The finding offers insight into the most crucial stage of galactic mergers.

Despite many problems, the aging probe cannot be stopped.

Bill Steinkirchner and his wife, Melanie, got a call Sunday morning from their college-student daughter that no parent wants to receive.Melanie Steinkirchner wrote on Facebook that their daughter was walking to breakfast when a male assaulted her, took swings at her, said he had a gun, and threatened to kill her. She was able to duck down, run, and avoid getting hurt, but she was still shaken during her phone call home.But Dad was undeterred, recalling to the station that he told police, 'No! I'm not gonna stop following him. This is my daughter. I’ve got to get this guy.'But her home is in Southern California — and KIRO-TV noted that the Steinkirchners' daughter is a student at the University of Washington in Seattle. That's about 1,000 miles away.But that distance was no barrier for Dad."As soon as we got that call, Bill booked a flight and was on his way to Seattle," Melanie wrote on Facebook. "I truly didn't want him taking this into his own hands, but I couldn't stop him."Steinkirchner — owner of Stone Church Brewing in Corona — told the station he booked the next flight to Seattle with the intention of confronting the male who threatened his daughter.“I think any father would’ve done the same thing," he told KIRO. "It’s my baby girl."Oh, and by the way, Steinkirchner told Blaze News his previous profession was Army colonel.Melanie wrote on Facebook that her husband landed in Seattle around 2:30 p.m. that same day and arrived at the university district around 3:30 p.m. Steinkirchner had descriptions of the male and received photos of him from his daughter and her fellow students, KIRO said, adding that students reported on a UW message board being harassed by the same male throughout the weekend.Steinkirchner told KIRO he was retracing his daughter's steps — and around 4 p.m. he spotted the assailant, Melanie wrote."And I looked at him, and I said, 'Hey!'" Steinkirchner recounted to KIRO, adding that he yelled a few expletives at the male, who immediately ran away.Steinkirchner added to the station that despite the fact that he turns 60 next month and was wearing a backpack, he chased after the male.What's more, Steinkirchner added to KIRO that he was on the phone with police during the chase through an alley, noting that authorities ordered him to "stop following" the male and insisted that "you can’t chase him."But Dad was undeterred, recalling to the station that he told police, "No! I'm not gonna stop following him. This is my daughter. I’ve got to get this guy."KIRO said Steinkirchner finally cornered the male, and police soon arrived and handcuffed him. Image source: Bill Steinkirchner, used by permissionOfficers then brought Steinkirchner’s daughter to the scene to identify the suspect, the station said. Here's video from Steinkirchner of that moment:Police then took 23-year-old Ryan Dileo into custody, KIRO said."A nearby security guard identified Dileo as the suspect in other similar incidents involving swinging a broom. Officers arrested Dileo for investigation of felony harassment. Dileo was booked in the King County Jail," Seattle police said in a statement to the station.Melanie added the following to her Facebook post, "Dad to the rescue!! Bill finally got to see Kyra back on campus after the police dropped her back, and she ran to him and gave him the biggest hug."You can view KIRO's video report and interview with Steinkirchner here.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Progressives rely on three main talking points about illegal aliens voting in our elections.The first is one of cynical acceptance. They admit that illegal immigrants are already voting but argue that there is nothing we can do to stop it, suggesting that it’s just another factor we should expect in future elections. This position shows no respect for our electoral system or the rule of law and doesn’t warrant further attention.This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches.The second talking point targets the right. Progressives question why Republicans care, asking why they assume illegal immigrants voting would only benefit the other side. They suggest that some of these voters might also support the GOP.On this point, the data says otherwise.Across the board, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, regardless of what state they’re in. The vast majority of migrants are coming up from South America, a region that is undergoing a current “left-wing” experiment by voting for far-left candidates practically across the board. Ninety-two percent of South America’s population favors the radical left, and they’re pouring over our border in record numbers — and, according to the data, they’re not changing their voting habits.The third main talking point concedes that illegal immigrants are voting but not enough to make a significant dent in our elections — that their effect is minuscule.That isn’t what the numbers show either.Texas just audited its voter rolls and had to remove more than 1 million ineligible voters. The SAVE Act would mandate all states conduct such audits, but the left in Congress is currently trying to stop its passage. Dare I say that the left's pushback is because illegal immigration actually plays in Democrats' favor on Election Day?Out of the 6,500 noncitizens removed from the voter rolls, nearly 2,000 had prior voting history, proving that illegal aliens are voting. But do the numbers matter, or are they “minuscule,” as the left claims? Let’s examine whether these illegal voting trends can make a dent in the states that matter the most on Election Day.The corporate legacy media agree that Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will swing the election in November. By Election Day, an estimated 8 million illegal aliens will be living in the United States. Can these 8 million illegal immigrants change the course of the 2024 election? Let’s look at the election data from each of these seven swing states:In 2020, more than 11,600 “no-proof-of-citizenship-required” federal ballots were cast in Arizona during the 2020 election. Arizona currently has 273,000 illegal aliens living in the state. Joe Biden won Arizona in 2020 by 10,457 votes. Those numbers don’t seem “minuscule.”In Georgia, Stacey Abrams infamously said that the “blue wave” would include “undocumented” immigrants. Georgia currently has 339,000 illegal aliens. Biden won Georgia in 2020 by 12,284 votes.Michigan has 91,000 illegal aliens. Biden won the state in 2020 by 154,188 votes.Nevada has 168,000 illegal aliens. Biden won in 2020 by 33,596.North Carolina has 296,000 illegal aliens. Trump won in 2020 by 74,481.Pennsylvania has 153,000 illegal aliens. Biden won in 2020 by 80,555.Wisconsin has 70,000 illegal aliens. Biden won in 2020 by 20,682.These are the numbers being sold to us as “insignificant” and “not enough to make a difference.” Arizona and Georgia were won in 2020 by a razor-thin margin of approximately 10,000 votes, and they have the most illegal immigrants — besides North Carolina — of all the swing states.This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches. The progressives are importing an electorate to extend their ground by feet, yards, and often miles.This is why Democrats in Congress oppose the SAVE Act, why the Justice Department has ignored cases of illegal voting in the past, and why the corporate left-wing media is gaslighting the entire country on its significance. This is a power play, and the entire Western world is under the same assault.If things stay the status quo, these numbers prove the very real possibility of an election swing by illegal immigrants, and it will not favor our side of the aisle. Congress must pass the SAVE Act. If it fails, states must step up to protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

At the first presidential debate Tuesday between President Donald Trump and the Democrats' replacement candidate at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, the moderators appeared keen to cast doubt on a handful of the Republican's assertions. ABC News' David Muir and Linsey Davis refrained, however, from similarly weighing in when Kamala Harris advanced several false claims — even when she recycled hoaxes previously debunked by liberal fact-checking outfits. Below are five of the most egregious falsehoods advanced by Harris in the debate along with the real stories. 'Fine people' hoax Harris' claim: "Let's remember Charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying tiki torches, spewing anti-Semitic hate, and what did the president then at the time say? 'They were fine people on each side.'" Reality: Just as Harris reportedly copied and pasted her policy agenda on Sunday from Biden, she has similarly adopted her boss' go-to yarn, which Snopes has categorically ruled out as "false." In August 2017, there was a so-called "Unite the Right" rally held in Charlottesville, Virginia. Among the protesters and counter-protesters who turned up were leftists, individuals critical of the removal of a Confederate statue, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists. Days later, President Trump held a press conference, where a reporter asked him about the neo-Nazis at the demonstration. Trump said, "As I said on, remember this, Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America." After Trump noted that violent instigators were on both sides of the demonstration and that some people present at the rally had simply been protesting iconoclasm, a reporter said, "The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville." Trump responded: Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. Snopes acknowledged in its updated fact-check that Trump was referencing protesters and counter-protesters and that Trump made abundantly clear that "he wasn't talking about neo-Nazis and white nationalists, who he said should be 'condemned totally.'" Project 2025 Harris' claim: "What you're going to hear tonight is a detailed and dangerous plan called Project 2025 that the former president intends on implementing if he were elected again." Reality: The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 is a "candidate-agnostic" policy document that was developed by a coalition of over 110 conservative groups long before Trump was the Republican candidate for president and published prior to the primary in April 2023. Trump has disavowed it, stating, "Some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal." Harris, her campaign, various Democratic operatives, and their allies in the liberal media have pushed this false talking point for weeks. When the Associated Press parroted the Democratic suggestion that it is a "Republican blueprint for a second Trump term," Project 2025 demanded a correction and an apology, stressing, "Project 2025 does not represent any candidate or campaign." Nationwide abortion ban Harris' claim: "Understand: If Donald Trump were to be re-elected, he will sign a national abortion ban. Understand: In his Project 2025, there would be a national abortion — a monitor — that would monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages." Reality: While Harris has gotten good use out of this threat in recent weeks, it has no basis in reality. Trump has repeatedly said that individual states should set their own abortion laws. Just weeks after he said reports that he privately supports a 16-week abortion ban were "fake news," Trump suggested to WABC-FM's "Sid & Friends in the Morning" in March, "Everybody agrees — you've heard this for years — all the legal scholars on both sides agree: It's a state issue. It shouldn't be a federal issue; it's a state issue." In April, he said on Truth Social, "My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both. And whatever they decide must be the law of the land — in this case, the law of the state." CNN reported that Trump was asked in Atlanta that month whether he would ratify a national abortion ban if it passed in Congress, and he flatly answered, "No." Although Trump did not say so explicitly Tuesday, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) told NBC News' "Meet the Press" last month that Trump would veto a national abortion ban. Neither the 2024 Republican platform nor Trump's Agenda 47 make any mention of a national abortion ban. 'Bloodbath' hoax Harris' claim: "Donald Trump the candidate has said in this election there will be a bloodbath if this and the outcome of this election is not to his liking." Reality: On March 16, Trump used the word "bloodbath" in reference to the economic fallout of continued offshoring of jobs and automobile manufacturing plants under the Biden-Harris administration. Addressing Chinese dictator Xi Jinping during his speech at the Dayton International Airport in Ohio, Trump suggested America would not buy cars made in Chinese manufacturing plants in Mexico, built without American labor. Trump added: We're going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you're not going to be able to sell those guys — if I get elected. Now, if I don’t get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that's gonna be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That'll be the least of it. But they're not going to sell those cars. Mythologizing Jan. 6 Claims: "[On Jan. 6], 140 law enforcement officers were injured and some died." "Trump left us the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War." Reality: The suggestion that law enforcement officers died on Jan. 6 as the result of the Capitol riot has been recycled by Democratic lawmakers and media talking heads for years. It is, however, false. No police officers died in the line of duty during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, who Democrats have long claimed was killed in or as the result of the fracas, returned to headquarters in "good condition" after the incident but suffered two strokes the following day, reportedly dying of natural causes. On April 19, 2021, the USCP accepted the District of Columbia's Office of the Chief Medical Examiner's finding that Sicknick "died of natural causes." Four responding officers later killed themselves.In terms of slayings that day, unarmed Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt — a protester at the Capitol — was gunned down by USCP officer Michael Byrd. As for Harris' insinuation that the riot was the worst attack on the U.S. since the Civil War, she apparently forgot the historic significance of the day after the debate, September 11. Critics online have noted other incidents that have taken place since the Civil War that might also qualify, including the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor that claimed the lives of over 2,400 Americans; the assassination of President Robert F. Kennedy; and the BLM riots, which claimed the lives of between 6 and 20 people, resulted in the death of a police officer and the injury over 2,000, and inflicted billions of dollars in damage. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

*HIC* Jen Rubin's Reaction to ABC Presidential Debate Has People Wondering Just How Drunk She REALLY Was

This --> Mother of ALL Truth Bombs About Abortion Just DROPPED on Kamala's Empty, Lying Head (Watch)

Ari Fleischer Torches CNN Host's Lecture to JD Vance About 'Promoting False Information'

Megyn Kelly Goes Scorched Earth on the ABC Moderators

The Moderators Will Have Ultimately Hurt Kamala Harris Once One Question Is Asked