Banned 'anti-migrant' movie 'Citizen Vigilante' shoots to No. 1 after Elon Musk intervention



A film that is triggering progressive critics is becoming a viral sensation after the director called it "an inconvenient truth."

The movie stars actor Armie Hammer as a man who takes justice into his own hands after he feels the government and law enforcement have failed to protect their citizens.

'Racist, xenophobic, ethnocentrist.'

'X' rated

"Citizen Vigilante" has been called "anti-migrant," "racist, xenophobic," and "incomprehensible," yet audiences seem to love it.

With a fan score of 94% on popular review site Rotten Tomatoes, critics seem once again to be at odds with audiences while drawing a political line in the sand.

A huge social media push has seen the movie top the streaming charts, with multiple outlets reporting on Monday that "Citizen Vigilante" soared to No. 1 on Amazon Prime's "Top 10 movies to rent or buy," where it still stood at the time of this writing.

The film was reportedly No. 2 on Apple TV's top movie list on Monday as well.

This all came after X owner Elon Musk posted "Citizen Vigilante" for free download on his platform last Thursday — with director Uwe Boll's permission — garnering at least 8 million views by Musk's own account.

Boll responded on X, "Dear Elon thank you. Donald Trump needs to see the film."

RELATED: 'Citizen Vigilante': Outlaw director takes unflinching look at migrant violence

Banned abroad

By all accounts, the film draws on anti-immigration sentiments that are becoming popular around the world, and even references real-life migrant crimes for its story.

The movie has already been banned in Germany because it was found to be "inciting violence against migrants," director Boll told Variety in June.

Boll called it "deliberate censorship" that was "on purpose."

In an email to Newsweek, the director said his movie "shows an inconvenient truth what all other movies out there don't want to show or try to sugarcoat in their productions."

Boll added, "The audience wants real films again — bold and with impact and about reality."

Bans and negative reviews have been overtaken by the film's momentum, and the flick was just acquired by Quiver Distribution for a worldwide push, except for in the U.K., German-speaking territories, South Korea, and Taiwan.

RELATED: 'Supergirl' has disastrous opening after star declares character 'doesn't live inside the binary'

Many such (angry) cases

Many critics have not enjoyed the film, with some reviewers declining to even score it.

For example, Stefan Birgir Stefans called the film "brain dead" and gave no score, while Variety's Todd Gilchrist similarly gave no rating and said the director was "deliberately sabotaging his star."

Nicholas Bell said the film was "magnifying its xenophobia through the beacon of far-right agitprop," while Joseph Robinson called it "a discriminatory parable."

It was U.K. outlet the Guardian that dubbed "Citizen Vigilante" as "anti-migrant" on Tuesday, with Ready Steady Cut describing the film as "utterly incurious and incomprehensible, but politically barbed."

Critic Jonathon Wilson argued the film was for people who believe "immigrants are to blame for all the violent crimes in the West to see as a rubric for defending their homeland."

Tyler Thier of In Review Online summarized the movie as "racist, xenophobic, ethnocentrist, alt-right agitprop manufactured to piss off the 'woke Left.'"

The consistent use of "agitprop" by reviewers is, interestingly enough, a reference to pro-communist propaganda used by the Soviet Union.

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

'Supergirl' has disastrous opening after star declares character 'doesn't live inside the binary'



DC Studios is finding out that being a progressive girl boss does not necessarily pay the bills.

In the weeks leading up to the opening weekend for "Supergirl," star Milly Alcock sparked online chatter with her consistent interviews in which she explored the "LGBT" inspiration of the film, while repeatedly stating her character is likely bisexual — and it did not work out.

'I have many queer friends, so honestly I'm kind of honored.'

Clip slip

During what turned out to be an awful opening weekend, yet another clip of Alcock addressing wild fan theories circulated, from a lesser-known interview she did at a fan event in Brazil. In the clip, Alcock is asked about embracing Supergirl as a queer icon, a theme that reporters have consistently hammered the actress about at events and red carpets.

"I have many queer friends, so honestly I'm kind of honored. I'm honored that that's happening," Alcock replied with her signature giggle.

She went on, "I think because she doesn't live inside the binary of what we think a woman should be, that is what makes her so special and so exciting and so new."

She may transcend every binary, but Hollywood still lives inside one: hit or flop. "Supergirl" seems headed straight for the latter, with a very disappointing $38 million domestic opening. Coming in well below expectations, "Supergirl" had a whopping $170 million budget, according to Deadline, and bowed out to "Toy Story 5," which took in $70 million despite it being its second weekend.

RELATED: 'Supergirl' star proclaims character is 'probably' bisexual and definitely doesn't need a man

Craig T Fruchtman/Getty Images

No love

Alcock explaining that her Kryptonian character would "do what she'd want to do" in regard to her sexuality was yet another nail in the coffin that likely turned away audiences, including father-daughter moviegoers.

At a New York City premiere, Alcock embraced how the film "doesn't center around any sort of love" or "romance" at all and focused on how much gay fans can relate to her character. She called "Supergirl" a "really great representation of what a modern woman can be."

In London, the 26-year-old also noted that it was "beautiful" for the movie not to be "centered around a man" and "not centered around love at all."

This was followed by Alcock saying that the character would "probably go both ways," meaning Supergirl is bisexual, according to the actress.

To top it off, Alcock pinpointed Christian dads as her most frequent online harassers.

RELATED: 'Supergirl' Milly Alcock's most fearsome foe? Christian dads

David Jon/Getty Images for Warner Bros. Pictures

Consolation prize

Female-led superhero movies have let studios down over recent years, with "Supergirl" having one of the worst openings in the 2020s, but not the worst.

"The Eternals" (2021) and "The Marvels" (2023) both did better than Alcock, with $71 million and $46 million respectively, but "Supergirl" did manage to outperform movies like the abysmal "Madame Web" (2024) that garnered just $15 million.

The possibly bisexual superpowered girl was seen by far more people than "Wonder Woman 1984" (2020), which made just $16 million, and "Birds of Prey" (2020), the Harley Quinn film that made $33 million.

However, the "Wonder Woman" film was released deep into COVID-19 restrictions in December 2020.

"Birds of Prey" had no excuse, though.

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

The Ireland I grew up in is gone



Growing up just outside Galway City, life in the West of Ireland was exactly what the postcards promised. It was a beautiful place, with generous people and a great spirit.

I use the term was deliberately. That Galway, and the Ireland it represented, is officially dead and buried — a lot like the Irish language itself.

Liberals love to romanticize this migration by drawing parallels to Ireland's own history of exodus.

Galway recently elected its first black mayor, Helen Ogbu, a Nigerian-born former social worker. The local and international media immediately fell into a state of rapturous, celebratory euphoria, framing it as a textbook example of a modern, inclusive Ireland, complete with a self-congratulatory pat on the back for everyone involved.

But beneath the surface-level applause and the performative progressive high-fives, the mood on the ground isn’t exactly celebratory. These rapid-fire changes are fueling a deep dread about what being Irish even means any more, besides holding the right passport.

Demographic rewrite

While Rotimi Adebari, another Nigerian, became Ireland's first black mayor back in 2007 in Portlaoise, Galway’s latest civic milestone cements a broader trend. This is less a blending of cultures than a demographic rewrite.

For anyone who remembers the not-so-old days, these lightning-fast shifts feel like the systematic gutting of everything we used to call home. It’s a brutal reality that local broadcasters prefer to completely ignore, though American commentator Tyler Oliveira recently traveled to Ireland to document this unfolding madness firsthand.

As his dispatches note, almost a quarter of Ireland's population is now foreign-born. Watching the footage, it's impossible not to recall Donald Trump’s infamous 2015 declaration regarding immigration in America: "They're not sending their best," he said. "They're sending people that have lots of problems. ... They're bringing drugs; they're bringing crime. They're rapists.

Trump was speaking about the U.S. southern border, but looking at the insanity unfolding in Dublin and parts of the rural West, he might as well have been describing modern Ireland. The influx has brought an undeniable undercurrent of low-IQ degeneracy from parts of Africa and the Middle East, fundamentally altering the safety of communities that used to leave their front doors unlocked.

Locals only

Ireland is gripped by a crushing homelessness crisis, but if you look at the people actually sleeping in cardboard boxes in city centers, they are far less likely to be from foreign lands than born-and-bred locals.

There's a sickening irony to the history here. Our ancestors, including my own family in the West, fought, bled, and died to kick the British Empire out, only for the current generation to willingly open the gates to a different kind of conquest.

To be fair, it wasn't the ordinary Irish people who made this choice, but a political class utterly beholden to Brussels and the EU bureaucracy. When Angela Merkel opened the floodgates in 2015, a cowardly, compliant Irish government offered to take its share of the burden, setting off a chain reaction that has left the country unrecognizable.

The magnet pulling people in is a bizarrely generous welfare state. While working-class Irish citizens struggle to put food on the table, the system rolls out the red carpet for foreign arrivals. In Oliveira’s documentary, one migrant casually admits to receiving a €1,200 monthly cash allowance. To an outsider, €1,200 (roughly $1,400) a month might not sound like an extravagant fortune, but when it is paired with free housing, medical care, and education, it means you are essentially being subsidized by the Irish taxpayer to do absolutely nothing.

Kick me, I'm Irish

Liberals love to romanticize this migration by drawing parallels to Ireland's own history of exodus. When Conan O'Brien visited his ancestral home in Ireland, he spoke about the real courage it took for generations of Irish people to cross the Atlantic for a better life, noting, "People leave not because they think: 'Hey, I just want to go have fun in America.' They leave because they have to.” The pro-immigration lobby uses this exact sentiment as a shield, arguing that today's arrivals are just the modern equivalents of the 19th-century Irish.

They're not. That comparison is utter nonsense. The historical Irish diaspora weren't greeted by a waiting welfare check, free medical cards, and state-subsidized housing; they stepped off the boats into starvation, hostile "No Irish Need Apply" signs, and manual labor that regularly killed them. Furthermore, modern migration has become a cynical game of regional arbitrage. As Oliveira’s interviews reveal, many migrants openly admit to using Portugal as a soft entry point into the EU, obtaining papers there before immediately making a beeline for Ireland's superior welfare benefits.

What we are witnessing is the absolute, spectacular failure of Western liberalism. Notice that his toxic brand of pathological altruism doesn’t exist in Africa or Asia. It is an exclusively Western suicidal pact — a bizarre cultural mental illness where nations willingly subsidize their own erasure while smiling for the cameras. Ireland is simply the latest country to gladly sign its own death warrant, completely convinced that disappearing is the ultimate form of progress.

The next AI race isn't about smarter machines. It's about human experience.



If you want to glimpse the future of artificial intelligence, don't start in Silicon Valley. Start in a South Korean factory.

According to the International Federation of Robotics, South Korea now has 1,012 industrial robots for every 10,000 manufacturing workers — the highest robot density in the world. Put another way, roughly one in every 10 manufacturing "workers" is now a robot.

For now, however, even the world's most advanced humanoid robots still struggle with tasks that young children perform effortlessly.

That startling figure is one piece of a much larger story stretching from American AI labs to South Korean factories, Chinese assembly lines, and Indian garment workshops.

For most Americans, the AI revolution is something that happens on a screen. We think of ChatGPT writing emails, Claude summarizing reports, or Google Gemini answering questions. The race appears to revolve around Silicon Valley companies building ever more capable language models.

But the next phase of artificial intelligence is becoming much more physical.

Instead of asking how machines can write like humans, researchers are asking how they can move like humans — how they grasp a coffee mug, fold a shirt, stitch a collar, or crack an egg without crushing it.

That challenge has created an unexpected global division of labor: America builds the brains, South Korea builds the bodies, China provides the classroom, while India supplies the teachers.

Together, they're revealing something surprising: the future of artificial intelligence depends on ordinary human beings.

South Korea: Building the bodies

If robotics has an epicenter, it may well be South Korea.

The country's dominance in robotics didn't emerge from nowhere. It grew out of decades spent building some of the world's most advanced automobiles.

The same expertise that allows South Korean companies to manufacture electric motors, precision steering systems, sensors, braking technology, and other high-performance automotive components translates remarkably well to humanoid robots. Goldman Sachs Research estimates Korean companies could account for roughly 30% of global humanoid robot production by 2035, either by manufacturing robots directly or supplying the critical components that allow them to move.

Yet South Korea's embrace of automation has also exposed its tensions.

This week, Hyundai workers overwhelmingly voted to authorize strike action after contract negotiations stalled, with robots emerging as a central issue for the first time.

The union isn't simply demanding higher wages.

It wants guarantees over how artificial intelligence and humanoid robots will be introduced onto factory floors, arguing that workers deserve a voice before machines begin performing jobs currently done by people.

The dispute centers on Atlas, the humanoid robot developed by Hyundai-owned Boston Dynamics.

While company executives describe Atlas as a way to perform dangerous, repetitive, and physically demanding work, union leaders see a machine that could eventually replace the people who build Hyundai's cars.

The disagreement captures the paradox facing much of the developed world.

Countries like South Korea desperately need automation. It has one of the world's fastest-aging populations and one of its lowest birth rates, creating labor shortages that robots may eventually help fill.

Yet the workers whose jobs are most vulnerable understandably want assurances that they won't become casualties of the technological transition.

Child's play

For now, however, even the world's most advanced humanoid robots still struggle with tasks that young children perform effortlessly.

Finding a coffee pot, identifying its handle, lifting it correctly and pouring without spilling remains astonishingly difficult for a machine.

The bottleneck is no longer the body or the brain. It is experience.

Engineers can now build remarkably capable robot bodies and increasingly sophisticated AI models. What they can't manufacture is the accumulated experience that allows humans to navigate the physical world almost without thinking. Like a child learning to walk — or an apprentice learning a trade — robots improve only through repeated interaction with the real world.

RELATED: Your child’s new best friend might be a Chinese surveillance device

akinbostanci/Getty Images

China: Generating the experience

South Korea may lead the world in robot density, but China wins on sheer scale.

According to the International Federation of Robotics, China had 2.027 million industrial robots operating in its factories in 2024. It installed another 295,000 robots that year alone, accounting for 54% of global robot demand.

That scale gives Beijing an enormous advantage in the next phase of AI.

Unlike ChatGPT, which learned from enormous quantities of text on the internet, humanoid robots must learn by interacting with the real world. Every object they grasp, every obstacle they navigate, and every task they complete generates valuable information that helps improve future models.

China has more of that real-world classroom than anyone else.

Part of the urgency stems from demographics. After decades of the one-child policy and collapsing birth rates, China faces one of the fastest-aging populations in history. Its working-age population is projected to shrink dramatically over the coming decades, threatening the labor force that powered its manufacturing rise.

Humanoid robots have become one response. Every robot deployed today becomes another teacher for tomorrow's robots. More deployment generates more real-world data, and better data produces better AI models.

Better models create more capable robots, which in turn generate even more data.

In the race toward physical AI, experience itself has become a competitive advantage.

India: Supplying the trainers

If South Korea is building the machines and China is putting them to work, India is asking who benefits from the knowledge that makes them possible.

Across the country, companies are asking factory workers, construction laborers, delivery drivers, and homemakers to wear head-mounted cameras while they go about their daily routines.

No gesture is too small to escape the camera's eye: how a garment worker guides fabric through a sewing machine, how a mason carries bricks across uneven ground, how someone folds laundry, washes dishes, packs a lunch.

The recordings — known as "egocentric data" — have become one of the world's most valuable resources.

Many workers reportedly weren't told exactly why they were being recorded; in fact, some laughed when cameras were first strapped to their foreheads. That laughter changed to unease as they realized they were teaching machines that might someday replace them.

Labor advocates have raised new questions. If a worker's lifetime of accumulated skill is converted into an AI dataset worth millions of dollars, should that worker share in its value?

Can consent really be voluntary if refusing to wear the camera could jeopardize someone's livelihood?

And who owns years of accumulated know-how once it has been converted into a commercial AI dataset?

For perhaps the first time, the routines of ordinary life are becoming economically valuable in their own right.

Skills that were never considered professions — sewing a collar, folding towels, washing dishes, preparing meals, gripping an egg without breaking it, carrying heavy materials safely — are becoming indispensable training material for the world's most sophisticated robots.

Indian startup Neocambrian AI estimates it could require 100 million hours of first-person human activity before machines approach human-level dexterity.

The irony is impossible to miss.

As artificial intelligence becomes more sophisticated, researchers are discovering just how difficult it is to replicate the quiet competence of ordinary people.

We, robot

The AI revolution has often been described as a triumph of silicon over flesh. Instead, it is becoming a lesson in just how remarkable ordinary human beings really are.

The machine doesn't know what an ordinary person knows: how tightly to grip an egg, how to instinctively shift its weight while walking across uneven ground.

These are forms of embodied wisdom acquired through years of living in a human body.

Christianity has long insisted that human beings are not merely minds that happen to inhabit bodies. In Genesis, mankind is introduced not simply as a thinker but as a worker — cultivating a garden, naming animals, building a family, and exercising stewardship over creation.

These are not incidental tasks. They are ways human beings express creativity, responsibility, and love.

One of the strangest consequences of the AI revolution is that it is reminding us of the enduring dignity of the same ordinary human work it seeks to replace.

Why are automakers so afraid of you fixing your own car?



When President Trump emerged from a recent meeting with automotive executives and said he found it strange that some industry leaders oppose Americans repairing their own vehicles, most coverage focused on the politics.

I was more interested in what happened afterward.

If manufacturers truly support independent repairs, why remove provisions governing the very data modern repairs increasingly depend upon?

Because the deeper you dig into the latest right-to-repair fight, the more one question keeps surfacing: Why are automakers fighting so hard to control information generated by vehicles consumers already own?

Follow the money

Follow the money, and the picture becomes much clearer.

The U.S. automotive service market generates roughly $200 billion annually. Service departments are among the industry's most reliable profit centers. As vehicles become more software-driven and connected, automakers have discovered that selling the car no longer has to end the customer relationship. Software subscriptions, connected services, maintenance plans, warranty work, and dealership repairs all create recurring revenue long after the vehicle leaves the showroom.

There's nothing wrong with companies pursuing new revenue streams. The problem begins when protecting those revenue streams limits consumer choice.

That's why the latest legislative fight deserves attention.

Stripped for parts

The debate centers on H.R. 7389, the Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026. Supporters describe it as a way to modernize regulations while preserving independent repair access. On the surface, that sounds like good news for consumers.

Then something interesting happened. One of the most important parts of the broader right-to-repair debate disappeared.

Language covering telematics — the wireless vehicle data increasingly needed for diagnostics, calibrations, software updates, and repairs — was stripped from the bill before it advanced through committee. For many independent repair advocates, that wasn't a technical detail. It was the entire fight.

That raises an obvious question. If manufacturers truly support independent repairs, why remove provisions governing the very data modern repairs increasingly depend upon?

The answer may have less to do with repairs than with control. For decades, owning a vehicle meant deciding who repaired it. Consumers chose their mechanic. Independent shops competed with dealerships. Competition kept prices down and choices open.

Modern vehicles work differently.

Data-driven

Today's cars constantly generate data. They monitor component performance, transmit diagnostics, receive software updates, and communicate through manufacturer-controlled networks.

Control the data, and you gain influence over the repair process. That's why automakers, dealers, independent repair shops, aftermarket suppliers, consumer advocates, and lawmakers are all fighting over the same issue.

Manufacturers argue that unrestricted access creates cybersecurity risks. Those concerns shouldn't be dismissed. Modern vehicles are vastly more complex than the cars many of us grew up driving.

But independent repair shops aren't asking for access to nuclear launch codes. They're asking for the information needed to diagnose, repair, calibrate, and maintain vehicles consumers legally purchased. This is key in an era when more and more repairs require access to software rather than simply a wrench.

Viewed alongside other industry trends, the picture becomes even clearer. Vehicle telematics continue expanding. Subscription-based features are becoming common. Driving data has become valuable to insurers and analytics companies. Manufacturers can now change vehicle functionality through over-the-air software updates.

Each development can be defended on its own. Taken together, they suggest an industry steadily increasing its influence over vehicles long after they are sold.

RELATED: Cheap Chinese cars: Trojan horse built to undermine US security?

Jade Gao/Bettmann/Getty Images

Taking ownership

That's why the right-to-repair debate increasingly looks less like a repair issue and more like an ownership issue.

Farmers confronted the same problem years ago as manufacturers restricted repairs on modern agricultural equipment. Purchasing expensive machinery no longer guaranteed the ability to fix it without manufacturer involvement.

The auto industry now appears headed toward a similar crossroads.

Technology has unquestionably made vehicles better. They're safer, more efficient, and more capable than ever before. But technology also changes incentives. Every connected system creates opportunities for convenience, recurring revenue, data collection, and greater manufacturer control.

What makes H.R. 7389 so important isn't what remains in the bill — it's what was removed. The fight over telematics reveals where this debate is headed next.

The future isn't really about brake pads or oil changes. It's about who controls vehicle data, who profits from it, and ultimately who decides what owners are allowed to do with products they have already purchased.

The fix is in

For more than a century, vehicle ownership had a simple meaning. You bought the car. You decided who repaired it, how long you kept it, and what modifications you made.

Today, that definition is becoming less clear. The question isn't whether modern vehicles should be secure. Of course they should. The question isn't whether repairs have become more complicated. They have.

The real question is whether ownership still means what consumers think it means. Because if automakers are willing to fight this hard over repair data today, consumers should pay close attention to what comes next.

The right-to-repair battle may ultimately be remembered as the moment Americans discovered that ownership in the connected-car era no longer carries the assumptions previous generations took for granted.

COLLISION COURSE: How I learned the most important rule of senior softball



I ran into a guy during senior softball last night. I was running to third base, and I came in a little too fast. He was reaching to catch the ball, and I knocked into him.

Nothing happened. Nobody was hurt. But I felt bad about it. I apologized. It was poor etiquette.

The next thing I knew, the whole world did a wild 360-degree spin, and I found myself sans glasses, on my backside in the grass.

That’s the thing about senior softball. The players are seniors. You’re a senior. Everyone is a little bit ... vulnerable. You’re not supposed to knock into people.

One of the things senior softball players try hardest to do IS NOT GET HURT.

So running into someone. That’s not cool.

A winter’s tale

Last winter, during a practice game, I was involved in another minor collision. I may or may not have caused that one too.

I was playing first base. A guy on the other team hit a grounder. Our third baseman scooped it up and threw it to me. But the throw was a little to my left, and in my attempt to catch it, I leaned into the base path and the batter ran into me.

I ended up on the ground. I don’t remember what happened to the other guy. Maybe he fell too. Neither of us was hurt.

Still, in senior softball, if anyone ends up on the ground, people become concerned. The game stops. Players in the dugout stop discussing their holiday plans and look up. Players on the field come over to check on the downed player(s).

Even after it is confirmed that no one is injured, people will linger and discuss what happened. What caused the collision? What were the relevant vectors and angles? Who was going where? And how fast? Was anyone at fault?

A verdict is reached

Of course, senior softball players are quick to give each other the benefit of the doubt. Unless there is grievous evidence to the contrary, it is usually assumed that no one is at fault. It’s a dynamic game. Stuff happens.

Still, there was some debate in this case. Finally, an elder of the group, a grizzled veteran of the senior softball circuit, declared authoritatively: “It was an errant throw.”

Everyone nodded in agreement. I nodded too. It was indeed an “errant throw.”

But was I wrong to try to catch an errant throw? And end up in the base path colliding with the batter? I don’t know. But I resolved to be more careful next time.

The worst collision

The worst collision I have been involved in happened in my first game, during the first season that I played senior softball.

This was in a “rec” league, which is the entry level of senior softball. These are often the oldest men. The most stationary. The most in need of not being run into.

I was new to senior softball. I hadn’t played any form of organized baseball/softball since I was in fourth grade.

For that first game, I was sent to right field since I was an unknown quantity. Could I catch? Could I throw? Nobody knew. I didn’t even know.

RELATED: The secret to senior softball? It's all about the magic bat

Irfan Khan/Getty Images

The moment of truth

I stood in right field. Several innings went by. And then someone hit a high fly ball in my direction. It was going to land a fair distance in front of me, but if I ran, I thought I could catch it.

I really wanted to catch it. I wanted to prove myself to my new team. I also wanted to find out if I was any good at softball. I really had no idea.

But I believed I could catch that ball. So I ran forward while keeping my eyes glued to that big yellow softball in the sky.

And then BLAM. The next thing I knew, the whole world did a wild 360-degree spin, and I found myself sans glasses, on my backside in the grass.

Don’t run into the seniors!

I had run into the second baseman. And I had done so at FULL SPEED. I was running AS FAST AS I COULD. And I ran right into one of my teammates.

Thank God he was 6' and 200 pounds and I am 5'8'' and 160 pounds.

I sat up and checked myself. Was I hurt? I didn’t seem to be. I looked around in the grass for my glasses.

But then I saw the second baseman. He was down. And not getting up. I put my glasses on and hurried over to him with the other guys.

Oh God! I thought to myself. What if he’s hurt!

The other players were already gathered around. They lifted him up to a sitting position. He was holding his side. Our coach asked what happened. I said it was my fault. I didn’t call it.

They got him standing up. And it turned out he was OK. It was probably just the shock of the impact. For both of us. For me it was like a car crash you didn’t see coming. A violent out-of-body spinning sensation. And then everything stops, and for a moment you don’t know which way is up.

I remember driving home after that game, wondering if my new teammates would ever trust me again. Before that game, I had not really thought about getting injured or injuring others as a possibility.

Now, I realized I had literally done the worst thing you can do in senior softball.

Rebuilding trust

At first, my teammates didn’t trust me. Nobody said anything. But it was pretty obvious that I was on an unspoken probation.

But from that moment on, I locked onto the idea to never run into anyone, in any situation, for any reason.

Also, I became the “call it” guy.

Everyone always says you have to “call it,” but more often than not, nobody does, because people aren’t sure if they do “have it” because we’re just a bunch of old guys playing softball.

But boy, for the rest of that season, when it was clear that I was the closest person to the ball, I CALLED IT. I BELTED IT OUT. I SCREAMED IT AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS. The players in the other games, on the other softball diamonds, could hear me.

And then most of the time, I did catch it. Without running into anyone. And by the end of the season, I was back in everyone’s good graces.

Still though, I just ran into a guy last night. And this is my fourth season! That is not good.

So I have to be on guard. That’s why I’m writing this now. To remind myself, in public, in print. What is the most important rule in softball? DON’T RUN INTO THE SENIORS!

'Supergirl' star proclaims character is 'probably' bisexual and definitely doesn't need a man



"Supergirl" star Milly Alcock saved her best woke lines for right before the movie's release.

Just days ahead of the official drop, Alcock told reporters in London and New York City about how much of an independent woman the Supergirl character is as well as how the film relates to gay pride.

'What makes this film so beautiful is that it's not centered around a man.'

Kara chameleon

Although it should be obvious that Superman's cousin doesn't really need any help, the Australian actress fell into the age-old trap of spouting progressive dogma on the red carpet at the film's premier, telling journalists about how the girl from Krypton is actually a strong woman.

In London, Alcock was approached by an Associated Press reporter who bizarrely brought up comments he had seen online about "Kara's queerness"; Supergirl's name is Kara Zor-El.

"Was that something that you explored when you were preparing for the role?" the male reporter asked.

Alcock laughed hysterically.

"It wasn't," the 26-year-old began, saying she would try to answer "in honor of Pride Month."

She then praised the film for not having a romantic focus, void of any relationship with a male co-star, while saying her character is probably bisexual.

"I don't know. I think that what makes this film so beautiful is that it's not centered around a man, it's not centered around love at all. ... She'd probably go both ways."

RELATED: 'Supergirl' Milly Alcock's most fearsome foe? Christian dads

TheStewartofNY/FilmMagic

Modern Milly

In New York City, a reporter from Variety again asked the star about how "LGBT" people have related to the character, framing Alcock's answer as embracing "queer readings" of the film.

“I've just had a few people ask me about her because it’s Pride Month and all that, and I think that she's a really great representation of what a modern woman can be," she replied.

Alcock then again put focus on how she adores the film for not featuring any romance, before stating that homosexuals can relate to the character's resiliency.

"She can be strong, she can be tough, she can be messy. And I love how this film doesn't center around any sort of love ... or romance or anything like that at all. She has such resilience — and I think that that community is a community that is so, so resilient. ... I'm really honored that they can connect with her."

RELATED: VEEP TV: JD slays in 'View' ratings coup

Christian Kryptonite

In the lead-up to the film's release, Alcock has taken issue with male superhero fans multiple times — a near guarantee for a mainstream actress in such a role — telling "Vanity Fair" in March that when she was on "Game of Thrones," she realized "simply existing as a woman in that space is something that people comment on," before adding, "We have become very comfortable having this weird ownership of women's bodies. I can't really stop them. I can only be myself."

She also took aim at Christian dads in late May, describing "people whose profiles have no photo, who are burner accounts. Or someone's name and then 'Dad of four, Christian'" as those who harass her the most.

She concluded, "Which is hilarious to me. But I mean, whose opinion do you really care about? If you're pissing the right kind of people off, you're doing OK."

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

VEEP TV: JD slays in 'View' ratings coup



Vice President JD Vance gave “The View” plenty to chew on last week. Facts. Knowledge. Arguments that didn’t require a tinfoil hat.

The Republican did something else during his trip to the far, far-left showcase. He gave the gals a ratings boost. The show’s 3.3 million viewers represented the highest “View” tally since 2024.

81-year-old Rod Stewart recently canceled a few shows due to illness. When he returned to the stage, he needed oxygen to get through a Utah performance.

That makes sense, since the ABC showcase rarely offers opposing views from the right and Vance has a reputation for being a thoughtful guest.

Even “View” haters wanted to see what went down.

So will this open the floodgates for more right-leaning guests on the show?

Of course not. In fact, co-host Joy Behar took heat from her fellow panelists for being friendly with Vance. Plus, a steady stream of smart, thoughtful conservatives would expose “The View” audience to sane opinions that clash with the show’s conspiratorial blather.

That ratings boost sure was nice, but you can bet ABC won’t let it happen again …

Super stupor

You can’t say Milly Alcock isn’t committed to “the bit.” And by that, we mean being as woke as possible while promoting her new film, “Supergirl.”

She previously trashed Christian dads and played the victim card over viewers who allegedly objectify her physique. That drew swift comparisons to Rachel Zegler, whose woke musings in the run-up to “Snow White’s” release built enough bad buzz that the film never recovered.

The live-action update lost a reported $170 million for Team Disney.

Alcock is walking, nay running, in Zegler’s footsteps, even as box office predictions suggest “Supergirl” will lose millions, too. This week, she did it again.

“I think that [Supergirl is] a really great representation of what a modern woman can be. She can be strong, she can be tough, she can be messy. And I love how this film doesn’t center around any sort of love or romance or anything like that at all. She has such resilience — and I think that [the LGBTQ+] community is so, so resilient. I’m really honored that they can connect to her.”

She later declared that her Supergirl would be bisexual.

That sound you hear is Zegler’s agent popping open a bottle of champagne ...

RELATED: Tan-splaining Colbert celebrates 'scandal-free' Obama at new presidential center opening

Mandel Ngan/Scott Olson/Anadolu/Getty Images

Bourne that way

Wait, did Kathleen Kennedy get a new job?

The woman many blame for the demise of the “Star Wars” franchise is no longer with Lucasfilm or Disney. She still set a curious standard for woke storytelling, from her “the force is female” mantra to trashing iconic characters like Luke Skywalker.

Even “South Park” mocked her “Star Wars” reign: “Put a chick in it! Make her lame and gay!”

Kennedy is not attached to the “Bourne” franchise, but that popular saga may be taking a very Kennedy-like approach to its future.

The InSneider reports that Zendaya is in play to replace franchise star Matt Damon in the saga. It wouldn’t be the first “Bourne” film sans Damon. Jeremy Renner starred in “The Bourne Legacy,” a 2012 film that didn’t light up the box office as expected ($113 million stateside).

It’s a potential gender AND race swap, two staples of the woke Hollywood era. Zendaya is a young, talented star, but physically she looks like she would struggle to open an aspirin bottle, let alone tackle an army of thugs.

We’ll have to see if this is a trial balloon of a story or signs that the Kennedy-ization of Hollywood continues …

Rock till you drop

The Who sang, “Hope I die before I get old” on “My Generation” back in 1965. Now, some aging singers are proving how hard it is to keep rocking into their golden years.

First, 81-year-old Rod Stewart recently canceled a few shows due to illness. When he returned to the stage, he needed oxygen to get through a Utah performance. Then, Lionel Ritchie, 77, left the stage early on the first stop of his current tour in St. Paul, Minnesota, after feeling dizzy on stage.

Some stars simply refuse to retire. Others love performing so much they can’t imagine calling it a career. There’s something noble about older stars giving their all to the fans, especially those who are roughly the same age as them.

We want them to be forever young, but their mortality is a stark reminder of our own. Perhaps that’s why the Who’s 2025 North American tour, the band’s farewell, was called “This Song Is Over.”

'Bad taste': Ex-Disney CEO Bob Iger defends decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel for Charlie Kirk remarks



Don't blame Trump for Jimmy Kimmel's suspension last year, says former Disney CEO Bob Iger — it was purely an in-house decision.

"We thought it was in bad taste," Iger told the Financial Times, referring to the late-night host's on-air remarks about Charlie Kirk shortly after his death.

'An ill-timed and probably inappropriate comment.'

Murderous monologue

Five days after Kirk was assassinated during a college tour stop in Utah on September 10, 2025, Kimmel addressed the killing in his opening monologue, declaring that the "MAGA gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it."

Two days later, on September 17, Disney suspended production of "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" Production was resumed on September 23.

Iger, who was CEO of Disney from 2022 to 2026, denied speculation that complaints from the Trump administration were the real reason ABC and parent company Disney pulled the show.

Iger also revealed that Kimmel was asked to apologize for his remarks, saying "We just wanted him to acknowledge that it was an ill-timed and probably inappropriate comment."

RELATED: Jimmy Kimmel picks host to replace him for a bit — and she's a vitriolic Trump-hater

Michael Le Brecht II/Disney/Getty Images

Persecution complex

Speculation that the executive branch was behind Kimmel's suspension stemmed chiefly from an appearance FCC Chairman Brendan Carr made on a podcast, where he said, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," regarding the talk-show host.

"These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead," Carr remarked, per Variety.

Kimmel, too, claimed he was the victim of a government plot to silence him; however the alleged plot would only last five days. Upon returning to the network, Kimmel's show aired a compilation of news stories surrounding his suspension, where multiple channel were shown calling his return to ABC a "huge" and "pivotal" moment in history.

RELATED: Jimmy Kimmel doubles down on Melania ‘widow’ jab — will this be the nail in his coffin?

Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images/Disney

Hero to zero

As Blaze News reported at the time, Kimmel received multiple standing ovations from his audience, becoming visibly emotional as he recalled messages of love he had received for being the alleged target of a government censorship plot.

Kimmel's remarks were a reversal of his previous comments, as he told his viewers that he was not actually trying to pin any certain ideology on Kirk's assassin.

"I have no illusions about changing anyone's mind," Kimmel said. "But I do want to make something clear because it's important to me as a human. And that is you understand that it was never my intention to make light of the murder of a young man. I don't think there's anything funny about it."

In April, Kimmel joked about first lady Melania Trump having "a glow like an expectant widow."

Two days later, another assassination attempt was made on President Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, considered the third attempt on the president's life.

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

Education without 'schooling': Why a godly home is the best place for children to learn and thrive



If God has blessed you with children — and the ability to stay home with them — I urge you to consider keeping them home with you as they launch into more formal education.

If you can’t stay home with your kids — well, let’s start there.

All children are best served by spending the bulk of their time with the people who love them the most. Period.

The most common reason given for not being able to stay home is financial. I would challenge you and your spouse, however, to prayerfully and creatively consider ways to make it happen.

I’ve seen many sacrifices made so that a family can live on one income and encourage that to be seriously considered before children come along. That being said, it’s also never too late and always beneficial to change your lifestyle so that you can spend more time at home with your kids, at any age, period. They grow up awfully fast.

And by the way, I think an excellent goal for fathers is to pursue income opportunities that allow him to be home-based too (at least some of the time, at minimum). Your children thrive best with abundant time with both of you.

Financial obstacle ... or excuse?

But when it comes to home education, we are usually talking more about moms than dads, so let’s address whether finances are really what’s keeping mom from staying home. A friend of mine, who sacrificed a promising career to stay home with her three-soon-to-be-four children, thinks Christian women should ask themselves where their hearts are when career and home are at odds:

  • Am I valuing my own career — and my own time — too highly? Am I willing to submit these things to the Lord?
  • Have I not seriously considered staying home, since so many women don’t? Am I willing to be different?
  • Am I willing to sacrifice? Am I willing to prayerfully ask God if I should stay home?

If these questions are asked when a baby is on the way, they may need to be asked again when a child reaches what we deem “school-age.”

Which brings us back to home education, which is the term I prefer over “homeschooling.” That implies we are doing institutional school at home, which further implies that institutional school is the ideal, or at least the norm. I think that’s an idea every responsible parent should challenge, particularly Christian parents.

Like Dorothy said ...

There really is no place like home. No institution can match the power of a godly home as a place for children to grow, learn, and thrive. That applies for all of childhood, starting from birth.

All children are best served by spending the bulk of their time with the people who love them the most. Period.

Daycare cannot possibly provide the nurture, attention, and love that new parents can at home. No preschool can do a better job continuing to nurture a child’s individual needs and gifts as well as loving, committed parents.

And although far too many children do get institutionalized practically from birth, at least parents of babies, toddlers, and preschoolers generally have to pay the institution in question, which has the effect of encouraging parents to at least consider staying home with them, at least part of the time.

But once the children hit school-age, the societal expectation is that the stay-at-home parent (usually mom) will finally be able to go back to work, jump back into a career, get some time to herself, etcetera.

No magic switch

However, there is no magic switch that flips when a child turns 5 or 6, negating their need for, and benefit from, being primarily home with engaged, loving parents.

In fact, I would argue that this is the case throughout what we categorize as the elementary school years. Kids up to about age 12 need their home, family, and parents more than they need an institutional school.

So here’s how you can lay the groundwork in your child’s first years so that home education becomes an organic part of your daily life from their earliest days, making the transition to more formal learning at home more natural when the time comes.

RELATED: 6 ways I'm using 2026 to deepen my relationship with God

Heritage Images/Getty Images

Home education 101

Education is what you’re doing from your baby’s first day of life, by the way.

Dictionary definition of “education” — the process of imparting knowledge, skills, and judgment.

Your baby begins to learn about the world primarily through his/her interaction with mom and dad. This is God’s design and why He brings children into the world through families.

He equips you, the parents, with the desire to protect and nurture your baby, which generally involves you learning new skills, rearranging your schedule, and buying some stuff! (And boy, will those three tasks continue to dominate your life!)

As the preschool years unfold and children increasingly become active in your household, the most important thing you can do for them is simple and organic:

Establish your home as a safe, orderly, loving, peaceful, and interesting place.

It is simple — but it takes effort.

We’ll finish with some thoughts to guide you toward each of these goals.

Safe

You areyour child’s safety. Your daily presence with them fosters a deep sense of security, which is necessary so they can begin to see that they can separate from you, at times.

This does not mean you can never leave, or use a babysitter, but it is helpful if trusted family members or like-minded close friends live nearby and can be part of this security-building experience. After all, when God placed your child in a family, that included the grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etcetera.

A sense of security is also fostered by encouraging children to develop resilience. When they take a tumble, if you see it isn’t serious, a cheerful and calm, “You’re OK!” will send the right message and encourage them to get right back to whatever they were doing. This is not to discourage you from comforting them — on the contrary, comforting and reassuring them that you’re there for them will help them comfort themselves and bounce back more quickly.

There is no such thing, in the baby/toddler/preschool years, as too much time with mom, dad, or other loving family members or friends. When safe and feasible, bring them along for chores and tasks and allow them to “help” as just another form of play — but they are learning all along.

Orderly

Children thrive within boundaries; they want them, they need them, you need them.

Generally keeping to schedules (which change often as babies grow into preschoolers) and generally keeping an orderly environment (they can start helping put toys away at very young ages!) help to foster this sense of order.

Loving

You can’t really express too much affection for each other in a family. Children also need to see that mom and dad love each other. Is this a good place to mention grandparents again? Why yes, it is. Have them come over tonight.

Peaceful

Disagreements arise, but with a little person in the house, strive for a peaceful demeanor. Home should always be a refuge. Yelling is not acceptable, nor are temper tantrums (child or adult).

Interesting

And here is where we finally get to what people think of as “education.” But remember our definition — by providing and modeling safety, order, love, and peace, you already are imparting knowledge, skills, and judgment. That’s the most important “curriculum.”

In part 2, we’ll get into curriculum specifics!

A version of this essay previously appeared at She Speaks Truth.