New York police said they were able to identify and arrest the suspect of a brutal rape of a 90-year-old woman only five hours after the horrific assault.

29-year-old Jonathon Rivaldo allegedly broke into the woman’s unit at the Dayspring Apartments in Corning on July 13 at about 2 a.m.

‘He’s been in prison for the better part of the past 12 years for nonviolent offenses.’

Steuben County District Attorney Brooks Baker said it was the most disturbing case of his entire career.

Rivaldo is from Rochester originally, and police said they believed he was in the Corning area to visit his family. He had served more than four years for aggravated vehicular assault in Monroe County.

He had also been released from prison for only three days before the horrific attack, according to police.

Baker said it was a random attack and that Rivaldo did not know the victim prior to the incident.

A week after the alleged assault, the woman died from her injuries.

Prosecutors added a second-degree murder charge to the slew of charges he already faced: first-degree assault, second-degree assault, robbery, third-degree intimidating a victim and petit larceny.

“He’s been in prison for the better part of the past 12 years for nonviolent offenses,” Baker added. “He has no prior sex crimes.”

Baker said there had only been two stranger rapes in Corning during his career, which began in 1994.

RELATED: ‘Completely evil’ man sentenced to decades for tying up and raping elderly Ohio woman

Rivaldo allegedly got in more trouble while awaiting trial.

He was additionally charged with possessing a makeshift cutting instrument at the Steuben County Jail, a felony.

He will be represented by Steuben County public defender Terry Baxter.

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

​Brutal rape, Elderly woman, Murder, New york, Crime 

I’m tired of the “exposing the left” phase of conservative politics. I’m ready for the “implement what’s right” phase. Anyone want to join me?

For the past two weeks, President Trump, congressional Republicans, and conservative media have focused relentlessly on Anthony Fauci and the damage done during COVID. Fine. Fauci deserves scrutiny.

This is what medical freedom requires: informed consent, transparent data, meaningful long-term follow-up, and an absolute rejection of mandates or coercion.

But Fauci is no longer in charge. Republicans are.

That’s why it is maddening to watch the same party denounce Fauci while refusing to confront the policies and products that defined his era. Trump continues to praise the COVID shots. Republican senators confirmed Dr. Erica Schwartz, who disciplined soldiers in the military for not getting the COVID shots. And the Trump FDA is moving forward with Moderna’s dangerous mRNA influenza vaccine for adults 50 and older.

If the lesson of COVID is merely that Fauci was bad, then we learned almost nothing.

The real question is whether government will once again approve and promote a novel platform without demanding the kind of evidence skeptics were told not to ask for last time.

Respiratory viruses present a difficult vaccine target because they mutate rapidly and immunity can wane. Critics of the COVID vaccination campaign have argued for years that these characteristics can produce disappointing or even counterproductive results under some conditions — concerns I have written about again and again.

Even Fauci acknowledged part of the underlying problem. In a 2023 paper, he wrote that current vaccines against respiratory viruses often produce “incomplete and short-lived protection” and that genuinely better vaccines would require “outside the box” thinking.

That should have prompted humility. Instead, the federal government is now considering another mRNA respiratory vaccine, this time for influenza.

The problem is not that every vaccine is bad. The problem is that after COVID, regulators should be demanding unusually strong evidence before expanding the platform into another mass-market respiratory product.

The evidence deserves scrutiny.

A 2025 Cleveland Clinic preprint, which I highlighted, reported that employees who received that season’s influenza vaccine experienced a higher cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza during the study period. The preprint was observational, not a randomized trial, and it should not be treated as the final word. But its findings are exactly the kind that should trigger more investigation, not less.

RELATED: What happened to RFK Jr.’s red line on risky vaccines?

Jim WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

A Canadian study of the 2018-2019 flu season likewise found negative vaccine effectiveness in certain age groups and discussed the possibility that vaccine mismatch interacted with pre-existing immune imprinting.

And a 2005 JAMA Internal Medicine analysis questioned whether rising influenza vaccination coverage among the elderly could explain the decline in influenza-related mortality over previous decades.

None of those papers, standing alone, proves that influenza vaccination is harmful. Together, they underscore a simpler point: The science of respiratory virus vaccination is complicated, and regulators should stop pretending otherwise.

That is especially true for mRNA.

Newly released material from Fauci’s files shows that Nobel laureate Drew Weissman warned Fauci in February 2021 about mouse data showing lipid nanoparticles reaching the placenta and fetus after administration during pregnancy.

Animal data does not automatically predict human harm. But it does raise obvious questions about biodistribution — questions that should have been answered aggressively before officials demanded public confidence in the platform.

Now the FDA’s briefing document for Moderna’s mRNA influenza vaccine shows another reason for scrutiny. In the agency’s review, grade 3 systemic reactions were substantially more common among mRNA vaccine recipients than among recipients of a conventional influenza vaccine.

That does not establish that the product is broadly unsafe. It does establish that the newer platform is more reactogenic in the trial population, and it makes the quality and duration of the safety database more important, not less.

The FDA document also acknowledges that the available safety database is too small to detect rare adverse events such as myocarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and other neurological events.

That is not an accusation. It is the limitation of the evidence the FDA itself describes.

And this is where the political hypocrisy becomes impossible to ignore.

RELATED: My son’s disease progressed while the FDA waited

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Republicans cannot spend one week demanding accountability for Fauci and the next tell Americans to trust the same institutional habits that made the COVID era so destructive: compressed debate, zero transparency, contempt for dissent, and an assumption that uncertainty should be managed through public relations campaigns rather than openly discussed.

Myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccination is a recognized adverse event, although public health agencies continue to describe it as “rare” and concentrated most heavily among adolescent and young adult males. Whatever one believes about the overall risk-benefit calculation, that experience alone should have permanently raised the evidentiary bar for another mRNA product intended for broad use.

This is what medical freedom requires: informed consent, transparent data, meaningful long-term follow-up, and an absolute rejection of mandates or coercion.

It also requires conservatives to stop treating Fauci as a substitute for governing.

Fauci is yesterday’s issue. Trump and congressional Republicans have the controls now. If they believe the COVID era was a catastrophe, then prove it by changing the rules that made it possible. Demand stronger safety evidence. Protect informed consent. End coercive vaccination policy. Force regulators to disclose uncertainty rather than bury it. Otherwise, all the hearings, subpoenas, and Fauci outrage amount to nothing more than political theater.

The point of exposing past mistakes is to stop repeating them.

​Anthony fauci, Opinion & analysis, Medical freedom, Republicans, Mrna vaccines, Donald trump, Covid-19, Transparency, Consent, Mandates, Flu, Congress 

Washington has forced local television stations to compete in a 21st-century media market under rules written for the 20th century.

Americans pay the price whenever outdated regulations make it harder for local broadcasters to invest in better news coverage, stronger emergency alerts, and new technology.

The future of local television should not be determined by regulations written before streaming, smartphones, and digital competition transformed the media landscape.

The Federal Communications Commission has now taken an important step toward fixing that mismatch by replacing a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach with a more flexible, fact-based review process.

The principle is simple: Regulation should respond to today’s marketplace, not yesterday’s assumptions.

Local television still matters. Americans rely on hometown stations for storm warnings, election coverage, school closings, and stories that national outlets rarely cover. Yet, like local newspapers before them, many stations face serious financial pressure.

More than half of U.S. television stations operate at a loss even as they continue providing essential public service.

To survive, broadcasters need investment. They want to upgrade transmission systems, strengthen emergency alerts, expand local journalism, and deploy next-generation broadcast technology.

But investment requires scale, and investors are understandably reluctant to fund companies that federal policy artificially prevents from reaching more than 39% of American households.

That ownership cap was created for a different era, when Americans watched one of three television networks and broadcasters dominated the video marketplace.

The market changed. Washington’s rules did not.

Americans now consume news and entertainment on smartphones, tablets, laptops, streaming services, social media, and podcasts. Broadcasters compete with Netflix, YouTube, TikTok, cable networks, and digital platforms capable of reaching essentially every American.

Local broadcasters, however, remain constrained by a federal ownership cap designed before the internet transformed the media business.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has warned that America should not repeat the mistakes made with local newspapers.

That warning deserves attention.

Washington watched thousands of local newspapers disappear while old business models collapsed and investment arrived too late. Communities never stopped needing local journalism. The economics simply stopped supporting it.

Local television should not be next.

Critics of the FCC’s order warn that loosening ownership restrictions could weaken localism. That is a legitimate concern, but it should be tested against evidence rather than treated as an argument for preserving the status quo indefinitely.

The politics of the moment also matter. Because the reform comes from a Republican FCC, opponents can dismiss it as simple deregulation. Yet media-ownership debates have shifted with partisan control before, and Democrats have supported modernization efforts of their own when they held power.

RELATED: FCC slaps ban on Chinese robots — revealing US plans for unmanned warfighting

John Keeble/Getty Images

Localism should remain the objective. The 39% ownership cap is only one regulatory tool.

There is little evidence that fixing the national ownership limit at 39% — rather than 50%, 75%, or some other figure — produces more local news, stronger emergency coverage, or better community service.

Good public policy should ask whether a regulation produces measurable benefits, not whether it has survived for decades.

If policymakers want stronger local journalism, they should focus on the conditions that make it possible: investment, innovation, modern technology, and financially sustainable business models.

Emergency communications make the point especially clear.

During hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and other disasters, local broadcasters provide information that can save lives. Those capabilities depend on modern infrastructure, skilled journalists, reliable transmission systems, and continuing investment — not on an arbitrary national ownership ceiling.

The FCC’s decision does not guarantee that every station will thrive. Nothing can.

But it gives local broadcasters something they have lacked for too long: greater freedom to attract investment, modernize operations, strengthen emergency communications, and build sustainable local-news organizations.

Government should not freeze one industry in time while every competitor is free to innovate.

The future of local television should not be determined by regulations written before streaming, smartphones, and digital competition transformed the media landscape.

Local communities are best served when their broadcasters have the freedom to grow, compete, and invest in the journalism Americans still depend on.

​Broadcast rights, Fcc, Streaming, Television, Regulations, Tv, Public services, Opinion & analysis 

Last month at a press conference announcing 30% discounts on staple groceries at planned city-owned stores, a reporter asked New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) how he would prevent people from buying up the cheap items for resale.

“Our RFP makes very clear that this is a program for New Yorkers to be able to put food on the table, not a program for people to be able to make a quick buck through reselling,” he replied before passing the question off to Economic Development Corporation chief Jeanny Pak, who floated the idea of using “library-esque cards” to moderate patrons.

Glenn Beck finds the proposal preposterous and deeply ironic.

“You’re going to put out a library card? Do you need a license or any kind of identification to get a library card? The answer? Yes,” he says, emphasizing Mamdani’s and other progressives’ opposition to voter ID requirements.

“So you’re asking for ID. Okay, well, that makes sense because … you have to know who’s coming in. Are they qualified to buy the stuff in your store?” Glenn continues, highlighting the glaring similarities between accessing NYC’s city-owned grocery stores and voting in an election.

He wonders whether or not Mamdani and other NYC officials have considered the inherent sexism and racism in such a proposal.

“I don’t know why they hate women so much, because married women, you’re not going to be able to do it because maybe you’ve changed your name and you don’t have a birth certificate or any other form of ID whatsoever that could prove who you are,” he sarcastically remarks, mocking liberals’ debunked argument that voter ID laws disenfranchise married women.

After the backlash, Mamdani’s team clarified that the “library card-esque” idea was not an ID requirement but actually a voluntary customer loyalty-style card (like supermarket rewards programs) that the private store operator could use to track purchases and limit bulk buying for resale.

But regardless of how they try to frame their fraud prevention initiative, the irony remains.

“So [it’s] like a Costco card, which I have to sign up for and they have to know who I am, because they just don’t hand them out at the door. … Or like an Albertson’s card, where you have to sign up for it,” Glenn says.

Glenn’s head writer and researcher, Jason Buttrill, notes that the mayor’s office has pledged that the cards will be voluntary and free, with no residency, identity, or income check required to get one — which would make them arbitrary and ineffective at preventing fraud.

“If you’re not going to check residency, why even have a card at all? Because you can come from Texas and just say, ‘Yeah, I live in New York. Give me my discount card,”’ he says.

“They know they’re being hypocrites,” says Glenn.

Communism and socialism always fail, he explains, because even after common sense reveals their failures, the government — afraid of losing face and supporters — doubles down, insisting it will eventually find the magic solution that proves the system works.

“Once a communist, always a communist,” says Glenn.

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Communism, Glenn beck, New york city, Socialism, Voter id, Zohran mamdani, Blazetv show 

Three “women” are accused in the torture death of 7-year-old Ohio boy — but authorities said two of the suspects are male who co-parented the victim with his mother.

Cincinnati police said the Mercy Rookwood emergency department called Thursday after a woman claimed that someone was trying to kill her and her boy.

‘We saw injuries that would indicate physical beatings, blunt force injuries from a striking device on the face, torso, back, upper and lower extremities …’

“We have somebody that came in and kind of just dropped herself on the floor. She’s barefoot. She thinks that her partner’s trying to kill her, that they took her son,” the worker said in the call to police.

“She’s saying that he’s hiding him up in the attic. She is sitting on the floor, rocking back and forth and barefoot,” the worker added.

Hours later officers were called to a home on Madison Road in Oakley over a “suspicious death.”

They found William Evans-Ellis bound and wrapped with duct tape in a closet. Police arrested two males who had been co-parenting with the victim’s mother, who also was arrested.

Cincinnati police detective Kyle Smith said in court that the case is “one of the most disturbing examples of child abuse” he’d ever seen.

“From what we could see, we saw injuries that would indicate physical beatings, blunt force injuries from a striking device on the face, torso, back, upper and lower extremities. Impact injuries to the back of the head,” Smith said.

“We believe that there was, for lack of a better term, some water torture involved,” he added. “We believe the victim was choked under water, held under water for a long period of time. There was some burn torture involved, and the victim was found duct taped in positions that immobilized him.”

The boy also was revealed to have been “mentally handicapped.”

An attorney for 38-year-old Kaitlin Evans — the boy’s biological mother — admitted that she had not done enough to save her child but denied that she had killed him. Evans accused one of the two other suspects of killing the boy.

The attorney for 23-year-old Nessa Keaney said he tried to administer “treatment” to the boy and claimed Keaney was the “least culpable” for the boy’s death.

A detective testified that the third suspect, 33-year-old Kirby Rankin, admitted to his part in the abuse and had implicated Keaney and Evans as “active participants” in the abuse of the boy.

The victim’s biological father also spoke in court.

“Willie was my life, and I trusted you to care for him. They kept him from me for the past nine months over lies,” the father said.

A WXIX-TV news video described the suspects only as “people,” and other outlets described them as women — but Keaney’s arrest record lists him as a male, and Rankin also is listed as a male, while Evans is listed as a female.

RELATED: Florida woman brutally beat man to death with a hammer — and left a note saying ‘PEDO Touches Children’

Hamilton County Municipal Court Judge Rodney Harris set each suspect’s bond at $1.1 million — $1 million for murder and $100,000 for child endangering, WXIX said, adding that all three pleaded not guilty and are expected back in court later this month.

Officials apparently missed a chance to save the boy months prior to his death, when Rankin attacked a woman in a parking lot amid a driving dispute. The woman suffered fractured teeth, a concussion, a neck injury, and a torn meniscus — and asked police to charge Rankin with a felony. He was charged only with a misdemeanor and aggravated menacing.

“I asked to go to [the] grand jury. They refused. I kept being told because she was hit one time it wasn’t a felony, which is absolutely absurd,” Lance Bunnell, the husband of the victim and a retired law enforcement captain, said.

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

​Child abuse, Child torture, Ohio, Transgender, Murder, Crime 

The depth behind the policies endorsed by the co-chair of the Democratic Socialist Party of America was revealed to be incredibly shallow.

Megan Romer was interviewed by David Remnick on “The New Yorker Radio Hour” about DSA policy positions, when he simply asked her what it meant to tax “the hell” out of millionaires.

‘So again, it’s democracy, right? And we have to look at what we need to spend and what we need. We don’t want to depend on the existence of millionaires, because that means people are still getting exploited.’

Romer said she was more concerned about billionaires before circling back about millionaires.

“I think most billionaires got their wealth because they exploited the working class in some very significant way usually,” Romer said.

“But we do believe in taxing the hell out of millionaires, yeah, absolutely,” she laughed.

“What does ‘taxing the hell out of them’ mean?” Remnick asked simply.

“Yeah. You know, again, I don’t have, like, a solid,” she laughed again.

“But shouldn’t you?” Remnick interrupted.

“Umm, that’s a good question,” she replied.

“If you’re the co-chair of the DSA, shouldn’t you be more specific than just taxing the hell out of something? What exactly do you mean?” he asked.

“So again, it’s democracy, right? And we have to look at what we need to spend and what we need. We don’t want to depend on the existence of millionaires, because that means people are still getting exploited,” she responded.

“So yeah, we need to look at what we need to pay for in the interim, what sort of tax base we need for that to happen, and then build from there,” she added.

While video of the exchange was widely circulated on social media, the entire interview can be viewed on the YouTube channel for the New Yorker.

RELATED: Democratic Socialists of America seek to RADICALLY upend the federal gov’t in reported platform update

The DSA is surging after a recent spree of primary victories against establishment candidates of the Democratic Party, leading to concerns that the extremist fringe is taking over.

Some Democrats responded by rejecting the extremist policies and forming a small group dedicated to defeating the communist fringe of the party.

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

​Democratic socialists of america, Socialism, Communism, Democratic party, Politics