Category: blaze media

Nvidia, the AI chip manufacturing giant, recently announced plans to build new AI factories in Dallas and Houston. These plans represent a significant advancement in the production of AI supercomputers entirely within the United States.

In its announcement, Nvidia revealed plans to partner with Wistron in Dallas and Foxconn in Houston. Other partners include TSMC, Amkor, and SPIL. Wistron is a Taiwanese information and communications technology company headquartered in Taipei, while Foxconn is the world’s largest electronics manufacturer, focusing on research and development.

This announcement marks Nvidia’s latest step in its long-term plan to produce half a trillion dollars’ worth of AI infrastructure in the coming years. The move underscores a growing push to relocate critical high-tech manufacturing back to U.S. soil, amid rising global tensions and increasing demand for secure, domestic supply chains.

Nvidia’s AI supercomputers, billed as “the engines of a new type of data center,” are anticipated to serve as the hub of AI manufacturing, all based in the United States. While the TSMC factory in Arizona is already producing the Blackwell chip, these new factories are the first of the “tens of gigawatt AI factories” expected to be built in the near future.

Nvidia’s founder and CEO, Jensen Huang, said, “The engines of the world’s AI infrastructure are being built in the United States for the first time.” He continued, “Adding American manufacturing helps us better meet the incredible and growing demand for AI chips and supercomputers, strengthens our supply chain, and boosts our resiliency.”

As Huang explained in his keynote address at the GTC 2025 conference last month, the next step in AI manufacturing is scale and efficiency. One solution to the massive logistical challenges that accompany this type of manufacturing in these “AI gigafactories” is the “digital twin” model: “We use the digital twin to communicate instructions to the large body of teams and suppliers, reducing execution errors … ensuring a future-proof AI.” Essentially, the digital twin is a computer copy of the factory and its millions of parts, allowing for clear communication across the supply chain and for readily available “what if” scaling experiments.

Huang also announced that the next generation of chips will play an increasingly important role in the rollout and scaling of these new U.S.-based gigafactories and AI supercomputers. This chip is called the Vera Rubin super chip, named after the astronomer who discovered dark matter. As he demonstrated in his address, this chip is dramatically more efficient and inexpensive to produce. It also represents a leap in sustainability, consuming far less energy than its predecessors — critical for powering the next wave of generative and reasoning AI and machine learning applications across industries.

In a statement, the White House claimed credit for this onshoring trend in manufacturing: “It’s the Trump effect in action.” The statement said, “Onshoring these industries is good for the American worker, good for the American economy, and good for American national security — and the best is yet to come.” The administration emphasized that such investments are laying the groundwork for a new industrial revolution, centered on American technological dominance.

​Tech, Artificial intelligence, Supercomputer, Nvidia, Dallas, Houston, Ai manufacturing, Trump 

The 2026 U.S. Senate race in Michigan now has its first official candidate: State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, a Millennial Democrat from Oakland County who shot to national attention with a viral floor speech. She’s betting that moment can carry her all the way to the world’s greatest deliberative body.

Before Democrats and their media lapdogs start drafting puff pieces and polishing the pedestal, they should ask a harder question: Who is Mallory McMorrow — and more importantly, who is she not?

This isn’t just political positioning. It’s a fundamental disconnect. McMorrow’s politics are tailored for retweets, not results.

McMorrow isn’t a product of Michigan grit. She’s a coastal transplant from suburban New Jersey with a degree from Notre Dame and a résumé that reads like a LinkedIn influencer’s dream. She landed in Michigan less than a decade ago and began branding herself as the conscience of the Midwest. But Michiganders know the difference between authenticity and ambition.

McMorrow presents herself as a pragmatic progressive. In reality, she mimics the Instagram-ready style of coastal elites and peddles the kind of policies that might play in Brooklyn or Silver Lake, but not in Battle Creek or Midland.

Take her recent appearance on “Off the Record” with Tim Skubick, a Michigan political staple. Asked about boys competing in girls’ sports, McMorrow didn’t just sidestep the issue — she leaned into it, defending the far-left line with social media polish and no concern for the working-class parents listening at home.

This isn’t just political positioning. It’s a fundamental disconnect. McMorrow talks unity and moderation while aligning herself with activists who push fringe agendas. She sells herself as a consensus-builder while alienating the very voters she claims to represent. Her politics are tailored for retweets, not results.

If Attorney General Dana Nessel jumps into the primary, that contrast will become impossible to ignore. Say what you will about Nessel — she’s blunt, combative, and never confused for anything but herself. She doesn’t hide her ideology or try to sugarcoat her record for the national press. In a matchup, McMorrow won’t just have to explain her platform — she’ll have to explain her reinvention.

A real race demands contrast and courage. Michigan voters don’t need more social media senators. They need leaders who know the price of gas, not just the latest polling memo. They need fighters who understand what Michigan families face every day — not what’s trending in a D.C. group chat.

To her credit, McMorrow is young, articulate, and eager to chart a new course. That’s not nothing. But the path forward for Michigan isn’t progressive posturing. It’s common-sense governance rooted in the lives of working families — not curated identities shaped by PR consultants and filtered through national donor networks.

Republicans need to seize this opportunity. Michigan requires a new generation of GOP leadership — grounded, principled, and ready to fight. I know that generation exists. I see it in the state legislature. I see it in young constitutional conservatives who understand the dignity of work, the sanctity of family, and the value of a dollar.

As a Millennial myself, I know we don’t need more viral fame. We need values. We don’t need slogans. We need substance.

In the coming months, you’ll hear a lot about Mallory McMorrow — there will be glossy profiles, glowing press, and lots of digital fanfare. But underneath the branding is a clear ambition: to take Michigan’s Senate seat and turn it into a springboard for the next liberal celebrity.

We’ve seen that movie before. We know how it ends.

The real question is whether Michigan voters will choose performance or principle.

I believe they’ll choose principle. Because in Michigan, authenticity still matters. Common sense still counts. And we still believe a senator should represent everyday citizens worried about the price of a gallon of milk — not the Met Gala elite sipping champagne just across the Hudson from McMorrow’s home state.

​Opinion & analysis, Mallory mcmorrow, Michigan, Us senate race, 2026 midterms, Democrats, Millennials, Donald trump, Authenticity, New jersey, Transgender athletes, Values, Transgender agenda, Influencers, Progressives 

Imagine your 2026 car shutting off mid-drive because it thinks you’re drunk or otherwise impaired.

That’s real! And you can find it in Section 24220 of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act — a mandate still alive despite fierce pushback, set to raise car prices and spark debate.

Proponents of the so-called “kill switch” say they just want to make the roads safer. But at what cost?

Consider the possibility of misreadings and technical errors. It’s bad enough when a glitch keeps us out of an app or prevents us from sending an email. Now, imagine having the autonomy and freedom that comes with your car being taken from you at will.

No restart

Keep in mind that there are no reset or restart protocols outlined in the law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hasn’t finalized these rules yet, so any description of how a car restarts remains speculative based on current tech trends and the law’s intent.

No wonder they call it “kill switch jail.” And unlike regular jail, you don’t get to plead your case.

This is not just a gadget; it’s a computer judging us behind the wheel. When the bill passed, X erupted — drivers posted memes of cars as “nanny cops,” while safety groups cheered it as a lifeline.

This all depends on passive alcohol monitoring — a new and relatively untested technology in which no breathalyzers are required. You simply breathe normally and sensors in the cabin will tell you if you’re good to go.

It’s like having a traffic cop in the passenger seat, administering a continuous DUI check. In other words, you’re guilty until proven innocent.

Freedom vs. safety

A 2022 survey by the American Automobile Association found 62% of Americans worry about tech overreach in cars, yet 55% support drunk-driving fixes.

This clash — freedom versus safety — is why Section 24220’s so divisive. As of March 31, 2025, it’s barreling toward reality. Can it be stopped? Will it save lives or just pad profits for insurance companies? Or is it going to stop drivers from buying a 2026 model car? We don’t need more nannies in our cars. Here’s the latest and what it means for your next ride.

Section 24220, tucked into the 1,100-page Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act — signed by President Biden on November 15, 2021 — requires every new car sold after 2026 to include “advanced impaired driving technology.”

This means cameras, sensors, or breath detectors passively monitoring your driving to detect if you’re drunk, distracted, or drowsy. If flagged, the car could stall or refuse to start. The law cites 10,142 alcohol-impaired driving deaths in 2019, aiming to tackle a $44 billion problem from 2010 data — adjusted to roughly $60 billion today with inflation, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The pitch was: Save lives and cut costs.

Murky details

The details are murky at best. The tech could include the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety funded by the NHTSA, based on three possible technologies targeting an .08 blood alcohol concentration cutoff: a touch sensor on the steering wheel sniffing alcohol through your skin; a touch sensor on the push-button ignition; or the aforementioned breath scanner in the cabin.

This information would be enhanced with other “evidence” gleaned from your car eavesdropping on your speech, monitoring your eyes through infrared sensors and cameras hidden in the dash or rearview mirror to detect a possible issue.

Who decides if you need to pull over? A computer decides. Again, welcome to “kill switch jail.”

Disputed accuracy

Tests in 2023 claimed these systems could operate at 85% accuracy, but a Virginia Tech study found that something as simple as cold weather or the driver wearing gloves could disrupt it.

Cameras, like those in Tesla’s driver-monitoring system, watch your eyes — slow blinks or glances away trigger alerts. Volvo’s 2024 XC90 flags fatigue, but the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports a 10% false-positive rate in dim light.

These aren’t sci-fi toys; they’re real, flawed, and racing toward your dashboard. As of 2024, NHTSA has not defined the rules, with a possible three-year delay if the tech isn’t ready. How about defunding and removing this rule?!

Massie leads the charge

Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky (R) has led the charge against the mandate, calling it a “privacy nightmare” and “federal overreach.” In November 2023, his amendment to defund Section 24220 won 199 Republicans and two Democrats but failed with 229 to 201 votes, when 19 Republicans — including Rep. Nancy Mace (S.C.), Rep. Mike Garcia (Calif.), and Rep. Don Bacon (Neb.) — joined 210 Democrats to keep it alive.

Mace, a safety hawk after pushing a 2022 DUI crackdown in South Carolina, sees it as a legacy win, while Garcia’s district hosts tech firms like Qualcomm, hinting at job promises. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation — representing General Motors, Toyota, and Ford — lobbied $12 million in 2021 to shape the bill, per OpenSecrets.

Democrats lean on NHTSA’s 2022 “Vision Zero” pledge for zero traffic deaths by 2050, but critics like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), in a 2023 speech, warned of a “surveillance state on wheels.”

In February 2025, Massie grilled Michael Hanson of the Governors Highway Safety Association in a House hearing, demanding proof of this working tech. Hanson admitted it’s untested at scale, unlike seatbelts, which were standard in cars by the 1960s before mandates, or ignition interlock devices, which are breathalyzers that lock the car if you’re over the limit and cut repeat DUIs by 70%, per Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Massie’s still fighting, but time’s running out: 2026 models are being built starting this summer.

Duffy to the rescue?

As of March 31, 2025, NHTSA’s rules remain unpublished. This is now in the hands of Secretary Sean Duffy. It can push it to 2027 with a progress report to Congress if tech lags, and with 2026 just months away, automakers are scrambling.

A 2022 repeal attempt — the Safeguarding Privacy in Your Car Act (S.4647) from Republican Sens. Mike Rounds (S.D.), Mike Braun (Ind.), and John Cornyn (Texas) — sits stalled in committee. NHTSA’s January 2024 proposal floats camera options, eyeing production in 2025 — maybe. Without a repeal, this kill switch still looms over consumers.

An expensive proposition

The cost will hit drivers hard, as adding cameras, sensors, and artificial intelligence to vehicles could tack hundreds of dollars onto each of the millions of new cars sold yearly in the U.S. This equals a $3.4 to $8.5 billion annual jump, straight from buyers’ pockets.

By 2030, 80% of cars will be connected. Expect more shop visits for failed sensors and software glitches — which will, in turn, increase the cost of insurance and ownership.

The NHTSA says this driver-monitoring tech could save 9,400 lives a year and erase a $60 billion burden from drunk driving: from lost jobs, hospital bills, and wrecked cars. In 2021, insurance companies paid out big for alcohol-related crashes, according to the Insurance Information Institute, but your premiums didn’t change — they just kept the extra cash. Hospitals didn’t lower bills, either. That $60 billion saving goes to them, not you.

Will it work?

So will it work? Drunk driving took over 12,000 lives in 2021, mostly from drivers over the legal limit, contributing to over 42,000 total traffic deaths — a 16-year high. Tougher laws and ignition interlock devices, such as breathalyzers that lock the car, have cut deaths by nearly a third since 1990, with millions installed, per Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Still, 2021’s jump sparked this push.

What about these high-tech in-car cameras? A 2024 study by the Swedish Transport Agency found Volvo’s Driver Alert Control system dropped fatigue crashes 20%, yet 15% of alerts were false. While this is a good example, glitches and privacy fears could tank drivers’ trust in these new technologies. Data on your speed or habits could leak to insurers (jacking up premiums), advertisers (targeting you with ads), or the police. NHTSA denies a police kill switch, but hacking or future laws could shift that. Supporters argue NHTSA’s estimated 9,400 lives saved justify it — if it’s flawless, which it definitely isn’t yet.

The 2026 deadline — set to sync with new models — gave automakers five years to get it done. By 2026, or 2029 if pushed, every new car could carry this new technology, raising prices and watching you like Big Brother. Massie has been applying pressure, but without a Senate breakthrough, expect that couple-hundred-dollar hike, no insurance relief, and a car that might misjudge you, sticking you in “kill switch jail.”

So is this safety or overreach? What’s your take?

​Kill switch, Drunk driving, Lifestyle, Align cars 

Mark Zuckerberg appeared on “The Joe Rogan Experience” in January sporting a new hairstyle and a gold chain — an image makeover that began with the billionaire tech mogul sparring with MMA fighters in 2023. He cast himself as a reformed free-speech champion, admitting that under the Biden administration, Meta’s fact-checking regime had become “something out of ‘1984.’” Something, he said, needed to change.

What he didn’t say: Meta’s censorship playbook has long resembled the Orwellian dystopia he now claims to oppose.

‘Meta lied about what they were doing with the Chinese Communist Party to employees, shareholders, Congress, and the American public.’

Under Zuckerberg’s leadership, Meta has operated with “1984”-style control — censoring content, shaping political narratives, and cozying up to authoritarian regimes, all while pretending to remain neutral. While Zuckerberg criticizes China’s digital authoritarianism, Meta has adopted similar strategies here in the United States: censoring dissent, interfering in elections, and silencing political opponents.

Whose ‘shared values’?

Zuckerberg’s hypocrisy is increasingly obvious. His ties to China and Meta’s repeated attempts to curry favor with the Chinese Communist Party expose a willingness to bend democratic principles in the name of profit. Meta mimics China’s censorship — globally and domestically — even as it publicly condemns the CCP’s control over information.

For years, Meta attacked China’s censorship and human rights abuses. But as China-based tech companies gained ground, Zuckerberg’s rhetoric escalated. He warned about Chinese AI firms like DeepSeek, which were producing superior tools at lower costs. In response, Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan assured Americans that the company would build AI based on “our shared values, not China’s.”

Zuckerberg even declared he’d partner with President Trump to resist foreign censorship and defend American tech. But that posturing collapses under scrutiny.

Behind the scenes, Zuckerberg worked hard to ingratiate himself with the Chinese regime. As Steve Sherman reported at RealClearPolicy, Meta pursued “Project Aldrin,” a version of Facebook built to comply with Chinese law. Meta even considered bending its privacy policies to give Beijing access to Hong Kong user data. To ingratiate himself with the CCP, Zuckerberg displayed Xi Jinping’s book on his desk and asked Xi to name his unborn daughter — an offer Xi wisely declined.

These overtures weren’t just about market share. Meta developed a censorship apparatus tailored to China’s demands, including tools to detect and delete politically sensitive content. The company even launched social apps through shell companies in China, and when Chinese regulators pressured Meta to silence dissidents like Guo Wengui, Meta complied.

On April 14, an ex-Facebook employee told the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism that Meta executives “lied about what they were doing with the Chinese Communist Party to employees, shareholders, Congress, and the American public.”

Political meddling at scale

After the Trump administration moved to block Chinese tech influence, Meta backed off its China ambitions. But the company didn’t abandon censorship — it just brought it home.

In the United States, Meta began meddling directly in domestic politics. One of the most glaring examples was the two-year ban on President Donald Trump from Facebook and Instagram. Framed as a measure against incitement, the decision reeked of political bias. It showed how much power Zuckerberg wields over American discourse.

Then came the 2020 election. Meta, under pressure from the Biden administration, suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story — a move Zuckerberg himself later admitted. Though the story was legitimate, Facebook and Twitter labeled it “misinformation” and throttled its reach. Critics saw this as an obvious attempt to shield Biden from scrutiny weeks before Election Day.

Meta’s interference didn’t stop at content moderation. It also funded election infrastructure. Zuckerberg donated $350 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life and another $50 million to the Center for Election Innovation and Research. These funds were funneled into swing states under the guise of pandemic safety. But critics viewed it as private influence over public elections — a dangerous precedent set by one of the most powerful CEOs in the world.

Meanwhile, Meta executives misled the public about the company’s relationship with China.

Beyond corporate hypocrisy

Zuckerberg’s deference to China wasn’t a phase — it was part of a long-term strategy. In 2014, he wrote the foreword for a book by Xi Jinping. He practiced Mandarin in public appearances. He endorsed Chinese values in private meetings. This wasn’t diplomacy — it was capitulation.

Meta even designed its platform to comply with CCP censorship. When regulators in China asked the company to block dissidents, it did. When Chinese interests threatened Meta’s business model, Zuckerberg yielded.

So when he criticizes China’s authoritarianism now, it rings hollow.

Meta’s behavior isn’t just a story of corporate hypocrisy. It’s a case study in elite manipulation of information, both at home and abroad. Zuckerberg talks about free speech, but Meta suppresses it. He warns of foreign influence, while Meta builds tools that serve foreign powers. He condemns censorship, then practices it with ruthless efficiency.

Americans shouldn’t buy Zuckerberg’s rebrand. He wants to sound like a First Amendment champion on podcasts while continuing to control what you see online.

Meta’s past and present actions are clear: The company interfered in U.S. elections, silenced political speech, and appeased authoritarian regimes — all while pretending to stand for freedom.

Zuckerberg’s censorship isn’t a glitch. It’s the product. And unless Americans demand accountability, it will become the new normal.

​China, Opinion & analysis, Censorship, Chinese communist party, Xi jinping, Mark zuckerberg, Meta, Facebook, 2020 election, Election interference, Hong kong, Dissent, 1984 george orwell, Digital, Authoritarianism, Senate, Project aldrin, Center for tech and civic life, Zuckerbucks, Center for election innovation research, Donald trump, Ban, Dissidents, Hunter biden laptop 

Let’s review everything we know thus far about the Democrats’ new pet, Kilmar Abrego Garcia:

He entered this country illegally in 2011.
In 2019, ICE detained him based on suspected MS-13 gang affiliations.
In 2021, his wife filed a temporary domestic violence protective order against him after he gave her a black eye in a dispute.
During a traffic stop in 2022, he was suspected of human smuggling.
Ample photo and video evidence shows him proudly displaying symbols affiliated with MS-13.
El Salvador’s own president, Nayib Bukele, called Garcia a terrorist and said he would not release him in El Salvador.

And yet – Democrats across the country are fighting tooth and nail for Garcia’s return to the U.S. Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen (D) even traveled to El Salvador earlier this week on the taxpayer’s dime to speak with Garcia, whom he calls his “constituent.”

Steve Deace, who’s “never seen anything like this in [his] career,” says that at its roots, this war for Garcia’s return is not political; it’s spiritual.

Democrats are once again proving that the American people are at the bottom of their priority list. Not only is their fight to prevent the deportations of illegal immigrants ensuring violent crime, drug peddling, and human trafficking will continue to afflict the American people, but it’s also bucking the will of Americans.

Steve points to a recent CNN polling analysis that found that an increasing number of American citizens support mass deportation of illegal immigrants.

“Four separate polls found deportation support ranging from 55% from the New York Times poll to 64% in a Marquette poll,” says a recent Blaze News article.

“There’s not any doubt where the American people are at on this,” says Steve, and yet the Democrat Party is essentially “[running] head first and naked and without a weapon into that tailwind.”

To champion and fight for the return of an illegal immigrant gang member when the majority of the country wants mass deportations of illegal immigrants goes against human nature, says Steve.

“No one does that naturally,” he explains. “Maybe one or two people are this dumb, but collectively, an entire political party is not.”

“What they’re doing doesn’t benefit them on any level at all; it just simply doesn’t, and there’s only one reason human beings don’t act in self-interest, good or bad,” says Steve.

That reason is “supernatural forces.”

“Human beings will not act out of self-interest at this extent minus supernatural forces. You won’t be a lonely nun in Calcutta minus the Holy Spirit, and you won’t take on … without any cover whatsoever all this level of darkness without demonic influence and oppression.”

“You are literally watching Romans 1 play out here,” he says.

To hear more of Steve’s analysis, 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.

​Steve deace show, Kilmar abrego garcia, Chris van hollen, Blazetv, Blaze media, Ms13 

I live way up in Northern Michigan. Not quite the Upper Peninsula but almost. Closer to Canada than Detroit, in what many would call the “middle of nowhere.”

We get a ton of snow storms — 125 inches of snow per year is the average. Weekends of 18 inches falling from the sky aren’t really that uncommon. “It snows every single day up there,” in the words of my father.

It was smart to trust our guts and leave when we did. In our modern world, we tend not to listen to our instincts. We think we are too smart for them.

But we don’t get too many ice storms. The temperature doesn’t tend to hang out around 32, accommodating the wicked mix of rain and sleet required to create any meaningful ice problems.

Frozen, creaking, snapping

Last weekend was different. The whole northern tip of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula was decimated by the worst ice storm we had seen in over a century. Everything shut down. Everywhere lost power. The streetlights were black. Gas stations unable to pump. Towns completely dark. Electrical substations were out of commission, hundreds of electrical poles had collapsed.

We lost power Saturday night at around 8 p.m. We assumed the lights would be back on in a few hours.

We were wrong. In the middle of the night, lying in bed, we listened to the frozen trees outside our window. The wind blew, and thousands of little cracks echoed in the air. The ice-covered branches sounded like mini machine guns rippling over our roof. Every once in a while, we heard a creak, a violent snap, followed by a low thud rattling the house.

It was eerie, lying there in the quiet, waiting for the next snap, wondering if one of the great trees in the back would end up coming down right through our roof.

The wind wasn’t terribly loud. There was no howling, only cracking. Being aware of the fact that the entire region was dark when viewed from outer space made those moments in bed that night all the more ominous. The whole wooded land dark, frozen, creaking, cracking, snapping.

Time to go

By noon the next day, things seemed to be getting worse. More branches came down, taking electrical wires with them. The electricity wasn’t coming back soon. We decided there was no reason to sit around and wait. We decided to pack up the kids and the $500 worth of meat in our chest freezer and head four hours south to stay with family in West Michigan.

With just under half a tank of gas, we needed to find a station as soon as possible. We found a Mobil with power in Boyne Falls. A line of cars stretched out of the parking lot. After 10 minutes, a worker came and told us they were out of gas.

We bought some ice inside, packed the coolers of meat full, and got back on the road. Fifteen miles farther south, in Alba, we found another station with power. This time they had gas. With a full tank and coolers full of ice, we were on our way.

Our neighbors stayed. They kept us updated with texts over the next few days. We told them to go over and raid our pantry, use our towels, and take anything they needed.

The great birch

Our power finally came back on Wednesday night, four days after it went out. Many suffered incredible damage. There are some in the country who still don’t have power. Thankfully, our house is relatively fine, though the great birch in the back is destroyed, and the maple lost some big branches, too.

With everything in life, there is always something to learn. Some lesson, some insight, some reflection. The smartest thing we did was leave when we thought we should leave. Four days without power isn’t a Herculean test, but it isn’t enjoyable when you are in the middle of an ice storm in the middle of nowhere. No one would really choose to do it.

I’m a workaholic. I’ve got too many deadlines and too many projects. If we would have stayed, I wouldn’t have gotten any work done. In addition to being out $500 dollars worth of meat, I would also be catching up for the next two weeks. Staying would have only made things worse for everyone.

It was smart to trust our guts and leave when we did. In our modern world, we tend not to listen to our instincts. We think we are too smart for them. They seem like hocus pocus when compared against the spreadsheet. We explain them away as being irrational or illogical. And of course, sometimes they are, but sometimes they aren’t.

This time, they weren’t.

Fragile systems

It’s incredible how fragile our modern systems are. We need electricity to do our work. We need electricity to keep our food fresh. We need electricity to call on the phone. We need electricity to get our gas. We need electricity to go anywhere. Just a few days without this thing, and the world comes crashing down.

Three hundred years ago, the same storm wouldn’t really impact life so much. The horses would keep marching, the letters would keep moving, the fire would stay burning, work would get done. No food would go bad, no systems would melt down. The only thing that might happen would be property damage due to a falling tree.

Today, if the electricity stops, life stops. It’s fascinating and worrying how fragile we, and our modern world, are. We are skating on egg shells.

The great, beautiful birch in our backyard is destroyed. The branches cracked at the top and buckled down. The old tree is drooped over our deck. We are all sad about it. We loved that tree. The long branches, the beautiful leaves, the white paper-like bark. Lying in the hammock on long summer days, watching the sky under the shady protection of the old beauty.

It’s the same story for all the big birches on our street. All those tall, lanky giants were taken down by the ice. Their strong trunks made no difference. Their long branches — the ones that only come with age — were too vulnerable.

The young ones around town are fine. Without any fatal cracks, they will bounce back soon as the weather warms. Their branches were too small and light to be broken under the weight of the ice. They’re OK. That’s how it’s supposed to be.

​Lifestyle, O.w. root, Men’s style, Michigan, Ice storm, Upper peninsula, The root of the matter 

Dylan Matthews at Vox wants you to believe that robots — not China — killed American manufacturing. Even if tariffs reshore production, he argues, they won’t bring back jobs because machines have already taken them.

This is not just wrong. It’s an ideological defense of a decades-long policy failure.

The jobs lost to offshoring aren’t just the five million factory jobs that disappeared — the number is likely more than double that. The real toll could exceed 10 million jobs.

Yes, American manufacturing has grown more productive over time. But increased productivity alone does not explain the loss of millions of jobs. The real culprit isn’t automation. It’s the collapse of output growth — a collapse driven by offshoring, trade deficits, and elite dogma dressed up as economic inevitability.

Ford’s logic

To understand what actually happened, start with Henry Ford.

In 1908, Ford launched the Model T. What set it apart wasn’t just its engineering. It was the price tag: $850, or about $21,000 in today’s dollars.

For the first time, middle-class Americans could afford a personal vehicle. Ford spent the next few years obsessing over how to cut costs even further, determined to put a car in every driveway.

In December 1913, he revolutionized manufacturing. Ford Motor Company opened the world’s first moving assembly line, slashing production time for the Model T from 12 hours to just 93 minutes.

Efficiency drove output. In 1914, Ford built 308,162 Model Ts — more than all other carmakers combined. Prices plummeted. By 1924, a new Model T cost just $260, or roughly $3,500 today — an 83% drop from the original price and far cheaper than any “affordable” car sold now.

This wasn’t just a business success. It was the dawn of the automobile age — and a triumph of American productivity.

Ford’s moving assembly line supercharged productivity — and yet, he didn’t lay off workers. He hired more. That seems like a paradox. It isn’t.

Dylan Matthews misses the point. Employment depends on the balance between productivity and output. Productivity is how much value a worker produces per hour. Output is the total value produced.

If productivity rises while output stays flat, you need fewer workers. But if output rises alongside productivity — or faster — you need more workers.

Picture a worker with a shovel versus one with an earthmover. The earthmover is more productive. But if the project doubles in size, you still need more hands, earthmovers or not.

This was Henry Ford’s insight. His assembly line made workers more productive, but it also let him build far more cars. The result? More jobs, not fewer.

That’s why America’s manufacturing employment didn’t peak in 1914, when people first warned that machines would kill jobs. It peaked in 1979 — because Ford’s logic worked for decades.

The vanishing act

Matthews says manufacturing jobs vanished because productivity rose. That’s half true.

The full story? America lost manufacturing jobs when the long-standing balance between output and productivity broke.

From 1950 to 1979, manufacturing employment rose because output grew faster than productivity. Factories produced more, and they needed more workers to do it.

But after 1980, that balance began to shift. Between 1989 and 2000, U.S. manufacturing output rose by 3.7% annually. Productivity rose even faster — 4.1%.

Result: flat employment. Factories became more efficient, but they didn’t produce enough extra goods to justify more hires.

In other words, jobs didn’t disappear because of robots. They disappeared because output stopped keeping pace.

The real collapse began in 2001, when China joined the World Trade Organization. Over the next decade, U.S. manufacturing output crawled forward at just 0.4% a year. Meanwhile, productivity kept rising at 3.7%.

That gap — between how much we produced and how efficiently we produced it — wiped out roughly five million manufacturing jobs.

Matthews, like many of the economists he parrots, blames job loss on rising productivity. But that’s only half the story.

Productivity gains don’t kill jobs. Stagnant output does. From 1913 to 1979, American manufacturing employment grew steadily — even as productivity surged. Why? Because output kept up.

So what changed?

Output growth collapsed. And the trade deficit is the reason why.

Feeding the dragon

Since 1974 — and especially after 2001 — America’s domestic output growth slowed to a crawl, even as workers kept getting more productive. Why? Because we shipped thousands of factories overseas. Market distortions, foreign subsidies, and lopsided trade agreements made it profitable to offshore jobs to China and other developing nations.

The result: America now consumes far more than it produces. That gap shows up in our trade deficit.

In 2024, America ran a $918 billion net trade deficit — including services. That figure represents all the goods and services we bought but didn’t make. Someone else did — mostly China, Mexico, Canada, and the European Union.

The trade deficit is a dollar-for-dollar reflection of offshore production. Instead of building it here, we import it.

How many jobs does that deficit cost us? The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that every billion dollars of GDP supports 5,000 to 5,500 jobs. At $918 billion, the deficit displaces between 4.6 and five million jobs — mainly in manufacturing.

That’s no coincidence. That’s the hollowing-out of the American economy.

We can’t forget that factories aren’t just job sites — they’re economic anchors. Like mines and farms, manufacturing plants support entire ecosystems of businesses around them. Economists call this the multiplier effect.

And manufacturing has one of the highest multipliers in the economy. Each factory job supports between 1.8 and 2.9 other jobs, depending on the industry. That means when a factory closes or moves offshore, the impact doesn’t stop at the plant gates.

The jobs lost to offshoring aren’t just the five million factory jobs that disappeared — the number is likely more than double that. The real toll could exceed 10 million jobs.

That number is no coincidence. It matches almost exactly the number of working-age Americans the Bureau of Labor Statistics has written out of the labor force since 2006 — a trend I document in detail in my book, “Reshore: How Tariffs Will Bring Our Jobs Home and Revive the American Dream.”

Bottom line: Dylan Matthews is wrong. Robots didn’t kill American manufacturing jobs. Elites did — with bad trade deals, blind ideology, and decades of surrender to global markets. It’s time to reverse course: not with nostalgia but with strategy, not with slogans but with tariffs.

Tariffs aren’t a silver bullet. But they’re a necessary start. They correct the market distortions created by predatory trade practices abroad and self-destructive ideology at home. They reward domestic investment. They restore the link between productivity, output, and employment.

In short, tariffs work.

​Trade deficit, Tariffs, Automation, Dylan matthews, Vox media, China, Exports, Imports, Ford, Manufacturing, Productivity, Opinion & analysis, Subsidies, Census bureau, Reshoring, Robots, Elites, Globalism, Unemployment, Jobs 

“Never judge a book by its cover.”

“There’s some good in everyone.”

Our grandparents would look at a scenario like this and decide, correctly, that the visitor on their doorstep was not going to get an answer or an invitation.

“You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.”

“Always give the benefit of the doubt first.”

Some of those sound like good advice to you, don’t they?

But are they, actually, good advice? Are these truisms enough moral instruction for children? Is that all they need to know before you send them to fly out of the nest?

Stranger danger

Or, do they need to hear these, too?

“Don’t talk to strange adults.”

“Be on your guard around suspicious looking people until you determine they’re safe.”

“Don’t automatically open the front door just because someone knocked.”

“Remember that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

The West, and America in particular, have been the subjects of a psychological manipulation project for at least 60 years. It’s been successful at dulling our God-given natural instincts. It has convinced us not only to ignore but to actively distrust our intuition.

It has done this by reframing our normal instinctive responses as “bigotry” and “cold-heartedness.”

The big lie

I’m not proposing a grand, conscious conspiracy from a government or shadowy organization. I don’t think this project is a fully plotted out “plan” by criminal masterminds.

Instead, I think that cultural forces — activist groups and politicians, media, universities — have collectively bought into a cultural push that benefits their interests at the cost of yours. They make money and accrue cultural power from your cooperation with their project of convincing you that you have to “be nice” and “be empathetic” to whichever favored group they promote. Whether this is fiscally, emotionally, or physically safe for you doesn’t matter.

In short, you’ve been lied to, and you now believe the lie.

You think you’re “racist” and “a bad person” when you cross the street to avoid a group of five young black men at night. You’re a “xenophobe” if you want illegal aliens deported and don’t wish them housed in the motel next to your daughter’s school. You’re “transphobic” if you don’t want grown men in lipstick traipsing through public bathrooms or your daughter’s college locker room.

This is a leftist mindset, but it does not only afflict the left. Just as the majority of women today, including many on the right, see the world at base through a feminist lens (men are responsible for women’s problems), many on the right are just as susceptible to turning off their intuition out of fear of being seen as “mean.”

Who goes there?

Let’s look at a real-life example. To understand this, you should watch this short video of a doorbell camera. It’s only 40 seconds long, but you need to see it in order to follow where I’m going next.

The scene is a front porch in a well-kept suburban neighborhood. A black woman and her young daughter walk onto the porch and ring the bell. The woman speaks to the camera and claims she wants to borrow a cup of sugar. Getting no response, she speaks more:

“You don’t have to answer, but, uh, I know you can hear me. I can hear you on the inside.”

Note that.

Still getting no response, the woman then stops pushing the doorbell and starts physically rapping on the door. The video ends at this point.

The variation in how people respond to this video concerns me. It is quite obvious that something is off about this woman’s behavior, yet many seem to believe it was the homeowner being “rude” or “weird” for not answering the door. That’s a direct reversal of reality.

Just a cup of sugar?

Wilfred Reilly, a college professor and podcaster (disclosure: I know Wil online, have appeared on shows with him, and I like and respect him), reacted with a post that claimed the video showed “the most sane and conventional interaction” and that right-wing people reacting badly to it were “panicking” at something totally benign.

“This is literally a neighbor asking to borrow a cup of sugar,” Reilly wrote.

No, it’s not. And there was nothing “sane and conventional” about this situation.

Let’s go through the “tells,” the alerts to potential danger, throughout this 40-second video.

The neighborhood appears to be solidly upper-middle class. The woman who shows up is dressed in pajamas, a T-shirt, and has a shower cap on her head. She claims to be the homeowner’s “neighbor,” but this is unlikely (possible, but unlikely). Yes, I’m afraid that the fact that she’s black, and that she is dressed that way, does make it less likely that she lives in the neighborhood. Noticing this is not “racism”; it’s just plain, obvious common sense.

Therefore, we already have reason to believe the door-knocker is not being honest.

Is it really likely that a “neighbor” you have never seen before would come over to your house to borrow a cup of sugar? Really? To onlookers like Wilfred Reilly, this seems normal. To me, it seems like a ham-fisted use of an old cliché by someone working an angle.
Notice the attitude of entitlement and implied aggression in what the door-knocking woman says. “I know you can hear me,” and “I can hear you on the inside.” Does that sound like something that a kindly neighbor would say if she were hoping to get a favor from you? Would you take that tone with a stranger from whom you were asking for help? It’s simply not believable, and with all due respect to my friend Wil, this shouldn’t be difficult to discern.
It’s possible that the woman really was home alone with her daughter and had to bring her daughter along to ask for sugar to finish making cookies. But it is not likely. It is more likely that this chick is working an angle for money and that she uses her daughter to appear harmless and to melt hearts. None of us can know for sure, but the “I’m sure she means well” interpretation is not a rational choice in this scenario.

Neutered intuition

There would be no point in writing this column decades ago, because the majority of people had common sense.

They had not yet been convinced that their instincts were false and that their intuitions were nothing but bigotry. Our grandparents would look at a scenario like this and decide, correctly, that the visitor on their doorstep was not going to get an answer or an invitation.

But modern Westerners have neutered their own intuition. IQ has nothing to do with it. Brilliant people, average people, and dim people alike have shut down their gut responses because we’re all afraid of being accused of being “discriminatory.”

It’s worth thinking about how “discrimination” simply means “making a choice between multiple options.” Modern Western culture — woke culture — doesn’t want you exercising judgment or making choices. Do we really think that’s to our benefit?

This tableaux on a suburban porch did not turn into anything truly dangerous or noteworthy, of course. But it could have. And the attitude taken by people who think the homeowners were in the wrong is the same attitude that gets nice people taken advantage of or killed.

‘The Gift of Fear’

It’s easiest to see in the extreme cases. Travis Lewis, a black man, killed Martha McKay’s mother and cousin in 1996 (the McKays were white). Under the spell of “there’s some good in everyone,” Martha McKay befriended her mother’s murderer.

Twenty-six years later, Lewis killed Martha McKay, too, in the same house in which he killed her mother.

Terminal naivete and gullibility will get you and your family hurt, exploited, or killed. Modern Americans, particularly white Americans, suffer badly from this. Some are only going to learn at the very last moment, when they realize the nice man they wanted to help is about to pull the trigger in their face.

You don’t have to be one of these people. I have a prescription for a cure: Read Gavin de Becker’s groundbreaking book “The Gift of Fear.”

De Becker, who grew up in a violent and unstable home, has become the premiere personal security expert in the world. “The Gift of Fear” takes readers through real-life scenarios, illustrating the “tells” you should watch out for, guiding you away from self-endangering thinking that shuts down your gut instincts.

Read it before it’s too late.

​The gift of fear, Neighbors, Culture, Lifestyle, Personal safety, Josh slocum, Gavin debecker, Intervention 

President Donald Trump has moved faster than anyone expected to secure the U.S.-Mexico border. His latest action — deploying the U.S. military to the Roosevelt Reservation, a 60-foot-wide strip of federal land spanning the border in California, Arizona, and New Mexico — is a necessary step to defend American sovereignty.

A White House memorandum issued April 11 authorizes the military to take temporary control of the corridor, detain individuals attempting illegal entry, and support key security operations, including barrier construction and surveillance. With drug cartels, human traffickers, and other criminal threats exploiting the southern border, this deployment offers a direct, long-overdue response to a crisis the political class has allowed to fester for years.

The military brings what civilian authorities can’t: logistical power, surveillance, and manpower. We’ve seen it work before.

Established in 1907 by President Theodore Roosevelt to safeguard the border, the Roosevelt Reservation provides the ideal legal framework for President Trump’s latest deployment. By designating the strip as a “National Defense Area,” Trump has empowered the military to act decisively within a clearly defined legal perimeter.

This renewed focus on border security comes none too soon. Under President Biden, the situation along the reservation deteriorated. In 2022, frustrated by the White House’s inaction, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) ordered shipping containers stacked along the reservation to block illegal crossings. His successor, open-borders Democrat Katie Hobbs, wasted no time removing them.

The Trump memorandum directs the Departments of Defense, Interior, Agriculture, and Homeland Security to transfer jurisdiction of the Roosevelt Reservation to the Pentagon. This move allows U.S. troops to detain border trespassers until Border Patrol can process them.

This isn’t “militarizing” the homeland — it’s using federal authority to defend it. The chaos Biden unleashed now demands real action. Trump’s strategy puts American citizens, not politics, first.

The need for this action is clear. Even with reports of fewer illegal crossings, the southern border remains a pipeline for deadly drugs like fentanyl — which killed more than 70,000 Americans in 2023. Cartels continue to exploit weak enforcement, using remote corridors like the Roosevelt Reservation to move narcotics and human trafficking victims deeper into the country.

Critics rushed to label Trump’s deployment an overreach, but their objections don’t hold up. Some claim the move violates the Posse Comitatus Act, the 1878 law restricting military involvement in domestic law enforcement. One activist even called the strategy a “crazy” attempt to skirt the law by labeling illegal aliens as trespassers on military land.

That argument is nonsense. The Posse Comitatus Act allows exceptions during national emergencies, and Trump’s declaration of a border emergency provides that authority.

What’s more, the military’s role under the April 11 memorandum is narrow and lawful. It simply detains border trespassers on federal land until civilian authorities take over. This mirrors past deployments under both Republican and Democratic presidents. The Pentagon isn’t rounding up citizens or patrolling cities. It is securing a narrow federal corridor explicitly designated for border protection.

Some Democrats and activist groups claim that deploying the military escalates tensions unnecessarily, especially since illegal border crossings have declined since Trump took office. But that argument misses the point. Crossings dropped because of Trump’s tough policies — not because the threat disappeared.

Cartels are opportunistic and fast-moving. They seize on any lapse in enforcement. The Roosevelt Reservation’s rugged terrain and rumored smuggling tunnels make it a prime target. A military presence deters those operations before they escalate.

Waiting for the next crisis — like the 2022 surge that saw more than 2.5 million migrant encounters — isn’t strategy. It’s surrender.

Open-border activists argue that Border Patrol or local law enforcement should secure the border alone. But that ignores reality. Of the border’s 1,954 miles, more than 700 run through rugged, hard-to-patrol terrain. Civilian agencies are already overwhelmed.

The military brings what civilian authorities can’t: logistical power, surveillance technology, and manpower. This isn’t theoretical. We’ve seen it work before. In 2018, during Trump’s first term, Operation Faithful Patriot provided vital support for wall construction in high-traffic zones — reducing illegal crossings where they were most severe.

Extending this strategy to the Roosevelt Reservation isn’t radical. It’s obvious.

Trump’s order rests on a simple truth: A nation without borders is not a nation at all. The new memorandum isn’t just defensible. It’s essential. Anyone who doesn’t see the military’s role in this crisis is clinging to the same mindset that let things spiral out of control in the first place.

​Border crisis, New mexico, Arizona, Roosevelt reservation, California, Border patrol, Military, Donald trump, Border security, National defense, Doug ducey, Katie hobbs, Cartels, Drug trafficking, Human trafficking, Posse comitatus, National emergency at border, Opinion & analysis 

One of the Midwest’s more popular microbreweries is showing its support for the Second Amendment with the release of its first India Pale Ale — 2nd Amendment New England IPA.

Illinois native Jeff Alcorn and his sons Trevor and Cameron started Tridentine Brewing Co. as a hobby, naming it in honor of their strong Catholic faith.

Not wanting their beer to get lost in a sea of IPAs, Tridentine went with a style focusing on ‘more traditional and maltier expressions.’

When their home brews proved popular, the family partnered with Madison, Wisconsin-based Karben4 Brewery to launch their first commercially available beer in October 2024. Since then, the company has surged in popularity, building a fan base of 20,700 X followers and 6,400 Instagram followers and landing a major Forbes profile in November.

Brewing anticipation

Trevor describes 2nd Amendment as a refreshing, mellow, and juicy New England-style IPA that is more approachable than contemporary IPA products. Its patriotic and pro-gun-rights branding reflects the company’s stances on these issues.

“We actually canned the batch on Tuesday, April 1, and it started to hit some stores, but it wasn’t widespread across all the locations we’re at in Wisconsin,” says Trevor. “I didn’t get the social media stuff up until late Saturday, but it’s getting out there more and it’s pretty well received. People loved the artwork even before we brought the beer to share, and now that people have had the beer, the reception is pretty good.”

2nd Amendment is the brewery’s fourth release. Like its predecessors, it tells a story through its packaging — an eye-catching can designed by Catholic illustrator Chris Lewis.

God-given rights

Tridentine’s Quartermaster Jerry Blonde Ale pays tribute to late family patriarch Jerry Alcorn, who served in the U.S. Navy, while Cristeros Mexican Lager honors Catholics martryed by Mexico’s socialist government in the 1920s. Dies Irae Imperial Stout alludes to the final judgment at the end of time. The company expects to launch a fifth beer this summer.

While 2nd Amendment may seem more explicitly topical than the other beers, Trevor says the message is ultimately timeless.

“The timing didn’t have to do with politics per se, with what’s going on. This is just our strong belief in the God-given rights we have as Americans and supporting those. That’s the driving force behind it, and it ties into the patriotic theme. We want to drive home the message that being patriotic is not just a holiday thing. For us, honoring and saluting our veterans and our country is something we want to do year-round.”

Trevor also wanted the can’s artwork to stress that the Second Amendment applies to all Americans, not just those in the military.

“We wanted to show … a regular farmer,” he says. “Someone who wasn’t in a Continental Army uniform [so we could] highlight the reason for the Second Amendment: for our right to firearms to defend ourselves and our community if needed.”

Tridentine Brewery Co.

A patriotic IPA

As for making it an IPA, Trevor says it just made sense. Given that IPAs control a 46% share of the craft beer industry, demand has been high for the company to branch out of lagers, stouts, and blonde ales.

Not wanting their beer to get lost in a sea of IPAs, Tridentine went with a style focusing on “more traditional and maltier expressions” seen in IPAs from New England — a perfect fit for the patriotic theme.

Tridentine Brewing Co.’s motto is “Brewing beer for the greater glory of God,” and this is reflected at all levels of the company’s work. Its social media presence is outspokenly Catholic, the family prays before brewing sessions, and the brewery was even blessed by a priest.

Tridentine beers are currently only available in Wisconsin. The company’s contract with Karben4 and state liquor laws have slowed the rollout to other states. Still, the company hopes to expand distribution, starting with the Alcorns’ home state of Illinois and eventually to other states. Given the passionate evangelization the beer inspires online, Tridentine seems well equipped to hit the target.

​Abide, Faith, Beer, Brewery, Tridentine brewing co, Catholic, Lifestyle, Provisions 

Here in California, cars have always been king. Just look at the respect with which we refer to our freeways — it’s never just 405, it’s the 405, as a much a unique monument to human ingenuity and aspiration as the Great Pyramid of Giza.

And yet California is in many ways the worst place to be a driver. It’s hard to beat the view from the PCH, but it’s liable to turn into a parking lot at any given moment. And onerous emissions standards — which we’re happy to impose on the rest of the country — can make staying street-legal a tedious slog.

This dichotomy applies to the auto industry in general. As drivers we’ve never had more choices, but those choices can seem disappointingly similar and restrictive — especially if you want a good, old-fashioned gas-guzzler.

We have cutting-edge technology at our disposal, but too often it gets in the way of the driving experience instead of enhancing it.

As for buying a car, every day it gets more and more like going to the dentist. It’s disorienting and time-consuming, and you never know how much it’s going to hurt.

Fortunately we have Lauren Fix to ease our pain. The longtime industry journalist and automotive expert is here to help with Quick Fix, a regular feature in which she answers your car questions — just send them to getquickfix@pm.me.

— Matt Himes, managing editor

************

Welcome to Quick Fix, where I attempt to solve your car quandaries, one question at a time.

After decades covering the industry, I’ve developed an immunity to the hype and double-talk surrounding cars. It doesn’t hurt that I’m a mechanic and automotive entrepreneur as well.

I want to use that experience to help you — whether you’re buying a car, shopping for insurance, or dealing with the myriad other complications of being a driver in 2025. Send me your questions, and together we can cut through the BS and get back behind the wheel.

That’s the fun part, after all.

Today’s question comes from Matt in Whittier, California. He writes: “After driving a used Tesla Model X for a few years, my wife is dead set on upgrading to a new Model 3. My question is: lease or buy — especially now that Elon’s allowing lease buyouts?

“Bonus question for you: I doubt it will work, but can you suggest any Tesla alternatives I can pitch to my wife?”

Check out my answers in the video below — and send me any car questions you need answered to getquickfix@pm.me.

​Align cars, Lauren fix, Advice, Quick fix, Tesla, Automotive industry, Consumer advice, Lifestyle 

A family claiming to face violence from a drug cartel will likely be deported to Mexico after Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan denied their request for an emergency appeal to block the deportation proceeding.

The liberal justice denied the request for an appeal to the ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and did not refer the case to the broader court. She made no comment in the ruling.

When they sought asylum, an immigration judge denied the claim, and the ruling was later upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The family claimed in their filing that they were the “targets of cartel violence due to their family ties and refusal to comply with extortion demands.”

The family members seeking asylum were identified as Fabian Lagunas Espinoza, Maria Angelica Flores Ulloa, Fabian Lagunas Flores, and Mateo Lagunas Flores. They were seeking an emergency appeal to block deportation proceedings in order that their asylum claim might be properly considered.

The family said in the filing that they fled from the violence in Mexico in Aug. 2021 after “armed cartel members threatened the family at gunpoint, demanding they vacate their home within 24 hours or be killed.”

When they sought asylum, an immigration judge denied the claim, and the ruling was later upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

President Donald Trump promised to mount the largest mass deportation effort in U.S. history during the 2024 presidential campaign, but red tape and procedural roadblocks have kept the number of deportations lower than officials would prefer.

The family was scheduled to meet with immigration officials on Thursday, and Newsweek reported that what transpired at the meeting is unknown.

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

​Elena kagen vs illegal aliens, Illegal alien family deported, Asylum claims, Supreme court on deportations, Politics 

Washington State University said it fired a staff member and relieved a graduate student instructor of teaching responsibilities after they were charged with physically attacking an undergraduate student of color who supports President Donald Trump and was wearing a Make American Great Again hat when he was assaulted.

According to a video report from Turning Point USA’s Frontlines, WSU junior engineering student Jay Sani said WSU instructor Patrick Mahoney and staff member Gerald Hoff ambushed and physically attacked him outside of the Coug, a campus bar, on Feb. 28. The attack was captured on surveillance video and is included in the Frontlines video report, which you can view here.

In a Facebook post describing the attack, Sani said Mahoney ‘crumpled’ up his MAGA hat and ‘threw it into the street, and yelled … words to the effect of “go get it bitch.”‘

Phil Weiler, WSU’s vice president for marketing and communications, sent Blaze News the following statement Friday:

Washington State University (WSU) is aware of an off-campus incident that occurred in February involving a WSU staff member, graduate student, and undergraduate student. After an investigation by the Pullman, Washington, police department, the WSU staff member and graduate student were arrested and charged with fourth-degree assault. In accordance with WSU policies, the staff member’s employment was terminated, and the graduate student was relieved of all teaching responsibilities.

While WSU remains committed to the freedom of speech and expression for all members of our university community, it will not tolerate acts of violence or hate speech. The university continues to review all complaints with the utmost of seriousness.

Sani said he was wearing a red Make America Great Again hat at the time of the attack and that Mahoney “ripped the hat off my head.” In a Facebook post describing the attack, Sani said Mahoney “crumpled” up his MAGA hat and “threw it into the street, and yelled … words to the effect of ‘go get it bitch.'”

Sani said he threw his food at Mahoney’s face but that Mahoney and Hoff ganged up on him, saying Mahoney “grabbed my chest and slammed it on the concrete as I was falling” and “punched me a bunch of times on the back” and that Hoff “kicked me a bunch of times too.”

The Frontlines report includes images of Sani’s “multiple scrapes and bruises” resulting from the two-on-one beatdown.

The video report also shows Pullman police catching up with Mahoney and Hoff on bodycam video timestamped in the early morning hours of March 1, not long after the attack.

“I seen this guy f**king on campus before,” Mahoney says on police bodycam video in reference to Sani. “I know he’s, like, [a] f**king right-wing dude.”

Mahoney also tells police, “I, like, grabbed his hat, threw it, and said, like, ‘Go get it.'” Hoff admits to police that “we did grab him and bring him to the ground.”

However, Mahoney is heard actually telling cops that he didn’t hit Sani and that “I don’t think I did f**king something illegal, right?”

A voice — presumably an officer — is heard saying on the bodycam clip that “it’s unwanted touching,” after which Mahoney says, “It’s unwanted touching. I don’t know what that is, right?”

Mahoney adds on the bodycam clip that Sani “wanted to fight” and “f**king got what was coming to him, right?”

You can view the complete police bodycam video here of officers interviewing and arresting Mahoney.

The Frontlines video report said Mahoney is a WSU graduate student and instructor who teaches a freshman-level political science class — and is a “notorious far-left activist who hates conservative values and is a regular at pro-Hamas protests in the city.”

Mahoney also “has strong ties to the Democratic Socialists of America, progressive pro-labor groups, and is someone who publicly touts his admiration for the communist party,” the video report adds, citing Sani. The video also points out a hammer and sickle pin seen on Mahoney’s jacket lapel in his WSU headshot:

Patrick MahoneyPatrick Mahoney (Image source: Washington State University website)

In reference to Sani’s skin color, he added in his Facebook post, “To make it clear, I hate to say this, but I’m brown, but forget it. I’m an engineering student that wants to get the degree and move on. So what if I like someone that you don’t like. We have the 1st Amendment, and it’s not okay that just because you don’t like that person, I should be attacked for it. You had a chance in November to oust [Trump], but you didn’t.”

A Frontlines reporter knocked on Mahoney’s door to inquire if he wanted to comment on the assault, but he replied, “No, go away,” from behind the closed door.

The Frontlines video report added that “we were unable to reach Hoff to get his side of the story, but found his LinkedIn account indicating that he’s employed at WSU. Again, the school would not comment on Hoff’s status, either.”

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

​Crime, Washington state university, Patrick mahoney, Physical attack, Arrest, Assault charges, Gerald hoff, Wsu, University intructor, University staff member, Donald trump, Maga hat, Make america great again, Conservative student beaten up, Jay sani, Turning point usa, Turning point usa frontlines, Surveillance video, Pullman washington, Police bodycam video, Attacks against conservatives, Political intolerance, Politics 

The White House published a website Friday with the evidence bolstering the laboratory leak theory for the origins of the coronavirus pandemic.

The lab leak theory was derided and ridiculed by the left and the mainstream media as a “racist” conspiracy theory meant to smear the Chinese government, but more and more evidence shows that the theory is likely true.

‘They would rather we not uncover what really happened. They want us to just move on.’

The official story of the pandemic had claimed that the virus was likely sourced from the Wuhan wet markets in China, where exotic animals were often butchered in open air and eaten by humans who risked infection. Critics of that view pointed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was actively studying coronavirus infections in bats.

The website documents all of the evidence that has since been revealed in support of the lab leak theory.

A lab-related incident involving gain-of-function research is the most likely the origin of COVID-19. Current government mechanisms for overseeing this dangerous gain-of-function research are incomplete, severely convoluted, and lack global applicability.

Much of the evidence points to involvement from the U.S. in the laboratories that were later identified as possible sources of the coronavirus leak.

EcoHealth — under the leadership of Dr. Peter Daszak — used U.S. taxpayer dollars to facilitate dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China. After the Select Subcommittee released evidence of EcoHealth violating the terms of its National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) commenced official debarment proceedings and suspended all funding to EcoHealth.
New evidence also shows that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened an investigation into EcoHealth’s pandemic-era activities.

The website also lays out the argument that many of the pandemic shutdown policies were known to be of dubious efficacy.

The “6 feet apart” social distancing recommendation — which shut down schools and small business across the country — was arbitrary and not based on science. During closed door testimony, Dr. Fauci testified that the guidance “sort of just appeared.”

Among the most virulent opponents of the lab leak was Anthony Fauci, who had been the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases during the pandemic. The website outlined how Fauci was involved with many of the main players who tried to cover up the evidence of a lab leak origin.

More of the evidence for the lab leak theory was documented in the BlazeTV documentary series “The Coverup” presented by Blaze Media and Free the People.

“Free the People produced ‘The Coverup’ to shine light on the shadowy government figures who caused so much pain and suffering with their tyrannical overreach during the pandemic,” said BlazeTV host Matthew B. Kibbe. “They would rather we not uncover what really happened. They want us to just move on.”

Here’s some of the BlazeTV news video reporting on the lab leak theory:

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

​Lab leak theory, Racist lab leak theory, Origins of covid, Coronavirus origin, Politics 

A former middle school teacher in Texas is facing felony charges after being accused of having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a student, according to reports.

Kara Hernandez – a 31-year-old from Missouri City, Texas – was arrested and charged with indecency with a child involving sexual contact and an improper relationship between an educator and a student. Her bond has been set at $50,000.

Hernandez is reportedly married with four children.

Hernandez had been a teacher at Ronald Thornton Middle School until she resigned from her teaching position in September 2024.

The Fort Bend Independent School District said in a statement, “The district took action immediately after allegations came to light, and during our investigation the teacher resigned in place of termination in September 2024.”

A grand jury indictment accused Hernandez of having sexual contact with a student enrolled at the school, according to court documents obtained by KPRC-TV.

The alleged relationship happened in April and October of 2022 while Hernandez worked at the Houston-area school, according to court documents.

KRIV-TV obtained a letter that the Fort Bend Independent School District sent to parents regarding the shocking allegations against the former Ronald Thornton Middle School teacher.

“Recently, allegations of past inappropriate conduct by a Thornton Middle School staff member were brought to the district’s attention by a former student,” the statement began.

“Fort Bend ISD immediately began an investigation, and the staff member was immediately removed from the campus and placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation. The staff member will not be returning to FBISD,” the district stated.

According to the school’s website, Hernandez had been the orchestra director at Ronald Thornton Middle School and an orchestra camp coordinator.

Henandez’s bio on the school’s orchestra website states: “Mrs. Hernandez firmly believes that her purpose in life is to provide an exceptional music education for students.”

Hernandez is reportedly married with four children.

“When she is not teaching or practicing her viola, she enjoys spending time outdoors and supporting the Houston Astros with her husband and their four children,” the bio reads.

It was not specified if the alleged incidents happened at the school, but records show that the alleged victim was a student at Ronald Thornton Middle School.

Anyone with information regarding the allegations of child sex abuse is urged to contact the Fort Bend ISD Police Department at 281-634-5500 or contact Crime Stoppers at 281-491-8477 to remain anonymous.

Hernandez is scheduled to appear in court on April 28.

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

​Teacher arrested, Teacher sex scandal, Teacher student sex scandal, Bad teacher, Child sex abuse, Child sexual assault, Crime 

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) appeared to lose her temper during a recent speaking event, when she began speaking about President Donald Trump — but her anger might be coming from somewhere deeper.

“My mission is clear! I’m focused, I’m prepared, I’m ready. I’ve been trained by the best. I went to Howard University that overturned legal segregation in this country,” James said loudly at a recent speaking event.

“I’m not afraid of no president. Donald Trump, we’re ready for you, we’re coming for you, we’re standing up for you, we’re fighting on, we’re not going down silent. Victory, my friends, is clear, it’s now, and I’m not waiting for years, I’m waiting two,” she continued, angrily.

“Come on, ladies, it’s up to us, we saved this democracy before, we’ll save it now, let’s go,” she added.

While James appeared focused on Trump, she’s also currently under investigation for mortgage fraud — which Sara Gonzales of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” believes could be the real reasoning behind her outburst.

“Everyone can already hear you, you don’t have to yell like that,” Gonzales says, adding, “It seems like something a guilty person would do, the over-the-top screaming.”

“Guilty people usually get very angry when they are accused of the thing that they did, and she seemed to be very rattled and angry about being accused of this,” she continues.

“And of course, also bringing it back to these bigger concepts,” Stu Burguiere chimes in, “like racism.”

“What’s really great about this story,” he continues, “is it’s almost exactly what they accused Donald Trump of doing. Donald Trump, he inflated his value, his real estate values allegedly to get better loan terms.”

“And this is a situation where she said she was living in another state, because if you buy a second house, and you say it’s a vacation house, or an investment house, usually your rate is going to be higher. So she lied and said, allegedly, that she was living in that house, when of course there’s absolutely no way she could have been. She was working in New York,” he explains.

“No one is above the law,” he adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Free, Upload, Sharing, Camera phone, Video, Video phone, Youtube.com, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Sara gonzales, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Letitia james, Letitia james fraud investigation, President donald trump, Stu burguiere 

President Donald Trump posted a photograph of a Salvadoran man who was deported to a terrorist prison in El Salvador in order to bolster the claim that the man was a member of the infamous Mara Salvatrucha criminal gang.

The administration has continued to claim Kilmar Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13 in order to justify deporting him to the Terrorism Confinement Center. Garcia and his family have denied the claim and argued that he was improperly deported without sufficient evidence to send him to a notorious prison for terrorists.

The photo shows tattoos of a marijuana leaf, a smile, a cross, and a skull, which are supposed to correspond to the letters and numbers that spell out MS-13.

On Friday, the president posted a photograph of himself holding a photograph of tattoos on the knuckles of Garcia’s left hand that allegedly prove he was an MS-13 gang member.

“This is the hand of the man that the Democrats feel should be brought back to the United States, because he is such ‘a fine and innocent person.’ They said he is not a member of MS-13, even though he’s got MS-13 tattooed onto his knuckles, and two Highly Respected Courts found that he was a member of MS-13, beat up his wife, etc.,” he wrote on Truth Social.

The photo shows tattoos of a marijuana leaf, a smile, a cross, and a skull, which are supposed to correspond to the letters and numbers that spell out MS-13.

“I was elected to take bad people out of the United States, among other things. I must be allowed to do my job. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” he added.

Trump issued an order designating MS-13 as a terrorist group, which allowed him to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and fast-track the deportation of any gang members.

Critics of the policy accuse the administration of abusing the intent of the act and violating the due process rights of those accused of being gang members.

The issue went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously upheld the lower court order that the Trump administration must “facilitate” the return of Garcia from the terror prison and treat his immigration proceedings as if he had never been deported.

The administration has responded by claiming that it has no power to return the man, and the Salvadoran president told reporters that he could not send him back to the U.S.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said there was probable cause to hit Trump with contempt charges, but the official finding will go to another judge.

“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it,” he wrote Wednesday.

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

​Kilmar garcia tattoos, Garcia ms-13, Trump photo of kilmar garcia, Ms-13 tattoos, Politics 

A Brazilian national – who was previously deported – was arrested by federal law enforcement officers for allegedly raping and assaulting a child, according to authorities.

Ilma Leandro De Oliveira, a 53-year-old woman from Brazil, was arrested on March 20 in Falmouth, Massachusetts, by officers and agents with the Boston divisions of ICE, the FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

“Ilma Leandro De Oliveira is charged with seven different crimes regarding the sexual victimization of a child in our Massachusetts community.”

De Oliveira was charged with the rape of a child, reckless endangerment of a child, indecent exposure, indecent assault and battery on a child under 14, unnatural acts with a child, aggravated statutory rape of a child, and incest.

De Oliveira was previously deported before returning to the United States.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced in a statement released this week that the U.S. Border Patrol arrested De Oliveira on Sept. 20, 2007. ICE noted that De Oliveira illegally entered the United States near Laredo, Texas. The Border Patrol reportedly served her a notice and order of expedited removal.

ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Boston acting Field Office Director Patricia H. Hyde said De Oliveira illegally re-entered the U.S. on an unknown date, at an unknown location, and without being inspected, admitted, or paroled by a U.S. immigration official.

Hyde declared, “Ilma Leandro De Oliveira is charged with seven different crimes regarding the sexual victimization of a child in our Massachusetts community. These are crimes we simply will not tolerate.”

Hyde proclaimed, “ICE Boston will continue to prioritize the safety of our children by arresting and removing any criminal alien who poses a threat to our New England residents.”

ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations in San Antonio removed De Oliveira from the United States to Brazil on Dec. 27, 2007.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said De Oliveira was served with a notice of intent/decision to reinstate a prior removal order.

ICE said De Oliveira is expected to also be prosecuted for illegal re-entry after deportation.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced this week that 206 illegal aliens had been arrested between April 6 and April 12 in a New York City sting.

ICE noted that more than half of the migrants arrested had significant criminal convictions or are currently facing charges for crimes like murder, assault, arson, rape, drugs, and illegal firearms. One of the illegal immigrants who was arrested is a 22-year-old member of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.

“The majority of the aliens arrested have egregious criminal histories to include manslaughter, rape, assault, drug trafficking, and sex assault against minors,” stated Judith Almodovar, the acting field office director of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations New York City.

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said last week’s operation “targeted the most dangerous alien offenders in some of the most crime-infested neighborhoods.”

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

​Ice, Illegal immigrants, Illegal aliens, Illegal immigration, Rape, Child rape, Child sex crimes, Incest, Politics 

A Democrat member of the Michigan House of Representatives admitted that she pulled a childish “prank” on one of her Republican colleagues after he took up two spaces in their designated parking lot.

Shortly after noon on Thursday, state Rep. Julie Brixie (D-Meridian Township) and a staffer walked into the area of the House parking garage where Rep. Matt Maddock (R-Milford) was parked. According to security footage sent to Blaze News, Brixie can be seen making several passes around Maddock’s vehicle with what Brixie later identified as Saran Wrap.

— (@)

Not satisfied to wait until Maddock was done for the day to discover her little joke, Brixie then took to the state House floor and announced: “Colleagues, colleagues, can I have your attention? Colleagues, I just came in from the parking ramp, and there’s a black BMW with a license plate number, [redacted], your hood is open, your lights are on, and your engine is running. Thank you.”

Of course, the hood of the car was not open, the lights were not on, and the engine was not running. The car was, however, straddling two spaces, a mistake that Republicans attributed to Maddock driving his wife’s sedan that day instead of his truck, which is afforded two spaces due to its width.

‘Someone who would Saran wrap your car today … might pull a knife tomorrow.’

“My good colleague from the 51st district parked in two spots, including mine, to make sure no one hit his fancy car,” Brixie said. “I Saran wrapped it to give it an extra layer of protection.”

In response, Maddock quipped: “I parked in an empty spot. I didn’t realize it’d turn into the highlight of Brixie’s year.”

According to the Detroit News, Brixie later characterized Maddock’s poor parking and her response as “pranks.” However, at least one Michigan journalist isn’t laughing.

James Dixon of Michigan Enjoyer believes the stunt could be considered “vandalism,” “destruction of property,” and “violence.” He views it as a “wild” attempt to intimidate a courageous Republican by a Democrat “girlboss” desperate for attention.

Dixon warned that if Republican leadership in Michigan does not impose consequences on Brixie, Democrats will become even bolder in their attempts to bully and harass their political opponents.

“Here in America, we use our words in a dispute past the age of 3. We don’t take matters into our own hands,” Dixon argued. “Someone who would Saran wrap your car today because you parked in their spot in a garage with plenty of open spaces might pull a knife tomorrow on a colleague who cut in the lunch line.”

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

​Prank, Julie brixie, Matt maddock, Saran wrap, Michigan, Vandalism, Politics 

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the Department of Government Efficiency having access to the data of millions of Americans.

DOGE was tasked by President Donald Trump to cut out waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending and was initially headed up by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk. After numerous lawsuits challenging the validity of the agency’s actions, the administration announced that it was led instead by Amy Gleason.

‘SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records. This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation.’

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Baltimore sided with a group of labor unions that filed a lawsuit claiming DOGE’s actions violated privacy laws and put Americans’ data at risk.

Hollander questioned why DOGE needed to have “seemingly unfettered access” to data at the Social Security Administration, to which government attorneys argued that anonymizing the data would significantly slow down their efforts.

“For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records. This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation,” Hollander wrote in the ruling.

The injunction ordered DOGE workers to delete any non-anonymized data from Social Security records they had obtained since Jan. 20. The ruling allows them to have access to the data once it’s anonymized and the workers receive training and background checks.

Hollander had previously criticized DOGE in a temporary injunction in the same case in March.

“The DOGE Team is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion,” she previously wrote. “It has launched a search for the proverbial needle in the haystack, without any concrete knowledge that the needle is actually in the haystack.”

In the more recent ruling, Hollander acknowledged that the DOGE mission was a worthwhile pursuit.

“The objective to address fraud, waste, mismanagement, and bloat is laudable, and one that the American public presumably applauds and supports,” she wrote. “Indeed, the taxpayers have every right to expect their government to make sure that their hard earned money is not squandered.”

The 75-year-old judge was appointed by former President Barack Obama.

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

​Doge vs courts, Obama judge vs doge, Unions vs doge, Doge social security data, Politics