The family of a 25-year-old man is mourning his loss after he was stabbed in the heart over a dispute about a chicken dinner, according to Wisconsin police.

Mikayla Kloth, 27, allegedly attacked Lukas Rosch at her apartment in Okauchee on Friday after he came over to cook chicken drumsticks.

‘About a week before the incident, Rosch told people that Kloth had bitten his thumb and that he was scared of her.’

Lac La Belle Village police said they arrived at the apartment at about 6:50 p.m. to find the man lying on his back and a landlord applying pressure to his chest.

Kloth admitted that she stabbed her longtime boyfriend because she wanted to go out for dinner that evening, and he wanted to cook instead, according to police.

Police said they asked Kloth if there had been a struggle, and she replied, “No, I did stab him.”

Kloth also told police she got angry after Rosch grabbed the knife by the sharp edge, and she went on to plunge the knife into his chest.

“She admits, ‘I stabbed him. You have to take me to jail? OK.’ She didn’t hesitate with her discussion with officers,” said Waukesha County Court Commissioner David Herring in court.

Rosch was transported to a hospital but was later declared dead.

Kloth faces one count of first-degree intentional homicide and if convicted could face life in prison.

She also admitted that she should have just gone to a bar instead.

The family of the victim released a statement about the incident.

“We are completely broken at the tragic and senseless loss of our son, Lukas John Rosch, the most loving, giving, kind-hearted person anyone could ever meet,” the statement reads. “We are just asking for privacy at this time as we try to process.”

RELATED: Illegal alien allegedly bites 3-yr-old’s face in horrifying attack — DHS blames lax Biden immigration policies

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that about a week before the incident, Rosch told people that Kloth had bitten his thumb and that he was scared of her.

Kloth’s cash bond was set by a court commissioner at $2 million.

Okauchee is an unincorporated area inside the Village of Lac La Belle.

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

​Mikayla kloth, Stabbed in the heart, Murder over chicken dinner, Dinner dispute death, Crime 

Everything feels more expensive in 2026, and health care is no exception.

While gas prices and grocery costs tend to dominate the political conversation, health care affordability remains one of the biggest financial pressures on working families.

One major reason is a lack of real competition. More than 95% of health insurance markets in the United States are highly concentrated, dominated by one or two companies with the power to drive up costs and limit consumer choice.

That is exactly why the Trump administration’s antitrust policy is so important.

The Trump administration has not hesitated to confront corporate behavior that distorts markets or threatens American interests.

The Federal Trade Commission’s new health care task force signals that President Trump understands what Washington too often ignores: When markets stop working for everyday Americans, government needs to step in to restore competition, lower prices, and protect consumers.

Trump’s antitrust policy, which is pro-consumer, pro-competition, and grounded in common sense, is making real progress toward that restoration.

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson made that clear last year when he said the agency would stop “picking winners and losers” and focus instead on removing regulatory barriers that suppress innovation and hurt the American people.

That approach reflects a return to the traditional consumer welfare standard, the idea that antitrust enforcement should focus on whether consumers are actually being harmed by reduced competition. This ensures regulators are focused on results and not politics.

The results on this are clear. The Trump administration has not hesitated to confront corporate behavior that distorts markets or threatens American interests.

For example, the FTC has challenged the left’s toxic corporate practices like DEI and environmental, social, and governance investing. Earlier this year, Ferguson sent a letter to 42 big law firms, warning them that their use of DEI constituted an anticompetitive business practice and could bring legal consequences.

The FTC has tackled ESG too, threatening litigation against investors who attempt to block U.S. coal production in favor of a “net-zero” energy agenda, among other actions.

Meanwhile, the antitrust cases against Meta and Google are still moving forward because the concern is real: These companies have become so powerful they can choke off competition and influence what millions of Americans see online.

Last year, the Trump administration also secured a $2.5 billion settlement with Amazon over its unethical business practices.

RELATED: Hospital consolidations and ‘nonprofit’ tax breaks are driving up medical costs

Carol Smiljan/NurPhoto/Getty Images

This is what Democrats fail to understand about Trump. He is willing to take on corporate power to ensure markets work for the people.

That is also why the administration made the right call in stepping away from absurd Biden-era enforcement like the case against Pepsi over discounts offered to large retailers. During inflation, the last thing Americans need is government attacking lower prices.

The same logic applies to strategic deals that strengthen America against foreign adversaries. The Trump administration allowed the Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks merger to move forward after Biden blocked it. A stronger American tech company would be better positioned to compete with Huawei, the Chinese giant tied to espionage and intellectual property theft.

Trump’s team understands what the last administration did not: Antitrust does not exist in a vacuum. Competition matters, but so does national security.

Trump’s antitrust agenda is revealing a broader shift away from ideology and back toward realism. By restoring the consumer welfare standard, his administration is focusing on protecting consumers, strengthening domestic industry, and defending American interests.

Trump and Ferguson understand that antitrust policy can push back on ideological coercion, protect America’s competitive edge, and make life more affordable for working families, all while keeping consumers and competition at the center of the analysis.

For families being squeezed by rising health care and grocery costs, this is real relief. The FTC may fly under the radar, but under Trump it has become an important part of a broader America First agenda built on common sense and affordability.

​Antitrust policy, Dei, Hospital consolidations, Inflation impact, Meta and google, Trump, Trump administration, Economy, Opinion & analysis 

Last week was a hard one for the atheists. President Trump read from the Bible in the Oval Office, and a federal court upheld the right of Texas to display the Ten Commandments. You can just hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth.

A recent legal challenge, one of many in a long line of church-state disputes, raises a now-familiar question: Can the government display the Ten Commandments without violating the First Amendment?

If government exists to protect what is of highest value, then it cannot remain agnostic about the source of those values.

Predictably, the answer from modern critics comes quickly. We have lived under an ACLU regime for 50 years, which has gaslighted us into believing any such display is wrong and illegal. The atheist insists that any public reference to the Bible is unconstitutional. The pluralist adds that if one religious text is displayed, then all must be.

Together, they present what appears to be a dilemma: Either scrub public life of all religious content, or open the floodgates to every creed imaginable.

Both claims, however, rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of the American founding.

To see why, we need to begin with the principles that shaped the United States itself. These are the principles articulated most famously in the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration does not speak in the language of neutrality. It speaks of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” It grounds human equality in the fact that we are “created” and “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

These are not neutral or secular claims. They are claims rooted in what philosophers have long called natural theology: the idea that reason and creation reveal truths about God.

The First Amendment must be read in light of these founding principles, not in isolation from them.

The text itself is straightforward: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Notice what it does not say. It does not say that the government must be silent about God.

It does not say that public institutions must pretend religion played no role in the nation’s founding. And it certainly does not say that acknowledging moral truths found in Scripture is forbidden.

What it prohibits is the establishment of a national church and the interference with religious worship.

This distinction is crucial. The founders were not secularists in the modern sense. Many of them (though differing in theological detail) shared a conviction that moral law is grounded in God. That conviction did not lead them to impose a church on the people, but neither did it lead them to erase God from public life.

That is where the Ten Commandments come in.

For centuries, the Ten Commandments have been understood not merely as a religious text, but as a concise summary of the moral law. Prohibitions against idolatry, murder, theft, perjury, and covetousness form the backbone of legal systems throughout the Western world. Even those who reject their divine origin often recognize their ethical clarity.

But here is an often-overlooked point: When the Ten Commandments are displayed, they are displayed as a whole.

This matters because critics frequently attempt to reduce them to commandments five through 10. We can call this the “horizontal” commands governing human relationships. But the full Decalogue begins with the “vertical” commands: to worship God alone, to reject idols, and to honor His name and His day.

To display all 10 is to acknowledge that law is not merely a human construct. It reflects an order that begins with God and extends to human society. That idea is foundational to American law.

This fact is why the atheist objection fails. The claim that the First Amendment requires strict secularism reads modern assumptions back into an 18th-century document. The founders did not believe that public acknowledgment of God violated liberty. On the contrary, they believed liberty depended on it.

Without a grounding in something higher than human will, rights become negotiable and law becomes an instrument of power rather than justice. The very idea of equality (so central to the American experiment) loses its foundation.

The pluralist objection fares no better. It assumes that fairness requires equal representation of all religious claims in public displays. But the United States was not founded on a principle of religious equivalence. It was founded on a particular understanding of God, law, and human nature. This was an understanding shaped by Christianity.

RELATED: Why do state schools bankroll people who despise the state?

ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images

The Christian nature of American law does not mean that citizens of other faiths are excluded. The First Amendment ensures they are free to worship without government interference. But freedom of worship is not the same as a requirement that the state treat all religious claims as equally foundational to its own identity.

A courthouse displaying the Ten Commandments is not making a claim about every religion. It is recognizing the historical and philosophical roots of its own legal system.

And this brings us back to the central issue: What is the role of government?

If government exists to protect what is of highest value, then it cannot remain agnostic about the source of those values. The founders were clear: These rights come from God. To acknowledge that is not to establish a church; it is to affirm the very basis of the nation’s laws.

Displaying the Ten Commandments alongside the Declaration of Independence is not a constitutional violation. It is a historically informed reminder of where our ideas of law and equality come from.

It tells the truth about the American founding.

In an age increasingly confused about the source of its own principles, telling that truth and teaching it to the next generation is the right thing to do.

​10 commandments, Antichristian, Atheists, Bible, Christianity, Declaration of independence, First amendment, Founding principles, Legal systems, President trump, Role of government, Texas, Opinion & analysis 

On April 25 at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner at the Washington Hilton in D.C., 31-year-old California resident Cole Tomas Allen allegedly rushed a security checkpoint armed with a shotgun, handgun, and knives, firing multiple shots in an attempt to target Trump administration officials.

President Donald Trump, first lady Melania Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and others were safely evacuated with no serious injuries to attendees; Allen was quickly apprehended and later charged with attempted assassination of the president. Prior to the incident, he had sent a manifesto to family expressing his motives.

When BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler heard the news, she was shaken but not necessarily surprised by yet another act of political violence from the left.

“The left will keep committing or trying to commit hideous acts of violence against us until they can’t. … There is no rhetoric that exists, no argument that can be constructed that will persuade them to stop,” she laments.

This isn’t just a gut feeling either. On this episode of “The Liz Wheeler Show,” Liz points to a recent poll that captures how deeply committed the left is to using political violence to advance its agenda.

According to an April 2025 poll conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute in partnership with Rutgers University’s Social Perception Lab, 56% of self-identified left-of-center respondents said murdering Trump would be at least “somewhat justified,” with 14.1% calling it “completely justified.”

Liz is horrified by these numbers.

“Fifty-six percent of people on the left — that’s not just the mainstream media and the loudest influencers on X and YouTube, the freaks of the Democratic Party and Congress. This is over half of Democrats,” she says. “That means if you walk up to someone on a street, you meet a neighbor, a co-worker, and you find out that they voted for Kamala Harris or that they lean left, they are more likely than not going to justify a potential assassination of Donald Trump.”

As much as she disagrees with left-wing ideologies, Liz cannot fathom harboring such hatred for her political opponents that she would hope for their murder.

“There’s no circumstance that I can possibly hypothetically construct in my mind where I would ever under any circumstance justify the assassination of even the most horrific Democrat operator that I can think of — ever,” she declares. “There would be no justification for that. It’s illegal. It’s immoral.”

Democrat voters, she argues, are “being formed specifically to believe this.”

Liz shares data from a 2025 Skeptic Research Center report showing that the more education a person has, the more likely they are to condone violence as a means of social change.

“Of people who have a high school diploma or less, 23% agree that violence is often necessary to create social change. Of people who have some college or an associates degree, only 20% agree with that. If you have a bachelor’s degree, 26% agree with that … if you have a graduate or professional degree, suddenly that number jumps all the way to 40%,” she reads from the study.

The same trend emerged for the question: “If you are protesting something unjust, it is reasonable to damage property.”

“This is not a coincidence that … the number of years you spend in colleges and universities correlates to your exponentially increased support for political violence,” says Liz, highlighting the left’s stronghold on academia.

All considered, one thing is clear to Liz: Political violence is no longer confined to the fringes; it’s “mainstream leftist.”

To hear more of her analysis, watch the episode above.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Assassination attempt, Attempted assassination, Blaze media, Blazetv, Cole thomas allen, Donald trump, Leftwing ideologies, Leftwing violence, Liz wheeler, Mainstream leftist, Political violence, Skeptic research center, Social change, The liz wheeler show, Washington hilton, Whcd, Whcd assassination attempt 

Late-night show host Jimmy Kimmel responded defiantly to calls demanding he be fired after joking about President Donald Trump dying before the latest assassination attempt.

Kimmel made the joke during a parody Thursday where he pretended to tell jokes at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and made one at the expense of the president.

‘I agree that hateful and violent rhetoric is something we should reject. I do. And I think a great place to start to dial that back would be to have a conversation with your husband about it.’

Only two days later, an allegedly crazed gunman fired shots at the dinner after posting threats against the president and his administration online.

Kimmel replied to the backlash during his show Monday night.

“You know how sometimes you wake up in the morning and the first lady puts out a statement demanding you be fired from your job? We’ve all been there. Right?” Kimmel said.

He claimed the joke was not about the president dying but rather about the lack of joy on the first lady’s face during their interactions.

“It was a very light roast joke about the fact that he’s almost 80 and she’s younger than I am. It was not by any stretch of the definition a call to assassination. And they know that,” Kimmel said.

“I’ve been very vocal for many years speaking out against gun violence, in particular,” he added. “But I understand that the first lady had a stressful experience over the weekend. And probably every weekend is pretty stressful in that house. And also, I agree that hateful and violent rhetoric is something we should reject. I do. And I think a great place to start to dial that back would be to have a conversation with your husband about it.”

Both the president and first lady called for Kimmel to be fired for the joke.

“Our first lady, Melania, is here. Look at her, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow!” Kimmel quipped.

Kimmel’s show was pulled off the air in Sept. 2025 after he suggested that the suspect in the killing of activist Charlie Kirk was a Trump supporter. He went back to his show only a few days later.

RELATED: ‘The View’ host says latest assassination attempt might have been STAGED by Trump: ‘Is he trying to distract us?’

The first lady posted her comments on Monday.

“Kimmel’s hateful and violent rhetoric is intended to divide our country. His monologue about my family isn’t comedy — his words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America,” she wrote.

“People like Kimmel shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate. A coward, Kimmel hides behind ABC because he knows the network will keep running cover to protect him,” she added.

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

​Kimmel vs melania, Melania trump, Trump assassination attempt, Jimmy kimmel joke, Whcd assassination attempt, Politics