Congress created the temporary protected status program, often abbreviated TPS, in 1990 to bar the removal of foreign nationals who hail from countries roiled by civil unrest, violence, or natural disaster, regardless of their immigration status. Under the program, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security can designate a certain country for TPS for periods of up to 18 months.

While supposedly “temporary,” these status designations — presently extended to a dozen countries and shielding millions of foreigners — have in many cases been extended for decades.

Recognizing that the conditions previously cited as justification for TPS have materially changed for the better in some countries, the Trump administration has taken steps to revoke numerous TPS designations. This initiative has, of course, enraged liberal activists and beneficiaries of the program, who have mounted various legal challenges.

The U.S. Supreme Court — which cleared the Trump administration last year to strip Venezuelan migrants of TPS — heard oral arguments on Wednesday in the consolidated cases Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot regarding the revocation of TPS for Haitians and Syrians.

Ahead of the hearing, Democratic Reps. Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) joined Democratic Sens. Edward Markey (Mass.) and Lisa Blunt Rochester (Del.) in demanding the high court defend TPS for Syrians and Haitians, stating, “Do your job, uphold the law, save lives, and protect our communities.”

Given conservative justices’ questions and remarks during the lengthy hearing, these Democrats and the hordes of foreign squatters who’ve long been shielded from removal may be headed for disappointment.

Quick background

TPS has covered Haitian migrants since January 2010 and covers nearly 350,000 citizens from the Caribbean today. Syria was designated for TPS in March 2012 and has received several extensions over the past 14 years. Roughly 6,000 Syrians presently enjoy protected status.

RELATED: SCOTUS issues shocking ruling about ‘racial gerrymander’ map

JACQUELYN MARTIN/POOL/AFP/Getty Images

Having determined that neither country still meets the conditions for special status owing largely to significant improvements in domestic safety and stability, Trump’s DHS announced the termination of Haiti’s TPS in July and the termination of Syria’s status in September.

These revocations, which were supposed to take effect months ago, have been held up in the courts.

In Washington, D.C., U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes — a foreign-born, Biden-appointed, lesbian judge who previously worked as a lawyer to fight the first Trump administration’s immigration policy and helped the U.N. secure asylum for so-called refugees — obliged her fellow immigration activists on Feb. 2, blocking the revocation of Haiti’s TPS.

‘That’s what you got?’

Reyes, a Uruguayan native, claimed that former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem not only violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause when terminating the TPS designation for Haiti but had likely done so “because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused on March 6 to block Reyes’ ruling, thereby keeping the special status for Haitians in place while the litigation moved forward.

In New York, U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, granted an injunction in November against the government’s termination of TPS for Syrians. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal on Feb. 17, prompting the Trump administration to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in.

Divided court

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who defended the administration’s revocation of the special statuses, sparred at the outset with liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor over whether a TPS termination is open to judicial review, especially when the relevant statute makes expressly clear that there is to be no judicial review of any determination with respect to the TPS designation or termination or extension of a designation.

When asked by Justice Brett Kavanaugh why Congress would have barred judicial review as broadly as the administration now contends, Sauer pointed to the possible foresight that protracted legal review would inevitably undermine the temporary nature of the program and hinder the executive’s ability to conduct foreign policy in a timely and confident manner.

Sotomayor and Brown proceeded to dwell on the suggestion advanced by the plaintiffs in the Haiti case and by Judge Reyes in February that “discriminatory intent” played a role in the termination of that nation’s TPS designation, alluding to President Donald Trump’s derisive remarks about third-world nations such as Somalia, which he characterized last year as “filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime.”

While Sauer made clear that the government defended its decisions on non-discriminatory grounds, the liberal justices nevertheless appeared keen to read into extraneous comments by members of the administration, which were the primary focus of Geoffrey Pipoly, the attorney who argued on behalf of Haitian TPS beneficiaries.

RELATED: Illegal alien activists are furious at Trump administration after ‘cruel’ new ‘Dreamer’ policy drops

Alex WROBLEWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

Neither Justice Samuel Alito nor Justice Neil Gorsuch posed questions during Sauer’s arguments, perhaps signaling understanding of or even agreement with them, but spent considerable time poking holes in those posed by the challengers.

Ahilan Arulanantham, a lawyer for Syrian TPS beneficiaries, emphasized that the issue is whether the DHS secretary adequately followed procedure when arriving at her decision to revoke TPS status, not whether her assessment was correct that the conditions previously justifying TPS had in fact changed.

Justice Alito did not appear to be buying what Arulanantham was selling. Instead, Alito echoed Sauer’s concern that if the challengers’ argument regarding the government’s supposedly insufficient level of consultation with agencies was accepted, “it will create a hole in the judicial review bar that you could drive a convoy of trucks through,” and that it will always be possible to second-guess the DHS secretary’s decisions and process.

Pipoly, who piped up after Arulanantham’s time elapsed, desperately tried to make the case that the Haitian TPS designation was based on a “sham” of a review, not grounded by empirical support but by President Donald Trump’s “racial animus towards nonwhite immigrants.”

Justice Alito countered, however, that “TPS was terminated for quite a list of countries,” many of which are home to individuals who are or could be construed as white.

“If you put Syrians, Turks, Greeks, and other people who live around the Mediterranean in a lineup, you think you could say those people are, all of them, are they all nonwhite?” Alito said, prompting an acknowledgment from Pipoly that Syrians “may be classified as white.”

After Alito nuked the notion that TPS revocation is solely bound up with race, Justice Gorsuch pressed Pipoly to disentangle the DHS secretary’s determination — which is not subject to judicial review — from the DHS’ ultimate termination of the TPS status.

“How can it not be judicial review of the determination if you’re postponing the determination?” Gorsuch asked.

“The final agency action here that was postponed is … the termination, not the determination, which is not subject to judicial review,” Pipoly responded.

Pipoly does not appear to have won over Gorsuch with his tortured attempt to strike a distinction between the two since Gorsuch replied, “That’s what you got?”

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

​Department of homeland security, Foreign nationals, Haitian migrants, Immigration status, President donald trump, Scotus, Supreme court, Temporary protected status, Tps, Us supreme court, Congress, Dhs, Alito, Ketanji brown jackson, Haiti, Haitians, Syrians, Politics 

When Glenn Beck exploded onto Fox News almost 20 years ago, he was must-see TV for half a year straight. People tuned in the way they once watched car chases on live news — just to see what wild truth he would drop next. Then the mainstream media shrugged and moved on.

Beck didn’t vanish; he built his own media ecosystem, and today he continues to comment on politics with the calm fury of a man who has watched too many countries trade liberty for “safety.”

From 2016 to 2024, over 76,000 killed by their own government’s health care system — now the fifth leading cause of death in adults.

Recently he trained his gaze on Canada, calling what is left of a once-great democracy “an oligarchy with the trappings of democracy.”

As a Canadian who occasionally writes for Blaze Media, I sat down to watch. Beck’s segment on my country losing its freedoms was sharp, but I kept thinking he was starting three steps too late. The real story begins with free speech — because once that is gone, the rest of the Bill of Rights becomes decorative wallpaper.

We’re literally one Senate vote away from burying it under Bill C-9, Bill C-8, and the Online Harms Act (rebranded, I’d bet my maple-leaf pin, as the cuddly-sounding “Online Safety Act”). Parliament usually packs up in the third week of June. Mark my words: We’ll have the final nail in the coffin of free speech before summer recess.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has fulfilled none of the promises he made prior to the last federal election in April 28, save one — his pledge to censor Canadians’ free speech.

The 10 hallmarks of a truly free nation

Before assessing Beck’s critique of freedom in Canada, let’s lay out what he says actually keeps a country free. Glenn says that democracies are “rare and historically very fragile” things. Here are the core “pillars” — straight from Glenn’s list, with a few Canadian reality-check footnotes.

Rule of law, not rule of man: The law applies equally to citizens, leaders, and institutions. No one is above it; no one is beneath it.Free, fair, and regular elections: Citizens must actually choose their leaders through transparent, competitive votes. Power must be transferred peacefully. Note: The old Soviet Union held elections too. One party was on the ballot. Very festive.Protection of individual rights: Some freedoms can never be voted away by majority rule: freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and due process. This is the real foundation — lose it and everything else collapses. I would rank this No. 1. Canada clearly disagrees.Separation of powers: The legislature makes laws; the executive enforces them; the judiciary interprets them. Canada’s “responsible government” fuses the first two together like a bad marriage.Independent judiciary: Courts must be able to rule against the government without fear. Our courts now openly brag about being “progressive.”Free press and open information: Media that questions power, not media subsidized by it.Civilian control of the military.Protection of minority rights.Economic freedom and property rights.A culture that values freedom.

Beck’s segment walked through these and found Canada coming up short on almost every one. Even worse is the polite shrug with which Canadians greet each new restriction.

Accountability? What accountability?

Beck opened with the jaw-dropping scandal that broke in 2021: A scientist at Canada’s highest-security lab shipped live Ebola to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology and “collaborated with the Chinese military on bioweapons research.” Parliament “ordered the documents four times.” Liberals blocked it every single time, sued, stonewalled, and then called a snap election to kill the probe.

As Beck dryly observed, “That’s rule of law being violated and separation of powers being violated.” Three years later, the auditor general found nearly $400 million in outright corruption. Parliament shut that down too.

Then Trudeau “resigned.” “One-third of 1% of Canadians — the elite inner circle — handed the prime minister’s office to Mark Carney” in a leadership race that smelled like a script. Carney racked up a cartoonish 80% in every riding, including opponent Chrystia Freeland’s own back yard. That’s right: She somehow only managed to attract 20% of Liberal voters on her home turf.

Satirical gold: The party that once preached “sunny ways” now runs on North Korean turnout numbers and zero raised eyebrows.

Elections, emergencies, and the slow-motion coup

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service confirmed Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections. “Trudeau was briefed.” Nothing happened. One Liberal MP openly urged supporters “to collect a Chinese Communist Party bounty on a Conservative candidate. No charges.” Five MPs “flipped” to the Liberals in five “convenient” months, handing them a two-seat majority. Meanwhile the House of Commons simply stopped sitting for eight months — Canada governed by executive decree.

Beck asked what is really operating in Canada: “Democracy by design, or is it democracy by manipulation?”

Then came the 2022 Freedom Convoy. Trudeau “invoked the Emergencies Act,” “froze the bank accounts of protesters” and their supporters, and treated peaceful assembly like a national security threat. “Two federal courts, including the Court of Appeal,” ruled it unlawful and a Charter violation. The government is still appealing to the Supreme Court — because in Canada, judicial rulings are apparently suggestions.

Layer on the censorship bills: C-18 (Online News Act) “that forced Google and Meta to pay Canadian outlets for links.” Meta just blocked news entirely. C-11 (Online Streaming Act) put Netflix, YouTube, and Spotify under DEI and “Canadian content mandates.” Then there are the coming C-8, C-9, and Online Harms/Safety Act that could turn Scripture into hate literature.

Throughout, Beck didn’t need to raise his voice. The facts spoke loudly enough.

Property rights? Optional. MAID? Canada’s growth industry.

Property rights have been quietly torched too. Ontario’s Bill 212 “lets the province ram through highway projects” and “override municipal bylaws.” In Waterloo, the government is in the process of acquiring roughly 770 acres of prime farmland — using NDAs that limit public visibility around land deals, alongside the looming threat of expropriation that puts pressure on landowners to sell. New Brunswick merged municipalities and jacked rural taxes 50%-60%. Rural British Columbia now requires government permission to sell eggs or give riding lessons — or “face a $50,000-a-day fine.”

In British Columbia, Aboriginal title claims — imposed when the provincial government embraced the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — have turfed homeowners. Native chiefs — who are the only real winners in this land-grab — are claiming huge swaths of the province because their ancestors might have claimed it or occupied it at some time in the past.

No matter what the racial yardstick in use, having unique rights or special status based on your ethnicity is blatantly racist and a flagrant violation of equality under the law — a concept that used to define Canada and all democratic countries.

And ask Katie Pasitney and Karen Espersen of Universal Ostrich Farms whether farmers really own their land or have any protection from the ravenous Canadian Food Inspection Agency and its vicious “stamping out” policy. The CFIA invaded and occupied their farm and then massacred hundreds of ostriches because it merely suspected the birds of having H5N1 avian influenza. The government bureaucrats refused to test the birds and threatened anyone else who did with a $500,000 fine and six months in jail.

And then there’s Medical Assistance in Dying. “Legalized in 2016 for those with reasonably foreseeable deaths,” the safeguards were dropped in 2021. “In 2024 alone, 22,535 Canadians requested it; 16,499 received it.” That’s 5.1% of all deaths. “From 2016 to 2024, over 76,000 killed by their own government’s health care” system — now the fifth leading cause of death in adults. Doctors are offering MAID for back pain and mental health.

As Beck stated with grim precision, “when the state controls your health care and offers death as a solution to its own failures, you’re no longer a citizen. You’re a cost center.”

RELATED: Aftermath of a slaughter: Universal Ostrich Farms vows to hold Canada accountable

Katie Pasitney

The cage is already built

Beck closed with the line that still echoes: “The slide is gradual. The language is polite. The slogans might even make people feel good — until one day, you realize the cage was built around you. You’re free to walk around, but not out.”

Canada still has the maple-leaf flag, the Parliament buildings, and the elections. “The forms remain.” The substance has been replaced by a “managed oligarchy with democratic trappings.”

“Power is consolidated now. Dissent is managed. The individual exists to serve the state.”

Beck turned to the camera and spoke directly to Americans: “Look how far Canada has fallen. Now recognize, America. This is your future.”

He’s right. The cage is comfortable, the guards speak softly, and the signage says “Equity, Inclusion, and Safety.” But once the door clicks shut, apologies won’t open it again.

Wake up, Canada — maybe it’s time we stopped saying “sorry” and started saying “enough.”

A version of this essay originally appeared on Krayden’s Right.

​Free speech, Glenn beck, Emergencies act, Mark carney, Canada, Justin trudeau, Maid, Culture, Letter from canada 

Voters in New York City just got a reality check after the fountain of socialist campaign promises from Mayor Zohran Mamdani has apparently run dry in just a few months.

Standing with New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin, Mayor Mamdani was forced to announce some unexpected hang-ups that will likely interfere with delivering on many of his campaign promises of free stuff.

‘Everyone saw this coming … every single person.’

“New York City faces a budget crisis of a historic magnitude,” Mamdani said in his speech. “We inherited a deficit larger than any since the great recession. Years of mismanagement and chronic underbudgeting, alongside a structural imbalance between what New York City sends to the state and what we receive in return, have taken a toll.”

Mamdani admitted that savings alone cannot fix this crisis, saying that “we need new revenue” and a “structural reset in our relationship with the state” to close the gap.

RELATED: Mamdani walks back popular progressive campaign promise to pedestrians

Angelina Katsanis/Bloomberg/Getty Images

“Together, we are extending the executive budget deadline from this coming Friday until May 12 because a crisis of this scale cannot be solved without state action. … Speaker Menin and I have already identified meaningful savings, and we will continue that work carefully, deliberately, and without cutting the services that New Yorkers rely on,” Mamdani continued. “But we cannot do it alone. That is why we are standing together this morning: to underscore what is at stake and to call on Albany to deliver additional revenue.”

Matt Van Swol said what everyone was thinking when they heard the news: “Everyone saw this coming … every single person. Money has to come from somewhere and businesses and the wealthy will always go to where taxation is lower and incentives are higher.”

“If you want more income, make your state more friendly to those groups, don’t demonize them,” he added.

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

​Albany, Budget crisis, Mayor mamdani, New york city, New yorkers, Politics, Revenue, Socialist campaign promises, Taxation, Wealthy, Historic magnitude, Zohran mamdani, Socialist mamdani 

Jimmy Kimmel’s “widow” joke about first lady Melania Trump has sparked sharp criticism from the Trump administration — with President Donald Trump and Melania Trump going so far as to call for ABC to fire the comedian.

“Our first lady, Melania, is here. … So beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow,” Kimmel said in his monologue.

Not only did the president and the first lady not find the joke funny, but the timing made its reception even worse.

“As the first lady of the United States pointed out this morning, just two days prior to the shooting, ABC’s late-night host Jimmy Kimmel disgustingly called first lady Melania Trump an ‘expectant widow,’” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said after the most recent attempt on President Trump’s life.

“Who in their right mind says a wife would be glowing over the potential murder of her beloved husband?” Leavitt continued.

“And having experienced what I did with the first lady on Saturday night, I can tell you that she was anything but that. This kind of rhetoric about the president, the first lady, and his supporters is completely deranged,” she added.

While members of the Trump administration have made it clear they’re not happy with Kimmel, BlazeTV host and comedian Dave Landau has a controversial take.

“I’m going to go ahead and say that’s a funny joke,” he tells co-host Stu Burguiere.

“You like the joke,” Stu comments, surprised.

“It’s fine. You keep trying to kill him, so they’re saying you have a good look for an expectant widow. I understand that people don’t like the guy who’s saying it, but there’s logic and reason to the joke, and it’s a still a joke,” Landau says.

“You don’t have to like it, but I will never be on the side of throw somebody off of TV or cancel them based on something that was a joke,” he continues.

“We agree on that,” Burguiere says, adding, “I’m totally with you.”

Want more from Stu and Dave?

To enjoy more of Stu and Dave’s lethal blend of wit, humor, and insightful commentary subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Abc, Blaze media, Blaze news, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Blaze podcast network, Blaze podcasts, Blazetv, Comedian, Dave landau, First lady, Jimmy kimmel, Jimmy kimmel live, Melania trump, Stu burguiere, The blaze, Trump administration, Widow joke, Expectant widow, Karoline leavitt, President trump, Trump, The trump administration, Cancel culture, Cancel culture in comedy, Stu and dave do america 

Stephen A. Smith isn’t the only big name in sports whose actions may point to a potential career change.

Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr sat down for an interview with the New Yorker titled “Has Steve Kerr Had Enough?” — and what he said was enough to set alarm bells off in BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock’s head.

“Guess who might be the next presidential candidate coming from the sports world?” Whitlock asks on “Fearless with Jason Whitlock,” pointing out that he’s not the only one who noticed.

Political consultant Frank Luntz also senses a career change for Kerr, writing in a post on X: “Legendary Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr sounds like he could run for office.”

In the interview, Kerr told the New Yorker that when he finished college almost 40 years ago, getting a job and buying a house were much simpler.

“Now that’s out of reach for most people between student debt and home prices and the economy slanted toward the very, very top 1%,” he added.

Whitlock also points out that “Steve Kerr and the Golden State ownership are [allegedly] at odds over how far he’s pushing on the political spectrum.”

“So perhaps Steve Kerr is positioning himself for a political run,” Whitlock says, noting that he has some advice for Kerr.

“Tell the left and particularly the athletic left, the professional athlete left, tell them to grow a pair, be somewhat consistent. The silence over the consistent violence directed toward President Trump is really annoying and exposes you and all of these athletes as hypocrites,” he says.

“Maybe Steve Kerr and Stephen A. Smith can pair up and that will be the tandem running for president,” he adds.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Career change, College, Economy, Fearless, Frank luntz, Golden state warriors, Home prices, Hypocrites, Jason whitlock, Left, Ownership, Political consultant, Political spectrum, President trump, Presidential candidate, Sports world, Stephen a smith, Steve kerr, Student debt, Top one percent, Violence, Youtube, Professional athlete, Blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Fearless with jason whitlock 

The next big fight over your car isn’t about gas prices, emissions, or electric vehicles. It’s about something bigger: who controls the road — and how much control they have over you while you’re on it.

What’s happening in Illinois should get drivers’ attentions. Lawmakers are advancing the Road Usage Charge Act, introduced by state Rep. Ram Villivalam (D), as a pilot program to study a mileage-based tax. On paper, it sounds routine. In reality, it’s the first step toward replacing the gas tax with a system that charges you for every mile you drive.

History shows that once a system like this exists, it rarely stays limited to its original purpose.

For decades, drivers have paid for roads through fuel taxes. You fill up, you pay your share. It’s simple, predictable, and largely invisible. But as more drivers move into electric vehicles and high-efficiency cars, gas tax revenue is declining. States like Illinois, which rely heavily on that revenue, are looking for alternatives.

Instead of cutting spending or rethinking how funds are used, they’re moving toward a system that expands oversight.

Double trouble

Illinois drivers are already paying for the road — heavily. Under Gov. JB Pritzker (D), the state doubled its gas tax in 2019, making it one of the highest in the country. Add tolls, registration fees, and local taxes, and drivers are already funding the system at a premium. Now comes the next step: charging not for fuel, but for movement itself.

A mileage-based tax — often called a vehicle miles traveled tax — sounds straightforward. Drive more, pay more. But the details matter. Some proposals rely on annual odometer reporting. Others involve installing tracking devices or using connected vehicle data.

This is where it stops being just a tax policy.

Once a system is in place to measure how far you drive, it can also measure when you drive, where you go, and how often you travel. Even groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have raised concerns about the risks that come with collecting that kind of data. And history shows that once a system like this exists, it rarely stays limited to its original purpose.

RELATED: FIRST LOOK New York International Auto Show: Cool cars, but drivers still face sticker shock

VIEW Press/Getty Images

Miles to go

Supporters argue this is about fairness. If electric vehicle owners aren’t paying gas taxes, they should still contribute to road funding. On its face, that argument makes sense. But this proposal doesn’t just target EVs. It applies to everyone — including drivers already paying high fuel taxes every time they fill up.

The result could be double taxation.

There’s also the cost of running the system itself. A mileage-based tax isn’t free to administer. It requires new technology, enforcement mechanisms, and ongoing oversight. Those costs don’t disappear — they get passed on to drivers, adding another layer of expense before you even get to the per-mile charge.

Before any of that happens, there’s a more basic question: Where is the current money going? States already collect billions through gas taxes, tolls, and vehicle fees. Before asking drivers to pay more — or pay differently — there should be clear accountability for how those funds are being used.

That question rarely gets answered.

What tends to grow instead is the system itself — more programs, more layers, more cost.

I spy

Illinois has already seen pushback on similar proposals. A 2019 effort was shelved after public backlash. Drivers understood what was at stake: not just higher costs, but more oversight and less control.

At its core, this is about how driving is changing. Driving in America has always meant a certain level of independence — the ability to go where you want, when you want, without someone tracking the details. A mileage-based system, especially one tied to data collection, begins to change that, turning driving into something that’s measured, recorded, and managed.

That’s a fundamental shift.

A better way

To be clear, declining gas tax revenue is a real issue. As vehicles become more efficient and electric adoption grows, states will need to adapt. But there are simpler ways to do it. If EVs aren’t contributing equally, adjust registration fees. Create transparent, targeted solutions. Keep the system straightforward and limited.

What’s being proposed goes further. It builds a framework that could apply to every driver, not just the segment creating the revenue gap. And once that framework exists, it won’t stay narrow — these systems tend to expand over time.

Illinois may be calling this a pilot program. But other states are watching closely.

Drivers should be asking a basic question: Is paying for the road one thing — and being tracked to use it something else entirely?

Because once the system is in place, it won’t be easy to roll back.

​Data collection, Double taxation, Drivers, Driving independence, Electric vehicles, Gas tax, Lifestyle, Mileage tax, Registration fees, Road funding, State government, State monitoring, Vmt tax, Align cars 

Over the past months or even years, you have tried to be more conscious of what you’re eating. You want to improve your physical health and maybe even your mental clarity. Your first step might have been cutting certain fast-food favorites from your diet, and you probably have no plans to break that streak, but you realize that you still have been far too indiscriminate in what you have put into your body from the grocery store, too.

Why do you still always feel sluggish and inflamed? What else can you do besides cutting out some of the most obviously unhealthy foods at restaurants and grocery stores?

You can start to answer that question when you begin to intentionally read the labels of the food you have been buying. But in the beginning, this raises more questions than it answers.

Starting the journey toward healthier eating and living may look simple, but there are a lot of problems you will need to address. This journey doesn’t begin by simply entering the “health aisle” at the grocery store — and your “healthy grocery store” is no exception.

Cooper Williamson

By the way, shouldn’t all of the aisles at the grocery store be the “healthy aisle”?

Maybe that’s a job for MAHA advocates in the long run, but for now, one has to be able to discern for oneself what the truly healthy — and trustworthy — brands are.

With some help from many health-focused resources, we have identified several brands that you can consider generally safer to consume, compared to many others sitting on the same shelves. But first, it is necessary to briefly explain the problems these brands are trying to solve.

The problems

Eating clean is far more complicated than you would think. Our food system tends to rely on cost-cutting ingredients and methods that can be linked to health problems. These ingredients include inflammatory seed oils, which tend to be less expensive and have a much higher smoke point than more natural options like butter or beef tallow. Certain preservatives and texturizing agents can also contribute to negative health effects.

That’s why so much of our food is considered “junk food” — there’s a bunch of unpronounceable junk in it!

Pick up almost any brand of bread, for example, and you will find a much longer list of ingredients than flour, water, yeast, and salt. Cooper Williamson

Companies have realized there is a growing market for healthy food — but that doesn’t mean all health brands are created equal. That just means the marketing on the front of the package will look like it.

In many cases, brands will plaster the front of their packaging with “health-coded” messages boasting about what is not used in the food, including, for example, being gluten-free, non-GMO, having no artificial flavors, or made with real ____.

A brand of chips, for example, could market itself as a healthy brand by claiming that the chips are “non-GMO, no preservatives, and no seed oils.” Sounds pretty healthy, right? But the actual ingredients, when you read the small-print ingredients label, are barely improved alternatives, like “organic palm olein oil.”

Cooper Williamson

Cooper Williamson

You will also want to watch out for ingredient labels that simply list “vegetable oil,” because that could mean many different things—or a mysterious combination of several things. Not very transparent!

You will have to dig deeper still, even if you’re at a “healthy” grocery store.

And finally, there’s the issue of cost. Healthy food is more expensive. There is less demand for it — if you are reading this article and are ready to make some healthy changes, you’re part of the solution to this piece of the puzzle. And higher-quality ingredients obviously cost more.

Your health companions

If you have made it this far, you’re convinced that it is time to make a change. However, take a look at any food package in your pantry, and you’ll quickly be overwhelmed by the number of foreign, gigantic words in the ingredients section.

What are the differences between all the cooking oils? What are monoglycerides, granulated sugar, or monosodium glutamate? Does anyone even know what it takes to make “natural” and “artificial” flavors?

And who has time to read any of that and then research all of them for every item you buy at the grocery store?

Cooper Williamson

Luckily, there are several apps that have done the heavy lifting for you, cataloging and quickly showing you all of the ingredients and other facts about the groceries you’re considering. Combining a number of these scanner apps will give you a better sense of whether you can trust the brand.

Briefly, here are the three apps that we kept coming back to, both for their ease of use and the usefulness of the information they provided:

Bobby Approved is a very popular option for scanning groceries. The simple interface enables a snap decision in the form of a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. The app also highlights the problematic ingredients and gives an explanation for why an item is not “Bobby Approved.” The app is particularly focused on the sourcing of products and seed oils. It has a 4.9-star rating from 138,000 users on the App Store and a 4.7-star rating from 16.8K users on Google Play as of this writing.Yuka is another very popular option for scanning foods as well as cosmetics. The app experience is similar to Bobby Approved, but it grades products on a more detailed scale, scoring them on a scale of 100. Yuka is helpful for diving deeper into the additives and the relative risk they pose to the human body. Yuka also has a feature that proposes healthier alternatives than the items you scan. It currently has a 4.8-star rating on the App Store from 89,000 users and a 4.7-star rating on Google Play from 178,000 users. Buy’r is very new on the scene but has proven to be very useful for highlighting ingredients as well as the source of the foods. Buy’r highlights brand ownership, since many brands pretend to be small businesses, when in reality they are owned by much larger corporations. While there is nothing inherently wrong with large corporations, this app brings transparency to the shopping experience and helps you to understand which labels are being sneaky with their packaging. Buy’r has a 4.9-star rating on the App Store from 576 users and a 4.6-star rating on Google Play from 944 users.

All three of these apps were used to compile the list below. Unlike some of the other competitors, these apps have free versions that are very usable. You can pay for expanded features, but it is not absolutely necessary for any of the apps listed above.

Using these apps was crucial for understanding the safety of the various products at the several grocery stores (at various price points) that were scoured in the preparation of this article.

Brands you can trust (more than most)

Here’s the best advice we can give you: Buy local. Even better: Get to know your producers.

The major benefit of buying local, besides the better chance of getting fresh, whole foods, is that the brands are less likely to need to use an obscene amount of preservatives, texturizing agents, emulsifiers, and artificial coloring.

The following list, however, recognizes that buying locally is not always possible due to cost, where you live, or any other reason. Some bigger brands at your grocery store have actually risen to the occasion and provide healthier options than your average big-name brands.

Cooper Williamson

Many of the following brands have many different products, especially store brands. It’s natural that different products use different ingredients, but the following brands are generally considered safe by the scanner apps and other health-focused resources. But it’s always best to check for yourself to make sure the standards remain high across different foods.

Given that constraint, each brand that can be considered trustworthy has been identified with one product in a particular category among household staples. We have given a brief description of the brand as well as some of the other foods that you can expect to find under the same label.

Half and half

Simply Nature is one of Aldi’s in-house brands that emphasizes organic and non-GMO products. Alongside the half and half, Simply Nature has been a provider of pantry staples and fresh foods since 2014. On its “food philosophy” page, Aldi says “we keep a close eye on the ingredients and materials that go into all our products to ensure they meet the highest standards for our commitment to quality, health, and safety.” Aldi expresses its commitment to producing food that aligns with the highest standards of the USDA Organic seal and has opted to avoid using monosodium glutamate, certified synthetic colors, and bisphenol-A (a potentially harmful material found in food packaging).

Cooper Williamson

You can buy Simply Nature half and half at Aldi for around $4.25.

Milk

365 by Whole Foods Market is similarly an in-house brand offering a vast array of pantry staples. Whole Foods boasts that it offers over 3,500 products under this brand label, which adheres to high standards and has a long list of over 550 banned ingredients. The brand says “we strive to respond by following emerging research and our customers’ expectations,” adding that it banned MSG in 1992, hydrogenated oils in 2003, and high-fructose corn syrup in 2011.

You can buy 365 milk at Whole Foods for $4.79 per gallon.

Yogurt

Maple Hill, founded in 2009, has been committed to producing the highest-quality dairy products on the market. The company’s mission is “to bring healthy, organic, 100% grass-fed dairy products to families all over the United States,” even claiming to be the “original” company to try to meet these standards. Maple Hill explicitly says that its cows are only on the 100% grass diet, which the company says improved its cows’ health when it made the transition from grain supplements years ago. Alongside its Greek yogurt line, you can find Maple Hill milk, salted and unsalted butter, cream-on-top yogurt, and a few varieties of kefir.

Cooper Williamson

You can buy a 32-ounce container of Maple Hill yogurt for $5.99 as a Whole Foods member or at the regular price of $7.49.

Butter

Kerrygold has become a well-known name for all things butter. Kerrygold’s products don’t stop at varieties of butter, though. The company also offers a selection of different cheeses, including cheddar, skellig, and blarney cheese. Owned by Ornua, the company says its products, including those sold in the U.S., are certified to Ireland’s “Grass Fed Dairy Standard,” meaning the cows are given a 95% or higher grass diet.

You can buy four sticks of Kerrygold butter at Whole Foods, for example, for $10.99.

Cheese

Organic Valley prides itself on not using GMOs, antibiotics, added growth hormones, pesticides prohibited under the USDA’s National Organic Program, or artificial flavors or preservatives. Founded in 1988, Organic Valley offers a wide range of dairy products including milk, butter, cheese, cream, half and half, sour cream, cream cheese, cottage cheese, and eggs. You can find its products at Whole Foods, Walmart, Amazon and Amazon Fresh, Sprouts, and Kroger.

You can buy Organic Valley cheese slices at Whole Foods for $6.49.

Bacon

North Country Smokehouse boasts that “we don’t simply meet the standards, we exceed them.” The company is one of the last vertically integrated farm networks, meaning it controls the process “from feed to fork.” Proud to be USDA Organic, the company’s meat can be found in many specialty grocery stores as well as Whole Foods and Target.

The key, according to Bobby Approved and other health apps, is to avoid bacon that has sugar or preservatives, specifically nitrites and nitrates.

A pack of North Country Smokehouse bacon costs $6.52 at Whole Foods. The Whole Foods Market option, also approved, costs a little more at $6.99.

Beef

Exclusively available at Whole Foods, Organic Rancher is dedicated to treating the animals, the people, and the land well. The company promises you will enjoy the flavor of “organic, 100% grass fed and 100% grass finished, free range beef,” which is free from GMOs, antibiotics, added hormones, synthetic chemicals, and artificial ingredients. You can find several cuts of meat, ground beef, and the “popular” new meatballs.

Cooper Williamson

You can buy Organic Rancher ground beef at Whole Foods for $10.49 per pound.

Chips

Siete Foods, and especially its chips, have become a popular, clean alternative for a chip with simple ingredients in a market full of seed oils and junky preservatives. Although it was acquired by PepsiCo at the beginning of last year, the PepsiCo CEO said the company is “dedicated to preserving its special attributes while making the brand more widely available and accessible on a broader scale.” Siete offers a variety of snacks, dips, sauces, and seasonings with simple ingredients across the board.

Cooper Williamson

You can get a bag of Siete chips for $3.69 at Whole Foods, though they are available elsewhere as well.

Chips

Founded by brothers John and Mark Maggio in Boulder, Colorado, in 1994, the vision behind Boulder Canyon was to create a chip that was better for you. All these years later, the clean ingredients don’t lie: The company uses avocado oil rather than other seed or vegetable oils to cook the chips. Now owned by Utz Brands, Boulder Canyon remains one of the cleanest, simplest bags of chips on the market.

Though available at other grocery stores too, you can buy a bag of Boulder Canyon Chips for $4.49 at Whole Foods.

Snack bars

Epic Provisions, a meat-based snack-bar company, uses very clean ingredients in a wide selection of products, including the “perennial bestseller” bison bacon cranberry bar. Take your pick from a variety of beef, chicken, venison, and bison bars among other products like bone broth, pork rinds, animal fats, and snack strips, all from a company committed to leaving the land better than it found it through partnerships with regenerative farming initiatives.

Crackers

Crunchmaster prides itself on producing a variety of snack crackers with pronounceable, simple ingredients. The company says it believes a cracker “should come with bold flavor, better ingredients, and nothing to hide.” On its website, the company is very forthcoming about its ingredients, which are, almost without exception, whole foods like seeds, flour, and salt.

You can get a 20-ounce box of Crunchmaster crackers at Sam’s Club.

Oatmeal

Started in 2009 and run by Elizabeth Stein, Purely Elizabeth has enjoyed massive success and growth over the last 17 years, However, the ingredients have remained simple and clean across the company’s lines of granola, cereal, and oatmeal.

Cooper Williamson

A box of Purely Elizabeth oatmeal costs $4.68 at Whole Foods.

Cooking oils

Chosen Foods is a well-regarded option for healthy avocado oil. The type of oil you use for cooking is crucial for your health, yet the vast majority of food on the shelves is cooked in foul options like cottonseed oil, grapeseed oil, corn oil, canola (rapeseed) oil, soybean oil, sunflower oil, or sesame oil, to name just a few. Avocado oil is a cleaner alternative to these oils, while it also retains a higher smoke point than butter. Alongside multiple avocado oil options, Chosen Foods offers a selection of dressings as well. The company says it is on a mission to make the world a better place, “replacing bad fats with the good fats of 100% Pure Avocado Oil.” Chosen Foods products are available in most grocery stores.

Cooper Williamson

Chosen Foods avocado oil, widely available, costs $13.59 per 16.9 fl oz at Target (cheaper than Whole Foods: $15.99 for the same bottle.)

Chocolate

Now for some dessert. First, you should assume from the outset that any candy’s ingredients are questionable at best and harmful at worst. However, there are still some relatively healthy options for those with a sweet tooth. Acquired by Oreo maker Mondelez in January 2021, Hu Chocolate promises to have “no weird ingredients. Ever.” Boasting the USDA Organic certification, Hu says it never uses ingredients like refined sugar, cane sugar, sugar alcohols, erythritol, soy and gluten, palm oil, lecithins, and emulsifiers. Hu was created after its founders couldn’t find any chocolate bars that met their standards. Now its wide variety of milk and dark chocolate bars and bites are available at 34,000 stores nationwide including Whole Foods, Target, Walmart, Kroger, Sprouts, and Amazon.

Cooper Williamson

You can get a range of Hu Chocolate products at Whole Foods from $7.49/4 oz -$7.99/2.75 oz.

Some tricks to keep in mind

As mentioned earlier, the positive desire for healthier, cleaner food has caused companies to adopt a flood of labels to appeal to the health-conscious consumer.

Unfortunately, not all of these labels mean much at all, yet one could easily mistake the illegitimate labels for the legitimate labels due to their ubiquity and similar appearance.

Consumers could not be blamed for thinking that they are making good choices because of these labels, but they can also be more aware of what the labels mean — and which ones actually signify that they meet regulatory standards.

Thankfully, buried in the depths of the USDA website, these distinctions have been officially made. Here are a couple of sets of labels of which you should know the meaning and for which you should watch out.

‘Organic’

Everyone has seen products that prominently feature the word “organic” on the packaging, which most people associate with being a healthier choice. While this may be partially true, the reality is a bit more complicated.

It’s first helpful to know what the term generally means. The USDA defines “organic” as “a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural product has been produced through approved methods.” The approved methods, the USDA definition continues, “integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.” Most importantly — and some may be alarmed to discover that these methods are not necessarily off the table in non-organic foods — “synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used.”

“Organic,” it turns out, is only one of four different labels that a product can have, and the labels actually denote different “tiers” of organic products.

Health-conscious consumers would do well to seek out products that have the USDA Organic seal. This covers the top two tiers of the labeling system, “100 Percent Organic” and “Organic,” the latter of which is any product that contains a minimum of 95 percent organic ingredients.

The bottom two rungs of the “organic” ladder are a bit less transparent. First of all, neither of them are allowed to feature the USDA Organic label, which, for what it’s worth, likely does signal a higher standard of production. The third tier can include “made with organic _____” and list the organic ingredients. The final product at this level must contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients.

The bottom tier can only list specific organic products in the ingredient label on the back of the packaging, meaning it cannot and will not be marketed as an organic product.

As stated before, the health-conscious consumer will become much more accustomed to reading and understanding these labels, which many companies only use as marketing tricks. Don’t take my word for it, though — check out what the USDA has to say about “voluntary labels” on livestock products like meat and eggs.

Voluntary labels

Just as you have almost certainly seen all four tiers of the organic label, you have also probably seen all of the following additional labels for meat and eggs, for example: Free-range, cage-free, natural, grass-fed, pasture-raised, and humane.

This is where they really get you.

As it turns out, most of these labels have some caveats that a consumer at the grocery store is probably not aware of.

Free-range is probably the most meaningful and straightforward term from the above list since it indicates that the flock was provided shelter, food, and water and was allowed continuous access to the outdoors.

Cage-free has similar criteria to free-range, but the animals are not required to be given access to the outdoors; they can roam the enclosed area indoors. Free-range and cage-free can bear the same “USDA grade shield,” according to a USDA infographic showing the differences between 12 distinct egg labels, so it is important to know the difference between them.

Natural generally means that the food was minimally processed and contains no artificial ingredients. “However,” the USDA says, “the natural label does not include any standards regarding farm practices and only applies to processing of meat and egg products.” The USDA explicitly goes on to state that the “natural” label is not regulated at all if the product does not contain meat or eggs. Therefore, watch out for labels boasting about being “natural” — it may not mean anything!

Grass-fed: Here’s where it gets a little convoluted. Grass-fed, which is regulated by the USDA, “does not limit the use of antibiotics, hormones, or pesticides.” This section of the USDA’s page makes an interesting distinction between organic and grass-fed, which can also appear on the label together in some circumstances. The USDA says, “Grass-fed animals receive a majority of their nutrients from grass throughout their life, while organic animals’ pasture diet may be supplemented with grain.”

Finally, there are two labels that you should probably at least treat with suspicion if you see them on your groceries: pasture-raised and humane. Neither of these are regulated by the USDA and are considered to have too many variables to develop a policy. They are therefore the closest thing to a marketing ploy and can safely be treated as such in most cases.

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

​Culture, Lifestyle 

Former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey has surrendered to police in Alexandria, Virginia, on Wednesday.

Comey was indicted on charges related to threatening the life of the president after he posted a message on social media many believed to be calling for political violence. CNN reported that he would be “placed under arrest ahead of his first appearance in court.”

‘A child knows what that meant. If you’re the FBI director, and you don’t know what that meant? That meant assassination.’

He briefly appeared in the federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia for a hearing but entered no plea.

“I don’t see why they’d be necessary this time,” said Judge William Fitzpatrick.

In May 2025, Comey posted an image on his social media account of a seashell formation he said he found at the beach.

“Cool shell formation on my beach walk,” he wrote in the post.

However, many immediately took the message spelled out by the seashells, “8647,” as a veiled reference calling for violence against President Donald Trump. The phrase “86” in slang commonly refers to getting rid of something, and the number “47” is assumed to be a reference to Trump, who is the 47th president of the United States.

After seeing the furor, Comey deleted the post and tried to explain it away.

“I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message,” he wrote. “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”

On Tuesday, he was charged for making a threat against the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce.

RELATED: James Comey subpoenaed in ‘grand conspiracy’ against Trump: Report

“He knew exactly what that meant,” said Trump about the seashell post. “A child knows what that meant. If you’re the FBI director, and you don’t know what that meant? That meant assassination.”

Comey had also been previously indicted by a grand jury for allegedly abusing his office out of political motivation. Those charges were dismissed by a judge, who found that the administration had improperly filled the office of interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

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

​James comey indicted, James comey arrested, Charges against comey, Comey 8647 threat, Politics 

President Donald Trump’s pick to replace Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell just got one step closer to confirmation.

The White House can breathe a sigh of relief after the Senate Banking Committee advanced Kevin Warsh’s nomination along party lines in a 13-11 vote on Wednesday. Warsh’s nomination is now headed to the Senate floor, where he is expected to be confirmed in a simple majority vote.

‘This is a necessary and appropriate measure.’

Warsh’s main hurdle was none other than Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who vowed to oppose the nominee until the administration dropped its investigation into Powell’s overbudget construction project of the Fed building.

The retiring Republican’s calls were heard by the White House, and the DOJ’s investigation was punted to the inspector general, which was enough to regain Tillis’ support for the committee vote.

RELATED: Trump administration calls off criminal probe into Fed Chair Powell

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

“I welcome the Inspector General’s investigation,” Tillis said in a post on X, despite his vehement opposition to the DOJ-led investigation into Powell. “This is a necessary and appropriate measure, and I have confidence it will be conducted thoroughly and professionally.”

“Only a criminal referral from the inspector general would cause a reopening of the investigation,” Tillis added. “With these assurances, I look forward to supporting Kevin Warsh’s confirmation.”

Powell, whose term expires in May, said he will remain in the role until his replacement is officially confirmed.

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

​Department of justice, Doj, Donald trump, Federal reserve, Inspector general, Jerome powell, Judge boasberg, Kevin warsh, Senate banking committee, Senate democrats, Senate republicans, Thom tillis, Politics