Police said a 47-year-old male — who was on parole and had 131 prior arrests on his record — was charged for setting a homeless man on fire while the victim was sleeping in New York City's Penn Station, the New York Daily News reported.Officers with the Amtrak Police Department arrested Damon Johnson on Tuesday and charged him with attempted murder and assault for the previous day's attack, which left a 37-year-old man with second-degree burns on his arm and back, police told the Daily News.'Begins wailing and convulsing and scrambled to his feet with his jacket on fire.'Johnson pleaded not guilty at his arraignment Wednesday in Manhattan Criminal Court where he was ordered held without bail, the paper said.Amtrak police also arrested a 33-year-old female Wednesday and charged her with assault in connection with the attack, police told the Daily News.However, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office declined to prosecute the female, the paper said, adding that police sources indicated that while she was with Johnson at the time the fire was started, it's unclear if she committed a crime at the scene.RELATED: Horror in Ohio home: Male accused of raping, beating pregnant woman over course of 2 days. But that isn't the half of it. The Daily News, citing police, said the victim was sleeping near a West 33rd Street entrance to Penn Station’s Amtrak rotunda near Eighth Avenue when three people approached him — and one of them set fire to the man’s clothes around 8:30 p.m.During Johnson's arraignment, Callum Mullan — a prosecutor with the DA's office — described video of the attack, which he said shows Johnson leaning over the victim, who moments later "begins wailing and convulsing and scrambled to his feet with his jacket on fire," the paper said.After the attack, the three men fled into the station, the Daily News said.First responders extinguished the flames and rushed the victim to New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell’s burn unit, the paper said.Mullan added that Johnson at the time of the attack was on parole for a 2018 robbery, in which he slashed a student’s face before taking cash from his pockets, the Daily News reported. Mullan said the victim needed more than 100 stitches, according to the paper.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Every year, Congress flirts with a government shutdown, driven by partisan squabbling and political showmanship. It’s an avoidable cycle that harms taxpayers, disrupts businesses, and creates uncertainty for the public — without producing meaningful policy outcomes. Shutdowns have become a costly ritual Washington should abandon.Last year’s record 43-day shutdown brought large parts of government to a standstill. Flights were canceled. Permits stalled. Military personnel and civilian federal workers went without paychecks. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the lapse caused as much as $14 billion in permanent GDP loss — about the size of Kosovo’s entire economy.Supporters of shutdown brinkmanship claim deadlines create leverage to force policy changes. In practice, shutdowns harden positions instead of producing compromise.Now Democrats are holding up funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which has been closed for over a month. This partial shutdown is hitting TSA workers and other essential homeland security personnel.Nobody wins in a shutdown.The good news: Congress has tools to stop this nonsense for good. Last year, Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) and Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) reintroduced the Prevent Government Shutdowns Act. The bill would keep the government operating temporarily at current funding levels while negotiations continue on longer-term deals. It would also bar members of Congress from spending taxpayer dollars on travel, taking recess, or considering most non-spending legislation until they finish the budget.Shutdowns don’t save money. Agencies burn time and resources preparing contingency plans, restarting operations, and cleaning up the mess. Workers ultimately receive back pay after funding is restored. Taxpayers foot the bill for Washington’s dysfunction.Financial markets and businesses also pay a price. Companies that depend on permits, contracts, or federal data releases face delays that disrupt investment decisions. Entrepreneurs seeking approvals may postpone hiring or expansion. Credit rating agencies have warned repeatedly that shutdown brinkmanship undermines confidence in America’s governance — an unnecessary risk for the world’s largest economy.The politics make reform urgent. Nearly all government funding is set to expire just weeks before Election Day, a pressure point at the height of campaign season. Recent history shows how easily the minority party can see strategic advantage in prolonging a lapse to reinforce a narrative of chaos and dysfunction heading into the midterms.RELATED: Bidenflation? Trumpflation? Try unipartyflation RonBailey via iStock/Getty ImagesAmericans expect disagreement in a democracy. They also expect basic governance to continue. Shutdowns signal that politicians will use essential functions as bargaining chips. That deepens cynicism about institutions and reinforces the belief that Washington prizes partisan victories over practical solutions.Supporters of shutdown brinkmanship claim deadlines create leverage to force policy changes. Last year, Democrats tried to use a shutdown threat to extend temporary, expensive tax credits to subsidize Obamacare. In other cases, Republicans tried to use shutdowns to force a repeal of Obamacare. Neither strategy worked. In practice, shutdowns harden positions instead of producing compromise.Ideally, Congress would pass the 12 regular appropriations bills before the fiscal year begins on October 1. It hasn’t done that in nearly 30 years, largely because the process has become a political weapon.Avoiding shutdowns doesn’t mean abandoning fiscal discipline. It means recognizing that responsible governing requires stability alongside vigorous debate. Congress can fight over spending levels, taxes, and policy priorities without threatening the continuity of government operations.Washington should end the brinkmanship, reopen the government, and adopt reforms that keep shutdown threats from holding the country hostage again.

More and more car dealers are breaking what was once an industry taboo: selling salvage-title vehicles — cars insurance companies have already written off as total losses.That change, which Karl Brauer and I discuss on the latest episode of "The Drive with Lauren and Karl," reflects a simple reality: Affordable used cars are getting harder to find.Alan compares flood damage to a long-term electrical disease inside a vehicle.Used-car prices remain elevated, and inventory is still tight. Dealers looking for lower-cost vehicles to put on their lots are exploring options they once avoided — including vehicles that insurers have already declared totaled.Lower prices may sound appealing to buyers struggling with high car costs. But the real question is whether those savings are worth the risk.To unpack that risk, we brought in our friend automotive broadcaster Alan Taylor, who hosted "The Drive" for years before handing the microphone to Karl and me. Alan used to own a salvage yard before his broadcasting career, giving him firsthand experience buying, repairing, and reselling damaged vehicles.During the episode, we were ribbing Alan about his new Liquid Carbon Series Mustang GTD, but the conversation quickly turned serious when the topic shifted to salvage vehicles — a business he knows firsthand from years running a wrecking yard.Why salvage cars are entering the retail marketThe driving force is affordability.When used vehicles become expensive, buyers start searching for cheaper alternatives. Salvage-title vehicles often sell for significantly less than comparable clean-title cars.For dealers, that means inventory that can be priced lower. For buyers, it can look like an opportunity.But the lower price exists for a reason.A salvage title means the vehicle was declared a total loss by an insurance company. That can happen after a crash, flood damage, theft recovery, or another major incident. Once a title is branded salvage, that designation stays with the vehicle permanently.The problem for buyers is simple: The title tells you something serious happened — but it does not always explain how serious the damage actually was.RELATED: Affordable cars still exist — but Americans can't buy them Bloomberg/Getty ImagesThe biggest danger: Flood carsDuring the conversation, Karl and Alan both warned that some salvage vehicles carry risks that never truly go away.Flood-damaged cars are the most notorious example.Water can infiltrate wiring harnesses, electronic modules, sensors, and interior components. A vehicle might appear normal after repairs, but corrosion inside the electrical system can trigger problems months or years later.Alan compares flood damage to a long-term electrical disease inside a vehicle — something that may not show up immediately but can slowly spread through the car’s electronics over time.Those failures can be expensive. Replacing electronic modules, wiring harnesses, or sensor systems in modern vehicles can easily cost thousands of dollars, quickly erasing whatever savings a buyer thought they gained by choosing a salvage car.A vehicle may pass a test drive today but develop costly electrical problems months later.Modern cars make salvage repairs riskierThose risks are greater today than they were decades ago.Modern vehicles rely on dozens of electronic control units, sensors, and processors to operate everything from safety systems to driver-assistance technology. When those systems are damaged, repairs become far more complicated.According to Alan, "Anything after 2019 has got so many processors, sensors, and wires" he can sum up the repair process in one word: "Nightmare." Older vehicles were largely mechanical. Modern vehicles are heavily electronic, and electrical damage can affect systems throughout the car.That complexity makes hidden problems far more likely.Not every salvage car is a disasterAt the same time, not every salvage vehicle should be automatically dismissed.Sometimes a car receives a salvage title for reasons that do not involve catastrophic damage. Theft-recovery vehicles are one example. If an insurer pays the owner after a stolen vehicle disappears, the title can still be branded salvage even if the car is later recovered with relatively minor damage.Alan saw this firsthand at his salvage yard. “I used to sell 100 cars a month," he says. "But I would sell them damaged to people, and then I had a body shop, and we'd fix it at the building next door.”Those buyers understood exactly what they were purchasing and often ended up with affordable transportation after repairs.Alan notes that the key difference between a good salvage purchase and a bad one is simple: knowing exactly what damage occurred and how the repairs were done.Most retail buyers, however, do not have that level of visibility.Knowing the damage mattersKarl offers a good example from his own garage.One of his cars carries a salvage title, but he knows exactly how the damage occurred: “I got T-boned in a parking lot.”Because he witnessed the accident and understands the repair history, evaluating the risk is far easier.Most used-car buyers do not have that advantage.That uncertainty is what makes salvage vehicles risky purchases.How buyers can protect themselvesFor consumers considering a salvage-title vehicle, research is essential.Before buying, experts recommend:Running a vehicle history reportSearching the VIN online for accident photosHaving the car inspected by a trusted mechanicConfirming what repairs were performed and by whomWithout that information, the buyer is relying largely on trust.And with modern vehicles packed with electronics, hidden damage can quickly turn a cheap purchase into an expensive repair bill.The bottom line for driversSalvage-title vehicles exist in a gray area.Some are repaired correctly and provide affordable transportation. Others hide structural or electrical damage that will lead to long-term reliability problems.The lower price reflects that uncertainty.For buyers who understand the risks and investigate the vehicle’s history carefully, a salvage car can occasionally make sense. But for most consumers shopping for dependable daily transportation, a clean-title vehicle with a documented history remains the safer choice.To sum it up, the rule is simple: If you don’t know exactly why a car has a salvage title, you probably shouldn’t buy it.Listen to the full episode of “The Drive with Lauren and Karl” (featuring Alan Taylor) below:

Where would Hollywood be without “creative differences”? It’s like a “Get Out of Jail Free” card with no feelings hurt. At least none that we can see.Director Lee Isaac Chung (“Minari”) just left the “Ocean’s 11” prequel over that oh-so-Tinsel Town excuse. But why? No, really, why?'Is California overregulated?' Kimmel asked, presumably a setup for the Democrat to counter his critics.The film is set to star Margot Robbie and Bradley Cooper, and it’s got money-making IP written all over it. What’s not to love, at least from a director’s point of view?We may never know. But nothing will stop Hollywood when it’s time to prequel-ize a hit franchise. And we can always drown our sorrows in “Ocean's 14,” starring most of the saga’s original cast. Phew …Hassle's back?“The View” hosts ganged up on right-leaning Meghan McCain until she couldn’t take it any longer. That was all the way back in 2021, and the show has been conservative-free ever since. Sorry, anti-Trumper Alyssa Farah Griffin doesn’t remotely count.This week, the show’s previous token conservative made a rousing comeback. Elisabeth Hasselbeck rejoined the show briefly while Griffin is out on maternity leave. But the show she left in 2013 doesn’t resemble the current version.Crazy is now the order of the day, the week, and the month. So when Hasselbeck shared a few obvious observations, it didn’t go over well. She noted that Sunny Hostin cheered on President Barack Obama’s Libya bombing but blasted President Donald Trump for the current Iran campaign.The back-and-forth proved so heated that the far-Left Variety suggested that Hasselbeck come back to the show full-time. It came with a catch, natch. The scribe wants her pro-Trump views to be rebuffed by her fellow “View” hosts.If leftists need Whoopi and Co. to have their ideological backs, the Democrats are in worse shape than we feared …RELATED: DB Sweeney: 'Protector' star finds Hollywood longevity without selling his soul Michael Loccisano/Getty Images | Magenta Light StudiosKeister-kissing KimmelNo one throws softballs quite like Jimmy Kimmel. “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” is the safest of spaces for the AOCs of the world to push their talking points without a hint of, well, journalism.Yet Gavin Newsom just flunked that test.The California governor joined Kimmel to promote his new book, “Sure, I Grew Up Rich, but … Squirrel!” when he admitted an inconvenient truth: The Golden State is drowning in regulations.“Is California overregulated?” Kimmel asked, presumably a setup for the Democrat to counter his critics.Except Newsom said “yes” in so many words.He described those “well-meaning laws” that have handcuffed Californians and sent residents fleeing the state. Except Newsom has a plan, one that apparently hasn’t been introduced to the state he governs yet. Any day now, Captain Vocal Fry. It’s called the “Abundance Agenda,” and it’s exactly the word salad we expected from Newsom.Maybe the next time he visits Kimmel, he’ll stumble upon a better answer. Or Kimmel will realize Newsom is the 2028 version of Kamala Harris. Keep him in bubble wrap until Election Day …CatfightThis might be the dumbest reason ever not to vote for an actor. Jessie Buckley’s heart-wrenching turn in “Hamnet” earned her raves and, more recently, a Best Actress nomination.And she stands a solid chance of winning, or at least she did until she lost the all-important “cat” vote.The Irish Times published a Pulitzer-level think piece suggesting the actress’ anti-cat comments could hurt her Oscar chances.Laugh all you want, but is that argument any worse than others we’re hearing this Oscar season? Take Timothee Chalamet, the uber-talented star of “Marty Supreme.” He too is Oscar-nominated, but the word around Hollywood is that the actor is too “arrogant.” His celebrity “swagger” is a problem that could cost him votes.Maybe the bigger problem is easier to spot. He’s a straight white male actor, and that doesn’t check off a single diversity box.Better luck next year, kid …Crack recordBilly Idol could be the worst drug counselor ever. The 1980s rocker, the star of the new documentary “Billy Idol Should Be Dead,” confessed that he kicked his heroin habit with a peculiar medication.Crack.He told Bill Maher on the comic’s “Club Random” podcast about his unique path toward sobriety. Sort of.“Once you’re trying to get off heroin, what do you go to? You go to something else. I started smoking crack to get off heroin. … It worked. It worked.”Maybe Keith Richards should have tried that long ago.

BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey won’t say the name of the alleged transgender Canadian shooter who last month took the lives of his mother, his stepbrother, five young children, and a teacher — but she does want to focus on his father.“The biological father of this Canadian shooter, his name is Justin Van Rootselaar. He publicly released a statement to express his deep sorrow and to clarify his complete estrangement from the child,” Stuckey explains.In a statement from the father, he claimed that he distanced himself from his son, telling CBC that he was “estranged” and “not a part of his life.”“In the statement, he emphasized that he had no involvement in his kid’s life or the upbringing. Apparently, he says the mother had refused his participation from the start. We don’t know, you know, we don’t know if that’s true, if it was really the mother’s fault or not. Unfortunately, the mother is now dead,” Stuckey comments.The father also did not call his son by his preferred female pronouns.“What he’s trying to say is, ‘This is not my fault. I was not involved in this at all.’ And I understand his desire to do that, but actually it was his absence, I believe, that contributed to this. It was his absence that created probably this kind of instability,” Stuckey says.“Like, kids need more involvement from both parents, not less. He clearly didn’t have this strong male role model that he needed in his life. And I’m not saying that is always the antidote. That’s not always the thing that is going to prevent a guy, a young man, from going down this path, but it certainly doesn’t help,” she continues. “It certainly doesn’t help when you don’t have a father in the home.”Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.