The explorers first thought it was a piece of garbage, but how wrong they were.

C15:0 could help tackle six major hallmarks of aging.

Some say the two were more than just friends.

Sleeping cats pounced and clawed at the floor, like they were dreaming about hunting.

The authors say it’s proof a “one-size-fits-all” approach doesn’t work with this condition.

Mars Express captured new images of water, ice, volcanic activity, dust deposits, and mesas all in the same area.

A recent telescope upgrade has delivered spectacular new insights into the mysterious solar atmosphere.

The South African president rejected President Donald Trump's assertion that the South African communist leader who leads chants about killing white farmers should be arrested.President Cyril Ramaphosa met with President Trump last week in the White House, where he firmly denied the existence of a genocide or even targeted killings of white South African farmers known as the Boers.'It's not meant to be a message that elicits or calls upon anyone to go and be killed.'During their meeting, Trump suggested to Ramaphosa that the South African government should arrest Julius Malema, a political leader who has led chants of "shoot the Boer" and "shoot to kill" to a stadium full of supporters. Upon returning to South Africa, Ramaphosa spoke to reporters about the idea of arrests and asserted that his country is a sovereign nation with its own laws and processes. He also excused the racist chants as freedom of expression."We take into account what the constitutional court also decided when it said that, you know, that slogan, 'kill the Boer, kill the farmer,' is a liberation chant and slogan.""It's not meant to be a message that elicits or calls upon anyone to go and be killed," the president claimed. "And that is what our court decided. ... We follow the dictates of our constitution because we are a constitutional state, and we are a country where freedom of expression is in the bedrock of our constitutional arrangement."RELATED: South Africans deny 'white genocide': 'We call ourselves the rainbow nation' Economic Freedom Fighter (EFF) President Julius Malema sings, 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer,' during a campaign on May 25, 2025. Photo by Per-Anders Pettersson/Getty ImagesRamaphosa's remarks did not tell the whole story, though. Malema, the leader of the black nationalist communist party Economic Freedom Fighters, was actually convicted of hate speech in 2011 for singing the very same songs.However, in 2022, South Africa's Equality Court superseded the prior conviction and determined the hate speech charges to be unconstitutional. According to Ground Up, the judge declared "society has a duty to allow and be tolerant of both popular and unpopular views of its members."At the same time, two white South Africans have been convicted of hate speech since Ramaphosa took office.RELATED: How Trump broke the illusion of liberal Christian 'compassion' In 2018, a woman named Vicky Momberg was sentenced to three years in prison, with one year suspended, for using a derogatory word against a black policeman 48 times.According to the BBC, Momberg allegedly had her racist rant caught on video and shared to social media. On the video, she used the term "kaffir," which is seen as a slur against black South Africans. The term originates from a word for non-Muslims in Africa who were often slaves.In 2022, Belinda Magor was arrested after she said black women should have their uteruses cut in a WhatsApp messaging group. She also wrote, "What I say is: ban the black man. They rape, they steal, they kill, worse than any pit bull could, and they get away with it."Magor was fined and told to issue a "written apology to black South Africans for her hate speech and not repeat the racist utterance on social media and public platforms."South Africa's human rights commission described the woman as a "defender of racial discrimination."Neither of these convictions were overturned on freedom of speech grounds.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 4-4 deadlock last week left intact the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling against St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School — a failure of constitutional courage and a setback for educational freedom. The tie lets stand a decision that discriminates against faith-based institutions by denying them the same public charter school opportunities extended to secular organizations. It rests on a misguided reading of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and ignores the protections guaranteed by the Free Exercise clause. Families deserve more than crumbling bureaucracies and ideological indoctrination. They need real alternatives — the kind private and parochial schools have offered for generations. Plaintiffs, including the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, made a compelling case: Excluding St. Isidore solely because of its Catholic identity violates the Constitution. In Carson v. Makin (2022), the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot deny religious organizations access to public benefits otherwise available to all. Charter schools, while publicly funded, operate independently and serve as laboratories of innovation. St. Isidore committed to meeting Oklahoma’s curriculum standards and serving any student who applied. Its disqualification stemmed from one reason alone: its religious mission. That’s religious discrimination, plain and simple. The Oklahoma Supreme Court misread the Establishment Clause, and the U.S. Supreme Court failed to correct the error. The clause doesn’t forbid religious organizations to participate in public programs. It forbids the state to establish an official religion — not from offering families the freedom to choose a Catholic education within a public framework. St. Isidore wouldn’t force anyone to adhere to Catholic doctrine. It would simply give parents another option — one grounded in a Judeo-Christian worldview and committed to academic excellence. Banning that option undermines pluralism and silences voices that have historically delivered high standards and moral clarity in American education. Meanwhile, public education in the United States teeters toward collapse. Students trail their peers globally. In some districts, basic literacy remains out of reach. Families deserve more than crumbling bureaucracies and ideological indoctrination. They need real alternatives — the kind private and parochial schools have offered for generations. Faith-based schools routinely outperform their government-run counterparts. Instead of blocking them from public charter programs, states should welcome their success and harness their model. Innovation doesn’t threaten the system. It might save it. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, despite claiming to be a Republican, sided with liberal secularists in opposing St. Isidore. His legal brief warned of “chaos” and raised alarm over hypothetical funding for “radical Islamic schools” — a tired slippery-slope argument that ignores the core issue of equal treatment under the law. RELATED: This red-state attorney general has declared war on the First Amendment Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images Drummond abandoned conservative principles like school choice and religious liberty. Instead, he backed those who place rigid interpretations of church-state separation above fairness. His stance helped fuel the Supreme Court’s deadlock and undercut Oklahoma families seeking diverse educational options. The Supreme Court’s failure to resolve this question, due in part to Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s recusal, leaves a constitutional gray area: Can states bar religious organizations from public programs that remain open to everyone else? Parents deserve the right to choose schools that reflect their values — whether religious or secular. By excluding St. Isidore, the state has effectively declared that faith-based institutions are second-class citizens. That’s not just bad policy. It’s a dangerous precedent in a nation founded on religious liberty. The founders never intended to wall off religion from public life. They saw the Christian faith and Judeo-Christian values as cornerstones of strong, free societies. Most early American schools were church-run. Today, the pendulum has swung too far to the left. Progressive bureaucrats attack the very moral foundations that made America successful in the first place. If we want to make America great again, we need to reclaim those values and push back against the cultural nonsense that sidelines faith. If we want to reverse the decline of American education, we need more choices — not fewer. This fight isn’t over. Oklahoma will keep defending parental rights and religious freedom. The St. Isidore case remains unfinished business — and we intend to finish it. Faith-based schools must have the freedom to educate our children without unconstitutional restrictions.

A Colombian national in the U.S. illegally is now staring down decades in federal prison after she allegedly collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in public assistance and allegedly cast a ballot in the 2024 election.According to a press release from the Department of Justice, Lina Maria Orovio-Hernandez, 59, has managed to live in the U.S. illegally for more than two decades after she assumed a stolen identity. Through that stolen ID, she allegedly obtained nine other state IDs, including a REAL ID from Massachusetts. She also applied for a U.S. passport, claiming to be a citizen born in Puerto Rico, court documents said.'The right to vote is one of the many privileges of being a US citizen. Government funded programs for those in need are intended to be safety nets for those living in our country lawfully.'That alleged stolen identity also provided Orovio-Hernandez access to various public assistance programs. In all, she has been accused of stealing more than $400,000 in improper benefits: nearly 15 years' worth of Section 8 rental assistance totaling $259,589; more than a decade of Social Security benefits worth $101,257; and almost 20 years of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits worth another $43,348, the DOJ press release claimed.RELATED: 16 noncitizens apparently voted in Michigan in 2024 — and liberals are cheering about it Screenshot of court documentsMoreover, Orovio-Hernandez reportedly used the stolen identity to register to vote in Boston, Massachusetts, in January 2023. "In Section F of that application, labeled 'Voter Registration,' the defendant checked a box affirming that she was a U.S. citizen," court documents said.Then on November 5, 2024, a ballot was cast under the alleged stolen identity, the City of Boston Election Department reported, according to court documents. Security footage taken at a bank in Boston that day appeared to capture Orovio-Hernandez wearing an "I voted" sticker on her shirt.RELATED: Illegal aliens aren’t just ‘guests’ — they’re future voters Orovio-Hernandez has now been charged with one count of false representation of a Social Security number, one count of making a false statement in an application for a United States passport, one count of aggravated identity theft, three counts of receiving stolen government money or property, one count of fraudulent voter registration, and one count of fraudulent voting.Many of those charges carry a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, so if convicted, Orovio-Hernandez could end up serving decades behind bars in addition to paying heavy fines. She could also be deported."For more than 20 years, this defendant is alleged to have built an entire life on the foundation of a stolen identity — including illegally voting in our presidential election and collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in government benefits intended for Americans in need," said a statement from United States Attorney Leah Foley, according to the press release."The right to vote is one of the many privileges of being a U.S. citizen. Government-funded programs for those in need are intended to be safety nets for those living in our country lawfully — not support an illegal alien without a right to be here. Ms. Orovio-Hernandez was entitled to none of these privileges as a Colombian citizen who was unlawfully in this country." H/T: Fox NewsLike Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!