Category: blaze media

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 

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 

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 

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 

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese vehemently denied the suggestion he made a crude remark about a female foreign leader’s “melons.”

Albanese made the comments — and hand gestures — during his appearance on the “Bush Deep” podcast with Australian comedian Nikki Osborne. He also said during the show that he would “shag” singer and actress Kylie Minogue.

‘The comments were beneath the office of prime minister.’

Osborne asked him about gifts from foreign leaders when he told a story involving Sanae Takaichi, the female prime minister of Japan

“Here’s something I got recently here that was pretty strange but ended up being quite good was a melon. The Japanese prime minister brought a melon here!” said Albanese.

“How did he get that through customs?” Osbourne asked.

“She — it’s a royal melon,” he answered.

“Oh, she smuggled — it was a she? Did she smuggle it?” the podcaster asked, while making a gesture as if referring to pregnancy.

“I dunno,” he said, smirking.

“Oh, I’m expecting!” Osbourne joked.

“Got a couple of melons!” said Albanese while gesturing with his hands at his chest.

“She brought two?” she laughed.

“She brought two! As you do!” he replied.

“She just came in looking like Pamela Anderson!” the podcaster joked.

“She brought two!” he replied. “And they’re beautiful!”

Video of the interaction can be viewed on social media.

Takaichi had been visiting Australia to improve diplomatic relations as China threatens to expand its influence in the South China Sea.

Albanese’s political critics pounced on the incident, lambasted him, and demanded that he apologize for the joke.

“The comments were beneath the office of prime minister,” said Liberal leader Angus Taylor on Monday. “They were insulting, and the prime minister should make a personal apology. He’s done it through a statement. I mean, the hypocrisy of Labor and the prime minister on this topic knows no bounds, no bounds whatsoever.”

Opposition leader Ted O’Brien, after meeting with Japanese officials, said “the prime minister’s words were inappropriate and a national embarrassment.”

RELATED: France recalls ambassadors from the US and Australia after calling Indo-Pacific pact a ‘stab in the back’

What’s more, Shingo Yamagami — a former Japanese ambassador to Australia — rebuked Albanese for his words.

Yamagami wrote, “Prime Minister, please enjoy Japan’s sweet and juicy melons without thinking about a women’s anatomy” before adding that “however lighthearted it was intended to be, the recent joke delivered by PM Anthony Albanese at the expense of Japanese PM Sanae Takaichi is how he might be remembered by Japanese who most value the friendship with Australia.”

Yamagami added that “what dismayed some was that Takaichi has recently been subject to derogatory remarks about her body and gender” and that “the last thing she expected was to be so casually mocked by the trusted leader of Japan’s special strategic partner.”

Albanese previously apologized for his comment about shagging Minogue.

Takaichi is considered a very conservative leader who supports the legacy of the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

The melons in question are a special kind called Shizuoka-grown Crown Melons, which are grown so that only one fruit can be harvested from each plant. They are very expensive and are exported to Canada from Japan.

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

​Australia, Chinese communist party, Japan, Sexism, Melons, Politics 

When Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet shared a college student’s complaint that basic purchases have become prohibitively expensive — he also began a war on social media.

“One of our TPUSA college students gave me his take on affordability:

‘A burrito shouldn’t cost $20.’

Yeah, a lot of this is a hangover from Covid and Biden-era inflation, but the lived experience is the same: It just feels like basic things cost too much,” Kolvet wrote in a post on X.

The post went viral, and people all over the country chimed in with their opinions on the affordability crisis.

However, BlazeTV host Pat Gray isn’t buying it.

“There’s a big problem with affordability now because somebody paid 20 bucks for a burrito, and now the world’s out of control,” Gray says on “Pat Gray Unleashed.”

“All of a sudden, burritos are the most important thing in American society and their affordability. And they should never cost $20, ever. Nothing should cost 20 bucks,” he adds.

“It is surprising going through fast-food restaurant drive-throughs lately when you get the bill,” Jeff Fisher argues.

“Sure. But that’s, I mean, that’s been the case for a while. Don’t go out to eat then,” Gray says. “Buy the ingredients at the store. Go home and make your own burrito.”

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat’s biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Burrito, Pat gray, Turning point usa, Affordability crisis, Inflation, Groceries, Blazetv show 

A Kentucky middle school teacher is accused of grooming and having an improper relationship with a student, according to authorities.

Graves County Sheriff’s Office announced that 25-year-old Sadie M. Flores of Mayfield was arrested around 3:30 p.m. Friday.

‘We take any allegation involving the safety of a child or the professional conduct of an employee extremely seriously and will continue to cooperate fully with law enforcement and the appropriate authorities.’

Flores was charged with grooming a minor — a Class D felony.

Kentucky’s grooming a minor law was enacted July 15.

The law states that a person is guilty of grooming a minor when the offender is 18 years or older and engages in grooming behavior directed at a minor who is under 14 years old with the “intent to entice, coerce, solicit, or induce the minor to engage in sexual conduct with the person or another person.”

In addition, the law states that a person is guilty of grooming a minor when the offender is in a position of authority or special trust and engages in grooming behavior directed at a minor who is under 18 years old with the intent to entice, coerce, solicit, or induce the minor to engage in sexual conduct with the person or another person — or develop an intimate or secretive relationship with the minor.

Flores was booked at the Graves County Restricted Custody Center, according to jail records. Police said Flores later was transferred to an out-of-county detention center.

Flores — a teacher at Graves County Middle School — was “having an improper relationship with a minor student of the district,” according to the Graves County Sheriff’s Office.

“District administration was made aware of an allegation involving a teacher at Graves County Middle School,” stated Matt Madding, superintendent of Graves County Schools.

The Graves County School District Office “immediately reported it to the Graves County Sheriff’s Office for an investigation.”

The statement read, “Sheriff’s detectives’ investigation included the seizure of electronic records, interviews, and other related investigative measures.”

Police said detectives interviewed Flores and then arrested her.

RELATED: Video allegedly shows female HS teacher wearing ‘Jesus Loves You’ shirt while having sex with student: Warrants

Madding said, “Because this is an ongoing legal and personnel matter, we are limited in the information we can publicly share.”

Madding noted that the “safety and well-being of our students is our highest priority.”

“We take any allegation involving the safety of a child or the professional conduct of an employee extremely seriously and will continue to cooperate fully with law enforcement and the appropriate authorities,” Madding said.

Graves County Sheriff Jon Hayden said the investigation is ongoing.

Authorities have not released further details regarding the alleged relationship, the alleged victim’s age, or the possibility of additional charges, Fox News reported.

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

​Teacher arrested, Teacher student sex scandal, Grooming, Child sex crimes, Kentucky, Middle school, Crime 

Democratic socialist Francesca Hong’s rise is about more than one candidate — it’s a warning sign that ideas once confined to the political fringe are gaining influence across the country.

“If you don’t live in Wisconsin, you may not be interested, but you should be interested, because this is something that’s spreading across the nation. We have the same types of people running for office in Texas, and you probably have them in your state, so you’ve got to pay attention,” “Relatable” host Ron Simmons explains.

Hong, Simmons notes, has been “endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America as a member of the Wisconsin Socialist Caucus.”

“That tells you something. If there’s enough people in there to have a caucus, meaning there’s enough of her other fellow state reps that they form their own caucus, that’s a little scary,” he says.

And according to a Marquette University poll, she leads the primary with 38% support among Democrat voters, with her closest competitor being former Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes, who only has 16%.

“So I would say the chances of this lady winning the Democrat primary are pretty good. She has expressed some pretty radical views, including the criticism of traditional holidays such as Thanksgiving and support for anti-racism policies that most of us would argue are actually racial themselves,” he says.

However, even some Democrats are weary of her past comments, including CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins.

Collins pressed the socialist on her controversial Thanksgiving opinion, asking, “Do you still believe that Thanksgiving should be canceled?”

Hong responded, “Thanksgiving is also a time that’s incredibly painful for many people in our communities. And so I think there, I wanted to make sure that people understood that there are multiple views, but views can evolve, and the position that I’m running for right now, and I think my background as a chef will actually help me become a better governor that’s able to bring more people to the table.”

“So I’ve never known anybody that’s traumatized by Thanksgiving,” Simmons comments. “… And this lady is Korean … why would she be traumatized by Thanksgiving?”

Hong also lamented on a podcast that her son is half-white, which gives him a “proximity to whiteness.”

“He’s an American male. And the fact that he’s half-Korean or whatever, half-non-Korean, what she calls ‘half-white,’ he’s an American male. That’s what he is,” Simmons says.

“And that’s what we should think about him as being,” he adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Caucus, Democratic socialist, Francesca hong, Kaitlan collins, Mandela barnes, Marquette university, Poll, Primary, Texas, Thanksgiving, Wisconsin, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Blazetv show 

A Green Bay election official accused of bungling ballot distribution sent herself packing on Friday.

Celestine Jeffreys resigned August 7 after allegedly issuing 152 duplicate absentee ballots to registered voters in April 2026 amid a subsequent Wisconsin Elections Commission investigation into her conduct. Jeffreys was the Green Bay official who helped facilitate Mark Zuckerberg-backed 2020 election grants routed through the Center for Tech and Civic Life, according to RealClear Investigations.

‘A clerk who does not believe the law prohibits issuing duplicate ballots cannot be trusted to prevent it from happening again.’

According to reporting by Spectrum News 1, Jeffreys was placed on administrative leave by the City of Green Bay on July 9 after the Wisconsin Elections Commission unanimously voted to open an investigation into the absentee ballot incident.

Brown County Republican Party board member Theresa Sipes filed a complaint against Jeffreys in April, alleging the duplication violated state law. The duplicates created “a substantial risk of confusion, double voting and increasing the opportunity for and possibility of fraud,” according to the filing.

The Wisconsin Republican Party backed Sipes’ filing.

The City of Green Bay defended Jeffreys, arguing that the discrepancy was an accident.

“Wisconsin law prohibits election fraud, not the inadvertent issuance of multiple ballots,” Green Bay stated in its response, obtained by Fox 11. “The statute does not impose liability for inadvertent duplication in issuance, rather, it establishes the elector’s right to receive a ballot.”

RELATED: Spanberger’s plot to let 66,000 felons vote just in time for the midterms is complete

JASON REDMOND/AFP/Getty Images

Sipes’ lawyer Nicholas Boerke rejected the city’s defense.

“A clerk who does not believe the law prohibits issuing duplicate ballots cannot be trusted to prevent it from happening again,” Boerke argued in a supplemental letter to the WEC. He went on to say that the “fundamental misunderstanding of ballot issuance law displayed in the response makes future violations inevitable absent commission action.”

The WEC saw enough merit in Boerke’s arguments to open an investigation.

“The commission authorizes an investigation into the City of Green Bay clerk to determine if the clerk or any employee or contractor of the City of Green Bay failed to comply with Wisconsin law or otherwise abuse their discretion in the preparation and mailing of absentee ballot mailers,” Wisconsin Elections Commission Chair Don Millis told Spectrum News 1.

Her resignation follows a years-long string of controversies, beginning with her tenure as Mayor Eric Genrich’s chief of staff.

“Is he working with you? As far as I’m concerned I am taking all of my cues from CTCL and work with those you recommend,” Jeffreys wrote in an email to the Center for Tech and Civic Life, according to RealClearInvestigations.

After Jeffreys’ email and in conjunction with CTCL, Green Bay hired Democrat operative Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein to oversee its 2020 election operations. Spitzer-Rubenstein eventually drove out then-City Clerk Kris Teske after demanding unprecedented access to voter databases.

The WEC reviewed the incident and found no impropriety. Wisconsin voters banned private election assistance via constitutional amendment in 2024.

Jeffreys previously courted controversy in 2023 when she allowed third parties to return absentee ballots on behalf of others. In 2024, the clerk failed to deactivate voter registrations in violation of state law in instances where Election Day materials were returned as undeliverable.

The Green Bay Mayor’s Office directed Blaze News to its August 7 press release when reached for comment.

“The City of Green Bay and Celestine Jeffreys are jointly announcing that Ms. Jeffreys has made the decision to step down from her role as City Clerk. We wish her the best in her future endeavors,” the press release states. “This will be the City’s only statement on the matter.”

Jeffreys, the Brown County Republican Party, the Wisconsin Elections Commission, and the Center for Tech and Civic Life did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Mark Zuckerberg declined to comment.

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

​Mark zuckerberg, Donald trump, Absentee ballots, Wisconsin, Politics, Election-fraud 

The Democratic Socialists of America are no longer hiding the ball.

In July, the organization published a manifesto calling on the United States to “establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people.”

Public ownership does not give power to the people. It gives power to the government — and asks the people to trust that government never to abuse it.

That is not a proposal for higher taxes, tighter regulation, or a larger welfare state. It is a demand to replace private ownership of America’s largest companies with government ownership.

The language is designed to sound appealing. Why should a handful of billionaires control enormous corporations while everyone else gets left behind? Why shouldn’t “the people” own those companies instead?

No more greedy executives collecting fortunes while workers earn far less. No need to nationalize every business — only the “essential” industries deemed too important to operate for profit or remain in private hands.

It sounds reasonable. It sounds as though power would finally be taken from wealthy corporations and returned to society.

But that is nearly how Fidel Castro sold communism to the Cuban people.

History shows that “ownership by the people” usually means control by the government. The public does not acquire power. Politicians and bureaucrats do.

Castro did not introduce himself as a communist promising state control over every part of Cuba’s economy. He said he was fighting corruption, inequality, and concentrated wealth. Private property and capitalism became the villains. The solution was to place the country’s most important industries under the control of “the people.”

The rhetoric sounded fair and humane. Wealthy owners would lose power, and ordinary Cubans would gain it.

The first part happened. The second did not.

RELATED: From helping hand to five-finger discount

Lindsey Nicholson/UCG/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

Power was taken from private owners, but it never reached ordinary Cubans. It accumulated in the hands of the state. Today, Cubans live under political repression, chronic scarcity, and widespread poverty.

“Nothing belongs to you. It all belongs to the government,” Rosa Garcia, a survivor of Castro’s Cuba, recalled in an interview with Young Americans Against Socialism.

Garcia watched the transformation firsthand. She remembers Castro assuring Cubans that his revolution was not communist. Many believed him. Some hung signs on their doors reading, “This house is yours, Fidel.”

As government control expanded, private property rights disappeared. So did the ability to obtain goods, build wealth, or make basic economic choices without permission from the state.

When Garcia’s family later applied to leave Cuba, government officials came to their home and inventoried everything they owned to ensure they took nothing with them. Utensils, clothing, and household possessions all belonged to the government.

That is the reality behind the dreamy language of collective ownership. What supposedly belongs to everyone is controlled by the people who run the state.

Public ownership also carries enormous economic costs.

Private property gives people a reason to create, invest, innovate, and serve customers. Every smartphone, laptop, lifesaving medicine, digital platform, and other product we rely on exists because someone had the freedom to take a risk and the opportunity to profit from success.

Before Castro’s revolution, Cuba ranked among Latin America’s more prosperous countries. Today, it is one of the region’s poorest, with nearly 90% of its population living in severe poverty.

Take away private ownership, and you do more than redistribute wealth. You weaken the incentive to build businesses, develop technology, create jobs, and produce the prosperity those activities generate.

Supporters of democratic socialism will reasonably object that modern America is not revolutionary Cuba. The United States has stronger institutions, a different political culture, and constitutional protections Cuba did not preserve. Public ownership of one enterprise does not automatically produce a one-party communist state.

That distinction does not eliminate the underlying danger.

Nationalization begins with the easiest targets: highly profitable companies, billionaires accused of earning too much, and industries politicians label too important to remain privately owned.

RELATED: Who wants to eat a trillionaire?

Leon Neal/Getty Images

Once society accepts the principle that government may replace private ownership whenever politicians decide an owner is too rich or a company is too important, no clear limiting principle remains.

Why stop with the largest corporations?

Every industry placed under public ownership gives government officials more authority to decide how resources are used, which services are available, and who receives them.

Cuba’s history shows how quickly control of a few “key industries” can become a broad assault on private property. America would be foolish to assume the same principle could be embraced here without the same temptation to expand it.

Public ownership does not give power to the people. It gives power to the government — and asks the people to trust that government never to abuse it.

​Democratic socialists of america, Socialism, Taxes, Capitalism, Fidel castro, Cuba, America, Democrats, Public ownership, Rosa garcia, Communist, Propoganda, Opinion & analysis 

A black WNBA player blamed “white privilege” after she was tossed out of a very physical match between the Indiana Fever and the Chicago Sky over a flagrant foul.

DiJonai Carrington aggressively took down the Fever’s Sophie Cunningham as Cunningham drove to the basket for a layup at the start of Saturday’s game, leading to an angry response from Cunningham.

‘I’m not going to let anyone just do that to me. I think everyone knows that. I think that’s why she did it because she wants attention.’

Carrington was ejected from the game and then potentially worsened the situation for the league by posting “WHITE PRIVILEGE” on social media afterward.

Cunningham was far less divisive in her response following the game.

“Clearly I think it was unnecessary,” she said. “I’ve never really spoken to her, and I have no beef with her, but I guess she has some pent-up stuff.”

She also explained why she charged at Carrington after the attack, in which Carrington swiped at Cunningham’s head while Cunningham was in the air and knocked the Fever player to the floor.

“I popped up,” Cunningham said. “I’m not going to let anyone just do that to me. I think everyone knows that. I think that’s why she did it because she wants attention.”

Sports Illustrated writer Grant Young called Carrington’s “white privilege” post “dangerous” and “asinine” in an opinion column calling on the league to suspend the Sky player.

“Frankly, it’s not only immature but dangerous for Carrington to imply that race played any role on her getting a Flagrant 2 and ejected from Saturday’s game,” Young wrote.

“Any player in the league would have been ejected for the shot she landed on Cunningham, and players have certainly been ejected for less,” he added. “For Carrington to try to turn it into a race thing is asinine, especially because she’s trying to make an exchange that she started bigger than basketball in a hostile and polarizing way.”

RELATED: WNBA team co-owner FINED and SUSPENDED for cursing out teen fans of Sophie Cunningham at game

Carrington also posted on social media a laughing emoji with the date of the next time her team plays the Fever.

The Fever went on to beat the Sky by a score of 90 to 86.

Both Cunningham and Fever teammate Caitlin Clark have been targeted with harassment and criticism — Cunningham for speaking out against biological men in women’s sports, and Clark has been accused by black players and pundits of receiving favoritism.

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

​Caitlin clark, Indiana fever, Sophie cunningham, White privilege, Wnba, Racism, Politics, Fearless, Sports 

There is a piano at the entrance of Moonshot AI, the Beijing start-up that released Kimi K3, the leading open-weights model, in July 2026. The conference rooms are named after bands. Employees wear slippers. The stated ethos is that no one tells you what to do, and when new employees arrive, no one does.

These details are meant to communicate a refusal of corporate life as it is usually practiced in China’s large technology firms, with their KPI rituals, their departmental territories, and their hierarchies of condescension. The symbols of institutional authority have been stripped away so thoroughly that what remains can look, to the uninitiated, like nothing at all.

A young employee cried after failing to produce a campaign that satisfied leadership.

In fact, Moonshot’s system is demanding, though the demands are of a mostly unspoken kind.

Moonshot has no departments in the ordinary sense, no managerial titles, no OKRs, no time clocks, no performance reviews. Roughly 300 employees organize themselves around problems rather than roles. More than half the employees have changed responsibilities multiple times; perhaps 80% are doing work significantly different from anything they have done before. The implicit unit of production is not the job but the bottleneck. When the company’s long-context research project, MoBA, stalled repeatedly, Moonshot did not assign blame or dissolve a team; instead, it temporarily routed expertise from across the organization toward the failure, rewrote the underlying logic, and returned to the project after multiple setbacks.

The company calls this way of working “generalization,” borrowing the term from machine learning, where it means the capacity to perform under conditions not represented in the training data. Applied to people, it means something like the readiness to become someone else.

The word Moonshot uses for the quality it most values in employees is “taste.” In context, taste is not merely aesthetic preference but the ability to detect which technical direction is fertile, which complexity is decorative, which benchmark improvement matters, which eccentric teenager is capable of important work. Taste selects architecture and colleagues. At least 100 recent hires arrived through employee referrals, a process jokingly called “person-to-person transmission,” and the network produced is unmistakable: roughly 80% introverts, roughly 80% graduates of China’s elite universities, average age below 30. The scent that enables frictionless coordination also makes everyone smell alike.

This concept is where the freedom, a term not often associated with China in the U.S., reveals its structure.

Escaping the Western model

Moonshot’s organization is formally flat, but five co-founders remain involved in frontline decisions, each reportedly interacting with 40 to 50 individual contributors. The distance between strategic intent and execution is short, as is the distance between a founder’s displeasure and an employee’s nervous system. At a late 2024 growth meeting, more than 30 young employees discussed advertising, user operations, and holiday campaigns in granular detail while co-founders participated, and the meeting ended shortly before four in the morning. A young employee cried after repeatedly failing to produce a campaign that satisfied leadership. This approach is founder micromanagement without the buffer of experienced middle managers, who have been removed on the theory that their authority was organizational overfitting.

Hierarchy has been compressed into founder judgment, peer reputation, technical evidence, and the elusive criterion of taste, which appeals to tacit knowledge. In a field where reliable metrics arrive after decisions must be made, tacit knowledge can be indispensable but also unchallengeable. When the decisive quality is deliberately inarticulate, exclusion becomes invisible, and disagreement can be reframed as proof that the dissenter simply does not understand.

RELATED: Why selling your face is big bucks in China

Ian Waldie/Getty Images

The company’s internal narrative attributes exceptional foresight to its founder, Yang Zhilin. One experienced hire described his existing intellectual framework “collapsing” before Yang’s vision of reinforcement learning. The organization’s unifying object, the model, gains force from founder credibility, and credibility is renewed with each frontier release: K2, K2.5, K2.6, and K3. Each model serves not only a commercial function but a legitimating one: It proves that the unusual organizational demands were justified. A prolonged period without results would make the costs of ambiguity, overwork, and intense selection much harder to bear.

K3 itself is a 2.8-trillion-parameter mixture-of-experts model. Only about 104 billion parameters activate for any given token; the rest wait, specialized and dormant, until the router calls them. Moonshot’s human organization works on the same principle: Intelligence is routed. Small groups assemble around the present problem, do the work, and dissolve.

The company sees this as an advance beyond the West’s modern industrial division of labor, Taylorism, and of its bureaucratic knowledge firm.

Can it compete?

DeepSeek’s breakthrough in January 2025 supplied the external shock that made Moonshot reorganize into its current form. Before DeepSeek R1, Moonshot had drifted toward consumer advertising, spending tens of millions of yuan on user acquisition while the model itself received less organizational energy. DeepSeek demonstrated that a Chinese start-up could earn global prestige through engineering and open releases rather than marketing. One Moonshot employee’s formulation was blunt: “DeepSeek saved us.” The competitor had supplied evidence strong enough to overturn Moonshot’s prior strategy.

The correction was swift. Moonshot retreated from paid acquisition, renewed its focus on the model, embraced open weights, and reoriented its products toward agents, coding, and professional work. K3 arrived as vindication. Within days of release, demand exceeded forecasts and approached the limits of existing compute clusters. In response, Moonshot had to suspend new consumer subscriptions. The episode was strategically encouraging and operationally sobering: a successful product had created an infrastructure crisis precisely because its intended use worked.

Moonshot has replaced visible bureaucracy with invisible constraints of system prompts, agent traces, tool permissions, context windows, routing logic, and the model’s own learned behavior. Employees who once navigated reporting chains now navigate a founder’s attention. The forms have changed, but the pressure has not. Accounts of tears, sleeplessness, severe self-doubt, and inverted schedules recur in descriptions of life inside the company. They are narrated as evidence of resilience.

K3 demonstrates that Moonshot can build frontier models. It remains to be seen how well a system that depends on founder bandwidth, cultural homogeneity, abundant trust, and the nervous energy of 300 people who have been told they are geniuses can make the transition to a durable institution.

​Tech, China, Start-up, Moonshot 

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s bad year just got a whole lot worse.

Besides facing congressional scrutiny, the liberal organization whose bread and butter is smearing law-abiding conservatives as “extremists” was federally charged in April with 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.

‘The American people deserve to see this hate racket exposed in court.’

The SPLC — now under the leadership of CEO Ryan Haygood — tried to play the victim in hopes of having the case thrown out. The federal judge overseeing the case did not, however, buy what the professional concern-mongers were selling.

Tyler O’Neil, author of “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center,” told Blaze News, “The SPLC just tried to weasel its way out of accountability for allegedly propping up the Ku Klux Klan by complaining about President Trump’s mean social media posts. Judge Marks rightly saw through this charade.”

“Abbe Lowell’s legal team must have known it was a stretch to ask a judge to dismiss the case for vindictive prosecution before trial, but to do so without any evidence tying alleged animus directly to prosecutors required real chutzpah,” continued O’Neil. “The motion may have been catnip to the legacy media, but it was dead on arrival in court.”

How it started

Prosecutors have accused the SPLC of secretly pouring several million dollars in donated funds to individuals linked to various extremist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, the National Alliance, Aryan Nations, and National Socialist Party of America — groups the liberal organization was supposedly fighting against.

According to the superseding indictment filed by the Justice Department in June, which charges the SPLC with the same 11 counts, some of the donor funds were dumped into “fictitious accounts” and used ultimately to pay for so-called field sources “who were either leading or affiliated with multiple violent extremist organizations.”

Field sources allegedly used SPLC donor money for numerous questionable activities, including creating racist paraphernalia that extremist groups sold at rallies; publishing extremist literature for recruitment purposes; purchasing materials for cross burnings and Ku Klux Klan hoods; and creating new chapters of extremist groups.

RELATED: SPLC director allegedly used donor cash to fund secret romance with neo-Nazi informant: Indictment

SPLC President Ryan Haygood. Elizabeth Frantz/Bloomberg/Getty Images

A former SPLC director is also alleged, among other things, to have used donor cash to fund her secret romance with a neo-Nazi informant.

Blaze Media did not immediately receive a response from the SPLC.

In May, the SPLC, which denies any wrongdoing, filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama to dismiss the federal charges, claiming that it is the victim of “a vindictive prosecution” launched in response to speech protected under the First Amendment — the “latest manifestation of a top-down, retributive campaign.”

The SPLC claimed that it has been “falsely accused” by the Trump administration of being anti-Christian, aiding the Biden administration’s weaponization of the DOJ, participating in political violence, and helping rig the 2020 election.

The SPLC claimed further that the administration’s supposed animus “culminated in the criminal charges against the SPLC — an indictment premised on conclusory accusations but devoid of provable facts or a proper statement of the law.”

Should the court refuse to dismiss the charges, the SPLC asked that it at least require discovery into the government’s prosecutorial motives.

How it’s going

U.S. District Court Judge Emily Marks, a Trump appointee, delivered some bad news to the SPLC on Friday.

“The SPLC is not entitled to discovery or dismissal of the indictment,” Marks said in her order. “The SPLC has failed to offer some evidence tending to show animus on the part of the prosecutors involved in bringing this case and that such animus resulted in the prosecution, the showing required for discovery. Because it cannot satisfy that standard, it necessarily fails to satisfy the higher standard that would entitle it to dismissal of the indictment.”

In her order, Marks also highlighted the inevitable fallout of presuming vindictiveness on the part of the government just because the SPLC was bashing the Trump administration prior to its indictment.

“It is true that before its indictment, the SPLC extensively criticized the Trump administration,” wrote the judge. “But if that were sufficient to warrant a presumption, then the Government’s fears would be realized, and an entity could effectively immunize itself from prosecution simply by engaging in protected speech, such as criticizing political figures and their policies.”

Marks stressed that the “Court cannot license a fishing expedition based on innuendo or speculation.”

“It is the SPLC’s, not the Court’s, burden to show that the Government’s prosecution was improperly motivated,” continued the judge. “The SPLC cannot merely provide the rough outline of a theory — the President is out to get it — and expect the Court to fill in the blanks.”

An SPLC spokesperson said in a statement obtained by The Hill, “While the Southern Poverty Law Center is disappointed with the outcome of the motion, we will continue to vigorously defend ourselves, our staff, and our work.”

The spokesperson for the group accused of reviving at least one hate group and bankrolling the creation of KKK garb added, “SPLC will continue to fight hate, and we will continue to envision and create a safer and more just world.”

“The SPLC can scream to high heaven about FBI Director Kash Patel calling the group a ‘partisan smear machine,’ but that doesn’t make it any less true,” Tyler O’Neil told Blaze News. “The SPLC scares donors and demonizes its opponents by putting mainstream conservative and Christian nonprofits on a ‘hate map’ with Klan chapters. Now it stands accused of reimbursing cross-burning materials and paying for KKK hoods. The American people deserve to see this hate racket exposed in court — and Marks’ ruling brings this case one step closer to trial.”

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

​Southern poverty law center, Donald trump, Justice department, Racism, Ku klux klan, Politics