A Modest Proposal: Eliminate All ID Requirements

NEW: Homan Announces Mission Accomplished in Minneapolis

The Sun would be a far more powerful telescope than any humanity could create in the near future. But to use it, we need to get to 650 AU.

These rare dolphins are only found in two locations on Earth, a staggering 8,500 kilometers apart.

Unless you’re a boxer, that is.

Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart is the pioneer of the dishonest idea that comedy show hosts can use humor to talk about serious political issues, but the moment you criticize the argument behind the jokes, they retreat to the idea that they are just a comedian and should not be taken seriously. On Wednesday’s episode of The Weekly Show podcast, the clown nose was definitely off as he admitted to his producers that he had “no idea” people would be mad at him for opining on things he knows nothing about despite being on TV for over 30 years. Lamenting the previous week’s episode, Stewart declared, “I have to say, I don’t know what shit I've stepped in this week, because I, after talking to Richard Thaler, who was the economist from last week, I was very pleased with the conversation. I thought, 'Well, that was really interesting and spirited and said some things back and forth,' but I had no idea how mad the economists—and they were fucking mad.”   Jon Stewart admits to be surprised how people were "fucking mad" that on last week's The Weekly Show podcast he didn't know what he was talking about on economists. He also "the summary seemed to be like, 'Well, you're just fucking stupid.' And I was like, well, that, I don't… pic.twitter.com/XrV1vPGGxA — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 12, 2026   Stewart is referring to Thaler informing him that his belief that economics, as a discipline, in a capitalist system is concerned with maximizing profits is incorrect, and when economists argue on behalf of a policy, they do so on the basis that it would be good for society, not whether it’s politically popular. Thaler had to inform Stewart that most economists actually favor one particular liberal wish list item: a carbon tax. The reaction to Stewart’s ignorance was harsh, and not just from conservatives. For example, Obama economist Jason Furman recalled that his interview with Stewart was “the single worst” one he’s ever done and that he “basically lost it.” As it was, Gillian Spear observed, “I will say though, I was looking at a lot of the response, and they weren't really from economists. They're just people that ride for economists for whatever reason.” Although The Weekly Show is a Comedy Central property, unlike The Daily Show, there is no pretense of comedy in it. Nevertheless, the reason is that Stewart has built a career on mocking the supposed absurdities in other people’s arguments, only for him to expose himself as clueless on the policy matters on which he speaks. Committed to being on brand, Stewart could only mock the idea, “Wait a minute, there's a BeyHive for economists?” Spear confirmed that “Yeah, apparently there's people really eager to just jump in for their defense.” Stewart then continued lamenting, “But also the, the summary seemed to be like, ‘Well, you're just fucking stupid.’ And I was like, well, that, I don't know if that's a really a cogent critique of he—‘this guy…A lot of it was just shock, like, ‘How can this guy have been on television for 30 years and not understand anything?’ and I'm like, I mean, Richard Thaler, he's a Nobel Prize winning economist. He could have very easily said, like, ‘I think you're completely misunderstanding.’” He also recalled, “People were literally writing articles like “Jon Stewart is what's wrong with the American electorate,” and I'm like, I think that's hyperbolic.” It isn’t. There was a time when Stewart was considered the most trusted man in news. Jon Stewart isn’t some young college student learning about new things. He’s a 63-year-old man who has been paid to opine about politics for decades. He taught many people that snark for its own sake was an acceptable substitute for substance, but when discussing policy issues that do not have anything to do with the moral failings of individual people, snark isn’t enough, and economists, apparently, finally had enough. Here is a transcript for the February 11 show: Comedy Central The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart 2/11/2026 JON STEWART: And I have to say, I don’t know what shit I've stepped in this week, because I, after talking to Richard Thaler, who was the economist from last week, I was very pleased with the conversation. I thought, “Well, that was really interesting and spirited and said some things back and forth,” but I had no idea how mad the economists—and they were fucking mad. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: They were mad. GILLIAN SPEAR: I will say though, I was looking at a lot of the response, and they weren't really from economists. They're just people that ride for economists for whatever reason. STEWART: Wait a minute, there's a BeyHive for economists? SPEAR: Yeah, apparently there's people really eager to just jump in for their defense. LAUREN WALKER: The summary just seemed to be not all economists as well. STEWART: But also the, the summary seemed to be like, “Well, you're just fucking stupid.” WALKER: Well, that too. STEWART: And I was like, well, that, I don't know if that's a really a cogent critique of he— “this guy—” SPEAR: Is that constructive criticism? MEHMEDOVIC: Not really. STEWART: A lot of it was just shock, like, “How can this guy have been on television for 30 years and not understand anything?” and I'm like, I mean, Richard Thaler, he's a Nobel Prize winning economist. He could have very easily said, like, “I think you're completely misunderstanding,” or like, he's a big boy. He could have handled the— SPEAR: He said you passed his class. STEWART: People were literally writing articles like “Jon Stewart is what's wrong with the American electorate,” and I'm like, I think that's hyperbolic. WALKER: I love that headline. It's like, I don't really know what I'm getting into with this article. It could be a few things. STEWART: It was bad, man. I was just like, “Whoa.”

The Super Bowl LX halftime show is going down in history as the first halftime show to be performed nearly entirely in Spanish — a factor that didn’t seem to bother those reporting on the performance in the mainstream media.“The headlines were glowing. The mainstream media loved this halftime show. They just freaking love it. They loved it,” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere says on “Stu Does America,” pointing out a Rolling Stone headline that reads, “Right-wingers who boycotted halftime show still saw enough of it to be furious.”“I was not furious about it. It was not enjoyable for me. And, you know, again, I will say I don’t like most of the halftime shows, even when they’re speaking the language that I can understand. This made it even more difficult to enjoy,” he continues.And while those critical of the right for not loving the performance appear to believe it’s a symptom of racism, Stu is well aware that couldn’t be further from the truth.“People keep bringing this up as if Latin culture is the thing that people are questioning. Now, we’ve had tons of Latin culture at previous Super Bowl halftime shows. Shakira was at a Super Bowl halftime show. There’s probably five to 10 different examples of people performing within Latin culture at Super Bowl halftime shows,” he says.“The issue here is that the people in the crowd and the people watching on television couldn’t understand the words being sung. This is a very basic thing. A language is not a cultural statement. A language is a mechanism to allow others to understand what you’re talking about. That’s what it is,” he continues.“So, when you’re talking to an audience that speaks almost entirely English, it usually would benefit you to have an artist that can communicate to the people watching,” he adds, pointing out that commercials are in English when the audience speaks English for the same reason.“Why didn’t the announcers just call the entire game in Spanish? Why not? Because they were trying to communicate what was going on at the game,” he explains.“The bottom line here is, the NFL had a choice to make, and they made this choice with very specific things in mind. Because, as I said, when you try to communicate to a specific audience, you choose the language that they speak,” he adds.Want more from Stu?To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The House passed a historic election integrity bill Wednesday night with the help of just one Democrat. Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy's SAVE America Act, which requires proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, passed the House in a 218-213 vote with the support of every House Republican, including Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky. Democrat Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, a vulnerable candidate who was pardoned by President Donald Trump on bribery and money-laundering charges, was the sole Democrat to cross the aisle and vote with Republicans. 'There’s a false rumor that I voted against the Save America Act today.'"I support the SAVE America Act because I believe in a fundamental principle: American citizens should decide American elections," Cuellar said in a post on X, defying his entire party. "That principle strengthens our democracy and protects the value of every vote.""This is the same secure but practical approach Texas already uses — strong photo ID standards with real fallback options — and it's a big reason Texas has some of the strongest election security laws in the country."RELATED: Exclusive: Republicans pen OMAR Act, targeting lawmakers who have 'blurred' ethical lines Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesFollowing the bill's passage, Massie clarified his support for the legislation after initially voting against a procedural vote on the SAVE America Act. "There’s a false rumor that I voted against the Save America Act today," Massie clarified in a post on X on Wednesday. "I’ll vote for it when it comes to the floor.""I voted against a 'rule' that allows it to get a vote, but the 'rule' also suspends house rules and allows spending bills to come to the floor with no 24hr notice!"RELATED: Rogue Republicans side with Democrats, revolting against Trump's key economic policy Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty ImagesWith the House's stamp of approval, the SAVE America Act is headed to the Senate, where onlookers anxiously wait to see if it will garner enough support. As of this writing, 46 Republicans including Senate Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.) have co-sponsored the legislation. "I'd be hard pressed to have to defend a position that doesn't believe that you have to be an American citizen to vote in an American election," Thune said. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

While Washington has pulled back on electric vehicle mandates and emissions enforcement, California is moving in the opposite direction — and the nation’s largest automakers are paying close attention. Late last month. executives from the Detroit Three met with regulators from the California Air Resources Board, reopening a conversation that has become increasingly consequential for the future of the U.S. auto industry and consumer vehicle choice.For automakers, the lesson is familiar. Regulatory swings are inevitable, but market access is permanent.The meeting came at a pivotal moment. Congress has revoked California’s long-standing authority to set its own vehicle emissions standards, federal fuel economy rules have been weakened, and financial penalties for missing emissions targets have been eliminated. Yet California is signaling it has no intention of slowing its push toward zero-emission transportation.Instead, the state is preparing to launch a $200 million electric vehicle incentive program aimed at offsetting the loss of the federal $7,500 EV tax credit and sustaining pressure on automakers to electrify their fleets.Stuck with Sacramento?For Detroit automakers, the calculus is complex. Federal relief has eased near-term compliance costs, but California remains the largest single automotive market in the country and a regulatory bellwether for more than a dozen other states. Ignoring Sacramento has never been a viable long-term strategy, regardless of which party controls Washington.CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez underscored that reality in a recent interview, saying the state is accelerating its zero-emission agenda while attempting to balance environmental goals with workforce stability and industry constraints. That balance is becoming harder to maintain as political and legal battles reshape the regulatory landscape.California’s influence dates back decades. Under the Clean Air Act of 1970, the state was granted unique authority to seek EPA waivers allowing it to impose stricter emissions standards than federal rules. Other states were permitted to adopt California’s standards, giving the state outsize influence over national vehicle design and production.War on waiversThat authority has now been curtailed. Using the Congressional Review Act, Congress rescinded California’s Advanced Clean Cars II waiver, which would have required a phaseout of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035. Lawmakers also revoked waivers governing zero-emission heavy-duty trucks and stricter diesel emissions rules, while federal regulators halted penalties for automakers that miss tailpipe targets.The financial implications are significant. General Motors has said the rollback of federal emissions rules could save the company up to $750 million — relief that matters in an industry facing high interest rates, slowing EV demand, and rising production costs.California officials argue that short-term relief may come at a long-term cost. Weakening U.S. emissions and efficiency standards, they say, risks surrendering technological leadership to global competitors such as China, which has aggressively subsidized EV manufacturing and battery development.From the state’s perspective, the new $200 million incentive program is meant to bridge a growing gap. With federal tax credits gone, EVs remain more expensive than comparable gasoline vehicles for many consumers, and EV sales have slowed nationwide. State incentives are intended to prevent demand from stalling further while encouraging manufacturers to continue investing in electrification.Cooling demandAutomakers, however, are responding to a market that no longer aligns neatly with policy ambitions. Consumer interest in EVs has cooled, charging infrastructure remains uneven, and concerns about affordability, insurance costs, and resale values persist. In response, manufacturers are delaying some EV launches, scaling back production targets, and refocusing on hybrids and internal combustion vehicles that better match consumer demand.That disconnect has fueled tension between California leaders and the auto industry. Governor Gavin Newsom sharply criticized GM last year after the company supported federal efforts to roll back California’s authority. GM, while welcoming federal regulatory relief, emphasized California’s importance as a market and reaffirmed its commitment to ongoing dialogue with state regulators.The legal fight is far from over. California officials are preparing to challenge potential efforts to rescind the EPA’s “endangerment finding,” which underpins federal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Repealing it would mark one of the most consequential shifts in environmental policy in decades and would almost certainly trigger prolonged court battles.At the same time, California has quietly pulled back some proposals. The state withdrew waiver requests that would have imposed strict locomotive emissions rules and accelerated diesel truck replacements, framing the move as a strategic effort to preserve flexibility while pursuing alternative regulatory and incentive-based approaches.RELATED: GM’s $7 billon loss exposes gap between EV optimism and market reality Bloomberg | Getty ImagesA familiar lessonFor automakers, the lesson is familiar. Regulatory swings are inevitable, but market access is permanent. California’s economy rivals that of entire nations, and its policies continue to influence vehicle standards well beyond its borders. Even without formal waiver authority, the state retains powerful tools through incentives, procurement policies, and partnerships.Detroit’s continued engagement reflects a recognition that today’s rollback may not be tomorrow’s reality. Political power shifts, court decisions evolve, and regulatory frameworks rarely stand still. Maintaining dialogue with California regulators is less about immediate concessions than long-term positioning in an industry with product cycles measured in decades.As federal and state governments continue to diverge, automakers are left to bridge the gap. This week’s meetings may not resolve that tension, but they underscore a growing reality: California is pressing ahead with an agenda that increasingly outpaces consumer demand, infrastructure readiness, and market economics.Incentives and mandates can shape product planning, but they cannot manufacture affordability or force trust. When policy consistently runs ahead of buyers, the result is not innovation — it is distortion. And the cost of that distortion is ultimately borne not by regulators, but by consumers.

A Florida felon is accused of pointing a gun at a vehicle in a fit of road rage over the weekend.The Walton County Sheriff's Office said it received a 911 call around 1 p.m. Sunday about a male pointing a firearm at them while traveling north on 331 S near Sherwood Road.'When you put all your skill points into chaos and none into dental.'Officials said the Office of the City Marshal, DeFuniak Springs Police located the suspected vehicle as well as the driver — identified as Blackie Alvarez, 33, of Bonifay.Alvarez then exited the vehicle, pulled a black handgun from his waistband, and placed it on top of his car, officials said.What's more, two metal knuckles were found in his pockets, officials said.Further investigation revealed the victims were headed north on 331 S when Alvarez — driving a white Ford Explorer — began speeding and honking at them, officials said.The victims told deputies that Alvarez sped around them, came to a complete stop in front of their vehicle, took out a firearm, and pointed it at them, officials said. The sheriff's office characterized it as a "road rage incident."Alvarez refused to speak with deputies, the sheriff's office added.RELATED: Motorist fatally shoots road rager wielding baseball bat — and DA issues ruling Image source: Walton County (Fla.) Sheriff's OfficeOfficials said Alvarez was criminally charged with two felony counts of false imprisonment, two felony counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, one felony count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, two counts of unlawful carry of a concealed weapon, and driving without a license.In addition, Alvarez also had a warrant from Bay County for failure to pay child support, officials said.Alvarez was given a $235,000 bond, officials said. Jail records reviewed on Thursday morning indicate he remains incarcerated.The sheriff's office Facebook post about the arrest has drawn more than 3,000 comments; the following are a handful of notable entries:"A jump-scare warning would've been nice!" one commenter quipped."When you put all your skill points into chaos and none into dental," another user observed."Don't chew on grenades," another commenter suggested."He’s already started shaking down the tooth fairy for bail money," another user opined.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!