Category: Conservative Review
‘Never Relent’: Trump Admin Strikes ISIS Targets In Syria
‘Never Relent’: Trump Admin Strikes ISIS Targets In Syria
How a pro-life law in Kentucky lets mothers get away with murder
Melinda Spencer allegedly took abortion pills, ended the life of her unborn son, and buried his remains in a shallow grave in her backyard.
Yet a law in Kentucky exempting women from prosecution after obtaining an abortion — a law supported by the most influential pro-life organization in the state — appears to have prevented prosecutors from holding Spencer accountable for murder.
If a state refuses to make murder illegal for everyone, then some human beings will remain unprotected by design.
According to court documents cited by local media, Spencer, 35, told Kentucky State Police that the child “was not her boyfriend’s, and she did not want him to find out she was pregnant with another man’s baby.”
To conceal the pregnancy, Spencer allegedly ordered abortion pills online, intending to end the life of her unborn child without medical supervision.
Police say Spencer took the pills the day after Christmas, placed her deceased son in a light bulb box, and buried him in a shallow grave in her backyard. An autopsy determined the child was around 20 weeks’ gestation at the time of his death.
Initially Spencer was charged with first-degree fetal homicide, abuse of a corpse, concealing the birth of an infant, and tampering with physical evidence.
This week, however, Kentucky prosecutors dropped the homicide charge — not because they doubt that Spencer intentionally caused the death of her unborn child but because Kentucky law explicitly prohibits prosecuting a pregnant woman who murders her own unborn child.
Miranda King, the prosecutor overseeing the case, acknowledged this limitation directly. In a public statement, she explained that the relevant statute “prohibits the prosecution of a pregnant woman who caused the death of her unborn child.” Spencer still faces the remaining, lesser charges.
King made clear that this frustrating outcome was not her preference.
“I sought this job with the intention of being a pro-life prosecutor but must do so within the boundaries allowed by the Kentucky state law I’m sworn to defend,” she said. “I will prosecute the remaining lawful charges fully and fairly.”
Kentucky is widely regarded as a conservative state with strong pro-life laws. Many Americans assume abortion was effectively banned there after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. This case exposes how incomplete that assumption is.
RELATED: Why the pro-life movement fails without a Christian worldview
jcphoto via iStock/Getty Images
Kentucky’s leading pro-life advocacy organization, Kentucky Right to Life, has long supported laws that shield women from criminal liability for abortion. In practice, this ensures that abortion remains legal for women, even if clinics are closed.
In 2021, Kentucky Right to Life joined more than 70 other pro-life organizations in signing a national letter declaring opposition to “any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women” who obtain abortions.
Since then, the organization has opposed multiple abolition bills that would have established equal protection under the law for unborn children — specifically because such legislation would allow for the prosecution of mothers who willfully procure abortions.
Addia Wuchner, Kentucky Right to Life’s executive director, opposed an abolition bill in 2023 on the grounds that it might expose mothers to criminal charges. She took the same position last year, arguing that women are victims of coercion by the abortion industry.
That framing has deadly consequences.
Photo by Mandel NGAN / AFP via Getty Images
Following Spencer’s arrest, Wuchner publicly expressed sympathy for the accused, describing Spencer as likely being “on her own” and calling that “probably the greatest tragedy,” before adding that “of course … a child’s life was lost.”
The ordering is revealing. The alleged murder of a child was treated as secondary to the emotional state of the alleged murderer. Empathy displaced justice and accountability.
There are cases in which women are coerced into abortions under genuine duress. But coercion cannot be presumed as a universal explanation. By all available evidence, Spencer appears to have acted deliberately. Kentucky law nevertheless forecloses full accountability — and ensures that the central act in this case cannot be adjudicated as homicide.
Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe, states like Kentucky have continued to see record abortion levels, largely through self-managed chemical abortions ordered online. Laws that categorically exempt women from prosecution guarantee this outcome.
If a state refuses to make murder illegal for everyone, then some human beings will remain unprotected by design. And when that exemption applies even in cases involving concealment, burial, and admitted intent, justice becomes impossible by statute.
So long as that remains the case, women who willfully kill their unborn children in Kentucky will continue to get away with murder.
Is Western civilization really doomed — or does history show a path forward?
Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that Western civilization is on the brink of collapse. The values that built it have been ripped up and condemned as antiquated, imperialist, or white supremacist.
But instead of despairing, Westerners ought to take heart in one trait the West has exemplified time and again: resilience.
Historian Allen Guelzo, co-author of “The Golden Thread” book series, tells BlazeTV host Steve Deace that “unlike other civilizations, which have risen, reached a certain peak, and then gone rapidly into decline, the Western tradition … has shown a remarkable resilience to rise, to falter, to look like it’s about to slide downwards maybe into the abyss of forgetfulness, but yet somehow finding the way to recover itself.”
This bouncing back has happened over and over again, Guelzo says.
“We had a moment like that at the end of the Roman Empire when it appeared that we were about to disappear into what is commonly called the Dark Ages,” he recaps.
It happened again after the Black Plague of the 1300s wiped out “two-thirds of the European population” and again after the Thirty Years’ War left so much death and chaos in its wake, it appeared that “violence and power were about to stamp out any notion of law and inquiry.”
In more recent years, the West faced two World Wars and the greatest genocide in Western history.
And yet, in all of these cases, “there was something which bounced back in this Western tradition,” Guelzo remarks optimistically.
Today, we stand at yet another “civilizational moment” where destruction is knocking at our door.
Guelzo is hopeful our future will mirror our resilient past, but for that to happen, people — especially younger generations — must cultivate an interest in history.
“History itself tells us who we have been. What we are today is what we were in the past,” he says. “The great Marcus Tullius Cicero … once said that anyone who remained ignorant of their history was condemned perpetually to live as a child, and I think that’s true.”
“The Golden Thread” series, which Guelzo co-authored with former Harvard history professor James Hankins, are exactly the kind of books that will spark an interest in Western history.
“It is a good deal more than just long lists of names, dates, places — which is the kind of thing that most people tell me they dread about history,” Guelzo laughs. “These books are also full of ideas; they are full of philosophy; they are full of art; they are full of great paintings; they are full of music.”
“It’s full of color. It’s full of life. It’s full of acknowledgments that the Western tradition has sometimes put its foot down wrongly. It’s made mistakes. People have suffered for that, and yet, even with that, the vitality of that tradition has been one of recovery; it has been one of uplift; it has been one that promotes human flourishing,” he adds.
It is this knowledge that can save Western civilization from collapse, Guelzo tells Deace.
“We can save it because it has been saved before.”
To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.
Want more from Steve Deace?
To enjoy more of Steve’s take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Colbert praises Soviet feminism — forgets the Gulags, mass murder, and forced labor
By the time of its collapse in 1991, the Soviet regime had overseen a democide of tens of millions of Russians, thrown millions of people into the regime’s hellish Gulag labor camp system, and spent nearly 70 years brutally persecuting those at odds with dissenting views, especially Christians.
Stephen Colbert, the departing host of CBS’ “The Late Show” who pushed COVID-19 vaccination during the pandemic, recently suggested that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn’t all bad on account of its purported feminism.
‘Russia and the Soviet Union were the vanguard of world feminism.’
During her Monday appearance on Colbert’s show, Soviet-born reporter Julia Ioffe peddled her new book about the feminist experiment in the USSR — a “fairy-tale country” whose communist regime forced women to work, legalized abortion, ushered in no-fault divorce, and took other efforts to transform men and women into interchangeable units of labor devoid of strong loyalties outside the state.
“I remember seeing Soviet posters basically saying, ‘In the West women are not allowed to do any of this,'” Colbert told Ioffe. “There was a forward-looking feminist agenda to the communist enterprise.”
RELATED: Domestic extremist or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the mom
Julia Ioffe and Stephen Colbert. Photo by Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty Images.
“I think a lot of people forget, including Russians, that Russia and the Soviet Union were the vanguard of world feminism,” said Ioffe.
Ioffe’s apparent efforts to paint the Soviet Union as the “vanguard of world feminism” didn’t get past critics.
Newsbusters noted that whereas women’s right to vote, which was granted by the Provisional Government that replaced Tsar Nicholas II in 1917, was taken away by “Colbert’s Soviet poster children” after the October Revolution, 15 American states allowed women to vote before 1917, and the 19th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1920 without suffering the country to communism.
Although Ioffe acknowledged that women’s right to vote in the USSR became “largely irrelevant very quickly,” she suggested to Colbert that there were other perks made available to women under the totalitarian regime, including access to free higher education, abortion, child support, no-fault civil divorce, and paid maternity leave.
Ioffe noted further that the regime gifted roughly 800,000 women, mostly teenage girls, the responsibility to fight in active combat during World War II.
Colbert, apparently upset to learn that the USSR’s efforts to maximize the utility of women to the state dissipated over time, asked, “Why did it go away?”
“Because men,” answered Ioffe.
“I’m so sorry,” said Colbert.
Colbert, who recently told fellow travelers that a 2028 presidential run was not in the works despite speculation to the contrary, is leaving “The Late Show” in May.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
America tried to save the planet and forgot to save itself
Let’s face it: $20 trillion is a lot of money.
One would expect a big bang to follow the spending of 20,000 billion dollars. It’s a lot of money! In fact, it’s pretty much the total present value of America’s GDP.
The American economy sent trillions to our south and east — putting America second, hollowing out the American middle class, and neutralizing the American dream.
This is the total amount spent globally — largely by Europe and the United States — in a coordinated effort by the developed world to decarbonize the global economy. China, in contrast, sold windmills and solar panels worldwide while opening a new coal-fired power plant every month.
What was the net effect of this “Green” Marshall Plan? Hydrocarbon consumption continued to increase anyway. All that was achieved was a tiny reduction, just 2%, in the share of overall energy supplied by hydrocarbons. Put simply, as the energy pie got bigger and all forms of energy supply increased, hydrocarbons ended up with a slightly smaller share of a larger pie.
We also saw the deindustrialization of the European and American economies — not just with higher prices at the gas pump and on electric bills, but a stealth green tax that was passed on to consumers on everything. This is the culprit of our American and global affordability crisis. So much treasure and pain for a 2% reduction in the share of hydrocarbons.
Ironically, a byproduct of this Green Hunger Games was political populism.
What a waste. The worst bang for the public and private buck ever. Yet the Chicken Little believers of the Church of Settled Science and the grifters who profited from it will still sing in unison that it failed because they did not go far enough. If only the global community spent and regulated more!
In contrast, the Marshall Plan (1948-1951) rebuilt a decimated Europe into an industrial, interconnected, and peaceful powerhouse. It was a great success by any measure. At the time, its price tag was huge: $13.3 billion in nominal 1948-1951 dollars, equivalent to approximately $150 billion in today’s dollars.
Since a trillion is such a large number, let’s divide $20 trillion by an inflation-adjusted Marshall Plan of $150 billion, and we have 133 Marshall opportunities. Money was not the problem. To give a sense of the comparative bang for buck, by the Marshall program’s end, the aggregated gross national product of the participating nations rose by more than 32% and industrial output increased by a remarkable 40%.
President Trump has been on the global funding rounds and has secured more than $18 trillion in foreign investment. That’s roughly the equivalent of 120 Marshall Plans — just 13 shy of $20 trillion — to be invested here and nowhere else.
Unlike NAFTA, through which the rich got richer under the banner of free markets in exchange for cheaper consumer goods, Trump’s policy is a recipe for prosperity for all Americans.
RELATED: Trump administration saves billions in simple move globalists and climate activists alike will hate
Photo by David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Making these investments a reality in America will require a growing army of blue- and white-collar workers. With the wealth that it creates, our debt could be paid down and, finally, retired. Social Security and Medicare would be placed on a solid footing for time immemorial. All our public obligations to one another would be met by ever-growing prosperity, not by borrowed money and suffocating debt service.
Nothing approaching this level of intentional investment in a single country has ever been done. Yes, a similar tranche of greenbacks was burned with no discernible environmental benefit and great economic hardship for all. And yes, the American economy, under the guise of comparative advantage, sent trillions to our south and east — putting America second, hollowing out the American middle class, and neutralizing the American dream.
Trump’s plan is the opposite of both failed experiments. Like the original Marshall Plan, Trump’s is a recipe for the reindustrialization of the American economy and military, and it is not going to be fueled by windmills and solar farms but with hydrocarbons and uranium. That’s the Trump plan. It has merit.
Yet if we look at the polls, Trump is under water, and his base is showing signs of stress fractures. You bring peace to the Middle East, stop six other wars, and bring in some $20 trillion in America First investments within your first year, and you come home to find yourself under water and called a “lame duck.” Democracies are known to be fickle and hard to please, but this is still rich — and it will result in poverty if it continues.
Without the use of Trump’s tariffs and dealmaking, there would not be $20 trillion looking to onshore in the United States. You can blame Trump for higher costs on bananas and coffee, but it is the cost of electricity and health care — not the cost of coffee and bananas — that is roiling kitchen-table economics.
Vice President JD Vance recently made the right call for popular and populist patience. Those who are impatient should look at the offsets already passed, such as no taxes on Social Security, tips, and overtime. That helps pay for bananas and coffee and then some.
The sovereign wealth funds that are presently lining up on our shores are coming here based on promises made by a can-do president speaking for a can-do nation. While Trump is a can-do guy, are “We the People” still a can-do people? Or do we at least want to return to becoming a can-do people again?
The “can’t-do” forces are legion, and they are the ones now championing the affordability crisis they caused. When America was a can-do nation, we built the Empire State Building in a year. Today, it would take years to get a permit.
RELATED: From Monroe to ‘Donroe’: America enforces its back yard again
Photo by Jim WATSON/AFP via Getty Images
Those willing to invest such money will require some certitude that the power they will need will be there to “build, baby, build.” If not, the money and the opportunity will pass before they have the possibility to take needed root.
And what about us, the American family, worker, and business continuing to struggle under the legacy of throttling energy privation? In short, we all have a common good — a shared interest — in righting the wrongs that control our grid and our nation’s future.
The good news is that a bill was introduced in the House during the government shutdown. It’s called the “Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act.” Unlike Obamacare, which clocked in at 903 pages, this bill is a lean 763 words. If it becomes law — and it should — it would change everything for the better, unlike Obamacare, which is a recipe for unaffordability.
Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act was missing this one thing. His short- and long-term America First ambitions would be significantly strengthened by making this energy bill law before the midterms. Executive orders don’t provide the energy security these investors require or the American people deserve.
$20 trillion is a lot of money. Coming to our shores is a new lease on the American experiment as we enter our 250th birthday, hopelessly divided and broke. Let us come together to solve not just the affordability crisis but also set the conditions for greatness for the next 250 years.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
Washington, DC, has become a hostile city-state
The District of Columbia wasn’t supposed to be like this. Hard as it is to believe today, the capital was set apart as its own district not to make it an untouchable bureaucratic citadel, but to make it work for all Americans. Unattached to any one state and free from the control of any one constituency, our government was supposed to serve the whole country.
Decades of misunderstanding, however, have muddled this design. Federalization gives us a fighting chance of restoring it.
Perhaps the most prudent solution would be to subsume the District’s entities into the federal government.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government resided in Philadelphia until a military mutiny prompted it to leave. With this in mind, the framers proposed an optional federal district.
Under the proposal, Congress could create a capital and be vested with “exclusive” legislative authority over it. This would put the government in a position to contemplate and sympathize equally with all Americans. The states approved. And so the framers’ proposal was ratified under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution. Congress then placed the capital along the Potomac River, and D.C. was organized in 1801.
Confusion soon followed. Congress tried many approaches to local governance and settled on a semi-independent model, enacted as the D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973. This established a congressionally appointed judiciary and a popularly elected city council, mayor, and attorney general. Under home rule, D.C. could make its own law, albeit with congressional oversight.
The founders warned us about this model, however. They anticipated that self-governance would embarrass, impede, and endanger the federal government.
This failure predates Trump
Trump derangement syndrome has only vindicated this position. In 2017, D.C.’s attorney general joined litigation against Trump’s so-called Muslim ban. Then in 2020, D.C. painted a “Black Lives Matter” memorial along 16th Street NW, flipping an urban bird at the Trump White House. And in 2025, the District’s attorney general protested Trump’s public safety initiative, contesting his right to seize the Metropolitan Police Department and deploy the National Guard across the city.
One might overlook these obstructions if the District’s fierce independence enabled it to ensure safe and efficient self-governance. But that doesn’t describe D.C. In 2023, a Senate staffer traversing the northeast part of the city was knocked to the ground and repeatedly stabbed in the head and chest. Then in May 2025, two embassy interns were murdered outside the Capital Jewish Museum. The following month, a congressional intern was fatally shot in the Mount Vernon Square neighborhood.
Nor is partisanship the only problem. D.C. behaves almost as poorly when Democrats wield federal power. In April 2024, pro-Palestinian protesters erected an encampment at George Washington University (a federally chartered school). City officials refused to remove the protesters for two weeks even though their disruptions interfered with students’ final exam preparations.
Bringing the capital to heel will ultimately require legislation. There’s already a proposal to repeal home rule. It’s a great start, but the proposal doesn’t detail how D.C. would operate afterward — not a promising omission when Congress tends to be so ineffective.
Perhaps the most prudent solution would be to subsume the District’s entities into the federal government. Then Congress need not work from a blank slate by creating new bodies for local governance. Instead, D.C.’s city council could become an advisory body to recommend local laws. This would meet the Constitution’s requirement that Congress make the laws without requiring it to fuss over the minutiae of local governance.
This idea won’t appease locals who want equal electoral representation to that enjoyed by other Americans, if not greater. We know that D.C. residents (or, more accurately, the Democrats in their ears) seek D.C. statehood. But if it’s a state they’re after, then they should entertain retrocession or repeal the District’s charter. Illegitimatizing the Constitution to preserve the mock state is not the way to go.
Forcing the issue through the courts
Knowing that Democrats in Congress will object on these grounds to any discussion of federalization, we should use litigation to force a solution on this matter. The difficulty with litigation is finding a plaintiff — a D.C. resident who believes in a federal capital and whose case wouldn’t be easily dismissed by local judges seeking to avoid the issue. But with so many conservatives currently serving in D.C. under the Trump administration, now might be the time to bring a suit.
The right litigant has two ways to attack home rule — challenge D.C.’s lawmaking power or neutralize its prosecutorial authority. The lawmaking approach likely faces two objections. First, judges might question how Congress’ ultimate legislative authority under home rule meaningfully differs from exclusive authority under the Constitution. Second, they might raise the constitutional liquidation theory, which posits that the post-enactment tradition fleshes out constitutional indeterminacies.
RELATED: Six questions Trump and conservatives can no longer dodge in ’26
Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Neither objection holds water. For one thing, exclusive legislative authority means what it says — one body enacts the law. Using D.C.’s city council as a think tank wouldn’t violate this principle, because only Congress would oversee legislation from introduction to enactment. But home rule fails because Congress shares its authority with another body. In fact, a law could exist under home rule without Congress touching it at all. The Constitution doesn’t envision such an anomaly.
Relatedly, liquidation presupposes that a constitutional provision is ambiguous. But here, the framers couldn’t have written a clearer provision. Congressional authority over D.C. is exclusive; that means only Congress can exercise it. And so even though Congress has handed lawmaking power to D.C. on multiple occasions, viewing this abdication as indicative of the Constitution’s original meaning would only sanction congressional laziness and cowardice.
A limited win that still matters
The prosecutorial approach would open a more straightforward path to a more limited victory. The pitch is simple: The D.C. attorney general is a federal creation. And yet he is elected and can sue the federal government at will. This flouts the appointment process, as well as the president’s power to remove officers and direct executive-branch entities. Now would be the perfect time to press this argument, as the Supreme Court aims to clarify the president’s removal power later this term and the D.C. Circuit recently questioned whether “the District possesses an independent sovereignty that can give rise to an Article III injury from actions of the federal government.”
The only issue is that D.C. could still make law. But some of that law will be unenforceable if the attorney general cannot prosecute. Hence, a small win — but a win nonetheless.
Congress has subverted the Constitution by entertaining home rule. The results have been ugly and will get uglier. District residents will grow increasingly radical in their demands for self-governance. The framers, in their wisdom, didn’t create a sovereign D.C. — they bequeathed us a federal city to preserve a neutral national government. We should restore that vision.
Editor’s Note: A version of this article was published originally at the American Mind
Khamenei Blames Trump for Iran Protests as Regime Kills Dozens of Demonstrators
Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, blamed President Donald Trump on Friday for encouraging nationwide unrest, as the regime continues to kill anti-government protesters despite Trump’s repeated warnings that attacks on civilians will result in U.S. intervention.
The post Khamenei Blames Trump for Iran Protests as Regime Kills Dozens of Demonstrators appeared first on .
Ben Rhodes Heartbroken As Iranians March for Freedom
Iranians are revolting against the despotic regime that Barack Obama worked tirelessly to legitimize, and the former president’s foreign policy guru is struggling to contain his despair.
The post Ben Rhodes Heartbroken As Iranians March for Freedom appeared first on .
