Category: Conservative Review
Gymnasts’ Lawsuits Show That Safeguarding Protocols Are No Substitute for Justice
Two gymnasts are suing USA Gymnastics, the U.S. Center for SafeSport, their former training facility, and the facility’s owners after…
Woman Suffers Severe Burns After Man Allegedly Dumps Chemical Substance On Her Head
‘Absolutely horrific’
Biden Legacy Imperiled As Presidential Library Project Reportedly Plagued By Anemic Fundraising
‘He’ll be lucky to have a bookmobile’
We all want healthy lunches for our kids — so why the partisan food fight?
The government shouldn’t be in the business of buying junk food for school children.
Of all the positions splitting Americans today, you wouldn’t expect this one to be controversial. And yet this is the plate we’ve been served.
Each side accuses the other of not caring about disadvantaged children — while both sides insist that no one should dictate what counts as ‘healthy’ food.
The Healthy SNAP Act of 2025 is currently awaiting action in the Senate Agriculture Committee, where it has sat since Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced it in February, with no markup or vote scheduled.
Even so, the bill — now championed by Republicans — has revived a familiar argument: Who should decide what children eat, and why do voters reverse their positions depending on which party proposes the rules?
Lunch lady
President Obama enacted his wife’s Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act in 2010 with the stated goal of providing USDA-approved nutritious meals to school children and combating childhood hunger and obesity. Michelle Obama advocated for children to have access to more vegetables, fruit, whole grains, and milk — and less sugary soda and junk food — which she claimed were especially hurting impoverished children.
“Think about why someone is OK with your kids eating crap,” she said at the time. “Because here is the secret — if someone is doing that, they don’t care about your kid.”
Conservatives pushed back, suspecting Mrs. Obama of ulterior motives and calling the law an instance of government overreach. Whose business was it what children ate? Surely not the first lady’s.
There was a lot of fear (or hope) that when Trump got into office, he would overturn all that the Obamas had done and “simplify” the lunch menu.
No (burger) kings
The new president did not disappoint. Throughout his first term, President Trump steadily rolled back Obama-era school-nutrition standards. The USDA first relaxed rules on whole grains, sodium, and flavored milk in 2017 and finalized those changes in 2018. In early 2020, it proposed further revisions to ease fruit and vegetable requirements and expand options like pizza and burgers, drawing renewed national scrutiny.
Those efforts were partially blocked in court, and the underlying Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act remained intact. But the political terrain shifted over the next few years: Rising concern about obesity and chronic disease, new dietary-guideline updates, and state-level experiments with SNAP restrictions created an opening for conservatives to reframe nutrition policy as a matter of fiscal responsibility and public health rather than federal overreach.
Menu change
Fast-forward to 2025, and the same movement that once dismissed “nanny-state” lunch rules now promotes the Healthy SNAP Act — an initiative that mirrors Michelle Obama’s nutrition goals almost point for point.
All that’s changed is the politician behind the policy. That alone seems to be enough to flip public opinion. Voters who once said junk food was victimizing impoverished children now attack nearly identical proposals coming from the Trump administration.
The Healthy SNAP Act of 2025 would bar SNAP benefits from being used for the very same foods Michelle Obama targeted in 2010. According to Congress.gov, SNAP recipients would not be able to use benefits for “soft drinks, candy, ice cream, or prepared desserts, such as cakes, pies, cookies, or similar products.”
RELATED: $500 million in SNAP funds is reportedly spent on fast food because of state program
Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
Where’s the beef?
Foods purchased with SNAP would have to meet nutritional standards based on sugar, fat, and salt content. In structure, the bill is strikingly similar to the Obama-era reforms. The only real difference is whose name is on it.
The same people who supported Michelle Obama’s restrictions now vehemently oppose nearly identical measures from Trump. Meanwhile those who once denounced government interference now applaud the idea when framed as a conservative reform. Each side accuses the other of not caring about poor children — while both sides insist that no one should dictate what counts as “healthy” food, unless their politician is doing the dictating. Party comes first, safety second, liberty somewhere further down the list.
Some liberals now argue that children deserve a treat — that SNAP should not limit junk-food purchases at all. But SNAP has always been regulated. In most states, fast food, hot deli meals, vitamins, alcohol, and tobacco have long been prohibited. WIC is even more restrictive to ensure mothers receive high-quality, protein-rich foods.
SNAP decision
Government aid will always come with rules. Whether it should include “treats” is a matter of personal philosophy. SNAP already provides incentives to buy fresh produce at farmers markets. Families can still make simple desserts within existing guidelines.
And any parent can spend a dollar on an occasional donut or soda if that is truly important to them — while still ensuring that children have reliable access to nutritious meals funded by taxpayers, who can rest easier at night knowing we are ensuring a better future for children.
Reasonable readers at this point should be asking themselves what they, as voters, really care about when it comes to policies like this. Would any of this be a discussion if voters thought less about who was in office? We all should be asking ourselves what it is we truly value and act accordingly.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — who in March introduced a similar, and in some respects even broader, bill of his own — put it this way:
“It makes no sense that taxpayer dollars are being used to fund an epidemic of obesity and diet-related illness in low-income communities. My bill ensures that this assistance program actually supports health and wellness, not chronic disease.”
His words sound eerily interchangeable with what Michelle Obama was saying 15 years ago. It makes one wonder if perhaps we don’t need to bicker over politics as much as we do. Maybe our differences aren’t as pronounced as we think — at least when it comes to the health of American children.
‘Let me help you out, dingbat!’ — Mark Levin savagely torches Rachel Maddow for accusing Trump of starting war with Venezuela
President Donald Trump obliterates Venezuelan drug boats smuggling loads of fentanyl into the United States, and the left accuses him of starting a war.
But it’s Venezuela’s narco‑terrorist regime that’s declared war on the United States, Mark Levin says, and President Trump has every right to respond as he sees fit.
Levin condemns radical left-wing pundits, like MS NOW’s Rachel Maddow, for accusing the Trump administration of starting a war with Venezuela.
“I don’t understand why we’re going to war with Venezuela, and I’m not sure the administration is even bothered to try to come up with anything even internally coherent,” she whined on the December 2 episode of “The Rachel Maddow Show.”
“Let me help you out, dingbat. Let me help you out,” Mark Levin fires back. “They are smuggling more drugs in the United States directly and through Mexico and with communist China than any other country on the face of the earth.”
For the first time in decades, he says, we have a president who actually takes seriously the Monroe Doctrine — an 1823 policy long abandoned or rejected by weak prior administrations that essentially says, “If something goes on in our hemisphere that affects our country, it’s our business, and we’re going to do something about it,” even if that means military action.
The accusation that Trump committed a war crime by striking a Venezuelan drug boat twice is just “sick” Democrat nonsense, Levin says.
“If another government … headed by a narco-terrorist is using the power of that government and the resources of that government, of that country, to kill American citizens — it doesn’t matter if they do it with fentanyl drugs; it doesn’t matter if they do it with biochemicals; it doesn’t matter if they poison our water or whatever — these are acts of war,” he asserts.
He then mocks the pearl-clutching Democrats shedding fake tears because narco-terrorists aren’t being politely handcuffed and read Miranda rights.
It’s really simple, he says. “Look at that, a drug boat’s coming. I think we’re going to blow it out of the water. Yes.”
The Constitution, Levin says, gives the president, as the commander in chief, the right to order military actions (like blowing up Venezuelan drug boats) without a formal declaration of war.
He explains that throughout American history, the majority of military actions issued by presidents occurred without Congress declaring war first.
Back in 1801, President Jefferson launched a full overseas naval war against the Barbary pirate states, which were attacking and kidnapping American merchant ships and sailors, without any formal declaration of war.
Calling Trump a war criminal is just proof that it’s not about democracy or the Constitution for Democrats. It’s about ideology.
“They’re on the side of the enemy,” Levin says.
Want more from Mark Levin?
To enjoy more of “the Great One” — Mark Levin as you’ve never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
‘You done f**ked up, son!’ Cop rubs it in after capturing homicide suspect armed with handgun modified as fully automatic
Atlanta police officers from a special unit were seen on dashcam and bodycam videos converging upon and tackling a homicide suspect who was armed with a handgun modified as fully automatic, police said in a video released earlier this month.
Police said officers with the Auto Crimes Enforcement Unit were alerted to a homicide suspect driving in the area of Pickfair Way SW near Ashwood Avenue NW on Oct. 28.
‘Ram our f**kin’ car?’
The officers located the suspect’s vehicle and then used their patrol vehicles to box in the suspect’s vehicle, police said.
However, the suspect rammed patrol vehicles in front of him and behind him in an attempt to escape before fleeing from his vehicle while armed with a handgun that had been modified to be a fully automatic weapon, police said.
Image source: Atlanta Police Department video screenshot
While running from his car, the suspect threw the gun into an adjacent wooded area, after which officers took him down to the street.
Image source: Atlanta Police Department
“Get your ass on the ground!” one officer yelled at the suspect.
Once lying upon the street, the suspect quickly gave himself up, telling the arresting officer, “You got me!’
But the officer rubbed in the arrest just a bit, telling the suspect as he handcuffed him, “You done f**ked up, son! … Ram our f**kin’ car? We ain’t the normal police, pimp!”
Content warning: Language:
Police said the suspect was identified as 37-year-old Keith Hawkins, who was wanted for his involvement in a homicide that occurred at 700 Eloise Street SE on April 9.
Hawkins was charged with murder, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (two counts), possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, possession of a machine gun, willful obstruction of law enforcement officers, and operating a vehicle without insurance, police said.
Image source: Atlanta Police Department
Hawkins was taken to the Fulton County Jail for processing, police added.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Trump official pins DC National Guard attack on Biden’s open border crisis
The Trump administration’s National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent exposed a terrifying reality about the fallout from former President Joe Biden’s open border crisis.
‘That number, alarmingly, remains unknown at this time.’
During a Thursday Committee on Homeland Security hearing, Kent testified that, under the Biden administration, thousands of foreign nationals with known or suspected terrorist ties were allowed into the country.
“Despite the progress that we’ve made so far in the Trump administration, the threat posed by terrorists of all brands remains very high right now,” Kent said in his opening statement before lawmakers.
He explained that the country is facing “a persistent threat from the individuals that were allowed into this country by the previous administration.”
Kent noted that the most significant threat “is the fact that we don’t know who came into our country in the last four years of Biden’s open borders.”
“What we have identified is alarming,” he stated, adding that the federal government recently issued a warning about the heightened risk of terrorist attacks, particularly posed by ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
Photo by GUILLERMO ARIAS/AFP via Getty Images
“So far, NCTC has identified around 18,000 known and suspected terrorists that the Biden administration let come into our country,” Kent revealed.
He accused the prior administration of having “facilitated” the entry of individuals with ties to jihadi groups, including the Afghan suspected of attacking National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., on November 26. The attack resulted in the death of 20-year-old National Guard member Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, while Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe was wounded.
“That Afghan was brought into the country as a group of over 100,000 Afghans who were brought here during the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. These individuals, despite what has been reported, were not vetted properly to come into the United States,” Kent said.
Photo by GUILLERMO ARIAS/AFP via Getty Images
He stated that the NCTC is working with the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI to track down individuals with ties to terrorist organizations. However, he noted that the 18,000 figure does not include foreign nationals who came into the U.S. illegally through the open border.
“That number, alarmingly, remains unknown at this time,” Kent remarked. “We’re trying to figure out who those individuals are as well.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Kamala Harris Floats ‘Honest’ Reality Check Of Trump Economy, Seemingly Forgetting Biden Admin’s Affordability Crisis
‘the American dream has become more of a myth than a reality’
