Category: blaze media

For a brief period last week, Telegram disappeared from Apple’s App Store. That is no small thing. Telegram has more than a billion users worldwide, and for anyone who tried to install Telegram on an iPhone, Apple had temporarily cut off the normal route to getting the app. Apple said it removed Telegram after finding child sexual abuse material on the service. Telegram deleted the material, banned the offending user, and Apple restored the app the same day. Existing users were able to keep using Telegram while it was unavailable for download.

That alone would have been a noteworthy story, but Telegram founder Pavel Durov later offered a much stranger explanation for what happened. According to Durov, the material was not simply posted by some random criminal. He claims it was deliberately planted by what he called a “takedown extortionist,” someone who threatens online communities with removal unless their owners pay up.

It’s a much stranger security problem than most people are used to thinking about.

In Durov’s telling, the attacker found an old message in an active public Telegram group, edited it to contain AI-modified illegal material, and then reported the offending content directly to Apple. Because the edited message was buried in the group’s history, ordinary Telegram users were unlikely to stumble across it and report it themselves. The Verge subsequently reported Durov’s account of the alleged scheme.

Apple has confirmed the illegal content and the reason it removed Telegram, but it has not independently confirmed Durov’s story about the extortion scheme. That distinction matters. The claim that an extortionist deliberately planted the material, that AI was used to modify it, and that the old message was selected specifically to evade Telegram’s own moderation all come from Durov.

Still, if his account is accurate, the incident offers a glimpse of where cyberattacks may be headed. The alleged attacker did not have to hack Telegram’s servers, compromise Apple, steal anyone’s password, or discover some exotic zero day vulnerability. He simply figured out how to manipulate Apple’s enforcement system into attacking Telegram for him.

Hack the referee

That may sound like an entirely new category of attack, but the basic idea has been around for years. Social media companies have dealt with organized mass reporting campaigns in which activists, dissidents, competitors, and political opponents are buried under bogus complaints in hopes that an automated moderation system will suspend them.

Meta disclosed in 2021 that it had broken up a network in Vietnam that used real, duplicate, and fake accounts to submit hundreds and sometimes thousands of false reports against activists and critics of the Vietnamese government.

YouTube has had similar problems with fraudulent copyright complaints. Google reported that more than 6% of videos targeted through YouTube’s public copyright removal process in 2025 were subject to abusive removal requests.

The reason the Telegram case is more interesting is that artificial intelligence is changing the economics of these attacks. A human being has always been capable of lying, filing false reports, forging evidence, or pretending to be someone else. AI makes it possible to do those things at enormous scale and with much less time and effort.

RELATED: Infamous cyberattackers claim their next shocking victim — using a decades-old trick

Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto/Getty Images

The FBI has already warned that criminals are using generative AI to create fake identification documents, fictitious social media profiles, synthetic photographs, cloned voices, and fraudulent videos for impersonation and fraud. The FBI has separately warned that criminals are using AI-altered images and videos to create explicit material for extortion.

The important thing is not merely that AI can make a convincing fake photograph. It is that one person can now manufacture photographs, voices, accounts, documents, messages, and identities faster and cheaper than ever before.

The attack surface is getting bigger

That becomes especially dangerous as more institutions hand decisions over to automated systems. Banks use software to decide whether a transaction looks fraudulent. Email providers decide whether a message is spam. Social networks decide whether a photograph violates their rules. App stores determine whether software is safe enough to distribute. Advertising platforms decide which businesses are legitimate. Payment processors determine which merchants are too risky to serve.

In every case, the system has to take some collection of inputs and make a judgment about them. An attacker does not necessarily have to defeat those systems in the traditional sense. He only has to learn which inputs produce the result he wants.

That is a much stranger security problem than the one most people are used to thinking about. For decades, the stereotypical cyberattack involved a hacker trying to break through a locked door. He stole a password, exploited an unpatched vulnerability, installed malware, encrypted a hard drive, or broke into a database.

Those attacks are not going anywhere, and AI is making them more sophisticated as well. But increasingly, attackers may be able to accomplish their goal without ever breaking through the door. If they can persuade the security guard that the owner of the building is a criminal, the guard may do the damage for them.

Apple’s power is part of the problem

That is essentially what Durov claims happened to Telegram, and it exposes another uncomfortable part of the story.

Apple obviously cannot ignore child sexual abuse material. Nobody is arguing that it should. But that does not automatically answer the much larger question of what Apple should do when a single user uploads prohibited material to an application serving more than a billion people.

Is Apple responsible for policing every photograph, message, and file that passes through every app it distributes? More importantly, should Apple have the authority to punish every user of an application because one user violated the rules?

Apple’s own App Store guidelines do not require developers to somehow guarantee that objectionable material will never appear. Apps containing user generated content are required to have systems for filtering objectionable material, reporting it, blocking abusive users, and providing contact information so complaints can be addressed.

Apple’s guidelines also describe a remediation process in which the company may contact a developer, ask that offending material be removed, and request a plan for preventing similar violations. The guidelines reserve immediate removal for more serious circumstances, including egregious or repeated behavior.

That raises an obvious question if Durov’s account is accurate. Why did Apple remove Telegram before contacting the company instead of first giving Telegram an opportunity to remove the content and address the offending account?

RELATED: Surveillance pricing is here — and this surprising state is saying NO

mathisworks/Getty Images

There may be additional considerations involving child sexual abuse material that are not fully spelled out in Apple’s general App Store guidelines, so it would be too strong to say Apple clearly violated its own policy. But the discrepancy is worth asking about.

Telegram says this entire episode stemmed from the actions of a single user. Telegram spokesperson Remi Vaughn criticized Apple for disrupting access to the app over one user’s actions, while Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney questioned how any large messaging service could realistically guarantee that none of its users would ever upload prohibited material.

That gets to the larger issue. No communications platform with hundreds of millions or billions of users can promise that no individual user will ever do something criminal. The meaningful question is how quickly and effectively the platform responds when that happens.

Yet Apple possesses the power to remove an entire application from the primary software marketplace for more than a billion iPhone users.

That is an extraordinary amount of authority for one private company to exercise over communications software.

It also makes the alleged extortion scheme possible in the first place. The attacker’s leverage did not come merely from his ability to plant prohibited material. It came from knowing that Apple possessed both the power and the willingness to punish an entire application in response.

If Durov’s story is accurate, the extortionist was exploiting Apple just as surely as he was exploiting Telegram.

Who decides who gets to stay?

There is also reason to question how consistently Apple exercises that authority.

The Verge reported Friday that Apple took a different approach toward X and Grok during controversy over sexualized AI-generated images. Apple reportedly contacted X and sought moderation changes rather than immediately removing the apps.

Durov, by contrast, says Telegram was removed before Apple contacted the company.

That does not prove Apple acted improperly in either case, and the underlying facts were not identical. But it does expose how much discretion Apple possesses. Apple worked with one platform while another was removed before contact, according to Durov.

That should make even people who have little sympathy for Telegram uncomfortable. The question is not whether Apple should tolerate illegal material. It is whether a company that controls one of the two dominant mobile operating systems should also serve as judge, jury, and executioner for applications containing the speech of billions of third-party users.

Seen that way, the Telegram affair is not merely a warning about AI-powered cyberattacks. It is also a warning about centralized gatekeepers.

The more power we give a handful of companies to decide who may communicate, transact, advertise, publish, or distribute software, the more valuable those companies become as targets for manipulation.

Why bother silencing a billion users yourself when you can trick Apple into doing it for you?

AI is getting better at old-fashioned hacking too

AI makes these manipulation attacks easier, but the machines themselves are also becoming much better at traditional hacking.

OpenAI recently disclosed an internal cybersecurity evaluation in which advanced models escaped the constrained environment researchers had built for them after discovering and exploiting a previously unknown vulnerability. The models gained internet access, escalated privileges, moved laterally through systems, and ultimately exploited vulnerabilities in Hugging Face’s real production infrastructure while pursuing the objective of the test.

There are important caveats. This was a deliberately aggressive cybersecurity evaluation. OpenAI had reduced or disabled some of the safeguards that would ordinarily restrict such behavior, and the prerelease model involved was an internal research prototype rather than a product released to the public.

Even with those caveats, the result was remarkable. The models found ways around barriers that researchers had not expected them to overcome.

RELATED: They had their life savings drained online in an instant. So who’s next?

Velishchuk/Getty Images

Then on Friday, OpenAI disclosed another development that shows how quickly these capabilities are progressing. The company said testing of its upcoming Astra model had advanced far enough that it could no longer rule out what OpenAI classifies as “critical” cybersecurity capability.

That is the highest category in OpenAI’s cybersecurity framework. At that level, according to OpenAI’s description, a model could potentially discover functional zero-day exploits against hardened real-world systems without human assistance or independently plan and execute complex novel attacks from a high-level objective.

OpenAI has not said Astra definitely possesses those capabilities. It has said the possibility is serious enough that the company has tightened security controls around the model while testing continues.

We have reached the stage where one of the companies building the world’s most advanced AI systems considers autonomous attacks against hardened real-world targets plausible enough to build safeguards around.

Cybersecurity is becoming a fight over reality

Put these developments together, and the future of cybercrime starts to look much more complicated than simply giving hackers better tools.

On one side, AI systems are becoming increasingly capable of probing networks, discovering vulnerabilities, writing exploits, and carrying out technical work that once required highly skilled human operators. On the other side, far less sophisticated AI can already generate fake identities, doctored evidence, fraudulent complaints, cloned voices, and synthetic content that can be used to manipulate the institutions surrounding a target.

You can imagine where that leads without getting too far into science fiction. A criminal might not need to break into a company’s bank account if he can generate enough convincing evidence to persuade the bank’s fraud system to freeze it. He might not need to hack a competitor’s website if he can convince its hosting company that the site contains illegal material. He might not need to compromise an executive’s email if he can clone the executive’s voice and video closely enough to fool an employee. An attacker targeting a social media account might simply generate and test thousands of variations of malicious content until he discovers one that reliably triggers the platform’s moderation system.

The institutions involved cannot simply stop enforcing their rules. Banks cannot stop looking for fraud. Email providers cannot stop filtering spam. Social networks cannot simply abandon moderation. Apple cannot simply shrug when illegal material appears inside an app.

But neither should we treat every decision made by those systems, or by the companies controlling them, as automatically legitimate simply because the underlying problem is serious.

Every system that makes judgments can also be studied, manipulated, and eventually exploited.

That is what makes the Telegram incident worth paying attention to, even if Durov’s account ultimately proves incomplete. Apple has removed Telegram over child sexual abuse material before, in 2018, and Telegram has faced years of criticism and regulatory pressure over illegal activity on the platform. Durov is hardly a disinterested observer.

But the broader vulnerability he describes is real whether or not every detail of this particular incident turns out exactly as he says.

For most of the history of cybersecurity, defenders worried about attackers taking control of their computers. The next phase may be stranger. Attackers may not need to take control of your computer at all.

They may only need to convince everyone else’s computers to turn against you.

​Tech, Cybersecurity, Cyberattack, Telegram, Apple 

A German airport that serves as a logistics hub was seemingly targeted as part of a plot carried out by enemies of the West.

How they did it is a wake-up call about the vulnerability of air travel worldwide.

‘All of this does not point to an amateurish approach.’

Leipzig/Halle Airport in eastern Germany almost became the site of disaster, but whether it was luck or poor execution, a mass causality event was barely avoided.

The airport is used by German military and its NATO allies for military transport, the BBC reported, but at the same time, it serves as a base for Ukraine’s Antonov Airlines.

Ukrainian aerial cargo was the apparent target when a drone was spotted carrying an explosive device near the Antonov planes.

The drone was fitted with military-grade explosives including Semtex and Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN). Fortunately, the detonator on the drone apparently malfunctioned, rendering the explosives useless, the Financial Times said, per German police.

A bomb-defusing robot was deployed to remove the detonator from the device, and police later carried out a controlled explosion to dispose of the material.

Moreover, a second unidentified object actually made contact with a cargo aircraft near the same airport, but the plane seemingly absorbed the blow and later landed in Hanover, Germany, with minor damage.

RELATED: America is winning the air war and losing the information war

NEWS5/AFP/Getty Images

German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said that the incidents showed “a new level of threat” but warned the job was complex and professional, not a slapped-together device.

“All of this does not point to an amateurish approach. We are talking about a professional, hybrid threat scenario that we will continue to address.”

Without naming names, Dobrindt said that the attack “may also involve foreign powers.”

The claim comes as Polish authorities have alleged that U.S. intelligence forwarded them warnings that Russia could soon be looking to carry out an attack on NATO allies.

RELATED: Putin’s spies have been hiding in plain sight in Japan — now the US is helping clean house

John MACDOUGALL/AFP/Getty Images

According to LBC, Warsaw recently received intelligence from Washington that Russia could be planning an armed provocation (drone or missile strikes) on Polish soil, with the aim of escalating tensions among the West, which would lead to the suspension of support for Ukraine.

The warning included the possibility of an attack on what was described as critical Polish infrastructure, which could involve Russian or Belarusian troops crossing into NATO territory.

The United States “systematically informs Poland about ever-new Russian plans for a conventional attack on NATO’s eastern flank, from which Poland is by no means excluded,” a source close to the Polish president told LBC.

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

​Drones, Russia, Ukraine, Germany, Nato, Poland, Tech 

At Blaze Media, we strive to consistently bring you the best conservative talent on the market. Today, we’re excited to announce that pastor and podcaster Josh Howerton has joined our lineup.

As senior pastor of Lakepointe Church in Dallas, Texas, and host of one of the fastest-growing shows in the faith and culture space, “Live Free,” Howerton brings a large and loyal audience of faithful churchgoers and cultural observers who value his clear, biblically grounded perspective on the issues of our day.

Howerton told us he’s excited about joining the Blaze Media team because it allows him to accomplish the two things he’s “most passionate” about: “Telling everybody everywhere the good news of Jesus Christ” and applying “the whole word of God to the issues of the whole world.”

“This partnership advances both, so we’re in and excited about it,” he said.

We share in that excitement.

“Josh has built something rare: a podcast with genuine chart momentum and a growing audience that’s actively looking for clarity on faith and culture,” said Tyler Cardon, CEO of Blaze Media. “’Live Free’ fits naturally into our lineup, and we think our distribution can help Josh reach even more people hungry for the truth.”

“Live Free with Josh Howerton” launches today on BlazeTV+, YouTube, and major podcast platforms.

“Live Free with Josh Howerton” is currently ranked #2 in Apple Podcasts’ religion and spirituality category and #39 overall. It has also surpassed one million YouTube subscribers, with an audience that spans committed churchgoers, conservatives, and cultural observers alike. Josh is building something special, and we’re honored to come alongside him and his team to support and amplify the great work that he’s doing.

When you subscribe to BlazeTV+, you’re helping us bring more voices like Josh Howerton to Blaze Media, voices willing to speak clearly about faith, culture, and the issues shaping our country.

Join BlazeTV+ and start watching Josh today at blazetv.com/JOSH. Use promo code JOSH40 to get $40 off your subscription.

​Christianity, Culture, Josh howerton, Podcast, Blazetv show 

It’s now dawning on some liberals that there’s nothing funny about the clowns taking over the Democratic circus.

MS NOW talking head Joe Scarborough, for instance, was left momentarily speechless on Monday after sharing a video in which Megan Romer, the national co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, not only blames Israel for its attack by Hamas terrorists on Oct. 7, 2023, but notes that she would have stood in solidarity with Hamas in the immediate aftermath of the massacres.

‘I really don’t want to hear from the DSA anymore.’

In an interview with the New Yorker’s David Remnick released Friday, Romer detailed the DSA’s platform, including its views on Israel. Romer condemned Israel and expressed support for a “one-state solution”: a “free Palestine with the capital in Jerusalem.”

Remnick noted that Darializa Avila Chevalier — the Islamic anti-police, anti-Israel, anti-border socialist now poised to win a congressional seat in New York as a Democrat — attended the pro-Hamas rally held in Times Square on Oct. 8, 2023, which featured signs justifying the terror attacks and was organized by radical groups, including Al-Awda New York.

When asked whether she supports Chevalier attending the rally, Romer said, “Yeah, I do,” and noted that she too would have attended the rally had she been able.

“One day after the slaughter of 1,200 people and taking of over 200 hostages, you would’ve come and rallied behind Hamas?” asked Remnick.

“I think that October 7 was largely inevitable,” answered Romer. “If you put people in an open-air concentration camp, and you deprive them of rights, of dignity, of food, of the ability to live in safety, you have to expect that they are going to not take that for that long.”

“You cannot put people in a cage and expect them not to revolt,” added the socialist.

RELATED: Mike Rowe nukes DSA commies, then takes a moment to bask in the fallout

Spencer Platt/Getty Images (R)

After playing a clip of the exchange on “Morning Joe” on Monday, Scarborough appeared stunned.

He broke the silence to state, “The co-chair of the DSA supported going to a pro-Hamas rally the day after Hamas gleefully slaughtered more Jews on October 7 than any day the Jews were slaughtered since the Holocaust. Women raped. Young children shot in front of their parents. Parents shot in front of young children. The DSA co-chair, which means the DSA, supports that.”

‘This is about the Democrats once again fumbling the football on the 2-yard line.’

“I really don’t want to hear from the DSA anymore,” added the liberal host, “that they’re about economic justice or health care. This would be like going to a pro-Al-Qaeda rally on September 12, which I’m sure many people in the DSA would say, ‘Well, that would be perfectly fine because look at the U.S. policies throughout the years.'”

The talking head who officially left the GOP in October 2017 — for supposedly abandoning its fiscal principles — implored the Democratic Party to reject the DSA ahead of the primary elections on Tuesday in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

In Wisconsin, Francesca Hong — a card-carrying DSA member who has expressed a desire to abolish the police, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the U.S. Senate — is likely to win the Democratic Party’s nomination in the state’s gubernatorial race.

In Minnesota, Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan — who does not identify as a socialist but is nevertheless a leftist similarly extreme in her views — is up against establishment Democratic Rep. Angie Craig in the Gopher State’s Democratic Senate primary.

“There’s nothing wrong with the Democrats supporting economic justice. There’s nothing wrong with the Democrats supporting, you know, cutting taxes, or getting rid of the Trump taxes and making billionaires pay more in taxes,” said Scarborough. “That’s a legitimate mainstream debate for people to have.”

He suggested, however, “I don’t need people telling me, ‘Oh, you have to just turn a blind eye to people saying that women getting raped on October 7 didn’t matter in the grand scheme of things.’ Americans aren’t going to support that.”

“This is about the Democrats once again fumbling the football on the two-yard line when they have the chance to make great gains but being … too woke to call out the obvious,” said Scarborough.

Scarborough underscored that it’s prudent for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) to call out the extremism of the DSA and those socialists making inroads in the Democratic Party — or to, at the very least, call pro-terrorist rape apologetics “despicable.”

“It’s crazy that we’re even having this conversation!” he shouted.

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

​Joe scarborough, Ms now, Democratic socialists of america, Megan romer, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Politics 

“What is a reverse ATM?”

This question has been asked ad nauseum for the last few years, and the answer is somewhere between an unnecessary step and a cashless society.

‘Hardly-user friendly.’

Money walks

An early August post asked, “What in the Davos,” referring to the home base of the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, where undoubtedly the most controversial world figures come together to coordinate, undoubtedly, the most controversial policies.

The “you’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy” meme apparently extends to physical money, as well, as one X user’s photo read, “reverse ATMs are available throughout the concourse for your convenience.”

According to BluePoint ATM Solutions, a “Reverse ATM” is a cash-to-card kiosk that allows users to convert physical cash into a prepaid card.

The kiosks are everywhere now, especially in New York, where they are seen at venues like MVP Arena and the Saratoga Performing Arts Center. In Texas, the San Antonio Zoo says a cashless experience ensures that guests “spend less time in line.”

If there is any question as to whether or not the kiosks are connected to the WEF-prescribed future, there are a plethora of horror stories floating around online that confirm the theory.

RELATED: Elderly Air Force veteran assaulted, robbed after withdrawing cash from ATM; video shows juvenile taking victim’s wallet

Krisztian Bocsi/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Peasant problems

One traveler to Brussels — the home of European Parliament — panicked when she realized she was nearly out of gas and zero locations in the area “employed an actual human attendant.”

Her credit cards didn’t work anywhere, but her payments weren’t being declined, either. Instead, she realized the pumps operate through reverse ATMs: insert cash, get a ticket, scan the ticket at the pump to get gas.

Turns out this was the case in France, too, Ashley Smith wrote. The blogger noted that in many EU states, paying with a credit card forces a €120 deposit, which refunds the difference depending on gas consumption. At the same time, this is disincentivized given that a signature is required for purchases over €100.

With no humans in sight, it’s back to the reverse ATM for the peasantry.

Fintech Finance News reported in 2024 that the reverse ATMs are “hardly-user friendly,” and one New York location provided no receipt, the card was not reloadable, and users must go through a “time-consuming process” to reclaim any remaining balances.

Similar experiences have been widely discussed online.

RELATED: Violent punks caught on video ganging up on, brutally beating elderly man by Baltimore 7-Eleven — while wielding rifle, sword

Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto/Getty Images

Card sharks

One Reddit post discussed an ice cream shop in Philadelphia that refused a $10 bill, opting for a reverse ATM payment instead. The card didn’t work, and an employee told the customer it wasn’t his fault before gifting him the treat anyway.

On another thread, users discussed how much money is left unclaimed on the ATM cards. One user said he left $9 on a card at an amusement park because “everything in the park” costs more than that.

Another said the New York MTA had made $100 from his unused cards in just one year.

Detractors say to use the card elsewhere, as it is likely a prepaid VISA or Mastercard. Companies will say it prevents cash theft and reduces labor. This is of course for the business, not the customer, who has to whip out cash at a less secure location and then take extra steps simply to spare the establishment a few minutes of work.

“Minimize pathogen concerns associated with cash,” BluePoint ATM says on its website.

Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve says there is no federal statute mandating that a private business, person, or organization “must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services.”

Instead, citizens must rely on bylaws, like that of Philadelphia, where under the city’s cashless retail prohibition, establishments “may not refuse to accept cash.”

It is unclear whether that extends to the ice cream experience, though.

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

​Reverse atm, Davos, World economic forum, European union, Cashless, Lifestyle 

A homeowner in Richmond, New York, noticed something on his home security system Sunday night that prompted him to call 911 — and also to grab his shotgun and confront the disturbance himself.

“He was receiving live surveillance footage of two individuals entering a property that he owns,” Undersheriff Michael Rago of the Ontario County Sheriff’s Office told WHAM-TV. “He lives close by, and while he remained on the phone with the 911 center, he responded to the location.”

‘We actually received a 911 call from one of the occupants in the residence.’

The homeowner arrived to find a suspicious vehicle parked discreetly on the property and lights flickering inside the home, Rago added to the station.

With that, the homeowner called out to those inside his property and shot out the vehicle’s tires, WHAM said.

“At that time, we actually received a 911 call from one of the occupants in the residence, stating that they were in there and that they were going to cooperatively exit with their hands up,” Rago added to the station.

When deputies arrived, they took 19-year-old Alexandria Mosher and 22-year-old Dominick Wood, both of Lima, into custody, WHAM reported.

Deputies found Mosher and Wood in possession of items from inside the home, the sheriff’s office told the station, adding that the pair were charged with second-degree burglary before being released after their arraignment.

RELATED: Homeowner opens fire on burglar who was on parole for previous burglary conviction, cops say. There won’t be future offenses.

The homeowner has not been charged, the station said.

“A word to the wise is to understand … when you can and can’t use deadly physical force,” Rago noted to WHAM. “This wouldn’t be considered deadly physical force. …”

The undersheriff also offered the following advice, according to the station: “At the end of the day, you know … we don’t need more victims. We don’t need victims injured. We don’t need suspects or defendants, you know, injured. … I come back to being a being a good witness for law enforcement.”

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

​New york, 2nd amendment, Guns, Gun rights, Defending property, Homeowner shoots, Burglary, Crime 

Automotive safety technology was supposed to help you keep your eyes on the road. Increasingly, it is keeping its eyes on you.

More new vehicles are equipped with cameras pointed directly at the driver, tracking where you look, whether your eyes are open, and whether the computer thinks you’re paying enough attention. Look down at the touch screen too long and you may hear a warning. Turn your head away from the windshield and the steering wheel may vibrate.

There is a major difference between a sensor detecting that you’re drifting out of your lane and a camera continuously observing your face.

This technology is no longer simply an optional gadget dreamed up by automakers. In Europe, regulators now require new vehicles to include systems capable of detecting driver distraction.

On a recent episode of “The Drive,” co-host Karl Brauer and I spoke with longtime automotive journalist Michael Harley of Forbes about where this technology is heading.

The stated purpose is safety, and there are good reasons for that. But once a camera is installed inside your car, watching you every second you’re behind the wheel, another question becomes unavoidable: Who else eventually gets to watch?

Stay focused

Subaru provides a good example of how quickly driver monitoring has moved into ordinary cars.

Its DriverFocus system uses a near-infrared camera aimed at the driver’s eyes and head. Subaru says the system can identify signs of distraction or drowsiness and warn the driver accordingly. Because the camera is infrared, it can continue monitoring the driver even when the cabin is dark.

The intention is easy to understand. Distracted driving kills people, and so does falling asleep behind the wheel.

There is also evidence that many drivers appreciate the technology. An Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study of nearly 3,500 Subaru owners found that 87% used DriverFocus most or every time they drove, while about 70% said they would want the system on their next vehicle.

But that same research identified the downside. Drivers reported false alarms, and some said the warnings came too frequently. Annoyance was one of the main reasons owners switched the system off.

Karl and I have each experienced this ourselves in new vehicles. Modern cars increasingly offer automatic emergency braking, adaptive cruise control, lane-centering systems, and other technology specifically designed to compensate when a driver makes a mistake. Yet some of those same cars are becoming more aggressive about policing exactly where the driver is looking.

RELATED: Lucid makes one of the best EVs in America. That may not be enough to save it.

Patrick T. Fallon/Getty Images

Nanny cam

This isn’t only about automakers deciding what features customers might like.

Europe is turning driver monitoring into regulation.

Under the European Union’s General Safety Regulation, all newly sold vehicles have been required since July 2024 to include technology warning drivers about drowsiness. Beginning in July 2026, additional rules require advanced systems designed to detect driver distraction as well.

The EU doesn’t explicitly say every manufacturer must put an infrared camera in your face. The regulation is based on what the system must accomplish rather than specifying one particular piece of hardware.

In practice, however, camera-based systems are an obvious way to meet those requirements, and they’re already becoming common.

Once these systems become mandatory in a market as enormous as Europe, automakers have another incentive to design them into vehicles everywhere rather than engineer completely different cars for different countries. That’s why American drivers should pay attention.

Close quarters

Here is where I become uncomfortable.

There is a major difference between a sensor detecting that you’re drifting out of your lane and a camera continuously observing your face.

Michael explained just how capable these systems already are:

“They’re [infrared] cameras … watching every single thing in real time inside the car, and it’s triggering verbal, audible and/or haptic alarms,” he said.

“And you cannot defeat it. Some of them you can turn off, but the second you restart the car, it starts all over again. … It’s just a memory chip … away from being able to record the telemetry.”

Today’s camera may simply analyze the information inside the vehicle and generate an alert. Technologically, however, there isn’t an enormous distance between a camera that sees what you’re doing and a system that stores or transmits what it sees.

Modern cars are already rolling computers connected to manufacturer servers through cellular networks. Automakers have collected driving data and shared information with third parties, while insurance companies increasingly offer policies based on telematics.

Cars can already record enormous amounts of information about speed, location, braking, acceleration, and crashes. Add an interior camera, and the vehicle potentially knows not only where you went and how you drove, but what you were doing while you drove there.

Were you looking at the road or at your phone? Were you yawning? Did you appear sleepy? Who else was inside the vehicle?

Manufacturers will tell us these systems have privacy safeguards, and many of them do. But privacy policies can change. So can software, regulations, and the circumstances under which information can be demanded by law enforcement or other third parties.

The hardware remains pointed at you.

Eyes have it

This is usually how intrusive technology arrives: not through some grand announcement that everybody will now be monitored, but through a series of individually reasonable steps.

It’s there to detect drowsiness. It’s there to make sure you’re paying attention. It’s there to prevent crashes.

Each argument has merit. I don’t want a sleepy driver drifting across the center line any more than anyone else does. Consumers should nevertheless ask where the boundary lies.

A seatbelt protects me without needing to know where I’m looking. An airbag doesn’t watch my face. Anti-lock brakes don’t care who is sitting beside me.

Driver-monitoring cameras are different because they introduce something automobiles never historically required: a machine observing the occupants of the car in real time.

Governments are now beginning to require the systems capable of doing that.

New normal

There is one more irony.

Cars are becoming more capable of assisting the driver at precisely the moment manufacturers and regulators are becoming more insistent about monitoring the human being behind the wheel.

Your vehicle can steer, brake, maintain its distance from the car ahead, and in some cases even change lanes and navigate highway interchanges. But glance away for a little too long, and the same car starts scolding you.

Maybe these systems will save lives. I hope they do.

Before Americans normalize cameras watching drivers in every new automobile, however, we deserve clear answers about what those systems collect, whether any information leaves the vehicle, how long it can be retained, and who can obtain it.

Once the camera becomes standard equipment, the question is no longer whether the car can watch you. It’s who gets access to what it sees.

​Driver assistance technology, Driver distraction detection, Infrared camera, Vehicle monitoring systems, Subaru driverfocus, Big tech, Auto industry, European union, Privacy, Lifestyle, Automotive 

I have watched more of Charlie Kirk since his death than I ever did while he was alive. I do not say that proudly.

While Kirk traveled from campus to campus inviting hostile students to challenge him, I was only vaguely aware of what he was building. In the months since his assassination, I have watched hours of those encounters and wished I had paid closer attention.

Charlie Kirk offered a vision of adulthood built upon duty, sacrifice, personal responsibility, and devotion to something worth defending. Hasan Piker offers a different vision.

As Hasan Piker’s influence has expanded across the American left, I have begun to see him as a kind of anti-Charlie Kirk.

That requires some explanation.

Piker publicly condemned Kirk’s assassination and called it horrific. Nor am I suggesting that Piker avoids debate. He and Kirk debated in 2018 and were scheduled to meet again at Dartmouth College on September 25, 2025.

Charlie Kirk was assassinated 15 days before that debate.

The difference between the two men lies less in whether they were willing to argue than in how they exercised influence, the lives they presented, and what their methods taught young people to do with disagreement.

Charlie Kirk’s signature gesture was to share the microphone.

Hasan Piker’s is to control it.

Kirk went where he was disliked. On campuses where much of the student body opposed nearly everything he believed, he invited students to tell him why he was wrong.

He could be abrasive, overly confident, and eager for the devastating clip. But he entered the arena and allowed his opponents to enter with him. They stood a few feet away and spoke in their own voices. Kirk had to listen, think, and respond in real time.

The person disagreeing with him remained visibly a person.

Piker has mastered the internet’s preferred form of political communication: the reaction. From his studio, he watches clips, interrupts them, mocks them, and turns opponents into material for an audience already disposed to applaud. He selects the clip, stops it when he wishes, interprets the opponent’s motives, and delivers the verdict.

RELATED: The internet makes monsters and saints before the body is cold

PHILL MAGAKOE/AFP/Getty Images

The opponent is present, but only as content.

Media does more than transmit ideas. It trains habits.

Kirk’s format taught his audience that an opponent should receive a microphone, finish a question, and expect an answer. Piker’s format more often teaches an audience to classify, ridicule, and dismiss.

Kirk tried to win converts. Piker identifies enemies.

There is another difference, and it has less to do with politics than with adulthood.

Piker is not publicly known to be married, and his private relationships are his business. It would be unfair to speculate about what we do not know. The relevant distinction is not his marital status but the vision of life he presents publicly.

Charlie Kirk made no mystery of his.

He spoke openly about his wife, Erika, his children, his Christian faith, and the joys and responsibilities of building a family. He did not merely tell young people how to vote. He urged them to marry, have children, accept responsibility, and build something durable.

Kirk offered a vision of adulthood built upon duty, sacrifice, personal responsibility, and devotion to something worth defending.

Piker offers a different vision. His public rhetoric is saturated with rage, profanity, grievance, and the promise that political power can remedy injustice, real or perceived. Speaking to the College Democrats this summer, he described himself as “an outsider currently pushing for an insurgency.” After condemning Democrats he considers collaborators, he declared, “We don’t need those Democrats anymore.”

Kirk called young people to govern themselves. Piker calls them to join a political insurgency against those he blames.

Rage, once summoned, does not always respect political boundaries.

Nearly a year after Kirk’s murder, Piker is alive, broadcasting, and shaping the politics of a generation. That is how a free country is supposed to work. Conservatives should criticize him, answer his arguments, and oppose the candidates he supports.

They must also defend his right to keep talking.

RELATED: The Democrat civil war is real — and it is happening in Wisconsin

Joshua Lott/Getty Images

The harder question is whether the political culture gathering around Piker would extend that protection to people such as Charlie Kirk.

A culture can make violence more plausible long before anyone commits it. It begins by stripping opponents of their individuality and treating their presence as a threat.

A person becomes a category. A category becomes an enemy. An enemy becomes an obstacle.

Eventually, someone decides the obstacle should be removed.

Charlie Kirk’s importance was not that he was always right. It was that he kept showing up where people believed he was wrong. He asked for the next question. He believed opponents could be confronted without being erased.

Then, he went home to the wife and children he loved.

Kirk and Piker were supposed to meet on a stage at Dartmouth. We will never know what Charlie would have said that night.

But as the anniversary of his murder approaches, we should remember what he had already said through the manner of his life: Bring your argument. Take the microphone. Prove me wrong. Then, go home and build something worth defending.

Just leave the rifle behind.

​Assassination, Charlie kirk, Debate, Hasan piker, Opinion & analysis, Democratic socialists of america, Turning point usa 

Michigan Democratic Rep. Shri Thanedar’s political career took a major hit when voters rejected him in favor of a democratic socialist — but it’s not a loss that was hard to see coming.

In a campaign video posted to social media by Shri himself, he’s standing in downtown Detroit wearing bright red sneakers, shorts, and a black shirt with a photo of himself on it with red laser eyes.

“I’m meeting people asking them to make sure they vote on August 4 in the primary election. I’m asking for your vote so I can continue fighting the Trump administration, continue fighting their corruption and their lawlessness,” Thanedar said in his thick accent.

“He is not a real person,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”

“He’s like, ‘What do the people in downtown Detroit wear?’ And he’s like, ‘I know,’ except the shirt is just him with laser beams coming out of his eyes, and it says ‘Shri,’ which I just don’t think is relatable,” she adds.

And interviews that have surfaced of Shri didn’t help his case.

“What are the five Grosse Pointe cities?” an interviewer asked Shri.

“Look, I’m not here to answer a quiz. I’m here to say that I’m going to fight for the people of Detroit,” he said, before the interviewer rattled off the five cities.

The interviewer then called Shri out for abandoning beagles and leaving them “to die in their cages at your pharmaceutical testing.”

“I love animals,” Shri responded.

“I mean, some of them died under my neglect, but other than the ones that I killed, I love animals,” Gonzales mocks.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

​Congress, Democratic socialist, Donald trump, Michigan, Sara gonzales, Shri thanedar, Blazetv show 

President Donald Trump has decided that the U.S. should no longer be a “global outlier” in how many jabs it foists on kids, and medical establishmentarians are not happy about it.

Dropping a few jabs

When Trump took office for the second time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that all American children get vaccines for 18 diseases, sticking them with more than twice as many doses as their European counterparts were receiving.

‘What this does is it restores … autonomy of families and parents.’

In December, the president tasked Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and then-acting CDC Director Jim O’Neill with reviewing the best practices from other first-world countries for core childhood vaccination recommendations along with scientific evidence that informs those practices.

After conducting a comprehensive scientific assessment and concluding that the U.S. was indeed a global outlier, the CDC reduced its list to 11 diseases: diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis (whooping cough), Haemophilus influenzae type B, pneumococcal conjugate, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, human papillomavirus, and chickenpox.

RELATED: STUNNING admission about vaccine found in newly released Fauci text — while he told public it was safe

JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP/Getty Images

The agency recommended numerous other vaccines either for “high-risk groups” or on an individual basis.

Trump stated after the embrace of the new vaccine schedule on Jan. 5, “Effective today, America will no longer require 72 ‘jabs’ for our beautiful, healthy children.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical groups, which had sued the administration in July 2025 over its termination of COVID vaccine recommendations for healthy kids and pregnant women, amended their complaint in January to incorporate a legal challenge to the immunization schedule updates.

On March 16, U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy — a Boston-area Biden appointee who previously barred the Trump administration from swiftly deporting illegal aliens — obliged the plaintiffs and blocked the administration’s revision of the CDC’s vaccine.

Litigation in the case is ongoing.

The order

On Monday, Trump issued an executive order reaffirming that “it is the policy of the United States that the core childhood vaccine recommendations should be aligned with scientific evidence and best practices from peer, developed countries while preserving access to vaccines currently available to Americans.”

The order:

reinforces the vaccination recommendations adopted by the CDC earlier this year; recommends splitting up the combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine into three separate single-disease shots once such vaccines are domestically available; advises states and territories to update their relevant laws and regulations pertaining to immunization requirements — especially for school enrollment and attendance — where necessary; andrecommends that “all childhood immunizations should be administered at separate medical visits.”

Trump’s order also tasks Attorney General Todd Blanche with challenging state laws that conflict with state and federal statutory obligations “related to parental authority, religious freedom, disability accommodations, and equal protection under the law.”

RELATED: Fauci is yesterday’s fight. Medical freedom is today’s.

Rebecca Noble/Getty Images

HHS Secretary Kennedy lauded Trump for taking this step and pledged at the signing ceremony, “We will preserve access to vaccines, strengthen safety monitoring, expand research, give doctors and parents better information, and restore informed consent and parental choice to their rightful place in American medicine.”

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health, said, “What this does is it restores … autonomy of families and parents to make good decisions for their kids. It allows and continues to emphasize the importance of science in the recommendations about vaccines, and fundamentally restores a sort of healthy relationship between public health and parents.”

Outrage from the usual suspects

Andrew Racine, the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, was among those who lashed out over Trump’s executive order.

‘Vaccines DO NOT cause autism.’

“Today’s executive order on vaccines is not only disheartening but dangerous,” said Racine Monday. “Instead of ensuring every family can access life-saving vaccines for measles, influenza, RSV and more, federal leaders are once again spreading misleading claims.”

After claiming that there “is not new evidence to justify significant changes to childhood immunization guidance,” Racine downplayed the possibility of a link between vaccines and autism, and he expressed concern that some people may now “doubt the importance of vaccines.”

Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said in a statement obtained by WTOP News, “If it wasn’t such a serious affront to the health of Americans and their children, it would be laughable.”

Benjamin claimed that breaking up immunizations into individual visits as opposed to loading kids with multiple vaccines all at once “creates more of a burden for parents, and more discomfort for kids.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy, the anti-Trump Louisiana Republican who lost his re-election bid but who still chairs the Senate Health Committee, joined the chorus of concern-mongers, stating, “I’m a doctor. This executive order is wrong. The President does not have the expertise to make these changes. Vaccines are overwhelmingly safe. Vaccines are effective. Vaccines DO NOT cause autism.”

“Breaking up vaccines will mean children have to get more shots to get the same protection, not fewer shots. It will increase hesitancy and make children less safe,” added Cassidy.

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

​Donald trump, Joe biden, Centers for disease control and prevention, Health and human services, Robert f kennedy jr, Vaccination, Politics 

Here in Portland, we’ve had a bad week of wildfire smoke. It’s been at DON’T GO OUTSIDE levels. You literally feel the ache in your chest. Your eyes begin to burn.

This recent event brought to mind the Great Portland Smoke-Out of 2020, which followed the most devastating and deadly wildfires in Oregon history.

I went to relax in a lounge chair by the hotel pool. But as I lay there, I noticed the sky slowly change from blue, to a dull yellow, and then to a reddish gray.

Thanks to that ordeal, people know what to do during smoke events. They stay inside. They wear masks. They seal their doors and windows.

One thing I noticed during this year’s wildfire emergency: There’s been little talk about what anyone could have done to prevent it.

After 2020, Oregon spent nearly $200 million on wildfire prevention and preparedness. The state promised more prescribed burns, more fuel reduction, and more resilient forests. Six years later, there’s plenty of bureaucracy devoted to wildfire, but it’s hard to tell what any of it has accomplished.

Liberals hardly even talk about “climate change” anymore. Whatever you thought of that explanation, at least it implied there was a problem to fix.

Now, we just call it “wildfire season.” As if it’s an inevitable part of the cycle of life. It comes every year. Like the snow melts in the mountains. Or the leaves change in the fall.

We’ve normalized the burning of our state.

Worst year ever

In 2020, we were already dealing with riots; and then COVID lockdowns; and then terrible fires; and then dense walls of smoke descended on Portland.

The first day of smoke was bad. The second day was nightmarish.

I woke up that day at 6 a.m. I could already feel the burning in my lungs. I’d had serious respiratory problems in the past, so I made the immediate decision to evade the coming smoke by whatever means necessary. I jumped out of bed and quickly packed a bag.

I clicked on the radio and consulted various smoke maps on my laptop. Northeastern Oregon still looked clear, so I got in my car and started driving east toward Pendleton, 200 miles away.

Surely that was far enough. I could stay there for a couple days, until the smoke cleared.

As I passed through downtown Portland, the smoke was as thick as fog. As I continued east, through the Columbia Gorge, the smoke was so dense you couldn’t see the Columbia River, 50 yards to your left.

The air smelled toxic. The smoke blocked out the sun. You couldn’t tell what time it was by the ambient light. You had to look at your watch.

They didn’t see it coming

In Pendleton, I could finally see blue sky. But according to the weather radar on my phone, the smoke was right behind me. I remember that the teenage employees at the Pendleton Burger King didn’t know anything about it. I had to explain to them that in an hour they’d be engulfed.

I got back in my car and drove farther east to Boise, another 200 miles. When I got there, the skies were clear. I had outrun the smoke. And hopefully outdistanced it as well.

I checked into a hotel. I thought, OK, I’ll just hang out here for a couple days.

I went to relax in a lounge chair by the hotel pool. But as I lay there, I noticed the sky slowly change from blue, to a dull yellow, and then to a reddish gray.

How could the smoke have caught up with me? I had driven here at 80 mph!

The next day I drove to Pocatello and the day after that to Salt Lake City.

Salt Lake was a ghost town because of COVID. There, I checked into an eccentric-looking two-star hotel. It was the only place open.

RELATED: Is America still a ‘first world’ country? Not compared to Japan

UCG/Bloomberg

Salt Lake City

The smoke eventually arrived in Salt Lake City too, but only faintly. It wasn’t the suffocating soup it was in Oregon.

I kept thinking, One more day, and I’ll head back. But then I’d check the air quality in Portland, and it was still “extremely hazardous.”

On Facebook, my Portland friends were hunkered down, taping up their windows, sealing their homes. They were stuck inside with their kids, their pets; nobody was going outside. They put on brave fronts on Facebook, but I could tell they were losing their minds.

In SLC, I was just bored. I walked around a lot. My hotel was full of weirdos. Some of them lived there. They appeared unaware that the world was on fire.

In my room, I had the Weather Channel on continuously. By now, I was an expert at tracking smoke. My laptop bookmarks were everything from obscure NOAA wind maps to meticulous air quality websites based in Switzerland.

Throughout all of this, I kept thinking: This can’t last more than another couple days. But in fact, it lasted eight more days.

Finally, when the sky was visible in Portland, I began the long drive home.

Homecoming

It took days to air my apartment out. At first, I felt survivor’s guilt. My traumatized friends and neighbors looked like they’d been through a war.

Of course, this recent smoke event wasn’t nearly as bad as the Great Portland Smoke-Out of 2020. This one only lasted four days. Most people didn’t bother to tape their doors and windows shut. But they could have. They know how. They’ve done it before.

Like I said, Portlanders are accepting this. Like they accepted mask mandates. Like they accepted transgender children.

They even named our new WNBA team the Portland Fire. It’s almost like they’re asking for it.

​Climate change, Mask mandates, Transgender children, Portland fire, Oregon, Lifestyle, Blake’s progress, Wildfire 

As a professor who has spent his career among left- and far-left academics, I have watched them justify discrimination on the basis of race, religion, and political outlook for decades. So I was not surprised by the Jason Arday story.

Cambridge professor Jason Arday resigned from his tenured position last week, and almost immediately the academic left began demonstrating why the controversy matters far beyond one professor.

Human beings need redemption. Redemption does not come from DEI administrators or university bureaucracies proposing to cure discrimination with more discrimination.

Arday became an academic celebrity when Cambridge appointed him professor of sociology of education in 2023. He was celebrated as the youngest black professor ever appointed at the university.

Now he has resigned amid allegations of plagiarism and serious questions about claims concerning his academic and professional record.

Arday disputes the broadest accusations against him and has acknowledged some errors. Cambridge, meanwhile, is reviewing the process by which he was appointed. The obvious question is whether ordinary safeguards failed — and whether the university’s diversity priorities had anything to do with that failure.

“Diversity, equity, and inclusion” is not simply the old affirmative-action idea of giving a candidate a chance. Equity ideology goes further. It treats unequal outcomes as presumptive evidence of injustice and then demands institutional action to manufacture more equal outcomes, even when differences in interest, preparation, achievement, or merit may explain the disparity.

But something even more revealing happened after Arday’s resignation: the defense of the system that produced him.

The Guardian interviewed black British academics who acknowledged problems with Arday’s conduct but argued that the extraordinary attention paid to his case reflected something darker. White academics commit misconduct too, they argued. Why, then, had Arday become a national story? Some suggested that the political right was weaponizing his case against diversity and black academics more broadly.

Professor Kehinde Andrews went further, connecting the controversy to what he considered a more important story: black academics losing jobs as British universities make cuts.

That response illustrates the DEI worldview almost perfectly.

Andrews himself is among five black academics threatened with redundancy at Birmingham City University as it moves to eliminate its master’s program in black studies and global justice. He has described the move as an “erasure” of black studies.

RELATED: Cambridge star Jason Arday was the perfect DEI success story. Is that why nobody questioned him?

Simon & Schuster; Anselm Ebulue/Bloomberg/Getty Images

But notice what is actually being eliminated: a specific degree program, not black students as a class.

There is also another relevant fact. The university says the program suffers from low recruitment. The master’s program reportedly has eight students.

If a university eliminates a program that attracts too few students to justify its costs, we do not need racism to explain what happened. We have economics.

British universities are facing a serious financial crisis. Programs and faculty positions are being cut across numerous disciplines.

Yet the circular logic of oppression studies kicks in immediately: Elimination is proof of racism, and racism is proven by the elimination. No other explanation is allowed.

DEI reverses the burden of proof. If members of a designated oppressed group suffer an adverse outcome, the outcome itself becomes evidence of oppression.

That is precisely the intellectual habit that created many of these programs in the first place.

For decades, universities created entire academic programs around increasingly specialized forms of identity studies. Taxpayers and students subsidized them. The programs produced graduates, some of whom became professors who taught the next generation why universities needed those same programs.

The reasoning became wonderfully circular: We need professors in these programs because we have these programs, and we need these programs because professors in these programs tell us how urgently society needs them.

There are two inconvenient participants in this arrangement: the student and the taxpayer.

Students eventually ask what they are receiving in exchange for tuition, years of their lives, and often considerable debt. If the degree will not improve their prospects, why not study the same subjects independently for the price of a library card?

Taxpayers eventually ask why they should subsidize programs unable to attract enough students to sustain themselves.

Calling the resulting budget cuts “racism” does not answer either question.

Nobody is prohibited from studying whatever subject he wishes. If there is enormous demand for these programs, their advocates are free to establish private institutions devoted to them.

But that would expose the programs to a test they have largely avoided: persuading enough people voluntarily to pay for what they offer. If they fail that test, they go bankrupt.

Public subsidy is more comfortable than market judgment, especially when the program can always explain its own weakness as further proof that society needs more of it.

The Arday controversy therefore reveals something deeper than questionable hiring practices or plagiarism allegations. It exposes the circular reasoning at the heart of DEI.

RELATED: Warning: This college course may be bad for your brain

Andi Purnomo/Getty Images

But there is an even deeper mistake.

DEI correctly senses that something is wrong with human beings. People really do hate. They really do discriminate. They really do exploit one another. Human history provides more than enough evidence. Human beings hate their neighbors.

Where DEI goes wrong is in believing that the human heart can be remade by dividing people into oppressors and oppressed, redistributing positions and honors among groups, and endlessly rehearsing grievances about historical injustice.

That experiment cannot redeem humanity. At best, it rearranges power. At worst, it gives old human vices a new moral vocabulary.

And we are watching it fail.

The problem is not merely institutional. It is human.

If the problem is the human heart, the solution will not be found in another diversity office, another identity-studies program, or another attempt to manufacture equity.

Christianity has always offered a more radical diagnosis and a more radical cure.

Human beings need redemption. Redemption does not come from DEI administrators or university bureaucracies proposing to cure discrimination with more discrimination.

It comes from Christ.

​Black british academics, Discrimination on race, Diversity priorities, Identity studies, Plagiarism allegations, Professor jason arday, Academic left, Cambridge university, Opinion & analysis 

New York police said they were able to identify and arrest the suspect of a brutal rape of a 90-year-old woman only five hours after the horrific assault.

29-year-old Jonathon Rivaldo allegedly broke into the woman’s unit at the Dayspring Apartments in Corning on July 13 at about 2 a.m.

‘He’s been in prison for the better part of the past 12 years for nonviolent offenses.’

Steuben County District Attorney Brooks Baker said it was the most disturbing case of his entire career.

Rivaldo is from Rochester originally, and police said they believed he was in the Corning area to visit his family. He had served more than four years for aggravated vehicular assault in Monroe County.

He had also been released from prison for only three days before the horrific attack, according to police.

Baker said it was a random attack and that Rivaldo did not know the victim prior to the incident.

A week after the alleged assault, the woman died from her injuries.

Prosecutors added a second-degree murder charge to the slew of charges he already faced: first-degree assault, second-degree assault, robbery, third-degree intimidating a victim and petit larceny.

“He’s been in prison for the better part of the past 12 years for nonviolent offenses,” Baker added. “He has no prior sex crimes.”

Baker said there had only been two stranger rapes in Corning during his career, which began in 1994.

RELATED: ‘Completely evil’ man sentenced to decades for tying up and raping elderly Ohio woman

Rivaldo allegedly got in more trouble while awaiting trial.

He was additionally charged with possessing a makeshift cutting instrument at the Steuben County Jail, a felony.

He will be represented by Steuben County public defender Terry Baxter.

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

​Brutal rape, Elderly woman, Murder, New york, Crime 

I’m tired of the “exposing the left” phase of conservative politics. I’m ready for the “implement what’s right” phase. Anyone want to join me?

For the past two weeks, President Trump, congressional Republicans, and conservative media have focused relentlessly on Anthony Fauci and the damage done during COVID. Fine. Fauci deserves scrutiny.

This is what medical freedom requires: informed consent, transparent data, meaningful long-term follow-up, and an absolute rejection of mandates or coercion.

But Fauci is no longer in charge. Republicans are.

That’s why it is maddening to watch the same party denounce Fauci while refusing to confront the policies and products that defined his era. Trump continues to praise the COVID shots. Republican senators confirmed Dr. Erica Schwartz, who disciplined soldiers in the military for not getting the COVID shots. And the Trump FDA is moving forward with Moderna’s dangerous mRNA influenza vaccine for adults 50 and older.

If the lesson of COVID is merely that Fauci was bad, then we learned almost nothing.

The real question is whether government will once again approve and promote a novel platform without demanding the kind of evidence skeptics were told not to ask for last time.

Respiratory viruses present a difficult vaccine target because they mutate rapidly and immunity can wane. Critics of the COVID vaccination campaign have argued for years that these characteristics can produce disappointing or even counterproductive results under some conditions — concerns I have written about again and again.

Even Fauci acknowledged part of the underlying problem. In a 2023 paper, he wrote that current vaccines against respiratory viruses often produce “incomplete and short-lived protection” and that genuinely better vaccines would require “outside the box” thinking.

That should have prompted humility. Instead, the federal government is now considering another mRNA respiratory vaccine, this time for influenza.

The problem is not that every vaccine is bad. The problem is that after COVID, regulators should be demanding unusually strong evidence before expanding the platform into another mass-market respiratory product.

The evidence deserves scrutiny.

A 2025 Cleveland Clinic preprint, which I highlighted, reported that employees who received that season’s influenza vaccine experienced a higher cumulative incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza during the study period. The preprint was observational, not a randomized trial, and it should not be treated as the final word. But its findings are exactly the kind that should trigger more investigation, not less.

RELATED: What happened to RFK Jr.’s red line on risky vaccines?

Jim WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

A Canadian study of the 2018-2019 flu season likewise found negative vaccine effectiveness in certain age groups and discussed the possibility that vaccine mismatch interacted with pre-existing immune imprinting.

And a 2005 JAMA Internal Medicine analysis questioned whether rising influenza vaccination coverage among the elderly could explain the decline in influenza-related mortality over previous decades.

None of those papers, standing alone, proves that influenza vaccination is harmful. Together, they underscore a simpler point: The science of respiratory virus vaccination is complicated, and regulators should stop pretending otherwise.

That is especially true for mRNA.

Newly released material from Fauci’s files shows that Nobel laureate Drew Weissman warned Fauci in February 2021 about mouse data showing lipid nanoparticles reaching the placenta and fetus after administration during pregnancy.

Animal data does not automatically predict human harm. But it does raise obvious questions about biodistribution — questions that should have been answered aggressively before officials demanded public confidence in the platform.

Now the FDA’s briefing document for Moderna’s mRNA influenza vaccine shows another reason for scrutiny. In the agency’s review, grade 3 systemic reactions were substantially more common among mRNA vaccine recipients than among recipients of a conventional influenza vaccine.

That does not establish that the product is broadly unsafe. It does establish that the newer platform is more reactogenic in the trial population, and it makes the quality and duration of the safety database more important, not less.

The FDA document also acknowledges that the available safety database is too small to detect rare adverse events such as myocarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and other neurological events.

That is not an accusation. It is the limitation of the evidence the FDA itself describes.

And this is where the political hypocrisy becomes impossible to ignore.

RELATED: My son’s disease progressed while the FDA waited

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Republicans cannot spend one week demanding accountability for Fauci and the next tell Americans to trust the same institutional habits that made the COVID era so destructive: compressed debate, zero transparency, contempt for dissent, and an assumption that uncertainty should be managed through public relations campaigns rather than openly discussed.

Myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccination is a recognized adverse event, although public health agencies continue to describe it as “rare” and concentrated most heavily among adolescent and young adult males. Whatever one believes about the overall risk-benefit calculation, that experience alone should have permanently raised the evidentiary bar for another mRNA product intended for broad use.

This is what medical freedom requires: informed consent, transparent data, meaningful long-term follow-up, and an absolute rejection of mandates or coercion.

It also requires conservatives to stop treating Fauci as a substitute for governing.

Fauci is yesterday’s issue. Trump and congressional Republicans have the controls now. If they believe the COVID era was a catastrophe, then prove it by changing the rules that made it possible. Demand stronger safety evidence. Protect informed consent. End coercive vaccination policy. Force regulators to disclose uncertainty rather than bury it. Otherwise, all the hearings, subpoenas, and Fauci outrage amount to nothing more than political theater.

The point of exposing past mistakes is to stop repeating them.

​Anthony fauci, Opinion & analysis, Medical freedom, Republicans, Mrna vaccines, Donald trump, Covid-19, Transparency, Consent, Mandates, Flu, Congress 

Washington has forced local television stations to compete in a 21st-century media market under rules written for the 20th century.

Americans pay the price whenever outdated regulations make it harder for local broadcasters to invest in better news coverage, stronger emergency alerts, and new technology.

The future of local television should not be determined by regulations written before streaming, smartphones, and digital competition transformed the media landscape.

The Federal Communications Commission has now taken an important step toward fixing that mismatch by replacing a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach with a more flexible, fact-based review process.

The principle is simple: Regulation should respond to today’s marketplace, not yesterday’s assumptions.

Local television still matters. Americans rely on hometown stations for storm warnings, election coverage, school closings, and stories that national outlets rarely cover. Yet, like local newspapers before them, many stations face serious financial pressure.

More than half of U.S. television stations operate at a loss even as they continue providing essential public service.

To survive, broadcasters need investment. They want to upgrade transmission systems, strengthen emergency alerts, expand local journalism, and deploy next-generation broadcast technology.

But investment requires scale, and investors are understandably reluctant to fund companies that federal policy artificially prevents from reaching more than 39% of American households.

That ownership cap was created for a different era, when Americans watched one of three television networks and broadcasters dominated the video marketplace.

The market changed. Washington’s rules did not.

Americans now consume news and entertainment on smartphones, tablets, laptops, streaming services, social media, and podcasts. Broadcasters compete with Netflix, YouTube, TikTok, cable networks, and digital platforms capable of reaching essentially every American.

Local broadcasters, however, remain constrained by a federal ownership cap designed before the internet transformed the media business.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has warned that America should not repeat the mistakes made with local newspapers.

That warning deserves attention.

Washington watched thousands of local newspapers disappear while old business models collapsed and investment arrived too late. Communities never stopped needing local journalism. The economics simply stopped supporting it.

Local television should not be next.

Critics of the FCC’s order warn that loosening ownership restrictions could weaken localism. That is a legitimate concern, but it should be tested against evidence rather than treated as an argument for preserving the status quo indefinitely.

The politics of the moment also matter. Because the reform comes from a Republican FCC, opponents can dismiss it as simple deregulation. Yet media-ownership debates have shifted with partisan control before, and Democrats have supported modernization efforts of their own when they held power.

RELATED: FCC slaps ban on Chinese robots — revealing US plans for unmanned warfighting

John Keeble/Getty Images

Localism should remain the objective. The 39% ownership cap is only one regulatory tool.

There is little evidence that fixing the national ownership limit at 39% — rather than 50%, 75%, or some other figure — produces more local news, stronger emergency coverage, or better community service.

Good public policy should ask whether a regulation produces measurable benefits, not whether it has survived for decades.

If policymakers want stronger local journalism, they should focus on the conditions that make it possible: investment, innovation, modern technology, and financially sustainable business models.

Emergency communications make the point especially clear.

During hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and other disasters, local broadcasters provide information that can save lives. Those capabilities depend on modern infrastructure, skilled journalists, reliable transmission systems, and continuing investment — not on an arbitrary national ownership ceiling.

The FCC’s decision does not guarantee that every station will thrive. Nothing can.

But it gives local broadcasters something they have lacked for too long: greater freedom to attract investment, modernize operations, strengthen emergency communications, and build sustainable local-news organizations.

Government should not freeze one industry in time while every competitor is free to innovate.

The future of local television should not be determined by regulations written before streaming, smartphones, and digital competition transformed the media landscape.

Local communities are best served when their broadcasters have the freedom to grow, compete, and invest in the journalism Americans still depend on.

​Broadcast rights, Fcc, Streaming, Television, Regulations, Tv, Public services, Opinion & analysis 

Last month at a press conference announcing 30% discounts on staple groceries at planned city-owned stores, a reporter asked New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) how he would prevent people from buying up the cheap items for resale.

“Our RFP makes very clear that this is a program for New Yorkers to be able to put food on the table, not a program for people to be able to make a quick buck through reselling,” he replied before passing the question off to Economic Development Corporation chief Jeanny Pak, who floated the idea of using “library-esque cards” to moderate patrons.

Glenn Beck finds the proposal preposterous and deeply ironic.

“You’re going to put out a library card? Do you need a license or any kind of identification to get a library card? The answer? Yes,” he says, emphasizing Mamdani’s and other progressives’ opposition to voter ID requirements.

“So you’re asking for ID. Okay, well, that makes sense because … you have to know who’s coming in. Are they qualified to buy the stuff in your store?” Glenn continues, highlighting the glaring similarities between accessing NYC’s city-owned grocery stores and voting in an election.

He wonders whether or not Mamdani and other NYC officials have considered the inherent sexism and racism in such a proposal.

“I don’t know why they hate women so much, because married women, you’re not going to be able to do it because maybe you’ve changed your name and you don’t have a birth certificate or any other form of ID whatsoever that could prove who you are,” he sarcastically remarks, mocking liberals’ debunked argument that voter ID laws disenfranchise married women.

After the backlash, Mamdani’s team clarified that the “library card-esque” idea was not an ID requirement but actually a voluntary customer loyalty-style card (like supermarket rewards programs) that the private store operator could use to track purchases and limit bulk buying for resale.

But regardless of how they try to frame their fraud prevention initiative, the irony remains.

“So [it’s] like a Costco card, which I have to sign up for and they have to know who I am, because they just don’t hand them out at the door. … Or like an Albertson’s card, where you have to sign up for it,” Glenn says.

Glenn’s head writer and researcher, Jason Buttrill, notes that the mayor’s office has pledged that the cards will be voluntary and free, with no residency, identity, or income check required to get one — which would make them arbitrary and ineffective at preventing fraud.

“If you’re not going to check residency, why even have a card at all? Because you can come from Texas and just say, ‘Yeah, I live in New York. Give me my discount card,”’ he says.

“They know they’re being hypocrites,” says Glenn.

Communism and socialism always fail, he explains, because even after common sense reveals their failures, the government — afraid of losing face and supporters — doubles down, insisting it will eventually find the magic solution that proves the system works.

“Once a communist, always a communist,” says Glenn.

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Communism, Glenn beck, New york city, Socialism, Voter id, Zohran mamdani, Blazetv show 

Three “women” are accused in the torture death of 7-year-old Ohio boy — but authorities said two of the suspects are male who co-parented the victim with his mother.

Cincinnati police said the Mercy Rookwood emergency department called Thursday after a woman claimed that someone was trying to kill her and her boy.

‘We saw injuries that would indicate physical beatings, blunt force injuries from a striking device on the face, torso, back, upper and lower extremities …’

“We have somebody that came in and kind of just dropped herself on the floor. She’s barefoot. She thinks that her partner’s trying to kill her, that they took her son,” the worker said in the call to police.

“She’s saying that he’s hiding him up in the attic. She is sitting on the floor, rocking back and forth and barefoot,” the worker added.

Hours later officers were called to a home on Madison Road in Oakley over a “suspicious death.”

They found William Evans-Ellis bound and wrapped with duct tape in a closet. Police arrested two males who had been co-parenting with the victim’s mother, who also was arrested.

Cincinnati police detective Kyle Smith said in court that the case is “one of the most disturbing examples of child abuse” he’d ever seen.

“From what we could see, we saw injuries that would indicate physical beatings, blunt force injuries from a striking device on the face, torso, back, upper and lower extremities. Impact injuries to the back of the head,” Smith said.

“We believe that there was, for lack of a better term, some water torture involved,” he added. “We believe the victim was choked under water, held under water for a long period of time. There was some burn torture involved, and the victim was found duct taped in positions that immobilized him.”

The boy also was revealed to have been “mentally handicapped.”

An attorney for 38-year-old Kaitlin Evans — the boy’s biological mother — admitted that she had not done enough to save her child but denied that she had killed him. Evans accused one of the two other suspects of killing the boy.

The attorney for 23-year-old Nessa Keaney said he tried to administer “treatment” to the boy and claimed Keaney was the “least culpable” for the boy’s death.

A detective testified that the third suspect, 33-year-old Kirby Rankin, admitted to his part in the abuse and had implicated Keaney and Evans as “active participants” in the abuse of the boy.

The victim’s biological father also spoke in court.

“Willie was my life, and I trusted you to care for him. They kept him from me for the past nine months over lies,” the father said.

A WXIX-TV news video described the suspects only as “people,” and other outlets described them as women — but Keaney’s arrest record lists him as a male, and Rankin also is listed as a male, while Evans is listed as a female.

RELATED: Florida woman brutally beat man to death with a hammer — and left a note saying ‘PEDO Touches Children’

Hamilton County Municipal Court Judge Rodney Harris set each suspect’s bond at $1.1 million — $1 million for murder and $100,000 for child endangering, WXIX said, adding that all three pleaded not guilty and are expected back in court later this month.

Officials apparently missed a chance to save the boy months prior to his death, when Rankin attacked a woman in a parking lot amid a driving dispute. The woman suffered fractured teeth, a concussion, a neck injury, and a torn meniscus — and asked police to charge Rankin with a felony. He was charged only with a misdemeanor and aggravated menacing.

“I asked to go to [the] grand jury. They refused. I kept being told because she was hit one time it wasn’t a felony, which is absolutely absurd,” Lance Bunnell, the husband of the victim and a retired law enforcement captain, said.

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

​Child abuse, Child torture, Ohio, Transgender, Murder, Crime 

The depth behind the policies endorsed by the co-chair of the Democratic Socialist Party of America was revealed to be incredibly shallow.

Megan Romer was interviewed by David Remnick on “The New Yorker Radio Hour” about DSA policy positions, when he simply asked her what it meant to tax “the hell” out of millionaires.

‘So again, it’s democracy, right? And we have to look at what we need to spend and what we need. We don’t want to depend on the existence of millionaires, because that means people are still getting exploited.’

Romer said she was more concerned about billionaires before circling back about millionaires.

“I think most billionaires got their wealth because they exploited the working class in some very significant way usually,” Romer said.

“But we do believe in taxing the hell out of millionaires, yeah, absolutely,” she laughed.

“What does ‘taxing the hell out of them’ mean?” Remnick asked simply.

“Yeah. You know, again, I don’t have, like, a solid,” she laughed again.

“But shouldn’t you?” Remnick interrupted.

“Umm, that’s a good question,” she replied.

“If you’re the co-chair of the DSA, shouldn’t you be more specific than just taxing the hell out of something? What exactly do you mean?” he asked.

“So again, it’s democracy, right? And we have to look at what we need to spend and what we need. We don’t want to depend on the existence of millionaires, because that means people are still getting exploited,” she responded.

“So yeah, we need to look at what we need to pay for in the interim, what sort of tax base we need for that to happen, and then build from there,” she added.

While video of the exchange was widely circulated on social media, the entire interview can be viewed on the YouTube channel for the New Yorker.

RELATED: Democratic Socialists of America seek to RADICALLY upend the federal gov’t in reported platform update

The DSA is surging after a recent spree of primary victories against establishment candidates of the Democratic Party, leading to concerns that the extremist fringe is taking over.

Some Democrats responded by rejecting the extremist policies and forming a small group dedicated to defeating the communist fringe of the party.

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

​Democratic socialists of america, Socialism, Communism, Democratic party, Politics 

Almost 30 years later, the murder of Tupac Shakur will go to trial for the first time.

The gang leader allegedly responsible, according to the prosecution, will only have himself to blame if he goes behind bars.

‘I’m innocent. I ain’t killed nobody, never did ever kill nobody.’

Smoking gun

Postmortem records, documentaries, and conspiracy theories have surrounded the death of Shakur for decades, and the same goes for his rival, rapper Christopher Wallace, aka the Notorious BIG.

The rivalry between the West Coast and East Coast rappers and their entourages hit a boiling point on September 7, 1996, in Las Vegas following a Mike Tyson boxing match.

The two sides had already employed gangs for protection, with Shakur and Death Row Records protected by Mob Piru, a Los Angeles gang affiliated with the Bloods. Producer and longtime suspect Marion “Suge” Knight was already affiliated with the group. Wallace’s side, Bad Boy Records and Sean “Puff Daddy” Combs, had allegedly hired the South Side Compton Crips as their bodyguards.

It was then, prosecutors say, that Duane “Keffe D” Davis was the leader of those Crips who ordered the killing of Shakur on Sept. 7 and provided the gun to kill him in a drive-by shooting, the Guardian reported.

Reports from the trial, starting Monday, say that the cold case was revived only after Davis’ memoirs were published in 2019. In the book, Davis said he was in the front seat of the Cadillac from which Shakur was shot and allegedly handed the pistol used to someone in the back seat. The book reportedly does not say who opened fire, but everyone else who was in the car that night has since died.

RELATED: HULK HYPOCRITE: $35 million man Ruffalo stumps for socialism

Steve Marcus-Pool/Getty Images

‘I ain’t killed nobody’

The story goes that Shakur and Knight attacked Davis’ nephew, another member of the Crips named Orlando “Baby Lane” Anderson. The fight was allegedly a retaliation for an assault on an employee of Death Row Records.

Prosecutors say Davis was out for revenge after the scuffle, but the 63-year-old said he did not commit the murder and said there was no evidence against him.

“I’m innocent. I ain’t killed nobody, never did ever kill nobody,” Davis told ABC News in 2025.

Davis argued to the outlet that he should be out living a normal life instead of facing the allegations.

“I’m supposed to be out there enjoying my twilight,” he said. “At one of my f**king grandson’s football games and basketball games. Enjoying life with my kids.”

Saying he left the gang life long ago, Davis stated that he was not even in Nevada at the time of the shooting but in Los Angeles, which is over four hours away by car.

RELATED: Diddy’s Big Circus

Jeff Kravitz/FilmMagic/Getty Images

Hype or homicide?

“They don’t have no evidence against me. They can’t even put me in Las Vegas,” Davis asserted.

Davis faces life in prison without parole if he is convicted, but despite his apparent admission in his memoirs of being involved in the murder, he has since claimed that the information in the book is not accurate.

“I just gave him details of my life,” Davis said about the author, claiming he never read the memoirs. “And he went and did his little investigation and wrote the book on his own.”

Davis claimed the book’s details were inflated to generate book sales.

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

​Tupac shakur, Notorious big, Suge knight, Diddy, Entertainment 

Newly released texts from Dr. Anthony Fauci showed that he and other health officials knew about a miscarriage risk to the coronavirus vaccine, but told the public it was safe.

The texts were released by Republican Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin as part of the investigation by the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

‘It’s really one of those things that’s kind of not a close call. It really is pretty clear that pregnant women should get vaccinated.’

The exchange showed Fauci referring to the miscarriage risk in texts to Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Dr. Rochelle Walensky, who was the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at the time.

“I asked around a bit more and another issue came up that you need to be aware of,” he wrote. “Since many people have significant cytokines storm and fever after the 2nd dose, this theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester.”

It was sent Jan. 25, 2021.

Days later, he said the Food and Drug Administration had “found thus far, and we have to be careful, but thus far no red flags about that, about pregnant women,” during a livestream with the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Months after that, Fauci made similar comments to “What to Expect” creator Heidi Murkoff.

“[I]f you look at the literally — literally — tens and tens and tens of thousands of women who have been followed by the CDC who were vaccinated when they were pregnant, there’s no indication whatsoever that there’s any increase of any adverse issues in a pregnant woman who was vaccinated compared to a pregnant woman who wasn’t vaccinated,” said Fauci.

“It’s really one of those things that’s kind of not a close call. It really is pretty clear that pregnant women should get vaccinated.”

Johnson posted the message on his social media account.

“While I’ve been conducting oversight for years, now that we have the documents and Fauci’s government-issued phone, my investigation has only just begun,” he said.

“Pregnant women were told it was safe! How many women lost babies due to Dr. Fauci’s lies?” responded Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier.

RELATED: Former Fauci adviser INDICTED for allegedly hiding emails about the origins of COVID

“Americans were told to shut up, trust the experts, and get the shot or risk their jobs and livelihoods,” replied Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

“Meanwhile, behind closed doors, Fauci, Walensky, and Murthy were discussing the very uncertainties Americans were attacked for raising: missing pregnancy data, pregnant women excluded from the trials, a WHO statement citing lack of data, and even a theoretical concern about miscarriage after the second dose,” he added.

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

​Centers for disease control, Coronavirus vaccine, Dr anthony fauci, Miscarriage, Politics