A father who shot a man suspected of raping his 11-year-old daughter was arrested and charged with felonious assault and weapon under disability charges.

Grove City police said they were called to the apartment on July 15 over the report of a sexual assault on an 11-year-old girl.

‘I can see why he went after him. I’m not saying it’s right, but that at least makes some sense.’

The mother of the girl called police after allegedly seeing a video of a sexual assault at their home on her daughter’s phone.

The next day, the alleged victim’s father lured the rape suspect back to the home by pretending to be his daughter on the TikTok app.

Police were called back to the residence to find Diego Montoya Gonzalez shot twice.

The father told police that he intended only to beat up Gonzalez and then call police but that the suspect reached for a gun and precipitated the shooting.

A neighbor named Terrie Shirkey described the father as visibly upset after finding out about the allegations.

“[He] had checked the phone, and he saw texts,” Shirkey said to WSYX-TV. “Whatever he saw on the phone, he just couldn’t calm down. He just kept pacing, pacing.”

Investigators allegedly found several videos of child abuse on Gonzalez’s phone, including one involving an infant or toddler.

“I can see why he went after him,” Shirkey added. “I’m not saying it’s right, but that at least makes some sense. It wasn’t a senseless thing. If it’s not, that means we’ve got a predator, and that scares the crap out of me.”

RELATED: ‘Depraved’ serial child molester barricaded himself in bathroom with 1-year-old and tried to commit suicide

Gonzalez was later arrested and charged with rape, pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor, and obstructing official business.

On Monday, he pleaded not guilty in a Franklin County Common Pleas Court. He was given a $20,000 recognizance bond as well as a $50,000 cash/surety bond.

If released, he was ordered to stay off the internet except for work and restricted from contacting the alleged victim’s family.

WSYX also reported that the father had previously been charged with strangling his girlfriend, but that was dismissed. He also was convicted for misdemeanor attempted breaking and entering. He is being held on a $100,000 bond.

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

​Child rape, Online predators, Tiktok, Shooting, Pedophile, Crime 

Joseph McCarthy, Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, and Andrew Jackson have little in common beyond one striking fact: Young Americans are revisiting reputations that schools, media, and popular culture once treated as settled.

The trend is not a wholesale endorsement of every decision these men made. It is a rebellion against inherited verdicts.

TMZ may fret that McCarthyism is returning. It isn’t. Institutional deference, however, may be gone for good.

As democratic socialists such as Francesca Hong and Zohran Mamdani have gained traction with voters, some young conservatives have revived interest in McCarthy’s campaign against communist influence in the United States. The slogan “Joseph McCarthy was right” has circulated online alongside renewed discussion of Soviet espionage and foreign political influence from countries such as Cuba and China.

McCarthy’s record remains contested, and the abuses associated with his name should not be waved away. But younger critics are increasingly unwilling to accept the textbook version in which he appears only as a paranoid bully who invented a threat that did not exist. One widely used history resource, for example, describes his methods as bullying tactics that created a climate of fear.

McCarthy is not alone.

Richard Nixon became a viral figure this summer through “Nixon-maxxing,” an online fascination that mixes irony and style with a serious effort to reconsider his foreign-policy record and political downfall. George W. Bush, once a permanent punch line for late-night comedy, now appears in nostalgic images as a cowboy from a more confident American era. Andrew Jackson has also returned to online debate as younger people reassess his nationalism and tariff policy.

None deserves automatic vindication. McCarthy, Nixon, Bush, and Jackson were consequential men with real failures, bitter controversies, and legacies that remain open to dispute.

But their reputations were shaped by institutions that many members of Gen Z no longer trust.

Black Lives Matter activists tried to tear down Jackson’s statue in Washington. Legacy outlets treated Nixon’s name as shorthand for betrayal and corruption. Late-night television and “Saturday Night Live” spent years reducing Bush to a caricature.

When those same institutions lose credibility, their historical judgments lose authority with them.

That loss of trust is measurable. Confidence in higher education fell from 57% in 2015 to 36% in 2024. Gen Z reports the highest levels of mistrust toward colleges of any generation, and 59% of students say they fear expressing “right-wing” political opinions in class.

RELATED: The once and future Nixon

Photo courtesy of the Richard Nixon Foundation

Young people therefore approach official narratives with a suspicion earlier generations reserved for propaganda. If they want the truth, they need to uncover it themselves.

COVID taught us the hard way.

Most members of Gen Z were in high school, college, or the opening years of adulthood when governments closed schools, restricted work, separated friends, and imposed sweeping health rules. They were told that officials possessed reliable answers, then watched many claims change, collapse, or become subjects of bitter dispute.

The vaccine debate supplied one example. Research identified an increased risk of myocarditis after some COVID vaccinations, particularly among adolescent and young adult males. That finding did not prove every warning about vaccination correct, but it complicated the insistence that skepticism itself was irresponsible or morally wrong.

The release of Anthony Fauci’s diary reinforced the belief among many young Americans that officials presented more certainty in public than they privately possessed.

The result was not merely disagreement over masks, vaccines, distancing, or school closures. It was a broader lesson in institutional fallibility.

Young Americans learned that credentials do not eliminate self-interest, consensus does not guarantee truth, and a confident official narrative may later require substantial revision.

That lesson now shapes how they view both contemporary politics and American history.

Donald Trump’s return to the presidency after Russiagate, two impeachments, criminal prosecutions, and years of predictions that his movement would collapse reinforced the idea that establishment condemnation can increase rather than settle public doubt. Young men voted for him heavily in 2024 and extended the same instinct to figures such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The same appetite has helped independent journalists like Nick Shirley build audiences by pursuing stories local governments and established newsrooms neglected.

RELATED: Two Americas, under Fauci, with liberty and justice for none

Alex WROBLEWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

This impulse can go wrong sometimes. Contrarianism is not the same as truth, and a historical figure does not become virtuous merely because liberal institutions despised him.

But the refusal to inherit conclusions without question is healthy.

Gen Z is treating history less like a museum exhibit and more like a cold case. It wants the documents, the motives, the context, and the arguments omitted from the standard account.

That approach will not vindicate every accused man. It may confirm some old judgments and overturn others.

The larger significance lies in who now claims the authority to decide.

Schools, television networks, universities, and political movements once expected younger Americans to accept their moral rankings of the past. A growing number of young people now insist on reopening the file themselves.

TMZ may fret that McCarthyism is making a comeback. It isn’t. Institutional deference, however, may be gone for good.

​Black lives matter, Covid, Democratic socialists, Donald trump, Francesca hong, Gen z, George w bush, Joseph mccarthy, Marco rubio, Richard nixon, Right wing, Zohran mamdani, Opinion & analysis 

Opponents of the SAVE America Act have reached for the oldest smear in the election-law playbook: racism.

Sunny Hostin of “The View” recently said she opposed the bill because it would “disproportionately affect African-American voters.” She compared proof-of-citizenship requirements to Jim Crow devices such as literacy tests and jelly bean counting.

Election reform cannot proceed honestly while racial demagoguery substitutes for argument.

The comparison is historically illiterate.

Poll taxes, literacy tests, and arbitrary guessing games were designed to keep black Americans from voting. Requiring voters to prove identity and citizenship applies a neutral rule to everyone.

The SAVE America Act would require applicants for federal voter registration to provide documentary proof of citizenship, such as a passport, a REAL ID indicating citizenship, or qualifying military records. Related provisions would require photo identification at the polls.

Those are not instruments of racial exclusion. They are ordinary safeguards meant to ensure that only eligible citizens participate in federal elections.

Democratic politicians and media figures have spent years describing voter-identification laws as “Jim Crow 2.0.” Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and others have portrayed routine verification as a deliberate attack on minority voters.

The claim insults the people it supposedly defends.

Polls consistently show broad support for voter identification, often above 80% overall, with strong majorities among black and Hispanic voters. Millions of minority Americans already use driver’s licenses, state identification cards, and other government-issued documents because modern life requires them.

Americans need identification to board a commercial flight, open a bank account, cash a check, buy alcohol or tobacco, rent a car, enter many offices and government buildings, collect some prescriptions, and check into a hotel.

Even New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, an opponent of voter-identification requirements, recently announced that his taxpayer-funded grocery stores would require identification for entry.

RELATED: Mamdani rejects voter ID, but his grocery stores may ask shoppers for proof

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The country accepts identity verification for countless transactions carrying far lower stakes than choosing its leaders. The idea that voting alone must remain exempt from basic verification makes no sense.

Critics next argue that noncitizen voting is rare and therefore unworthy of concern. Recent examples show why prevention remains vital.

In New Jersey, Governor Mikie Sherrill (D) disclosed last month that a software error at the Motor Vehicle Commission improperly registered roughly 6,600 noncitizens between June 2023 and June 2024. About 400 of them cast ballots. The Trump administration believes the number may be much higher.

In North Carolina, authorities previously charged 19 foreign nationals with voting unlawfully in the 2016 elections. In Philadelphia, an illegal immigrant was arrested after allegedly voting in several federal elections.

None of those cases proves that noncitizen voting determines every election. They do prove, at a minimum, that registration systems make mistakes and that ineligible people sometimes vote. One can only imagine the depth of election fraud a DOGE-style investigation into all 50 states’ practices would uncover.

The most revealing feature of the opposition is its refusal to separate legitimate access concerns from the basic question of eligibility. Lawmakers can provide free identification, mobile enrollment services, and reasonable procedures for citizens who lack standard documents while still requiring proof that applicants are citizens.

That would expand lawful access and protect lawful votes at the same time.

Instead, critics invoke the ugliest chapters of American history to shut down discussion. They treat any identity or citizenship requirement as presumptively racist and imply that minority voters are uniquely incapable of complying with ordinary rules.

Americans of every race deserve elections in which every lawful vote counts and every unlawful vote is excluded. Proof of identity and citizenship is not an attack on democracy. It is the minimum a democracy owes its citizens.

Election reform cannot proceed honestly while racial demagoguery substitutes for argument. The people using Jim Crow as a shield against neutral safeguards should be shunned, not indulged.

​Election fraud, Election reform, Jim crow, Kamala harris, Noncitizen voting, Philadelphia, Save america act, Stacey abrams, Zohran mamdani, Opinion & analysis 

In a recent appearance on Michelle Obama’s podcast, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained that she refuses to do anything that might appear biased.

“When I get invitations to do things, I always have them screened by the legal office, the public information office, just to make sure that there are no ethical conflicts, that it’s not a fundraiser. You know, there are lots of limits on what judges can do,” Jackson told Obama.

“And I try to be very, very mindful and scrupulous with respect to that because, as you say, our obligation is to be unbiased in our approach. And so, you have to then navigate all the sources that could make for an appearance of partiality, which you want to avoid,” she continued.

“So, there are lots of things that I end up not accepting for that reason,” she added.

BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales can’t help but point out the glaring issue with her statement.

“It’s just that you’re on Michelle Obama’s podcast,” Gonzales comments.

“I’m just going to say, nothing says impartial and unbiased like appearing on Michelle Obama’s podcast. Like what?” Gonzales asks.

But Jackson isn’t the only one Gonzales is tired of hearing from, as Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) recently made a “wild claim about DEI.”

“When they decided to go after quote, unquote ‘DEI,’ black women, the most educated demographic in this country, somehow ended up the most unemployed out of everyone,” Crockett said.

“So, black women are the most educated demographic in this country,” Gonzales comments. “I think we need a fact check here.”

According to the Emerald Pages, 56.7% of Asian women hold bachelor’s degrees, making them the most educated in the country. Following closely behind them are white women at 52.9%.

Meanwhile, only 29.3% of black women have bachelor’s degrees.

“I don’t know where you’re getting your information,” Gonzales says. “Once again, I’m very uncomfortable with the way they keep passing out these law degrees like candy to all of these people who seem to be dumber than a box of rocks.”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Jasmine crockett, Kentaji brown jackson, Michelle obama, Sara gonzales, Supreme court, Black women, Dei, Blazetv show 

A homeowner in Rochester, New York, early Monday opened fire on a burglar who was on parole for a previous burglary conviction, police told WHAM-TV.

Officers responded to Avery Street on the city’s west side around 4:30 a.m. following a 911 call about gunshots coming from a nearby home, the station said.

‘The homeowner did what he needed to do, to protect his home and himself. End of story.’

Police told WHAM a second call came from a homeowner who said he shot an individual who broke into his home.

Officers found the burglar in the home’s kitchen, the station said, adding that he was pronounced dead at the scene.

Police told WHAM the homeowner has a valid New York state pistol permit and used a legally owned and registered handgun in the incident; the station added that the homeowner is cooperating with the investigation.

The homeowner did not know the burglar, who was on parole for a previous burglary conviction, police told the station, adding that the suspect’s identity has not been released.

Police added to WHAM that the home in question had been burglarized at least twice since June.

Monday’s incident remains under investigation, the station said.

Police Captain Frank Umbrino told WHEC-TV that the shooting “appears to be justified” and that “my message is don’t break into houses.”

Neighbors told Umbrino that they’ve also been victims of recent break-ins, WHEC added.

RELATED: Thug allegedly threatens to kill homeowner, enters victim’s residence. But homeowner fights back with baseball bat — and gun.

A number of commenters sounded off underneath WHAM’s story:

“Well, [the suspect] is no longer a problem for law-abiding citizens of Rochester,” one commenter said.”Ah — another feel good story!” another user declared. “I hope the innocent homeowner has not been traumatized by this incident.””The homeowner did what he needed to do, to protect his home and himself. End of story,” another commenter wrote. “I just hope he gets some help. Taking a life, even if it’s justified, can’t be an easy thing.””When it comes to someone breaking into my house, you get one warning — that’s it,” another user stated. “If you are still in my house when I get down the stairs, you are going to get shot. I don’t care who you are or what race you are, they will be calling the meat wagon to take you out of my home. I legally own my gun and I shoot 3 or 4 times a week. Oh, and I would grab my shotgun with deer slugs to [ensure] your visit to the great beyond.””Isn’t it scary in NY, where the homeowner is still worried he might be charged?” another commenter asked. “NY is awful for victim rights. If I were him, I’d get a lawyer.”

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

​Rochester, New york, Burglary, Fatal shooting, Homeowner shoots intruder, Gun rights, Crime, Second amendment 

A federal court issued a preliminary ruling that blocked New York officials from banning federal immigration agents from wearing masks and other coverings.

Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the Face Covering and Identification Acts in May in order to rein in ICE operations in the state.

‘We stand firm in our belief that masked agents do not make New York safer, and our offices are reviewing all legal options at this time.’

The Department of Justice sued against the order and argued that it violated the “sovereign function” of the United States.

Linda Fang of the New York State Attorney General’s office argued that the law did not contradict any law issued by the federal government.

“When the federal government has not spoken, it can be subject to general rules that impact its function,” Fang said.

U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino sided with the government in the ruling Monday.

“The United States has demonstrated a likelihood that it will succeed on its claim that the Face Covering and Identification Acts directly regulate federal officers in violation of the Supremacy Clause,” D’Agostino wrote.

However, D’Agostino allowed New York to continue banning cooperation agreements between local governments and ICE.

The judge described the ban as the “appropriate means of furthering New York’s legitimate interests in protecting public welfare and choosing how state and local resources are expended.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James and Gov. Hochul released a joint statement about the ruling.

“As we have said from the start, New York’s ban on 287(g) agreements is legal and will keep our communities safe. Local law enforcement should be focused on local matters, and New York taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for any collaboration with ICE,” the joint statement reads.

“While the court enjoined enforcement of New York’s mask ban, we stand firm in our belief that masked agents do not make New York safer, and our offices are reviewing all legal options at this time,” they added.

RELATED: Trump is reportedly FURIOUS at Jeanine Pirro — and may fire her

Democratic New York state Sen. Patricia Fahy said officials were likely to appeal the decision.

“We always knew there was a constitutional debate on this,” said Fahy. “But either way, we know that the push from us, along with others, has been effective in sending the message that this was totally outrageous — the actions of ICE.”

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

​Department of justice, Federal court, Kathy hochul, Letitia james, Supremacy clause, Jeanine pirro, Immigration and customs enforcement, Politics 

The failure of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro to prosecute a former Olympian for allegedly damaging the resurfaced reflection pool at the Lincoln Monument may lead to her termination.

President Donald Trump is furious at Pirro after she dropped the charges against 67-year-old David Hearn on Saturday, according to two sources who spoke to CNN.

‘Really disappointed with Jeanine Pirro. She folded like an umbrella.’

Hearn pleaded not guilty to the felony charge of destruction of property after National Park Service employees allegedly saw him willfully and “violently” damage a section of the lining of the pool.

Trump is reportedly thinking about firing Pirro after she admitted that the damage to the lining was more likely to be the result of flawed installation rather than vandalism.

One of the sources said the president “fumed” over the situation throughout the weekend, and the source concluded that it’s “highly likely she’s removed from her job.”

The other source said Trump was “blindsided” by the decision to drop the charge.

“The president did not know beforehand that she was going to do that,” the source said.

The White House directed CNN to the president’s comments to reporters.

“Frankly, I think she choked because the judge was really vicious. Instead of going after the people that did it, the judge went after her and went after her department, and I guess she choked,” the president said on Monday at the Oval Office.

“I was disappointed with Jeanine Pirro. Really disappointed with Jeanine Pirro. She folded like an umbrella,” Trump added.

One of the CNN sources said the president and Pirro had a phone conversation on Saturday about the issue and described the interaction as not “pretty.”

The president also blasted Pirro in a post on social media Saturday.

“I disagree 100% with Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, on the Reflecting Pool. I don’t know what she was thinking? To me, it was a pure case of VANDALISM,” Trump wrote.

Hearn had been facing 10 years in prison over the charge.

RELATED: Trump greets crew that restored Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool in visit to the White House

Pirro blamed the Dept. of the Interior in the filing.

“Had DOI been forthcoming with the information clearly in its possession, the government would not have sought a grand jury indictment,” she wrote.

“Given all of this newly discovered information, it is difficult to attribute the widespread damage to the Reflecting Pool to vandalism, let alone to establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt,” she added.

CNN noted that Hearn has some legal options available to him that would include suing the administration and referring prosecutors to disciplinary action.

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

​Lincoln monument, President donald trump, Reflecting pool, Us attorney jeanine pirro, Politics