The New York Times has sounded the alarm over Republican officials partnering with Turning Point USA to expand the group’s presence in schools — and BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales isn’t letting the “Karen” behind it get away with it.“Every once in a while, I like to check in on the enemy, the enemy of the people. Yes, I do mean the New York Times,” Gonzales says, before playing an audio clip of one of the New York Times’ podcasts, “The Headlines.”In the episode, the host explains that a “growing coalition of Republican officials” are “pushing to expand the influence of Turning Point USA in schools.”“The partnerships do not appear to involve taxpayer money, and they’re not mandates. But critics have raised concerns about the state’s embrace of them, considering Kirk’s hard-right views, his dissemination of conspiracy theories, and his criticism of gay and transgender rights. They say the state partnerships could be seen as a kind of government seal of approval,” the host explained.“I regret to inform you it gets worse,” Gonzales comments. “They did a write-up on this.”In the article, she notes that Charlie Kirk is portrayed as the villain “even in death.”“You have Karen, the appropriately named Karen Svoboda,” Gonzales says, reading from the article, “executive director of Defense of Democracy, a liberal group that opposes conservative influence in public schools, argued that the partnerships amounted to a sort of state-sponsored imprimatur promoting one political viewpoint.”“Ms. Svoboda also accused Turning Point of being a divisive force in schools, noting that Mr. Kirk was critical of gay and transgender rights. A Turning Point club at a high school, she said, ‘would be offensive and probably even a little scary for kids who were members of the queer community at school, and families that are dealing with that,’” the article continued.“Now, as you know … I like to give everyone a chance … to come on and try to defend these bats**t-crazy viewpoints. So we reached out to Karen, who initially agreed to come on the show today, until she realized who she was agreeing to do it with,” Gonzales comments.“If you’re not willing to defend your bats**t-crazy views, I guess you don’t care about democracy at all. Now, I would remind you that we do not have a democracy,” Gonzales says, adding, “but this is your buzzword. You own the buzzword, and you can’t defend it at all.”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.

These days, it feels like war is everywhere I turn. Culture wars on social media. Actual war on the news. Spiritual war invisibly raging all around. War inside me. Even the piling dishes and the toys that never stay tidy can feel like a kind of war.But every now and then, a sunbeam pierces the thundercloud and silences the cacophony for a brief moment, allowing me to breathe and recenter. Sometimes it’s a timely sermon, other times a gentle breeze and birdsong. Coffee with a dear friend can do the trick.'String Cheese' ministers to my weary soul by reminding me that what I call trials are actually gifts.But this week, it was “American Idol” contestant Hannah Harper’s song “String Cheese.”The name is silly; the lyrics are anything but. Right from the start — “I warm my morning coffee up for the third time” — I was smiling, nodding along in quiet recognition. Then the line, “Babies crying, it's pure chaos, but I don't miss a beat,” hit, and my eyes filled. Tears streamed until the final note.And I’m certainly not the only one reaching for the tissue box. Harper’s anthem about the realities of motherhood has touched the hearts of millions in the six weeks since it went viral. On February 2, the 25-year-old Missouri mother of three — dressed in a homemade patchwork mid-length dress, her strawberry curls pinned atop her head — proved her talent for both singing and song-writing when she auditioned for the 24th “American Idol” contest by performing her original song. It was an unsurprising unanimous yes from judges Carrie Underwood, Luke Bryan, and Lionel Richie — and seemingly from America herself. “String Cheese” has racked up millions of views (and tears), peaked at No. 14 on Billboard's Country Digital Song Sales chart, and has already become one of the most viewed Idol audition moments in the show’s history.Suffering through the stormIt’s not like there’s a shortage of music that tugs on our heartstrings, so what about Harper’s country-style ballad is resonating with so many Americans?I think there are two main reasons.The first is that there’s something for nearly every woman in this song.For the new mom under the black cloud of postpartum depression, whose motherhood feels more like a curse than a blessing, “String Cheese” offers the kind of encouragement only empathy can provide. Harper vulnerably confessed in her audition that the song was inspired by her struggles with postpartum depression.“My youngest is 1, and shortly after he was born, I had postpartum depression, and so I was sitting on my couch ... I was just having a pity party, praying that the Lord would calm my spirit. ... I got up off the couch, and I quit throwing a pity party ... so I wrote this song,” she told the judges.“Some days I wanna cry, run away and hide / But I worry about their every need,” goes one verse.Any mother who’s been in the throes of PPD knows this feeling in her bones. The sleep deprivation, the hormonal landslide that occurs after birth, the endless needs, ceaseless crying, and lack of time to meet your own basic needs start to amount to something truly terrifying.Suddenly, the walls begin to close in, and your biological self-defense mechanisms start screaming at you to flee. But something even stronger — a deep, primitive force that almost scares you — compels you to stay even as you wither. The mere thought of your child’s needs being met by anyone other than you is enough to keep you rooted to his or her side.So you stay, and you suffer until the storm eventually passes.RELATED: The viral country anthem that has girlboss Twitter melting down and trad women cheering Astrida Valigorsky/WireImage | Getty ImagesWhen 'touched out' turns existentialThe song also offers a beautiful perspective to the overwhelmed mother, just trying to make it through another day of nonstop demands, tantrums, obligations, and messes.“When I'm overwhelmed and touched outThey come climbin' up on the couchSayin', 'Mama, can you open my string cheese?'"Sometimes a simple snack request when you’re just trying to catch your breath is the drop in the bucket that tips the scale. For me, it’s seeing tiny, sticky fingerprints on a surface I just cleaned. Every mom has that thing that takes her from typical stress levels to existential crisis.It’s tempting sometimes to fantasize about the days when life will be easier, quieter, and cleaner, but Harper sends mothers to their knees with this reminder:“One day I’ll be alone with a hot fresh cup of joe,Wishing that someone would just drop by.And I’ll sit and reminisce on times that I sure missScattered toys and a baby on my hip.I thought finding peace in the quiet’s what I wanted,But I’d do anything to go back to being needed.”For the mom struggling to keep her head above the rising tide, “String Cheese” is not only the promise that she won’t drown but that the water isn’t as deep as she thinks. In fact, there will come a day, and soon, when she will long for the feeling of waves lapping at her chin.Saved from wasteAnd finally, this tearful anthem is for the woman who is afraid of motherhood. Maybe she feels she doesn’t have the resources — financial, time, emotional, or otherwise — to be a good mom. Maybe she’s bought the feminist lie that motherhood is an unwelcome burden, a barrier to her personal ambitions and dreams, or simply more effort than it’s worth.Two short lines are the timely message this startlingly large population of women need to hear:“I never knew this is what my 20s would look like,But they saved me before I had the chance to waste my life.”The moment when a mother first looks in her baby’s face, something remarkable happens: All the things she once fretted over — time, money, preparedness, even happiness — lose their power, and a life without that child becomes unthinkable. The career, the travel bucket list, the free time, the clean house, the bank account, the mental stability all take their rightful place behind the tiny, wriggling creature in her arms. She knows that to have everything she ever dreamed of — but not the child — would be exactly as Harper says: a waste of life.With the exception of the gospel, this is the most important message young women in America need to hear today.Three womenI think “String Cheese” hits me so deeply because I am all three of these women. I’ve been the new adult in my early 20s, terrified of motherhood, barely capable of caring for myself, unsure that a swanky downtown loft and a cool-girl job that allowed me to travel wasn’t the better path. I’ve been the newly married woman in my mid-20s, wondering how on earth we’d afford a baby.I’ve been the new mom, crushed by the reality of caring for a newborn who didn’t sleep, nurse, or stop crying for months and months and months (and then some more months).Today, I am the mom who is just trying to make it through another day of work, meeting the emotional and physical needs of an almost 2-year-old who never stops moving (and still doesn’t sleep that great), housekeeping, and the ceaseless task of keeping tummies full. “String Cheese” ministers to my weary soul by reminding me that what I call trials are actually gifts.But it does something else for me too. It pulls my gaze in the right direction: down. Down to the blue eyes and the chocolate-smudged mouth that says “mama” 800 times a day.And that’s the second reason this song is striking such a chord with so many Americans right now — women and men alike. Every day we watch the world grow more dystopian, as wars rage overseas, political divides deepen at home, and AI swallows entire industries whole. We fret over our children's futures, yet in that very worry, we often overlook one of their most basic needs: our full attunement. This song adjusts our posture in the most simple but profound of ways.Win or lose, Hannah Harper is already an American idol. In one simple song, she has reminded us that the most profound victories aren't won on distant battlefields or in viral debates. They’re won right here in the ordinary, messy, sacred trenches of the home, where a child's small request for string cheese is really a divine invitation to love fiercely, stay present, and choose joy amid the storms.

President Donald Trump seeks to enlist the international community in helping the United States clear the Strait of Hormuz and suggested that a lackluster showing by NATO members may place the alliance's future in doubt.Trump said in a Truth Social post on Saturday, "The United States of America has beaten and completely decimated Iran, both Militarily, Economically, and in every other way, but the Countries of the World that receive Oil through the Hormuz Strait must take care of that passage, and we will help — A LOT!"'Whatever it takes.'"The U.S. will also coordinate with those Countries so that everything goes quickly, smoothly, and well," continued Trump. "This should have always been a team effort, and now it will be — It will bring the World together toward Harmony, Security, and Everlasting Peace!"After the U.S. and Israel again bombed Iran last month, Tehran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz in what War Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Friday was an act of "sheer desperation" that people "don't need to worry about."According to Lloyd's List Intelligence, 16 commercial vessels have been attacked in and around the Strait of Hormuz since the outset of the conflict. The attacks, effected largely with surface-to-surface missiles but also with the use of drones and mines, have killed numerous crew members and forced others — at least in the case of the Safeen Prestige, a container ship flying under the flag of Malta — to abandon ship.The strait's corresponding closure has proven globally consequential, as roughly one-fifth of the world's oil normally transits the strait, which lies between Iran and Oman and links the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman.RELATED: The most honest phrase you’ll hear all week Photo by Nikolas Kokovlis/NurPhoto via Getty ImagesEnergy prices have skyrocketed in recent weeks. The price of Brent crude, for example, was over $100 per barrel ahead of market opening on Monday. U.S. gas prices are reportedly at their highest level since Oct. 7, 2023.Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, noted on Sunday, "Americans today will spend $300 million more on gasoline than they did 30 days ago."On Saturday, Trump specifically expressed hope that China, France, Japan, South Korea, and Britain "will send Ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a Nation that has been totally decapitated."Trump told the Financial Times the next day that it is "only appropriate that people who are the beneficiaries of the Strait will help to make sure that nothing bad happens there.""If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response, I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO," added Trump, who told U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer on March 7 that he didn't need the help of British aircraft carriers."We have a thing called NATO," Trump told the Times. "We’ve been very sweet. We didn’t have to help them with Ukraine. Ukraine is thousands of miles away from us ... but we helped them. Now we’ll see if they help us. Because I’ve long said that we’ll be there for them but they won’t be there for us. And I’m not sure that they’d be there."When asked what kind of help is needed, the president said, "Whatever it takes."It appears that some nations are not in a rush to help.Japanese Prime Minister Sane Takaichi said her nation, which has begun releasing oil reserves, has yet to make "any decisions whatsoever about dispatching escort ships," reported the Independent.Australian Transport Minister Catherine King said her country "won't be sending a ship to the Strait of Hormuz," adding that "we know how incredibly important that is, but that’s not something we’ve been asked or we’re contributing to."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Qualified immunity, a doctrine the Supreme Court created in 1967, bewilders ordinary citizens who run headlong into it after government officials trample their constitutional rights. In plain English, the doctrine often blocks lawsuits against officials unless a prior court decision “clearly established” that the specific conduct at issue violated the Constitution. That standard leaves many victims without a remedy and lets many constitutional wrongs go unanswered.That is not right. The Constitution exists to protect individual rights, not to insulate officials who violate them from accountability.Qualified immunity can turn constitutional protections into paper rights — recognized in theory, unavailable in practice.Recent years have also supplied fresh reasons to question the doctrine’s scope. Abuses tied to the weaponization of law enforcement and the criminal justice system have come to light with unsettling regularity. Think of Crossfire Hurricane, where senior officials used a discredited dossier — commissioned by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and funded through political channels — to pursue surveillance warrants and to monitor an opposing campaign before and after the 2016 election.Or consider Arctic Frost, the childishly named operation (Arctic Frost is a type of orange, as in “Orange Man Bad”) that targeted hundreds of Americans, including one of the co-authors (Eastman) and relied on sweeping demands for private communications and records in search of a predicate offense in hopes of derailing President Trump’s 2024 campaign.Episodes like these, and others, zero in on a basic question: When government power crosses constitutional lines, who answers for it?Qualified immunity often supplies the answer: nobody.Now the Supreme Court appears to be taking an unusual look at the doctrine — at least if its recent handling of three qualified immunity petitions offers any clue.What’s different this timeIn prior years, the court has frequently disposed of qualified immunity petitions quickly, sometimes through summary action with no explanation. This term looks different. Three cases involving qualified immunity have sat on the court’s docket far longer than the usual pattern would suggest. The justices have repeatedly requested responses and, in several instances, called for lower-court records. The court has also rescheduled cases for conference after conference without issuing a decision.That process does not prove the court plans to revisit the doctrine. But it does suggest heightened attention.Case 1: Smith v. ScottThe petition for writ of certiorari in Smith v. Scott was filed nearly a year ago. The case arises from a tragic encounter that began as a call for help. A 65-year-old man contacted police because he believed intruders lurked outside his apartment. Officers arrived, found no intruders, and then attempted to handcuff him. The encounter escalated. Officers restrained him on the ground, and an officer allegedly applied pressure that impeded his breathing until he died.Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity. The officers then asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The respondent (Scott’s estate) initially waived a response, which commonly happens in cert-stage litigation. The court did not let the waiver stand. It called for a response after the case’s first conference last May. After a later conference, the court requested the record. Since then, it has repeatedly relisted the petition — an astounding 13 times — without resolving it.Case 2: Zorn v. LintonZorn v. Linton involves a protest at the Vermont State House. Demonstrators occupied the chamber floor to protest government policy. Most left when the building closed. Shela Linton stayed and refused to leave. Officers removed her using a rear wristlock. She sued, alleging unreasonable force that caused pain, injury, and trauma.The district court granted qualified immunity. The Second Circuit reversed and denied qualified immunity. The petition reached the Supreme Court in September. Once again, the respondent waived a response, and once again the court requested one. The case then cycled through conference after conference before the court requested the lower-court record on February 27.This case matters for another reason. Many qualified immunity disputes involve fast-moving encounters where officers make split-second judgments. This one involves an interaction with warnings, time, and repeated opportunities to comply. It tees up an issue courts often sidestep: the obligations citizens assume when they knowingly violate a lawful order and force officers to escalate to removal. Does a protester’s refusal to leave reduce the scope of what counts as “unreasonable” force, so long as officers use measured escalation? Put differently: Were Linton’s rights even violated?Case 3: Villarreal v. AlanizVillarreal v. Alaniz sits at the intersection of qualified immunity and the First Amendment. Police arrested journalist Priscilla Villarreal under a state statute that barred solicitation of nonpublic information. The reporter argued that the arrest violated her First Amendment rights.The procedural history highlights the doctrine’s power. The district court granted qualified immunity. A Fifth Circuit panel denied it. The full Fifth Circuit later granted it en banc. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the decision for further consideration. The Fifth Circuit again granted immunity.Judge Andrew Oldham, in a concurring opinion, made an observation that cuts to the heart of qualified immunity’s justification. Courts often defend the doctrine by pointing to the realities of policing: officers must act quickly, sometimes under threat, with incomplete information. Oldham questioned whether that rationale “makes sense” in a case involving time to find a statute, plan an arrest, consult counsel, and investigate facts. Under those circumstances, why should immunity hinge on whether a prior case matches the fact pattern with near-photographic precision?The cert petition was filed last July. The Supreme Court requested a response in August. It later requested the record after multiple conferences.What the Supreme Court might do nextNo outsider can know what the justices plan. But these three cases, taken together, give the Supreme Court a menu of options.The court could reinforce qualified immunity, especially in excessive-force cases, and use the term’s docket to signal more protection for officers facing a rising tide of litigation.The court could narrow qualified immunity — particularly in cases where officials have time to deliberate, plan, and consult — because the “split-second decision” rationale does not apply.RELATED: The common-sense case for nationalizing US elections Douglas Rissing via iStock/Getty ImagesThe court could also recalibrate the doctrine without overruling it: clarify what counts as “clearly established” law, tighten the inquiry, or distinguish between scenarios that demand rapid judgment and those that involve considered decisions.In the abstract, “immunity from liability for violating rights” begins to resemble artificial judicial indemnification. Modern society does not grant that kind of blanket protection to most other professions. A surgeon, an engineer, or a corporate executive cannot avoid accountability because no prior case warned that the precise mistake at issue would cause harm. The law often holds them to general standards of care, not hyper-specific precedent.Qualified immunity operates differently. It can turn constitutional protections into paper rights — recognized in theory, unavailable in practice.Whatever the court’s destination, the road looks different this term. The extended consideration, repeated relists, and requests for records in multiple cases point to sustained attention. That alone marks a change.If the court means to revisit qualified immunity, even in part, the consequences will ripple far beyond these three cases. Federal courts hear thousands of civil rights claims each year. The doctrine shapes whether citizens can vindicate constitutional rights at all.At minimum, one conclusion now seems hard to avoid: The Supreme Court is looking closely. And when the court looks closely, doctrine can move significantly.

As we head into a contentious election year, campaign messages will soon flood every screen and mailbox. New technologies keep arriving, but political strategy hasn’t changed much over the past 2,000 years.Need proof? Go back to 64 B.C., when Marcus Tullius Cicero — the Roman Republic’s great orator — ran for consul, the highest office in Rome and the closest analogue to a modern presidency. Cicero’s brother, Quintus, wrote him a blunt, practical memo on how to win. Princeton University Press published that letter in 2012 in Philip Freeman’s translation, “How to Win an Election: An Ancient Guide for Modern Politicians.” The title isn’t clever. It’s accurate.Quintus didn’t teach Cicero to preach doctrine. He taught him to assemble a majority.Quintus urged Cicero to treat every appearance “as if your entire future depended on that single event.” Modern technology only amplifies that warning. A bad phrase or a sour expression, caught on camera and looped endlessly, can sink a campaign.Quintus also mapped the coalition a successful candidate must build. He told Cicero to focus on the supporters who matter most and to shore up those already on his side: “those holding public contracts,” along with “the business community.” He reminded him not to neglect “the special interest groups that back you.” He added a familiar note of retail politics: use “the young people who admire you and want to learn from you,” and rely on “the faithful friends who are daily at your side.”Government contractors. Business leaders. Interest groups. Youth outreach. A loyal inner circle. Quintus could charge today’s consulting rates and still find clients.He also gave Cicero the oldest instruction in politics: collect what you’re owed.“Now is the time to call in all favors,” Quintus wrote. “Don’t miss an opportunity to remind everyone in your debt that they should repay you with their support. For those who owe you nothing, let them know that their timely help will put you in their debt.”Anyone who has worked in politics has heard the modern version of that message, usually delivered with a smile and a firm handshake.Quintus emphasized the need to win over the “nobility” and “men of privilege,” including former consuls. Swap “nobility” for major donors and influential business leaders — Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg come to mind — and swap “consuls” for ex-governors, former senators, and party grandees. Candidates still chase endorsements from yesterday’s power brokers.RELATED: Do you want Caesar? Because this is how you get Caesar. Blaze News IllustrationQuintus also told Cicero to exploit his opponents’ scandals. He described the corruption and sexual misconduct surrounding Cicero’s rivals, Antonius and Catiline, and urged Cicero to use it. Modern history offers obvious parallels. Gary “Monkey Business” Hart. John Edwards and his “love child” saga. Sex scandals keep happening, and campaigns keep weaponizing them.Quintus warned Cicero about enemies and mistakes. “Since you have so many potential enemies,” he wrote, “you can’t afford to make any mistakes. You must conduct a flawless campaign with the greatest thoughtfulness, industry, and care.” Political hatreds didn’t start with cable news. Cicero faced what today might be called “Cicero derangement syndrome.”Quintus broke campaigning into two tasks: hold your friends and persuade the public. He offered instructions for both. When it came to organizations Cicero had helped, Quintus told him to press them: “This is the occasion to pay their political debts to you if they want you to look favorably on them in the future.” He boiled down vote-getting to three levers that still move elections: “favors, hope, and personal attachment.”Then he reached what he called the most important part of campaigning: create goodwill and kindle hope.“Bring hope to people and a feeling of goodwill toward you,” Quintus urged. But he warned Cicero not to lock himself into specific promises. He told him to reassure each constituency in language it wanted to hear: Tell the Senate you will protect its “power and privileges.” Tell the business community and wealthy citizens you stand for “stability and peace.” Tell ordinary Romans you have always defended their interests.Quintus didn’t teach Cicero to preach doctrine. He taught him to assemble a majority.Cicero won, and he won big — more votes than any other candidate. Romans later called him “Father of His Country,” a title Americans associate with George Washington. Quintus became praetor two years later. Both men met violent ends in 43 B.C., as civil war consumed the republic and paved the way for empire.Their deaths don’t diminish the point. Quintus’ advice endured because it describes permanent truths about politics: ambition, coalition-building, vanity, fear, flattery, and the eternal hunt for advantage.Tactics and terrain may change, but the playbook didn’t. One wonders — who in our day will leave such a legacy?