Category: blaze media

At UFC 308 in Abu Dhabi, Khamzat Chimaev, a beast from Chechnya, showed the world why he’s becoming one of the most feared men in mixed martial arts.

Known for his brutal, relentless style and the nickname “Borz” (“wolf” in Chechen), Chimaev didn’t just beat former middleweight champion Robert Whittaker — he tore through him with a ruthless efficiency that left fans stunned. Within minutes, Whittaker — a fighter known for his strength and skill — was battered, his jaw tested by vicious strikes.

From a young age, boys learn to endure cold, navigate difficult terrain, and face challenges head-on. They don’t just hear stories of heroes; they are expected to become them.

Whittaker wasn’t just outclassed. He was embarrassed, thrown around like a cheap rag doll.

But to truly grasp the depth of Chimaev’s dominance, one has to understand where he comes from and what fuels him.

Where champions are made

The North Caucasus is a place synonymous with survival. These rugged mountains, shadowed by centuries of struggle, breed people with an iron sense of identity. No trans madness here. No teaching children that there are 700 different genders.

In places like Dagestan and Chechnya, where empires and Soviet boots once pressed down, boys aren’t just taught to fight; they’re taught to endure, to dominate, to win at all costs.

Fighting here isn’t recreation; it’s in the blood. It is, for many, a ticket to a better life.

While kids in the U.S. are glued to screens, boys here are rolling on mats, learning skills that build character and raw strength. Sure, they shed a tear — they are children, after all — but quickly wipe them away and resume training.

In America and other affluent Western nations, parents often cushion their children against the hard knocks of reality. Playgrounds are rubber-padded, and competitive games come with participation trophies. Schools emphasize positive reinforcement and conflict resolution through dialogue. Safety and self-expression are the goals.

But only a fool would deny that this soft approach has eroded the concept of toughness. Children in the U.S. and beyond, especially boys, are becoming weaker, both mentally and physically.

Contrast this with the North Caucasus, where raising boys is less about emotional insulation and more about preparing them for an unforgiving world. Here, childhood is not an insulated period of delicate growth; it’s an initiation into manhood.

From a young age, boys learn to endure cold, navigate difficult terrain, and face challenges head-on. They don’t just hear stories of heroes; they are expected to become them. The bar for what constitutes “soft” or “hard” is drawn starkly differently than in America.

In the North Caucasus region, by the age of 10 a boy has already practiced wrestling in the dirt and spent cold nights learning survival skills outdoors. Here, every boy is like a mini Joe Rogan, minus the tattoos and impressive bank balance. Failure is seen as part of learning, not something to be avoided. The experience is grueling but purposeful — the expectation is to grow tough enough to shoulder family and community responsibilities.

This isn’t cruelty; it’s preparation. Preparation for greatness.

Epitome of greatness

One cannot speak about greatness without discussing Khabib Nurmagomedov. To the people of Dagestan, he’s more than a champion. He’s a legend, revered with the same awe reserved for greats like Muhammad Ali or Michael Jordan. Khabib is arguably the greatest UFC fighter of all time, a man who dominated with a ferocity that broke opponents. In the Octagon, he didn’t just win titles — he took souls.

Stephen McCarthy

If in doubt, let me point you in the direction of Conor McGregor. Before stepping into the ring with Khabib, he was the brightest star in the UFC, a fighter believed to be unbeatable. A sporting icon who had elevated himself to near-mythic status, McGregor was systematically dismantled by a monster from the mountains.

The buildup to their fight was nasty, with McGregor hurling cheap shots at Khabib’s now-deceased father. However, the Irishman, then the undisputed king of trash talk, would soon find himself getting a taste of his own medicine.

The moment the bell rang, McGregor, full of his usual swagger, quickly realized he was facing a fighter intent on destruction — specifically, the destruction of him and his legacy.

Clash of civilizations

The audience, the vast majority of whom expected yet another McGregor victory, also understood they were not just watching a contest; they were witnessing a reckoning.

With each takedown, Khabib sent a message to the world. He was there to make history. His ground-and-pound wasn’t flashy, but it was brutal, precise, and mercilessly effective.

McGregor’s legendary counter-punches, the lethal strikes that had taken down countless opponents, proved useless against the relentless force of the Dagestani. Every attempt to escape failed.

Khabib was relentless, a human Terminator, there to take McGregor apart piece by piece. The Dubliner spent most of the fight flopping around like a trout on a fisherman’s deck, desperately gasping for air.

In truth, October 6, 2018, was the day the Conor McGregor we knew and loved died. He never recovered. How could he? The Grim Reaper had just visited and violated him.

While McGregor was busy nursing his bruised body and his battered ego, Khabib returned to his homeland a hero. To the young boys of Dagestan, he was — and remains — a symbol of what’s possible.

Meanwhile, in the West, many boys and girls worship fleeting idols — TikTok influencers and pop stars like Sabrina Carpenter — whose fame is built on hollow trends and fake personas. They are all style and zero substance.

We often speak of being “advanced,” but take a hard look at our children and ask yourself: Are we truly moving forward, or are we losing the core values that build resilience, character, and true strength? Khabib’s triumph was more than a victory — it was a reminder of what real heroes look like.

​Ufc, John mac ghlionn, Khamzat chimaev, Ufc 308, Conor mcgregor 

Liberals online began wailing and gnashing their teeth almost immediately after President-elect Donald Trump nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to a seat in his Cabinet on Thursday.

As had long been rumored, Trump tapped RFK Jr. to be health and human services secretary. During his independent run for president, RFK Jr. made health a major focus of his campaign.

‘Putting an anti-vaxxer in charge of public health is like putting the Unabomber in charge of the mail.’

After Kennedy dropped out in August and formally endorsed Trump, social media became ablaze with the slogan “Make America Healthy Again,” a phrase that Trump often uttered in the close of his rally speeches.

“I am thrilled to announce Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as The United States Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health,” Trump wrote in a statement posted to X late Thursday afternoon.

In his statement, Trump also called public health and safety an administration’s “most important role” but said that lately, Americans have endured an “overwhelming Health Crisis” on account of “harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, and food additives.”

Under Kennedy’s leadership, health agencies will fight back against the chronic disease “epidemic,” return to the “Gold Standard” of scientific research, and become “beacons of Transparency,” Trump continued.

— (@)

CNN reported that Kennedy accepted the nomination sometime on Thursday.

In its article about the RFK nomination, the liberal outfit also described Kennedy as “one of the nation’s most prominent anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists” and accused him of spreading “false conspiracy theories about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.” However, the outlet did not provide any examples of such alleged conspiracy theories.

The New York Times also claimed in its headline about the nomination that Kennedy “spread false information about vaccines.”

Liberals online melted down over the news of Kennedy’s nomination as well.

“Putting an anti-vaxxer in charge of public health is like putting the Unabomber in charge of the mail,” tweeted the left-wing influencer known as Jo.

“It’s difficult to describe how utterly wretched RFK Jr. is. Not that I necessarily expect them to, but the Republican Senate *has* to put their foot down here. He’s one of the most deranged sociopaths in public life, and his war on childhood vaccination is unconscionable,” wrote a user with 19K followers.

“RFK Jr. ran a spoiler campaign to help elect Donald Trump. Now, he’s reaping the benefits with a position that will jeopardize the health of millions of Americans,” said a group of Democratic activists called End Citizens United.

However, not all Democrats assailed the pick. Gov. Jared Polis of Colorado in fact cheered it, claiming that RFK Jr. would help take “on big pharma and the corporate ag oligopoly.”

“He will face strong special interest opposition on these, but I look forward to partnering with him to truly make America healthy again and I hope that we can finally make progress on these important issues,” Polis added.

One industry likely to be upset by the pick is Big Pharma. Shortly after Trump announced the nomination, the stocks of many pharmaceutical companies reportedly tanked.

Kennedy did not make a statement about the Cabinet position but did retweet Trump’s statement. Soon after Trump’s landslide election victory, Kennedy hinted that he likely would be heavily involved in public health agencies during Trump’s second term.

“President Trump has given me three instructions,” Kennedy said, according to CNN. “He wants the corruption and the conflicts out of the regulatory agencies. He wants to return the agencies to the gold standard, empirically-based, evidence-based, science and medicine that they were once famous for. And he wants to end the chronic disease epidemic with measurable impacts on a diminishment of chronic disease within two years.”

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

​Rfk jr, Kennedy, Trump, Health and human services, Cabinet, Jared polis, Health, Politics 

As the results of the 2024 election are scrutinized, the left and its media allies are shocked by the number of urban voters who had been loyal Democrats but suddenly shifted to Donald Trump. This shift helped propel Trump to victory in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan and significantly reduced the Democrats’ margin even in blue states they won.

These “Trump Democrats” are also frontline victims of the ills that elected Democrats have caused in recent years.

The old libertarian, anti-government Republican clichés won’t solve the crime and dysfunction besetting our cities.

For better or worse, Republicans have largely abandoned the cities, leaving them to deal with the consequences of their own votes. This approach is understandable. But if the widespread defection of black and Jewish voters to Trump is seen as a cry for help, perhaps now is the time for conservatives to offer a better alternative: “municipal conservatism.”

A few days after the election, liberal journalist Josh Barro published an insightful essay in the Atlantic that gained wide circulation, even in conservative circles. Barro boldly criticized Democrats’ poor governance, which drove many traditional Democratic voters to Trump. Declaring that “Democrats deserved to lose,” Barro highlighted issues like the breakdown of order in public transit, lack of policing, open shoplifting, merchandise locked in cases, expensive but failing schools, hotels filled with migrants, released criminals, and defunding of police.

Despite his excellent analysis, Barro missed the mark by clinging to the outdated 20th-century assumption that Democrats aim to provide government services to improve their constituents’ lives. “The gap between Democrats’ promise of better living through better government and their failure to actually deliver better government has been a national political problem,” he wrote.

“Better living through better government,” or simply “good government,” may have been the guiding philosophy during the days of Richard Daley in Chicago and Ed Koch in New York City — mayors who genuinely sought prosperity and order for their cities. Today, however, even the pretense of good government is gone. Many cities are now run by self-proclaimed revolutionaries who identify as Democrats but aim to dismantle the old order.

These “Pol Pot mayors” speak of a new utopian vision, but in reality, they are destroying their cities, much as Pol Pot did when he depopulated Phnom Penh in his quest to reorganize Cambodian society. Crime, civil disorder, and anarcho-tyranny are not viewed as problems in these struggling blue cities. They are tools.

These cities urgently need municipal conservatives in the mold of Rudy Giuliani — strong leaders who will restore order, even if they are not small-government purists aligned with Edmund Burke and Ludwig von Mises. Giuliani’s work cleaning up New York was remarkable, yet many conservatives initially dismissed him as too liberal because he didn’t focus on lowering taxes and limiting government. But New Yorkers weren’t looking for that. They wanted effective governance and a return to civil order. Rudy delivered.

This isn’t to suggest that 20th-century Democratic urban governance is an ideal to emulate or repeat. I’m pointing out that Democrats have abandoned any commitment to safe, orderly cities, creating an opportunity for Republicans to offer viable solutions.

There was nothing conservative about Democrat-run cities in the 20th century, with their focus on patronage, jobs programs, and generous pay and benefits for municipal employees. But with civil order and reliable policing, citizens tolerated the taxes and corruption and continued voting for Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans talked about privatizing city services and cutting city payrolls — and consistently lost at the polls.

Many of us conservatives who left blue cities mock city-dwellers for not voting Republican, but perhaps they haven’t heard the right message about making cities livable again. Or maybe now is finally the time they’ll listen to that message.

The old libertarian, anti-government Republican clichés won’t solve the crime and dysfunction besetting our cities. In fact, the left’s demand to abolish the police could itself be seen as a libertarian, anti-government stance.

Republicans need to offer our struggling cities an agenda focused on delivering excellent city services, including effective policing, cleanliness, anti-vagrancy measures, public safety, reliable utilities, and family-friendly parks. This agenda should promote a political climate that supports small businesses, primary education, churches, families, and patriotism. Democrat-run cities have grown hostile to these foundational elements of urban civilization, creating an enormous opportunity for Republicans.

Donald Trump has shown that even the most loyal Democratic constituencies are willing to vote Republican if it promises relief from the problems created by Democratic policies. A municipal conservatism that can restore civil order in our cities is exactly what voters need right now. Now, Republicans need to recruit modern-day Giulianis to make that pitch.

​Crime, Municipal conservatism, Law and order, Cities, Democrats, Republicans, Opinion & analysis 

Donald Trump dealt an earth-shattering blow to the American left. The reality television star not only secured a convincing win in the Electoral College but also captured the popular vote and carried down-ballot Republicans to victory, with the GOP taking control of the Senate and likely retaining the House. Typically, such a decisive mandate for the opposition would lead a political party to reflect on the policies or rhetoric that contributed to such a defeat. But Democrats are having none of that.

Instead of examining their platform, tone toward the American people, or use of power, liberal pundits and politicians have reached a different conclusion. From MSNBC to CNN and HBO, they have conducted election postmortems, blaming their loss on one main problem: that the American people have too much free speech.

Democrats had constructed a reality in which their ideology was unquestionable and their victory inevitable.

A few thoughtful voices on the left have suggested that policies like opening the border, demonizing men, ignoring the economic struggles of middle Americans, and promoting radical gender politics to children may have hurt the Democrats’ chances. Yet these moderating voices have been quickly labeled as racist and sexist, silenced by progressives deeply invested in their own radical ideology. Instead, the left has chosen to lay the blame for its loss on alternative media.

The left has sounded the alarm about the dangers of misinformation and disinformation for years. Progressives once held a near-total monopoly over the elite institutions that shape ideological consensus in America. In a world where individuals are often isolated from real interactions or events, the dominant narrative provided by news and entertainment had the power to define reality. That is how a nation can be convinced to treat a severe flu like the Black Death. Democrats have lived inside this self-constructed reality for so long that they have forgotten its artificial nature — like a fish that doesn’t know it’s wet.

Progressives genuinely believe Americans are inherently racist, sexist, and homophobic, and they worry that without a controlled flow of carefully curated information, people will revert to their “brutal” nature and start throwing Nazi salutes in honor of the eternal Trumpenreich. Leftist operatives don’t view themselves as propagandists because they rely on narratives shaped by a network of credentialed institutions.

When progressives talk about “our democracy,” they really mean the consensus upheld by “experts” who show loyalty to their ideology. Any information that contradicts this narrative becomes “misinformation” — not because it’s factually incorrect but because it challenges their carefully curated information ecosystem.

In this moment of utter defeat, Democrats have pointed fingers at podcasters like Joe Rogan and Theo Von, frustrated by their influence on young men. Some leftist pundits even suggest the need to create a “progressive Joe Rogan” or build their own network of influencers.

But this approach is delusional on multiple levels. The left already has a massive influence network that spans mainstream media, Hollywood, corporate America, academia, and the unelected federal bureaucracy. Progressives don’t view this as an “influence network,” however. They see it as basic institutional reality. They have convinced themselves that the shadows they cast on the wall are reality, and anything outside them is nefarious and artificial.

Progressives have plenty of young male influencers, like David Pakman and Hasan Piker. These voices enjoy major funding and the advantage of speaking with little to no fear of censorship from big tech. But it is exactly this obvious alliance with the status quo that dooms their efforts. Liberal commentators aren’t rebels speaking truth to power; they’re pushing on an open door. Their apparent lack of authenticity is palpable, and audiences sense it. This disconnect is so pronounced that Pakman recently made a video addressing the fact that his own audience is leaving in droves.

The left’s challenge isn’t a lack of media reach. Despite emerging cracks in their foundation, progressives still hold significant influence over legacy media, education, and government bureaucracies that shape public opinion in the United States. The real problem is that each of these institutions has sacrificed its credibility in pursuit of ideological control. Soft power is delicate. It requires disciplined actors who can leverage institutional control without overtly advancing their own interests. Progressives have lost all such discipline and burned the precious currency of institutional legitimacy for short-term gain. Now they will reap the whirlwind.

The left still has extensive media representation, but it no longer holds a media monopoly. Despite a substantial advantage in funding, prestige, and infrastructure, audiences are abandoning traditional media because of their consistent misinformation. They lied about the border, misled on the pandemic, skewed coverage of Trump, manipulated poll results, and even deluded themselves into thinking Kamala Harris could win a presidential election. Even in defeat, progressive commentators remain oblivious to the reality they’ve so fervently insulated themselves from.

Leftists now watch the success of podcasters like Rogan and platforms like X, marveling at their influence. On HBO panels and in New York Times columns, they exclaim, “Media can shape reality! I’ve got to get me some of that!” The lack of self-awareness is remarkable. Yet Democrats cannot produce a candidate capable of appearing on Rogan’s show, let alone replicate his authentic style. Rogan may not be conservative, but he doesn’t dismiss Americans or their concerns, offering an everyman quality that is hard to fabricate.

The Democratic Party’s problem isn’t a lack of media reach; it’s a toxic message and an unwillingness to engage with middle America. The party demonizes young white men and labels middle Americans as “trash,” alienating these demographics. The problem isn’t that comedians have podcasts that diverge from the Democratic Party line; it’s the Democrats’ toxic disregard for average Americans’ concerns.

Democrats had constructed a reality in which their ideology was unquestionable and their victory inevitable. Only “outdated” institutions like the Electoral College and voter ID stood between progressives and the “end of history.” Now, a resounding defeat in the popular vote has left them bewildered, searching for someone to blame. There will be no introspection or lessons learned. Instead, leftists have doubled down on radical policies and contempt for Americans. It’s a powerful reminder that decadence breeds weakness and insularity fosters delusion.

​2024 presidential election, Media bias, Democratic party, Joe rogan, Theo von, Donald trump, David pakman, Hasan piker, Echo chamber, Men, Opinion & analysis 

Editor’s note: This article appeared originally on September 19, 2023, under the headline “Enough with the Justice Department ‘independence’ myth.” We’re republishing it today because President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday nominated Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) to be his attorney general, and the Democrats — and more than a few Republicans — lost their minds. Gaetz, Trump wrote on Truth Social, “will end Weaponized Government, protect our Borders, dismantle Criminal Organizations and restore Americans’ badly-shattered Faith and Confidence in the Justice Department.”

But Gaetz’s critics don’t see it that way. They say Gaetz would politicize the Justice Department and threaten its “independence” — an independence that Deion Kathawa carefully explains does not exist, either in the Constitution or the law.

***

A powerful and entrenched myth plagues American politics — namely, that the Department of Justice is, to some degree, “independent” of the president. The idea is plainly unconstitutional, actively harmful to the intended operation of our system of government, and a major contributor to the derangement of our common life. A critical step toward restoring sanity in our politics requires its eradication from our day-to-day practices and the people’s collective consciousness.

If the president is truly in charge of the entire executive branch, then he must have control over all of his officers and employees.

The myth originates from the Watergate scandal 50 years ago. For those unfamiliar with the history, a brief summary is in order.

The series of events that most contributed to the birth of the myth of the Justice Department’s “independence” began on the evening of Saturday, October 20, 1973 — the “Saturday Night Massacre.” President Richard M. Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson to fire Archibald Cox, who in 1973 had been appointed as the special prosecutor to oversee the federal criminal investigation into the Watergate burglary and related crimes. Richardson refused to fire Cox and resigned. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus likewise refused and resigned. Nixon then ordered the next most senior department official, Solicitor General Robert H. Bork, to fire Cox. Bork carried out Nixon’s order.

Nixon’s actions that night set off a firestorm, culminating in his resignation from the presidency in the face of the House of Representatives’ threat of impeachment and the Senate’s near-certain conviction, as well as the eventual passage of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

A section of the EGA that authorized independent counsel investigations came before the Supreme Court in 1988. In Morrison v. Olson, a 7-1 majority (Justice Anthony M. Kennedy recused himself) held that the independent counsel provisions of the law “do not violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, or the limitations of Article III, nor do they impermissibly interfere with the President’s authority under Article II in violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers.”

Justice Antonin Scalia, the decision’s lone dissenter, penned what is widely considered his best opinion. He famously observed the case was about:

the allocation of power among Congress, the President, and the courts in such fashion as to preserve the equilibrium the Constitution sought to establish — so that “a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department,” Federalist No. 51, p. 321 (J. Madison), can effectively be resisted. Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf.

Scalia’s basic point was that the independent counsel provisions of the EGA were void because prosecutorial power is quintessentially executive power and that because Article II of the Constitution provides that “the executive Power” — all of it — “shall be vested in a President of the United States,” any diminishment of the president’s authority is ipso facto unconstitutional.

Scalia noted that although the majority agreed with him that “the conduct of a criminal prosecution (and of an investigation to decide whether to prosecute)” is “the exercise of purely executive power” and that independent counsel provisions “deprive the President of the United States of exclusive control over the exercise of that power,” it nonetheless upheld those provisions because they did not completely eliminate the president’s control over the independent counsel — the counsel could still be fired for “good cause.”

Ultimately, Congress did not renew the independent counsel statute, which, as the Washington Post reported in June 1999, “gave rise to Kenneth W. Starr, the impeachment of President Clinton, and 20 other investigations of high-level federal officials over the past two decades.”

On both constitutional and pragmatic grounds, this was the right outcome. Scalia’s Morrison dissent was prophetic.

If the president is truly in charge of the entire executive branch (the academic literature refers to this as the “unitary executive theory”), then he must have control over all of his officers and employees. As a practical matter, of course, the president cannot personally “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” as Article II, Section 3 commands, but if he cannot, when necessary, direct the actions of his subordinates — and remove them if they do not comply — then he is not really in charge.

After all, if the buck does not stop with the president, what on earth is the point of all the billions of dollars’ worth of drama we go through as a country every four years to elect one?

​Justice department, Matt gaetz, Attorney general, Donald trump, Article ii, Constitution, 2024 presidential election, Independence, Antonin scalia, Supreme court, Opinion & analysis 

Last night, pro-life warrior Allie Beth Stuckey faced off with actress Sophia Bush on Instagram over the subject of abortion.

Bush pushed the typical leftist talking point that abortion bans in certain states prevent women from getting life-saving care when they’re experiencing a miscarriage or an ectopic pregnancy.

Like so many pro-choice women, what Bush gets wrong is the difference between how insurance companies code procedures (often the word abortion is used) and what is actually illegal.

“A D&C IS AN ABORTION. It is THE SAME PROCEDURE,” Bush wrote on Instagram.

“Despite what the pro-forced birth folks want to tell you, these laws prevent doctors from giving care,” she ranted in a reel, before accusing Allie and other pro-lifers of having “blood on [their] hands.”

Of course, that’s far from correct.

“An abortion is the purposeful termination of the life of an unborn child, and that is exactly how it is defined in every pro-life law that has been passed since Dobbs, which means that there is no law in any state that is restricting or prohibiting miscarriage care or the removal of an ectopic pregnancy,” Allie explained in the following Instagram reel.

Bush referenced Nevaeh Crain and Josseli Barnica, two Texas women whose stories have become leftist propaganda, as they both died because doctors claim they were fearful of prosecution due to the Heartbeat Law.

Once again, this is false information. Allie explains that in both of these cases, neither woman sought an abortion and actually died due to medical negligence.

“They take these stories, they stoke fear, and they tell women that if you are pro-life, then you are for killing women,” Allie told Live Action founder and president Lila Rose on a recent episode of “Relatable.”

“There’s not a single pro-life law in the country that prohibits emergency medical care to a mother that might involve an early delivery if it’s an emergency or that prohibits miscarriage care or that prohibits care for an ectopic pregnancy,” Rose reiterated.

To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.

– YouTube

youtu.be

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.

​Relatable, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Blazetv, Sophia bush, Instagram, Pro-life, Abortion, Reproductive rights, Lila rose 

The last thing anyone wants is to focus on another election. But to break the cycle of electing red-state RINOs, we need to start recruiting for the 2026 midterms soon.

Conservative supporters of President Trump are frustrated that most Republican senators from deep red states backed John Thune (S.D.) or John Cornyn (Texas) for Senate majority leader on Wednesday. They have a right to be disappointed, as these senators squandered a historic mandate by choosing a younger version of Mitch McConnell’s worldview to lead the Senate. But they should also look in the mirror.

Ten years into the MAGA movement, there’s no excuse not to have DeSantis-level leaders in states Trump won by a landslide.

I personally opposed nearly every current Senate RINO in red-state primaries for years, while others ignored the primaries. This year, red-state RINOs like Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, and Kevin Cramer of North Dakota easily won renomination with support from Trump and his movement. I featured some of their primary challengers on my show multiple times, but the major names in the industry largely overlooked them. Now, Ukraine supporters like Wicker, who backed Thune for majority leader, will chair powerful committees. In Wicker’s case, he’ll head the Armed Services Committee.

The majority leader vote confirms that we did ourselves no favors by nominating candidates like Tim Sheehy from Montana and Jim Justice from West Virginia when we had the chance to rally Trump behind better candidates. Bernie Moreno from Ohio was the only freshman who supported Rick Scott, likely due to the influence of fellow Ohioan JD Vance.

This time must be different. As we look ahead to 2026, we have a chance to correct past mistakes and activate our base in the primaries. Here’s a list of Senate seats from reliable red states that are in cycle.

Nineteen Republican senators are up for re-election from solid red states. North Carolina is the only state that might be competitive in a tough year, but Republicans have won there recently. All incumbents are expected to run again, except Mitch McConnell, who will likely retire. But how many of these incumbents deserve renomination in the primary? What have they done for us?

Only a few supported Rick Scott for majority leader. At best, I see five of the 19 as potentially decent, although none stand out as superstars. But Shelley Moore Capito, John Cornyn, Mike Rounds, Lindsey Graham, Thom Tillis, Pete Ricketts, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Bill Cassidy, Joni Ernst, James Risch, and Dan Sullivan? Seriously? Is this the best we can get from solid red states?

Democrats, meanwhile, will need to defend swing-state senators who Republicans are likely to target in states such as Georgia, Michigan, and possibly New Hampshire. Republicans will also need to defend a seat in Maine. But the majority of competitive races should happen in primaries in deep red states, and there are plenty of those this cycle. Shouldn’t we start strategizing for those states right now?

Now, let’s look at the race for governor. Most red-state governorships are up for re-election in 2026. Why do we only have one DeSantis? If he could turn Florida to the right while governing as one of the most conservative executives in recent memory, why can’t we have leaders like him in even more conservative, rural red states? The 2026 midterms offer a rare opportunity, with several open seats in play. Here’s a list of red states with governor’s elections on the ballot:

If we exclude Georgia, 14 reliably Republican states will hold governor’s elections, many with open seats. Besides Kim Reynolds of Iowa and Sarah Huckabee Sanders of Arkansas, no one else is close to DeSantis’ level. DeSantis himself is term-limited in Florida. Conservatives have a golden opportunity to flip open seats in Alabama, Alaska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming.

Ten years into the MAGA movement, there’s no excuse not to have DeSantis-level leaders in states Trump won by a landslide. We also need to find a successor for DeSantis, challenge RINO Brad Little if he runs for a third term in Idaho, and consider giving Greg Abbott a serious challenge if he confirms his bid for a third term in Texas.

It’s not all bad news. Excitement and focus on politics have surged after Trump’s landmark victory. The race for Senate majority leader captured strong attention. Now, we must channel that enthusiasm into primaries, special elections, off-year elections, and down-ballot races. This time, it must be different.

​2026 midterms, 2026 midterm election, Republican primary, Republican party, Red states, Donald trump, John thune, Ron desantis, Opinion & analysis 

When asked about Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida’s nomination for attorney general, Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin responded by holding up a photo of two transgender appointees from President Joe Biden’s administration.

Johnson’s printed-out pictures included a photo of Rachel Levine, who serves as the assistant secretary of health for the Department of Health and Human Services, and a photo of Sam Brinton, who was nominated as deputy assistant secretary for the Office of Nuclear Energy.

When pressed about Gaetz’ nomination, Johnson held up the photos and asked reporters whether they ever “harassed” Democratic lawmakers about those nominees.

Although Gaetz has sparked controversy online and hesitation from certain members of Congress, Johnson pointed out past nominees who have been just as controversial as, if not more than, the Florida firebrand.

Both nominees have scandal-ridden histories. In Levine’s case, he pressured Biden administration officials to remove age requirements for transgender surgeries and puberty blockers for minors. Levine has also made claims that “climate change is having a disproportionate effect on the physical and mental health of Black communities.”

On the other hand, Brinton, who identifies as “nonbinary,” has faced federal charges for allegedly stealing Tanzanian designer Asya Khamsin’s suitcase at Ronald Reagan National Airport in Arlington, Virginia. Brinton was caught when he was photographed wearing one of Khamsin’s designs, making this the third alleged incident of luggage theft Brinton had been involved with.

Brinton pled guilty in a sweetheart deal, receiving no jail time. Brinton is no longer serving in the Biden administration.

Although Gaetz has sparked controversy online and hesitation from certain members of Congress, Johnson pointed out past nominees who have been just as controversial as, if not more than, the Florida firebrand.

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

​Ron johnson, Matt gaetz, Donald trump, Joe biden, Rachel levine, Sam brinton, Sam brinton luggage theft, Sam brinton stolen clothing, Rachel levine transgender hhs, Senate confirmation, Senate republicans, Republicans, House republicans, Attorney general, Trump cabinet, Politics 

After a pitched battle between federal prosecutors and Jan. 6 defendant William Pope, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras has agreed to delay Pope’s trial, saying it could be a waste of resources given the possible issuance of pardons by President-elect Donald J. Trump.

Pope, 38, of Topeka, Kansas, was scheduled to begin trial in Washington, D.C., Dec. 2 on five criminal charges, including a felony civil disorder count and four misdemeanors.

“I’m relieved that my four-year battle with the government is almost over,” Pope told Blaze News. “I’m going to win.”

‘The circumstances in my case are inseparable from the election of President Trump.’

Contreras adopted Pope’s reasoning from a Nov. 13 filing that said a long trial would be a waste of court resources given the post-election realities in Washington, D.C.

“Unfortunately, the prosecutor’s facial expressions won’t make it into the court transcript,” Pope wrote on X after the court’s ruling.

— (@)

Regarding Contreras’ decision to delay Pope’s trial, Daniel Ball, a public affairs specialist for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, told Blaze News: “No comment.”

Over more than 45 months, Pope, publisher of the news site Free State Kansas, has run circles around the government. He got three of his original eight charges dropped and exposed the potentially extensive presence of FBI agents and informants in the crowd.

Pope also brought to light the misconduct of undercover Metropolitan Police Department officers, forcing prosecutors to admit in March 2023 that officer Nicholas Tomasula acted as a provocateur in the crowd on the west side of the Capitol.

In his Nov. 13 response to the court, Pope said continued prosecution of his case ignored the political realities created by Trump’s landslide Nov. 5 re-election victory.

“The government’s continued prosecution of me is also a continued prosecution of President Trump’s elected mandate, which is a prosecution of the will of the people,” Pope wrote. “The government should cease their attack on democracy immediately!”

‘They had received reports that the individuals were carrying weapons.’

Pope cited the DOJ’s refusal to apply the same standards as those used by special prosecutor Jack Smith when he asked the judge in Trump’s Jan. 6 case to vacate all scheduled court dates. The DOJ said the “unprecedented circumstance” cited by Smith should not apply to all January Sixers.

“To entertain this argument, one must first be blind to the will of the American people who just elected President Trump to carry out his mandate to end the January 6 prosecutions,” Pope wrote. “However, these facts cannot be ignored. The circumstances in my case are inseparable from the election of President Trump.”

Pope won a court order to make a tour of the U.S. Capitol as part of his trial preparations. The Oct. 20 tour was attended by three FBI agents, two federal prosecutors, and legal counsel for U.S. Capitol Police.

In addition to dozens of battles on his own case docket, Pope has advocated for fellow Jan. 6 defendants and provided material that has been cited in many other defense cases.

Metropolitan Police Department undercover officers Ricardo Leiva (left) and Michael Callahan look out on the West Plaza crowd on Jan. 6, 2021. Defendant William Pope exposed their activities and those of other undercover officers at the U.S. Capitol.Metropolitan Police Department via William Pope/U.S. District Court

He identified MPD undercover officer Ryan Roe, who apparently encountered a suspect known only as #FenceCutterBulwark while he cut down temporary green plastic fencing on Capitol grounds. “Appreciate it, brother,” Roe was heard to say to #FenceCutterBulwark on video.

In previous filings, Pope described several self-identified Antifa supporters who were allegedly intercepted by undercover MPD officers, including one who was carrying a gun.

MPD officers reportedly made a traffic stop at 10:15 a.m. on Jan. 6 of a vehicle containing three Antifa operatives: Jonathan Kelly, Logan Grimes, and Dempsey Mikula.

“Undercover officers who stopped their vehicle said they had received reports that the individuals were carrying weapons,” Pope wrote. “No footage of this incident has been produced by the government in discovery. However, Kelly livestreamed part of the police stop to Facebook.”

Metropolitan Police arrested Grimes, who identifies as a woman and uses the name Leslie, for carrying a pistol without a license and being in possession of a high-capacity magazine and unregistered ammunition. The charge was dropped on Jan. 7, 2021.

Pope also brought attention to the dozens of members of the Ohio-based Salt & Light Brigade, including the highly visible provocateur activities of Pastor William Dunfee. Using a bullhorn on the East Plaza, Dunfee urged protesters to storm the Capitol. Video shows him celebrating outside the historic Columbus Doors after protesters forced their way into the Capitol.

After Dunfee’s activities were exposed, the FBI arrested him in October 2022. He was indicted in early 2023 and found guilty of three counts in a January 2024 bench trial. One of the counts was later dismissed based on the Supreme Court ruling in Fischer v. United States. Judge Reggie Walton sentenced Dunfee to 30 months in prison on Sept. 19, 2024.

The crowd incitement by Pastor Bill Dunfee of the Ohio-based Salt & Light Brigade was uncovered by defendant William Pope during his own Jan. 6 case investigation. Dunfee was eventually sentence to 30 months in prison.U.S. Department of Justice Photos

Pope sought to force the government to unseal more U.S. Capitol Police security video than was made public by former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and his successor, Mike Johnson.

He posted dozens of hours of bodycam footage on his Rumble page that was not restricted by the government as “sensitive.” He pointed out dozens of security cameras whose footage was apparently missing from the Capitol Police database held by Congress.

Pope got prosecutors to admit that the “parading” misdemeanor charge against him was brought because he carried an American flag on Jan. 6 “in support or disapproval of a particular viewpoint.”

“Biden has made the American flag and wrongthink a crime!” Pope said in May 2024.

Under Title 40 U.S. Code §5104, a person may not “parade, stand or move in processions or assemblages in the grounds;” or “display in the grounds a flag, banner or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.”

Pope said he fully expects President-elect Trump to issue Jan. 6 pardons, but the solution to his case is much simpler.

“I believe that in my case the government should just be able to drop my charges,” he said.

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

​Politics 

The Wall Street Journal reported this week that President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team drafted an executive order to “create a board to purge generals,” potentially enabling the swift removal of flag and general officers “lacking in requisite leadership qualities.” According to the Journal, this effort “could also create a chilling effect on top military officers” due to Trump’s past vow to fire “woke generals,” referring to officers who place diversity over military readiness.

Trump’s opponents quickly seized on the draft order, accusing him of attempting to “politicize” the military. By using the term “purge,” critics evoke comparisons to Stalin’s elimination of senior Red Army officers before World War II, which led to significant Soviet military failures during the war’s early years.

The greatest challenge facing the U.S. military today is the weakening of the military ethos, which underpins its effectiveness.

The implication is that any attempt to remove flag and general officers from the U.S. military, like Stalin’s purge, is ideologically motivated — intended to eliminate officers deemed insufficiently loyal to Trump and his administration. Although Trump’s relationship with senior U.S. military leaders has always been fraught, the suggestion that he seeks to purge officers based on loyalty is, at best, an overreach and, at worst, a slander.

A more accurate interpretation of such a board would be an effort to restore accountability, which has been lacking in the U.S. military for some time. Recently, a Marine officer was court-martialed after calling for accountability following the deaths of 13 service members in a suicide bombing at Kabul’s Hamid Karzai International Airport during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Appearing in uniform on multiple occasions, Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller demanded that political and military leaders be held responsible.

In a 2009 article for World Affairs, Richard Kohn, a prominent American military historian, noted that “nearly twenty years after the end of the Cold War, the American military, financed by more money than the entire rest of the world spends on its armed forces, failed to defeat insurgencies or fully suppress sectarian civil wars in two crucial countries, each with less than a tenth of the U.S. population, after overthrowing those nations’ governments in a matter of weeks.” What, he asked, accounted for this lack of military effectiveness?

Accountability lost

In his 2012 book, “The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today,” Thomas Ricks, formerly of the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, explained our military’s recent failures. He argued that many of these failures stem from a lack of accountability among officers for battlefield losses. During World War II, relief of command was common. Gen. George Marshall, the “architect of victory,” routinely relieved subordinates who fell short.

In the decades following the war, political leaders — not military authorities — handled any officer reliefs. Often, officers were simply “kicked upstairs,” as in the cases of William Westmoreland in Vietnam and George Casey in Iraq. An Army officer during the early stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom noted, “A private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war.”

It’s also crucial to remember that while the president needs Senate consent to appoint officers, he has the power to fire them without congressional approval. Presidents have exercised this authority since the early days of the republic. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, appointed officers based on ideological alignment, aiming to replace Federalist-dominated Army leadership with Republicans. Establishing West Point was one way to accomplish this goal.

Clearing the ‘dead wood’

Commissions like the one Trump’s team is considering are not new in American military history. During the Civil War, Congress formed the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, which examined operational and tactical issues along with the performance of officers in the field. Before World War II, Marshall created a board led by retired officers to review officer records and “remove from line promotion any officer for reasons deemed good and sufficient.” The goal was to clear out “dead wood” to make room for younger, more capable officers.

The U.S. military is in trouble. Although still held in relatively high regard by the American public, its esteem has declined in recent years. Military failure likely contributes to this decline, but a more significant factor is what the late political scientist Samuel Huntington called “transmutation.” This term refers to the slow but steady erosion of the military ethos, replaced by priorities such as “diversity,” which now often supersede military effectiveness as a policy goal.

Efforts by the military to address an alleged lack of diversity can sometimes worsen the situation. By promoting “identity politics,” which implies that justice depends on attributes like skin color rather than individual identity, these efforts risk dividing people instead of unifying them.

In my view, the greatest challenge facing the U.S. military today is the weakening of the military ethos, which underpins its effectiveness. If Trump’s proposed board can address this challenge, I fully support it. In fact, I would endorse Voltaire’s satiric quip about the execution of Admiral Byng for his lack of aggressiveness at the Battle of Minorca: “In [England] it is well to shoot an admiral now and then pour encourager les autres.” And I am confident that the vast majority of active duty and retired service members would agree with me.

​Woke military, Pentagon, Woke military culture, Donald trump, 2024 presidential election, Thomas jefferson, West point, Military readiness, Pete hegseth, Opinion & analysis 

Americans were never really convinced that Jill Biden and Kamala Harris had a loving friendship, but now there may be proof.

When Kamala Harris called Joe Biden a “racist” in past debates, Jill reportedly took it to heart.

“According to reports, that’s a fact. She never got over that,” Pat Gray of “Pat Gray Unleashed” explains, and Keith Malinak believes recent video footage of Jill and Kamala cements the claim.

The video takes place as Kamala and Douglas Emhoff approached their seats reserved at the Arlington Cemetery for a prestigious Veterans Day event. Jill is sitting down while Kamala shakes hands with everyone around her.

“Jill doesn’t even turn toward her,” Malinak says. “I think this is important. Jill is making it clear to Kamala that ‘I see that you’re there.’ In other words, Jill’s not acting like she’s distracted by something off to her left, she’s making sure that ‘you see that I see that you’re there.’”

“And the look on Kamala’s face is just like, ‘Yep,’” he continues, noting that Kamala then sits down next to Jill with a pained expression, and still, neither of them turn to say hello or acknowledge each other.

“How much are you looking forward to them being out of our lives?” Pat asks.

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.

​Sharing, Free, Video phone, Upload, Camera phone, Video, Youtube.com, Pat gray unleashed, Pat gray, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcast network, Blaze podcasts, Blaze media, Kamala harris, Jill biden, Biden harris feud, Biden harris administration, Donald trump, Election 2024, Presidential election 

A Florida mother set up her own sting operation at a Popeyes fast food restaurant to confront a man who was allegedly sexting her 13-year-old daughter. The face-off ended with the suspect being shot multiple times.

Jacksonville Sheriff’s Chief of Investigations Alan Parker said during a press conference Monday that 18-year-old Cerry Rodriques Banks “was having an inappropriate text relationship with a 13-year-old female.”

‘As the officer reaches the corner of the business, he observes the suspect pull the pistol from his waistband.’

The girl’s mother allegedly became aware of the illicit communications. She then took her daughter’s phone and texted with the suspect, pretending to be her underage daughter.

The mother then set up a meeting with the 18-year-old man around 7 a.m. Sunday at a Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen restaurant in Jacksonville.

Banks arrived at the fast food restaurant, believing he was meeting with the girl — but instead, he was met by the mother as well as her daughter and 11-year-old son.

The suspect brandished a gun and reportedly told the mother, “When you hear the shots tonight, you know what’s up.”

The unnamed mother rushed her children into the Popeyes, and the suspect allegedly walked to the rear of the fast food restaurant — and the mom contacted authorities.

Police said the suspect had ample time to vacate the area, but he stayed outside of the restaurant.

Police officers confronted Banks and gave the suspect “multiple verbal commands” to “turn around and show his hands.”

The suspect disregarded the commands, however, and fled.

Parker of the sheriff’s office stated, “As the officer reaches the corner of the business, he observes the suspect pull the pistol from his waistband.”

The officer reportedly instructed Banks to drop his weapon, which the suspect refused to do.

With that, the officer — a 7-year veteran — shot the suspect multiple times.

“The suspect continues to flee and, near a neighboring business, drops the gun,” Parker said.

Banks was able to get away from the pursuing officer, but other officers set up a perimeter.

With assistance from a K-9 unit, the suspect was apprehended in a drainage tunnel without further incident.

Parker said the suspect was shot in his hand, torso, and possibly “in the leg.” He received medical assistance at the scene before being transported to a local hospital to treat his wounds.

Police said they recovered the gun, and the weapon did not appear to have been discharged during the incident.

According to jail records from the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office, Banks was charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill, two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct by an offender 18 or older with the victim less than 16, unlawful use of a two-way communication device, and travel to meet after using a computer to seduce/solicit/lure a child.

Bond was set at $700,018.

Jacksonville Sheriff T.K. Waters said he understood the mother’s concern but that parents should allow law enforcement to handle situations such as this.

“We’d absolutely love to handle every situation, but this is a mother who’s concerned about her daughter. So, I get it, I understand,” Waters said during the press conference. “But, I would say that in most cases, in situations like that, call us and let us come out and deal with the situation, so it doesn’t unfold like this.”

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

​Sting operation, Florida, Florida crime, Florida woman, Child sex crimes, Crime, Mother and daughter, Arrest, Police involved shooting, Jacksonville, Sexting accusation 

During a speech reaffirming his commitment to keep Chicago a sanctuary city, Mayor Brandon Johnson labeled President-elect Donald Trump a “threat” to “black families.”

Since August 2022, Chicago has spent roughly $150 million to provide housing and food to 43,000 migrant arrivals.

‘His threat is not just toward new arrivals and undocumented families.’

On Tuesday, in his first statement addressing Trump’s victory, Johnson vowed to protect illegal aliens from the incoming administration’s mass deportation plans.

“We will not bend or break,” Johnson declared. “Our values will remain strong and firm. We will face likely hurdles in our work over the next four years, but we will not be stopped and we will not go back.”

Johnson made a perplexing claim that Trump’s commitment to deport illegal immigrants is somehow a threat to black families in America.

“The president-elect, former President Trump, his threat is not just toward new arrivals and undocumented families. His threats are also against black families,” he stated. “We’re going to stand up and protect undocumented individuals.”

Johnson has referred to Trump as a “tyrant” and claimed that his plan to deport large numbers of illegal aliens is “unconscionable and dangerous.”

The mayor made the commitment to keep Chicago a sanctuary despite a significant rise in criminal activities associated with the transnational crime group Tren de Aragua.

According to locals, the South Side of Chicago has become overrun with Venezuelan migrants, including TDA members.

Tyrone Muhammad, founder and CEO of Ex-Cons for Community and Social Change, warned in September that the city might soon “go up in flames,” raising concerns about TDA members who have been challenging notorious local gangs.

Records obtained by the New York Post revealed that at least 30 of the gang’s members have been arrested by the Chicago Police Department from January 2023 through September 2024.

Despite this, Johnson stated that the CPD would be prohibited from cooperating with federal immigration officials.

Trump tapped former ICE director Tom Homan as his administration’s “border czar.”

Homan had a harsh warning for sanctuary jurisdictions that aim to protect illegal aliens from federal law enforcement officials.

“Sanctuary cities are sanctuaries for criminals,” Homan declared.

“If you are not going to help us, get the hell out of the way because we’re gonna do it,” Homan said on Monday. “So if we can’t get assistance in New York City, we may have to double the number of agents we send in New York City.”

Homan pledged to “flood agents to sanctuary cities” to rid the country of criminal illegal aliens.

Muhammad told Fox News Digital, “We’re going to be on the ground with him [Homan] to remove these illegals and these migrants and identifying where they are because they have greatly diminished our way of life here in Chicago.”

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

​News, Brandon johnson, Chicago, Illinois, Donald trump, Trump, Tom homan, Illegal immigration, Immigration, Open borders, Tren de aragua, Tda, Politics 

Authorities were baffled by a series of supposed “bear attacks” on luxury cars in California earlier this year.

There were deep claw marks on the interiors of the vehicles and even video evidence of the alleged beast doing damage. However, investigators soon realized that the “bear attacks” were not what they seemed.

The three insurance companies claimed they were defrauded of $141,839 because of the alleged insurance-fraud scheme.

An insurance claim was made regarding an alleged “bear attack” on a 2010 Rolls Royce Ghost on Jan. 28 in Lake Arrowhead — an unincorporated community in the San Bernardino mountains. The reported animal was said to have caused interior damage to the vehicle.

The California Department of Insurance said in a statement that there were two other insurance claims on the same date of loss and in the same location. The “bear” was said to have attacked a 2015 Mercedes G63 AMG and a 2022 Mercedes E350.

This raised eyebrows with insurance officials.

The people who made the claims included surveillance video of the alleged “bear” attacks.

Investigators reviewed the videos and noticed the bear looked rather peculiar.

The California Department of Insurance asked a biologist from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to review the three alleged “bear attack” videos — and the biologist quickly got to the bottom of it.

“Upon further scrutiny of the video, the investigation determined the bear was actually a person in a bear costume,” the California Department of Insurance wrote.

Law enforcement executed a search warrant, and detectives found the bear costume in one of the suspect’s homes. The bear costume included metal claws that reportedly were used to damage the luxury cars.

The California Department of Insurance, the Glendale Police Department, and the California Highway Patrol ascertained that four suspects were involved in the alleged insurance fraud scam.

Police arrested Ruben Tamrazian — a 26-year-old from Glendale; Ararat Chirkinian — a 39-year-old from Glendale; Vahe Muradkhanyan — a 32-year-old from Glendale; and Alfiya Zuckerman — a 39-year-old from Valley Village. All four suspects have been charged with insurance fraud and conspiracy.

The three insurance companies claimed they were defrauded of $141,839 over the alleged scheme.

The San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office is prosecuting the case.

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

​Alleged bear attacks, Arrests, California, Damaged luxury vehicles, Insurance fraud, Scam, Crime 

After former President Donald Trump declared victory last week, the value of Bitcoin, gold, and various stocks skyrocketed. Financial expert and author of “MoneyGPT” James Rickards knows why.

“The immediate reaction to the Trump election was stocks took off, and with good reason. His economic policies, less regulation, drill baby drill, basically getting rid of wasteful investment in what I call the ‘Green New Scam,’” Rickards tells Jill Savage and Stu Burguiere on “Blaze News Tonight.”

“So he has a lot of things that are going to be very good for stocks. However, there’s something bigger than Trump. There’s something bigger than the electoral process, which is the economy itself,” he continues, noting that in the next six to nine months, we may be going through a recession.

“There are a lot of signs of recession out there, so we may get off to a rough start, but the same thing happened to Ronald Reagan in 1982. He had one of the worst recessions in U.S. history but finished with very strong growth toward the end of his first term and into a second term,” he explains.

While Rickards believes that Trump’s presidency will overall be a good thing for the economy, he isn’t so sure about Bitcoin as a form of currency in general.

“I’ve studied Bitcoin for a long time,” Rickards says. “If you want to buy Bitcoin, knock yourself out. But I don’t really think of it as a form of money.”

“It’s really just a form of gambling. I don’t really think of it as an investment. There’s no use case for Bitcoin. Now, can you make money? Absolutely, a lot of people have. So my attitude is I’m not a Bitcoin-basher,” he adds.

As for gold, Rickards explains that the value of it isn’t actually getting higher.

“It’s not that gold’s getting higher, it’s that the dollar is collapsing in front of your eyes,” Rickards says. “What’s really happening is you’re watching your dollar evaporate. You’re watching the dollar crash.”

“The main reason is people are looking for alternatives to the dollar. I’m not saying the dollar is going away. You can’t totally get out of the dollar. It’s too big for that,” he adds.

Want more from ‘Blaze News Tonight’?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Camera phone, Sharing, Free, Upload, Video phone, Video, Youtube.com, Blaze news tonight, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze originals, Jill savage, Matthew peterson, Stu burguiere, James rickards, Financial expert, Bitcoin, Gold, Federal reserve, Reserve currency, Recession, Trump victory, Stock market, Stock market news 

Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy praised all but one of President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet selections.

On Wednesday, Trump appointed Republican former Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida to be the incoming administration’s attorney general. In response, longtime rival and ousted Speaker McCarthy brushed off the nomination, insisting that it’s a political long shot.

Gaetz and McCarthy have had a long standing feud that predates the nomination.

“I think the choices are very good except one,” McCarthy said in an interview Wednesday. “Look, Gaetz won’t get confirmed. Everybody knows that.”

“You can ask the president, but Gaetz couldn’t win in a Republican conference,” McCarthy continued. “So, it doesn’t matter.”

Gaetz is a longtime Trump loyalist who is extremely popular among the MAGA base. That being said, Gaetz’s popularity may not translate in Washington, D.C., ahead of his Senate confirmation.

Although Republicans will have a 53-seat majority in January, confirming Gaetz will be challenging. Several senators have already expressed hesitation about Trump’s cabinet picks, and some are skeptical Gaetz will have enough votes to be confirmed.

If the confirmation takes place after Trump is in office, in which Vice President-elect JD Vance would be able to vote in the confirmation process, Gaetz can afford to lose only three votes.

Gaetz’s office did not respond to Blaze News’ request for comment.

Gaetz and McCarthy have had a long standing feud that predates the nomination. This feud came to a head in October 2023 when Gaetz filed a motion to vacate the speakership, making McCarthy the first ever speaker to be ousted. Gaetz was joined by Republicans Andy Biggs of Arizona, Ken Buck of Colorado, Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Eli Crane of Arizona, Bob Good of Virginia, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, and Matt Rosendale of Montana.

After being removed from the speakership, McCarthy resigned from his post.

McCarthy and his allies went on to lead an unsuccessful, multimillion-dollar revenge campaign contributing to primary challengers running against the ousters, including Gaetz. Notably, Gaetz overwhelmingly won the Republican primary against Aaron Dimmock with 72.6% while the McCarthy-backed challenger brought in only 27.4%.

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

​Kevin mccarthy, Matt gaetz, Donald trump, Jd vance, Republican leadership, House republicans, Senate republicans, Trump administration, Trump cabinet, Attorney general, Politics 

In Donald Trump’s bombshell interview on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” the president-elect floated the idea of abolishing the income tax as well as raising tariffs.

While Glenn Beck has historically been against heavy tariffs, Trump may have won “The Glenn Beck Program” host over with his explanation.

“I’ve always been against tariffs; however, I might be wrong,” Glenn says. “Donald Trump is making a good case when he’s talking about getting rid of the income tax because tariffs will raise the prices of things, especially if he does it the way he’s talking about doing it.”

However, if Trump lowers the income tax simultaneously, the economy would boom.

“We could make up that deficit and become a very powerful nation again. Tell me I’m wrong,” Glenn challenges economic expert and Heritage Foundation visiting fellow Peter St Onge.

“That’s absolutely correct,” St Onge replies. “The vast majority of economists go after tariffs, they attack Trump over tariffs, and I think they are looking at the trees for the forest here.”

“If you replace a tariff, which is basically a sales tax, but it’s one that focuses on imported goods, if you replace that with either reducing or, in our dream scenario, abolishing the entire income tax, it is absolutely rocket fuel for the economy,” he explains, noting that Trump’s plan is reminiscent of the 1800s.

“That was before we had an income tax, was also before we had a Fed, and back then, the federal government had to live off tariffs,” St Onge says. “That was the greatest period not only of economic growth but of cultural achievement.”

“It was really the golden age of humanity, and the key there was that we did not have an income tax, we did not have a regulatory state, we did not have a Fed. So if Trump can take us back there, and all we have to do is like an 8% sales tax on Chinese stocks, that is the deal of the century,” he adds.

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.

​Video, Free, Camera phone, Upload, Video phone, Sharing, Youtube.com, The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze originals, Donald trump, President elect donald trump, Donald trump victory, Election 2024, Tariffs, Income tax, Economy, Economic news 

Blaze News this week has reported on several high school teachers landing in hot water due to their outbursts following Donald Trump’s lopsided presidential election win over Kamala Harris.

Two of the teachers are from Southern California schools — and both were placed on administrative leave over their actions the day after the election. One is an English teacher from Chino High School who freaked out in class over a student wearing a Trump hat; the other is an Advanced Placement world history teacher from Valley View High School in Moreno Valley who went on a profane rant in class against Trump.

‘If the [teacher] is exercising a First Amendment right, they risk losing their job. It’s pretty straightforward.’

Now it looks like there may be a third Southern California high school teacher making the list.

Citing a parent, KABC-TV reported that a teacher departed from class at Cerritos High School last week because a student was wearing “Make America Great Again” attire.

“It was just a student wearing a shirt, probably for some jokes,” fellow student Sakura Padilla told the station.

But KABC said the teacher apparently wasn’t in a laughing mood and allegedly posted a long note to her students saying it’s unfair that they can wear political clothing while teachers cannot.

The school district noted that it’s investigating the teacher’s actions, but according to the station, it isn’t clear whether the teacher has returned.

The district added to KABC that students can exercise free speech within the parameters of school board and state Education Code policies.

“It’s different with teachers because the teachers are the ones who are there to do a job,” attorney Michael Overing — who teaches First Amendment rights at the University of Southern California — told the station.

Courts have ruled that students have more free speech leeway because they’re required to attend school — but Overing noted to WABC that teachers choose to work at schools and are subject to district rules.

“If the [teacher] is exercising a First Amendment right, they risk losing their job,” Overing added to the station. “It’s pretty straightforward.”

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

​Education, Southern california, Anti-trump teacher, Anti-trump, Maga, Make america great again, Maga clothing, Leaves classroom, 1st amendment, Politics 

The Onion, the satirical publication, won an auction to acquire the assets of Alex Jones’ Infowars empire. The CEO of the Onion has vowed to transform Infowars into a “cosmic joke” for the families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting.

Jones announced the transaction on Thursday morning in a video posted to the X social media platform.

‘The dissolution of Alex Jones’ assets and the death of Infowars is the justice we have long awaited and fought for.’

Jones stated that his website had been “shut down” this morning “even without a court order.”

The Infowars site is a black page that only reads: “Site unavailable till further notice.”

Jones said he was told that the winning bid was “competitive” but not necessarily the highest bid. Financial details of the winning bid to acquire Free Speech Systems — the parent company of Infowars — were not disclosed.

Jones noted, “The Connecticut Democrats with the Onion newspaper bought us.”

The Onion acquired Infowars’ website, social media accounts, trademarks, video archive, and studio in Austin, Texas.

“I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I’m going to be here until they turn the lights off,” Jones declared.

Jones added, “They want to silence the American people, but we’re not going to be silenced.”

Infowars was put up for auction after the court-appointed trustee in charge of Jones’ bankruptcy proceedings advocated to shut down the site and liquidate his assets.

Jones filed for bankruptcy in late 2022 after juries ordered him to pay nearly $1.5 billion to families of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting — in which 20 first-grade students and six adults were killed.

Jones previously said the mass shooting massacre was a hoax.

Lawsuits filed by the families in Connecticut and Texas claimed that Jones defamed them on his show and inflicted emotional distress by repeatedly suggesting the shooting was a hoax.

Several of the Sandy Hook families supported the sale of Infowars.

“Our clients knew that true accountability meant an end to Infowars and an end to Jones’ ability to spread lies, pain, and fear at scale,” said Chris Mattei, attorney for the Connecticut families. “By divesting Jones of Infowars’ assets, the families and the team at the Onion have done a public service and will meaningfully hinder Jones’ ability to do more harm.”

Everytown for Gun Safety — an organization that advocates for gun control — said it will be the exclusive advertiser in the Onion’s new venture as part of a multiyear agreement.

“It’s fitting that a platform once used to profit off of tragedy will be a tool of education, hence our multiyear advertising commitment to this new venture,” stated John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “We’re proud to be a part of what comes next, not only in terms of staunching the flow of hurtful misinformation, but also for the potential this new venture has to help Everytown reach new audiences ready to hold the gun industry accountable for contributing to our nation’s gun violence epidemic.”

Robbie Parker, whose daughter was killed in the school shooting, said in a statement, “The dissolution of Alex Jones’ assets and the death of Infowars is the justice we have long awaited and fought for.”

The Onion CEO Ben Collins said, “The Onion has a long history of helping the American public navigate some of the most difficult moments in American life, from our historic issue after 9/11 to our groundbreaking reportage after every American mass shooting. In that tradition, we hope the Sandy Hook families will be able to marvel at the cosmic joke we will soon make of Infowars.com.”

In a satirical article, the Onion noted that Infowars was founded in 1999 “on the heels of the Satanic ‘panic’ and growing steadily ever since.”

“Infowars has distinguished itself as an invaluable tool for brainwashing and controlling the masses,” the Onion added. “With a shrewd mix of delusional paranoia and dubious anti-aging nutrition hacks, they strive to make life both scarier and longer for everyone, a commendable goal.”

The publication said it plans to launch the new platform in January 2025.

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

​Alex jones, Sandy hook, The onion, Info wars, Infowars, Politics, Media 

One of biggest blunders of Kamala Harris’ failed presidential campaign was the decision to skip an interview with Joe Rogan.

Rogan, host of the No. 1 podcast in the world, said that Harris’ campaign reached out to him after learning that Donald Trump was scheduled to appear on the show. But according to Rogan, the Harris campaign tried to set the parameters for the interview, including not filming in Rogan’s Austin-based podcast studio and limiting the interview to just one hour.

‘There was a backlash with some of our progressive staff that didn’t want her to be on it.’

Rogan rejected those demands, urging Harris to play by the same rules as every other guest of “The Joe Rogan Experience” — including Trump, Vice President-elect JD Vance, and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.), all of whom spoke with Rogan in the closing days of the election.

The decision to skip Rogan’s podcast was mind-boggling.

Rogan has one of the largest, most engaged audiences in all of media. Plus, the podcast would have allowed Harris to reach more men while giving her the opportunity to demonstrate a semblance of authenticity.

More than a week after Harris’ election loss, we now know why Harris ultimately refused to appear on Rogan’s podcast.

Jennifer Palmieri — a career Democratic strategist who served in the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and, most recently, in Harris’ campaign as a senior adviser to Doug Emhoff — admitted on Wednesday that Harris did not go on Rogan’s podcast because the campaign feared how the interview would be perceived within the Democratic Party.

“There was a backlash with some of our progressive staff that didn’t want her to be on it, and how there would be a backlash,” Palmieri said, according to the Financial Times.

The justification for wasting the golden opportunity to use Rogan’s platform over fears that it would anger progressives is equally as mind-boggling as the decision itself.

Pollster Nate Silver said it shows that “Democrats definitely deserved to lose” the election. Liberal commentator Cenk Uygur, meanwhile, observed that skipping the podcast over fear of progressive backlash perfectly encapsulates the campaign’s disconnect with reality. Indeed, the Democratic Party’s embrace of far-left ideals is one of the reasons Harris lost the election.

Later on Wednesday, Palmieri attempted to clarify her comments.

Palmieri said Harris didn’t go on Rogan’s podcast because of scheduling conflicts, claiming it is “hard to get to [Texas] twice in a 107 day campaign.”

That excuse only raises more problems.

First, Trump and Vance traveled to Texas multiple times during the final months of the election — and Harris could have, too.

Second, the excuse lays bare the Harris campaign’s priorities. It managed to spend millions of dollars in paid media appearing with other celebrities but made the intentional decision not to speak with Rogan and rake in millions of dollars in earned media.

Third, if time was a problem for the Harris campaign, how did Harris find the time to take entire days away from the campaign trail to prepare for interviews with friendly media networks?

Rogan, meanwhile, revealed on a new podcast episode this week that Harris campaign officials wanted to prevent him from asking Harris about certain topics, like marijuana legalization.

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

​Joe rogan, Kamala harris, Election 2024, Jennifer palmieri, Politics