Category: blaze media

President Donald Trump declared on March 17 that “the ‘Pardons’ that Sleepy Joe Biden gave to the Unselect Committee of Political Thugs, and many others, are hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because of the fact that they were done by Autopen.”

“In other words, Joe Biden did not sign them but, more importantly, he did not know anything about them!” the president continued. “The necessary Pardoning Documents were not explained to, or approved by, Biden. He knew nothing about them, and the people that did may have committed a crime.”

Liberal fact-checkers rushed to suggest the president was wrong about the Biden pardons — however, a great deal of evidence has come out vindicating Trump’s understanding that the pardons were likely unlawful.

‘I made the decisions during my presidency.’

Two weeks after the Oversight Project obtained internal emails from the Justice Department indicating that there was a high-level understanding in the Biden administration that many of the commutations autopenned in the former president’s name were legally flawed, Just the News received internal Biden White House memos that could similarly spell trouble for recipients.

Mike Howell — president of the Oversight Project, which first exposed the Biden White House’s prolific use of the autopen earlier this year — told Blaze News, “We’ve been right all along, and it’s nice to be right again. It’s past time to start actually charging these people.”

The memos, gathered as part of a Trump White House Counsel probe into Biden’s use of autopen signatures for official business, shed additional light on the Biden White House’s shifting approach to pardons and the former president’s involvement in the process.

RELATED: ‘WTF are you guys doing?’ DOJ exposes ‘black and white evidence’ that Biden admin knew autopenned pardons were legally flawed

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

A February 2021 draft memo from then-White House staff secretary Jessica Hertz — a final version of which was reportedly not referenced in the National Archives — detailed guidelines for Biden’s autopen use “based on precedent from the Obama-Biden administration.”

The memo, which was sent early in the Democratic administration to Biden insiders, including then-chief of staff Ron Klain, noted that congressional bills, veto messages, and pardon letters were among the documents the president should personally approve and hand-sign.

It is clear from the liberal use of autopen signatures on pardons and other consequential presidential actions by the Biden White House that this guidance did not stick.

While Biden told news outlets in June, “I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations,” a draft memo circulated by Biden’s White House Counsel in February 2024 suggested otherwise.

The 2024 draft memo detailed the “general pattern” followed by members of the White House Counsel’s Office clemency team when securing approval for clemency, revealing that Biden “previously asked the White House Counsel to discuss the [clemency] candidates with him, although in the last round the vice president’s approval was sufficient to obtain his approval.”

RELATED: Biden freed killers with a pen he didn’t even hold

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The Trump White House reportedly concluded that this particular memo indicates that Biden was “outsourcing” clemency decisions to Kamala Harris in 2024.

The Trump WHCO’s probe also found very little evidence to suggest Biden actually attended four critical clemency meetings in December 2024 and January 2025 and “turned up no record of the president’s briefing books addressing pardons, commutations, or clemency at that time,” Just the News reported.

The National Archives apparently has no contemporaneous staff notes confirming Biden was present at the Dec. 5, Dec. 11, Jan. 11, and Jan. 19 meetings where he was later said to have supposedly given “verbal approval” for commutations for federal death row inmates, members of the Biden family, and other unsavory characters.

The Trump White House also found a troubling indication in its review that Biden may have not been sufficiently involved in the controversial commutation of sentences for 37 federal inmates sitting on death row.

In a Dec. 10, 2024, draft memo, then-White House counsel Edward Siskel recommended that Biden grant clemency for the felons; however, the National Archives reportedly proved unable to find a final version of the memo bearing proof of Biden’s approval for the commutations that were ultimately granted in his name.

Just the News indicated that the office of Joe and Jill Biden did not respond to a request for comment.

“In June 2022, the Biden White House began deploying the autopen to sign clemency warrants and executive orders in July of 2022. Autopen use skyrocketed from there,” former Idaho Solicitor General Theodore Wold, a board member of the Oversight Project, told the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary in June. “We found that of the 51 clemency warrants issued during the Biden presidency, over half — 32 in total — were signed with an autopen.”

Wold later emphasized that the “president actually has to make the decision — that cannot be delegated to a staffer or an adviser,” but there was no indication “that anyone other than staff were making these decisions.”

— (@)

Editor’s note: Mike Howell is a contributor to Blaze News.

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

​Autopen, Pardon, Clemency, Commutations, Joe biden, Biden, Ron klain, White house, Investigation, Decrepitude, Politics 

“Third Way is circulating a memo,” Politico’s Adam Wren posted on X, “… featuring a new black list of words Dems shouldn’t use.”

So what’s new? We’ve dealt with years of woke policing of language. It got so ridiculous that for my sketch comedy series, “Comedy Is Murder,” my co-conspirators at Free the People and I imagined what George Carlin would have to say about the state of language and communication today.

Will they get back any of that checked privilege — with interest? Or will the Democrats still ask for them to check it — but, like, find a different way to phrase it?

Remember back in 1972, Carlin only had “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” But 50 years later, the list had metastasized to “7,000 Words You Can Never Say on Television … or Anywhere.” (Actually, “metastasized” is on the no-no list — since it’s clearly size-ist.)

But as it turns out, the self-described center-left think tank’s advice to blacklist some 45 words and phrases isn’t your typical virtue-signaling censorship move. It’s actually a call for Democrats to defund the speech police and talk like normal people.

That’s right: Democrats are attempting to normalize normal.

Nothing to see here

The Bulwark’s Sarah Longwell is a fan of going this direction. Along with a screenshot of some of the blacklisted terms, she posted the following on X:

Don’t say “birthing person.”
Don’t say “incarcerated person.”
Don’t say “the unhoused.”
Don’t say “chest feeding.”
Don’t say “centering.
Don’t say “Latinx.”
When voters hear this, they think Democrats are out of touch crazy people. Just talk normal. Be normal.

I understand what’s going on here: The goal is to connect with voters and win elections. And I’m not one to take advice from when it comes to elections. The only election I ever won was back in high school, when I became student body president. (Looking back on my tenure, I’m surprised I wasn’t impeached or overthrown in a coup d’état.)

But I believe it’s important to use language that represents your actual beliefs. If you sincerely believe in “birthing persons” and “chest feeders,” then you owe it to voters and yourself — or yourselx — to use that language. You can “talk normal” all you want, but it doesn’t mean you actually “believe normal.”

Crazy talk

Good on Longwell and others for bringing back the use of “crazy” without apology. But the fact is that you can sound normal and still be an out-of-touch crazy person. Which, I guess, can be a winning strategy for the Democrats.

As Third Way puts it:

We are not out to police language, ban phrases, or create our own form of censorship. Truth be told, we have published papers that have used some of these words as well. But when policymakers are public-facing, the language we use must invite, not repel; start a conversation, not end it; provide clarity, not confusion.

One might call this “lying.” So in order to win, Democrats must lie — which is going to make for some awkward conversations.

According to the Playbook Podcast, “Third Way argues that to ‘please the few, we have alienated the many — especially on culture issues, where our language sounds superior, haughty, and arrogant.'”

Chuck your privilege

Just think of all the college graduates who took out student loans they have no hope of ever repaying just to learn to speak this AWFL (affluent white female liberal) language.

You want Democrats to stop using the word “privilege” and the term “systems of oppression” — but what about all the woke white allies who have spent the last decade checking their privilege because of their place at the top of these systems of oppression?

Will they get back any of that checked privilege — with interest? Or will the Democrats still ask for them to check it — but, like, find a different way to phrase it? In lieu of words, perhaps an aggressive eyeroll. Or pull a Prince circa 1993 and go with an unpronounceable symbol. Since they’re blacklisting the term “cultural appropriation” now, I’m guessing that’s kosher.

Third Way wants Democrats to stop using the word “microaggression,” but what else would you call the act of asking someone, “Where are you from?”

No more “body-shaming”? Ozempic will make that easier.

But how about “Latinx?” Just because you stop using “Latinx,” it doesn’t mean you stop believing the Latinx are out there. (Even though you are more likely to encounter a chupacabra than a Latinx.)

I’d be happy if Democrats ditched words like “cisgender,” “deadnaming,” “heteronormative,” and “patriarchy” if they no longer believed in the queer philosophical foundations on which these terms were built. (Since “Bonus Hole” didn’t make the black list, I assume it’s still good to use.)

RELATED: Her son wears dresses, her daughter’s a ‘boy,’ and it’s all for status

Cunaplus M.faba/Getty Images

‘White’ out

If Democrats are taking requests, I’d like to see them do away with “racism” — as defined by “prejudice plus power.” I’d also like to see “whiteness” gone — not in a “white genocide” manner. But in that “let’s stop blaming everything that happens in the universe on whiteness” kind of way. Unlike gravity, whiteness is not one of the fundamental forces of nature — even though woke pols treat it so.

In “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell wrote:

Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

If Orwell were trying to appeal to voters, he would be advised to blacklist a number of those words he used above. Honesty could cost him the election, but it’s that kind of allyship I can get behind — even though allyship is a word Third Way recommends you leave behind.

​Democrats, Trans, Democratic party, George carlin, Censorship, Blacklist, Birthing people, Bad words 

Paul Gottfried is an American philosopher and historian who has largely been disappointed by the conservatives of the past for their refusal to enforce their supposed values, whose moderate stances have led to the LGBTQ cult takeover as well as the rise of far-left figures like Zohran Mamdani and Jasmine Crockett.

“Watching Fox News, I’ve been struck by the fact that they simply went along with gay marriage. … Last year I saw Caitlyn Jenner on Fox News … presented as some kind of conservative transgender,” Gottfried tells BlazeTV hosts Jill Savage and Matthew Peterson on “Blaze News: The Mandate.”

“There seems to be a reluctance to offend groups that are seen as very powerful and may interfere with the careers of some of these establishment conservative celebrities, but this does not seem to be the case with the populist right,” he continues.

“They’re very frontal in their attack on the social cultural revolution that the country has gone through in the last 20, 30 years, and you know, they don’t hold back, which I think is much to their credit,” he adds.

This is what Gottfried calls a “spontaneous counterrevolution.”

“I cannot get over this transformation, but it has really risen from the people in a way that the neo-conservative takeover certainly did not,” he explains.

And Gottfried believes the youth who are taking on the left in a harsher way than their elders did are right to do so for the sake of the future of our country.

“I think the woke thing is more dangerous in America than communism ever was,” he tells Peterson and Savage, noting that what makes it so dangerous is what drives it.

“What drives this woke left is not utopianism or some vision of this. It is absolute hatred. It is hatred of normal people, as far as I can determine,” he explains.

“It’s pure malice that drives many of these people, where the feminists hate the men. You know, ‘I’m the victim of the patriarchy,’” he mocks. “And you look at these women, they’re living very well. How are they victims of the patriarchy?”

Want more from ‘Blaze News: The Mandate’?

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.

​Video phone, Upload, Free, Camera phone, Sharing, Video, Youtube.com, Blaze news the mandate, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Neocons, Blazetv, Woke left, Woke right, Neoconservatives, President donald trump, Populism, Populist youth, Paul gottfried, Fox news, Transgenderism, Gay marriage, Blaze news i the mandate, Blaze news: the mandate 

Democrat Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas provided a shocking defense of crime, arguing that poverty simply makes people more susceptible to “engage in certain things.”

Crockett defended criminals in an interview with the “Grounded” podcast on Wednesday, claiming that the only reason people commit crimes is “because they literally are trying to survive.” Crockett also argued that there is “no good point” in prosecuting certain kinds of crime because she views them as acts of desperation.

‘Not because people are criminals, but because they literally are trying to survive.’

“Just because you are impoverished does not mean that you will be a criminal,” Crockett noted.

“But I do want to be clear that there is a direct link between poverty and susceptibility to having to engage in certain things,” Crockett added. “And this is something that I know up close and personal as a public defender.”

RELATED: Tim Kaine shockingly compares the Declaration of Independence to Iran’s theocratic regime: ‘Extremely troubling’

Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images

Crockett also referred to John Creuzot, the Dallas County district attorney, who has made similar justifications for crime in the past. She conceded that Creuzot probably should not have said the quiet part out loud, but ultimately sided with his soft-on-crime policies.

“In fact, my elected prosecutor in Dallas County, he kind of caused some flak because — he probably shouldn’t have said it out loud, but — he specifically said, ‘If I’m getting people that are getting charged with a low-level misdemeanor for going and stealing food, diapers, like, basic necessities … I’m not locking you up.'”

Crockett agreed with Creuzot’s track record, saying that “there is no good point” in prosecuting crimes she thinks are committed out of necessity or desperation.

RELATED: Tone-deaf Democrats lash out over prayers for Christians murdered in devastating Minnesota shooting

Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Court Accountability

“Granted, there is no good point in doing it because a decent defense attorney would have a defense.”

“I want people to understand that there are crimes that are committed, not because people are criminals, but because they literally are trying to survive.”

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

​Jasmine crockett, Texas, Soft on crime, House democrats, Democrat, John creuzot, Donald trump, Crime crackdown, Blue city crime, Blue state crime, Politics 

With sensitive subjects, I believe it’s best to be direct, so let’s rip the Band-Aid off: This article is about female narcissism.

It’s not about men’s faults; those are catalogued and exaggerated around the clock, every day of the year. This piece is about a truth that many people know, and have noticed, but that almost no one will dare say.

I spent decades being the ‘gay best friend’ in platonic female friendships. Men like me know things about women that many other men don’t.

Since the rise of feminism in the 1960s, American women have entered the workforce in unprecedented numbers, overtaken men in college matriculation (58%), and become the vast numerical majority in every industry related to childcare and instruction.

But a strange and contradictory thing has happened along the way. The more “equality” American women have gained, the more solipsistic, entitled, self-focused, and immature they’ve become.

Exiles in gyno-ville

We are told that women have it worse than ever and that the average man is a misogynist. Not a “sexist.” Not even a “male chauvinist pig,” as the ladies in “9 to 5“ would have called such men in the days of “women’s lib.” Nay. Men are now misogynists, a word that means roiling hatred for women because they’re women.

It is a term that, until the past 15 years, was only used to describe the most depraved men, psycho-sexual serial killers such as Richard Ramirez (the “night stalker”) or Ed Gein (“the butcher of Plainfield”).

Now, it’s glibly tossed off by self-confident but dissatisfied women toward men who don’t symbolically kneel and kiss their Manolo Blahnik shoes.

Men don’t want a second date with a woman? Misogynist. Male colleagues complain about women in HR censoring their conversations and managing their tone and terminology? Misogyny. Women with part-time jobs, or women who take time off to nurture their newborns, complain hilariously about the “gender pay gap.” They claim falsely that women are paid less for the exact same work with the exact same years of service. It’s not true. Not even a little bit.

But if you point that fact out? You guessed it: misogynist.

Hag-iography

I’m in an interesting position when it comes to commenting on the never-ending war of the sexes, a war that is being waged mainly by women against men. We men didn’t ask for these hostilities.

As a 50-year-old gay man, I spent the majority of my adult life as a leftist liberal before I matured and found grown-up conservatism. This meant I spent decades being the “gay best friend” in platonic female friendships. Men like me know things about women that many other men don’t.

When I was enacting an everyday version of Jack and Karen on “Will and Grace,” I was the toast of female society. But when I began to notice the entitlement, the diva-like behavior, and the “give me stuff for free and expect nothing in return” attitude of many modern women, I was thrown to the curb.

Former friends called me — wait for it — a misogynist. And not just a misogynist but an especially virulent one. “Gay men are the most misogynistic men on the planet,” such women say in between sips of mimosas and texts to their gay BFF about what color they should ask for at the nail salon.

Some even speculated that my “anger at women” foretold a future career as a spree killer (I wish I were joking).

The fog of feminism

We’re not experiencing an epidemic of male misogyny. We’ve been living in a gynocracy for decades, and we’re saddled with a bumper crop of women who have never been told “no.” They’ve never been denied a participation trophy or a promotion to HR manager. They’ve never been told they’re not a “10.” They’re not even expected to say “thank you” when a gentleman holds a door for a lady.

Some readers think I exaggerate. They’re constructing an image of me as a “bitter” or “frustrated” man. This is where the modern female mind (and the minds of too many feckless, gelded men) go when women are held to the same standards of deportment and adult behavior that men are expected to maintain.

It’s a fish-who-doesn’t-know-what-water-is problem. Since the flower power era, feminism has been the oxygen that all Americans, liberal and conservative, breathe. We think outsized female self-regard and entitlement is normal, but it’s not. It’s recent, and it’s at the root of huge societal problems, “wokeness” being the biggest.

Dumping on men

Let me give you an example from the real world. This will indeed seem like “no big deal” to many readers, and it’s true that it’s a mild incident. But consider whether you would react that way if the sexes were reversed.

I went to the city dump to unload a car full of branches and lawn trimmings. As I hauled the leaves over to the pile, two late-middle-aged women in twin-set sweaters and pearls were doing the same about five feet from me.

One said to the other, knowing full well that I was standing there, “Where are the men? Why should we have to do this? Do they do anything?” They both gave a soft, suburban chuckle. Her friend responded, “At least when women are around we know work will get done.”

Were I to respond to those women the way they would have responded to me in the reverse, I would have shrieked, “Misandrist!” and run home to tell my wife how unsafe I felt at the town grass tip. The point is, it would not even occur to most men to be so gauche about women in mixed company. Not only are most men not inclined to give women social offense that way, they know damned well they’d be punished if they did.

RELATED: How leftists think — and how you can change their minds

NurPhoto/Getty Images

Expired tarts

This brings me to, of all people, Taylor Swift. The biggest pop star in the world became a household name by singing forgettable songs about inadequate men and the trauma of a teenager’s dating life. Thing is, she’s still singing about this stuff at age 35. And her concerts are packed not just with teen girls, but with suburban moms well into their 50s, crying the way adolescent girls did in the early ’60s when the Beatles first washed ashore.

This is not normal. This infantilized girlboss pose by mothers and career women has no historical precedent. For all the talk of shiftless, video-gaming boys and young men, we spill precious little ink on the fact that adult women think nothing of dressing like 16-year-old tarts and waxing about how they’re in their “soft girl era.”

It’s undignified and so is the direction Miss Swift is taking with the publicity for her new album. Take a look at the photo she released on social media.

It’s too generous to call that garment a teddy; it’s closer to a gownless evening strap (pacé Shirley Bassey). Her rump is exposed, and she’s bending over to stick out her backside while leaning against what looks like a truck stop bathroom wall. Even the lighting looks like grimy gay male pornography from the 1970s.

Aging like milk

What does this have to do with the state of ordinary, everyday, non-Taylor Swift women? A lot.

Miss Swift is doing on stage what millions of workaday women are doing on the street. She is refusing to age gracefully, and she’s getting raunchier as time goes on. This has been a pattern with women for the past 15 years, as mothers don’t want to be seen as mothers but as the older, more … experienced version of their nubile daughters.

This is the friction point where we can see that modern female narcissism is an expression of extreme insecurity in women. These ladies have a terribly sad belief that the only thing of value they have to offer is sex. And no, it’s not the “male gaze” or “male producers” who are at fault. Taylor Swift — and Linda Smith down the street — are doing this to themselves.

Women call it the “invisibility” problem. On leaving youth and entering middle age, they say, men stop looking at them as desirable. This is a double-edged sword for most women. Many express relief at not having their breasts and backside ogled (men are cads; women aren’t making that up), but at the same time, they complain bitterly about no longer being perceived as sex objects.

Lust for life?

They blame this on “patriarchal” male tastes, but that’s just feminist cope. If fault there be, it is the fault of nature, not social constructs. Women lose their sexual appeal after youth in a way that men, largely, do not. This is a fact. No, it’s not a fun or favorite fact. But it is a fact.

Women seem to believe they are entitled to be lusted after and desired at 45, 55, 65, the way a fresh-faced college girl turns men’s heads. It’s ridiculous. Look at Madonna (67), Cher (79), or Jennifer Lopez (56). That’s the road Taylor Swift is on, and mind-bogglingly, it’s the road way too many normal women seem determined to travel.

Kavin Mazur/Taylor Hill/Xavi Torrent/Getty Images

The problem these women are facing, I believe, stems from the fact that so many have stayed adolescent girls their whole lives instead of learning from the example of their grandmothers. There is an arc to a woman’s life. Some have called it Maiden, Mother, Crone. If you don’t like that, label it some way you find pleasing.

Grande dames wanted

There is a role for middle-aged and old women, at least there always used to be. It was upheld in almost all societies before the mid-20th century. Even the actresses of old Hollywood, beauty queens in youth like Joan Crawford, assumed this role as they aged. Our grandmothers assumed this role.

It is the role of the grande dame. It is the carriage of a mature, put-together, self-confident, and wise woman. A true matriarch. Hair goes up, and hems go down.

Youthful beauty and sex appeal are natural to the young part of a woman’s life; this tracks with evolutionarily programmed facts of reproduction. When one is past one’s reproductive prime, life offers new roles to men and women.

But not in the 2020s. But it doesn’t have to be this way for women. Dignity is available to those who will step into it.

​Culture, Feminism, Gays, Lgbt, Narcissism, Cluster b, Men and women, Dating, Intervention 

The United States Senate isn’t happy with Bobby Kennedy Jr. Senators say he’s a grievous threat to the health and safety of Americans and that everything was fine before he came to town.

These Republican and Democrat senators would rather see nothing change. They know the country gets sicker and fatter every day, but they don’t want people fired over that. That attitude almost makes sense. Responsibility and accountability are rare birds in these parts, and most of these people have been in their offices for decades while our national downward slide continues uninterrupted.

The same politicians who have held office for decades while autism rates exploded and Americans got fatter and sicker were angry.

But what scares them most about RFK Jr. isn’t what he’s doing; it’s what he’s saying. For decades, the scientific bureaucracy relied on unquestioning trust and obedience. That’s over now, and the moneyed interests that long ago captured this section of government and its congressional supervisors are terrified of this reality.

What’s more, this moment cannot be undone. Broken trust is tough to repair even between people as close as husband and wife. But government and citizens, or companies and consumers? That might as well be impossible.

This is the reality facing the American scientific establishment today, regardless of whether the politicians can bring themselves to admit it. COVID-19 shattered the public’s trust in everything from the medical establishment to the education system like Vietnam and Watergate shattered the basic assumptions decades prior — and there’s no going back.

The next administration can undo much of the excellent work this White House has accomplished on border enforcement, drug interdiction, trade policies, foreign entanglements, etc. — but Democrats cannot undo a population that is now questioning their “recommendations.” Too many of them simply don’t survive scrutiny.

When our daughter was born last year, my wife and I had a book on the research, benefits, negatives, and potential consequences behind each and every vaccine “recommendation.” Our baby needs the hepatitis B shot when she’s one day old, even though her mother, like all pregnant women in America, was tested for it and it’s a disease confined to prostitutes and intravenous drug addicts?

That’s what “the science” says, they responded, and “there’s a lot of misinformation out there.” No, thank you, Doctor, what else do you have for her?

That just was not the case when my son was born nine years ago. My wife tacitly trusted that the doctors had his best interests in mind. Why wouldn’t they? Back then, we thought most vaccine skeptics were strange celebrities and homeschool families.

We’re never going back to that passive acceptance, and every few weeks I get a message from a newly expectant father or mother asking for advice on navigating the pediatric offices, which largely insist that you follow the Centers for Disease Control “recommendations” or be ejected from their care. For them, it’s a matter of dogma.

Families around the country watched while playgrounds and beaches were closed, elderly couples died alone in separate rooms of the same hospital to “protect them from COVID,” and dads were barred from their wives’ sides during labor.

We saw that strip clubs, casinos, and mass protests were called safe places to gather, but churches were shut down.

We listened to the transgender “science.”

We heard the ever-changing mask policies, and if we didn’t personally suffer from it, we knew at least one young person whose heart was hurt by the untested COVID vaccines.

And we woke up. Kennedy is giving voice to these people. Just as he said in his opening statement to the Senate on Thursday: “We were lied to about everything.”

Senators didn’t want to hear that. The same politicians who have held office for decades while autism rates exploded and Americans got fatter and sicker were angry. Funny; the American people are angry too. Our trust is broken, and the only way back is through the truth. That will require confrontation. It’s going to make powerful people who aren’t used to being challenged very uncomfortable. There’s a lot of money in lying about this stuff.

We know we were lied to about everything. We’re wide awake now, and we’re not going back to sleep.

Blaze News: RFK Jr. laughs at Elizabeth Warren’s concern-mongering: ‘You’re just making stuff up’

Sign up for Bedford’s newsletter
Sign up to get Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford’s newsletter.

​Opinion & analysis, Politics 

My name is Erik Bork. I am not a household name.

But if you watched the Tom Hanks-Steven Spielberg HBO miniseries “Band of Brothers,” there is a good chance I have already been in your living room. I had the great pleasure of helping to write and produce that series and a few other projects with Mr. Hanks, including “From the Earth to the Moon,” about the Apollo program.

Comedy, to me, is the great disarmer. It creates breathing room. I leaned into that and set out to create a story where political opposites are not caricatures, but characters

“The Elephant in the Room” is my newest project. It’s something completely different: a romantic comedy about two strangers who meet without knowing the other’s politics. When they soon find that out, it changes everything. She voted Biden. He voted Trump. And it’s December 2020.

They must decide if their budding connection can survive this divide. And should they give it a chance? Or maybe try to impact the other’s views? That shouldn’t be hard, right?

RELATED: Can true love ‘Trump’ our political divide? Writer/director Erik Bork is optimistic.

Erik Bork

Polar exploration

The film approaches this touchy issue with levity and heart rather than arguing and bitterness. By exploring what could happen here, we might invite a deeper conversation about welcoming differences or, at the very least, opening up enough to listen to each other, rather than falling into stalemate polarization.

I was lucky enough to start my career in a kind of apprenticeship with Tom Hanks, helping him bring historical stories to life with meticulous detail. They were stories that tended to be celebrations of a great American achievement, where the stakes and risks were sky-high and success by no means guaranteed.

I see the growing political divide the same way. Beyond the issues we might be passionate about — the politicians and policies we might love and support or fear and loathe — there are human beings “on the other side” who think differently. Are they necessarily evil or stupid? Because that’s what polarization tells us about them. Or do they just have different life experiences, education, news sources, and circles they travel in?

Entrenched like me

I come from one side of this great divide myself. And I have spent years reacting to what those “others” are doing and saying and believing, entrenched in my belief that the only problem was them. That their side is essentially all wrong and my side all right.

But there’s more to it than that. And I’ve learned that I can believe and advocate for everything that’s important to me while also making space to see people in my life with opposing views as human beings who probably agree with me on many fundamental values. And with whom talking and listening openly, while perhaps disagreeing, can be a positive thing for us all.

That’s not happening much online or in the news and media right now. There’s an obvious divide that many of our elected leaders and media seem incentivized to keep in place, where little that’s constructive and has broad appeal can get done and few basic facts can be agreed upon. And we no longer can agree on what America is supposed to mean and what about it should be celebrated and supported.

The great disarmer

The more I looked at how this has evolved and lamented it, I began to wonder: Could characters from opposite ends of the political spectrum share a space without it turning into a fight? Could they still see each other as human beings first? What if there was strong physical and emotional chemistry giving them an incentive to try?

And could I explore this seemingly dead serious issue in that lightest of genres, the romantic comedy? That challenge I gave myself turned into “The Elephant in the Room.”

Comedy, to me, is the great disarmer. It creates breathing room. I leaned into that and set out to create a story where political opposites are not caricatures, but characters; a place where disagreement is not necessarily an ending. Nothing is definitively answered, and no one is asked to change their views — including the audience. But a space is made for possibility.

​Movies, The elephant in the room, Erik bork, Donald trump, Lifestyle, Culture 

European leaders are pushing for the implementation of digital identification.

Specifically, both French President Emmanuel Macron and former United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair have urged sitting U.K. PM Keir Starmer to consider making digital IDs mandatory.

‘The same playbook is being used as a justification for broader powers to the establishment.’

Starmer is under pressure from English activists to stem illegal immigration, with illegal transport by sea from France being the primary focus. For this reason, Macron said he wants Starmer to address the “pull factors” that are allegedly attracting illegal immigrants to the U.K.

Apparently, digital ID would be the best way to do that, according to the French president.

As reported by the Independent, a compulsory national ID card is being considered by the U.K.’s highest office.

“We’re willing to look at what works when it comes to tackling illegal migration, … in terms of applications of digital ID to the immigration system,” the prime minister’s spokesman said.

“The point here is looking at what works, ensuring that we’re doing what we can to address some of the drivers of illegal migration, tackle those pull factors, ensure that we’re doing everything we can to crack down on illegal working,” the spokesman added, echoing Macron’s reasoning.

Simultaneously, a push factor is coming internally from former U.K. leader Blair, who actually tried the scheme before during his third term as prime minister.

RELATED: UK police face wave of backlash over live facial recognition tech at carnival

Photo by Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

The Daily Mail reported that Blair was pushing the idea behind the scenes, continuing his attempt from the early 2000s to enforce the mandatory digital ID.

“In 2005, there was a huge vote which unfortunately was narrowly passed for ID cards in order to crack down on crime,” Lewis Brackpool, director of investigations at Restore Britain, told Blaze News. “Many ministers were incredibly skeptical on this move due to its ever increasing powers to the state.”

Brackpool cited a 2004 BBC report that criticized the IDs as a “badly thought out” excuse to fight organized crime and terrorism. It noted then that plans for the cards included biometric data that carried fingerprints and iris scans, and would have become compulsory in 2013. The plan was abandoned in 2010.

The Englishman continued, “Now, 20 years on, the same playbook is being used as a justification for broader powers to the establishment. Tony Blair is somewhere in his evil lair rubbing his hands and cackling; his career ambition is coming to fruition.”

RELATED: YouTube admits to secretly manipulating videos with AI

Photo by Stuart Brock/Anadolu via Getty Images

The implementation of digital ID is straight from the playbook of the World Economic Forum, the yearly gathering of world elites where globalist policy is discussed and planned.

Seven years before the WEF broadcasted its report on reimagining digital ID and before its ideas became globally criticized, it published “A Blueprint for Digital Identity” in 2016.

The report boasted of the Aadhaar program, a government initiative from India that was implemented in order to “increase social and financial inclusion” for Indians. The Unique Identification Authority of India holds a database of user information “such as name, date of birth, and biometrics data that may include a photograph, fingerprint, iris scan, or other information.”

Over 1 billion Indians have enrolled in the program for the 12-digit identity number, and it continues today.

As for England, “It is not a reasonable solution,” Brackpool says. “It is the very thing many concerned British citizens and campaigners have been warning about for years down the line.”

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

​Return, Digital id, Big tech, India, England, France, Uk, United kingdom, Starmer, Wef, World economic forum, Tech 

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice is taking legal action against another sanctuary jurisdiction.

The DOJ filed a lawsuit on Thursday against Boston, contending that the city’s sanctuary status interferes with the federal government’s immigration enforcement.

‘If Boston won’t protect its citizens from illegal alien crime, this Department of Justice will.’

The agency accused Democrat Mayor Michelle Wu, who recently reaffirmed her support of sanctuary policies, of “repeatedly” shielding criminal illegal aliens from federal immigration agents and endangering public safety.

“In a recent letter to Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi, Mayor Wu went so far as to say that ‘Boston will never back down’ from its sanctuary city policies,” the DOJ’s lawsuit read. “Cities cannot obstruct the Federal Government from enforcing immigration laws. When that occurs, a city breaks the law. The City of Boston is doing just that.”

The department argued that the city’s sanctuary policies, specifically the Boston Trust Act, are illegal under federal law. The act prevents local law enforcement and other city departments from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s detainer requests.

RELATED: ‘Flood the zone’: ICE fires back at Boston Mayor Wu’s sanctuary defiance

Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images

The lawsuit against Boston is part of the DOJ’s greater effort to take legal action against sanctuary policies nationwide. The department previously filed complaints in New York, New Jersey, and California.

“The City of Boston and its Mayor have been among the worst sanctuary offenders in America — they explicitly enforce policies designed to undermine law enforcement and protect illegal aliens from justice,” Bondi said. “If Boston won’t protect its citizens from illegal alien crime, this Department of Justice will.”

RELATED: Boston mayor vows to continue resisting Trump’s deportation efforts

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, President Donald Trump. Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Wu responded to the lawsuit by declaring that the city “will not yield.”

“This is our city, and we will vigorously defend our laws and the constitutional rights of cities, which have been repeatedly upheld in courts across the country. We will not yield,” Wu stated.

“This unconstitutional attack on our city is not a surprise,” Wu continued. “Boston is a thriving community, the economic and cultural hub of New England, and the safest major city in the country — but this administration is intent on attacking our community to advance their own authoritarian agenda.”

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

​News, Boston, Massachusetts, Boston massachusetts, Michelle wu, Sanctuary policies, Sanctuary jurisdictions, Sanctuary cities, Sanctuary, Department of justice, Doj, Justice department, Pam bondi, Trump administration, Trump admin, Politics 

CHICAGO, Ill. — The timing of when President Donald Trump will deploy the National Guard into the city was top of mind at the event hosted by Chicago Flips Red at Trump Tower. The Trump-supporting group has been part of the vocal locals who want the president to help Chicago reduce the crime rate.

It is still unknown when troops will be sent in. There are reports about preparations being made to house federal immigration agents at Naval Station Great Lakes, located about an hour north of downtown. Trump mulled the possibility of sending troops to New Orleans, Louisiana, first. Whenever the deployment happens, the event’s attendees say they are ready.

‘Chicago will continue to have a “violence problem” as long as Red states continue to have a gun problem.’

“My position changed over the past week. I’ve been debating people for years that Chicago’s not that dangerous,” criminal defense lawyer Jason Epstein admitted to Blaze News. “What I did not know is that Chicago’s overall crime is [down], but murder jumped up.”

Per capita, Chicago’s homicide rate is number seven at 28.7 per 100,000 people.

Epstein used to campaign for Democrats like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former President Barack Obama, but he voted for Trump in 2024, in part due to the Biden-Harris border crisis and lack of public safety in major cities.

“The fact that [Trump] did such an excellent job in D.C., it is a huge affront to any claims that it’s a military takeover. It is a huge affront to any politician trying to tell you that ‘we don’t need it.’ … [Trump] is looking to do good, which is why I’m here now,” he continued.

CFR attendees later broke out into a “We want the National Guard!” chant.

RELATED: Mayor Johnson remains defiant on Trump’s pending National Guard deployment amid violent weekend

— (@)

CFR member Danielle Carter Walters previously blasted Governor JB Pritzker (D) and Mayor Brandon Johnson (D) for continually rejecting Trump’s offer to help the city.

“Let’s ask President Trump, when are we going to make treason great again? Because these people need to go to prison for treason. We need to make treason great again. … These people have no clue of what’s going on — well, they do, but they don’t care,” Walters said.

In response to the more than 50 people shot over Labor Day weekend, Johnson blamed the violence in his city on Republican states having greater gun rights.

“Chicago will continue to have a ‘violence problem’ as long as Red states continue to have a gun problem,” Johnson posted on X. “The endless flow of illegal guns into Chicago can be traced to Red states like Mississippi, Indiana, and Louisiana. It is up to the federal government to step up and stop interstate gun trafficking networks.”

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

​Politics 

An Eastern Michigan city is sparking controversy for having the first American police force with Arabic writing on its patch.

Less than a week after the Western Michigan University football team caused a stir by having one of its players take the field with his name written in Arabic on his jersey, a city just west of Detroit and close to the Canadian border announced its police force will also feature the foreign language.

‘This new design is another way we continue to celebrate the rich cultures that make our city unique.’

Police in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, boasted in a Facebook post on Wednesday that they have unveiled a new Arabic/English patch for their officers.

“The Dearborn Heights Police Department is proud to share a new 𝙤𝙥𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 patch that our officers may wear as part of their uniform,” the department wrote.

The patch displays the Michigan seal in the center with “Dearborn Heights Police” written around it in both English and Arabic.

“This patch was created by Officer Emily Murdoch, who designed it to reflect and honor the diversity of our community — especially the many residents of Arabic descent who call Dearborn Heights home,” the post continued.

RELATED: Western Michigan sparks controversy with Arabic jersey during NCAA college football kickoff

The police department claimed that including the Arabic script was a sign of “unity, respect,” and a “shared commitment to service.”

“We are proud of Officer Murdoch’s creativity and dedication in helping our department better represent the people we serve,” the post added. “This new design is another way we continue to celebrate the rich cultures that make our city unique.”

Fox 2 Detroit was able to confirm with the department that the patch was indeed optional for officers.

Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) shared an image of the new patch on X and said it was “their goal” to “bring sharia law to America.”

“You should’ve believed them. Pray for Michigan,” he wrote.

None of the Republican congressmen from Michigan appeared to make a public statement about the patch.

RELATED: Genocide Joe has to go: Pro-Palestine supporters chant ‘Death to America!’ in Michigan, demand ‘entire’ US system be eliminated

Hundreds of residents of Dearborn, Michigan, gather outside of the Dearborn police department on May 15, 2021. Photo by SETH HERALD/AFP via Getty Images

Dearborn Heights has a Middle Eastern and North African population of 39% as of 2023, Fox 2 Detroit reported. Dearborn, Michigan, its neighbor to the east, reportedly has a similar population, representing about 55%.

The region has long been considered to be a hub for Arabs, with Dearborn Police showing off a Community Policing Center that featured Arabic writing in November 2001, just two months after the September 11th attacks.

Also in 2001, Michigan State Police called the area “a major financial support center for many Mideast terrorist groups.”

“Southeast Michigan is known as a lucrative recruiting area and potential support base for international terrorist groups. It is also conceivable that ‘sleeper cells’ may be located in that area of the state,” a police report said, according to NBC News.

As well, a 2001 report by the New York Times cited Detroit as having around 300,000 Arabs in the metropolitan area. This included: Palestinians, Iraqis, Yeminis, Syrians, and Lebanese.

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

​News, Arabs, Arabic, Detroit, Michigan, Dearborn heights, Muslims, Dearborn, Islam, Politics 

I never thought I would be running for political office. I had a wonderful career in music, first making jingles for household items like Flintstones Vitamins before getting into video games. It was there that I experienced amazing success with Halo.

I was happy with my career and excited to spend time with my grandkids. But when I saw my congresswoman, Rep. Susie Lee (D-Nev.), stand in the way of President Donald Trump’s agenda at every turn, I decided I needed to step up and run.

Newsom is still the slimiest politician imaginable, and unfortunately for Californians, he was able to get out of San Francisco. We can’t let him get out of California.

But still, the thought of being an elected official grossed me out, and that stemmed from meeting a sleazy politician 20 years ago.

In 2005, Halo was presented a star on San Francisco’s Walk of Game. I was honored to be asked to attend the ceremony and accept the award on behalf of our team. It was especially exciting to do so while other iconic games and characters like Mario, Link from Zelda, and Sonic the Hedgehog were being honored with stars, too.

Later that night, I attended a reception to celebrate the inductees, where I met the mayor of San Francisco. As we chatted a while, I couldn’t help but notice his ludicrously white, straight teeth and slicked-back black hair held together with a ridiculous amount of hair gel.

We weren’t talking long until I was shocked by his shallow thoughts and disingenuous attitude. His responses felt robotic and scripted, and he wouldn’t make eye contact. Instead, he scanned the room as if he were looking for someone more important to engage with.

It quickly became clear he was there solely for the purpose of being photographed and basking in the limelight of popular games that were dominating American culture at the time — despite having never played the games himself.

When I got home, I told my wife I had met the slimiest politician imaginable.

“Thank God he’ll never get out of San Francisco,” I said to her.

That mayor? Gavin Newsom.

RELATED: Legendary Halo composer unravels the video-game industry’s woke collapse

— (@)

Yep, I met Newsom long before he was chasing cameras to talk about Donald Trump and turning the “California Dream” into the “California Nightmare.”

Under Newsom’s leadership as governor, California has become dangerous and outrageously expensive as he toys with every experimental socialist policy possible. His dismal governorship resulted in the historic mass exodus of Californians to lower-taxed, lower-crime havens — while making the Golden State a national punchline.

The state is on fire, literally, as we saw with the tragic Palisades and Eaton Fires earlier this year. While people who lost their homes are in regulatory purgatory and unable to rebuild, Newsom is scanning the room, looking for other things to engage with that are far more important for his personal ambitions.

He’s fighting the Trump administration’s efforts to deport violent illegal immigrants and trying to rig the state’s congressional maps to dilute the voices of his own constituents.

RELATED: ‘The system is rigged’: Congressional candidate Marty O’Donnell calls for cuts to ‘bloated’ federal government

As a conservative, I can’t think of a better leader for the Democrats than Gavin Newsom. Running against his failed policies should lead to years of electoral victories for the Republican Party.

But I am sad to see what has happened to what was once a beautiful state. And as an American, I am terrified by what Newsom and his ilk want to do to our country.

Gavin Newsom is still the slimiest politician imaginable, and unfortunately for Californians, he was able to get out of San Francisco. We can’t let him get out of California. Our country cannot afford it.

​News, Align, Lifestyle, Halo, Video games, California, Gavin newsom, San francisco, Politics, Opinion & analysis, 2028 presidential election, Democratic party, Democrats, Donald trump 

President Donald Trump doubled down on the Epstein attacks, once again pointing the finger at the Democratic Party.

The outrage surrounding the administration’s handling of the Epstein files subsided in recent weeks while Congress was out of session. Now that the Hill is back, lawmakers have reignited interest in the Epstein scandal, which Trump insists is a “Democrat hoax.”

‘The Dems don’t care about the victims.’

“The confused and badly failing Democrat Party did nothing about Jeffrey Epstein while he was alive except befriend him, socialize with him, travel to his Island, and take his money!” Trump said in a Truth Social post Friday.

“They knew everything there was to know about Epstein, but now, years after his death, they, out of nowhere, are seeming to show such love and heartfelt concern for his victims,” Trump added. “Does anybody really believe that?”

RELATED: White House slams Massie’s Epstein bill as a ‘very hostile act’ — some Republicans sign on anyway

Photo by Joe Schildhorn/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images

Trump insisted Democrats don’t actually care about Epstein’s victims, saying if they did, they would have taken action in years prior. Instead, Trump argued that Democrats have resurrected the scandal because of their low approval ratings.

“The now dying (after the DOJ gave thousands of pages of documents in full compliance with a very comprehensive and exacting Subpoena from Congress!) Epstein case was only brought back to life by the Radical Left Democrats because they are doing so poorly, with the lowest poll numbers in the history of the Party (16%), while the Republicans are doing so well, among the highest approval numbers the Party has ever had!” Trump said. “The Dems don’t care about the victims, as proven by the fact that they never did before.”

“This is merely another Democrat HOAX, just like Russia, Russia, Russia, and all of the others, in order to deflect and distract from the great success of a Republican President, and the record setting failure of the previous Administration, and the Democrat Party,” Trump added.

RELATED: Thomas Massie leads pressure campaign, forcing Congress to address Epstein

Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

Although Trump has repeatedly framed the Epstein scandal as a Democratic talking point, there has consistently been bipartisan support for transparency.

The moment Congress came back in session on Monday, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky filed a discharge petition, which would force a vote on the House floor to release the Epstein files. In order to force the vote, Massie would need signatures from at least 218 members of Congress.

As of Thursday, the petition has secured 215 signatures, including four from Republicans: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, and Massie. Rep. Eric Swalwell of California is the only Democrat who has not yet signed but intends to, meaning signatures from at least two more Republicans are needed to force the vote.

Notably, the White House slammed Massie’s petition, calling it a “very hostile act” to deter other Republicans from signing on.

RELATED: FBI, DOJ Epstein memo sparks right-wing outrage: ‘Nobody is believing this’

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

“Helping Thomas Massie and liberal Democrats with their attention-seeking, while the DOJ is fully supporting a more comprehensive file release effort from the Oversight Committee, would be viewed as a very hostile act to the administration,” one White House official said in an email to NBC.

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, Trump administration, White house, Thomas massie, House republicans, House democrats, Lauren boebert, Marjorie taylor greene, Nancy mace, Congress, Epstein, Epstein victims, Epstein scandal, Democrat hoax, Russia russia russia, Doj, House oversight committee, Politics 

Ring camera video caught the moment a Texas homeowner opened fire on what police are calling a pair of “Camaro crooks” who recently tried to hot-wire the homeowner’s car in the middle of the night.

Fort Worth Police Officer Buddy Calzada spoke with KDFW-TV and explained what happened amid the aggravated robbery in a “quiet neighborhood” around 1:50 a.m. Aug. 15.

‘The homeowner is aware of what’s taking place, comes outside to protect his property, and a gunfight ensues.’

“You see a white Camaro sitting in the street with black stripes over it,” Calzada told the station. “We know they are driving that vehicle, and they’re getting out to steal a Camaro.”

Video shows two individuals — at least one of them holding a gun — wearing dark hoodies and dark clothing approaching a car parked in a driveway. Calzada told KDFW that “they’ve got a computer device” they’re using to try to “hot-wire” the car.

Video then shows one of the individuals removing the car’s driver-side window and placing it on the ground — but the Ring camera notifies the homeowner “that something’s going on out there,” Calzada added to the station.

“The homeowner is aware of what’s taking place, comes outside to protect his property, and a gunfight ensues,” the officer told the station.

“They’re firing back and forth, you can actually hear it as well,” Calzada added to KDFW. “Fortunately, nobody was hurt or hit in this situation.” Video shows the two crooks speeding away from the scene in the white Camaro.

Calzada told the station that police want those who have information about the would-be car thieves to step up and help “stop these Camaro crooks.”

Calzada added to KDFW that the white Camaro they used is “a sporty-looking Chevy Camaro with racing stripes on the hood, on the top, and down the back.”

“Somebody knows these individuals in that vehicle who are committing these crimes,” the officer noted to the station.

Those with information can call Det. Brian Raynsford at 817-392-4469, KDFW said.

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

​Aggravated robbery, Fort worth, Texas, Shootout, Camaro crooks, Attempted car theft, Police, Ring camera video, Crime 

Can a romantic comedy rip the band-aid off the political divisions infecting our personal relationships?

“The Elephant In the Room,” a new rom-com directed by Erik Bork and released last month, dares to ask that question.

Leah and Vincent are fictional, but their predicament is painfully real: We are told to filter people through a political litmus test before we ever share a meal or a laugh.

As Bork describes the film: “A lonely female progressive [Leah, played by Alyssa Limperis] in December 2020 meets a guy [Vincent, played by Sean Kleier] she might want to date. But he voted for President Trump twice, and that’s a deal-breaker. Or is it?”

Mixed marriage

Bork didn’t write “The Elephant In the Room” to change anyone’s political views. As he says, “I’m not an activist; I’m a comedy guy.” Whatever your politics, the film is very funny and well worth seeing.

But great art reflects what’s in the culture, and Bork’s film has its sights set squarely on one of the biggest divisions of our time. More and more of us are unwilling to even consider dating across party lines. According to a 2020 poll, 38% of Democrats and 38% of Republicans would feel “very upset” or “somewhat upset” at the prospect of their child marrying someone from the opposing political party.

And it’s not just parents; 60% of young Americans (ages 18-29) say it’s important to find a partner who shares their political views.

This prejudice is especially pronounced among college-educated single women, fully three-quarters of whom report that they would be less interested in dating someone who voted for Trump.

These numbers dwarf the opposition that we feel for dating across racial, ethnic, or religious lines. Politics is the last prejudice that most of us cling to.

The perception gap

One reason for these numbers is what More in Common — a nonprofit research group attempting to understand and address the root causes of political polarization — calls the “perception gap.”

We often have a caricature of people of the opposite party in our minds, and this caricature rarely reflects reality. For example, in polls, Democrats assume that only 51% of Republicans think racism is still a problem. In reality, 79% of Republicans think it’s a problem — a perception gap of 28 points.

“The Elephant in the Room” gets at this perception gap early. When Leah finds out that Vincent voted for Trump, she argues that white supremacists and homophobes would certainly have voted for Trump. Vincent rejoins, correctly, that not all Trump supporters are the same. Leah had a neo-Nazi in mind, but the reality was very different: Vincent is a down-to-earth line cook who supports gay marriage and doesn’t like Trump personally, but who voted for Trump because he opposes open borders.

RELATED: Can true love ‘Trump’ our political divide? Writer/director Erik Bork is optimistic.

Erik Bork

The division industrial complex

Another reason that we’re so divided is the division industrial complex: the powerful forces that profit from keeping us scared of and angry at our fellow Americans.

The division industrial complex is the political elites who rant for the cameras about how their opponents are destroying America while chumming it up in private; the fundraising groups that screech that the other team will fleece seniors and tear our country apart unless you’re willing to donate $5 today; the media companies that post misleading and fear-inducing headlines to try to attract the clicks and eyeballs that keep the lights on.

When we listen to the division industrial complex, we lose sight of reality. We start to see partisans on the other side not as fellow Americans who see the world differently than we do, but as enemies out to destroy everything we hold dear.

Chumming the waters

The dirty secret about the division industrial complex is that a lot of the biggest players don’t believe the fear and anger they’re selling. Politicians like Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) might call their opponents fascists or communists when the cameras are rolling, but they’re warm and civil to each other behind closed doors.

This is even true of inter-party dating. Political insiders might get airtime by urging us to cut our friends and family across the aisle out of our lives, but many of them are happy to marry across the aisle. Famed political consultants James Carville (Democrat) and Mary Matalin (Republican) both practice trench warfare politics, but they make their cross-party marriage work despite that. If they think it’s all right to marry across the aisle, maybe there’s something the rest of us are missing.

Writing our own script

When we let the division industrial complex dictate who our political opponents are, we miss out on genuine friendships, meaningful relationships, and even peace of mind.

That is why a story like “The Elephant in the Room” matters. Leah and Vincent are fictional, but their predicament is painfully real: We are told to filter people through a political litmus test before we ever share a meal or a laugh. The film reminds us that we can write a different script.

Political differences will always create tension, and sometimes they will be deal-breakers. But let’s not allow the fear peddled by political elites to dominate our personal lives — we can stop letting the division industrial complex set the scene and instead take our cues from the people right in front of us.

When we choose conversation over dehumanization, the ending might surprise us, on screen and off.

​The elephant in the room, Movies, Reviews, Culture, Political divide, Donald trump, Rom-com, Lifestyle, Entertainment 

Rep. Jerry Nadler (N.Y.), one of the Democrats who has managed in recent months to secure the disapproval of the super-majority of American voters, announced on Tuesday that he will not seek re-election next year.

Nadler, who has a popularity rating of 17% according to YouGov and faced numerous viable challengers in next year’s congressional race, said that his decision to step down after 32 years in Congress “has not been easy” but “is the right one.”

‘It will be a great day for the USA when Nadler, a pathetic lightweight, is out of office.’

There has been an outpouring of support from Nadler’s fellow leftists, including Texas Rep. Greg Casar, who stated, “Congressman Nadler’s remarkable career reflects his record as a progressive hero on too many issues to count, from supporting workers rights — including leading the passage of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act — to LGBTQ rights, where he spearheaded the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.”

President Donald Trump, whom Nadler repeatedly tried to remove from office, was not interested in similarly pretending that the 78-year-old Manhattan Democrat had a positive impact in office over the past three decades.

“Jerry Nadler, one of the most disgusting Congressmen in USA History is, at long last, calling it ‘quits,'” the president noted in a Friday post on Truth Social.

“He’s finally leaving Congress! I’ve been beating this bum for 40 years, first as a New York City developer, where he opposed me, for no reason, at every corner, but could NEVER stop me from getting the job done, and then, as your President, where this psychopathic nut job, together with Crazy Nancy Pelosi, Impeached me twice, AND LOST, wasting Millions of Dollars in time and taxpayer money,” continued Trump.

RELATED: The woke party’s favorite costume: Moderation

Yuki Iwamura/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The president’s reference to battling Nadler as a real restate developer hearkens back to Trump’s 1985 purchase of a former railroad yard on Manhattan’s east side. The Washington Post indicated that Trump proposed to transform the parcel into a major residential and retail development with 7,600 apartments in six 75-story towers that would have been hemmed in by TV stations, a shopping mall, and a 150-story skyscraper.

Nadler, apparently keen to boost his profile and deny the city thousands of housing units, spent years fighting the project and helped ensure that the area would never reach its full potential.

Of course, Nadler resumed his opposition to Trump decades later when his old nemesis successfully ran for president. Nadler not only proved to be a big proponent of the Russian collusion hoax, liberally spreading falsehoods on-theme and gaslighting about the FBI’s infiltration of the Trump campaign, but played a leading role in impeaching Trump.

Trump added, “It will be a great day for the U.S.A. when Nadler, a pathetic lightweight, is out of office and leaves our beautiful, and NOW VERY SAFE, Washington, D.C.”

Nalder suggested to the New York Times in a recent interview that while he initially wanted to hold onto power, former President Joe Biden’s public degeneration changed his mind.

“Watching the Biden thing really said something about the necessity for generational change in the party, and I think I want to respect that,” said Nadler.

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

​Jerry nadler, Nadler, Democrats, New york city, Congress, Congressional, Donald trump, Trump, Eulogy, Leftism, Politics 

MIAMI, Fla. — The target, who agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were looking for, was no stranger to them. The Mexican national had been previously convicted of aggravated battery on a pregnant woman and was deported earlier this year.

Apparently managing to be one of the few gotaways at the southern border, the man was once again back in Florida. Blaze News was embedded with the ICE team that was sent to arrest him so he could face federal charges for allegedly illegally re-entering after being deported. After giving the pre-dawn morning briefing, agents staged themselves outside of the home, waiting for the man to be picked up for work by a white pickup truck.

The agents were in disbelief that he would willingly show them an allegedly fake green card since presenting it to them is a felony.

The lead agent said it was possible to encounter other illegal aliens in the pickup. Surveillance conducted at the residence showed the man would leave the house anywhere from 6:15 a.m. to 6:50 a.m. So the team waited.

Close to 6:50 a.m., the target was confirmed and intercepted down the road. The man was apprehended without incident.

There were two other men in the truck, one from Mexico and another from the Dominican Republic. The other Mexican quickly admitted he was not in the U.S. legally and was taken into custody. The Dominican, however, insisted to agents he had a permanent resident card, also known as a green card, but did not have it on him.

The Dominican offered to take the agents back to his house to show them the card that was in his passport. The agents agreed and went to look at the card. After entering the residence and locating the card, it was quickly determined to be a fake, so the man was officially taken into custody. The agents were in disbelief that he would willingly show them an allegedly fake green card since presenting it to them is a felony.

RELATED: How mass deportations and far-left riots have changed ICE’s training academy

How mass deportations and far-left riots have changed ICE’s training academy Julio Rosas/Blaze News

At the processing center in Miramar, it was then discovered after fingerprints were taken that the Dominican had a criminal history in the U.S. beyond just being here illegally.

The man was arrested in 1999 for aggravated assault and convicted in 2001. He was sentenced to one year in prison. He was arrested again in 2001 for first-degree arson and harassment and sentenced to one year in prison, with three years of supervised release. He was ordered to be removed by an immigration judge in Baltimore, Maryland, on February 3, 2003, and was deported back to the Dominican Republic on February 5, 2003.

The original target and the Dominican have since been referred to the Department of Justice for federal charges.

With ICE agents being heavily attacked in other parts of the country during operations and some local police departments forbidden to cooperate with them, agents in the Miami Field Office said they appreciate how their mission is supported in Florida. The ICE office in Miami averages around 120 arrests per day. Those numbers do not include arrests made by U.S. Border Patrol or Homeland Security Investigations.

WATCH:

– YouTube

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

​Politics 

It’s not uncommon for the great one to get inquiries from his fans asking about how he prepares for his shows.

While Levin doesn’t reveal all the ingredients for his show-planning sauce, he does share one: “Sometimes if I go to our fabulous supermarket called Wegmans, they have all the newspapers there. So I might pick up two donuts and five newspapers.”

On a recent episode of “LevinTV,” he invited his audience to pull up a chair and witness the master at work.

He starts with the Washington Post, which he affectionately dubs “the Washington Compost.”

Holding up the hefty stack of pages, he quips, “All the trees that died for this.”

He flips through, headline by headline, tossing out zingers like “some lib wrote this,” “these guys are morons,” and “who cares?” — each delivered with the precision of a seasoned roast-master.

He doesn’t shy away from the paper’s darker history either, reminding viewers, “This is one of the newspapers that covered up the Holocaust.”

Then, he hits a front-page story titled “‘We’ll do what’s right’: Judge Resolute Amid U.S. pressure,” a glowing piece about Brazilian judge Alexandre de Moraes, portrayed as a stalwart defender of “democracy” despite U.S. sanctions, tariffs, and criticism from figures like Elon Musk and President Donald Trump.

“Now keep in mind the Washington Compost is thrilled when it’s running stories attacking Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas, of course, Brett Kavanaugh … but this judge [Moraes] is ‘steadfast’ in Brazil. He’s not going to buckle,” Levin mocks. “That judge in Brazil is a left-wing kook hack like many of the writers for this newspaper.”

Levin eventually makes his way to the Post’s style section to an article titled “The Future of Book Reviews Looks Grim.”

“This book ‘On Power’ is a number one New York Times bestseller. I’ve had nine [best sellers] in a row. … Do you know how many book reviews the New York Times has done for this book or any of the nine? Zero,” he says. “Now, I’m supposed to read an article that the future of book reviews looks grim? Well, when it comes to my books, they’re nonexistent.”

For more of Levin’s sharp-witted takedown of “the New York Slimes,” check out the video above. It’s a masterclass in turning newsprint into comedic kindling.

Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of “the Great One” — Mark Levin as you’ve never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Levintv, Mark levin, New york times, Washington post, Mainstream media, Media bias, Blazetv, Blaze media, On power 

The Department of Justice has charged a California utility with igniting the Eaton Fire in January near Los Angeles, which resulted in the deaths of 19 people and the destruction of thousands of buildings.

The DOJ filed two lawsuits against Southern California Edison, seeking $40 million in damages for the Eaton Fire and an additional $37 million in damages for the Fairview Fire, which occurred near Hemet in 2022.

‘These lawsuits do not include Edison’s liability for private homes and other private property damage.’

While the results of the official investigation into the Eaton Fire have not yet been announced, it was allegedly sparked by “faulty power infrastructure or by sparks from faulty power infrastructure owned, maintained, and operated” by the California utility, according to the DOJ’s complaint.

“The lawsuits filed today allege a troubling pattern of negligence resulting in death, destruction, and tens of millions of federal taxpayer dollars spent to clean up one utility company’s mistakes,” U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli stated during a news conference on Thursday.

“We believe that the evidence is clear that Edison is at fault, and by their own admissions, no one else is at fault,” Essayli said, referring to a July report in which Edison admitted that it was “not aware of evidence pointing to another possible source of ignition.”

RELATED: Los Angeles mayor fires LAFD chief who blamed officials’ incompetence for disastrous wildfire response

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Essayli stated that his office is “demanding” that the utility and “not its ratepayers” cover the damages.

“Edison must not be allowed to pass along its liability onto hardworking ratepayers,” he wrote in a post on social media. “The United States seeks to recover financial losses from fire suppression and damage to National Forest lands. These lawsuits do not include Edison’s liability for private homes and other private property damage.”

RELATED: EXCLUSIVE Blaze Media footage of Los Angeles reduced to rubble

Photo by JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images

Jeff Monford, a spokesperson for Edison, told the Associated Press that it is reviewing the lawsuits.

“We continue our work to reduce the likelihood of our equipment starting a wildfire,” Monford said. “Southern California Edison is committed to wildfire mitigation through grid hardening, situational awareness, and enhanced operational practices.”

Los Angeles County also filed a lawsuit against Edison in March.

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

​News, Eaton fire, Los angeles, Los angeles fire, Fires, California, California fires, Department of justice, Doj, Southern california edison, Edison, Bill essayli, Wildfires, Politics 

Gay marriage was not just a step down the slippery slope toward today’s transgender dystopia. It was the first manifestation of it. Now that a broad reawakening has exposed the harms of gender ideology and the denial of natural law, Republicans must press beyond protecting women’s sports and opposing child castration. They must return to the root of the problem: the redefinition of marriage itself.

Marriage is the foundation of human civilization, not a mere “social construct.” While many forms of loving relationships exist, only the lifelong bond of one man and one woman procreates, raises, and nurtures the next generation. That bond anchors family, faith, and culture. When the Supreme Court decreed that two men or two women living together could constitute a marriage, it blurred the difference between man and woman, mother and father. That was, in essence, the normalization of transgenderism.

To restore truth, Republicans must confront Obergefell and undo the lie that two men or two women can ever stand in for a husband and wife.

The rot spread quickly. Following the 2015 Obergefell decision, courts and legislatures treated same-sex households as identical to mother-father families, even in adoption. Thousands of children were placed into homes where the distinction between mother and father was obliterated. In 2017, the Supreme Court forced states to falsify birth certificates, treating lesbian partners as if one were the biological father.

In Pavan v. Smith, the court required Arkansas to list both lesbian partners as biological parents when one conceived through artificial insemination. The state already recognized same-sex couples under Obergefell and recorded non-biological parents accordingly.

But the plaintiffs demanded more: that their arrangement be treated as biologically identical to a natural family. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in dissent, noted that states had every interest in preserving the integrity of birth records for public health, citizenship, and genetic history. Yet the court pressed forward in defiance of nature, reason, and common sense.

Republicans must not flinch

Despite this, some Republicans now claim we can separate the fight against transgenderism from the fight against gay marriage. They are wrong. Even if one tolerates homosexuality in a secular society, that does not justify redefining marriage and giving gay couples adoption rights. Doing so enshrines the very gender-bending myth conservatives claim to oppose — the idea that man and woman, mother and father, are interchangeable.

The Kim Davis case, potentially headed to the Supreme Court next term, offers an opportunity to revisit this question. Conservatives should prepare the ground now. Republican elected officials must file amicus briefs signaling to wavering justices that this is a political priority. After Dobbs, which affirmed the Glucksberg standard that a right must be “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition,” Obergefell looks even weaker than Roe v. Wade. The court will need political momentum to act consistently with its own reasoning.

But legal strategy is not enough. Conservatives must also build political support in the states to sustain any reversal. That means pushing back against gay adoptions and re-establishing natural marriage as the baseline. You cannot ridicule transgenderism while placing a child in a household with two men and pretending the child has a mother.

Last year’s Republican National Convention stripped support for natural marriage from the party platform. Now Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has promised a presidential-style GOP convention before the midterms. That convention should be the place where Republicans right the ship, restore clarity, and rally around one of the most self-evident truths in human history.

RELATED: Trans is the natural progression from ‘gay marriage’

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The path forward

The fight against transgender ideology will collapse if conservatives refuse to confront its root: the redefinition of marriage. To pretend the two issues can be separated is to accept the very logic we claim to reject.

Republicans cannot stop at banning surgeries on minors or protecting girls’ sports. Those are necessary but not sufficient. To restore truth, they must confront Obergefell and undo the lie that two men or two women can ever stand in for a husband and wife.

Marriage is not a slogan or a lifestyle choice. It is the union that anchors family, culture, and civilization itself. To defend that truth is to defend reality. To surrender it is to let the entire edifice fall.

​Opinion & analysis, Marriage, Gay marriage, Obergefell v. hodges, Supreme court, Adoption, Pavan v. smith, Rights, Equality, Transgenderism, Transgender agenda, Natural law