Alzheimer’s disease is a brutal disease that not only affects the patient but also those who love them. It’s so difficult to watch someone you care about deeply change into someone you don’t always recognize. In the beginning, Alzheimer’s patients sometimes recognize how their lives are changing, and it’s heartbreaking. A woman found a sticky note left by her husband during his Alzheimer’s journey. It’s a beautiful testament to their love, and it’s likely to make you shed a tear or two. “P.S. I forget a lot of things but – I never forget how wonderful you are. Love Joseph,” the sweet not reads. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Pubity (@pubity) Alzheimer’s Didn’t Take the Doting Man’s Love Caption on a viral Instagram post sums up the sentiment beautifully. “With Alzheimer’s affecting more than 7 million Americans, many families saw their own stories in Joseph’s words, calling it a rare, lasting reminder of love through loss,” the message reads. True love can transcend difficult times, and seeing this sweet message made many people emotional. “The way the handwriting gets a little shaky at the end… You can tell he was fighting to get those words down while he still could. Absolutely heart-wrenching,” someone wrote. Others believe Joseph’s love affair with his wife will continue far beyond Alzheimer’s. “Love truly leaves a lasting mark, even through memory loss,” someone wrote. “I hope they find each other again in a better place and time one day,” another person added. Of course, many people found themselves overcome with tears from Joseph, his wife, and the entire Alzheimer’s community. Although it’s a cruel disease, it’s comforting to see so much empathy in the world, particularly from total strangers. “Another day of me crying on the Internet for strangers,” a comment reads. This story’s featured image can be found here.

Every day, we encounter people who have the potential to change our lives forever, and we don’t even realize it. When Bill Sumiel Jr. called for an Uber ride in 2021, he had no idea his driver, Tim Letts, would be the answer to his prayers. Tim picked Bull up from his dialysis appointment, and the pair began a friendly chat. Bill mentioned his need for a kidney transplant and that he’d been on a list for years. “The ride was fantastic,” Bill told Fox & Friends. “I met this gentleman. He talked back when you start [a] conversation. A lot of Uber drivers don’t. And so, it inspired me, by friendliness, to tell him about my situation.” The story moved Tim so strongly that he decided to offer him a kidney of his own. The Uber driver turned into a kidney donor in a matter of moments. “We got to my house. And Tim says, ‘If you’ll take my name and number, I’d like to donate a kidney to you.’” Bill recalled. “I was so nervous. I could hardly read his name and number.” View this post on Instagram A post shared by Your Positive News (@yourpositivenews) The Uber Driver and Passenger Were Compatible for Kidney Donation Remarkably, Bill and his Uber driver were a perfect match, and Time donated his kidney to Bill. Tim said he’d always considered becoming a donor, and this proved to be the perfect opportunity. “I come from a relatively healthy bloodline. I’m pretty healthy,” he said. “So, I [didn’t] see that being much of a challenge.” The Uber driver made a profound statement abouth is kidney donation journey. “If a person like that can’t have somebody stand in their corner, then kind of what’s the point of it all?” Tim said. “Mahatma Gandhi says to ‘be the change you want to see in the world,’ and Maya Angelou says to ‘be a rainbow in someone’s cloud,’ and those things, they mean the world to me.” This story’s featured image can be found here.

The Supreme Court Monday vindicated parental rights, upholding an injunction against California’s gender secrecy policy, which mandated that school staff hide a student’s claimed transgender identity from parents unless the student expressly consented to reveal it. “This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” Paul Jonna, special counsel at the Thomas More Society, said in a statement responding to the decision Monday. “The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: you cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back.” “The court’s landmark reaffirmation of substantive due process, its vindication of religious liberty, and its approval of class-wide relief together set a historic precedent that will dismantle secret gender transition policies across the country,” Jonna added. Challenging the Gender Secrecy Policies The Thomas More Society sued on behalf of teachers in the state who feared punishment if they refused to lie about a student’s gender identity. Parents and other teachers joined the lawsuit, challenging the Escondido Union School District’s policy of hiding students’ gender identities from parents unless students consented to reveal them.The teachers also sued the California Department of Education, which has a similar policy. While a district court judge issued a permanent injunction blocking the schools from enforcing gender secrecy policies, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit granted the school district and the state a stay of the injunction. Elizabeth Mirabelli, the teacher suing in a key gender secrecy case (Thomas More Society) The Supreme Court’s Parental Rights Ruling The Supreme Court issued an unsigned opinion vacating the 9th Circuit’s stay when it comes to the parents. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have ruled in favor of the parents and the teachers, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor would not have taken up the case. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a concurring opinion, which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined. Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissent, which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. The court’s unsigned opinion recounted the story of two parents who didn’t know their eighth grade daughter publicly identified as a boy until after she attempted to commit suicide and was hospitalized. Months after her daughter left the hospital, she returned to the hospital after further risk of self-harm. Their daughter attended a different school for ninth grade and once again identified as a boy; that school also hid her gender transition, expressly rejecting the parents’ wishes. The daughter is now receiving psychiatric care. The court concluded that “the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim.” California’s policies “substantially interfere with the ‘right of parents to guide the religious development of their children,'” the court ruled, citing Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case in which the court ruled that parents have the right to opt their children out of receiving LGBTQ+ instruction. “The parents who assert a free exercise claim have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs,” the court ruled. “California’s policies violate those beliefs” and impose an “unacceptable” burden on them, the opinion stated. “Indeed, the intrusion on parents’ free exercise rights here—unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender transition—is greater than the introduction of LGBTQ storybooks we considered sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny in Mahmoud.” California claims that its policies advance a compelling interest in student safety and privacy, but the court ruled that “those policies cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents.” The court also found that the parents would likely succeed in claiming the state violated their due process rights. “Under long-established precedent, parents—not the state—have primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children.’ The right protected by these precedents includes the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health,” the opinion stated. The court found that “the denial of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights during the potentially protracted appellate process constitutes irreparable harm.” The court also noted that the district court’s injunction permits California “to shield children from unfit parents by enforcing child-abuse laws and removing children from parental custody in appropriate cases,” thus allowing for the key interest of protecting children while protecting parental rights. Justice Kagan faulted the court for issuing an emergency ruling after receiving “scant and, frankly, inadequate briefing about the legal issues in dispute,” and without holding an oral argument or debating in conference. Mirabelli v Bonta SCOTUSDownload Wrapping Up the Parental Rights Case The court did not uphold the right of teachers to refuse to lie to parents—the key issue at the beginning of the case—but the ruling here only applies to the injunction; it does not resolve the overall case. That said, lower courts will follow the Supreme Court’s lead and uphold the fundamental rights of parents against gender secrecy policies, making the case a pivotal victory for parental rights. The post Supreme Court Upholds Parental Rights Against California Gender Secrecy Policy appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Monday's Final Word

On Monday’s Morning Joe in the aftermath of the Strikes on Iran and Pentagon Press Conference, co-host Jonathan Lemire was fixated and seemingly rooting for a scenario where President Trump’s approval would go down if there was a prolonged war or deaths of more American Troops. Then, guest Elise Jordan, co-host of The Weekend: Primetime, naively wondered why the military and Secretary Pete Hegseth have not shared all their classified war plans with the public. The Morning Joe hosts and panelists also had a special focus on how the actions in Iran were supposedly not “America First,” even though the President has talked about Iran not being allowed to have a nuclear weapon since the 2016 election. In his line of questioning to a panel comprised of Jordan, John Heilleman, and noted Iran expert Al Sharpton, Lemire had an overwhelming focus on how Trump’s approval would fall in the case of more American troop deaths and a prolonged war: I think the consensus, of the people I've talked to, is if this does just last a few days or a week or so, it's something that the president gets through. But if this does extend three, four, six weeks and the American death toll really accelerates, this is not just a defining moment for this president, but a real problem for his party in a midterm election year. Panelist John Heilemann agreed with Lemire’s assertion but also added, "President Trump's political strength over the course of his time in public life, how much of that has been rooted in his - the consistency of his posture about no more endless wars.”     Lemire then turned to Jordan to respond to Hegseth’s press conference and his reluctance to share classified war plans with the media. She exclaimed how nobody knows what the war is about: Well, beside his - behind his condescending demeanor, that aside, notice how he says constantly “mission,” “clear objectives”. He repeatedly says, “we have a mission,” “We have objections” -  what are they? He can't put them out there. That is the whole problem here. We don't know what this war is about.  (...) No one has any idea what this war is about and it is a problem because they don't have a strategy and they don't have a plan. And you look at the politics of this, it's only going to get worse with time if this is how it's starting. (...) Jordan comments differed from the media’s obsession over Signal-gate where there was an outcry of sharing of war plans in an encrypted chat. With their logic, maybe the Department of War should just publish all their classified war plans now. Once again, Lemire continued his assertion of more troops being killed, almost giddy when finishing Jordan’s thoughts. JORDAN: Only one out of four Americans , today, supports this war. It's only going to get worse. LEMIRE: How about if more Americans are killed in it (...) Lemire seemed to almost root for more military deaths in order for there to be a lower Trump approval ratings.  Paired with the rest of the panel, there seemed to be a constant denial of the reasoning for a fight with a terroristic Iranian regime, paired with a want of the situation to go out of the control to finally “get Trump.” The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s Morning Joe March 2, 2026 9:23:20 AM Eastern   JONATHAN LEMIRE: So, let's get into some of the politics of this now. Joining us, MS NOW national affairs analyst John Heilemann, he is a partner and chief political columnist at Puck. The host of PoliticsNation on MS NOW, the Reverend Al Sharpton is here, he, of course, also the president of the National Action Network. And co-host of The Weekend: Primetime here on MS NOW, Elise Jordan. A great group, our thanks to all of you for being here.  John Heilemann, I'll start with you on the politics of this. Mika just went through - there are a few, the usual cast of characters on - among Republicans who are, at least for now, publicly objecting to this war, although many more have shared reservations privately. We're also seeing a lot of heavy hitters in MAGA universe, whether it's Tucker Carlson or Steve Bannon, others expressed reservations about this conflict, saying this is not the America First we thought we were getting with this president.  I think the consensus, of the people I've talked to, is if this does just last a few days or a week or so, it's something that the president gets through. But if this does extend three, four, six weeks and the American death toll really accelerates, this is not just a defining moment for this president, but a real problem for his party in a midterm election year.   (...) 9:25:33 AM Eastern   JOHN HEILEMANN: I do think that there's a tendency on the part of a lot of analysts to sort of talk about the resistance to this that we're seeing in these small corners of the MAGA sphere. Whether it's the online corners of that, the Tucker Carlson's of the world, or whether it's Thomas Massie and Rand Paul, and sort of try to isolate that and sort of say, well, that's part of Trump's kind of online base or the MAGA, the America first quadrant of the of the Republican base.  I just - I think it understates the degree to which President Trump's political strength over the course of his time in public life, how much of that has been rooted in his - the consistency of his posture about no more endless wars. And to your point, Jonathan, I think, you know, Venezuela shows that Donald Trump was able to get through that without incurring a lot of political damage because it was quick and seemed to be painless, and was deemed a success and didn't have a lot of high body count.  I totally agree, and I think that the depth of the problem that he would face would be enormous if this incursion, if this conflict lasts any degree of time and we suffer any degree of casualties going forward, I think the amount of political impact it would have on him and on the Republican party would be hard to overstate.   LEMIRE: Completely agree with that.   (...) 9:28:30 AM Eastern   ELISE JORDAN: Well, beside his - behind his condescending demeanor, that aside, notice how he says constantly “mission,” “clear objectives”. He repeatedly says, “we have a mission,” “We have objections” -  what are they? He can't put them out there. That is the whole problem here. We don't know what this war is about.  Donald Trump said, from the get go, it was about encouraging the Iranian people to stand up, regime change. Then you hear through so many different interviews that he does so many different options. This could go a month, it could be a couple of days, I don't know, maybe I'll negotiate. No one has any idea what this war is about and it is a problem because they don't have a strategy and they don't have a plan. And you look at the politics of this, it's only going to get worse with time if this is how it's starting. It's exactly what the Republican base doesn't want, the MAGA base. But more than that, the American people. Only one out of four Americans, today, supports this war. It's only going to get worse.   LEMIRE: How about if more Americans are killed in it. And, Rev., certainly a commander in chief is supposed to outline to the American people, to the military in harm's way, why we're doing this. What are our objectives? The talk of the Iraq war, your candidacy for president back in 2004 came amid some of the blowback to that conflict. And eventually Bush was reelected then, eventually it would consume his administration. What parallels do you see here? This seems like a lot of political risks for President Trump at a moment where, to Elise's point, most of the public doesn't want this.   AL SHARPTON: When I ran for president in 2004, it was around saying that we didn't believe there were weapons of mass destruction that Bush was engaged in, that was the campaign. He ended up winning, John Kerry was defeated, but that was the issue. So here we are some 22 years later where we don't know why we're there. There are no apparent threats, direct threats of a nuclear attack to the United States. We don't know who - when the president saluted people for marching in the streets in Iran and all, and no one’s supporting the supreme leader, Khamenei, but no one's talking about who is the opposition, who are we dealing with now. And then,  if I was running tomorrow in Arkansas or Texas or in North Carolina primaries, I'd be concerned with the escalating oil prices. How does that affect my campaign? Because people may be concerned now more about my gas is going to go up than some of the issues I've been campaigning on. So, there's a lot of uncertainty here that Trump has put into this whole process that could be impacted in various ways.   (...)

The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily handed California a major loss related to the liberal state's scheme to advance the transgender agenda in public schools.In a 6-3 ruling on Monday, the court reinstated a lower court order that blocked the California notification policies after the Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit at the behest of a group of Catholic parents.'California built a wall of secrecy between parents and their own children, and the Supreme Court just tore it down.'California state law prohibits rules requiring teachers and other school officials to notify parents if their children change their personal pronouns or gender expression at school.The Thomas More Society issued a statement praising the temporary ruling."The Court found that California's secret transition regime likely violates parents' rights under both the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," the statement reads.California Attorney General Rob Bonta argued in favor of the California policies in 2023."By enacting policies that forcibly out students against their own wishes, school districts violate these fundamental protections and risk breaching their obligation to serve these and all students equally," he wrote."Research shows that protecting a transgender student's ability to make choices about how and when to inform others is critical to their well-being," reads a statement from Bonta's office, "as transgender students are exposed to high levels of harassment and mistreatment at school and in their communities when those environments are not supportive of their gender identity."RELATED: Two trans-identifying men file lawsuit against 'dehumanizing' Kansas law that invalidated their driver's licenses "No more can bureaucrats secretly facilitate a child's gender transition while shutting out parents," said Thomas More Society Executive Vice President Peter Breen."California built a wall of secrecy between parents and their own children, and the Supreme Court just tore it down," he added. "This groundbreaking ruling will protect parents' rights to raise their children as they see fit for years to come."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Going to Be HILARIOUS'! Trump Announces a FIRST in His 2 Terms (Have Fun a Fun Roasting, Journos)

NYT’s Peter Baker Seems Upset Trump Didn't Rush Back to the Oval Office to Announce Iran Strikes