Following the unrest that unfolded at a Turning Point USA event at the University of California, Berkeley, the Department of Justice has launched an investigation into those behind the disruption.

One of the alleged organizers of the recent protest, By Any Means Necessary, has been described as part of the ecosystem of the “anti-fascist” movement.

These educators are attempting to advance their political agenda through statewide governmental jobs and teachers’ union leadership positions.

Unfortunately, UC Berkeley is no stranger to left-wing protests turning violent.

In 2017, several far-left agitators were arrested at a conservative rally on the same campus. One of those individuals was BAMN member and middle school teacher Yvette Felarca, who had previously defended the use of militant violence in an interview. She had also been charged in 2016 with assault related to a previous counter-protest.

But Felarca is not an anomaly. Rather, she is one example of a fringe of aggressive, far-left revolutionaries who seek to corrupt the K-12 education ecosystem to advance their radical political ideology. Whether through ethnic studies curriculums, organizing “Teach-ins for Gaza” and anti-Israel activism, or alleged glorification of terrorism and endorsement of Antifa, activist teachers are leveraging the historical trust bestowed upon the education profession to foment an anti-Western, anti-American mindset in schools and the culture writ large.

Not surprisingly, the teachers’ unions play a role in funding, promoting, and protecting these activist educators.

In fact, the American Federation of Teachers came to Felarca’s aid in 2018 by passing a resolution in support of her and her lawsuit against Judicial Watch. The legal action was aimed at stopping the watchdog group from obtaining public records from the school district. But the lawsuit failed.

Yet this has not stopped Felarca and other BAMN members from continuing to advance a far-left ideology both inside and outside K-12 schools.

For example, in March, Oakland High School (Calif.) students, flanked by teachers who affiliate with BAMN, led a protest over immigration policies. In this instance, the influence of the teacher-activists is no secret. The student protesters publicly claimed they received help from the local BAMN chapter in organizing the event.

RELATED: The radical left is poisoning our schools — here’s how we fight back

skynesher/Getty Images Plus

Even though street activism can be the most visible form of ideological battle on the American culture, these educators are attempting to advance their political agenda through statewide government jobs and teachers’ union leadership positions.

The executive vice president of United Educators of San Francisco, for example, is currently running for state superintendent of public instruction. The San Francisco Unified teacher touts that under his leadership, the UESF “transformed into one of California’s strongest and most militant unions.” His site also states that he is an activist and “longtime organizer with the Party for Socialism and Liberation” — an organization known to be behind many of the anti-Israel and anti-ICE protests that have taken place across the country.

In Los Angeles, the Association of Raza Educators, the education wing of the radical group Union del Barrio, has a slate of individuals running for positions of leadership in United Teachers Los Angeles. Included on the roster is teacher Ron Gochez, who is no stranger to controversial comments and actions.

In fact, he was recently the subject of a DOJ probe over public statements he made toward Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Other ARE members have served on committees for the California Teachers Association, have been delegates to the NEA convention, and are engaged in groups such as Educators for Justice in Palestine and Queers for Palestine.

The system is being used as a tool to advance a radical left-wing political agenda.

But should ARE achieve its goal of taking over leadership of the union of one of the largest school districts in the country, it would be more status quo than anomaly.

In 2021, UTLA President Cecily Myart-Cruz infamously proclaimed that “there is no such thing as learning loss.” She continued by stating that it was “OK that our babies may not have learned their times tables … they learned the difference between riot and a protest.”

Myart-Cruz said the quiet part out loud — the teachers’ unions and far-left educators value political activism over learning.

Yet parents, public officials, and even other teachers are either willfully blind or largely unaware of the influence that these nefarious actors have on education despite the increase in public-facing activism. The system is being used as a tool to advance a radical left-wing political agenda, and it comes with a very steep cost for American children.

The proof is already starting to rear its ugly head, as evidenced by a recent University of California, San Diego, report.

Regardless of one’s position on public schools or teachers’ unions, this issue will eventually impact all Americans if left unaddressed. It is time to put a stop to the “school to far-left activism” pipeline and return the institution to its primary charter — to teach children to read and do math.

​Radical left, Education takeover, Teachers unions, Education 

After the nearly unanimous passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act last month, many have wondered what other files and information have yet to be disclosed amid the heated controversy over the Epstein files.

A federal judge in Florida just ordered the release of grand jury documents from an old case against Epstein, defying past orders not to release them.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith argued that a recent law now takes precedence over the rules that prohibited past disclosure.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith has ordered the release of grand jury transcripts related to investigations from 2005 and 2007 involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

RELATED: Was the latest Epstein document dump just Trump’s 4D chess trap? Steve Deace answers.

Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images

Grand jury proceedings are often conducted in private and there are higher standards to meet in order to disclose transcripts from them.

However, U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith, in his short decision to release the transcripts, argued that a recent law now takes precedence over the rules that prohibited past disclosure.

Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky), who spearheaded the effort for disclosure, posted the news of the ruling on X on Friday afternoon.

Massie highlighted the fact that the Epstein Files Transparency Act played a crucial role in the judge’s decision to override past decisions against disclosure.

The Act, being “later-enacted” and more “specific”, trumps the rules barring the release of the documents in the past.

Epstein was not convicted of any crimes as a result of this grand jury investigation..

Instead, he famously pleaded guilty to comparatively minor charges in 2008 under the U.S. Attorney at the time, Alex Acosta, who later became Trump’s Labor Secretary in his first term. Acosta subsequently resigned following scrutiny over the non-prosecution agreement in 2008.

It is not clear when the grand jury transcripts will be released or exactly how much new information will be disclosed.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed into law on November 19, gives the government 30 days to prepare and release all relevant records.

Those following the case can expect an update on the release of any remaining files by December 19.

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

​Politics, Epstein, Epstein files, Trump, Trump administration, Rodney smith, Epstein files transparency act, Thomas massie, Florida, Jeffrey epstein 

One of the great beauties of America, says Mark Levin, is her lack of fixed social classes. With grit and determination, anyone from any background can rise in the ranks and become successful. That’s why America is the top country of origin for self-made millionaires and billionaires.

Now compare that to Marxist regimes, where the mantra is “you are what you are, and that’s where you’re going to stay.” Work ethic, intelligence, ambition don’t get you anywhere, unless, of course, you’re part of the government machine that crushes the people.

And yet the radical left and the neofascist right alike are pushing similar grievance politics that echo Marxist tactics — demanding more government to “fix” a rigged system. Progressives say, “If you’re a minority, the system is out to get you,” while “the neofascists [say] if you’re white, the system is out to get you,” says Levin, accusing both groups of “racializing” economics to the detriment of all.

“They want more and more government, which is the biggest problem we have,” he says.

But this push for more federal power is the folly of ideologues. “We conservatives are motivated by reality. … Our principles are based on knowledge and information and experience and reality — not a fanatical ideology,” says Levin.

“This ideology of Marxism and socialism, it’s been imposed on one society after another — imposed. And it’s a disastrous outcome in every case: poverty, often genocide, no civil liberties.”

But because the government holds all the power, the blame can’t be placed on the ruling class when everything inevitably goes to hell in a handbasket. Rather the people — powerless and crushed economically and in spirit — shoulder the blame.

But even though history lessons in failed socialism abound, still people like Robert Reich make capitalism the villain. Levin plays a clip of the former secretary of labor under Bill Clinton whining about McDonald’s high prices — the same complaint he made in 1994 — as proof that corporations are deliberately creating a permanent underclass.

Levin’s response is brutal and simple: “You were an idiot in 1994, and you’re an idiot today.” In the 31 years since Reich’s prophecy, millions of supposedly “left-behind” Americans started businesses, bought homes, and invested.

“Your life isn’t static. The economy is not static. Nothing is static. The fact is things keep turning along. Sometimes they go over a cliff; sometimes up to the stars,” says Levin, noting that his life has changed tremendously since 1994.

But if you really want to buy Reich’s argument that McDonald’s and “processed foods” are the problem, go ahead and ban them, he says.

Get rid of the Big Macs, the canned beans, the frozen pizzas, the mass-produced bread, the snacks — everything affordable and convenient. The result won’t be social justice; it’s “people starve to death,” says Levin.

The ideological war on private enterprise always ends up punishing the very people it claims to help — exactly the pattern Marxism has repeated from Moscow to Havana. America works, Levin concludes, precisely because we let people solve their own problems instead of letting utopian grifters in Washington or on social media tell them the system is rigged and only total government control can save them.

To hear more of his commentary, watch the video above.

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.

​Levintv, Mark levin, Blazetv, Blaze media, Neofascist right, Marxist left, Capitalism, Socialism, Robert reich 

The United States is one of the few countries that allows prescription drugmakers to speak directly to patients. That simple fact now fuels political calls to “ban the ads.” But restricting direct-to-consumer advertising would do more than change what runs during football games. It would shrink the flow of information to patients and push our system toward the bureaucratic throttling that has turned other countries into innovation laggards.

Advertising is part of a dynamic market process. Entrepreneurs inform consumers about new products, and when profits are high, firms have every incentive to improve quality and expand access.

The pattern is clear: The more Washington intervenes, the fewer cures Americans get.

New, cheaper treatments need to be brought to consumers’ attention. Otherwise, people stay stuck with older, more expensive options, and competition falters. Banning pharmaceutical advertising would hobble innovative firms whose products are not yet known and leave those seeking medical care less informed.

Critics warn that “a growing proliferation of ads” drives demand for costly treatments, even when less expensive alternatives exist. Yet a recent study in the Journal of Public Economics finds that exposure to pharmaceutical ads increases drug utilization across the board — including cheaper generics and non-advertised medications. In short, advertising pushes people who need care to make better, more informed decisions.

A market-based system rewards risk-taking and innovation. Despite the many flaws in American health care, the United States leads the world in medical breakthroughs — from cancer immunotherapies to vaccines developed in record time. That success wasn’t created by government decree. It came from competition: firms communicating openly about their products, fighting for patients, and reinvesting earnings into the next generation of lifesaving discoveries.

Sure, some regulations are adopted with good intentions. But drug ads are already heavily regulated, and a full ban would create serious unintended consequences — including the unseen cost of innovative drugs that will never reach patients because firms won’t invest in developing treatments they are barred from promoting.

American health care is now regulated to the point of satisfying no one. Patients face rising costs. Physicians navigate a Kafkaesque maze of top-down rules. Taxpayers foot the bill for decisions made by distant bureaucracies. Measures associated with socialized medicine continue creeping into the marketplace.

Price controls in the Inflation Reduction Act are already cutting into pharmaceutical research and development. One study estimates roughly 188 fewer small-molecule treatments in the 20 years after its enactment. The pattern is clear: The more Washington intervenes, the fewer cures Americans get.

RELATED: Trump faces drugmakers that treat sick Americans like ATMs

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The answer to the problems in American health care isn’t more government. It’s less. Expected profitability drives investment in biomedical research. Imposing new advertising bans or European-style price controls would mean lower-quality care, higher mortality, and the erosion of America’s leadership in medical innovation.

The United Kingdom offers a warning. Once a global leader, it drove investment offshore through overregulation and rigid price controls. Today, only 37% of new medicines are made fully available for their licensed uses in Britain. Americans spend more, but they also live longer: U.S. cancer patients outlive their European counterparts for a reason.

Discovering new drugs is hard. Every breakthrough begins with the freedom to imagine, to compete, and to communicate. Strip companies of the ability to inform patients, and you strip away the incentive to develop the next cure. Competitive markets — not centralized control — will fuel tomorrow’s medical miracles.

​Drug prices, Big pharma, Opinion & analysis, Donald trump, Robert f. kennedy jr., Regulation, Advertising, Tv ads, Innovation, Research and development, European union, Rules and regulations, Competition, Free markets, Generic, Bureaucracy