out of line. In 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) accused Pelosi of “singling out newly elected women of color,” calling her treatment of the progressive “Squad” “outright disrespectful.”

RELATED: The man who propelled Ocasio-Cortez into Congress fails SPECTACULARLY in race for Pelosi’s seat

MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

On one of the rare issues with real bipartisan momentum in recent years — banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks — Pelosi first opposed the idea and was later only lukewarm toward it, even as scrutiny mounted over her husband’s frequent stock trades during her tenure as speaker.

Her most notable legislative achievement, the 2010 Affordable Care Act, passed the House without a single Republican vote. Pelosi reportedly dismissed a more bipartisan version of the bill as “Kiddie Care,” pushing for the more sweeping, partisan version that ultimately passed 219-212.

Pelosi’s clash with Trump produced one of the most viral partisan moments of his presidency when she tore up her copy of his 2020 State of the Union address on camera, calling it “a manifesto of mistruths.”

During her speakership in 2009, House Democrats achieved an all-time congressional record for party-line voting — sticking together 94.2% of the time, a hallmark not of compromise but of caucus control.

GovTrack’s most recent report card found she introduced fewer bills than anyone in the California delegation, and in 2016, joined bipartisan legislation less frequently than any other House Democrat. GovTrack notes, however, that party leaders often post unusual scores given the nature of their role.

Even in the same CNN interview announcing her “liberation” from partisanship, Pelosi couldn’t resist a parting partisan shot, declaring unprompted that Democrats are “going to win the House” in November.

The institute is set to launch in January 2027, with a public exhibit on Pelosi’s career opening at the Bancroft Library that spring.

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

​Nancy pelosi, Congress, Berkeley, Politics 

A film that is triggering progressive critics is becoming a viral sensation after the director called it “an inconvenient truth.”

The movie stars actor Armie Hammer as a man who takes justice into his own hands after he feels the government and law enforcement have failed to protect their citizens.

‘Racist, xenophobic, ethnocentrist.’

‘X’ rated

“Citizen Vigilante” has been called “anti-migrant,” “racist, xenophobic,” and “incomprehensible,” yet audiences seem to love it.

With a fan score of 94% on popular review site Rotten Tomatoes, critics seem once again to be at odds with audiences while drawing a political line in the sand.

A huge social media push has seen the movie top the streaming charts, with multiple outlets reporting on Monday that “Citizen Vigilante” soared to No. 1 on Amazon Prime’s “Top 10 movies to rent or buy,” where it still stood at the time of this writing.

The film was reportedly No. 2 on Apple TV’s top movie list on Monday as well.

This all came after X owner Elon Musk posted “Citizen Vigilante” for free download on his platform last Thursday — with director Uwe Boll’s permission — garnering at least 8 million views by Musk’s own account.

Boll responded on X, “Dear Elon thank you. Donald Trump needs to see the film.”

RELATED: ‘Citizen Vigilante’: Outlaw director takes unflinching look at migrant violence

Banned abroad

By all accounts, the film draws on anti-immigration sentiments that are becoming popular around the world, and even references real-life migrant crimes for its story.

The movie has already been banned in Germany because it was found to be “inciting violence against migrants,” director Boll told Variety in June.

Boll called it “deliberate censorship” that was “on purpose.”

In an email to Newsweek, the director said his movie “shows an inconvenient truth what all other movies out there don’t want to show or try to sugarcoat in their productions.”

Boll added, “The audience wants real films again — bold and with impact and about reality.”

Bans and negative reviews have been overtaken by the film’s momentum, and the flick was just acquired by Quiver Distribution for a worldwide push, except for in the U.K., German-speaking territories, South Korea, and Taiwan.

RELATED: ‘Supergirl’ has disastrous opening after star declares character ‘doesn’t live inside the binary’

Many such (angry) cases

Many critics have not enjoyed the film, with some reviewers declining to even score it.

For example, Stefan Birgir Stefans called the film “brain dead” and gave no score, while Variety’s Todd Gilchrist similarly gave no rating and said the director was “deliberately sabotaging his star.”

Nicholas Bell said the film was “magnifying its xenophobia through the beacon of far-right agitprop,” while Joseph Robinson called it “a discriminatory parable.”

It was U.K. outlet the Guardian that dubbed “Citizen Vigilante” as “anti-migrant” on Tuesday, with Ready Steady Cut describing the film as “utterly incurious and incomprehensible, but politically barbed.”

Critic Jonathon Wilson argued the film was for people who believe “immigrants are to blame for all the violent crimes in the West to see as a rubric for defending their homeland.”

Tyler Thier of In Review Online summarized the movie as “racist, xenophobic, ethnocentrist, alt-right agitprop manufactured to piss off the ‘woke Left.'”

The consistent use of “agitprop” by reviewers is, interestingly enough, a reference to pro-communist propaganda used by the Soviet Union.

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

​Movies, Citizen vigilante, Germany, Migrant crime, Elon musk, Armie hammer, Lifestyle, Entertainment 

Ahead of the United States’ 250th anniversary, a recent Gallup poll reveals that very few Democrats say they are “extremely proud” to be an American.

The poll, which measured levels of American pride among differing demographics and compared results to past years, demonstrated that pride levels have fallen to a 25-year low.

The Democratic Party is facing a patriotism problem that only seems to be worsening.

General pride levels peaked in 2002, largely caused by the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. At the time, 69% of adults said they were “extremely proud” to be an American, and 23% said they were “very proud.” In 2026, those numbers have fallen to 33% and 20%, respectively.

The last year that over 50% of respondents fell under the “extremely proud” category was 2017.

Between Republicans and Democrats, Republicans have consistently produced higher levels of patriotic feelings. Yet the divide seems to have grown even sharper since President Donald Trump came onto the political scene.

In 2016, 68% of Republicans responded as “extremely proud” compared to 45% of Democrats. Today, Republicans — despite dipping seven percentage points from last year — sit at 70%, while Democrats record an all-time low of 14%. Combining “extremely” and “very” proud responses, Republicans climb to 93% and Democrats to 27%.

As numerous far-left candidates with track records of anti-American rhetoric have been emerging victorious in Democratic primaries across the country, it is becoming increasingly evident that the Democratic Party is facing a patriotism problem that only seems to be worsening.

RELATED: America turns 250 with a broken heart

Looking at changes over the past year, “extreme” pride has fallen in all categories covering age, gender, race/ethnicity, and education. Women represented the largest decline, dropping 13 points from 39% to 26%. Younger age groups fell as well, down 10 points to 14% among 18- to 34-year-olds and down 12 points to 30% among 35- to 54-year-olds.

Among 18- to 34-year-olds, 21% of respondents reported that they are “not at all” proud to be an American, with another 24% saying they are “only a little” proud. This data indicates that Generation Z in particular does not share the same sense of patriotism as older generations — a trend that has the potential to shape how Americans relate to their country in the coming decades.

“People of color” and non-college graduates also saw 10-point drops since 2025.

Meanwhile, men, those 55 and older, non-Hispanic white adults, and non-college graduates still top their respective categories.

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

​Democrats, Generation z, United states, Politics, American pride 

Fears over losing jobs to artificial intelligence bots have abounded in the last couple years during the AI boom — and in some cases have even been realized.

However, one top automaker has decided to try something new in the age of AI: reversing course and rehiring the “gray beards” who were originally let go.

‘Over prior years, we didn’t pay as much attention as we should have to the experience of our most knowledgeable engineers.’

And this novel experiment of bringing back experienced engineers might pay off.

Ford Motor Co. has decided to change course away from replacing senior engineers with artificial intelligence after an apparent realization that experience is nearly impossible to replace.

RELATED: Stellantis’ China gamble could reshape America’s auto industry forever

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Bloomberg reported this week that Ford has hired 350 veteran engineers over the last three years after the company’s push toward AI drove costs and, it seems, tanked the quality of the products.

Much of the incurred cost for the company related to repairs and warranty coverages, Ford’s CEO suggested to Bloomberg.

“We’re seeing our warranty coverages come down. We’re seeing our recall costs come down,” chief executive officer Jim Farley said after the engineers were rehired. “These are all contributing to literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of a tailwind for Ford on cost.”

The switch, Bloomberg noted, has already yielded some positive results, with Ford ranking first in mass-market brands in the new JD Power Initial Quality Survey.

The experienced engineers were hired to train younger staff and reprogram the artificial intelligence agents, officials indicated.

“Artificial intelligence is a fantastic tool, but it’s only as good as the information you use to train it,” Charles Poon, Ford’s vice president of vehicle hardware engineering, told Bloomberg. “Over prior years, we didn’t pay as much attention as we should have to the experience of our most knowledgeable engineers that have been with us through many product cycles.”

“Mistakenly we thought that by just introducing artificial intelligence and ingesting the design requirements that we had, that that would produce a high-quality product,” Poon continued. But “we recognized that for us to enhance some of our automation and machine learning and artificial intelligence tools, we needed to ensure that they were trained by the most experienced individuals.”

All told, the company hopes to cut $1 billion in costs this year.

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

​Artificial intelligence, Ford motor company, Engineers, Politics 

President Trump has initiated the end of a high-profile, bureaucratic nightmare related to your own car.

During the Monday signing of a memorandum on “the freedom to fix,” President Trump himself expressed his disbelief at the ridiculousness of the problems the government creates.

‘If you own it, you should have the freedom to fix it!’

“It came to my attention because I noticed they were arresting people for fixing their car. … That’s not even believable,” Trump said before he signed the memorandum.

After signing the memo, Trump added, “We rule by common sense, to a large extent.”

RELATED: Exclusive: Trump’s EPA takes major step to end animal testing after Fauci’s cruel beagle experiments

Alex Wong/Getty Images

The memo will begin the process of giving car owners greater flexibility to fix their own car. One of the primary limitations at the moment is the harsh restrictions on tampering with emissions controls: “To further ensure vehicle affordability, it is the policy of my Administration that consumers should be able to fix their vehicles with affordable parts without being deemed to have circumvented emissions controls.”

The presidential action will attempt to bring greater peace of mind to consumers and after-market parts manufacturers, which are in regulatory limbo as things stand.

It also takes back federal control from the de facto regulatory control taken by California by loosening restrictions and making the costs of repair more affordable. California’s system is apparently bloated and time-consuming for owners to receive the necessary certifications for their vehicles.

If it is any indication of the current regulatory environment around this issue, the California Air Resources Board “has the only certification process for after-market parts currently recognized as sufficient under the [Clean Air Act],” the memorandum states.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, who is tasked with loosening the restrictions, touted this memorandum as a win for consumers.

“If you own it, you should have the freedom to fix it!” Zeldin wrote on X. “President Trump just signed a new Presidential Memo protecting Americans’ freedom to fix their own vehicle if they so desire. The President’s action also combats cheap foreign aftermarket vehicle parts while also breaking up the monopoly the California Air Resources Board has had over certifying aftermarket parts.”

“This is an idea from the top when President Trump called me one recent Saturday night saying he wants this Memo drafted, signed and implemented at Trump Speed instantly,” he added.

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

​President trump, Lee zeldin, Politics, California 

At first glance, genetically mutated rats in New York, Iran’s missile program, Britain’s grooming gang scandal, attacks on ICE facilities, and the rise of democratic socialism in America’s largest cities appear to have nothing in common.

But according to Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck, they’re all examples of the same fundamental principle at work.

“Researchers now at Rutgers University found the vast majority of house mice and brown rats across New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C., have now genetically mutated to shrug off all of the poison that we have thrown at them for decades,” Glenn reports.

“Every rat that survived a less-than-lethal dose handed that resistance to the next litter. And generation by generation, we bred a more poison-resistant rat,” he adds.

Another story, Glenn says, is that the Trump administration is “asking Congress for $88 billion in supplemental funding tied to the Iran war, with most of it going to the Pentagon and replacing strained missile stockpiles.”

“Yet Tehran is boasting that the deal leaves its missile program untouched while it negotiates with Oman to charge costs for passage through the Strait of Hormuz,” he continues.

“This is a lesson that we refuse to learn, and the world has already learned it about us. We’re never, ever fighting a war enough to kill it. We never fight them hard enough to end it because we get bored, distracted,” he adds.

Glenn also points to the Rape Gang Inquiry Report, which dropped a bombshell: Muslim grooming gangs targeted and trafficked young white girls throughout the U.K.

“For 20 years, British authorities saw this, looked away, terrified of exactly the accusation now being aimed at the report. A half-confronted evil doesn’t shrink from embarrassment. It learns which words will make you flinch,” he explains.

And there is another story Glenn believes is related to the prior three: “More than a dozen defendants got prison for the 2025 attack on an ICE facility, and Rashida Tlaib called the sentencing bull crap.”

One of those arrested shot an ICE officer in the neck.

“The guy who pulled the trigger got 100 years, and Rashida Tlaib is saying this is crazy,” Glenn says.

“We’re jailing bodies, but we’re not touching the belief that told them that violence was righteous. So the belief goes on looking for more recruits,” he continues.

And now, socialists are “about to run four of America’s biggest cities.”

“Mamdani’s machine swept New York,” Glenn says.

“So, line up all of these stories, and the same law runs underneath all five. It is the oldest law in biology, and it does not care about your politics,” he continues. “A poison that doesn’t kill teaches.”

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, Trump administration, Zohran mamdani, Donald trump, Socialists, Iran, The glenn beck program, Rashida tlaib 

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered on Tuesday its highly anticipated ruling in Trump v. Barbara — the contentious case concerning whether President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20, 2025, executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens is constitutional.

The court held that “children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.”

‘Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.’

In the majority opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Chief Justice John Roberts began with a history lesson and concluded by writing that “citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ … We keep that promise today.”

The court found that the arguments for limiting birthright citizenship to those legally living in the United States erred “in their definition of ‘allegiance,’ contending that natural allegiance was no longer sufficient for citizenship and that some greater quantum of allegiance (based on domicile) was required.”

According to the high court, there was “scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view.”

RELATED: Alito torches SCOTUS ruling in mail-in ballot case, warns of voter fraud

Swim ink 2/Corbis/Getty Images (L); John Moore/Getty Images (R)

In the opinion for the court, Roberts wrote that “if Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design.”

Roberts noted further that words that appeared in Trump’s executive order — including “mother,” “father,” “lawful,” and “temporary” — were also absent from the language of the clause.

“And while the Clause does ensure state citizenship attaches for U.S. citizens in ‘the State wherein they reside,’ … the explicit invocation of residence for state citizenship only highlights its absence from the criteria for U.S. citizenship,” Roberts added.

Justice Clarence Thomas suggested in a 91-page dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch that the majority diverged from historic American interpretations of the citizenship clause and that its account of how American citizenship came to be understood is “not historically accurate.”

“The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens,” Thomas wrote. “In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.”

In addition to stating that Trump’s order had many potential applications which were “consistent with the original public meaning of the Citizenship Clause,” Thomas expressed uncertainty that “today’s opinion will stand the test of time.”

In closing, he wrote, “The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.’ … Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.”

Justice Samuel Alito echoed Thomas’ sense of gravity and disappointment in his dissent, writing, “This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake.”

“As interpreted by the Court today, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of ‘birth tourists,’ women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home,” Alito wrote. “Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way.”

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

​Birthright citizenship, Illegal aliens, Scotus, Donald trump, Immigration, Constitution, Politics 

A former Florida high school special-education teacher is accused of sexually abusing an underage male, according to authorities.

Citing Brevard County court records, Florida Today reported that 41-year-old Michelle Lynn Hancock was charged with transmitting information harmful to minors, using a computer to seduce or solicit a child, traveling to meet after use of a computer to lure a child, lewd and lascivious touch, sexual battery of a victim, and an authority figure soliciting or engaging in conduct with a student.

According to a court affidavit cited by WESH-TV, the teenager visited Hancock at the Heritage High School campus ‘a few times, and they kissed in her classroom.’

Hancock is being detained on a $525,000 bond, according to jail records.

Hancock, of Palm Bay, had been a special education teacher at Heritage High School in Brevard County.

A spokesperson for Brevard Public Schools confirmed to Florida Today that the district no longer employs Hancock.

“We are deeply troubled by these allegations,” said Brevard Public Schools spokesperson Janet Murnaghan in a statement issued last week. “The district remains committed to providing a safe and supportive learning environment for all students.”

The school district said it is “fully cooperating with law enforcement as they continue to conduct their investigation.”

The district prior to her arrest did not renew Hancock’s employment contract, the spokesperson stated.

Arrest records obtained by Florida Today said the investigation into Hancock began at approximately 1:30 a.m. June 23 when the Palm Bay Police Department was notified about a suspicious red pickup parked near an intersection.

Officers discovered Hancock and a 17-year-old boy inside the truck, according to arrest documents. The teacher and the teen both admitted to engaging in sexual activity, police said.

RELATED: Video allegedly shows female HS teacher wearing ‘Jesus Loves You’ shirt while having sex with student: Warrants

The teen informed investigators that he and Hancock had engaged in sexual activity between 10 and 20 times; Hancock said the pair had engaged in sexual activity “three or four times,” according to the affidavit People magazine obtained.

The teen attended Heritage High School, according to Florida Today.

An affidavit WFTV-TV obtained said the teenager was not a student of Hancock, but she had taught his older brother.

The teacher had helped the alleged victim with schoolwork, according to the affidavit.

Last year, the teen transitioned to virtual classes after leaving the high school, according to an affidavit.

According to a court affidavit cited by WESH-TV, the teenager visited Hancock at the Heritage High School campus “a few times, and they kissed in her classroom.”

Police noted that Hancock denied kissing the boy in her classroom, the affidavit said.

According to the affidavit, the pair had stopped communicating at some point, but “they started talking again via text message” two months ago — and “approximately one month ago, they started engaging in sexual activity.”

The teen also told investigators that Hancock sent him photos that were “sexual in nature,” the affidavit said.

The Palm Bay Police Department and Brevard Public Schools did not immediately return Blaze News‘ request for comment.

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

​Teacher arrested, Bad teacher, Teacher sex scandal, Teacher student sex scandal, Michelle lynn hancock, Child sex crimes, Sexual misconduct, Florida, Crime 

AIDS killed over 100,000 people in the U.S. during the 1980s. The vast majority of AIDS deaths occurred among homosexuals.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV/AIDS had become the third-leading cause of death among men 25-44 years of age, and in 1989, it had become the second-leading cause of death, surpassing heart disease, cancer, suicide, and homicide.

‘Today’s vote is a step to try and rectify past harms.’

Seeking to curb the spread of AIDS and save lives, Minneapolis — like other cities around North America — voted in 1988 to shut down its adults-only bathhouses, which are effectively super-spreader sites frequented by homosexuals looking for sex.

The ban, which impacted three establishments, was supported by numerous homosexuals at the time, including Minneapolis’ first-known gay city councilor, Brian Coyle, who later died of AIDS-related illnesses.

The radicals now running the city voted 9-2 on Thursday to repeal the ban on adult bathhouses and sex venues.

Ahead of the vote, homosexual Councilman Jason Chavez — the LGBT activist who co-authored the two ordinances required to repeal the ban — characterized the decades-old effort to protect homosexuals from the ravages of AIDS as “wrong” and hateful.

“Bathhouse restrictions have a history that is intertwined with anti-2SLGBTQIA bigotry, in particular the history of homophobia in Minneapolis,” said the gay son of Mexican immigrants who had trans- and LGBT-activist flags on his desk but no American colors.

RELATED: Mormon parents fight woke school district over alleged LGBTQ propaganda in California despite SCOTUS ruling

Allan Tannenbaum/Getty Images

“Today’s vote is a step to try and rectify past harms,” Chavez continued. “In fact, when this ban first passed, the ordinance declared AIDS to be of particular danger to persons in this community — this community meaning the community I’m a part of and proud to be a part of. It stated that this disease was found to occur in discernible population groups and that the definition of high-risk sexual conduct targeted acts associated specifically with gay men. To be clear, it was a law targeting gay men.”

Homosexual- and bisexual-identifying men are still the population most affected by HIV/AIDS. The CDC noted that in 2022, for instance, 71% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. were among homosexual and bisexual men.

HIVinfo, the federal government’s resource for up-to-date HIV/AIDS information, noted that “receptive anal sex carries the highest risk of HIV transmission among all types of sex. The risk of transmission is about 13 times greater with receptive anal sex than with insertive anal sex.”

A 2010 study published in the Journal of Sex Research found on the basis of a two-stage probability sample of men exiting a gay bathhouse that:

Of 852 men surveyed, 88.9% engaged in oral or anal sex while at the bathhouse;1 in 7 engaged in unprotected buggery;16.7% of patrons who had oral or anal sex during their visit were HIV-positive, and 13.9% engaged in unprotected buggery; andThe average number of sexual partners during the bathhouse visit was 3.8.

A 2001 study published in the American Journal of Public Health investigated differences in risk behavior among homosexuals who went to bathhouses, public cruising areas, or both, and concluded that “targeting HIV prevention in the bathhouses would reach the segment of men at greatest risk for HIV transmission.”

Councilwoman Elizabeth Shaffer, one of the two officials who voted to keep the ban in place, opposed it both because she apparently didn’t think that commercial sex resorts for homosexuals was a municipal priority and because her constituents expressed opposition.

Shaffer told MPR News that one constituent in particular, an individual who worked for former state Sen. Allan Spear — Minnesota’s first openly non-straight senator — told her “that many gay men in his own network either oppose the return of bathhouses or have real questions about whether this is the right path for a variety of reasons.”

Democratic Mayor Jacob Frey, who evidently didn’t share such concerns, announced on Sunday that he would sign the repeal into law.

Chavez noted that Minneapolis cannot immediately erect new super-spreader sites.

“We still need to work on zoning, the safety and regulations,” Chavez said. “So bathhouses won’t be able to open tomorrow or next week.”

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

​Pride, Minneapolis, Jacob frey, Aids, Politics 

The Supreme Court has come down on the side of common sense when it comes to boys infiltrating girls’ sports.

In a decision in which all nine justices concurred at least in part, the court ruled that laws in West Virginia and Idaho could limit sports teams to biological sex without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

‘The challenged laws do not classify based on gender identity or transgender status … but instead on the basis of biological sex.’

“The argument that the challenged laws unconstitutionally discriminate against transgender individuals is unavailing. Under this Court’s decision in Skrmetti, the challenged laws do not classify based on gender identity or transgender status, see 605 U. S., at 517, but instead on the basis of biological sex,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in an opinion released Tuesday in which six total justices concurred on the core issues.

“The classification at issue readily satisfies rational basis review or intermediate scrutiny.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote separate concurring opinions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, that concurred in part and dissented in part.

Jackson also wrote a separate opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part.

In his opinion, Thomas went further and affirmed that so-called transgender identity does not affect biological reality:

Men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe that they are. Sex is an immutable “biological” characteristic, see ante, at 10; it is binary; and “man” and “woman,” “boy” and “girl,” are the terms that correspond to adults and children of each sex. See A. Byrne, Are Women Adult Human Females? 177 Philosophical Studies 3783, 3786–3787 (2020). To use language to obscure reality — to show “indifference regarding the truth” — is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens “as equal[s].”

This is a breaking story.

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

​Transgender, Girls’ sports, Supreme court, Politics 

The Trump administration’s push to examine alleged political weaponization inside the Justice Department is not merely about looking backward. For many patriotic Americans, it is about people whose lives were turned upside down because the government decided to investigate them.

That is where the conversation often gets lost.

Justice isn’t measured only by what happens in the courtroom. It’s also measured by what it costs an innocent person to get there.

Everyone focuses on the indictment, the headlines, and the courtroom drama. Far less attention goes to what comes before a verdict. It does not take a conviction to ruin someone’s life. Sometimes an accusation is enough.

Federal and congressional investigations are expensive. Responding to a subpoena is expensive. Hiring lawyers to review documents, prepare testimony, answer investigators, and defend your reputation can wipe out a lifetime of savings long before a judge or jury weighs the facts.

Winning years later does not restore your bank account. It does not rebuild your business. It does not give you back the years spent living under a cloud.

That reality has become increasingly familiar in Washington. During Donald Trump’s first term, congressional investigations became a defining feature of his presidency. House committees launched a steady stream of oversight inquiries into the administration, with then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) leading many of the most high-profile efforts.

Democrats argued they were fulfilling Congress’ constitutional oversight responsibilities. Republicans saw something else: a strategy to keep the administration tied up in investigations while forcing witnesses, aides, and associates to spend enormous sums defending themselves.

Whatever your politics, one fact remains undeniable. Every subpoena carries a price tag. Every interview requires lawyers. Every document request takes time. Every hearing pulls someone away from work, family, and ordinary life.

The financial toll rarely makes the evening news.

Former FBI Special Agent Mark Rossini recently offered a glimpse into that reality during a conversation with A.J. Rice on the “Dangerous Laughter” podcast. Rossini, who later received a presidential pardon after pleading to a misdemeanor in a case many conservatives see as part of the weaponization of the Justice Department under Joe Biden, focused less on the legal outcome than on the years leading up to it.

“What a waste of time,” he said, describing what he called “three and a half, four years of this Kafkaesque experience.”

Then came the part that should resonate with anyone who has ever faced the weight of the federal government.

“No one will hire you. You get no phone calls. You lose your income. It’s just debilitating.”

Rossini also encouraged people to read the court filings instead of relying solely on commentary surrounding the case, arguing that public opinion too often forms before anyone examines the underlying record.

RELATED: The right needs a public defender network for lawfare

tomloel/iStock/Getty Images

His experience does not settle the whole debate, but it illustrates something too often overlooked: The process itself can become the punishment.

That is why discussions about alleged Justice Department weaponization have struck such a nerve among many conservatives. They are not simply asking whether every investigation was justified or unjustified. They are asking a more fundamental question: What happens when the immense power of government collides with the life of an ordinary citizen?

Government has a duty to investigate credible allegations of wrongdoing. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight. Those powers are essential in a constitutional republic.

But those powers also demand restraint.

When investigations stretch on for years, legal bills climb into six or seven figures, careers disappear, and families absorb the emotional and financial burden, Americans have every right to ask whether the system has accounted for those costs.

That is what makes the current conversation about Justice Department reform more significant than another round of partisan finger-pointing. It raises a basic question of public trust: Can Americans have confidence that extraordinary government powers will be exercised fairly and consistently, regardless of politics?

By the time an investigation ends, the damage may already be done. A dismissed case does not erase years of legal fees. A pardon does not restore lost income. Favorable headlines at the end of the story do not undo the quiet suffering that came before it.

Justice isn’t measured only by what happens in the courtroom. It’s also measured by what it costs an innocent person to get there.

​Justice department, Opinion & analysis, Lawfare, Fbi, Mark rossini, Donald trump, Weaponization, Congress, Pardon, Bankruptcy 

For years, America’s immigration policy has been determined less by the elected branches of government than by a handful of federal district judges. Presidents proposed policies, Congress enacted statutes, and almost inevitably, a single judge somewhere in the country would issue an order purporting to suspend those policies nationwide.

That era may finally be drawing to a close.

Federal judges possess neither the democratic legitimacy of Congress nor the political accountability of the president.

The Supreme Court’s two immigration decisions issued last week mark an important turning point — not simply because they uphold significant Trump administration immigration policies, but because they reaffirm a more fundamental constitutional principle: Immigration policy belongs primarily to the political branches, not the judiciary.

The court’s decisions addressed different questions: Mullin v. Doe concerned the executive’s authority over Temporary Protected Status, while Mullin v. Al Otro Lado involved the government’s ability to regulate when and how aliens arriving at the border may invoke asylum procedures.

Both opinions reject the increasingly common assumption that federal judges may freely substitute their policy preferences for those of Congress and the president in matters of immigration.

That conclusion should surprise no one familiar with the Constitution or with the current court’s commitment to adhere to its original meaning.

Article I gives Congress authority over naturalization and immigration. Article II charges the president with faithfully executing the immigration laws and conducting the nation’s foreign affairs. The judiciary’s role is different. Courts are supposed to resolve concrete legal disputes — not make immigration policy. For too long, however, that distinction has been blurred.

Beginning during the first Trump administration and accelerating in recent years, nationwide injunctions or nationwide class actions have become the preferred weapon of litigants seeking to defeat executive policies with which they disagree. A single district judge can effectively veto the actions of the elected branches for the entire nation, often within days of a complaint being filed and long before appellate review. Nothing in the Constitution contemplates such extraordinary judicial power.

Federal judges possess neither the democratic legitimacy of Congress nor the political accountability of the president. Their authority extends only to deciding the cases before them and granting relief necessary to protect the specific parties before the court. They were never intended to function as a continuing supervisory council over every major policy dispute in the country. Last week’s decisions reflect a welcome recognition of that important constitutional principle.

Immigration, perhaps more than any other area of law, requires political judgment. Decisions concerning border security, humanitarian protection, foreign relations, labor markets, and national sovereignty inevitably involve competing policy considerations that courts are poorly equipped — and constitutionally unauthorized — to balance.

RELATED: Trump should force Congress to pass the SAVE America Act — now

Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Reasonable people may disagree about how policy judgments in the area of immigration should be resolved. Americans have long debated the proper scope of asylum protections, the wisdom of Temporary Protected Status, and the best means of securing the southern border.

But under our constitutional system, such decisions are supposed to occur in Congress, at the White House, and ultimately at the ballot box — not through nationwide decrees issued by unelected trial judges.

Critics will undoubtedly portray the Supreme Court’s two rulings as victories for one political party or another. That misses the larger point. The real winner is the constitutional separation of powers.

When courts respect the limits of judicial authority, they strengthen rather than weaken the rule of law. Judicial modesty is not judicial abdication. Courts remain fully empowered to decide actual cases, interpret statutes, and enforce constitutional guarantees. What they are not empowered to do is assume responsibility for making national immigration policy, a distinction that protects everyone.

The precedents the Supreme Court established will not apply only to Republican presidents or conservative policies. They will constrain future courts considering the actions of Democrat administrations as well. Constitutional principles endure precisely because they are not dependent upon agreement with the policy of the moment.

The framers deliberately divided governmental power among three separate branches because concentrated power is dangerous regardless of who exercises it. Judicial overreach is no less inconsistent with constitutional government than executive overreach or legislative overreach.

The Supreme Court’s decisions on immigration represent an encouraging course correction. They remind lower courts that judges are not policymakers. They reaffirm that immigration decisions belong principally to the elected branches. And they take another step toward restoring the proper constitutional balance among the three branches of government.

That is good news not only for immigration policy, but also for the Constitution itself.

Editor’s note: This article appeared originally at the American Mind.

​Supreme court, Judicial overreach, Mullin v doe, Mullin v al otro lado, Constitution, Congress, Federal judges, Opinion & analysis, Donald trump, Immigration, Immigration and customs enforcement, Asylum