I have a longtime friend — I’ll omit his name because he is somewhat politically prominent — who has been very involved in the extraction of Afghans who allegedly helped us from Afghanistan and resettlement of them in the United States. My friend already has a demanding job, but he has often worked through the night, forgoing sleep to help with this task.

I have several strong political disagreements with him, but I would never question his patriotism. He voluntarily served as a soldier in Afghanistan after overcoming great obstacles to be accepted into the military. But I would strongly question his political judgment and the judgment of anyone who thinks we should be settling Afghan refugees in America.

‘The second the US military backed out, their men folded and refused to fight for what we gave them. We don’t owe them, they owe us.’

Unfortunately, a number of our former soldiers, no matter how sincere their beliefs, seem to sympathize more with people in a foreign country whom they believed, rightly or wrongly, to be allies rather than with the interests of the only country to which they owe their allegiance.

Joe Kent, an Afghanistan combat veteran and director of the National Counterterrorism Center, argued on social media for the deportation of all of our “Afghan allies.”

“Vetting a foreigner in a war zone to determine if he will fight a common enemy is vastly different than vetting a foreigner to see if he is suitable to live in our country,” Kent wrote.

As journalist Daniel Greenfield notes, the targeted attack on two National Guardsmen by an Afghan national in Washington, D.C., the day before Thanksgiving was not a one-off. It’s part of an extensive series of assaults by Afghans whom we have foolishly allowed to resettle in the United States.

Unbridgeable inequalities

Having lived briefly in a third-world country and having traveled for many years in various countries of that description, I have quickly learned to be wary of “friendships.” It is not that people in these countries are inherently bad or incapable of genuine friendship in principle. It is that the gap between you (a well-off American) and them (a third-world citizen who, even if relatively affluent, is often at a huge disadvantage versus an American) is astronomical.

And that gap is not just financial and legal, but also based on traditions and customs. Relationships that may feel like genuine friendship for a time usually come with future requests or pleas for assistance. Again, I don’t necessarily blame these people — I might do the same in their shoes — and of course genuine friendships in such situations are possible, but they are far rarer than idealists might wish them to be.

What applies in basically peaceful third-world countries applies a thousandfold in an impoverished, war-torn, and primitive country like Afghanistan. It is monstrously arrogant to think the American political class understands deeply the inner workings of these countries and the motivations of the people there, given that we spent almost $1 trillion to occupy Afghanistan, only to see all of our efforts collapse within a week after we removed our military as a threat of force.

Wade Miller, the executive director of Citizens for Renewing America and a U.S. Marine combat veteran, responded to the claim that resettling Afghans was the moral thing to do since they “fought alongside our own” soldiers, rightly calling it a “BS metric.” As he noted, “1. Many played both sides. 2. Many only did it to make money. 3. Many were plants. 4. Many had long-standing tribal grudges against the Taliban.”

And none of them necessarily has a long-term loyalty to America, which is the first step to assess before even beginning to consider a claim of residency.

All of this would be obvious to anyone who does not let suicidal empathy overwhelm good sense. But unfortunately, we have lost that common sense, even among many of our supposedly hardened fighting forces.

‘We don’t owe them’

Miller punctures the lie that we owe these Afghans for “doing America a favor,” pointing out that we did them a favor by expending American lives and treasure to help them govern themselves without the Taliban. But “the second the U.S. military backed out, their men folded and refused to fight for what we gave them. We don’t owe them, they owe us.”

This is a harsh assessment, but in the aggregate, it is not unfair.

Or consider what Mark Lucas, an Afghanistan veteran and founder of the Article III Project, has written: “Afghans were untrustworthy allies who sold their children to pedophiles, ritually raped little boys, and beat their women.” He notes that without male soldiers guarding them, countless local Afghans made clear that they would have raped the women who were attached to their detachment.

RELATED: Trump makes America dangerous again — to our enemies

Jim Watson/Getty Images

Lucas points out that even asking simple questions of potential Afghan asylum-seekers, such as whether they support putting apostates to death, child marriage, Sharia for non-Muslims, defense of suicide bombings, polygamy, and honor killings, would quickly disqualify them. The vast majority of Afghans, he says, support one or more of these views — none of which are compatible with the American way of life.

One of the few Afghan refugees who resettled in my own state of Montana promptly raped a Montanan shortly after his arrival. Unsurprisingly, the crime and its implications were shamefully underreported by local media.

Toward a more sober policy

Even assuming we have an obligation to those we believed helped us in Afghanistan, it would mean we were obligated to get them to safety — not get them to America. If we had made it clear at the outset that relocating to America was not on offer, we would have see a drastic reduction in the number of “refugees.” We can and should resettle them in other countries. Making arrangements to do that is a worthy use of American soft power.

The notion that resettling Afghans in America is a moral duty reflects Joe Biden’s poor political leadership. His administration and previous ones before it had become arrogant about their ability to control events and remake complex societies and peoples far different from our own. In reality, their policies promoted cultural arrogance under the guise of friendship. They abandoned our own in favor of those from distant cultures and lands.

Let us hope that President Trump’s promise to refuse all new Afghan visas and to remove postwar arrivals and resettle them elsewhere is the start of a more sober, realistic, and serious refugee policy that will put the interests of America and its citizens first.

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

​Afghanistan withdrawal, Afghan fighers, Us foreign policy, Refugees, Opinion & analysis, Asylum seekers, Joe biden, Donald trump, Assimilation, Islam, Jihad, Terrorism, Patriotism, Third world, Ban, Crime 

The Trump administration has worked with great success over the past year to dismantle racist DEI initiatives in government and public education across the country. Nevertheless leftist identity politics continue to linger in various taxpayer-funded institutions.

The parental advocacy group Defending Education recently highlighted that the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, which received $628 million in federal research awards in the 2024 fiscal year, is harboring an anti-white research project that claims America is suffering from a “Whiteness Pandemic.”

‘Family socialization into the centuries-old culture of Whiteness — involving colorblindness, passivity, and fragility — perpetrates and perpetuates US racism.’

Rhyen Staley, research director at Defending Education, said in a statement obtained by Blaze News, “This far-left programming at a major public university is another example of how ingrained DEI is in higher education and is not going away any time soon.”

The UMTC’s Culture and Family Lab, which is part of the school’s Institute of Child Development, has a page titled, “Whiteness Pandemic Resources for Parents, Educators and other Caregivers.”

The website:

characterizes the white family as a threat, stating, “At birth, young children growing up in White families begin to be socialized into the culture of Whiteness, making the family system one of the most powerful systems involved in systemic racism”;tells white adults that it is their “responsibility to self-reflect, re-educate [themselves], and act” and that they need to engage “in courageous antiracist parenting/caregiving”;recommends white adults begin “listening to, taking seriously, and following the stories and recommendations” of the scandal-plagued Black Lives Matter organization and “humanizing victims of police brutality and racism — such as Mr. George Floyd”; andlinks to various works of agitprop for parents to “read and watch with children as part of a discussion about race, racism, white privilege, and antiracism.”

While the website references content from various radical sources, it largely focuses on a 2021 paper by the lab’s director, Gail Ferguson, titled “The Whiteness pandemic behind the racism pandemic: Familial Whiteness socialization in Minneapolis following #GeorgeFloyd’s murder.”

RELATED: Woke lecturer cries ‘white supremacy’ after MAGA-racist smear doesn’t go as planned

Photo by KEREM YUCEL/AFP via Getty Images

The paper, which was published in the journal American Psychologist and dedicated to repeat offender George Floyd, claims that “family socialization into the centuries-old culture of Whiteness — involving colorblindness, passivity, and fragility — perpetrates and perpetuates U.S. racism, reflecting an insidious Whiteness pandemic.”

While generally implying that “Whiteness” is a disease, the UMTC professor suggested that “color-evasion and power-evasion” specifically are “pathogens of the Whiteness pandemic” that “are inexorably transmitted within families, with White parents serving as carriers to their children unless they take active preventive measures rooted in antiracism and equity-promotion.”

According to Ferguson, who is black, and the paper’s other authors, one litmus test for whether a white mother is helping spread the supposed “Whiteness” disease comes down to how that mother responded to George Floyd’s death.

A mother’s apathy over the criminal’s death and her unwillingness to discuss so-called “systemic racism” with her children were treated as indicators that she approves of or is at the very least indifferent to imagined racism. Alternatively the willingness of mothers to express grief and concern over Floyd’s death and to discuss it “and Black Lives Matter with their children using color- and power-conscious parenting” were regarded as signs of a desired “antiracist” mentality.

The authors stressed that to dismantle “colorblind racial ideology,” white students should be subjected to “racism and antiracism education,” especially at a young age, and that “it will be important to go beyond how White women learn to say the right things to also consider how they learn to do the right things and actually ‘show up’ for racial justice.”

The basis for the conclusions in the paper was a survey of 392 white mothers, 51% of whom were “somewhat or very liberal,” 18% of whom were “somewhat or very conservative,” and over 91% of whom had a bachelor’s degree or higher.

The racist initiative was made possible with the help of federal funds provided by the National Institute of Mental Health during former President Joe Biden’s tenure.

When asked about the anti-white project, the UMTC told the National Review that it remains “steadfast in its commitment to the principles of academic freedom.” The NIMH reportedly did not respond to the Review’s request for comment.

“It is not only concerning that these programs appear to still be up and running, but that absurd ideas like ‘whiteness’ also gain legitimacy through dubious activist-academic ‘scholarship,'” said Staley. “Universities must end this nonsense yesterday.”

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

​Bigotry, Racism, Critical race theory, Race, Anti-white, Whiteness, Whiteness pandemic, University, Minnesota, Umtc, Leftism, Radicalism, Identity politics, Politics 

Despite thousands of lawsuits against OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma now being settled, the opioid crisis continues to devastate families and communities. This is why there are massive national efforts to expand addiction treatment, develop non-opioid pain alternatives, promote natural remedies, and confront the Mexican drug cartels flooding America with fentanyl. In recent years, opioid-related deaths have finally begun to decline, suggesting that those initiatives are starting to make a real impact. But that progress may already be slowing.

The introduction of work requirements for Medicaid eligibility under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is producing unintended consequences for people in addiction recovery. Early studies show that declines in Medicaid enrollment correlate with drops in the number of patients receiving treatment for opioid use disorder. Because Medicaid is the primary source for buprenorphine and addiction services, these enrollment changes threaten fragile but meaningful recovery gains.

Conservatives champion individual responsibility — but responsibility also requires ensuring that systems meant to help people reclaim their lives aren’t working against them.

Work requirements aren’t the problem — they’re sound policy to preserve the financial stability and original intention of the program. The real issue is Medicaid’s regulatory structure, which is too rigid and dysfunctional to absorb yet another layer of complexity.

This crisis didn’t begin with work requirements. Medicaid’s own structure, combined with state policies, had been restricting access to effective OUD treatment for years. Patients face prior-authorization delays, prescriber rules that block lifesaving medications, and certificate-of-need laws that stop treatment centers from opening or expanding. Policymakers often claim these rules protect patients or control costs. In practice, they have choked off reliable care and pushed people in recovery farther from the help they need.

In states where prescriber limits and facility restrictions already make treatment scarce, adjusting Medicaid eligibility has a serious impact on the availability of buprenorphine providers. The problem lies in creating a policy that requires personal responsibility within an already bureaucratic structure that actively slows treatment access. When enrollment pressures combine with supply constraints caused by CON laws and prescription rules, the result is fewer people getting the care that keeps them alive.

This is especially true in Appalachia, which is ground zero of the opioid crisis. Pennsylvania explicitly prohibits off-site methadone “medication units,” while legislation has been floated in West Virginia that aims to ban methadone clinics. Local governments across the region routinely block zoning permits for treatment facilities, often caving to community pushback rather than addressing a staggering public health emergency. Many states still impose CON laws, restricting the ability of hospitals and clinics to add new treatment beds or open new treatment programs.

RELATED: Trump faces drugmakers that treat sick Americans like ATMs

Credit: Photo by Pete Marovich/Getty Images

On the provider side, well-intentioned prescribing rules have created even more barriers. Despite a dire shortage of addiction specialists, many states limit the prescription of OUD medications to certain providers, leaving primary care doctors — who could dramatically expand treatment access — underutilized or prevented from issuing prescriptions. Lawmakers have inadvertently created a bottleneck: too few qualified providers and too many hoops to jump through for those who want to treat addiction.

As the Trump administration continues to build a populist coalition that includes voters from Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other communities deeply scarred by opioid addiction, it must confront this reality head-on. Doing so does not require abandoning conservative principles, nor does it mean reversing work requirements. Those reforms remain both necessary and widely popular. But a serious conservative health care agenda must recognize that Medicaid’s regulatory architecture is undermining progress against opioid addiction — and America cannot afford to lose ground now.

Conservatives champion individual responsibility — but responsibility also requires ensuring that systems designed to help people reclaim their lives aren’t working against them. Addressing Medicaid’s regulatory failures is not just good policy; it is essential to sustaining progress in one of the most consequential public health fights of our time.

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

​Opioid crisis, Medicaid, Trump administration, Drug abuse, Big pharma, Opinion & analysis, One big beautiful bill, Oxycontin, Purdue pharma 

Two teenage boys have been arrested for allegedly shooting and killing a 14-year-old and then lighting her body on fire.

Danika Troy was reported missing by her mother on Monday, according to Santa Rosa County Sheriff Bob Johnson, who conducted a media briefing on Thursday.

‘The evidence pointed to them immediately. They took them into custody immediately.’

A day later, the girl’s badly burned remains were found by a man walking near Kimberly Road in Floridatown.

Police said they identified the remains as belonging to Troy because her mother had reported that she left with a scooter, and it was found near the remains. They also found shoes that matched those she was wearing.

Johnson said that a witness told police that 16-year-old Gabriel Williams and 14-year-old Kimahri Blevins had planned the murder of the girl.

In an interview with police, Blevins allegedly said he blocked Troy after they had a falling out on social media. Williams also said he was upset with something Troy had said, according to police.

But a possible motive is still undetermined.

“They have been interviewed, but the motive that we’re getting doesn’t fit the forensics or any facts of the case,” Johnson said.

The sheriff said Williams stole the gun they used from his mother.

“It’s bad enough that you kill a 14-year-old; you’re 14, you’re 16, you shoot her multiple times, and then you set her on fire,” Johnson added.

The state attorney’s office said a grand jury will determine whether the boys should be tried as adults.

RELATED: California man convicted of brutally attacking his son with a sledgehammer while he slept

“This is what major crimes calls a ground ball,” Johnson said. “The evidence pointed to them immediately. They took them into custody immediately.”

Williams and Blevins were each charged with first-degree premeditated murder. They both are in custody at the Santa Rosa Juvenile Detention Center.

“It shocks me,” neighbor Sue Petrisch said. “It’s always been so quiet here, and it’s getting bad. It’s terrifying, in fact.”

A candlelight vigil is planned to honor the victim on Monday at Avalon Baptist Church. A GoFundMe account has been set up to help pay for her burial costs.

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

​Danika troy murder, Gabriel williams, Kimahri blevins, Murder of teen girl, Crime 

The idea that Adolf Hitler was some misunderstood or even “good” figure while Winston Churchill was the real WWII villain was once confined to the extreme fringes and unknown to almost everyone else. Today, however, the idea has resurfaced with disturbing visibility — no longer limited to neo-Nazi forums but now defended or entertained on major podcasts, viral social-media threads, and platforms with tens of millions of listeners and viewers.

Glenn Beck, a lover of history and collector of historical artifacts, is appalled that this revisionist narrative is being taken seriously.

“I really don’t get it. History, real history, is not a choose-your-own-adventure kind of thing. It’s ink on paper, orders in filing cabinets, telegrams, diaries, bodies. It’s what actually happened, not what we hope happened,” he says.

On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn sets the record straight about Hitler, Churchill, and WWII.

Lie #1: Poland wasn’t part of Hitler’s conquest plan

“Let me just say this calmly, factually, and finally: Germany’s plans for Poland were not reactive. They were premeditated,” he asserts.

The faulty idea pushed by Hitler rehabilitators that Britain conned the West into going to war by promising to defend Poland is easily debunked with an artifact Glenn has in his possession. “It’s called Fall Weiss,” he says. “It’s Hitler’s operational blueprint for the invasion of Poland, drafted in 1938, a year before [British Prime Minister Neville] Chamberlain said, ‘We’re going to guarantee [Poland’s] safety.”’

“Hitler’s explicitly stated road map [targeted] Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, then the East,” he explains. “Britain didn’t pull Germany into war. Germany was already marching toward war — global war.”

Lie #2: Hitler had no Western ambitions

The second WWII fallacy that demands debunking, he says, is the idea that Hitler had “no Western ambitions” and actually wanted peace with Britain.

“Really? Because we have the paper trail again,” Glenn retorts.

“How do you explain Operation Sea Lion — Hitler’s detailed plan to invade and occupy Great Britain?” he asks. “You don’t draw up amphibious landing schedules across the English Channel just in case.”

But before this plot was even fathomed, Hitler had already tried to tee himself up to dominant Britain. In May 1941, Hitler’s second in command, Rudolf Hess, secretly flew a plane to Scotland with a mission of trying to make a “peace deal” with Britain. The offer, Glenn says, was this: “Let Hitler dominate Europe, and Germany would leave Britain alone.”

He had Nazi sympathizers in high British society — including the ex-King Edward VIII, who had openly praised Hitler and was willing to be put back on the throne as a Nazi puppet if Germany invaded.

“The Nazi files recovered after the war show explicit German plans to reinstall him after an occupation,” says Glenn. “Hitler was not avoiding conflict with Britain; he was planning its subversion.”

Lie #3: Hitler was initially friendly toward America

The idea that Hitler admired America and never wanted to go to war with her is another idea that easily crumbles under the weight of basic logic.

Hitler’s ideology stands in contrast in every way possible to that of the United States.

“Hitler believed the state was supreme, that the German people existed for the Reich. In America, the Constitution is supreme, and it exists to limit the states. Rights come from the furor and the government in [Nazi] Germany; in America, rights come from God, and the government is the servant, not the master,” Glenn differentiates.

“The individual in Germany: expendable. The West is built on the sanctity of the individual. Racial hierarchy is destiny in [Nazi] Germany. The West, at its best, rejects racial supremacy. The Declaration starts with ‘all men are created equal’ — not ‘some races are destined to rule.’ Nowhere in our documents does it say the state must expand endlessly,”’ he continues.

Lie #4: The US should’ve sided with Hitler over Stalin — the greater evil

“People are arguing now that the Allies should have sided with Hitler instead of Stalin. No rational reading of history supports any of that,” says Glenn.

While “Hitler and Stalin were both monstrous,” the U.S. was forced to choose “survival.”

“The question for us was no longer, ‘Hey, which dictator is better?’ The question was, ‘Which outcome prevents Hitler from ruling all of Europe?’ Because if Hitler defeated the Soviet Union, the resources of the East — all the oil, all the grain, all the industry, all the manpower — would have made the Third Reich unstoppable,” Glenn corrects.

But even still, “We knew at the time Stalin was just as bad. We knew we were going to be in war with Stalin at some point.”

Lie #5: Winston Churchill was the real WWII villain

Nobody could see Stalin’s wickedness more than Winston Churchill, says Glenn. “He was the one saying, ‘We can’t have this guy as an ally.”’

Even still, it’s “not about defending Churchill, who I think is a hero; but it’s about defending the record, the truth, so in our moment of confusion and upheaval and ideological extremism, we don’t lose our footing on the bedrock of fact.”

“When we begin to question whether the West should have resisted Hitler, where are we going? When we entertain the idea that freedom and tyranny could have co-existed, you’re not just rearranging interpretations; you’re reopening a door millions died to close,” Glenn warns.

“Be very careful when someone tells you the villain wasn’t really the villain. Woe unto him who makes evil good and good evil.”

To hear more of Glenn’s commentary, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, Adolf hiter, Wwii, World war two, Nazi germany, Hitler, Nazis, Revisionist history, Hitler myths, Winston churchill