63b1ae…35db1b

Five food stamp recipients have filed a [lawsuit](https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5781154-snap-recipi… ) against the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture over new restrictions on purchasing junk food, soda, and energy drinks with taxpayer money. The Trump administration ordered the restrictions on "non-nutritious" items in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 'When I shop for food, I have to read the ingredient list on everything I buy to try to figure out if I can use SNAP to buy it.' The National Center for Law and Economic Justice as well as Shinder Cantor Lerner filed the [lawsuit](https://nclej.org/news/trump-administration-sued-over-sna… ) at the behest of the recipients from Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia. "The food restriction waivers contain no exceptions for individual medical, nutritional, or household circumstances," the lawsuit reads. "Instead, the food restriction waivers place on recipients and retailers the responsibility for determining whether a particular product is a permissible SNAP purchase under each state's altered definition of 'food.'" Supporters of the new restrictions say that taxpayer funds should not be spent on snacks and other unhealthy foods, while critics say the restrictions are unfair to recipients and confusing. One plaintiff said her daughter suffers from "avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder," and the restrictions don't allow her to buy the food that she can ingest. "Her physicians have advised Plaintiff Johnson to provide her daughter with whatever foods she is able to eat in order to avoid nutritional deterioration and invasive medical intervention," the lawsuit reads. Another plaintiff named Marc Craig from Iowa said the new restrictions confuse him. "I am finding Iowa's food restriction waiver extremely complicated to navigate," he said. "When I shop for food, I have to read the ingredient list on everything I buy to try to figure out if I can use SNAP to buy it. I still get to the register only to be told I cannot use SNAP to buy everything I have selected." Another plaintiff said sugary drinks were important to him as a sufferer of diabetes. "I would have told USDA that many people have medical or personal reasons for the foods and drinks they choose, Nieves Aragon said. "For me, certain drinks can be lifesaving. When my blood sugar drops, I need something like juice or a sugary drink immediately to raise it and prevent a dangerous situation," he added. **RELATED: **[**Able-bodied 38-year-old man goes viral for response to Trump food stamp restrictions: 'That's some bulls**t!'**](https://www.theblaze.com/news/snap-welfare-man-viral-trump ) "The practical effect," the plaintiffs**** [said](https://nclej.org/news/food-stamp-recipients-sue-over-ban… ), "is to destabilize food access for every SNAP participant in the affected states." "Once again, the Trump administration is making it up as they go along and disregarding the damage. We are asking the Court to immediately block implementation of these unlawful food restriction waivers," said Katharine Deabler-Meadows, a senior lawyer for the National Center for Law and Economic Justice. *Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. **[Sign up here](https://www.theblaze.com/newsletters/theblaze-articlelink )**! *

A top judge in New York was met with outrage after he said voters needed to support judges who would give more lenient sentences to criminals. New York state Republicans have filed a complaint against Chief Judge Rowan Wilson over [comments](https://nypost.com/2026/03/11/us-news/nys-top-judge-spark… ) he made at a panel discussion at the CUNY School of Law in Queens in February. 'Your political opinion means nothing when you're in that robe on the bench. Your politics should have nothing to do with the way you render a decision.' The panelists were discussing a Democratic proposal to allow convicted criminals to request another sentencing hearing after serving 10 years. It's called the Second Look Act. Wilson mocked voters against the proposal as "stupid" and said judges should be more lenient on criminals. "They hurt somebody maybe very seriously in the past, but they have come to be a very different person. And now we are spending a lot of money to keep them in prison. That's stupid," he said. "It's a very hard thing, I think, given the current sentencing framework, to get judges at the moment of sentencing, to think, 'Oh, I should think about this fact that there isn't a re-sentencing available,'" he added. Wilson also cited a case where a judge referred to a defendant as an "animal" who should be "locked up" for the rest of his life. He called the comments "very distressing." Republicans accuse Wilson of breaking ethics rules. "Your political opinion means nothing when you're in that robe on the bench. Your politics should have nothing to do with the way you render a decision," said New York state Sen. Anthony Palumbo (R), who is also a ranking member of the judiciary panel. "We think it definitely warrants review. This is not us being dramatic or hysterical." A spokesperson for the Office of Court Administration disagreed and said Wilson's comments did not violate ethics rules. "It is appropriate for the Chief Judge to express his views on pending legislation that affects the court system," Al Baker said. **RELATED: **[**'Activist judge' rules Trump appointee doesn't have authority to order mass layoffs at Voice of America**](https://www.theblaze.com/news/voa-lake-trump-layoffs-judge ) "It is also appropriate for him to speak publicly about proper judicial temperament and values," he added, "and to encourage New Yorkers to stay informed about the conduct of the judges serving their communities and to participate in the processes by which those judges are elected or appointed." Wilson has been the chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals since 2022 and was [praised](https://www.wxxinews.org/capitol-bureau/2023-04-18/rowan-… ) as the first African-American chief judge in New York. He could face removal from the bench by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, or he could simply get a private admonishment. **Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. **[<em>Sign up here</em>](https://www.theblaze.com/newsletters/theblaze-articlelink )**!**

Rising tensions with Iran sent oil markets into panic. What happens if the conflict escalates? “So we get these times in the markets, in periods of great uncertainty, where you have real information that is uncertain, right? You don’t know, with 20% to 30% of the world’s oil going through the strait of Hormuz, if that is going to be cut off entirely,” financial expert Carol Roth tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck. “Then that is exacerbated by financial markets, and there are two pieces to that. One is just when there are these periods of uncertainty, sometimes you get, from hedge funds that have large positions and sometimes levered positions in the market, something called de-grossing, where they just get rid of everything and they go to cash, and they go, ‘We’re just going to sit and wait out and see what happens,'” she explains.### “And then you get the algorithms, and the algorithms are jumping on headlines, which are rapidly changing and uncertain, and other algorithms are following those first algorithms. So you get this exacerbation of volatility, something where ... uncertainty and fear drives an outcome in the market, and then it becomes exacerbated by the dynamics of the financial market,” she adds. Roth notes that the “good news” is that these tend to be “short-lived.” “Because once there becomes a price mismatch between what certain people think is reality and the prices that are reflected,” she tells Glenn, “then greed drives in, they buy things up, and the prices kind of stabilize.” But Glenn wants to unpack the “worst-case scenario.” “Worst-case scenario: This drags on, this gets ugly. They find a way to mine the strait of Hormuz or whatever, and they shut it down. What will that do to the price of oil?” Glenn asks Roth. “I mean, that’s a blowout. Minimum $120 to $150 a barrel. And if it really, you know, gets bad, I’ve seen a few analysts call that up to $250,” Roth answers. “But let me give you some good news. The likelihood of that is sort of priced right now at like a 20% chance. So 80% chance that doesn’t happen,” she adds.## Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, [subscribe to BlazeTV](https://get.blazetv.com/glenn/?utm_source=theblaze&utm_me… ) — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

While the news is rife with reports about missiles and armies, Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck is urging Americans to wake up to another very serious war we’re facing. “I am not pushing for or advocating for war, a physical war with Iran or anybody else. But war is not just coming. It is here. And I mean the kind of war that does not use battleships. Everything in the world will become much clearer if you look at things with different eyes. Not political eyes, not partisan eyes, but if you start looking at things through spiritual eyes,” Glenn explains. While Glenn admits that Americans have been historically dealing with bad policy, that bad policy has turned into “evil” that “has convinced itself that it is righteous.” “That combination has always been the most dangerous force in all of human history,” he says.### And that combination is on full display in Iran. “So let me start with the war in Iran. People in Washington are talking about Iran as another just geopolitical rival, another regime that we could possibly negotiate, another government, you know, seeking influence. But the regime in Tehran is not just political,” Glenn says. “The regime in Iran is built on a theological revolution. The clerics that took over in 1979, they didn’t just overthrow a government. They built a system designed to export their ideology all across the globe,” he explains. And that ideology includes women being “beaten in the street by the morality police for showing too much hair.” “Young girls have been dragged into vans, imprisoned, and tortured. We saw it a few years ago when the woman who was arrested for not wearing her hijab properly was killed in prison. How about the 9-year-olds that they are insisting are cool to marry now a 50-year-old guy?” he says. “When there’s a protest in the streets, thousands are arrested. Thousands are killed. Some protesters are executed publicly. Young men have been hung from cranes. Children are imprisoned. Girls assaulted in prison. You have homosexuals that are thrown off roofs or beheaded in the public square. And it’s all being done in the name of God,” he continues. But those who believe in what Glenn calls “spiritual blindness” do not only live in Iran or other Muslim countries or practice Islam. “It’s here in the West in a different form. You know, evil doesn’t come, you know, wearing a Nazi uniform. Rarely, does it? It creeps in quietly. It normalizes things. It confuses moral ideas through ideology,” he explains. “And if you look at the patterns of history, it’s there over and over again,” he adds.## Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, [subscribe to BlazeTV](https://get.blazetv.com/glenn/?utm_source=theblaze&utm_me… ) — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A Canadian human rights tribunal in British Columbia has ordered a former school trustee from Chilliwack [to pay $750,000 in damages](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/barry-neu… ) for insisting there are only two genders. The tribunal ruled that [Barry Neufeld](https://barryneufeld.com/ )’s public comments about transgender and nonbinary people constituted discrimination under the province’s [Human Rights Code](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/s… ). 'I spent all my career working with special, at-risk kids — kids who had horrible backgrounds, who suffered all sorts of trauma and abuse. I have nothing but compassion for them.' The [case stems](https://www.christianpost.com/news/canadian-man-fined-750… ) from a 2017 Facebook post in which Neufeld criticized gender-transition treatments for children. Teachers’ union groups later filed human rights complaints alleging that his statements created an unsafe work environment for some employees. The dispute wound its way through mediation attempts, court challenges, and tribunal hearings for several years before the ruling. Transgender denialism, it seems, can carry serious consequences.## Stunned by decisionWhen I recently caught up with Neufeld, I asked whether he even had that kind of money. He laughed off the idea. In fact, he says he doesn’t even own the land his trailer sits on. Neufeld served as a school trustee for 26 years and worked as a probation officer for 25. He says he knows the criminal justice system well, but nothing prepared him for a human rights tribunal ruling that he must pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for expressing his views. The moment he heard the decision, he says, he was stunned. “I couldn’t believe it,” Neufeld told me. “It was preposterous. I didn’t think that the tribunal would go along with it, but they did. In some ways it’s a blessing in disguise, because if they had only ordered $75,000, nobody would have paid attention. But this woke everybody up." The case has drawn national attention and criticism from across the political spectrum, including [commentary](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-barry-neu… ) in the Globe and Mail. Supporters have stepped forward [to help fund](https://rightsandfreedoms.org/ ) Neufeld’s legal defense — something he says he never needed to rely on before.## 'I just think they're deluded'In Canada, disputes over gender identity are often handled not in criminal courts but in provincial human rights tribunals. While Canada’s Criminal Code does not make [misgendering a crime](https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-ide… ), tribunals have ruled that refusing to use a person’s preferred pronouns can constitute discrimination. According to Neufeld, the tribunal determined that his comments amounted to hate speech because he rejected the concept of "nonbinary" and other gender identities. “They explained to me that it was hate speech because I denied the existence of nonbinary and all the other genders,” he said. “And I said, ‘I don’t deny their existence. It’s not existential denialism. I just think they’re deluded.’ They said, ‘That’s hate speech.’” **RELATED: '**[**Trans' alleged school shooter in Canada: Did police put politics before public safety?**](https://www.theblaze.com/align/trans-alleged-school-shoot… ) Paige Taylor White/Getty Images## Chilling effectThe ruling has also unsettled another another Chilliwack school trustee. Laurie Throness, a former member of the B.C. Legislative Assembly, [stepped down](https://www.coastreporter.net/bc-news/chilliwack-bc-schoo… ) from his position after concluding that he could be the next target. For Neufeld, this chilling effect is by design. “The purpose of such a high penalty was to scare everybody else [and to say] that if you commit blasphemy against our gender religion, you will lose everything. And it’s starting to work.” For his part, Neufeld insisted his criticism was always directed at ideas — not people. “I never threatened any person,” he said. “I constantly was confronting ideas — especially gender ideology. And they countered by saying because I use the word ‘gender ideology,’ I’m hiding behind that to disguise my hate of transgender people. I don’t hate transgender people either. I have compassion and sympathy for them.”## Protecting childrenWhat concerns him, he said, is the promotion of gender ideology to children. “Forcing these ideas on young children is what has kept me motivated to constantly be speaking out against them." Despite the tribunal ruling, Neufeld said he believes public opinion is shifting. “They’re losing the battle,” he said. “They know it. B.C. is one of the last jurisdictions in the world to hang on to this. ... They're backing away from it in many countries in Europe and many states in the United States. “I don’t hate anybody,” he added. “They’re blowing in the wind if they think they can convince the world that I’m a hateful person, because I'm not. I spent all my career working with special, at-risk kids — kids who had horrible backgrounds, who suffered all sorts of trauma and abuse. I have nothing but compassion for them.”## No 'wrong' bodiesBut Neufeld worries about what he sees as the consequences of encouraging young people to believe they were born in the wrong body. “When you start telling them that all their problems are caused because they’re born in the wrong body, you screw up their minds,” he said. He also questioned the medical dimension of youth gender transitions. “What are the side effects of these drugs that you’re giving kids?” he asked. Neufeld says parents ultimately need to reclaim authority over decisions affecting their children.

On November 9, 2024, the [Associated Press](https://apnews.com/article/ap-race-call-explainer-arizona… ) called Arizona for Donald Trump. Arizona was the [last state](https://www.fox10phoenix.com/election/why-does-arizona-ta… ) the media called — **four days** after Election Day. As Arizona Senate president, I know that kind of delay can’t happen again. Voters deserve timely results, especially in a pivotal battleground state. The outcome of the presidential race became clear in the early hours of election night, November 6. But Arizona’s slow count still invited unnecessary angst — and would have fueled mistrust if the margin had been tighter. It doesn’t have to work this way. That’s why we’re looking at common-sense, bipartisan reforms that improve transparency and speed without compromising integrity. If the governor won’t work with the legislature on meaningful reforms, we will take this directly to the voters in the November general election. Florida shows what’s possible. Over the past few cycles, Florida has counted the vast majority of ballots within hours of polls closing. Races get called, electoral votes get assigned, and the country moves on. Florida didn’t arrive there by accident. The “[hanging chads](https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/ha… )” debacle of 2000 forced the state to rebuild confidence through clearer rules and cleaner procedures. In 2024, more than 3 million Floridians voted by mail, more than 5 million voted early, and more than 2.5 million voted on Election Day. Florida counted 99% of those ballots before midnight. That’s [a standard](https://jamesmadison.org/floridas-election-reform-sets-th… ) Arizona should meet. So what does Florida do differently? First, Florida keeps clear lanes for voting: vote by mail, early voting, and Election Day voting. Each lane has its own procedures, and voters understand the differences. Second, Florida limits Election Day drop-offs. Vote-by-mail ballots can be returned at early voting locations, but on Election Day they must be delivered to the supervisor of elections — Florida’s equivalent of Arizona’s county recorders — not dropped at every polling place. Third, Florida removes needless envelope handling for in-person early voting. Envelopes belong with vote-by-mail ballots, not in-person voting. Early in-person voters use the same ballots and the same tabulators used on Election Day — they just vote during the early window. Fourth, Florida posts key numbers on election night. Counties must report how many vote-by-mail ballots they have received and how many remain uncounted. That kind of transparency reduces speculation and stops the “How many ballots are still out there?” spiral that frustrates voters across the country. **RELATED:**[** ****The common-sense case for nationalizing US elections**](https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/the-common-sense… ) Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images My team and I — joined by state senators, representatives, and county officials — met with Florida’s secretary of state to discuss how Arizona could adopt similar reforms. I hope Democrats and county officials will join this effort. Election integrity, transparency, efficiency, and certainty shouldn’t be partisan. Too often, they have turned into a Republican-versus-Democrat fight, with the left resisting reforms that would give voters more confidence in the process. Consider a bill my Republican colleagues and I pushed in 2023 and again [in 2025](https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/SB1001/2025 ). It required voters who held on to their mailed ballots until the Friday before Election Day to meet the same voter ID requirements as other voters when dropping those ballots off. The bill would also have reduced the burden of signature verification on hundreds of thousands of ballots — one major reason Arizona results can take days, even weeks. Both times, it passed the legislature on party-line votes and Governor Katie Hobbs (D) vetoed it. Her [veto message](https://mcusercontent.com/44a5186aac69c13c570fca36a/files… ) offered little justification, claiming only that the bill didn’t “meaningfully address the real challenges facing Arizona voters.” That pattern has repeated. Even with growing support for faster election-night results — including an unlikely endorsement from a columnist at one of Arizona’s major newspapers — the governor and her allies have refused to consider reforms that would deliver timely results and clearer transparency. Arizona voters deserve better than delays and uncertainty. If the governor won’t work with the legislature on meaningful reforms, we will take this directly to the voters in the November general election. If Democrats won’t fix what’s broken, Arizonans will. Republicans in the Arizona legislature have reintroduced bills to reform our system. We should tailor solutions to Arizona, but nobody should fear mirroring a model that works. Florida proves that speed and integrity can coexist. Election integrity, transparency, and timely results aren’t red or blue issues. They’re American issues. Arizona has an opportunity — and an obligation — to deliver results voters can trust, on election night.

Leaving trash in your car might seem like a personal problem. In Hilton Head, South Carolina, it can now bring fines of up to $500 — or even 30 days in jail. Governments routinely regulate safety equipment, emissions standards, and parking behavior. Regulating how clean the inside of a car must be moves into far less settled territory. A new [local ordinance](https://www.the-sun.com/motors/15876923/drivers-fine-jail… ) allows authorities to penalize situations where garbage inside a vehicle could provide food or shelter for rats. What might sound like an odd local rule has sparked a broader question about government authority, vague enforcement standards, and whether similar laws could eventually spread to larger cities already struggling with rodent infestations.## Rat's nestThe ordinance took effect February 1 as part of the town’s effort to control a growing rat problem. Hilton Head’s municipal code places vehicles under the same sanitation rules that apply to buildings, treating them as potential environments where rodents could find food or shelter. The rule appears in a section addressing “[conditions affording food or harborage for rats](https://library.municode.com/sc/hilton_head_island/codes/… ).” Under the ordinance, it is unlawful to allow garbage or rubbish to accumulate in any building, vehicle, or surrounding area if it could provide food or shelter for rodents. For drivers, the penalties are significant. Violations can bring fines of up to $500, jail time of up to 30 days, or both. Each day the violation continues can count as a separate offense, meaning penalties could quickly multiply. The ordinance is framed as a public health measure. Garbage accumulation can attract rodents, and Hilton Head’s code treats vehicles the same way it treats buildings if trash creates conditions that could support infestations. The challenge is how broadly that standard could be applied. **RELATED: **[**Per-mile driving taxes: The latest way to punish those who drive the most?**](https://www.theblaze.com/align/per-mile-driving-taxes-the… ) Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images## A little litter?The law does not define how much trash qualifies as “accumulating garbage,” nor does it spell out how enforcement officers should determine whether a vehicle could realistically attract rodents. A few empty coffee cups or fast-food wrappers might look harmless to one person but like a sanitation problem to another. In practice, enforcement would likely occur in situations where trash is visible from outside the vehicle or discovered during other routine enforcement actions, such as parking violations or abandoned-vehicle inspections. The ordinance itself provides little guidance on how those decisions should be made.## Pest controlThat ambiguity raises a broader question. If a local government can regulate the interior condition of a private vehicle in the name of pest control, how far does that authority extend? Cities like New York and [Los Angeles](https://abc7.com/post/los-angeles-earns-top-spot-most-rat… ) already struggle with well-documented rat infestations. New York City alone spends tens of millions of dollars annually on [rodent mitigation](https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2023/04/mayor-adam… ), expanding sanitation enforcement and imposing stricter trash-handling rules. In cities under pressure to show results, the temptation to expand enforcement tools is real. If Hilton Head’s ordinance survives legal scrutiny, other municipalities dealing with rodent problems could see it as a model.## Test caseThat possibility raises an uncomfortable policy question. Vehicles are private property, even when parked on public streets. Governments routinely regulate safety equipment, emissions standards, and parking behavior. Regulating how clean the inside of a car must be moves into far less settled territory. There are also practical questions the ordinance does not answer. Would a car parked temporarily on a street face the same scrutiny as a vehicle abandoned for weeks? Could a citation be issued immediately, or would drivers first be given an opportunity to correct the problem? For now, motorists in Hilton Head are the test case. But drivers elsewhere — especially in cities already battling rat infestations — should pay attention. Regulations often start small, aimed at solving a specific problem in a specific place. Over time, those rules can expand in ways few people originally anticipated. And when government authority moves into new territory, it rarely retreats on its own.

Imagine an Iranian warship minding its own business in the Indian Ocean, when, out of nowhere, a mean and abusive American submarine appears and starts launching torpedoes for no reason except sheer cruelty. At least, that’s how one professor I recently encountered retold [the story](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-submarine-sinks-irani… ). In his telling, the United States isn’t merely mistaken or imprudent. It’s the villain in a cartoon morality play, cast forever as the bully. Others insist that President Trump’s actions toward Iran can only be explained by domestic political distraction — specifically, an alleged effort to divert attention from the Epstein files. Their reasoning runs like this: [Trump once speculated](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj01U8l35OI ) that Barack Obama might attack Iran for political reasons. Therefore — through a piece of logic that would embarrass a first-year philosophy student — Trump must now be doing precisely that himself. We believe — correctly — that free speech requires tolerating ideas that are foolish, offensive, or absurd. But the First Amendment does not require taxpayers to finance those ideas. The pattern keeps repeating. In January, a handful of progressive philosophers of religion flooded social media to denounce ICE based on fake reports. American Christians, they declared, must allow unrestricted immigration as a requirement of loving their neighbor. Point out that the passages they cite presuppose conversion to the faith, and the conversation pivots quickly from political lecturing to hostility toward Christian scripture itself. My own social media was full of posts by progressive philosophers repeating Democrat talking points. One notable example is philosopher Eleonore Stump, who reposted fake [stories](https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=13566559062… ) about Liam Ramos, fake [images](https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10164619737… ) of ICE shootings, and [emotional](https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10235900455… ) pleas disconnected from reality and rooted in what is now called suicidal empathy. It would make a perfectly acceptable comedy routine if it weren’t so serious — and so sad.## Why professors hate AmericaWhy are so many American professors so anti-American? They live in a country that pays them well to teach their particular flavors of Marxist progressivism. They enjoy robust constitutional protections for speech and inquiry. They’re free to invent theories so eccentric that they wouldn’t survive a staff meeting at a moderately sensible insurance company. And yet they hate America. The late philosopher Roger Scruton coined a useful word for this condition: [oikophobia](https://www.jstor.org/stable/42742290 ) — the fear or hatred of one’s own home. Spend 10 minutes browsing faculty social media — especially in the humanities — and you’ll meet it. In their telling, virtually any other country can do no wrong, while the United States can do nothing right. **RELATED: [Do they hate Trump — or do they just hate America?](https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/do-they-hate-tru… )** Photo by Joseph Prezioso / AFP via Getty Images## The logic of learned helplessnessThey lament how the “benevolent” ruler of Venezuela was removed by the bullying United States. If they concede he was a tyrant, they pivot to a different objection: Are we supposed to go around removing every tyrant in the world? Consider the move. Because a nation cannot eliminate all evil everywhere, it must refrain from opposing evil anywhere. It’s a curious moral theory — and it tends to apply only when America, or a conservative administration, acts. In their personal lives and domestic politics, these same professors preach incrementalism. Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Progress, they assure us, comes in steps. But when Donald Trump — or conservative America generally — is behind an action, oikophobia kicks in and the reasoning faculty abruptly shuts down.## TDS as a virtueRecently, James Carville, a sometime professor of political science at Tulane University and a political consultant to various governments abroad, publicly took the Lord’s name in vain by asking God not for national unity or wisdom but for more [Trump derangement syndrome](https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-carville-issues-scath… ). He cheerfully admitted he hates Trump and wants to hate him more. That’s more than just political spite. It’s a descent into madness, wrapped in a violation of the third commandment. This posture has become standard in fields such as political science and the humanities. It feels less like argument than a kind of intellectual surrender — what the apostle Paul describes in Romans 1 as being given over to a “debased mind.” When intellectuals lose the capacity for judgment, the results don’t stay confined to faculty lounges. They spill into institutions, into students, into culture — and into policy.## Why are we paying for this?The strangest feature of this situation is that we keep employing these people — often with public funds. Professors at private universities are one thing. Private institutions can hire whomever they please. But many of the loudest performances come from state universities, where salaries are paid by taxpayers. Americans have tolerated this out of respect for the First Amendment. We believe — correctly — that free speech requires tolerating ideas that are foolish, offensive, or absurd. But the First Amendment does not require taxpayers to finance those ideas. Allowing someone to speak differs from obligating the public to underwrite his lectures.## From oikophobia to self-hatredOikophobia rarely appears in isolation. It grows out of something deeper — what you might call autophobia: a kind of self-hatred. Professors who despise their country often despise the civilization that produced it — and, eventually, even themselves. You can see the self-contempt in the ideas they teach: young people urged to reject their own bodies, treat biological reality as an inconvenience, and even mutilate themselves in pursuit of identities constructed from will alone. Civilizations that teach their children to hate themselves don’t flourish for long. **RELATED: [My court fight over DEI at Arizona State isn’t culture-war noise](https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/my-court-fight-o… )** Photo by Robert Alexander/Getty Images## The post-Christian academyAnother pattern shows up if you spend enough time around these professors: Many were raised in some form of Christianity and later rejected it. Occasionally they will speak of Jesus as one teacher among many. More often they reject him outright. That rejection isn’t incidental. It’s seed corn. It grows into the rest of the hostility. The America they prefer is an America stripped of its Christian foundations — an America dissolved into a global moral neutrality where Western civilization stays perpetually on trial and every other tradition receives the presumption of innocence. In their view, just as America can do nothing right, Christians can do nothing right either. Meanwhile, almost any spiritual alternative — no matter how strange or historically troubling — earns enthusiastic approval. “Who are you to judge?” becomes the only commandment they reliably enforce. I recall one professor raised in a conservative Baptist home who later converted to what she proudly called “hedonic atheism.” She recounted — with real excitement — paying to sit on the dirt floor of a shaman’s tent and ingest hallucinogenic mushrooms to “open the doors of perception to other dimensions.” Christianity: rejected. Mushrooms with a witch doctor: enlightenment.## The simple solutionFuture historians may look back at this era with bewilderment. They’ll ask how a prosperous civilization came to subsidize an entire class of intellectuals devoted to explaining why that civilization was uniquely wicked. Has anything like it happened before? Perhaps. But most civilizations eventually discovered a simple solution. They stopped paying for it.

Two Florida teenagers arrested on charges of alleged murder were allegedly caught on video laughing and giggling to each other about their plot from a police cruiser. Isabelle Valdez, 15, and Lois Lippert, 14, were [arrested](https://www.theblaze.com/news/lanza-resurrection-murder-p… ) on Jan. 23 after police received a tip about their alleged plan to resurrect the Sandy Hook elementary school killer by murdering a schoolmate. 'I thought I was going to get sent to the [expletive] psych ward. That's why I was so excited about everything.' The video shows Valdez making jokes and Lippert laughing despite the very serious allegations that were made against them by the Altamonte Springs Police Department. Valdez identifies as a transgender person and goes by the name "Jimmy," according to court records. After police contacted school officials about the tip, Valdez was questioned by the vice principal of Lake Brantley High School in Altamonte Springs. She allegedly admitted to the murder plot and handed over a backpack with a knife, gloves, trash bags, and wipes. Valdez said that she heard voices in her head telling her to kill the victim in order to resurrect Adam Lanza, who murdered his mother, 20 grade-school students, and others before committing suicide in 2012. In the police video [released](https://www.wftv.com/news/local/this-is-such-bonding-expe… ) to the public, they joke about wearing makeup for a mugshot. "I was going to do my makeup this morning for the mugshot, but I couldn’t find anything," Valdez said. "It's over." "Yeah, it's over. It doesn't matter if you look good or not," Lippert replied. "Why are you touching me with your butt?" Valdez said in another reported interaction. "This is such a bonding experience! I love it!" Lippert said. At another part, Valdez said, "I thought I was going to get sent to the [expletive] psych ward. That's why I was so excited about everything." They also talk about the blood pact to bring back Lanza as well as their speculation about who snitched on them. Prosecutors said the teens planned to slit a student's throat in the bathroom and then drink his blood. "I don't feel guilty for my actions," Valdez said in the recording. Prosecutors showed the video at a hearing to oppose bail for the pair, and a judge agreed. The two will stay in jail while the case progresses. **RELATED: **[**Activists want food delivery man to be charged with hate crime after lethal shooting over 'misgendering' of transgender woman**](https://www.theblaze.com/news/trans-activist-shot-killed-… ) The mother of the teenager who was allegedly targeted in the murder plot said it has crushed their sense of security. "I was destroyed, and I still am. It is never going to be the same," the [mother told WFTV-TV.](https://www.wftv.com/news/local/mom-speaks-out-after-teen… ) "When you read the report and how planned out it was ... it is very hard. I have broken down a lot. I still break down at work. I still have fear." *Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. **[Sign up here](https://www.theblaze.com/newsletters/theblaze-articlelink )**!*

The war in Iran has entered its second week, and the Trump administration is fighting on two fronts: the physical battlefield and the narrative one. Most Americans expected U.S. firepower to dominate, and it has. Seven American service members have died so far, but Iran has suffered far heavier losses in lives and materiel. Even those surprised by the damage Iran managed to inflict on U.S. allies can see the basic reality: Tehran is outmatched. The real question was never whether the United States had superior force. The question was whether the administration could sustain support long enough to translate force into victory. Trump built a foreign policy around brief, decisive action in America’s interest. He should stick with it — and finish this war — while the window for narrative victory remains open. That challenge matters more for Trump than for most modern presidents. He was never an isolationist. His second-term foreign policy has relied on limited but highly effective strikes rather than long occupations. He has projected power through single bombing runs and midnight raids, then exited before the mission metastasized into a nation-building project. Skeptics of foreign intervention grumbled, then quieted down when operations stayed brisk, competent, and contained. That becomes more difficult when “contained” turns into weeks and potentially months. “Boots on the ground” has become the clearest public marker of commitment. If the conflict remains primarily air and naval, most voters will still read it as limited engagement. Costs will rise and gas prices will sting, but casualties will likely remain comparatively low. A sharp show of force followed by a clear exit would keep the war from becoming a long-term liability. Whether he intended it or not, Trump has likely gambled the remainder of his term on avoiding that trip wire. The Iranians know it. So does the administration. That’s why Tehran keeps daring Washington to deploy ground troops. Iran’s leaders don’t believe they can beat American infantry in a straight fight. They’re betting the war loses support the moment U.S. ground forces start taking steady casualties. George W. Bush enjoyed a powerful rally-around-the-flag boost after 9/11, and his administration spent months building a public case for war. Trump has no comparable national trauma to unify the country, and his administration did not spend much time laying out the necessity of this war before it began. That means his narrative window of victory is narrower by default — and it can close fast. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth appears to understand the dynamic, but he also understands a basic rule: You don’t win wars by announcing what you will *not* do. If the administration takes ground troops off the table, it tells Tehran that patience equals victory — that holding out long enough will force America to go home. So Hegseth keeps the option alive. Practically, that means he keeps getting dragged into briefings where he must say ground deployments remain possible. The media treats that as the headline. Anxiety rises. “Boots on the ground” starts to feel inevitable, even when it remains only a contingency. The administration takes a beating in the public mind with every news cycle. **RELATED: [America First can’t survive an Iran quagmire](https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/america-first-ca… )** Blaze News Illustration Wars have always had a narrative battle, but the pace has changed. News doesn’t arrive weeks later in a paper or even once a night on television. It hits phones all day, in an endless stream of micro-skirmishes designed to create dread and exhaustion. No one really doubts U.S. military superiority. Iraq and Afghanistan proved that military superiority is not enough. America toppled regimes quickly, then watched “mission accomplished” become a punch line for years of occupation and nation-building. Trump hinted recently that operations in Iran are [nearly complete](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-iran-cbs-news-the-war-… ). If true, that’s the right direction. The old supreme leader is dead, along with many key figures, and the new supreme leader already may have been [gravely injured](https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-889520 ). Iran’s naval and air capacity has been degraded. Tehran has isolated itself further by striking a range of U.S. allies. Trump could declare meaningful victory now and begin drawing down forces, preserving the very pattern that kept his base — skeptical of intervention — largely onside: quick, effective strikes with limited U.S. casualties. Trump has also said Israel will have a say in when the war ends. It shouldn’t. The United States is sovereign. It is also the senior partner in a conflict Israel could not possibly execute alone. The administration has already acknowledged that Israel’s decision to strike materially reshaped U.S. war planning. That is a mistake not to repeat. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made clear that long-term regime change is Israel’s goal. If Israel wants that objective, it should secure it on its own terms. Trump built a foreign policy around brief, decisive action in America’s interest. He should stick with it — and finish this war — while the window for narrative victory remains open.