The Blaze

The Paris climate agreement was doomed to fail from its inception. It is long past time for all parties involved, as well as the media, to acknowledge this fact.

The mainstream media has lamented the Paris agreement’s fate since President Donald Trump’s re-election. Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement during his first term and vowed to do so again after Joe Biden rejoined it. While Trump’s withdrawal was a public rebuke that undermined the pact’s “effectiveness,” the agreement was effectively dead before the ink on the last signature was dry.

China’s rising emissions since 2015 all but guarantee that global CO2 levels will continue climbing through 2030 and beyond, no matter what other nations do.

The structure of the agreement itself ensured that it would be ineffective in preventing greenhouse gas emissions from rising.

As I noted shortly after its completion in 2015, even the architects of the Paris agreement quietly admitted that the emissions pledges made by signatory countries would fall short of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. At the time, their own estimates showed that if every nation fulfilled its commitment, the combined result would still account for less than half the greenhouse gas reductions needed to meet the 2-degree goal.

By 2017, the United Nations confirmed this shortfall. Its report projected that even if every country fully complied with its Paris agreement targets — an optimistic scenario — global temperatures would still rise by 3 degrees Celsius by 2100.

The agreement’s prospects have only worsened since. As the BBC has reported, several countries openly acknowledge that they will not meet their commitments. Nations such as Argentina, Indonesia, South Africa, and South Korea — all signatories that previously pledged to curb fossil fuel use — now plan to increase the production of coal, natural gas, and oil. Many also hope to import additional fuel from the United States.

These nations are now blaming Trump for their decision, but the data shows that every single country now seeking more fossil fuels had already increased its use long before Trump was re-elected and withdrew from the Paris agreement. In fact, no country that set specific emissions reduction targets in the first Paris commitment period has made significant progress toward meeting its goals.

What’s more, of the nearly 200 countries that signed the agreement, only 10 submitted their updated carbon reduction commitments by the deadline — meaning 190 nations failed to comply. Even the 10 countries that submitted their updated commitments failed to meet their previous targets.

Two of the world’s three largest carbon dioxide emitters — China and India — have made no firm commitments under the Paris agreement. Instead of pledging to reduce emissions, both countries offered vague assurances that they expect emissions to peak eventually. If carbon dioxide truly drives climate change, China’s rising emissions since 2015 all but guarantee that global CO2 levels will continue climbing through 2030 and the 2050, no matter what other nations do.

As Thomas Hobbes wrote, “Covenants, without the sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.” Every climate agreement to date has embodied that idea — unenforceable promises with no mechanism to guarantee compliance.

The fact is that the Paris agreement was never a binding treaty. Countries set their own emissions targets, but the agreement included no international enforcement. Unless countries pass laws domestically to formalize their pledges, those goals remain legally meaningless — even within their own borders.

Ultimately, the Paris agreement demands long-term sacrifice without any clear or measurable benefit. Politicians focused on re-election hesitate to adopt policies that visibly harm their constituents today in exchange for hypothetical rewards decades after they’ve left office. That political reality is why the Paris climate agreement was doomed from the start. Now is the time to acknowledge its failure — without regret. The trillions already spent are sunk costs, but at the very least, we can stop wasting more.

TikTok is full of disturbing content, but something called SkinnyTok currently takes the cake for the hottest new trend — and potentially the most dangerous.

“SkinnyTok is essentially this whole genre of TikTok where these influencers, they call themselves ‘skinny influencers,’ are taking to TikTok to help other people get skinny. But I think what they’re promoting is kind of unhealthy,” Blaze Media social media coordinator Phoenix Painter tells Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable.”

“I don’t want to shame anyone, but I still feel like it’s important to draw a line as to what is healthy behavior and what seems to be more along the lines of obsession leading to disordered thoughts and patterns,” Painter adds.

One of these influencers, Liv Schmidt, is one of the more “infamous SkinnyTok influencers,” and she takes a harsh approach to her advice.

“A lot of you love to ask me what I eat in a day, and the second I tell you or even hint at it, it’s shock, it’s horror, it’s panic, like, ‘That’s barely any food.’ Yeah, no, what do you think I’m eating? A ton of donuts, pizza, and McDonald’s every day? Babe, be serious, be so for real. I don’t eat like that because I don’t want to look like that,” Schmidt said in a video while walking on a treadmill.

“I eat in portions. I eat with intention. If I ate like garbage, I would feel like garbage and I wouldn’t look the way I do. I chose to be skinny, I chose to be disciplined, and if that makes you uncomfortable, that’s not my problem,” she added.

“Eating disorders are competitive,” Painter says, commenting on Schmidt’s online persona. “Liv Schmidt, she says all the time, ‘Eat small, be small,’ or she also says, ‘You’re not a dog; don’t reward yourself with food.’”

“Which I feel like is so telling of where her mindset actually is,” she adds.

Stuckey, who also dealt with disordered eating in her college years, is all too familiar with this mindset.

“I had a friend who recommended a book in college, and it was called ‘The Skinny Girl Method.’ And it was literally like, ‘Never eat a full banana, just eat half of it, and then put it away,’” Stuckey recalls.

And in the earlier 2000s, when Stuckey was in college, this skinny-girl phenomenon was the norm. Now, it’s clearly making a resurgence on the back of the “body positivity movement.”

“The only thing that I really feel like the body positivity movement got right was that we shouldn’t be shaming people for how they look. Like that kind of early 2000s tabloid thing where they would blow up images of celebrities literally just trying to have a vacation and be like, ‘Oh my God, look at her cellulite, she’s gained five pounds,’” Painter tells Stuckey.

“The body positivity movement absolutely hit it on the nose when they said, ‘No, we shouldn’t be doing that,’ and this is kind of reverting back to that mindset, like ’90s, early 2000s,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Saturday morning in full swing along Route 66.

The old road has been through a lot — dust storms, economic collapse, and the slow decay of the American small town — but on this bright February morning, commerce is thriving.

‘A lot of my friends took the traditional college route and are drowning in debt,’ Daniels says. ‘My friends who went into the trades? They’re doing great.’

The backdrop is classic downtown Tulsa — red-brick facades that have stood for a century, now housing retailers and yoga studios. Just around the corner is Mother Road Market, a trendy cafeteria dressed up like a food court from the golden days of American malls. Everywhere you look, the old world meets the new.

Working-class families stroll past retro diners and neon-lit novelty shops, spending their hard-earned money.

Near the University of Tulsa, amid the dispensaries and boutiques on Route 66, sits a sturdy old building that houses Tulsa Welding School’s main campus, wedged into three acres.

Work-first mentality

It’s the weekend, yet the parking lot is packed. Local radio station 106.9 KHTT has set up a booth, and a Fox23 cameraman angles for a shot of the crowd gathered for the TWS open house.

Inside, I meet Jon Daniels, the campus president. He’s direct but approachable, with the gravitas of someone who has led before.

“I took the non-traditional route,” he tells me. “Baseball got me into college; the Army paid for the rest.”

Daniels played ball on scholarship, served 10 years in the Army — infantry and artillery — earned his bachelor’s degree along the way, then picked up a master’s in management. Now, he’s working on a doctorate in education, all without taking out a single student loan.

“My dad was a union electrician for 40 years,” he says. “I grew up in a blue-collar family. No one handed me anything.”

That work-first mentality is what he hopes to pass on to the students at Tulsa Welding School. In an era when career paths are littered with debt traps, he offers something different: training that leads straight to high-demand jobs in welding, HVAC, and electrical work — fields where skill, not a diploma, determines success.

The college glut

For decades, the prevailing wisdom has been that college is the only route to a successful career. But with rising tuition and mounting student debt, that belief is being challenged.

Plumbers, electricians, HVAC techs — fields once considered backup plans — have turned out to be the surest path to wealth in an era when the so-called knowledge economy has left a generation buried under student loans.

“A lot of my friends took the traditional college route and are drowning in debt,” Daniels says. “My friends who went into the trades? They’re doing great.”

Even pop culture has taken note. “South Park” took its usual crude swing at the shift, mocking the growing divide between the oversaturated educated class and laborers in high demand. The Atlantic published a more measured lament, noting what it called “the rage of the almost-elite” among college grads.

Kevin Ryan

Get in, get out, get working

Daniels gives me a tour of the school, sprawled out over three city blocks.

Tulsa Welding School operates on a different timeline. Instead of a four-year degree, students complete the program in just seven months.

“Get in, get the training, get to work,” Daniels says.

The curriculum is hands-on, emphasizing real-world skills over lectures. Students learn welding techniques like metal inert gas welding, tungsten inert gas welding, and stick welding. Those in HVAC and electrical programs receive lab training and use virtual reality tools to simulate jobsite scenarios.

“We use Oculus welding simulations. If students want extra practice at home, they put on the headset and weld virtually,” Daniels says.

But it’s not just about the technical skills. Daniels and his team also focus on preparing students for life outside school.

“We don’t just teach welding; we teach soft skills,” Daniels says. “How to dress for an interview, how to talk to an employer.”

The school partners with local businesses to secure job placements. Students can practice for weld tests — often required for employment — on campus before applying for positions.

“You can’t fake skill in the trades,” Daniels says. “Employers will test you on the spot.”

‘We’re all about second chances’

Recognizing that many students come from tough financial situations, the campus provides resources like a food pantry and donated work gear.

“We want students to be comfortable, so we even keep a pantry on campus with food and work gear donations,” Daniels explains. “Sometimes we get leather boots donated too, because you can’t weld in sneakers.”

For students relocating from out of state, the school works with a housing company to provide temporary accommodations.

“We help students relocate,” Daniels says. “We have a company that provides temporary housing for them while they train.”

For Daniels, Tulsa Welding School isn’t just a place of learning — it’s a place of opportunity.

“We’re all about second chances. A lot of people deserve one,” he says.

Many students enroll after struggling with college, dead-end jobs, or financial hardship. The trades offer a fresh start and, for some, even a sense of purpose.

“Welding is therapeutic for some people. Just like cutting the grass is for me,” Daniels says.

The demand for skilled workers is only increasing. The school’s five campuses — Tulsa, Houston, Dallas, Jacksonville, and Phoenix — are training thousands of students, many of whom secure high-paying jobs right after graduation.

“There’s a massive workforce shortage in the trades, and we’re here to bridge that gap,” Daniels says.

Even as the school embraces new technology, the core mission remains the same: prepare students for meaningful, sustainable careers.

“We’re proud of what we do. We don’t just train people — we change lives,” Daniels says.

Kevin Ryan

Skill-based success

Here in America’s reddest state, the die-hard working-class Democrat is all but extinct. Not a single blue county in a presidential election since 2000.

Many former Democrats say the same thing: The Democratic Party just isn’t the same. It abandoned its core constituents. The labor movement lost interest in the working class, and progressive politicians lost interest in labor, leading to a stratified society where wealth flows upward while the middle shrinks.

Meanwhile, the cultural divide deepens.The people of the working class aren’t just ignored; they’re openly mocked.

Yet the rise of trade schools and alternative career paths suggests a way forward. The people who were told they needed a college degree to succeed are discovering that success was never about the degree — it’s about the skills.

It’s about dignity. The ability to build something, to create, to fix — these are things no algorithm can replace. At Tulsa Welding School, students aren’t preparing for careers that will be automated away. They’re forging America’s future.

With 64-6 and 32-3 majorities in the South Dakota House and Senate, Republicans alone have the power to advance or block their agenda. Yet, Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden’s veto of a key initiative petition reform bill hands Democrats an opening to continue pushing their agenda through the state’s highly manipulated ballot initiative process.

In the Mount Rushmore State, the Democratic Party is slightly less popular than herpes, which forces progressives to rely on massive outside funding to place their proposals directly on the ballot. Although the electorate leans conservative, ballot measures are often complex and confusing — one reason the nation’s founders rejected direct democracy in favor of a representative system.

It’s astonishing how, across red states, only the Freedom Caucus seems willing to stop the left from using ballot initiatives to shift policy in purple and blue directions.

This is especially true when it comes to constitutional amendments. At the federal level, amending the Constitution requires approval from two-thirds of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. Yet at the state level, well-funded left-wing groups are trying to change constitutions with a simple 51% majority and carefully crafted ballot language — turning red states blue, one vote at a time.

A commonsense safeguard

Last year, liberal groups gathered enough signatures to place several controversial proposals on the South Dakota ballot: codifying abortion as a right, legalizing marijuana, and eliminating partisan primaries. Voters rejected all three, but these efforts reflect a growing trend. In other red states, similar campaigns have succeeded, using direct democracy to bypass conservative legislatures. Why continue to leave this pathway open — allowing progressives to rewrite the state’s constitution through tactics they could never achieve in the Capitol?

House Bill 1169 offered a commonsense safeguard. The bill would have required petition circulators to gather signatures from all 35 state Senate districts, totaling at least 5% of the votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election. This district-level requirement would have supplemented the existing statewide threshold of 10%, already mandated by the state constitution.

Across the country, progressive groups are steering major policy questions directly to the ballot, often collecting most of their signatures from the most liberal population centers. In South Dakota, that means relying on Sioux Falls and Rapid City, rather than seeking broad statewide support.

“This bill would have finally given people in small towns and rural counties a voice in the petition process to amend our constitution,” House Speaker Jon Hansen (R) lamented after the governor’s veto. “If you live in a small, rural community, chances are you’ve never been approached by a petition circulator. That’s because most proposed constitutional amendments are placed on the ballot by paid circulators in Sioux Falls and Rapid City — without input from smaller communities. If you live in a small town, you rarely get a say in what amendments reach the ballot.”

The measure passed the House by a wide margin along party lines and cleared the Senate by a narrower 19-15 vote. Rhoden vetoed the bill earlier this week.

Absurd excuses

In his veto message, the governor hid behind concerns that the bill would not survive legal challenges. He suggested he supported the idea in principle but believed the measure would ultimately backfire — arguing it could empower, rather than restrain, well-funded special interests.

“The additional burden of collecting signatures from each of the 35 senatorial districts, each on a separate petition sheet, risks creating a system where only those with substantial financial resources can effectively undertake a statewide petition drive,” Rhoden wrote. “This undermines the bill’s intent by putting South Dakotans at a disadvantage to dark money out-of-state groups.”

The argument is absurd. In a hypothetical scenario where rural districts lean as liberal as urban areas, Rhoden’s claim — that a uniform signature threshold across all districts would burden grassroots groups more than big-money interests — might hold water. In reality, South Dakota’s rural districts remain largely immune to left-wing campaigns. Passing HB 1169 would likely halt nearly all liberal petition efforts in the state.

That’s precisely why former state Sen. Reynold Nesiba, a Democrat from Sioux Falls, said he planned to launch a referendum to repeal the bill. “It will effectively end the constitutional amendment process initiated by citizens in South Dakota,” he warned.

That’s the point. Why would a Republican governor want to give the left a back door to influence state policy?

The idea that the bill would hinder conservative petitions doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, either. If a proposal has genuine conservative support, it should have no trouble passing through the Republican-controlled legislature. Conservatives only turn to the initiative process when liberal Republicans like Rhoden turn a supermajority trifecta into a uniparty circus.

Letting the left win

It’s astonishing how, across red states, only the Freedom Caucus seems willing to stop the left from using ballot initiatives to shift policy in purple and blue directions — just as it did in Alaska. In Missouri, GOP leadership has repeatedly dismissed Freedom Caucus efforts to rein in initiative petitions, even after the left used that very process to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) called a special session earlier this year to address widespread petition fraud. But legislative leaders ignored his request and have been slow-walking reform legislation during the regular session.

This reluctance among Republican leaders to limit ballot initiatives reveals a troubling truth: Many of them quietly support certain left-wing goals but don’t want their fingerprints on the results. They’re fine with legalizing recreational marijuana, weary of the abortion fight, and unwilling to oppose Medicaid expansion.

By allowing Democrats to exploit the initiative process, these Republicans effectively outsource controversial policy changes to the ballot box — letting the left win while they avoid tough votes.

On the evening of March 25, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, experienced what many described as a political “stunner.” In a heavily Republican district — the 36th — Democrats pulled off an unexpected upset in a special state Senate election.

Josh Parsons, the Republican chairman of the Lancaster County Commission, lost by 482 votes to James Malone, the Democratic mayor of East Petersburg. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a reliably partisan Democrat, quickly congratulated Malone and praised the victory as a blow to “the extremism coming from D.C.” There’s little doubt Malone will vote in lockstep with Shapiro’s agenda.

The reality on the ground often looks very different from the national mood captured in polling data.

This result didn’t happen in a swing district. Lancaster County gave Donald Trump a 15-point margin in 2020 and has consistently voted Republican since before the Civil War. Since moving here more than 30 years ago, I’ve watched every state senator and nearly every county official win as a Republican. The same goes for our congressional representation.

Parsons’ predecessor, state Sen. Ryan Aument, regularly defeated Democrats by more than 2 to 1. In last week’s election, Libertarian candidate Zachary Moore claimed 480 votes — most of which likely would have gone to Parsons. But even with those votes, it’s unclear whether Parsons would have pulled off a win. And even if he had, a narrow victory would still fall far short of the GOP’s long-standing dominance in this district.

Democrats won in Lancaster County by mobilizing their strongest voting blocs — including a near-monopoly on college-educated white women and virtually all black women. Their state party also benefited from a flood of money provided by the usual group of culturally radical plutocrats.

Only 29% of registered voters in Lancaster County turned out last Tuesday. But Democrats ensured their supporters showed up.

I’ll be blunt: I find the happy talk on Fox News tiresome — the claims that Democrats are in decline and doomed to lose every major race outside deep-blue states until the end of time. If I were a betting man, I’d back the Democrats in any race where the parties are supposedly even.

Republicans may face another uphill battle in the upcoming Wisconsin Supreme Court race on April 1. That contest features Susan Crawford, a very progressive district judge from Dane County, against Brad Schimel, a conservative Milwaukee-area judge.

Despite Republican hopes, Crawford’s left-wing record draws major financial support from donors like Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, George Soros, and the usual crowd from Wall Street and Hollywood. So far, Democrats have raised more than double what Schimel has. Crawford has also built an army of volunteer campaigners from her left-wing base.

Many prominent GOP figures remain overly confident about their party’s electoral chances, but they often misread the data. They place too much stock in the Democratic Party’s low national poll numbers, failing to grasp that these figures don’t necessarily predict outcomes in specific races.

Democrats consistently energize their base by championing progressive cultural positions and railing against phony “fascism” and fictitious “Nazis.” This rhetoric motivates activists, who eagerly contribute time and money to causes they view as morally urgent. While outlets like the Washington Examiner lament “the toxicity” of Democratic rhetoric, voters on the left often find this language empowering. Just because conservatives recoil at inflammatory attacks from lawmakers like Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) doesn’t mean their base does.

The Democratic Party may hold just 29% approval nationally, but it maintains powerful institutional support, including public-sector unions and deep-pocketed donors. When government bureaucrats or teachers’ unions believe Donald Trump, Elon Musk, or other fiscal conservatives threaten their funding, they spring into action to protect their interests. These permanent-state allies don’t need high approval ratings — they need motivation, and they have it.

Low polling numbers alone won’t stop Democrats from flipping deeply red districts if they outspend Republicans by large margins and mobilize zealous volunteers. The reality on the ground often looks very different from the national mood captured in polling data.

In my own reliably Republican district, the national unpopularity of Democrats didn’t stop a surprise upset. What should have been a GOP lock turned into a “stunner” — and a warning.

Recent speculation suggests Donald Trump may withdraw from NATO, while few have explored the reasons he might pursue that path.

Yes, abandoning America’s longtime security framework in Europe aligns with promises to cut spending and avoid foreign entanglements — but the motivations run deeper than that.

If the US is moving toward a more transactional foreign policy, then keeping Turkey happy makes sense, especially if it means limiting Russian-Chinese influence in Central Asia.

It’s about restructuring the global order.

The U.S. is pivoting toward a more transparently transactional alliance system, one centered on regional powers that can do the heavy lifting while Washington plays arbiter.

The new security and economic bloc forming before our eyes looks like it will involve Russia, Turkey, and Israel.

These are not natural allies in the traditional sense, but they each serve a role in what is shaping up to be a strategic trade-off:

• Russia gets its Ukraine deal;
• Turkey gets dominance in the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Asia; and
• Israel secures its energy routes.

Greece, Armenia, and even Ukraine, meanwhile, are looking more and more like sacrificial pawns in this reshuffling.

Trump has never cared for NATO’s obsession with Ukraine, and he’s likely to cut a deal that brings the war with Russia to an end.

The most probable outcome would be a mineral rights agreement where Russia officially consolidates its control over Eastern Ukraine while the United States walks away with access to key resources and a stabilized energy market.

The war-fatigued West will be sold this as a win (“Trump ended the war!”) but in reality, it will be the moment Washington moves past its commitments to Eastern Europe and onto bigger plans.

This wouldn’t just be a settlement on Ukraine. It would also serve as the foundation for a broader U.S.-Russia understanding. Russia’s ultimate goal is to weaken NATO’s grip over its near abroad. If Washington gives signals that it won’t interfere in Armenia, Georgia, or even parts of Eastern Europe, Moscow will have no reason to keep its old hostility toward America.

Recalibrating alliances

Then, we have Turkey. Recent rumors that Trump would shut down a U.S. military base in Greece have yet to come to pass. Still, they reflect the region’s anxiety concerning Trump’s affinity for Turkish President Recep Erdoğan.

Erdoğan has always wanted a freer hand in the Aegean, where Greece controls a massive exclusive economic zone and the most important shipping lanes in the region. If Washington tacitly allows Turkey to pressure Greece, it clears the way for a major shift in power.

At the same time, Israel is tied up in the energy game with Greece through a pipeline linking the two. If Turkey’s aggressive posturing disrupts that project, Israel may find itself needing to recalibrate its alliances.

That’s where we come in. America can broker an arrangement where Israel and Turkey, which have been exchanging fighting words over Palestine for the last year and a half, find common ground, possibly at Greece’s expense.

This isn’t far-fetched. Turkey has been a problem for NATO for years, and yet Washington keeps it close because of its strategic importance.

If the U.S. is moving toward a more transactional foreign policy, then keeping Turkey happy makes sense, especially if it means limiting Russian-Chinese influence in Central Asia.

A geopolitical earthquake

Meanwhile, the West is playing Armenia much like it played Ukraine: dangling EU integration, offering economic deals, and encouraging a break from Russia.

But just like Ukraine, Armenia is expendable. If war breaks out again with Azerbaijan, Armenia will be on its own, isolated from Russia and surrounded by hostile powers.

Here’s the likely scenario: The war starts, and Armenia holds out for a while, but without serious backing, it eventually loses key territory, most importantly the southern region of Syunik.

Then, as with Ukraine, America steps in as the “peacemaker” and negotiates a deal.

The price? Armenia gives up Syunik, allowing Turkey and Azerbaijan to finally complete the Zangezur corridor, uniting the Turkic world from Anatolia to Central Asia.

This would be a geopolitical earthquake. Turkey and Azerbaijan would gain unprecedented control over trade and energy flows, and a new power bloc would emerge stretching across the Caspian.

At first glance, a U.S.-backed Pan-Turanic expansion sounds counterintuitive, but it actually aligns with Washington’s shift toward an interest-based alliance system. A consolidated Turkic bloc led by Turkey, stretching from Anatolia through Azerbaijan and into Central Asia, would serve as a counterbalance to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. It would give the U.S. leverage over key trade routes while keeping both Russia and China in check.

At the same time, this would spell the end for Armenia as we know it. A landlocked state already struggling to maintain relevance would be completely isolated, boxed in by adversaries, and left with little recourse but to accept a diminished future. The EU’s empty promises won’t save Armenia. If anything, they will only push it further into the abyss.

Who wins, who loses?

Winners:

• The U.S. moves beyond NATO into a more flexible alliance structure.
• Russia secures its Ukrainian gains and reduces Western influence near its borders.
• Turkey achieves its long-term goal of regional dominance and direct access to Central Asia.
• Azerbaijan cements its position as the dominant power in the South Caucasus.
• Israel secures its energy interests in a new regional balance.

Losers:

• Ukraine is left with a frozen conflict and a fractured future.
• Greece faces renewed pressure from Turkey over shipping lanes and energy control.
• Armenia loses Syunik and is pushed into permanent isolation.

The bottom line

If Trump follows through on withdrawing from NATO, it won’t be the end of U.S. influence. It will simply be the beginning of a new grand strategy.

The post-1945 world order was built on ideological alliances and the “rules-based order.” The next era will be about raw, transparently strategic interests. America doesn’t need NATO if it can secure influence through regional power deals.

Armenia, Greece, and Ukraine are all at risk of being left behind in this transformation. The West no longer fights for weak states unless it directly benefits from doing so. The game is changing, and the players who don’t recognize the shift will be the ones who suffer the most.

America may be back on course toward normalcy after President Trump’s victory, but that’s not stopping the left-wing crazies from acting, well, crazy. If anything, it’s emboldened them.

Most recently, a conservative student at a Texas university was allegedly assaulted by one of these left-wing crazies — a transgender student who used a bike lock as a weapon. The incident was caught on video by the victim, Turning Point USA chapter President Paige Neumann.

The footage shows 20-year-old Liam Thanh Nguyen — who identifies as “Alyssa” — grabbing his bike before swinging a bike lock at Neumann. Nguyen was arrested and booked into Collin County Jail the same day.

“Timmy Tam the man decided to take a bike lock and assault somebody,” Alex Stein of “Prime Time with Alex Stein” comments. Stein’s booth at the campus was also reported to be damaged in the incident.

“I hate to just lump them and overgeneralize them, but when it comes to school shootings, when it comes to a lot of issues in sports, these trans people are very violent,” he continues.

“I don’t know enough to determine if all of the drug treatments that they do and hormone treatments they do contribute to that,” President of the Conservative Caucus Jim Pfaff responds.

“But what I do know is one of the arguments for accepting this lifestyle is, ‘Oh, well, there’s going to be lower suicide,’ and suicide rates are going up like crazy,” he continues. “So there’s an emotional, psychological component in this, and so it seems obvious that it would come out in anger like that.”

Want more from Alex Stein?

To enjoy more of Alex’s culture jamming, comedic monologues, skits, and street segments, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Democrats just scored a shocking win in Lancaster, Pennsylvania’s state Senate special election. This is a seat in a district that President Trump carried by 15 points in November. A deep-red district. A “safe” seat. And yet we lost.

Let me say something few in politics have the courage to admit: I got this one wrong.

We cannot afford to sit out the mail-in game and hope for a red wave to appear by magic on Election Day.

I want to make sure every patriot understands exactly what happened — and what it means for the future of freedom in Pennsylvania and across the country.

Citizens Alliance offered to activate the PA CHASE program to protect the 36th Senate District seat. We were prepared to mobilize ballot chasers, execute our mail-in voting strategy, and ensure that Republican turnout matched the intensity of the left. But we were told it wouldn’t be necessary. GOP insiders said the special election would be “a cakewalk.” Consultants assured us that the Republican candidate would cruise to victory by double digits.

They were wrong. And I was wrong to believe them.

Let’s be very clear about why this happened. The Democrats crushed us in mail-in voting.

Democrat mail-in votes totaled 8,869, while Republican mail-in votes lagged at 3,547.

That means that the GOP candidate earned just 28.5% of the mail-in vote.

Our internal modeling for Pennsylvania has been consistent and accurate: To win statewide or in swing districts, Republicans must hit 33% of the mail-in vote. In 2024, President Trump got 34.5% of the mail-in vote, thanks in part to our PA CHASE efforts. But in this race, we came up short.

The proof is right in front of us. The rules in Pennsylvania give Democrats a 50-day head start on voting. They use every one of those days to chase ballots, engage low-propensity voters, and dominate the mail-in process. Republicans have been asleep at the wheel.

Do I like mail-in voting? No. I believe in one day of voting with ID. But that’s not the system we have. And until it changes, we must compete under the rules in place.

We cannot afford to sit out the mail-in game and hope for a red wave to appear by magic on Election Day. That’s a losing strategy, and the Lancaster loss is proof. Democrats are building momentum, infrastructure, and habits that will carry them through every cycle unless we match them with precision and resolve.

The good news? We know how to fix it.

We officially relaunched the PA CHASE program for 2025. Our mission is clear: Knock on 500,000 doors every year and deliver victories at every level of government. We’ve built the data models. We’ve trained the teams. We’ve proven it works.

But we need more patriots to step up.

We can’t let complacency cost us any more seats.

Let Lancaster County serve as a wake-up call. If Republicans don’t get serious about mail-in voting, we will keep losing seats that should be safely in our column. We will keep watching the Democrats run laps around us while we pretend it’s still 2004.

I’ll take the hit for this one. I should have pushed harder. I should have raised the funds and targeted this critical special election despite the naysayers. That won’t happen again.

The path forward is clear. Fight fire with fire. Chase every ballot. Win.

Three teen sisters in Texas are accused of trying to stab their mother to death because she turned off the Wi-Fi, according to authorities.

Deputies and detectives with the Harris County Sheriff’s Office responded on Sunday night to a “disturbance” at a residence in the Barkers Branch neighborhood, a suburb outside Houston, Texas.

“They’ve always been known for trouble in this neighborhood, and our neighbors tell us the same thing.”

Officers found a mother who had allegedly been assaulted by her three teen children, ages 14, 15, and 16.

“The three siblings allegedly coordinated a plan to try and kill the mother,” Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said in a statement. “Because the mother turned off the Wi-Fi, all three grabbed kitchen knives and chased her throughout the house and into the street, attempting to stab her.”

Police said one of the three girls threw a brick at the 39-year-old mother and hit the adult female in the ankle, according to ABC News.

During the melee, the 70-year-old grandmother of the children was reportedly assaulted and knocked to the ground while she was attempting to protect the alleged victim.

Thankfully, the mother and grandmother did not suffer any serious injuries, according to the Harris County Sheriff’s Office.

Meanwhile, the three female siblings were arrested. The three teen sisters were charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. All three teens were booked in the Harris County Juvenile Detention Center. All three of the suspects were not named because they are all underage.

An anonymous neighbor told KRIV-TV that the family is “known” for disturbances.

“They’ve always been known for trouble in this neighborhood, and our neighbors tell us the same thing,” the neighbor said.

“It’s always cops around that house,” the neighbor alleged.

The unnamed neighbor said the incident is “so crazy.” The neighbor described the family as “unstable” and added that it is “very sad for them.”

You can watch a KRIV-TV newscast about the three siblings attempting to stab their mother with kitchen knives and the interview with the neighbor here.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The left’s long march through the institutions was a resounding success. Numerous businesses, churches, libraries, law enforcement agencies, schools, and other organizations have for decades served as incubators for radical activists and amplifiers for pernicious ideologies.

Leftist marchers are, however, now being routed.

Conservatives and other normalcy advocates have in recent years undertaken a reconquest, enjoying success with certain academic institutions such as the New College of Florida as well as major businesses including Walmart, Harley-Davidson, and John Deere.

President Donald Trump — who has taken an axe to DEI, critical race theory, and gender ideology in the federal government and in federally funded organizations — continued his D.C.-focused purge of radicalism on Thursday, this time taking aim at the nation’s premier museums.

Trump intends to rid the Smithsonian Institution, its 21 museums and 14 education and research centers, and the National Zoo of radical leftist programs, policies, and installations.

In an executive order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” the president noted, “Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.”

‘Museums in our Nation’s capital should be places where individuals go to learn — not to be subjected to ideological indoctrination.’

“This revisionist movement seeks to undermine the remarkable achievements of the United States by casting its founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light,” continued Trump. “Under this historical revision, our Nation’s unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness is reconstructed as inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.”

Trump slammed the Biden administration for advancing this “corrosive ideology” and cited the following as examples of the anti-American propaganda at issue.

• The Smithsonian American Art Museum’s exhibit “The Shape of Power: Stories of Race and American Sculpture,” which represents that “[s]ocieties including the United States have used
  race to establish and maintain systems of power, privilege, and
  disenfranchisement.”
• The National Museum of African American History and Culture’s assertions that the nuclear family, rugged individualism, self-reliance, prioritization of work over play, emphasis on rational linear thinking, punctuality, decisiveness, and a future-oriented outlook are “aspects and assumptions of whiteness and white culture in the United States.”
• The “forthcoming Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum plans on celebrating the exploits of male athletes participating in women’s sports.”

The Smithsonian also enraged conservatives in recent years with the National Museum of American History’s Hispanic exhibit portraying religion and history through a Marxist lens and the Smithsonian Institution’s 2020 “Girlhood” exhibit featuring the racist founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, and a medical transvestite.

Trump directed Vice President JD Vance to work with senior staffers to “remove improper ideology” from the Smithsonian Institution and its museums, education and research centers, and the National Zoo.

Trump also tasked Vance and Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, to work with congressional lawmakers to ensure that Congress avoids bankrolling exhibits or programs at the Smithsonian Institution that “degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy.”

Cognizant and critical of the Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum’s initiative to feature male cross-dressers in future exhibits, Trump also insisted that the museum does “not recognize men as women in any respect.”

“Museums in our Nation’s capital should be places where individuals go to learn — not to be subjected to ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history,” said Trump’s order.

In addition to flushing leftist radicalism out of the Smithsonian museums, Trump — whose administration has been reverting the names of federal lands and military bases to what they were before Joe Biden took office — set his sights on a restoration of that which the iconoclasts of yesteryear chose to eliminate from the public consciousness.

Radicals both inside and outside government committed to a campaign of destruction and deracination in the wake of George Floyd’s death in 2020, digging up graves, toppling statues, renaming animals, melting down busts, and knocking out church windows.

Trump directed Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum to figure out whether public monuments, memorials, statues, or other properties within the Interior Department’s jurisdiction were removed or changed during this radical campaign “to perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history, inappropriately minimize the value of certain historical events or figures, or include any other improper partisan ideology.”

The president demanded further the reinstatement of pre-existing monuments that were removed.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!