blaze media

JD Vance exposes how the US surveillance state helps China spy on Americans

Is China spying on us? Is the U.S. government making it easier for the Chinese to spy on us? The answer is obviously yes, but there’s been a convergence of the two countries eavesdropping on Americans. Ever since the horrific events of September 11, 2001 (and some years before that, to a lesser extent), surveillance by our government has been the new normal for Americans. However, it is now coming to light that the surveillance apparatus may make it easier for our enemies to spy on us, too.

JD Vance brought up this issue in a recent conversation on “The Tim Dillon Show,” during which he critiqued big government and surveillance and discussed threats to national security. He mentioned a recent Chinese cyberattack, which shed light on this issue. According to the original report from the Wall Street Journal, China recently hacked U.S. service providers, notably including AT&T and Verizon, using America’s “wiretap” infrastructure.

JD Vance cited this article and criticized the surveillance network that made this cyberattack possible. He said, “We’re creating a back door in our own technology networks that our enemies are now using.” He explained, “My understanding is that part of the infrastructure that they hacked into was built on top of surveillance systems that were implemented in 2001 — Patriot Act-style stuff.”

The Patriot Act, according to another report on this interview, aimed to “enhance national security by expanding the surveillance and investigative powers of U.S. law enforcement agencies. Key provisions included increased authority for monitoring phone, email, and financial records, improved information-sharing between government agencies, and broader powers.” This law was enacted in the wake of the horror of 9/11, but its intended purpose has been corrupted in the continued expansion and application of its provisions. However, this is only one of several laws that have created the back door that our adversaries exploit.

For instance, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act was enacted in 1994 to “require that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities to comply with legal requests for information.” Simply put, service providers need to design their systems in a way that allows for government surveillance. Or, even more simply, it requires a “back door.” “Back doors,” as the president of Signal, Meredith Whittaker, wrote, are inherently flawed: “There’s no way to build a back door that only the ‘good guys’ can use.”

Vance brought two important issues into the conversation in light of this recent national security breach: the tyranny of bloated government and the threats to national security. The government created a surveillance apparatus and has continued to encroach on Americans’ privacy, yet our adversaries are now exploiting this same vulnerability.

Earlier in the conversation, Vance brought up the sharp contrast between what the government cares about and what matters to everyday Americans. Vance sarcastically remarked: “I want to speak from the heart here, to my fellow Americans, who are really worried that a CIA bureaucrat making $190,000 a year might have to find a job in the private sector. I recognize that that is the biggest crisis facing my fellow Americans, not that they can’t afford groceries and housing.” He added, “In Kamala Harris’ defense: Yes, she’s made it harder for Americans to afford housing, but that’s been in the service so the CIA can more easily spy on our fellow Americans.”

Sounds like a lose-lose situation.

​Tech, Tim dillon jd vance, Tim dillon show, Chinese spying, China, Patriot act 

blaze media

Trump and Harris deliver closing remarks

With just one day to go, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris are closing out their historic campaigns.

A new ad titled “It’s the people that Make America Great” was unveiled Sunday, featuring Republicans, former Democrats, and independents all uniting behind Trump.

“What will we do with this moment?” Trump asked. “How will we be remembered? Look at the opportunities before us.”

‘The people dreamed this country, and it’s the people who are making America great again.’

“This election really isn’t about the left versus the right,” former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii said in the ad. “It’s about we, the people, choosing our government and the choice between freedom versus tyranny.”

The ad also featured former Democrats like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his running mate, Nicole Shanahan, uniting behind Trump.

“What is going on here is deeper than politics,” Shanahan said. “It is deeply spiritual. We are being called to rise above the hatred and the fear and the evil.”

Republicans like Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy as well as Tesla founder and X CEO Elon Musk were also included in the ad.

“We need to remember above and beyond that we must love our neighbors, that we must treat other people as we hope to be treated,” Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, said.

“The people dreamed this country, and it’s the people who are making America great again,” Trump said.

Trump has also delivered a disciplined closing message on the campaign trail, reminding voters of his economic and immigration policies and how they contrast with Harris’. Over the past few months leading up to the election, polls have consistently shown the economy and immigration to be top priorities for voters, who also trust Trump over Harris to handle those issues.

Trump also spent his Sunday campaigning in three crucial swing states: Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia. As of this writing, Trump is ahead in all three of those battlegrounds by 0.3, 1.5, and 1.9 points respectively, according to RealClearPolling averages.

Harris, on the other hand, spent her Sunday campaigning in Michigan. In addition to some economic proposals, Harris largely focused her closing pitch on issues like “reproductive freedom,” legalizing recreational marijuana, and reminding voters of her middle-class background.

Notably, Harris’ most significant lead across the seven swing states is in Michigan, where she leads Trump by an average of 1.2 points. Harris is also ahead by an average of 0.4 points in Wisconsin, although Trump leads in the remaining battlegrounds and has an edge nationally.

This is still anyone’s race. All the polls are within the margin of error, implying this race is essentially deadlocked. Trump has made significant gains with crucial voting blocs this cycle, but most pundits are still calling this race a coin toss.

Heading into the home stretch, Harris is making multiple pit stops in Pennsylvania, arguably the most important swing state given its 19 electoral votes. She will be joined by celebrities like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, and Oprah Winfrey. Trump will also be stopping in Pennsylvania as well as North Carolina and Michigan.

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, Kamala harris, Presidential election, 2024 election, 2024 presidential election, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North carolina, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Swing states, Battleground states, Robert f. kennedy jr., Tulsi gabbard, Vivek ramaswamy, Elon musk, Jd vance, Nicole shanahan, Politics 

blaze media

Joe Rogan questions Sen. Fetterman about scheme to use illegal aliens to ‘rig’ swing states for Democrats

Tens of millions of illegal aliens have stolen into the U.S. since January 2021,
killing citizens, tracking in lethal drugs and once-controlled diseases, siphoning taxpayer-funded welfare benefits, displacing schoolchildren, and in some cases, threatening the integrity of American elections.

Rather than take ownership for the deadly crisis, border czar Kamala Harris has
repeatedly blamed President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers for the failure of the so-called “bipartisan” border bill, which Democrats have memorialized as a kind of would-be panacea.

Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman (D) did his best to amplify this narrative on the Saturday episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience,” but the titular host made clear he wasn’t buying what the senator was selling. Rogan suggested that Democrats aren’t looking for a solution to the border crisis but are instead using the border crisis to solve their problem of incomplete political control.

‘You’re rigging the system.’

When discussing the matter of immigration, Fetterman told Rogan, “Democrats are saying, ‘Hey though, we need a secure border, we — you know — it’s a significant issue.’ And if I thought there was any kinds of issues and I’ve been very vigilant throughout, I’ve been actively involved in those kinds of things, and I’ve never witnessed those kinds of a thing.”

“What do you mean by ‘issues?'” said Rogan. “Like, what kind of issues are you talking about? You’re talking about people letting people in, in order to get votes?”

“Well, it’s not, there’s not that level kinds. I don’t think there’s that level of kinds of organization,” responded the senator.

Rogan balked at the suggestion that the crisis underway is not courtesy of some coordinated efforts, stating:

But there is a [level of] organization that’s moving these people to swing states. There is a significant number of these people that are illegal immigrants that have made their way to swing states. And then there’s been calls for amnesty. There’s been calls for allowing these people to have a pathway to citizenship and allow them to vote. The fear that a lot of people have is that this is a coordinated effort to take these people that you’re allowing to come into the country, then you’re providing them with all sorts of services like food stamps and housing and setting them up, and then providing a pathway to amnesty. And then you would have voters that would be significantly voting towards the Democrats because they’re the people that enabled them to come into the country in the first place, first place and provided them with those services.

“This is a big fear that people have,” added Rogan, “that you’re rigging the system and that this will turn all these states into essentially locked-blue like California is.”

This fear was recently expressed by Elon Musk, who
noted on his social media platform, “The Dems have imported massive numbers of illegals to swing states. Triple digit increases over the past 4 years! Their STATED plan is to give them citizenship as soon as possible, turning all swing states Dem. America would then become a one-party, deep blue socialist state.”

Musk was referencing data that suggested the Biden-Harris administration was
flooding red states with inadmissible migrants under the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela program.

‘The apportionment of House seats and votes in the Electoral College among the states is based on total population — not citizenship or legal status.’

Rogan’s suggestion left Fetterman stammering. After re-centering himself with the defeatist suggestion, “Immigration is always going to be a tough issue in our nation,” the senator proceeded to recycle Harris’ suggestion that the “bipartisan” border bill was a step in the right direction but was ultimately tripped up by Trump.

“They had an opportunity to do a comprehensive border, bipartisan [bill] and that went down because Trump, he declared that, that, that’s, that’s a bad deal after it was negotiated with the other side,” said Fetterman, glossing over Democrats’ rejection of the robust Secure the Border Act of 2023 from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) just months earlier.

Having evidently looked into the specifics of the Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, H. R. 815, Rogan responded, “But didn’t that deal also involve amnesty? And didn’t that deal also involve a significant number of illegal aliens being allowed into the country every year? I think it was 2 million people.”

Blaze News
previously reported that the bill included emergency authority provisions that would enable the federal government to shut down the border if the average number of illegal alien encounters reached between 4,000 and 5,000 per day for seven consecutive days. Over 1.4 million illegal aliens could therefore steal into the country without triggering a clamp down.

“So it was still the same sort of situation,” continued Rogan. “Their fear is exactly what I talked about: that these people will be moved to swing states and that will be used to essentially rig those states and turn them blue forever.”

When Fetterman attempted to dive back into empty rhetoric, Rogan
intimated that it only took Republicans tens of thousands of votes across several counties to win certain states in 2016, so tens of millions of illegal aliens, strategically placed then rendered loyal to Democrats with handouts and amnesty, could “rig those states undeniably.”

Steven Camarota, the director of research for the Center of Immigration Studies,
noted in a recent op-ed that illegal aliens don’t necessarily have to vote to impact American elections.

The apportionment of House seats and votes in the Electoral College among the states is based on total population — not citizenship or legal status. The Census Bureau is clear that naturalized citizens, as well as non-citizens such as green card holders, foreign students, guestworkers and illegal immigrants are captured in the census every 10 years.

Accordingly, political operatives playing the long game need only deluge blue states with illegal aliens to increase their representation in Congress and the Electoral College.

Because the legal and illegal immigrant population is so large and unevenly distributed across the country, it causes some states to gain seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and Electoral College at the expense of others.

A Center for Immigration Studies investigation revealed last week that the inclusion of legal and illegal immigrants in the 2020 census shifted 17 House seats.

Fetterman told Rogan, “Immigration is changing our nation,” stressing that it is “generally for a good thing.”

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

​John fetterman, Fetterman, Joe rogan, Rogan, Jre, Illegal aliens, Voter fraud, Illegal, Election, Swing states, Pennsylvania, Busing, Immigration, Border crisis, Kamala harris, Politics 

blaze media

‘They are not compromised’: Hollywood actor tells Megyn Kelly why he’s VOTING Trump

Hollywood actor Zachary Levi has starred in his fair share of films, but now he’s taking on a new role, one that’s completely foreign to his silver screen comrades.

That is, the role of a man who is voting for Donald Trump and isn’t afraid to talk about it.

“I’m not voting for Donald Trump. I’m voting for Donald Trump and Bobby and Tulsi Gabbard and Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk and JD Vance and everyone else that they’re going to bring in,” Levi told Megyn Kelly in a recent interview.

Levi went on to compare this group of people to superheroes, like the Avengers or Voltron.

“They’re going to get in there and actually do what Donald Trump said he was going to do the first time, which is drain the swamp. And he has admitted that he couldn’t do it, and he didn’t do it, because he didn’t know what he was doing. He didn’t even think he was going to win the first time,” he continued.

In order to avoid another failure to drain the swamp, Trump is privately funding his own transition team and not waiting for the government to step in.

“They are not compromised. That is the government that I want,” Levi told Kelly, who’s in full agreement.

“You’re getting more than just Trump,” she said. “You’re getting a team that we’ve seen now for years in the public eye. It’s exciting. If he loses, that’s one of the things I’ll be the most disappointed about the next day, like, not just the loss of Trump and the elevation of Kamala but the loss of all this opportunity.”

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” is also thrilled at the prospect of this group of people working together in the White House.

“There’s going to be good people actually doing things for the right reasons? We wouldn’t even know what to do,” he says.

Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Camera phone, Video, Free, Video phone, Upload, Sharing, Youtube.com, The rubin report, Dave rubin, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Megyn kelly, Zachary levi, Election 2024, Donald trump, Maga, Rfk jr, Tulsi gabbard, Vivek ramaswamy, Elon musk, Jd vance, The avengers 

blaze media

Massive voter registration dump in Arizona may lead to Election Day headaches

At the last minute, third-party groups submitted nearly 100,000 voter registration forms in Arizona’s most populous county, creating headaches for both election workers and voters alike, a report from AZ Central says.

On the final day to register to vote in Arizona — which this year would have been October 7 — these groups dumped as many as 90,000 forms on the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office, an “unprecedented” number, according to spokesperson Taylor Kinnerup.

‘Places where there are more questions around eligibility — those places could potentially have longer lines because we know there will be more questions there.’

What’s more, a sizeable portion of these forms — some 30,000 or 40,000 of them — were heavily damaged and could not be processed. Still others were registered under names such as “Donald Duck” and “Mickey Mouse.”

Of the 50,000 that could be processed, many still had defects. Some had missing information, AZ Central reported. Others were dated weeks earlier, and Arizona law requires third parties to submit voter registration forms within five days of collecting them, Kinnerup claimed.

Registrants whose addresses could be ascertained were issued a notice to cure their registration information before the deadline of 7 p.m. on Election Day. Those who followed through and fixed the missing information should be able to vote normally on Tuesday.

“All of the preliminary work has been done in terms of processing these forms,” Kinnerup added. “Anything left to do is on the onus of the voter.”

Those with a valid ID whose registration form is still missing some information will likely be able to complete the registration at the polling station and cast a provisional ballot that will be counted if and when officials determine that they were eligible to vote.

Others whose forms were too badly damaged will also likely be able to cast a provisional ballot, but that ballot will not be counted unless they previously registered to vote and that registration remains active, AZ Central reported. The outlet did not clarify why such individuals would re-register to vote or require a provisional ballot if they have an active voter registration.

As of Friday, elections workers have already processed 4,800 provisional ballots, well above average, Elections Department spokesperson Jennifer Liewer claimed.

“It’s certainly a much higher number than we’ve seen previously since moving to a vote center model.”

Officials are also concerned that these problems and uncertainties will increase wait times at the polls even more on Tuesday. They had already warned Election Day voters to expect to wait at least an hour before casting a ballot.

“Places where there are higher provisionals, places where there are more questions around eligibility — those places could potentially have longer lines because we know there will be more questions there,” Tammy Patrick, a former Maricopa County elections official who now works at the Election Center, told the outlet.

Despite going into great detail about potential fallout from tens of thousands of faulty voter registrations submitted at the 11th hour, AZ Central called out what it described as “election denialism,” implying that voters who distrust the system are the problem rather than the system itself.

The outlet did not identify the third-party groups that had submitted the registrations.

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

​Politics, Election 2024, Maricopa county, Arizona, Media, Election, Voters, Voter registration 

blaze media

Wisconsin early voting lags in biggest Democrat strongholds

A close United States Senate race should drive a higher Republican turnout for the Nov. 5 presidential election in Wisconsin, with early voting in key areas at 50% or better of the total votes cast in the 2020 election.

With its 10 electoral votes, Wisconsin is a key swing state that has drawn regular attention in recent months from former President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump spoke before a packed house at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee on Nov. 1, not far from the Wisconsin State Fair Park Expo Center, where Harris rallied supporters.

“The race is within a point, point and a half, not only on the presidential side but in the U.S. Senate race, with incumbent Democrat Tammy Baldwin being opposed by Eric Hovde,” Wisconsin GOP Chairman Brian Schimming said on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” Nov. 2. “It’s very tight here.”

Schimming said Wisconsin has a history of close contests.

“We’ve had 12 races in 24 years that have been decided by less than 30,000 votes,” Schimming said, “including [Sen.] Ron Johnson’s 27,000-vote win in 2022.”

Republican U.S. Senate challenger Hovde has pulled even with incumbent Democratic Sen. Baldwin, who first won election in 2012 and was re-elected in 2018. The RealClearPolitics average has Baldwin at 48.6% and Hovde at 47.2%.

Early voting has lagged in some key Democrat areas for the Nov. 5 election, state figures show.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Eric Hovde addresses a packed house at the Donald J. Trump rally at Milwaukee’s Fiserv Forum on Nov. 1, 2024. Photo by KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI/AFP via Getty Images

In Milwaukee, Wisconsin’s largest city and chief Democrat stronghold, 2024 early voting accounted for a fairly anemic 35% of the November 2020 vote total, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission. Wisconsin does not track voting by party.

More than 1.34 million absentee ballots have been returned in Wisconsin for the Nov. 5 general election, meaning about 37% of registered voters cast early votes, the WEC reported.

As of Nov. 1 in the city of Madison, 2024 early voting made up 48% of voter totals from the 2020 presidential election. In the city of Green Bay, the early voting figure was 37%.

In historically Republican areas of the state, early voting stands at 50% or higher. In Waukesha, Washington, and Ozaukee Counties, 2024 early votes accounted for 55% of 2020 election totals.

Of those casting absentee ballots in those three GOP counties, at least 66% voted in person, according to WEC figures.

Statewide, 1.34 million absentee ballots had been returned as of Nov. 1 — or 41% of the total votes cast in November 2020.

As of Nov. 1, Wisconsin had 3,658,236 active registered voters, according to the WEC. In the 2020 presidential election, 3,294,872 ballots were cast.

Wisconsin allows voters to register at the polls on Election Day.

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

​Wisconsin, Early voting, Absentee ballots, Eric hovde, Senate, Donald trump, Election 2024 

blaze media

Clock runs out on appeal to stop ‘disinformation’-monitoring in January 6 probation case

Former Jan. 6 defendant Daniel Goodwyn won an important 2024 appeals court ruling against judicial censorship of so-called “disinformation,” but he has seen it slip away by the actions of a federal district court judge and the Department of Justice as the clock ran out on his case.

For more than 18 months, Goodwyn, 35, of San Francisco, battled U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, who ordered monitoring of Goodwyn’s internet communications for what he called “disinformation” and “misinformation” about Jan. 6 and other subjects.

Despite a February 2024 Court of Appeals ruling chiding Walton and overturning his original order imposing probation monitoring of Goodwyn’s speech, the judge reissued the same condition in June.

‘There is no accountability.’

Goodwyn again appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled the case is now moot because Goodwyn finished his one-year term of supervised release on Aug. 25.

“The appeals court has just given the D.C. and other district court judges the green light to enact censorship while anointing themselves as the new ministers of truth,” defense attorney Carolyn Stewart told Blaze News.

“This is all against the U.S. Constitution, with First and Fourth Amendment violations,” Stewart said. “And the green light also goes to the DOJ and FBI to infect defendants’ computers and other devices with spyware without any oversight. There is no accountability.”

The DOJ claims Pretrial and Probation Services never installed any monitoring software or devices on Goodwyn’s computer because he had a pending appeal. Stewart, however, told the Court of Appeals the DOJ accessed the internal logs of Goodwyn’s employer, the news site StopHate.com, to see what her client had been posting.

The Court of Appeals issued a per curiam order on Oct. 28 dismissing Goodwyn’s appeal as moot. “Appellant has not demonstrated that any exception to the mootness doctrine applies to this appeal,” wrote a three-judge panel that included Karen Henderson, Cornelia Pillard, and Justin Walker.

Those judges were appointed to the Court of Appeals by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Donald J. Trump, respectively.

Daniel Goodwyn at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 (left) and at a Fourth of July celebration.

Photos courtesy of Daniel Goodwyn

“I believe we met the standard for an exception to mootness,” Stewart said.

In September, Stewart filed a motion opposing the DOJ’s desire to dismiss the case. She instead asked for “an order where the lower court is ordered to answer who monitored his internet use and digital devices, and what was installed for monitoring that was conducted in violation of his Constitutional rights.”

The latest Court of Appeals ruling leaves the questions raised by Goodwyn’s case largely unanswered. Stewart said terrible damage was done to defendants’ First Amendment rights because the appeals court allowed Judge Walton to re-up an unconstitutional condition on her client’s free speech.

Trespassing conviction

Goodwyn accepted a plea offer from the DOJ on one count of entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds. He walked into the Senate Wing Door of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and spent 36 seconds inside the building. He served a 60-day prison sentence in 2023.

Judge Walton was highly critical of Goodwyn for his appearance in March 2023 on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Fox News. The judge said Goodwyn minimized his own participation in Jan. 6 unrest and spread “misinformation” and “disinformation” about Jan. 6 and the 2020 presidential election.

The DOJ, which initially did not seek monitoring of Goodwyn’s computer, supported the reimposition of that condition in June 2024. Prosecutors said Goodwyn needed to be kept away from “extremist” media content like that allegedly published by StopHate on its website and in documentaries.

Prosecutors said Judge Walton met the conditions set by the Court of Appeals after a three-judge panel said he “plainly erred” by imposing computer monitoring.

“The computer-monitoring condition protects the public interest by deterring Goodwyn from encouraging future violence and thus threatening public safety, at least while he is still under court supervision,” Assistant U.S. Attorneys Elizabeth Danello and Lisa Tobin Rubio wrote in a July filing in 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!

​Politics, Jan 6, Daniel goodwyn, Us court of appeals 

blaze media

MAGA’s second chance (and the future of populism)

Tomorrow is MAGA’s big day. A lot is on the line. It’s faltered before; in fact, it has lost every election since 2016’s surprise, but here it is — once more at the altar.

The losses have not been entirely MAGA’s fault. Pandemic aside, the American news media and their friends in government threw everything they had against the movement for eight straight years, lying, undermining, suppressing, and cheating. The legacy press landed bitter blows and sacrificed its own popularity and credibility for the cause of beating Donald Trump. A win tomorrow would be the ultimate revenge.

Even if Trump loses, it would matter less for MAGA than you might think.

As one unnamed television producer put it, “If half the country has decided that Trump is qualified to be president, that means they’re not reading any of this media, and we’ve lost this audience completely.”

“A Trump victory,” he continued, “means mainstream media is dead in its current form.” His thinking perfectly illustrates the reason for his predicament: wagering it all on defeating a movement he and his friends hate. That ain’t journalism, and millions know it — and are tuning out.

Even if Trump loses, it would matter less for MAGA than you might think. While 2020 was painful, with the country in disarray and no clear successor capable of leading nationally, that’s no longer the case. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) has proven himself and, at 40, is a potentially generational political talent.

Moreover, 2020 proved the NeverTrump faction that considered itself an army in exile was really just a band of self-indulgent scammers and grifters, completely incapable of launching a counteroffensive, never mind retaking power. There would be no surge of support for former Ambassador Nikki Haley; no clarion call for the return of Liz Cheney.

But it’s not just politicians. While in 2016, only Peter Thiel and Tom Barrack were willing to take the stage for Trump, today they’re joined by Elon Musk, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Bill Ackman. Far from a peasant revolt, MAGA 2024 is a team comprising literally some of the smartest and most successful people in the world.

The last redoubt is Washington, D.C.: home of the Nikki Haley primary win and outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). But even here, change is in the air.

As of this morning, a whopping 252 congressmen have no political memory of a time before Donald J. Trump. That’s more than 58% of the House of Representatives. The Grand Old Party is even more changed: 146 of its number now came to Washington with — or after — Trump, or more than 63%. On Inauguration Day, those numbers will grow.

The Senate is a different matter. More than half (65) came to Washington before Trump, including 30 of the GOP’s 49 members. That number, too, will shift Tuesday as men like Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) prepare for voluntary retirement and other, less willing men follow suit.

These senators and the power structures they control — including the position either John Cornyn (R-Texas) or John Thune (R-S.D.) will inherit when McConnell steps down this month — stand as the most powerful and obstinate gatekeepers in Washington. They can make K Street bend when they want. They can decide who is hired and who is not; they distribute the contracts; they decide whose calls get picked up and whose knocks are answered.

They control who is on the inside and who is on the outside. Despite everything listed above, these are the powers that will make sure McConnellism outlives Trumpism by a great many years.

Their enemy, of course, is the base — the same people MAGA Republicans are counting on to turn out on Tuesday. They’re the leaders of the party today and tomorrow — if they can keep it.

Blaze News: Swing-state early voting is way up in the countryside — and way down in the cities

Blaze News: Early voting going strong in Western North Carolina despite hurricane damage

New York: Press panics at Trump’s potential return

City Journal: How the clash between Kamala’s college-educated and Trump’s blue-collar coalitions could shape the balance of power in Congress

Sign up for Bedford’s newsletter

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

The fire rises: The Federalist: Mexico is holding back a massive wave of illegal immigrants that will break after the election

The migrant crisis isn’t over — it’s simply contained in Mexico. But it’s bursting at the seams, and the 2024 election might prove to be the end of the deal. Todd Bensman reports from Tapachula, Mexico:

The deal was to have Mexico deploy 32,500 troops to the U.S. border to round up untold thousands of intending border crossers from the northern precincts and force-ship them “internal deportation” by planes and buses thousands of miles to Mexico’s southern provinces and entrap them in cities like Tapachula in Chiapas State and Villahermosa in Tabasco State, behind militarized roadblocks.

Mexico closed off most of its freight trains to migrant free riders, bulldozed northern camps, and patrolled relentlessly for more deportee targets, as I was perhaps the first and only in the nation to report on Jan. 17.

The most likely purpose of these interactions besides the officially provided explanation about “ongoing efforts to manage migratory flows” and “additional enforcement actions urgently needed”? Best guess: to spare the Democratic presidential candidate the damaging political spectacle of mass border crossings for the duration of the coming political campaign season that was sure to feature illegal immigration as a key issue …

Tapachula was bursting at the seams with an entrapped, growing population being deported into it from the north and with an estimated 500-1,500 new foreigners entering every day from Guatemala on the south …

The misery index skyrocketed for both the immigrants and the city’s residents and managers as money-less people unable to advance north for months returned home, or begged, hustled for coins and food, slept in public spaces, and waited for Mexican asylum permits or American parole on the CBP One mobile phone apps that never seemed to materialize quickly enough.

Tapachula became a hellscape …

​Opinion & analysis, Politics 

blaze media

Why a vote for Trump is good for Armenia — and the future of the West

After years of liberal lockstep, Armenian-Americans seem to be breaking for Donald Trump. This is good news, not just for ethnic Armenians but for all Americans. Let me explain.

The first big break with the status quo came from Armenian Weekly columnist Armen Morian, who recently
urged his readership to vote for Trump.

But just take a look at a map, and the significance of Armenia’s role as it relates to Western hegemony becomes clear.

Traditionally, Democrat candidates have pushed for Armenian causes, such as recognition of Armenian genocide. This has generally been enough for Armenians, like many other minority American groups, to nod their heads and go along with the empty promises of the liberal platform.

Establishment stooges

Morian acknowledges this habit as he makes a solidly persuasive case for why Armenian-Americans should vote for Trump. The Biden administration is simply the latest iteration of the fundamentally anti-human “Establishment” ideology:

For decades the official ideology of the Establishment has been a globalist one that disdains the cultures, traditions and interests of individual nations, beginning with those of the nation they profess to serve: America. They regard men and nations as interchangeable pawns to be played, regardless, and often in spite of, their unique cultures, histories and traditions, which they see not as determinants of policy but obstacles to be overcome on the path toward advancing their ideology.

For Morian, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government is but an extension of this liberal establishment, with Pashinyan and his cronies doing the globalist work of trying to normalize relations between the republic and Turkey, harassing the Armenian Apostolic Church, and sowing division between Armenians of the mainland and of the diaspora, among other things.

Donald Trump himself seemed to vindicate Morian’s claims a few days later, when he made a post on Truth Social blaming Kamala Harris and the rest of the Biden administration for doing nothing as Islamic Azerbaijan ethnically cleansed 120,000 Armenians from their historic homeland in Artsakh, which was, up until 2023, a disputed enclave within the boundaries of Azerbaijan.

I surmise that advisers like Vivek Ramaswamy and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have had something to do with raising his awareness of the crisis in that part of the world.

As an ethnic Armenian myself, these developments are all fine and dandy. If the Armenian-American community can wake up from its liberal slumber and manage to find its conservative spine, I can call that progress.

Why you should care

But why should
you care? Why should you care about the political goings-on of the Republic of Armenia and about the Armenians in general? After all, Armenians make up a tiny minority in America. Their vote most likely won’t make a dent in the election.

Likewise, the Western perception of Armenia and Armenians is barely existent, if it even exists at all. What does this tiny nation located at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East have to do with
you?

Well, allow me to appeal to your sense of geopolitics. On the surface, Armenia comes off as a backwater post-Soviet country tucked away from the rest of Europe under the Caucasus mountain range. It doesn’t contribute much in terms of GDP, as its 1991 statehood came with significant disadvantages: It’s completely landlocked on all sides and neighbored by two bloodthirsty enemies — Turkey and Azerbaijan.

But just take a look at a map, and the significance of Armenia’s role as it relates to Western hegemony becomes clear.

Garen Christopher Kaloustian

Armenia is the lone obstacle standing in the way of Turkey’s pursuit of establishing a pan-Turanic land and sea bridge that would span Europe and Asia. Contrary to public perception, the bonds these nations share are less based on Islam than they are on ethnicity.

The pan-Turanic menace

The nations highlighted in the graphic are all demographically composed of ethnically Turkic peoples. And if they were to establish that pan-Turanic land and sea bridge, you can bet your bottom dollar they would throw the power of that newfound Turanic empire around.

Some scenarios you can expect with the rise of the pan-Turanic empire:

Turkey abuses its position in NATO even more, extracting any and all demands it may have due to its new status as a trading world power.
The European states stand to pay even more for the oil they get from Azerbaijan, risking a position of total indentured dependence.
Even more immigrants from Central Asia flood Europe.
The U.S. is forced to comply with Turkish demands, norms, and cultural exports, so as not to lose out on major trade routes and markets.
The eventual Islamified Turkification of all icons, symbols, and cultural artifacts the West holds dear and sacred.

And if you think this isn’t coming down the pipeline, just look at both Greece and Armenia as your prime examples of what happens when Turks become the power brokers.

The Hagia Sophia is no longer a church. Every major Armenian church and historical site has either been destroyed or retroactively cast as an ancient Turkish site. The ruthless predation of the Turkic world has remained only regional for Christians up until now, but it can very easily become international, very soon.

What stands in the way is Armenia. That’s it.

Very stable genius

That is why the Azeris just cleaned out 120,000 Armenians from their ancestral homeland with military force. It’s why the traitorous, globalist Armenian government is pushing to “normalize” relations between itself and Turkey and Azerbaijan. And yes, it’s even why Iran considers Armenia’s territorial integrity a “red line” that it would not tolerate Azerbaijan breaching.

It’s also why I want you, the reader, to be aware of this pressing issue.

If Donald Trump becomes president, especially with advisers like Vivek Ramaswamy and RFK Jr. on his team, there will be a real opportunity to ward off this threat.

What I’m pushing for is not more taxpayer-funded aid to yet another region of the world. Instead, I’d like us to siphon the power, influence, and money away from antagonists like Turkey and Azerbaijan, whom we help out a lot.

The Middle East can be very stable, if we want it to be. That it happens to be occupied and governed by non-Christians is an anomaly — for much of history, Christians were in charge. A restoration of a Christian Middle East must be on the table as an agenda item for the next administration.

​Armenia, Pan-turanic alliance, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Donald trump, 2024 presidential election, Geopolitics, Endorsement 

blaze media

Want abortion up until birth? Kamala Harris is your candidate

Two years after the Supreme Court ended the federal right to abortion, the fight to protect the unborn rages on.

And there is no bigger threat to life than a Kamala Harris victory this Tuesday.

Even without a Harris victory, this election’s state ballot initiatives could advance a similarly radical pro-abortion agenda across the country.

“If we have a Harris presidency, if the Democrats take control of Congress, we know that they’re going to pass the [Women’s Health Protection Act], which is going to ban states from having pro-life laws,” Kelsey Pritchard of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America told Align in an interview Thursday.

More radical than Roe

While the repeal of Roe v. Wade returned decisions on abortion policy to state and local government, the WHPA would prevent states from imposing any restriction or limitation on abortion.

In writing the Roe ruling, the Supreme Court took care to acknowledge the moral issue inherent to abortion, explicitly defining it as a procedure ending “prenatal life.” It forbade states to regulate abortion only up until the viability of the fetus, which generally occurs between 24 and 28 weeks.

Tellingly, the WHPA dispenses with any references to human life, employing the euphemisms “abortion services” and “essential health care.” Rather than representing a “restoration” of Roe, it is far more radical.

“It’s essentially going to allow abortion until birth in every state,” Pritchard said.

While the WHPA has previously failed to garner the 61 votes needed to pass in the Senate, Harris has vowed to eliminate the filibuster, lowering the necessary number of votes to a simple majority of 51.

Abortion until birth

Even without a Harris victory, this election’s state ballot initiatives could advance a similarly radical pro-abortion agenda across the country, said Pritchard.

New York, Florida, Nevada, and Maryland are among the states asking voters to enshrine abortion in their constitutions this Tuesday. Like the WHPA, these initiatives are open-ended enough that activists could use “lawfare” in order to force taxpayers to fund abortion up to birth.

As an example of this, look no farther than the abortion policy of Harris’ running mate, Minnesota governor Tim Walz.

Thanks to Walz, said Pritchard, Minnesota has “no limits whatsoever” on abortion. “And that’s as extreme as China.”

“We are one of only eight countries that allow abortion in all nine months,” she continued. “Almost all of Europe has a limit after the first trimester or 15 weeks. But we are out of step with the modern developed world.”

Calculated deception

Such radical abortion policy is also out of step with most Americans, 73% of whom oppose abortion after 15 weeks.

Why the discrepancy?

In a memo, SBA Pro-Life America has likened these vaguely worded “reproductive rights” initiatives to “Trojan horses.”

“Even when so many of the American people still aren’t comfortable with abortion after a certain point, the way the abortion industry has been able to spin the issue has deceived people into going along with their agenda time and time again,” Pritchard told Align.

Much of it comes down to who has deeper pockets. With the help of George Soros and other donors, noted Pritchard, the pro-abortion side outspends the pro-life side seven to one. So far, pro-life advocates have failed to win a single ballot measure fight.

Cause for optimism

Still, Pritchard sees cause for optimism this year.

“The good news is that we’ve got some measures that are in very red states this year, like South Dakota, Nebraska, Florida, and Missouri,” said Pritchard.

“Particularly with GOP leaders like [Florida Governor] Ron DeSantis, who are standing strong and exposing what these ballot measures will actually do … we think we have a real shot at winning some of these this year.”

Whatever partial victories it seeks today, SBA Pro-Life America’s overarching fight is against what it calls the abortion industry’s “culture of death,” which Pritchard noted “has a hold on all of our major institutions … higher ed, the mainstream media, Hollywood, and many C-suites.”

She singles out journalists in particular for abdicating their traditional role. “The media need to wake up and realize that their job is not to be the abortion industry’s PR department.”

Fighting the lie

Such powerful backing, continues Pritchard, has allowed “this lie that an unborn child isn’t a child but is a clump of cells … [that] they’re not human until they’re born” to take root in America.

“This lie has legitimized the taking of more than 60 million lives since Roe [was ratified in 1973],” she said.

While SBA Pro-Life America advocates “compassion” for women dealing with unexpected pregnancies — devoting much of its work to defending pro-life pregnancy centers from Democrat attacks — the group’s consistent message is the nonnegotiable “humanity of the unborn child” and the moral wrongness of abortion in any circumstance.

“We will never relent on that point,” said Pritchard. “The more [the American people] have to confront that, I think the more people we’ll eventually win over.”

In the meantime, Pritchard urges pro-life Americans to make their voices heard on Tuesday.

“Life is literally on the ballot and lives are on the line this election,” said Pritchard. “We have to show up to vote, and we have to vote our values and vote for life.”

The way she sees it, the stakes are higher than any immediate outcome. “Our future generations are really depending upon us.”

​Abortion, Pro-life, Susan b. anthony pro-life america, Pro-abortion, State ballot initiatives, Women’s health protection act, Filibuster, Politics, Kamala harris, Ron desantis, Election 2024 

blaze media

Trimming the opposition, one election at a time

I’ve often reflected on Donald Trump’s charge that massive fraud occurred during the 2020 presidential election. While I’m not convinced the opposition cheated enough to change the outcome, I do agree with J.R. Dunn at American Thinker, who argues, “We’re not going to debate whether cheating in fact occurred in 2020 — the only ones who dispute that at this point are the bought, the braindead, and the comatose.”

My acceptance of this view stems largely from the behavior of Democratic Party operatives since 2020. They have used highly questionable tactics to influence election outcomes, including flooding the country with millions of illegal immigrants brought here as potential Democratic voters. In fact, Democrats have already started registering some of these new arrivals, who, grateful for benefits like living expenses, medical care, food, and shelter, are likely to vote in their favor.

The ruling left’s ideal outcome would involve the complete elimination of genuine opposition, leaving only allies or powerless coalition partners.

In states controlled by Democrats or those they are close to controlling, such as my home state of Pennsylvania, voter ID requirements are being removed. This change aims to enable individuals who shouldn’t have voting rights to cast ballots. Similarly, in 2020, ballots were widely mailed to addresses where registered voters once lived but may no longer reside. Democratic operatives likely visited these addresses to fill out ballots, while unguarded drop boxes in Democratic areas were reportedly filled with pro-Biden ballots late at night.

Recently, the Department of Justice has attempted to prevent Republican governors from removing noncitizens from voter rolls, as seen in a widely publicized case in Virginia. Congressional Democrats also strongly oppose limiting voting to only citizens, aligning with the party’s support for massive illegal immigration — essentially importing future Democratic voters.

These practices recall the “salami tactics” communist operatives used in Eastern Europe after World War II, which allowed them to gain power through seemingly constitutional means. Instead of the deep state and corporate media, as in today’s context, communists like Matyas Rakosi in Hungary and Klement Gottwald in Czechoslovakia relied on the Red Army to break up their democratic opposition.

Some of these gradualist tactics, pioneered by communist takeover strategists, echo what our Democratic Party and similar woke leftist parties in Europe are already doing. Much like today’s Democrats, the communists worked relentlessly to delegitimize any party to their right, including agrarian groups, nationalists, and even social democrats, labeling them as fascists and Nazis.

Much like slicing a salami, the political spectrum was gradually narrowed to the communists and their willing collaborators. These collaborators bear a striking resemblance to today’s neoconservatives, who now seek favor with Kamala Harris and Tim Walz while denouncing Trump and MAGA Republicans as neo-Nazis.

The totalitarian left has long perfected the art of marginalizing opposition. During their rise to power, the communists welcomed bourgeois progressives, the Eastern and Central European equivalents of figures like George Will, Ken Adelman, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, and Dick and Liz Cheney. Applying “salami tactics,” they outlawed noncompliant parties and, where possible, jailed their leaders as “fascists.” This approach mirrors how today’s media and Democrats treat MAGA Republicans, whom President Biden recently denounced as “garbage.” The ruling left’s ideal outcome would involve the complete elimination of genuine opposition, leaving only allies or powerless coalition partners.

A future Democratic administration led by Harris and Walz could closely resemble the old communist model. The Democrats have already proposed measures like packing the Supreme Court with loyalists, granting statehood to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico to secure additional Senate seats, and federalizing elections while removing voter ID requirements — all under the guise of “saving our democracy.”

Meanwhile, Harris, Walz, and sympathetic media outlets express concern about allowing “disinformation” to circulate without government oversight. The totalitarian left, whether in the modern West or the former Soviet bloc, has always sought to throttle unwanted dissent.

That said, our homegrown version of leftist totalitarianism looks a lot kinkier than what the communists established. Unlike puritanical communist rule, our post-democratic regime is already abolishing gender distinctions, pushing gender-altering surgery for minors, and glorifying homosexual relations. This new form of the totalitarian left would be less about government ownership of resources than reconstructing social and moral behavior and rewarding parasitic capitalists who support those in power.

Although history never repeats itself exactly, troubling trends often have an unfortunate tendency to rhyme.

​Communism, Salami, Kamala harris, Tim walz kamala harris, Tim walz, 2024 presidential election, Illegal aliens, Voting, Voter fraud, Voter id, Neo-nazis, Disinformation, Leftism, Democrats, Democracy, Opinion & analysis 

blaze media

Pure vibes, no substance: Kamala Harris’ campaign and media makeover

Who is running the country? What happened to President Joe Biden? Does anyone know what Kamala Harris is running her campaign on? In the hazy milieu of the mainstream media, these questions are harder to answer than anyone would think possible.

On “Zero Hour,” James Poulos sat down with Jill Savage, host of “Blaze News Tonight,” to discuss the state of the presidential race, the media’s influence on public perception, and Kamala Harris’ campaign of “vibes.”

Noting the strange transition of power within the Biden-Harris administration, James Poulos pointed out the media’s influence on the public perception of Harris. Jill Savage said, “Nobody actually likes Kamala, but we’re just going to pretend people like her and give her a media makeover. If they can get away with it, they absolutely will.”

They also discussed Kamala’s apparent lack of policy positions: “They know that if they put policies out there, people will attack her,” Savage said.

James Poulos observed at least one instance of fabricated photos regarding Harris’ campaign rallies, questioning whether that was a one-time occurrence: “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. They’re putting out press photos of these events that seem to be overflowing with human beings, but they’re actually humanoids that have been manufactured by AI,” Savage replied, “That’s what’s passing for news these days. If there weren’t independent news sources, this is what would be on the nightly news, and nobody would know any different.”

On the media’s portrayal of Kamala’s campaign, Savage added, “If pure vibes is Pravda, then we are pure vibing it all summer long.”

To hear more of what Jill Savage had to say on media manipulation, Harris’ platform of “vibes,” and more, watch the full episode of “Zero Hour” with James Poulos.

America was convinced tech would complete our mastery of the world. Instead, we got catastrophe — constant crises from politics and the economy down to the spiritual fiber of our being. Time’s up for the era we grew up in. How do we pick ourselves up and begin again? To find out, visionary author and media theorist James Poulos cracks open the minds — and hearts — of today’s top figures in politics, tech, ideas, and culture on “Zero Hour” on BlazeTV.

​Blaze news tonight, James poulos, Jill savage, Peter gietl, James poulos zero hour, Kamala harris, Technology, Tech 

blaze media

Liberal publication reveals what Democrats might blame Harris’ loss on

Kamala Harris could lose the election for a multitude of reasons. For starters, she has alienated a great many
men, Christians, pro-life advocates, and Hispanic voters and has struggled to distinguish herself politically from President Joe Biden.

Axios
suggested on Sunday that what might ultimately cost Harris the White House is her strategic lack of transparency.

The left-leaning publication indicated that Harris and her team have repeatedly dodged questions about her political positions, responding with only, “No comment.”

Harris, dubbed the “‘no comment’ candidate,” has reportedly refused to indicate whether she still supports providing reparations to black Americans; “sanctuary cities”; the restoration of voting rights for all former prison inmates; welcoming multitudes of foreign nationals supposedly displaced by “climate change” to flood into the U.S.; providing taxpayer-funded sex-change mutilations to illegal aliens; ending the detention of illegal aliens; massive restrictions on drilling for oil; giving millions of illegal aliens smuggled into the country a pathway to citizenship; ending the death penalty; forcing automakers to cease building gas-burning vehicles by 2035; decriminalizing prostitution; closing private, for-profit prisons; and abolishing the Senate filibuster.

‘There’s no indication that Harris needs to offer specific, potentially divisive policies on any issue.’

In an apparent effort to appeal to moderates without disenchanting radical leftists, Harris —
reportedly the second-most liberal Democratic to serve in the U.S. Senate in the 21st century — has tried to run out the clock on answering questions about what she actually believes in, responding only with doublespeak and conflicting messages.

For example, when Harris finally sat down for an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash in August after dodging the press for five weeks, the vice president
said, “My values have not changed.” This quote prompted numerous sleuths to dig into what policies Harris previously signaled support for.

After KFile highlighted Harris’ radical responses to a 2019
American Civil Liberties Union questionnaire, CNN’s investigative outfit asked her campaign about whether the vice president’s values had in fact changed — whether she still supported decriminalizing crack nationwide, giving felons taxpayer-funded sex-change operations, and exacerbating the border crisis.

The Harris campaign responded with
a lengthy non-answer about how her “positions have been shaped by three years of effective governance as part of the Biden-Harris administration.”

There were hints earlier on — besides Harris’ refusal to sit down for interviews — that the vice president might be noncommittal policy-wise, short on answers, and keen to prioritize style over substance.

The Atlantic’s Spencer Kornhaber
noted in August that Harris’ “oddball charm satisfies the content demands of the moment,” suggesting that it mattered less what Harris was saying and more how she said it.

The New Republic
recommended in September that Harris ignore the pressure to commit to specific agenda items and to instead rely on a “vibes- and values-based argument”:

There’s no indication that Harris needs to offer specific, potentially divisive policies on any issue — and all of the early signs suggest that doing so would be a mistake. Harris herself is not a wonk — she flopped in 2020 in part because she struggled to compete in a wonky, policy-heavy primary. And yet, even if she were a policy dork, there’s little reason to believe that it would necessarily boost her chances: In 2016, Hillary Clinton offered more than 200 distinct policy proposals and lost.

It’s left to be seen whether Harris’ refusal to own up to her real views helped or hurt her cause electorally. However, Axios’ Alex Thompson noted that “if she loses, she and her team will be blamed for leaving voters foggy about her true views and self. And President Biden will be blamed for backing a candidate with such a liberal track record.”

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

​Chameleon, Kamala harris, Harris, Leftist, No comment, Election, Trump, Policy, Agenda, Politics, Media 

blaze media

How the left seeks to ruin Trump’s lawyers, Sixth Amendment be damned

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly outlines the rights of those accused of crimes, including the right to legal counsel. Traditionally, this right has enjoyed universal support across the political spectrum. However, the landscape changed dramatically after the election of President Donald Trump and the left losing its collective mind.

A “legal watchdog group” now discourages lawyers from representing Trump, threatening retribution against those who choose to defend him. This is gangster government stuff.

Efforts to deny legal counsel to those out of favor with those in power set a dangerous precedent. Criminalizing those who provide that counsel is even worse.

To clarify, the warning specifically targets lawyers representing Trump in election fraud challenges. However, the history of attacks on Trump’s attorneys suggests it also serves as a warning to any lawyer who might represent him in future criminal defense cases.

According to the New York Times:

After the 2020 election, legal watchdogs, outraged at some of their colleagues, filed scores of ethics complaints against lawyers who used their skills in questionable ways to help former President Donald J. Trump stay in power.

And in the past few years, the groups have had some notable successes, securing judgments that have led to pro-Trump lawyers like John Eastman and Rudolph W. Giuliani having their law licenses deactivated.

Eastman and Giuliani lost their law licenses for a very simple reason: They represented Trump. Their disbarment was a warning to any other lawyer who would represent Trump in the future.

The Times story highlights a group called the 65 Project as one taking “a more proactive approach” against any lawyers who would dare help Trump ensure that the presidential election is above board. The group last month began running ads in “legal journals published in swing states, reminding lawyers that they are ethically barred from bringing false claims on behalf of any client.”

“Don’t risk your law license by joining an effort to subvert democracy,” one ad reads. “We — and the public — are watching.”

The 65 Project has issued a specific warning: Any lawyer who counsels Trump in challenging election results will face personal repercussions that could threaten his or her professional livelihood.

But think back to the 2000 “hanging chad” election. Both George W. Bush and Al Gore had legal teams acting on their behalf as Gore attempted to overturn Bush’s Florida victory, which ultimately decided the presidential election. By the logic of the 65 Project, all lawyers who represented Gore could have faced disbarment for attempting to deny Bush his lawful election win.

Notably, while Gore and his team of “election-denying” attorneys sought to “subvert democracy” after the 2000 election, no one on the right argued that Gore’s lawyers should be disbarred for representing him. Today, however, Democrats and the left seek to professionally and financially ruin any lawyer who accepts employment with Donald Trump.

And the threat isn’t limited to lawyers who would represent Trump in election fraud cases. The left also wants to punish those willing to defend Trump against criminal charges.

Attorney Todd Blanche had the audacity to provide defense counsel for Donald Trump in one of the criminal cases Trump is facing. This is clear Sixth Amendment territory — the accused has the right to counsel.

But Democrats and the media have attempted to destroy Blanche for daring to represent Trump, accusing him of “ethical violations” and calling for punishment. And what was Blanche’s offense? He nodded his head in court.

Seriously.

“Todd Blanche nodding his head to Trump’s statement that he can’t testify because of the gag order is a very serious ethical violation in the middle of a criminal trial,” attorney Ron Filipkowski, who edits the left-wing MeidasTouch blog, wrote on X. Judge Juan Merchan “must absolutely grill Blanche and get to the bottom of why he lied to his client about his rights.”

Efforts to deny legal counsel to those out of favor with those in power set a dangerous precedent. Criminalizing those who provide that counsel is even worse. The left should consider the consequences of this precedent carefully, as a two-tier justice system where only one side is entitled to legal counsel cannot exist in this country.

​Donald trump, Lawfare, Lawfare against trump, Sixth amendment, Trump trials, Legal defense, Todd blanche, Crime, 2024 presidential election, Stop the steal, Voter fraud, Election integrity, Opinion & analysis 

blaze media

‘Go back to your $2 million home’: GOP candidate delivers blistering takedown of Democrat opponent

New Hampshire 2nd Congressional District candidate Lily Tang Williams delivered a blistering assault on Thursday against her opponent, Maggie Goodlander.

Goodlander is a former Biden administration Department of Justice official. She is married to national security adviser Jake Sullivan.

During a Thursday debate, Goodlander accused Tang Williams of catering to the wealthiest Americans by supporting tax breaks.

‘You pretend you are poor.’

“She believes that we should give a break to the wealthiest and the biggest corporations and hope for the best, hope that the results will trickle down to hardworking people,” Goodlander stated.

“I take a very different approach. I believe that the middle class deserves a tax cut, and I believe that we will do a lot for this country by ensuring that we don’t continue this disastrous tax policy,” she added.

Without missing a beat, Tang Williams fired back, accusing Goodlander of being a multimillionaire herself who is out of touch with the struggles of everyday Americans.

“You are wealthy. You’re worth $20 million to $30 million. How do you know about regular people’s suffering? Do you go shopping? Go to Walmart? Buy food? I talk to those people. And you pretend to be a renter in Nashua a few months ago, move back to run for this open seat with millions of dollars from Washington, D.C., insiders,” Tang Williams told Goodlander.

Goodlander rents an apartment in Nashua. If she wins the election, she has stated she will purchase property in the district, according to the New Hampshire Center for Public Interest Journalism.

“I don’t have money to run a TV ad, and you pretend you are poor, complain rent is so high,” Tang Williams continued. “You do not understand regular people’s concerns.”

“Just go back to your $2 million home in Portsmouth,” she remarked. “You do not understand regular people’s concerns.”

Tang Williams’ fiery rebuttal went viral on social media.

According to the Daily Beast and the New York Times, Goodlander and Sullivan purchased a $1.2 million home in Portsmouth in 2018.

Earlier this year, Goodlander was torched for complaining that rent costs are “too damn high” while holding millions of dollars in real estate.

Tang Williams was raised in China during Mao Zedong’s cultural revolution. She came to the United States with only $100 and became a citizen in 1994.

Following the viral debate moment, Tang Williams posted on X, “I have the fire in my belly to fight for the people in #NH02. I will always tell the truth.”

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

​Politics, Election 2024, New hampshire, Election, Lily tang williams, Maggie goodlander, Jake sullivan, Economy, News 

blaze media

Why the media doesn’t fear defaming Donald Trump

Have you ever wondered why reporters don’t seem to hesitate to say and repeat things about Donald Trump that simply aren’t true — as if they have no fear of defamation liability?

This sort of thing happens because the U.S. Supreme Court about 60 years ago invented a First Amendment doctrine that protects the media from defamation liability, at least in lawsuits brought by public figures.

The ‘actual malice’ standard technically allows the media to defame politicians of both parties equally. But they don’t. Not by a mile.

If you’re wondering which words in the First Amendment tell reporters they are free to defame activists, politicians, and other public figures without fear of being sued, you’re on the right track. Nothing in the text, structure, or original public understanding of the First Amendment talks about or even leads logically to an absurd rule insulating the media from defamation liability.

The fact that the Constitution doesn’t support this rule didn’t stop the Supreme Court from deciding in a 1964 case called New York Times v. Sullivan that a defamation action brought by a public figure cannot succeed unless the defendant acted with “actual malice.”

The Supreme Court defined “actual malice” to mean knowledge of the offending statement’s falsity or reckless disregard as to its truthfulness. For obvious reasons, the news media industry loves Sullivan, as it gives reporters and media companies almost a complete pass when it comes to defaming public figures.

But the fact that media companies love the Sullivan case doesn’t change the fact that the Supreme Court invented this doctrine out of thin air.

Even if one thinks immunizing media companies against defamation liability might be a good idea for policy reasons, that doesn’t change the fact that it finds no support in the Constitution. As a practical matter, moreover, it’s become apparent that New York Times v. Sullivan disproportionately — indeed, overwhelmingly — helps Democrats and creates a severe disadvantage for Republicans in the political process.

Think about it: The media are all but immune from defamation liability when speaking about public figures, including politicians, so, given that the media are almost seamlessly aligned with Democrats, they can hit Republicans more or less all they want without fear.

And they do!

In essence, all the media must do to avoid liability when attacking Donald Trump and other Republican politicians is have some thin, arguable basis to show that when they defamed a Republican, they didn’t know they were speaking falsely.

That means they can be negligent when speaking falsely about Republican politicians like Trump.

Of course, reporters will insist “that’s not fair to say New York Times v. Sullivan allows us to single out Republicans. After all, the same standard applies regardless of a politician’s party affiliation.” But that overlooks the overwhelming, increasingly obvious bias within the news industry in America.

So yes, the “actual malice” standard technically allows the media to defame politicians of both parties equally. But they don’t. Not by a mile.

Thus, not only is the Sullivan decision wrong because it isn’t rooted in the Constitution (but claims to be), but it also leaves countless victims of defamation without recourse, encourages lazy journalism, and provides a huge, unfair advantage to Democrats in politics.

Some jurists and legal scholars have noted that it may be time for the Supreme Court to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan and that litigants facing this standard should begin making arguments for overturning that unfortunate precedent.

In any event, it’s wrong for Democrats to enjoy an unfair advantage arising out of a fake constitutional doctrine created out of thin air by the Supreme Court 60 years ago.

Editor’s note: This article has been adapted from a thread that appeared on X (formerly Twitter).

​Libel laws, Libel and defamation, New york times v sullivan, Media bias, Defamation lawsuit, Donald trump, Fake news, Constitution, Supreme court, Opinion & analysis 

blaze media

Actor says a big percentage of Hollywood is voting Trump over THIS issue

Despite the Taylor Swifts, the Beyonces, and the Mark Hamills, the majority of Hollywood is secretly voting for Donald Trump, according to actor Zachary Levi.

And it’s not necessarily because they like him. He’s just their only shot at keeping their job.

“Do you think, Zachary, there are a lot more stars in Hollywood who are now leaning towards voting Trump than would actually admit it?” Piers Morgan asked Levi on an episode of “Piers Morgan Uncensored.”

“I do think there’s a lot of people in Hollywood that would love to vote for a Democratic candidate because they really don’t like Trump … but they’re not just voting for Donald; they’re voting for that entire unity party,” Levi said, pointing to the reality that the country did better under Trump than it has under Biden.

Part of what made it better is that we didn’t fear that AI would be allowed to eliminate our jobs. But that’s been a huge concern under the Biden regime. When did the Hollywood actors’ strike occur after all? Not under a Trump administration.

Now, Levi meets with Blaze Media host Dave Rubin to unpack why Hollywood actors are more likely to vote for Donald Trump.


– YouTube

www.youtube.com

“I really believe that AI is about to disrupt this entire world — every single industry. … When you start putting AI in the robotics that are getting very, very good, you can essentially replace all of the workforce in the world,” says Levi, adding that “it’s going to start in a place like Hollywood” that relies heavily on “audio and video.”

He has a message for the Hollywood actors and actresses who are afraid to voice support for Donald Trump because it might cost them jobs: “There won’t be any jobs” if Kamala Harris wins.

“Anyone in my industry who’s still sitting on your hands and you’re scared … I really believe that this is the moment,” he says. “We are at the precipice of either saving the free world or not.”

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

Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The rubin report, Dave rubin, Blazetv, Blaze media, Zach levi, Zachary levi, Hollywood 

blaze media

Reductio ad Hitlerum: Why ‘Trump is Hitler’ isn’t just empty rhetoric

Hillary Clinton’s mentor, Saul Alinsky, preached a cardinal rule of the left: to accuse opponents of precisely what they are doing. The former first lady recently accused Donald Trump of being Adolf Hitler, a charge repeated by leading Democrats, with Kamala Harris defaulting to the boilerplate “fascist.” The reductio ad Hitlerum was once the last rhetorical refuge for someone losing an argument, like a drunk at the end of the bar. Over time, the Hitler slander became politicians’ first resort, serving several valuable purposes.

Demonizing someone as Hitler is a justification for violence against them. On July 13, a 20-year-old with no tactical experience somehow evaded the Secret Service, gained access to a rooftop fewer than 150 yards from the stage where Trump was speaking, and fired eight shots, grazing Trump’s ear, killing rally attendee Corey Comperatore, and wounding two others.

For coincidence theorists, it’s all pure happenstance. In reality, the Trump-as-Hitler jihad signals a convergence going back nearly a century.

Common enemies

Consider the account of British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge, author of the magisterial “Chronicles of Wasted Time.” In the early 1930s, Muggeridge visited the Soviet Union as the Moscow correspondent of the London Guardian but planned to remain as a partisan of the communist regime. Joseph Stalin’s forced famine in Ukraine, which claimed millions of lives, changed the journalist’s mind but inspired Hitler. As Muggeridge explained, Soviet communism and German national socialism were essentially Slavic and Germanic versions of the same tyranny. This was confirmed by a distinguished resident of Hitler’s regime.

Hans-Jurgen Massaquoi was born in Hamburg in 1926 to a Liberian father and a German mother. More than half a century later, as a naturalized American citizen, Massaquoi wrote “Destined to Witness: Growing Up Black in Nazi Germany,” a remarkable account first published in 1999 and now more relevant than ever.

Barred from university, Massaquoi read James Fenimore Cooper, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Miguel de Cervantes, Charles Dickens, Arthur Conan Doyle, Mark Twain, Victor Hugo, and Robert Louis Stevenson. Such authors became an “indispensable survival tool” against “constant racist attacks.” Massaquoi survived because “unlike Jews, blacks were few in number and relegated to low-priority status.”

For supporters of Biden and Harris, people who want the nation to be great are deplorables — the Untermenschen — and this lays the groundwork for violence against them.

The German National Socialists hailed their virtue and blasted communist evil, but Massaquoi found their propaganda “a distortion of facts.” The truth was, “in their many bloody clashes for dominance in Germany, the Nazis and Commies were virtually indistinguishable. Both were totalitarians, ever ready to brutalize to crush resistance to their respective ideologies.”

And they did.

The 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact divvied up Europe between the regimes, which both invaded Poland in September 1939, starting World War II. During the Pact, Stalin handed German Jews directly to Hitler’s Gestapo. For details, see “Under Two Dictators: Prisoner of Stalin and Hitler” by Margarete Buber-Neumann. After the war, Stalin swung the people of the USSR back to their habitual anti-Semitism, branding Jews “rootless cosmopolitans.” That was also the case in the communist regimes of Eastern Europe.

Witness the Slansky show trial in Czechoslovakia with its 11 executions. As director Robert Rossen (known for “All the King’s Men”) testified to Congress, the victims “were all hung, in my opinion, for being Jews and nothing else.”

Anti-Semitism remained a component of the left in the 20th century, culminating in its collaboration with Islamic terrorism. For example, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine deployed the “Che Guevara Group Brigade” to hijack an Air France flight in 1976 that wound up taking hostages to Idi Amin’s Uganda. The Che Guevara squad consisted of two Arabs and Germans Wilfried Bose and Brigitte Kuhlmann, who were also members of a leftist group called the Revolutionary Cells. The Baader-Meinhof group, another leftist German terrorist organization, showed similar tendencies.

The late Christopher Hitchens could easily imagine Andreas Baader as “an enthusiastic member of the Brownshirts.” Some members were recruited at the University of Heidelberg’s Socialist Patients Collective. One of them, Ralf Reinders, planned to destroy the Jewish House in Berlin, once gutted by the Brownshirts, “in order to get rid of this thing about the Jews that we’ve all had to have since the Nazi time.” The contemporary left also has a “thing about the Jews.”

In the style of the PFLP and PLO, the left construes the Middle East conflict as colonialism, a doctrine expounded on by Marx and Lenin. October 7, 2023, the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust, caused campuses to reverberate with shouts of “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” meaning Judenrein, the goal of Nazi Germany. The American left is down with it.

Rainbow supremacy

Ivy League campuses like Harvard couldn’t figure out whether their DEI policies, speech codes, and “woke” measures against bullying applied to calls for genocide against Jews. As Harvard’s then-President Claudine Gay said, it all depends on the “context.”

The Nazis touted their master race theories, and the communists hailed the “new Soviet man.” As it happens, the United States of America is developing its own brand of Übermenschen through the LGBTQ construct, construed as a “community” possessed of extraordinary powers. Consider Sneha Nair, a Biden-Harris appointee at the National Nuclear Security Administration and co-author of “Queering nuclear weapons: How LGBTQ+ inclusion strengthens security and reshapes disarmament.”

Nair claims queer people “make fewer errors, discuss issues more constructively, and better exchange new ideas and knowledge.” Not only that, “queer people have specific skills to offer that are valuable in a policy and diplomacy context.” The alphabet people are just better, but there’s more to the intersectionality now.

Democrats appear to believe that national socialist Germany allowed “Klaus’ Assault Rifles” shops on every corner, calling for citizens to “Get your Sturmgewehr and Schmeisser today!” As Stephen P. Halbrook showed inGun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming Jews and ‘Enemies of the State,’” the German National Socialists ruthlessly suppressed ownership of firearms. They used the registration records of the Weimar Republic to find out who owned guns and barred possession of ammunition. The government crusade against “assault weapons” is more like Nazi policy than people might think. See also Halbrook’s “Gun Control in Nazi Occupied France: Tyranny and Resistance.”

California’s Firearms Violence Research Center at UC Davis aims to find out “who owns guns, why they own them, and how they use firearms.” As in National Socialist Germany and its occupied territories, “ve vant zuh names.” The state also requires background checks for ammunition sales and uses them to confiscate guns. These are not the only National Socialist-style measures the people now face.

The groundwork for violence

During the pandemic, government health bosses — white coat supremacists — demanded vaccination papers for entry to various establishments. Dr. Deborah Birx branded the uninfected “non-symptomatic carriers,” suddenly, it was “your papers, please.” NIAID boss Dr. Anthony Fauci promoted vaccines that failed to prevent infection or transmission, even for children — the least vulnerable group. Fauci was commanding a medical experiment on the entire population, but comparisons to Josef Mengele are unfair — to Mengele.

Since then, the United States of America has become more like National Socialist Germany, not less. Witness Joe Biden’s September 1, 2022, speech, which looked like something staged by Leni Riefenstahl. The Delaware Democrat also compares Trump to Hitler and calls Trump’s supporters “garbage.” For supporters of Biden and Harris, people who want the nation to be great are deplorables — the Untermenschen — and this lays the groundwork for state-sponsored violence against them.

Black American Hans-Jurgen Massaquoi, who died in 2013, would be shocked. So would those Americans who actually defeated the Nazis, liberating their captive nations and concentration camps. Fewer than 70,000 of the veterans remain, and they pass the torch to generations since born.

The Ansis — American National Socialists — are coming. Fight them on the internet, in the academy, and fight them at the ballot box. Sooner or later, everybody will have to pick a side.

​2024 presidential election, Reductio ad hitlerum, Adolf hitler, Donald trump, Totalitarianism, Nazi germany, Nazis, Democratic party, Hillary clinton, Anthony fauci, Opinion & analysis 

blaze media

Record-breaking turnout in this key demographic could sway the election

When it comes to early voting, rural voters are turning out in droves, while urban voters’ participation is declining in key battleground states. Given that rural voters tend to lean Republican and urban voters lean Democratic, this trend could be particularly consequential going into the election.

Since 2020, there has been over a six-point increase in rural early voting across the seven battlegrounds, while urban early voting decreased by over seven points, according to data from TargetEarly. Suburban voters only increased by about one point from 2020 across the seven swing states.

With just two days to go until the election, this may turn the tide in former President Trump’s favor.

There is a partisan split between rural and urban voters, which could shift the electoral outcome, and it has only widened over the last two decades.

Suburban voters have been split down the middle for the past two decades, with 50% identifying as Republican or Republican-leaning and 47% identifying as Democratic or Democrat-leaning, according to a Pew Research study from April.

Urban voters have a larger partisan gap, leaning heavily toward Democrats. In 1994, 58% of urban voters identified as Democratic or Democrat-leaning, while 39% identified as Republican or Republican-leaning, according to the study. The partisan gap widened slightly by 2023, with 60% of urban voters identifying as Democratic and 37% identifying as Republican.

The partisan gap among rural voters used to be extremely narrow, with 51% identifying as Republican or Republican-leaning and 45% identifying as Democratic or Democrat-leaning, according to the study. Since then, just 35% identify as Democrats, while 60% identify as Republicans.

While urban voters, who are mostly Democratic, are participating at a lower rate in battleground states compared to 2020, rural voters, who are mostly Republican, have a higher turnout rate. With just two days to go until the election, this may turn the tide in former President Trump’s favor.

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

​Politics, Rural voters, Rural american, Suburban voters, Donald trump, Kamala harris, 2024 presidential election, Presidential election, 2024 election, Election, Battleground states, Swing states 

blaze media

The media’s ‘war on misinformation’ loses all credibility

Like many in the influential yet shrinking elite media bubble, the Atlantic is in a panic over misinformation. In an October 10 article titled “I’m Running Out of Ways to Explain How Bad This Is,” Charlie Warzel laments how Americans no longer automatically follow the directives of the establishment or rely on the media-academia-expert complex to think for them. Warzel frames the issue differently, describing it as “nothing less than a cultural assault on any person or institution that operates in reality.”

“It is difficult to capture the nihilism of the current moment,” he writes. “The pandemic saw Americans, distrustful of authority, trying to discredit effective vaccines, spreading conspiracy theories, and attacking public-health officials.”

The media’s lies and disinformation began well before 2020 and continue today.

Warzel contends that things only worsened from there. He describes “journalists, election workers, scientists, doctors, and first responders” as victims in a “war on truth” because they “must attend to and describe the world as it is,” which, in his view, makes them dangerous to people who resist “the agonizing constraints of reality” or who have financial and political interests in perpetuating misinformation.

Warzel, of course, is not alone. Recently, many have sounded the alarm against the so-called plague of misinformation allegedly affecting society today. Among these voices, the most authoritative have come from a who’s who of Democratic Party leaders.

Hillary Clinton: “I think it’s important to indict the Russians just as Mueller indicted a lot of Russians who were engaged in direct election interference and boosting Trump back in 2016. But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda and whether they should be civilly, or even in some cases, criminally charged, is something that would be a better deterrence.”

Tim Walz: “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”

John Kerry: “If people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda, and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence. So what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “We’re going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation.”

And, of course, Kamala Harris: Social media companies “are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and it has to stop.”

Nowhere in Warzel’s article, or in any of these bold pronouncements and threats against dissenting voices, is there the slightest acknowledgment of a simple, undeniable truth: We stopped trusting them because they lost our trust. Science, once a self-correcting pursuit of truth, has become Dr. Fauci’s “the Science” with a capital S — a dogma similar to the one that the church used to stifle Galileo.

Much of the media, formerly our bulwark against state tyranny, now operates as the Democratic Party’s ministry of propaganda. When Donald Trump burst onto the political scene in 2015 and went on to secure the GOP’s nomination a year later, the media decided objectivity was no longer necessary. Instead, their new mission became crusading against Trump at every opportunity. Our loss of trust in these former arbiters of truth was a natural result.

Rather than acknowledging this erosion of trust, these politicking journalists, along with academics and political allies in their bubble, labeled any resistance to their often-false narratives as “misinformation.” Researcher David Rozado has documented a sharp rise in mentions of “misinformation” and “disinformation” in the media and academia, starting in 2016 — the year of Trump’s election.

Seriously, not literally

Warzel and others with a similar viewpoint might argue that the media began addressing misinformation in 2016 because Trump himself started spreading it, thereby inspiring a wave of conspiracies and outlandish claims from his supporters. There is some truth in this. Trump undoubtedly pushed the boundaries of acceptable political discourse and often lacked substantial proof for his claims.

While politicians have always bent the truth, Trump — a salesman from the high-stakes world of real estate rather than a lawyer like most national politicians — didn’t shy away from exaggeration. His go-to phrases — “the best ever,” “the worst ever,” “like no one’s ever seen before” — were part of his rhetorical style of inflation and hyperbole.

I would argue that most people, regardless of education, recognize Trump’s claims for what they are. Trump talks like that braggadocious, big-talking uncle we all know — not like a slippery politician skilled at lying through subtle phrasing and misleading statistics. People understand not to take Trump literally. In fact, unlike most politicians, Trump’s supporters know exactly what he stands for.

Ironically, despite claims from the left that Trump is a shameless liar, many people support him precisely because he speaks openly and directly about things other politicians might only hint at. That transparency, though often crude, appeals to his base. I would agree, however, that Trump has likely lowered the level of our political discourse more than anyone in recent memory. But crudity is not the same as deception. If anything, it’s the opposite of deception.

In any discussion of lies and misinformation in politics, the “Big Lie” attributed to Trump — widespread election fraud in 2020 — looms large. But an undeniable fact remains: The media’s lies and disinformation began well before 2020 and continue today. These distortions cover a wide range of topics and often involve coordination among news outlets, scientists, academics, and others.

Warzel’s alleged defenders of truth against misinformation have committed numerous notable infractions against reality.

Expert alarmism

For years, the media, relying on handpicked “experts,” has bombarded us with alarmist rhetoric about the imminent danger of manmade climate change. They promote a phony 97% consensus among climate scientists while censoring evidence-based alternative views, despite data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that doesn’t fully support such alarmism.

We were falsely told that President Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton. This baseless accusation led to years of costly investigations that hamstrung his administration, while the New York Times and the Washington Post received Pulitzer Prizes for their extensive reporting on these unsubstantiated claims.

During the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots, which brought American cities to their knees with widespread arson, vandalism, looting, and destruction of small businesses, we were told these events were “mostly peaceful protests.” This disinformation campaign, along with the promotion of critical race theory and anti-law enforcement ideologies, led to lenient or nonexistent prosecutions for those involved. Meanwhile, the media labeled the events of January 6, 2021 — which resulted in far less loss of life and property damage — as an “armed insurrection” and an attempted “coup.”

The media omitted key facts about January 6, including that Trump, the alleged instigator, had warned top advisers days before that many protesters would be coming to the Capitol and requested the National Guard be prepared. They ignored and defied his request. Consequently, those involved in the Capitol breach were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and given disproportionately harsh sentences for what, in many cases, amounted to minor infractions, often limited to acts of trespassing.

On the eve of the 2020 election, the media — including Twitter and Facebook — suppressed the New York Post’s explosive story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, labeling it “Russian disinformation.” This suppression likely influenced the election outcome in Biden’s favor. Only later, when it no longer mattered, did the media reveal that the laptop and the story were real. Anyone who dismisses Trump’s claims of 2020 election interference must first contend with this major flaw in the media’s “Big Lie” narrative.

Accounting for COVID

The COVID-19 era exposed how the media colluded with the government to spread fear, propaganda, and disinformation while silencing evidence-based alternative views. Continued censorship on these issues — including the absurd censorship and deplatforming of respected scientists like Dr. Robert Malone, a pioneer of mRNA technology used in COVID vaccines — limits full and frank discussion.

The handling of the lab-leak theory of COVID’s origin provides a glaring example. Initially dismissed as a “conspiracy theory,” the lab-leak hypothesis now holds wide acceptance, yet the media originally pushed a flawed natural-origin narrative. Acknowledging a lab origin would have implicated Dr. Anthony Fauci, who approved gain-of-function research tied to the virus’ creation.

To discredit the lab-leak theory, scientists coordinated with Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins to publish an influential paper in Nature, arguing for a natural origin. Yet, their contemporaneous communications reveal they did not believe the narrative they promoted. The media amplified this false narrative, labeling dissenters as conspiracy theorists whose claims had been thoroughly “debunked.”

War, dementia, and ‘cheapfakes’

The media uncritically promoted the Biden administration’s false narrative that the Russia-Ukraine war was an “unprovoked” attack by Moscow. While Putin bears responsibility, evidence strongly suggests that the attack was substantially provoked by neoconservatives within the Biden administration. These actions built upon the Obama administration’s support for the 2014 overthrow of Ukraine’s government in favor of a more anti-Russian regime.

Biden administration officials continued to draw Ukraine foolishly closer to NATO, despite knowing that establishing an enemy alliance on Russia’s border was a red line for Putin — just as it would have been for the United States had Canada joined the former Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact or placed nuclear missiles in Cuba.

The media also colluded with the Biden administration and others close to Joe Biden to hide his cognitive decline and ongoing descent into dementia. They attempted to gaslight the public, dismissing videos of Biden’s apparent incapacity — including moments like talking to a dead politician — as “cheapfakes.” When the June presidential debate made Biden’s condition undeniable, the media feigned shock.

After Biden was ultimately compelled to drop out of the race by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and wealthy donors, the media continued their false narrative. They portrayed his withdrawal not as an action forced on him by party elites despite his objections but as a courageous decision he made to protect democracy against Donald Trump.

Covering for Kamala

Once Democratic Party bosses appointed Kamala Harris to replace Biden, the media launched an unprecedented, coordinated effort to portray her as something she clearly was not: capable, intelligent, informed, inspiring, visionary, eloquent, articulate, honest, principled, and free of responsibility for the Biden administration’s mismanagement of the economy and immigration.

This full-scale media campaign included giving Harris and her running mate a month-long pass on unscripted interviews and press conferences. When they finally faced the media, reporters served up softball questions, allowing them to evade or respond with vapid pabulum or evasive nonanswers without follow-ups.

The presidential and vice-presidential debates further underscored this bias, with moderators framing topics to favor the Democratic ticket and engaging in misleading “fact-checks” exclusively for the Republican candidates. During the vice presidential debate, moderators even conducted fact-checks, despite rules prohibiting them.

The October “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris stood out as a particularly egregious example. Unlike the unaltered footage of Biden’s apparent cognitive struggles, CBS edited out Harris’ incoherent rambling in response to a question about Israel. They skipped directly to a slightly more coherent part of her answer, creating a genuine “cheapfake.” While the Biden clips aimed to reveal his cognitive deficits that his administration and the media sought to hide, the shameful editing stunt at “60 Minutes” blatantly tried to conceal Harris’ cognitive deficits from the public.

Who are you gonna believe?

In the face of this longstanding barrage of lies, propaganda, and disinformation, only two types of people would retain complete trust in the powers-that-be: 1) those deeply embedded in the Democratic Party-aligned information bubble, lacking the motivation, common sense, or drive to seek alternative perspectives; and 2) complete morons.

Most of us, thankfully, fit into neither of those categories — nor the massive overlapping area where the two converge. As a result, we no longer take anything from the media and their allies at face value. This widespread disillusionment, however, has led many to a point where it’s difficult to discern truth from misinformation, struggling to balance healthy skepticism with slipping into loony conspiracy land. Social media further amplifies this predicament, acting as both an escape from the distortions of the mainstream narrative and a potential detour from reality itself.

And yes, it’s a problem. But before the media priests blame us for opting out of their funhouse hall of mirrors, I have a suggestion for them: Take a long, hard look in one of those mirrors, recognize your own complicity, and … well … stop lying to us!

​Media bias, 2024 presidential election, Cheapfake, Kamala harris, Donald trump, Fake news, Fake news media, Misinformation, Covid-19, January 6, Conspiracy theory, Anthony fauci, Robert malone, Francis collins, 60 minutes, Opinion & analysis