Category: blaze media

For years, the FBI denied that key evidence existed in the Oklahoma City bombing. But court documents, leaked files, and eyewitness accounts suggest a darker truth buried beneath the official story.

President Bill Clinton visited a church in Oklahoma City on April 19 to mark the 30th anniversary of the 1995 bombing that resulted in the deaths of 168 people. In his remarks, Clinton said we “owe” it to the victims to “do better” in honor of their sacrifice. But just like three decades ago, commemorating the bombing still requires airbrushing a mountain of contradictory evidence.

This is a test of whether the Trump administration will honor its promises on transparency.

Clinton’s Justice Department owed the nation the full truth about the bombing. Instead, it spun a cover story that both distorted the past and endangered the future, leaving the American people exposed to new threats.

Among the most striking but forgotten facts surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing is the mystery of “John Doe 2,” a man 24 eyewitnesses claimed to have seen in the Ryder truck with Timothy McVeigh. The FBI now insists he never existed.

After the bombing, the media abandoned its role as a watchdog and became, in too many cases, an enabler of the official narrative of lone-wolf terror. It professed that the FBI acted swiftly and heroically, the Justice Department delivered justice, and President Clinton led the country through its pain with grace and resolve.

Fortunately, not everyone gave up on the truth. Today’s most relentless truth-seekers are anonymous digital investigators and citizen journalists, armed with Freedom of Information Act filings, archived footage, and a hunger to uncover what the gatekeepers tried to hide.

I’ve been part of one such effort for almost two decades. Working alongside attorney Jesse Trentadue, I’ve investigated the likely connection between the Oklahoma City bombing and the horrific 1995 death of Jesse’s brother, Kenneth, in federal custody. Jesse’s FOIA lawsuits unearthed shocking documents about the FBI’s concealed activities — clues that led us deeper into the bureau’s involvement than we could have imagined.

Then, a former FBI undercover operative came forward. What he revealed gave us a key piece of the puzzle. And yet for all we’ve uncovered, the vaults of secrecy remain shut.

Which brings us to a critical moment. On March 26, Trentadue submitted a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, urging the release of a decade-old sealed deposition from that very whistleblower. The contents of that deposition could expose the true scope of PATCON — the FBI’s sweeping 1990s operation to infiltrate alleged right-wing extremist groups — and potentially tie it directly to the Oklahoma City bombing.

This is a test of whether the Trump administration will honor its promises of transparency. Very few are aware that the Oklahoma City bombing was caught on camera. We know this not just from speculative claims but from on-the-record sources — contemporaneous media reports, corroborating federal files, and sworn FBI testimony. The footage exists. It’s a documented fact. Yet the tapes remain hidden. Authorities only released video of the aftermath.

For over a decade, the FBI fought Trentadue in court to keep the video out of public view. The footage may prove conclusively that McVeigh was not acting alone. If made public, the tapes could shatter the myth of lone-wolf domestic terror. They could implicate associates of McVeigh who were never charged.

Further, the videos could show that 168 Americans were murdered not just by a madman but by a preventable failure of federal surveillance — or worse, by a deliberate cover-up. This cover story has allowed neo-Nazi terrorists to slip through the cracks, denied justice to the victims, and kept the American public in the dark for far too long.

That’s why the Justice Department must act. Release the tapes. Unseal the deposition. Let the American people decide for themselves what really happened. We stand at the threshold of a new era in open-source journalism. If the Trump Justice Department delivers on its promise to unmask secrets, it could mark the rebirth of investigative integrity in America.

As Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) wryly observed earlier this year, “Sounds to me like we need to get some new conspiracy theories, because all the old ones turned out to be true.”

It’s time to test another.

​Opinion & analysis, Oklahoma city bombing, Timothy mcveigh, Fbi, Justice department, Inspector general, Cover-up, Lawsuit, Foia, John doe 2, Pam bondi, Donald trump, Transparency, Video 

A New York-based federal court has temporarily handicapped the Trump administration, removing some of its leverage in trade wars with foreign powers.

A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade on Wednesday voided and permanently blocked President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” 10% baseline tariff on goods imported from most countries as well as his reciprocal tariffs on scores of individual nations.

The court unanimously held that while the president has authority to respond to national emergencies with tariffs, embargoes, and sanctions, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act he invoked “does not authorize the President to impose unbounded tariffs.”

‘The Worldwide and Retaliatory tariffs are thus ultra vires and contrary to law.’

The court suggested that letting Trump impose unbounded tariffs might run afoul of the Constitution’s separation of powers, as the Constitution assigns Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce and impose tariffs. Critics have stressed, however, that Congress has over the years delegated much of this authority to the president and the executive branch — authority largely unchallenged until now.

“The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs do not comply with the limitations Congress imposed upon the President’s power to respond to balance-of-payments deficits,” the court said in its opinion. “The President’s assertion of tariff-making authority in the instant case, unbounded as it is by any limitation in duration or scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the President under IEEPA. The Worldwide and Retaliatory tariffs are thus ultra vires and contrary to law.”

RELATED: Trump’s reciprocal tariffs — and decades of devastating fees the world pushed on America

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The decision halts Trump’s existing IEEPA tariffs and prevents him from increasing tariffs, including the paused 145% tariff on imports from China and the recently threatened 50% tariffs on imports from the European Union. It also scraps Trump’s orders applying 25% duties on Canadian and Mexican products.

The Trump administration immediately appealed the decision.

‘The judicial coup is out of control.’

Since the Court of International Trade had effectively resolved two lawsuits before it in a single opinion — a lawsuit brought by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of several businesses and a lawsuit filed by a gang of blue-state state attorneys general — the government asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to consolidate its appeals.

Jeffrey Schwab, director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, said in a statement, “This ruling reaffirms that the president must act within the bounds of the law, and it protects American businesses and consumers from the destabilizing effects of volatile, unilaterally imposed tariffs.”

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, one of the Democrats who fought to axe the tariffs, celebrated the ruling, stating, “President Trump’s sweeping tariffs were unlawful, reckless, and economically devastating.”

White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller noted on X, “The judicial coup is out of control.”

Miller added Thursday, “We are living under a judicial tyranny.”

RELATED: Why voters are done compromising with the ‘America Last’ elite

Photographer: Yuki Iwamura/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Regardless of whether the government is successful in its appeal, the Trump administration has other ways of pursuing its desired tariffs, including under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, Section 232 of Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Sections 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, and Section 338 of the Trade Act of 1930.

Alec Phillips, managing director at Goldman Sachs, indicated that the president is authorized under Section 122 to tackle a balance-of-deficit, reported MarketWatch. Since that particular law does not demand a formal investigation or process, Trump could use it to immediately impose tariffs of up to 15%. The downside is that Section 122 tariffs are only good for 150 days.

Alternatively, the administration could apply tariffs under Section 301, although doing so would require investigations to set the stage.

“This would take longer, likely several weeks at a minimum and probably a few months to complete several investigations,” said Phillips. “There is no limit on the level or duration of tariffs under Sec. 301.”

‘We already expect additional sectoral tariffs.’

Michelle Schulz, managing partner at Schulz Trade Law PLLC, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” on Thursday, “We have had section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods even under the previous administration, which were pretty harsh. So I can imagine that the administration will look at these provisions again and see if they can use 232, or 301, or some other mechanism whereby they can enforce the tariffs.”

According to Phillips, Section 338 enables Trump to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from nations that discriminate against the United States. While an available tool in the president’s kit, it has reportedly never been used before.

Finally, Section 232 tariffs — which Trump has used for steel, aluminum, and automobiles and which were unaffected by the court’s ruling — can be expanded to cover other sectors.

“We already expect additional sectoral tariffs — pharmaceuticals, semiconductors/electronics, etc. — and uncertainty regarding the IEEPA-based tariffs could lead the White House to put more emphasis on sectoral tariffs, where there is much less legal uncertainty,” said Phillips.

Blaze News reached out to the Department of Commerce for comment but did not receive a response by publication.

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, Liberation day, Tariffs, Trade, Economics, Commerce, Lutnick, Trump administration, International trade, Canada, China, Mexico, Politics 

Damon Packard’s movie diary

Damon Packard is the Los Angeles-based filmmaker behind such underground classics as “Reflections of Evil,” “The Untitled Star Wars Mockumentary,” “Foxfur,” and “Fatal Pulse.” His AI-generated work has appeared as interstitials for the 18th annual American Cinematheque Horrorthon and can be enjoyed on his YouTube channel. After a long day making movies or otherwise making ends meet, he likes to unwind with late-night excursions to the multiplexes and art house cinemas of greater Los Angeles. For previous installments of the “Diary,” see here.

May 23, “Muppets from Space” (1999, d. Tim Hill ), Nuart Theatre

Damon Packard

Nice and empty 10:30 p.m. show of “Muppets from Space” (1999) tonight at the Nuart. Can’t remember if I ever saw this.

It was cute, but nothing compares to the first three Muppet movies. Would’ve far preferred if they screened the second or third film rather than the millennial-era nostalgia. A time I find nothing to be nostalgic about.

May 23, “Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning” (d. Christopher McQuarrie), AMC Burbank 16

Damon Packard

Heading into a nice and semi-empty 1:30 a.m. show (yes, you read that right — 1:30 a.m.!) of this “Mission Impossible” junk right now in Burbank. Actually you’d be amazed how many people are here. And this thing is three hours.

Update, three hours later: Good grief, that was awful. Felt like a teaser trailer padded out to three hours, yet still not even enough interesting material for a teaser trailer.

Well, not even enough for a zero-second trailer, since there was nothing interesting about
any of it. Some ridiculous, convoluted, overlong plot about an “entity” and various key chips in between obligatory bomb-defusing scenes and close-ups of Cruise looking intense.

RELATED: How Tom Cruise tricked Hollywood studios into restarting production during COVID lockdowns

Marco Ravagli/Getty Images

The group dialogue/over-exposition scenes are so ridiculous. They do that a lot in big blockbusters. They must have some contract clause that requires or allows each actor a certain number of lines or something so they all take turns. It’s like a Zucker/Abrahams parody, but then reality itself is a Zucker/Abrahams parody now.

Mission Tedium.

May 19, “Tomorrow Never Dies” (1997, d. Roger Spottiswoode), CineFile Video Movie Rental

Keith Hamshere/Getty Images

Secret midnight screening of “Tomorrow Never Dies” (1997) at CineFile last night.

We felt an urge to revisit some Bonds lately.

This was one I remember hating when I first saw it in ’97, but time has been kinder even to the late ’90s (when things were really getting bad, only to get even worse later).

Title designer Maurice Binder directs a bikini-clad model in the title sequence of the James Bond film “The Living Daylights,” 1986. Photo by Keith Hamshere/Getty Images

While not as good as “Octopussy” and “Living Daylights” — the final vestiges of the era of director John Glen, composer John Barry, and title designer Maurice Binder — Roger Spottiswoode’s outing prides itself on not
giving you any time to breathe in between every whiz-bang, over-the-top action scene of gasoline pyro and zirc hits.

Zirc hits, in case you didn’t know, are .68 caliber paintballs filled with zirconium powder and fired from an air gun to create the “sparking” effect of a bullet hitting metal or another hard surface.

For non-sparking impact effects — a bullet hitting the dirt, for example — paintballs filled with colored dust (dust hits) are used.

This paintball method is much easier than
pre-wiring explosions (squibs) on the impact surface, so it became more and more popular, to the point of being overused in many action movies (especially by the ’90s).

Even though cheap-looking CGI is ruining everything, productions still use
practical zirc hits for gun battles.

Another thing you notice in “Tomorrow Never Dies” is the use of gasoline-charged “fireball”-type explosions — safer and more controllable than the more dangerous, and sometimes more realistic, forms of pyro used in the ’70s, when they were breaking all the rules and didn’t have as many restrictions or regulations in place.

Explosions at an arms bazaar on the Russian border in the opening sequence of “Tomorrow Never Dies.” Keith Hamshere/Getty Images

Take the famous stunt in which a helicopter tilts almost 45 degrees so that its rotors trap Bond (Pierce Brosnan) and Wai Lin (Michelle Yeoh) in an alley. If they wanted to do that in the ’70s, some crazy, gung-ho pilot probably would have offered to risk doing it for real back then.

Good to see Joe Don Baker (who died May 7) reprise his “Goldeneye” role as CIA agent Jack Wade (“Yo, Jimbo!”). He also played arms dealer Brad Whitaker (the first American Bond villain) in the 1987 Timothy Dalton-era installment “The Living Daylights.”

Music-wise, David Arnold does a pretty decent job capturing the feel of John Barry’s scores, but still the Barry magic is gone.

Fun film, but for me the beginning of a decline from “shaken, not stirred” to “shake in a turbo blender until you’re dizzy” to the “fizzed, flattened, and rebranded” era of today.

“Tomorrow Never Dies” director Roger Spottiswoode (“Terror Train”) is not only still alive but was still working until a few years ago.

Roger Spottiswoode on the “Tomorrow Never Dies” set in France. Gilles Bouquillon/Getty Images

I always thought of him as a kind of “hired hand” industry guy; then again, “Under Fire” (1983 movie starring Nick Nolte and Gene Hackman as foreign correspondents in Nicaragua) still stands as a terrific film. And Spottiswoode seems like terrific guy, part of that generation when directors were not only humble, intelligent, and gracious but good communicators.

May 17, “Bronsploitation” (d. Mike Malloy)

I feel bad it’s taken me a few days to share this preview clip of writer/director Mike Malloy’s very cool-looking upcoming documentary “Bronsploitation,” about three men who have built careers in showbiz based on their resemblances to Charles Bronson.

Malloy and
Eric Zaldivar (who also worked on “Bronsploitation”) are two of the coolest cats out there doing interesting work. If they were around in the ’70s, they’d probably be making solid highbrow exploitation films (something only Quentin Tarantino seems to have success with these days) instead of nostalgic documentaries about the era. I hope we can collaborate some day on some original work.

RELATED: Incubator program preps tomorrow’s right-leaning filmmakers

Palladium Pictures

May 16, “Friendship” (d. Andrew DeYoung), AMC Burbank 16

Well, looks like It’s an 11 p.m. of “Friendship” in Burbank tonight.

Update (hours later): Ooof! Awful. Sheer tedium. Didn’t care for it at all. Just awkward strangeness with no purpose. P.T. Anderson it ain’t. The woman who played his wife, though, was beautiful.

May 15, “Final Destination: Bloodlines” (d. Zach Lipovsky, Adam Stein), AMC Century City 15

Damon Packard

I guess it’s an 11 p.m. of this “Final Destination” garbage tonight, in theater … 13. (Gulp.) Only because I woke too late after a nap and there’s no other choice.

Update: I don’t know who the audience is for these movies.

People just like seeing other people mutilated and killed, but if so much as a single animal gets fake-harmed or killed, they go completely insane. Why? Because humans hate other humans. Animals give the unbiased, unconditional love to humans that humans can’t give to each other.

Well … cute, domesticated animals do. See what happens if you find yourself alone in a remote forest and are surrounded by hungry tigers, bears, or coyotes.

May 15 (earlier)

Cinerama/Getty Images

RIP Joe Don Baker, my kind of folk.

May 13, “Fatal Pulse” (2018, d. Damon Packard), CineFile Video

Tonight is a screening of my yuppie fear thriller “Fatal Pulse” at CineFile Video.

This one never got many public screenings, though it did have a nice Egyptian premiere in 2018 before falling back into the oblivion zone. I’m sure all of two people will be there.

Then again, the CineFile Micro-Cinema has gotten some big press lately with the upcoming unauthorized “Batman Forever”
Schumacher Cut screening on May 29 [ed. note: Canceled May 25 after cease-and-desist notice from Warner Bros.], which the cine-hipsters are losing their minds over.

Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at the “Batman Forever” premiere in New York City, June 13, 1995. Patrick McMullan/Getty Images

We screened it privately over a year ago, and I enjoyed it, though did run a tad long. An improvement over the original release, as one can see a degree of Schumacher’s ambition in creating this vast, crazy, cartoony comic-strip world of massive set pieces. All mostly set to Elliot Goldenthal’s “Interview with the Vampire” score, as his new score was not ready at the time of the edit.

Anyhow, expect insane cine-hipster riots that night when they all show up to find out the place only has 20 seats. Much like the “New Jack City” riot in “Fatal Pulse” (based on
real events in Westwood in 1991, when crowds couldn’t get into that film).

Prepare for total chaos.

Update: A full house (surprisingly).

​Reviews, Culture, Cinema, Damon packard’s movie diary, Hollywood, Tom cruise, Mission impossible 

Elon Musk is officially stepping down from President Donald Trump’s administration after 128 days of heading the Department of Government Efficiency.

Although his tenure was brief, Musk had his fair share of controversy and criticism from legacy media, even bucking the administration at times. Despite the dramatic saga, Musk was celebrated and commended by the administration and its allies after he announced his departure.

“As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President Donald Trump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,” Musk announced Wednesday night. “The DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.”

‘A grateful nation thanks you.’

RELATED: Elon Musk takes jab at Trump’s ‘big, beautiful, bill’: ‘I was disappointed’

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Whether it’s outrage over the United States Agency for International Development or the scandal surrounding the teenage engineer formally known as “Big Balls” and all the subsequent trolling, the DOGE has been a constant fan for the flames of controversy. Most recently, Musk defied the administration and expressed disapproval over Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” which barely passed the House last week.

Nevertheless, administration officials and MAGA allies praised Musk and his mission at the DOGE.

“The work DOGE has done to eliminate government waste and corruption — the rot embedded deep within Washington — is among the most valuable services ever rendered to government,” White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said. “And the work has only just begun.”

RELATED: White House works to send DOGE cuts package to Congress

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

“Thank you, Elon Musk,” Turning Point USA CEO Charlie Kirk said. “A grateful nation thanks you. You changed the culture of the federal government for the better — an incredibly difficult feat — a legacy that will have ramifications for many, many administrations to come.”

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

​Stephen miller, Elon musk, Charlie kirk, Donald trump, White house, Trump administration, Doge, Doge cuts, Department of government efficiency, Government spending, Big beautiful bill, National debt, Maga mandate, Fraud waste and abuse, Usaid, Politics 

Once again, House Democrats are jockeying for the top minority spot on the House Oversight Committee. Just seven months ago, party veteran Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) beat out progressive media darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) for the job. Connolly died on May 21. Now four Democrats are scrambling to lock down committee support before the June 24 leadership vote.

This race matters. For a party in the minority, oversight provides one of the few remaining tools to challenge the majority and to manage the frustration of disillusioned voters. We covered the last contest in December, just as Donald Trump prepared to reclaim the White House. Connolly’s win, despite his age and battle with esophageal cancer, signaled a possible turn away from performative social media theatrics toward more traditional, procedural oversight.

While Stephen Lynch is out of step with the activist class, his voting record demonstrates party loyalty. Expect him to be a serious contender.

Connolly’s death reopens the field. So what do the current contenders — and their backers — tell us about where the Democrats stands now?

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.): Lynch grew up in South Boston, the son of an ironworker. His politics and worldview reflect that gritty upbringing. At the time, “Southie” held the dubious distinction of being the poorest white neighborhood in America — plagued by crime, targeted by outsider liberal policies, and ignored by the nonprofit class that preferred more fashionable causes.

He followed his father into ironworking and quickly climbed the ranks, becoming the youngest union president in its history before pivoting to law school. His early record wasn’t spotless. He admitted to smoking pot at a Willie Nelson concert and once roughed up Iranian students protesting the United States. As a lawyer, he defended kids charged in racially charged street brawls — cases that mirrored the tensions he grew up with.

Lynch entered state politics to push back against outside pressure — most notably from gay activists demanding to march in South Boston’s kid-friendly, Catholic-rooted St. Patrick’s Day parade. He championed exemptions to Massachusetts hate-crime laws and brought his blue-collar populism with him to Washington. When he entered Congress in the 1990s, Lynch stood firmly pro-life and pro-marriage.

Like many of his fellow Democrats, however, Lynch moved with the party and his district. Southie is developed these days: cleaned up and expensive as heck. You’ll see yuppies and rainbow flags now, and industry has been replaced with waterfront condos. Like so many of his once-Blue Dog, working-class colleagues, he’s now pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-all-the-rest-of-it. He voted 100% with President Joe Biden’s agenda.

Even his perfect voting record isn’t enough for the purists, however. His opponents within the party are annoyed that he doesn’t mouth all their maxims and revolutionary slogans. They see him as a relic of the past and cite his vote against Obamacare and his opposition to the decidedly anti-working-class Green New Deal, as well as his yea vote for the Laken Riley Act that would detain and deport illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes in the United States.

While Lynch is out of step with the activist class, his voting record demonstrates party loyalty. Moreover, he’s the acting ranking member now that Connolly has passed. Ocasio-Cortez cited the committee Democrats’ continued deference to seniority in her reason not to run for the job again. Expect Lynch to be a serious contender.

Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.): Mfume was born Frizzell Gerard Tate in Baltimore in 1948. While not the acting ranking member of the committee, he is a senior member of the party, having first won a seat in Congress when Ronald Reagan was president.

He has a place of prestige within the Congressional Black Caucus and even served as its chairman in the early 1990s — a relationship that will be tested in his run against another member in the Oversight fight. He took a break from Congress in the mid-1990s to serve as president of the NAACP — another prominent post in the black American political power structure.

As with Lynch, progressive activists question Mfume’s purity, even though he voted with Biden 100% of the time. His sins include thinking the Green New Deal, decriminalizing illegal border crossing, and Medicaid for All were dumb ideas. He’s also pro-Israel, which is a big no-no. Finally, while he’s perfectly pro-abortion, he doesn’t talk about it enough. Very troubling! His opponents within the party call him a “Washington insider,” and they’re right — but past attempts to primary him from the left have failed.

Like Lynch, Mfume is a contender, but is threatened by a younger, angrier, more social media-friendly competitor.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas): The youngest contender for the post is Crockett, who just came to Congress two years ago but has already made a name for herself nationally.

Though well into her 40s, Crockett’s use of social media, confrontational style, and borderline antics have made her a star for young left-wing activists. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly when the broader public became aware of her, but it’s probably right around the time she made headlines in a catfight with conservative activist darling Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) last spring.

It began with Taylor Greene insulting Crockett’s fake eyelashes. The Texan responded in turn, asking Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), “If someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody’s bleach-blonde, bad-built butch body, that would not be engaging in personalities, correct?”

“A what now?” a deeply out-of-his-element Comer replied. And the rest was history, so long as you consider it history to record videos dancing with her tongue out in the halls of Congress; to call for knocking Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) “over the head, like, hard, right? Like, there is no niceties with him, like at all”; say Elon Musk had to be “taken down”; and accuse black Republicans of not being black any more.

If Crockett didn’t exist, conservative media would have to create her. Still, her aggressive tactics and style have earned her a following with voters angry over Democrats’ national failures and perceived sheepishness in the face of Trump’s popularity. She’s not the most likely to win leadership on a committee that historically values seniority over activist popularity, but she could take votes from fellow CBC member Mfume.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.): Last but not least, we come to Garcia, a 47-year-old foreign-born progressive, more closely aligned with the Squad than other contenders.

Garcia came to Congress with the same class as Crockett and instantly gained attention for snubbing the Bible, instead taking his oath of office on a copy of the Constitution, a picture of his parents, and the first issue of “Superman,” borrowed from the Library of Congress. How progressive!

Back in the real world, though, Garcia rarely passes up a progressive cause. He joined the long line of politicians who flew to El Salvador to defend illegal-immigrant gang members Trump deported. He also never misses a chance to highlight his status as one of the first openly gay figures to do this or that — quick to lead with identity when it serves his agenda.

How much will this mean in a committee vote, however? Probably less than you’d think. That doesn’t mean Garcia doesn’t have a bright future, however. That is, if his side wins the party’s civil war.

Beltway Brief, Dec. 2024: Who will win the battle for the Resistance 2.0?

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

​Opinion & analysis, Politics 

Certain Christian traditions celebrate some days on the Christian calendar that more of us ought to consider, and Ascension Day is one such example.

Ascension Day is always on a Thursday because it is always 40 days after Easter. This is because Acts 1:3 tells us that the time period from the day Christ was resurrected till the day He ascended into heaven was 40 days.

‘The significance of Christ’s ascension to heaven climactically changes the shape of prayer in redemptive history.’

The gospel accounts clarify that the risen Christ physically appeared to His disciples and others multiple times. These astounding occurrences are, of course, the reason the disciples were transformed into virtually fearless preachers of truth. After all, Jesus’ first appearance to the group took place while they were locked in a room, dejected after the crucifixion and in fear for their lives.

But as Christ told them even before His crucifixion, He would leave them — but not alone (John 14:26):

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

That supernaturally empowered remembrance would prove crucial because the apostles provided the source material for all the Gospels.

Jesus also told them it was actually better for Him to leave (John 16:7) so the Holy Spirit, who would teach and guide them further into truth (John 16:13-15), could come.

What actually happened on Ascension Day?

The Gospel of Luke gives us the details (Luke 24:50-53):

And He led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up His hands, He blessed them. And it happened that while He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven. And they, after worshiping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple blessing God.

What a difference from the first time He left them 43 days earlier!

The Gospel of Mark provides an additional detail that is very important (Mark 16:19):

So then, the Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.

So what is Jesus doing at the right hand of God? The Bible tells us:

Romans 8:34: Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Hebrews 7:25: Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. 1 John 2:1: My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

If we belong to Him, Jesus continually intercedes on our behalf. He is the reason we have unfettered access to our Creator and the reason we can pray to the Father; it is through the person of Christ that this is possible.

Luke, who wrote about the disciples’ response after the ascension, also wrote the book of Acts, which he began by revisiting the ascension story again. Dr. Daniel Schrock says this isn’t because Luke wanted to be repetitive but because he wanted us to read everything that happens in the book of Acts in light of Jesus’ ascension to heaven.

“We cannot really understand the events of Acts without understanding how they are connected to the exaltation of Christ at the right hand of the Father,” explains Schrock.

Luke himself refers to this reality later in the book of Acts when he reported on the martyrdom of Stephen.

“But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, ‘Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God'” (Acts 7:55-56).

This reality of Christ’s ongoing intercession for us is the reason we are taught to pray “in Jesus’ name” (John 16:23), which is central to our salvation (see Acts 2:21, where Luke quotes from the book of Joel, and the definitive Acts 4:12).

“The significance of Christ’s ascension to heaven climactically changes the shape of prayer in redemptive history. From Acts forward, God’s people now pray to God through the name of Jesus, the One who has been made both Lord and Christ, and who is himself praying for us in that exalted state,” Schrock explains.

A celebration of promise

Ascension Day clarifies the reality of Christ’s continuing work for us, but one more passage about this momentous event also clarifies a promise of immense joy.

Acts 1:9-11:

And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

Now you have something to celebrate — and to teach your kids. Happy Ascension Day!

This article was adapted from an essay originally published on Diane Schrader’s Substack, She Speaks Truth.

​Christianity, Christian, Jesus christ, Ascension day, Bible, Faith 

Taking the helm as president of the Media Research Center is both an honor and a responsibility. My father, Brent Bozell, built this institution on conviction, courage, and an unwavering commitment to truth. As he begins his next chapter — serving as ambassador-designate to South Africa under President Trump — the legacy he leaves continues to guide everything we do.

To the conservative movement, I give my word: I will lead MRC with bold resolve and clear purpose, anchored in the mission that brought us here.

We don’t want a return to the days of Walter Cronkite. We want honest media, honest algorithms, and a playing field that doesn’t punish one side for telling the truth.

For nearly 40 years, MRC has exposed the left-wing bias and blatant misinformation pushed by the legacy media. Networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS didn’t lose public trust overnight or because of one scandal. That trust eroded slowly and steadily under the weight of partisan narratives, selective outrage, and elite arrogance.

That collapse in trust has driven Americans to new platforms — podcasts, independent outlets, and citizen journalism — where unfiltered voices offer the honesty and nuance corporate media lack. President Trump opened the White House press room not just in name, but in spirit. Under Joe Biden, those same independent voices were locked out in favor of legacy gatekeepers. Now they’re finally being welcomed in, restoring access and accountability.

But the threat has evolved. Big Tech and artificial intelligence now embed the same progressive narratives into the tools millions use every day. The old gatekeepers have gone digital. AI packages bias as fact, delivered with the authority of a machine — no byline, no anchor, no pushback.

A recent MRC study revealed how Google’s AI tool, Gemini, skews the narrative. When asked about gender transition procedures, Gemini elevated only one side of the debate — citing advocacy groups like the Human Rights Campaign that promote gender ideology. Gemini surfaced material supporting medical transition for minors while ignoring or downplaying serious medical, ethical, and psychological concerns. Parents’ concerns, stories of regret, and clinical risks were glossed over or excluded entirely.

In two separate responses, Gemini pointed users to a Biden-era fact sheet titled “Gender-Affirming Care and Young People.” Though courts forced the document’s reinstatement to a government website, the Trump administration had clearly marked it as inaccurate and ideologically driven. The Department of Health and Human Services added a bold disclaimer warning that the page “does not reflect biological reality” and reaffirmed that the U.S. government recognizes two immutable sexes: male and female. Gemini left out that disclaimer.

When asked if Memorial Day was controversial, Gemini similarly pulled from a left-leaning source, taxpayer-funded PBS “NewsHour,” to answer yes. “Memorial Day is a holiday that carries a degree of controversy, stemming from several factors,” the chatbot responded. Among those factors? History, interpretation, and even inclusivity. Gemini claimed that many communities had ignored the sacrifices of black soldiers, describing some observances as “predominantly white” and calling that history a “sensitive point.”

These responses aren’t neutral. They frame the conversation. By amplifying one side while muting the other, AI like Gemini shapes public perception — not through fact, but through filtered narrative. This isn’t just biased programming. It’s a direct threat to the kind of informed civic dialogue democracy depends on.

At MRC, we’re ready for this fight. Under my leadership, we’re confronting algorithmic bias, monitoring AI platforms, and exposing how these systems embed liberal messaging in the guise of objectivity.

We’ve faced this challenge before. The media once claimed neutrality while slanting every story. Now AI hides its bias behind speed and precision. That makes it harder to spot — and harder to stop.

We don’t want a return to the days of Walter Cronkite. We want honest media, honest algorithms, and a playing field that doesn’t punish one side for telling the truth.

The fight for truth hasn’t ended. It’s just moved to another platform. And once again, it’s our job to meet it head-on.

​Opinion & analysis, Media research center, Brent bozell, David bozell, Media bias, Artificial intelligence, Google gemini, Grok, Chat gpt, Algorithm bias, Walter cronkite, Cbs news, Abc news, Nbc news, Cnn, Fox news, Transgender agenda, Gender ideology 

The Democratic Party that sought President Donald Trump’s imprisonment and vilified his base is in shambles. The liberal establishment is on the back foot, struggling to retain power and relevance. The radical left is splintered, consumed by infighting and an inability to coalesce around a meaningful message.

The threat now posed to the MAGA coalition instead comes from the right — or rather from liberal interlopers whose latest smear, “woke right,” has started to gain traction.

While still used by relatively few, its strategic use online has sparked intense debate over both the definition of “woke” and whether the term belongs in discussions about the political right.

Some early adopters used “woke right” to describe conservatives fixated on identity politics — particularly those focused on race. Others applied the label to right-wing figures they viewed as sharing traits with Maoists or other authoritarian movements.

The current controversy over the term, however, is not primarily the result of these attempts to isolate identitarians and statists.

Rather, the chief popularizers of “woke right” have made waves by applying the term as a collective smear against
national conservatives, right-wing populists, and others whose views and political agency appear unpalatable to liberals, as well as against Blaze Media and those other organizations where such traduced individuals can often be found.

By targeting prominent figures such as
Vice President JD Vance, Tucker Carlson, and Christopher Rufo with the label “woke,” advocates of this rhetorical tactic aim to marginalize the activist conservative right. Their goal: recast the political spectrum as a contest between progressive liberals and classical liberals, effectively sidelining the MAGA movement and restoring the liberal order the new right set out to challenge.

Blaze News recently connected with two leading proponents of the term and its underlying critique — James Lindsay, a mathematician and self-described “professional troublemaker” credited with coining “woke right,” and Seth Dillon, CEO of the Babylon Bee — as well as two of its most outspoken critics:
BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre and Israeli-American philosopher, biblical scholar, and political theorist Yoram Hazony.

While public interest in the “woke right” controversy remains mostly confined to social media, the term has the potential to break out, much as “Christian nationalism” did when liberal intellectuals branded it a dangerous right-wing trend. Judging by recent reactions, “woke right” may prove even more potent as a slur, given the baggage it already carries on the left.

Whether or not it enters mainstream political discourse, the term and the campaign behind it risk fracturing the coalition that elected President Donald Trump. That fracture could open the door for genuinely woke forces and liberal interlopers to reclaim ground they recently lost.

Building momentum

The term “woke right” has been kicking around for at least six years. While Lindsay has done an inordinate amount of kicking by himself, others have periodically joined in.

For instance, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), who, like Lindsay, has
taken issue with Tucker Carlson and other prominent figures on the American right, defined the term “woke right” during a 2022 interview at the Texas Tribune Festival.

“When I say the ‘woke right,’ I’m referring to people, often disaffected liberals, who could have been Bernie Bros but in a split second chose a red jersey,” Crenshaw said. “There’s a lot who want to wear a jersey and just scream at the other side, and they remind me of the far left more than anything.”

Crenshaw suggested that the utterance of the following words might give away a right-leaning individual’s supposed wokeness: “RINO,” “establishment,” and “globalist.”

‘Conservative wokeness preys on people moved by … legitimate issues to sell them on a hyperbolized politics.’

Just as “woke right” for Crenshaw was calibrated to his specific opponents on the right, subsequent definitions printed in the pages of liberal publications appear to have similarly been adapted to their authors’ particular antipathies.

Jonathan Chait, a staff writer at the Atlantic, recently
characterized paleoconservative Pat Buchanan as both the “godfather of the woke right” and a key forerunner for President Donald Trump, who, according to Chait, is apparently also “woke.”

Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Katherine Brodky, a
supposedly anti-woke liberal, proffered censorious reflexes, an embrace of victim culture and identity politics, and efforts to suppress freedom of expression as defining characteristics of the woke right.

Tyler Austin Harper, another staff writer at the Atlantic,
argued last year that “wokeness doesn’t just have readily identifiable content — a set of opinions that leave adherents in good progressive standing,” but also a “readily identifiable form.”

The woke right’s “identifiable form” could easily be mistaken for a sense of humor and a backbone, or vice versa.

After all, here are just a few of the examples of the “woke right” that Harper settled on: Elon Musk flipping LGBT activists’ terminology on its head to make a point,
tweeting, “Cis is a heterophobic word”; Turning Point USA CEO Charlie Kirk highlighting the impact of DEI hiring practices in aviation and second-guessing the qualifications of a hypothetical black pilot; or “‘canceling’ the New York Times columnist David French … because he’s not conservative enough.”

“Conservative wokeness preys on people moved by … legitimate issues to sell them on a hyperbolized politics” and to “foment a hysteria that distracts from the fact that its principal champions are also the cause of many of the problems it allegedly seeks to solve,” said Harper.

Woke right quiz

According to Seth Dillon, CEO of the Babylon Bee, “there’s nothing complicated about the ‘woke right.'”

“It refers to people on the right who run the same operating system as the woke left: grievance-based identity politics rooted in critical theory,” Dillon told Blaze News via email. “They interpret the world through the lens of oppressor and oppressed power dynamics, claim to have ‘awakened’ to hidden systems of control, scapegoat a dominant identity group, and justify the use of coercive power to establish a new moral order. It’s the same system — just with different variables plugged in.”

‘If they’re using woke methods to achieve right-wing goals, then they’re better characterized as woke right — not leftists.’

Decades ago in his book
“Leftism,” self-styled “liberal of the extreme right” Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn contended that such groups and individuals aren’t so much woke rightists as they are just leftists. When asked if the same is still true today, Dillon told Blaze News, “If they’re using woke methods to achieve right-wing goals, then they’re better characterized as woke right — not leftists. And that’s what they’re doing. Their means or methods may be borrowed from the woke left, but their political and cultural ends are not.”

After warning that “we should be careful not to apply these terms too loosely or they lose their meaning,” Dillon referred Blaze News to the following series of diagnostic questions that he
shared online to “help to identify who’s ‘woke right’ and who isn’t”:

“Do they claim that an oppressive identity group (Jews, elites, globalists, etc.) secretly controls everything?”

“Do they claim to have ‘awakened’ to this hidden reality, and urge others to wake up, too?”

“Do they scapegoat this identity group as collectively responsible for cultural decline?”

“Do they reject well-established historical narratives (WW2, for example) as distortions designed to reinforce the liberal democratic order and rule out more forceful alternatives?”

“Do they claim conservatism has failed our culture to the point where the use of coercive power to impose a new moral framework is both justified and necessary?”

“Do they claim the ‘postwar liberal consensus’ prevents us from doing that?”

“Do they claim the Constitution is problematic for the same reason?”

Dillon suggested that the term “woke right” serves an important function. “Accurately categorizing bad ideas is critically important for understanding and defeating them. It also serves the function of enraging those who say it’s meaningless — which is quite a tell, I think.”

The grand inquisitor

James Lindsay appears to have beta-tested a number of definitions of “woke right” in recent years before arriving at one similar to or perhaps reflected
in Dillon’s. Along the way, he hinted that “woke right” was effectively a substitute for “illiberal,” “fascist,” or “alt-right,” the last of which he
believes the “left ruined … together with the theocratic Christian Nationalists.”

Lindsay
indicated on X that his working definition for “woke” in late 2019 was “viewing society through various critical lenses, as defined by various critical theories bent in service of an ideology most people currently call ‘Social Justice.'”

In October, he
decided that the “Woke Right is not Realist, but Idealist and Romantic, imagining a Romanticized past and an idealized civic realm connected to correct rule (‘Right,’ as in Rechts), largely based on authority and tradition.”

In November, he
noted that woke in the rightist context amounted to “calling everything you want to control Jewish or neocon until you control it.”

In December, he
said that woke right “means you think people in your particular identity group are oppressed and need to band together in your identity group to fight back and take power against your enemies” and indicated in a separate tweet that “not all Woke Rights are antisemitic.”

RELATED: Meet the schmucks trying to kneecap the anti-woke alliance

James Lindsay. Photo by DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

On his website, he
stated:

Woke Right refers to right-wing people who have adopted the characteristics and underlying worldview orientation of the Woke Left for putatively “right-wing,” “conservative,” or reactionary causes. They are, as reactionaries, the image of the Right projected by the Left made real by players claiming to be on the Right. That is, they’re right-wing people who act and think about the world like Woke Leftists.

Lindsay echoed this definition in his written responses to Blaze News, in which he suggested that woke right “means using critical theories or Marxian analysis for right-wing or anti-Left causes.”

“It is very specific,” Lindsay continued. “Most conservatives do not meet this definition.”

A sizeable portion of the MAGA coalition does, however, supposedly meet this or one of Lindsay’s other definitions.
Right-wing populists, for example, are on the liberal‘s naughty list, as are those who subscribe to national conservatism, which he dubbed “the Woke Right final boss.”

The application of “woke right” to national conservatives amounts to the more tactical smear, as it not only cuts through the MAGA coalition but deep into the Trump administration and the Republican Party.

Past speakers at the National Conservatism Conference, which is run by the Hazony-led Edmund Burke Foundation, include Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Michael Anton, another senior State Department official; Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby; White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller; Trump border czar Tom Homan; and Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

Of course, there’s also JD Vance, who
underscored in a NatCon speech — given just days before President Donald Trump chose him as his running mate — that while America was founded “on great ideas,” it is not, as some have suggested, reducible to “just an idea.”

James Lindsay and a bunch of his friends tried to pump the hatred higher because the term ‘illiberal’ — it just didn’t succeed in sufficiently tainting and de-legitimizing conservatives.

While Lindsay has danced around labeling Vance “woke right” for daring to express such thoughts,
stating in December, “I haven’t called JD Vance Woke Right anywhere yet,” he has implied as much — calling him a “post-liberal” with a predominantly woke right team, who not only entertains the woke right definition of “nation” but did the unspeakable: speak at a National Conservatism Conference.

RELATED: JD Vance cuts straight to the heart of what animates Trump’s nationalism — and it’s not ‘just an idea’

Vice President JD Vance. Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

In fairness to Vance and his fellow NatCon alumni, it is apparently easy to find oneself labeled “woke right.” After all, even a fast-food chain has been tagged.

Lindsay recently
indicated online that Arby’s had veered into woke right territory with its post, “Unlike dad, our ham & swiss actually came back.”

In the much ridiculed post, which he has
since apologized for and walked back, Lindsay noted, “That’s curtains for them. Cringe af.”

When asked why national conservatives warrant their categorization as “woke right,” Lindsay suggested that while “not all of National Conservatism is Woke Right … the general thrust of the movement meets the basic definition.”

Final boss

Hazony, the author of
“The Virtue of Nationalism” whom Lindsay has repeatedly targeted with the “woke right” smear, explained to Blaze News that the strategy behind the term is not new.

“The main people who are behind this — and James Lindsay is the one who’s most explicit, but I don’t think that he’s at all the only one — they’ve been doing the same thing for many years, long before the term ‘woke right’ came out; at least as far back as Donald Trump being elected, you know, so it’s almost a decade ago,” said Hazony. “There was this game of saying that in between liberals and Nazis or racialist fascists — in between, there is no legitimate position. That is a standard argument of the anti-nationalist liberal camp that has been used by many, many different people, and it’s always the same.”

“When people started using ‘illiberal’ … in the mid-2000s, what they were doing was eliminating the legitimacy of the word ‘conservative,’ because ‘illiberal’ is anybody who’s an authoritarian or a Nazi or a theocrat or a fascist, plus anybody else who’s not a liberal,” continued Hazony. “So that strategy, using the term ‘illiberalism’ as a way of saying, ‘No, I’m not going to recognize that there are any legitimate conservatives or nationalists’ — that’s been around in that form for at least 15 years.”

Hazony noted that more recently,

James Lindsay and a bunch of his friends tried to pump the hatred higher because the term “illiberal” — it just didn’t succeed in sufficiently tainting and de-legitimizing conservatives. So they switched to “Christian nationalism,” and it was the same kind of thing, where, you know, you pick the absolute least palatable people who can be called “Christian nationalists,” you quote them, and then you say, “Well, everybody who’s a nationalist and a Christian all the way right up to the borders of liberalism — that entire sphere of conservatives and nationalists who are basically normal but they have criticisms of liberalism — no, they’re all illegitimate. They’re all totalitarians. They all reject the American Constitution.” And so they tried that; that peaked in 2023; and it failed. It petered out. They didn’t succeed in convincing the average, intelligent person who’s paying attention that the political spectrum is only liberals and fascists.

Whereas previous attempts failed, Hazony indicated that “this time, they have succeeded in drawing blood.”

“This term [woke] was designed to be humiliating by taking the term that we were using for the Maoist-style cultural revolution that was taking over America and Britain and other countries. And now they say, ‘Those of you who are fighting against this, you’re exactly the same. You’re the same exact thing.’ And it upsets people.”

‘You got dogmatic, fanatic liberals who thought that the whole world simply could be brought under liberalism either by persuasion or, if not, then by conquest.’

Hazony further told Blaze News that “it’s deeply insulting at a personal level for people who’ve devoted their time to trying to save America and the West from the woke, and at the same time, it’s incredibly effective at destroying the coalition that was built — the anti-woke coalition — by making the different parties despise one another.”

“The idea that liberalism is about toleration was just thrown out the window and you got dogmatic, fanatic liberals who thought that the whole world simply could be brought under liberalism either by persuasion or, if not, then by conquest.”

Playing with fire

Lindsay has tried
tarring Blaze Media with the same brush he has used on Hazony and others, characterizing it as “the first captured stronghold” in his imaginative woke right “takeover” narrative.

‘The term has little meaning other than as a slur used by people trying desperately to gatekeep this intellectual, cultural, and commercial majority movement.’

Blaze Media editor in chief Matthew Peterson, whom Lindsay has
implicated as a key player in this supposed takeover, said, “I know Lindsay and we had a decent relationship until he suddenly lumped me and my tenure here at Blaze Media with his slur.”

“Obviously, we have a wide variety of people and opinions at Blaze Media. We represent the broad MAGA-MAHA majority coalition, and I take that role seriously,” continued Peterson. “But I do not need to say for the record that we are not ‘woke right’ because the term has little meaning other than as a slur used by people trying desperately to gatekeep this intellectual, cultural, and commercial majority movement.”

Peterson suggested that the term’s capricious usage has helped empty it of meaning.

“What’s puzzling and ultimately discrediting about the term is that Lindsay and others lump disparate people and groups together into a wild, grand conspiracy,” continued Peterson. “He and his associates refer a lot to abstract -isms like hermeticism, communism, and gnosticism and call all kinds of people followers of various schools of thought: ‘Nietzscheans’ and ‘Schmittians.'”

The
“Schmittian” smear lobbed around evokes Carl Schmitt, a German political theorist who critiqued liberalism, defined politics as the distinction between the categories of friends and enemies, and lent intellectual support to the Nazi regime in Germany.

Peterson noted that he once tried to explain his thoughts on Schmitt to Lindsay over text.

“As a student of political thinkers who were taught by Leo Strauss, who fled Nazi Germany (as opposed to Schmitt, who became a Nazi), I think Schmitt’s writings are important to anyone who wants to seriously consider the nature of executive power, which is why they are still studied by people of all kinds throughout the world,” said Peterson. “But the idea that this makes me a Nazi or that I agree with everything Schmitt says or believed is ridiculous. James recently asked me to ‘denounce Schmitt’ on X at his command, which sounds a lot like he’s trying to initiate the very ‘struggle sessions’ he often decries.”

Peterson emphasized the range of people and institutions that Lindsay and his fellow travelers have lumped into his “grand conspiracy,” noting, for instance, that “they throw in institutions from the Roman Catholic Church to the Claremont Institute, countries from Hungary to China, and individuals from General Michael Flynn to Yoram Hazony to Peter Thiel in the mix as part of whatever the ‘woke right’ is.”

“It becomes silly pretty quick,” said Peterson.

Threatened liberals

The host of BlazeTV’s “The Auron MacIntyre Show” — one of Lindsay’s
frequent targets — said that when it comes to Lindsay, woke right “seems to be more of a branding exercise and a political weapon than it does anything with definitive content.”

“I think that’s the reason so many people have had difficulty when attempting to have even a basic discussion about the term,” MacIntyre said. “The guy who is most famous for coining and popularizing it himself has admitted that it wasn’t a great one, and it doesn’t really have a lot of content besides its ability to be used as a political weapon.”

‘The only thing that seems to actually link any of these people together is their willingness to win.’

MacIntyre suggested that woke right’s apparent transformation in the wild from a denigratory term for anti-Semites and identitarians into a strategic full-spectrum put-down is “the real trick of this term.”

“A lot of people assume that [anti-Semites and identitarians] were the original targets, and because of that, many people thought that perhaps there could be some value in it because, you know, not all of those groups are particularly ones that people enjoy being associated with,” said MacIntyre. “That said, it’s become quickly clear that the expansion of the term has now come to encompass Orthodox Jews like Hazony, guys who are big fans of Israel like Tim Pool, and others.”

“He’s included a large number of very well-respected people who are obviously well outside of this — guys like
Matt Walsh.”

RELATED: Let’s build a statue honoring Pat Buchanan

BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre. Photo by DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

“The only thing that seems to actually link any of these people together is their willingness to win, their willingness to fight back against the left, their willingness to say, ‘Actually, we’re going to take affirmative steps. We’re going to take power. We’re going to use power to win political battles.’ And that seems to be the main violation,” continued MacIntyre.

‘What they’re finding is actually, no, conservatives would like to be in charge.’

When asked whether this campaign might be, at least in part, the early stages of an effort to politically neutralize JD Vance ahead of the next presidential election, MacIntyre answered in the affirmative.

“Not only is that the case, I think he’s been pretty explicit about that,” said the BlazeTV host.

MacIntyre suggested that Lindsay and other “new atheists, rational-centrist types” feel threatened by Vance and the national conservatives, given their willfulness and refusal to “be ruled by people who hate them, hate their values, hate their
religion.”

MacIntyre suspects that while the “salience” of the “woke right” term has risen, the credibility of those wielding it has “plummeted.”

“[Lindsay has] made many enemies of pretty high-profile figures with good reputations by throwing around this term and attacking people who clearly don’t hold any of the nefarious views he’s attributing to them,” said MacIntyre.

The attacks have also served to expose bad actors who “ultimately were hoping to undermine the conservative movement rather than be a productive part of it,” said MacIntyre. “That’s something that’s critical to know at this juncture.”

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

​Woke right, Conservative, Conservatism, Yoram hazony, Auron macintyre, Seth dillon, James lindsay, Babylon bee, Culture, Right, Right-wing, Liberal, Liberalism, Maga, Populism, Racism, Identitarian, Identity, Woke, Wokeness, Politics 

Just as the rumors surrounding French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife began to fade into the archives of the internet, a viral video reignited the debate surrounding the truth about Brigitte Macron.

The video, published by the Sun, shows Macron as he was exiting his presidential jet, when a hand believed to be Brigitte’s reached out and appeared to shove him in the face.

Now, one question is back on the tip of everyone’s tongues: Is Brigitte Macron actually a man?

“I think it’s so funny when people are like, ‘It’s a man, man.’ Uh, no, I think she’s just a hideous human being. I mean, she was 39 and he was 14 when she started coming on to him,” Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck tells BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler on “The Liz Wheeler Show.”

“She was a teacher, and she just thought he was brilliant. She started coming on to him. They started having a relationship by the time he was 15. Sixteen, the parents find out, and they’re like, ‘Whoa, wait, I thought you were having a relationship with the teacher’s daughter,’” Glenn continues.

“I mean, why isn’t she in jail? She’s clearly somebody who has abused this boy forever. One way or another, that is mental abuse. And anybody who has gone through that with a 41-year-old and you’re 16, there’s something mentally missing from you,” he adds.

Wheeler agrees that it’s “predatory behavior.”

“Imagine for a second — I think this is actually an apropos time to make this comparison — if a 41-year-old man began a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl, do you think it would have just been brushed under the rug like this?” Wheeler asks.

“No, not even in France, it wouldn’t have been,” Glenn responds. “It’s really disgusting. And so I think this guy has set himself up for being her whatever for a very long time.”

As for whether or not Brigitte Macron is actually a man, Wheeler isn’t sure.

“People ask me all the time if I think that Brigitte Macron is a man, and my answer is ‘I don’t know. I have no idea.’ I do know — what we know for a fact is that this person is a predator, man or woman,” Wheeler says.

“I personally think that’s more important,” she adds.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Video, Sharing, Video phone, Free, Camera phone, Upload, Youtube.com, The liz wheeler show, Liz wheeler, Glenn beck, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Brigitte macron, Candace owens, Emmanuel macron, Brigitte macron man, Brigitte macron transgender, Brigitte macron predator 

Chris Cillizza appeared bewildered by the actions of a presumably liberal vandal who allegedly taped an inflammatory message to his Tesla vehicle.

The former CNN journalist recounted the incident on his Substack on Wednesday and posted a video on the X social media platform. He said he had gone to a soccer tournament with his son.

‘The journey I have had with this car is in some ways a journey of, I think, a lot of people have had with politics.’

“Over the weekend, someone defaced my Tesla,” wrote Cillizza.

“And we parked my car, which is a Tesla. And we went and we watched the game,” he added. “And when he and I came back, there was something attached to it that was not there when we had left. It was this.”

He held up a paper reading “Musk is a Nazi” that was taped to his car.

“Someone had taped a sign: ‘Musk is a Nazi.’ Now, they obviously had pre-written this, or they have a bunch of them, right. But ‘Musk is a Nazi’ taped to my car. So this is the first time I’ve experienced the sort of politics of Elon Musk and Tesla,” Cillizza added.

“The journey I have had with this car is in some ways a journey of, I think, a lot of people have had with politics,” he added.

RELATED: Jasmine Crockett calls DOGE a ‘scam’ and ‘cover-up’ to help Elon Musk profit

Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images

“Making everything political is dumb,” he said on social media. “It’s driving us further and further apart.”

Cillizza went on to castigate those who had politicized every aspect of their consumer habits.

“If your bar is that you never interact with or buy anything from a company whose founder has taken a position with which you disagree or which has donated to a cause you don’t support, I find it very hard to believe you are going to make any purchases ever,” he wrote.

“Breaking news: Giant corporations tend to do what makes them the most money, not always what’s ‘right,'” he added.

Cillizza had been previously mocked online for defending the media against accusations that they colluded with the Biden administration to cover for his worsening mental condition. More evidence has come out since then to show that his deterioration was far worse than was admitted at the time.

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

​Chris cillizza, Reporter’s tesla defaced, Anti elon musk protest, Tesla protests, Politics 

Last week’s coordinated propaganda assault from the Chinese Communist Party targeted President Trump’s proposed “Golden Dome” missile defense system for the United States. The barrage left Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth scrambling to respond.

No one should find this surprising. China has waged a “slow-motion war” for decades, guided by the strategy outlined in “Unrestricted Warfare,” a 1999 playbook written by two People’s Liberation Army colonels. The book lays out how to dominate a superior adversary without firing a shot — through economic pressure, cyberwarfare, and, most critically, information control.

America must build a permanent, sophisticated information command — one capable of delivering a sustained, strategic response over years, not news cycles.

Information warfare alone won’t defeat China, of course. But as retired U.S. Air Force Colonels John Warden, Larry Weaver, and I argued at “Winning Peer Wars,” it remains a vital pillar of national power.

China’s influence campaign exploits America’s open media environment, manipulating public discourse with ease. Meanwhile, the U.S. barely dents Beijing’s closed, tightly controlled information sphere. The imbalance grows wider by the day.

America must build a permanent, sophisticated information command — one capable of delivering a sustained, strategic response over years, not news cycles. Scattershot messaging and ad hoc counter-narratives won’t cut it. We face a disciplined adversary with a 25-year head start. Let’s act like it.

Introducing SOFTWAR

An experimental U.S. military unit capable of challenging the world’s most aggressive propaganda machines has existed — at least on paper — since 2016. The 1st Joint SOFTWAR Unit (Virtual), or 1st JSU(V), remains in “suspended animation” today, dormant for lack of funding. Yet this unit, with minimal investment, could give the United States a decisive edge against China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other hostile actors waging nonstop information warfare against our interests.

The late Andrew W. Marshall, longtime director of the Pentagon’s secretive (and now dismantled) Office of Net Assessment, launched the unit based on SOFTWAR theories by developed this writer. These theories, taught in U.S. war colleges as part of the cyberwar curriculum, emphasized the strategic value of fighting not just with weapons but with ideas, information, and narrative.

Andrew W. Marshall (left) with Chuck de Caro at the firing rangePhoto courtesy of Chuck de Caro

Marshall assigned me the task of forming the unit. Assisting as action officer, U.S. Army Col. David Church brought exceptional organizational skill, helping to stand up the 1st JSU(V) in record time. The unit drew from a unique talent pool: 50 airmen and soldiers from the California National Guard, handpicked from a force of 22,000. These service members held civilian jobs in industries critical to information warfare — Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and Big Tech. They were filmmakers, writers, engineers, marketers, and software experts. No active-duty force could match this blend of military discipline and private-sector mastery.

Despite the team’s potential, Obama-era sequestration in 2013 gutted funding just as the concept began to take shape. Temporary duty budgets vanished. Training and operations stalled. Only after California Adjutant General David Baldwin intervened — allowing Guard members to skip home unit training to work on 1st JSU(V) — did the effort stay alive. Even then, progress continued only because many volunteered their own time, collaborating online to refine the concept.

Today, the need for this capability has never been greater. China, Russia, and others wage a slow-motion war against the U.S. through disinformation and psychological manipulation. America’s open media landscape leaves it vulnerable to manipulation, while closed regimes remain immune to our traditional efforts. The Pentagon lacks a centralized, strategic response to this asymmetric threat.

The 1st JSU(V) could change that.

Raising our game

Re-establishing the unit with a permanent charter would give U.S. commanders and agency heads a direct line to elite information warfare specialists. These modern citizen-soldiers know how to dismantle enemy narratives and build winning campaigns for a global audience.

Take General Stanley McChrystal’s disjointed video on the “Eight Imperatives of Counterinsurgency” during the Afghanistan War. Had it been operational, the 1st JSU(V) could have salvaged that amateurish mess and made it effective, to say nothing of watchable. McChrystal’s ultimate downfall — his cluelessness about modern media — led to President Obama firing him. That failure was hardly unique.

In 2009, the Pentagon squandered hundreds of millions of dollars on information operations contracts in Iraq. The Defense Department’s own inspector general flagged the disaster in a report that same year: “Overall, the contracting process resulted in a contract vehicle that was not optimal and may not meet initial psychological operations requirements or user needs.” The IG also found “an internal control weakness” in media services oversight.

RELATED: Memo to Hegseth: It isn’t about AI technology; it’s about counter-AI doctrine

Saulo Angelo via iStock/Getty Images

Translation: Pentagon brass didn’t understand the global media environment — and had no business trying to operate in it without real expertise.

That failure could have been avoided. The 1st JSU(V) had already shown it could rapidly extract actionable intelligence from enemy propaganda, including early Al-Qaeda videos. These Guard personnel demonstrated how to identify ideological weaknesses and disrupt enemy messaging by severing its link to target audiences — in real time.

The battlefield has changed

This small, low-cost unit brings strategic firepower. It can undermine enemy influence, break propaganda pipelines, and deny adversaries a clean shot at shaping public perception. The battlefield has changed. We no longer need vast armies or trillion-dollar toys to win the information war. We need cutting-edge communicators with mastery of messaging, narrative, and digital terrain.

That’s exactly what the 1st JSU(V) offers. But without funding, this capability will continue to gather dust.

The Pentagon needs to act quickly. The speed of modern conflict demands an aggressive information posture. Information warfare dominates the battle space — from TikTok to Tehran. If the Defense Department wants to win, it must fully embrace the unique capabilities of our citizen-soldier forces.

The 1st Joint SOFTWAR Unit (Virtual) proved it could counter enemy disinformation. The time has come to reactivate it and make its mission permanent.

Pete Hegseth and current defense leadership must recognize the moment. We already built the prototype. All we need now is the will to activate it.

​Opinion & analysis, Pentagon, Pete hegseth, National defense, China, Information warfare, Cyberwar, Chuck de caro, Andrew marshall, Unrestricted warfare, Office of net assessment, Counterinsurgency, Department of defense, National guard, California, Hollywood, Big tech, Russia, Golden dome proposal 

A black liberal commentator revealed why he chose to quit the Washington Post editorial board, and it led to a wave of mockery and ridicule on social media.

Capehart left the board in 2023, but he had not said why he did so until he published a book of memoirs last week. He said that he left because of a disagreement about whether former President Joe Biden had exaggerated his criticism of new legislation.

‘Tumulty took an incident where I felt ignored and compounded the insult by robbing me of my humanity.’

Capehart said that the board disagreed with former President Joe Biden when he criticized a Georgia voting statute as “Jim Crow 2.0” and that he grew even angrier when the opinion editor, Karen Tumulty, did not apologize to him over the disagreement.

“Tumulty took an incident where I felt ignored and compounded the insult by robbing me of my humanity,” he wrote in his book. “She either couldn’t or wouldn’t see that I was black, that I came to the conversation with knowledge and history she could never have, that my worldview, albeit different from hers, was equally valid.”

Many thought it absurd that Capehart had been so incensed over a relatively minor description of Biden’s policies by the board.

“The idea that Karen Tumulty robbed Jonathan Capehart of his ‘humanity’ is one of the most absurd things ever written. Capehart is preening a drama queen,” said talk host Erick Erickson.

“Capeheart is a complete whiner. And Tumulty isn’t exactly moderate or right,” responded Pradheep Shanker of National Review.

“Hahahahahaha they had a mild disagreement over whether the Georgia voting law was extremely bad or REALLY extremely bad and so he said Karen Tumulty was genociding him and quit,” said a popular anonymous account.

“This is hilarious. I’m not sure if he was robbed of humanity but he definitely dropped his self-awareness along the way,” said another user. “WPost was even wrong in their milder criticism of the laws as it turns out the laws were not restrictive and nobody was disenfranchised.”

RELATED: NBC historian hyperventilates Trump will turn US into dictatorship if re-elected

Photo by Rich Polk/Getty Images for Politicon

“White supremacy strikes again. You absolutely love to see it,” joked another account.

“Capeheart [sic] is the definition of a woke, entitled snowflake eagerly looking to be offended,” said another.

“What an idiot. His view was WAY OFF and the opposing view was correct. He WAS being hyperbolic (and that’s putting it mildly). Another example of why we don’t hate the legacy media nearly enough,” read another comment.

Capehart was previously mocked when he sobbed at the beginning of an interview about the Jan. 6 rioting at the U.S. Capitol.

Tumulty said she did not recognize the events as reported by Capehart but added that she could not comment to Semafor out of respect for “the long-standing principle that Washington Post editorial board deliberations are confidential.”

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

​Jonathan capehart mocked, Capehart leaves wapo, Social media vs lib media, Capehart vs tumulty, Politics 

Wednesday marks the fifth anniversary of when Black Lives Matter rioters and Antifa militants, angry over the death of George Floyd, attacked Minneapolis’ 3rd Police Precinct and the officers defending it. What was different about that day in 2020 is how the vastly outnumbered officers were ordered to evacuate the precinct instead of being reinforced.

The rioters gained new energy at the sight of the retreating officers, many of whom had to run on foot because there were not enough vehicles to transport them out of the area. With the minimal police presence now gone, the mob broke into the police station, looted it, and set the building on fire.

It was a moment that had not been seen in recent U.S. history. The police station in Ferguson, Missouri, during the BLM riots was not evacuated or burned. There is no record of such drastic action taking place at any of the Los Angeles Police Department stations during the 1992 riots.

Three Minneapolis police officers who are still with the department have bravely stepped forward to speak with Blaze News and give their account of what happened that night and what they have seen in the five years since the riots. They agreed to be interviewed anonymously to avoid retaliation from the department or the city.

“That first three days, I mean even afterwards, there was little to no direction from our admin. and/or our command. We were self-deploying or making our own plans to do whatever we could to be effective and try to maintain some sort of semblance of order,” one of the officers recalled.

Watch the officers’ interview here:

The officers who were interviewed said they felt betrayed by the decision to evacuate the 3rd Precinct because they had spent days being attacked by the crowd. In their view, the precinct could have been held if they had been given reinforcements. Mayor Jacob Frey (D) has defended his decision to give the evacuation order because he did not believe holding the building was worth the risk of an officer or a rioter being killed.

“It was extremely frustrating,” another officer said about city leadership’s decisions. “I feel like a lot of people that were on the ground directly with us were making good calls, but it was the people higher up that were making really bad calls, which made [our response] difficult.”

The officer pointed to how leadership did not like the optics of police being on the roof of the 3rd Precinct with 40mm less-than-lethal launchers, which are used on rioters who are attacking officers, so leadership ordered them off the roof. As soon as they were off the roof, the crowd became more violent and got closer to the building, so the officers were ordered back up.

The Minneapolis officers retreating sent a message to rioters across the country that if they had the numbers and were violent enough, they could have a chance to burn police stations. Another such attempt was made on the 5th Precinct. In Seattle, then-Mayor Jenny Durkan (D) ordered her officers to leave the city’s East Precinct after days of rioters attacking officers there.

RELATED: FBI reassigns agents involved in kneeling PR stunt for George Floyd protests

Photo (left): © Ralf-Finn Hestoft/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images; Photo (right): ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images

RELATED: DC mayor will remove Black Lives Matter mural and plaza over pressure from White House

Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The impact of the lawlessness five years ago is still being felt on the streets. The officers say it is getting increasingly harder to do their jobs effectively, which has led to mass exodus from the Minneapolis Police Department.

“I’ve had friends come up to me or family members come up to me that say, ‘We need more cops like you.’ My response, if I ever hear a comment like that, is always, ‘There are. The department is full of them. Certainly was full of them at that time.’ We lost an unacceptable number of great cops, of great sergeants, lieutenants, leaders,” one officer said.

It remains to be seen whether Minneapolis can fully recover from the devastation.

You can watch the full documentary on BlazeTV.

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

​Politics 

An illegal alien allegedly composed a letter threatening to shoot and kill President Donald Trump over the deportations the president has ordered.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem posted on social media that the suspect had been detained, and she posted an image of the handwritten threat letter.

‘You have been deporting my family and I think it is time Donald J. Trump get what he has coming to him.’

“Thanks to our ICE officers, this illegal alien who threatened to assassinate President Trump is behind bars,” wrote Noem on social media.

The letter claimed that the president had deported some of the author’s family and that he would self-deport to Mexico after killing Trump.

“We are tired of this president messing with us Mexicans — we have done more for this country than you white people — you have been deporting my family and I think it is time Donald J. Trump get what he has coming to him,” the letter read.

“I will self deport myself back to Mexico but not before I use my 30 yard 6 [sic] to shoot your precious president in is [sic] head — I will see him at one of his big ralleys [sic],” it concluded.

The suspect was identified as 54-year-old Ramon Morales Reyes, who is accused of mailing the letter to ICE officials. He was apprehended on Thursday, and he remains in custody in Juneau, Wisconsin.

Noem connected the threat to the irresponsible rhetoric used by politicians.

“This threat comes not even a year after President Trump was shot in Butler, Pennsylvania, and less than two weeks after former FBI Director Comey called for the President’s assassination,” she continued. “All politicians and members of the media should take notice of these repeated attempts on President Trump’s life and tone down their rhetoric.”

RELATED: Democrat mayor will be investigated for alleged aiding and abetting of illegal aliens, Tennessee congressman says

Image Source: Department of Homeland Security press release.

Officials said that Morales Reyes had entered the U.S. illegally nine times in the period from 1998 until 2005. He also had a criminal record with criminal damage to property, felony hit and run, and disorderly conduct with a domestic abuse modifier, according to DHS.

“I will continue to take all measures necessary to ensure the protection of President Trump,” concluded Noem.

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

​Illegal alien threatens trump, Handwritten letter threat, Ramon morales reyes, Illegal alien crime, Politics 

Controversial boxer Imane Khelif will defend a 2024 Dutch boxing championship next month, returning to women’s boxing for the first time since winning Olympic gold last summer in Paris.

At the Olympics, one female opponent of Khelif’s forfeited, and another made a provocative gesture after it was revealed that Khelif was a male competing in the women’s category. The International Boxing Association, the World Boxing Organization, and endocrinological experts all independently determined that Khelif is a man.

‘Proud that Imane Khelif is there again to defend her title!’

The latter research group also revealed that Khelif had the “absence of a uterus” and the presence of “gonads in inguinal canals,” meaning testicles in the abdomen.

Still, Khelif persisted with claims that he was being attacked due to simple hate and made vows to return to women’s boxing. The athlete even dared President Donald Trump to try and bar him from the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles.

RELATED: Imane Khelif dares Trump administration to stop him from defending gold medal at 2028 Olympics: ‘I am not transgender’

Imane Khelif’s (left) opponent Angela Carini (right) hangs her head after forfeiting at the Olympics. Photo by Fabio Bozzani/Anadolu via Getty Images

Khelif has since been announced as a participant in the eighth Eindhoven Box Cup in the Netherlands, where he will defend his 2024 women’s title. The organization announced the five-day boxing tournament on X and specifically celebrated Khelif’s return. While the aforementioned X post was taken down, you can still view it here: “In 2 weeks the biggest boxing event in Europe in Eindhoven! Proud that Imane Khelif is there again to defend her title!”

Results from 2024’s competition showed that Khelif defeated female boxers almost as easily as he did at the Olympics. Over three bouts, the Algerian dropped just one point out of a possible 15 — meaning a judge voted for an opponent of Khelif’s only once.

At the Olympics, Khelif won all four bouts by unanimous decisions.

The boxer’s return garnered disdain from NCAA championship swimmer and activist Riley Gaines, who called Khelif, “Still the same male who stole a women’s Olympic gold medal.”

RELATED: ‘A lot of people say it’s not happening!’: A definitive list of men who have dominated women’s sports

Imane Khelif of Team Algeria celebrates winning the Olympic gold medal in Women’s 66kg boxing. Photo by Richard Pelham/Getty Images

Khelif, 26, last made public comments in March and was sticking to the idea that he always has been, and still is, a “girl.”

“I see myself as a girl, just like any other girl. I was born a girl, raised as a girl, and have lived my entire life as one,” the boxer claimed.

The Eindhoven Box Cup runs from June 5 to June 10.

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

​Fearless, Imane khelif, Women’s sports, Boxing, Olympics, Sports 

After years of the Biden administration’s attempts to convince the American public that COVID vaccines were safe and effective for pregnant women and children, RFK Jr. has announced they’re no longer being recommended to society’s most vulnerable.

“I couldn’t be more pleased to announce that as of today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule,” RFK Jr. said alongside NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary.

“Last year, the Biden administration urged healthy children to get yet another COVID shot, despite the lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy in children. That ends today,” he continued, adding, “We’re now one step closer to realizing President Trump’s promise to Make America Healthy Again.”

BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales is thrilled with the development but wishes it had come sooner.

“It should never have been recommended to children from the beginning. It should have never been recommended to pregnant women in the beginning. There were no reliable studies showing that this was not harmful to pregnant women,” Gonzales says on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”

However, the left-leaning mainstream media are up in arms over the announcement out of fear that the move will end up harming women and children more than it helps.

“RFK Jr. announces vaccine bombshell as he restricts access for millions of Americans,” one Daily Mail headline reads.

“The idea that, I don’t know, RFK is now killing people because they’re removing it from the actual CDC recommended schedule is just complete and total hogwash. You are talking about children, pregnant women. I mean, these are the most vulnerable,” Gonzales says.

“You can’t just play guinea pig with these people,” she continues, adding, “They either are the next generation or carrying the next generation, and yet the prior administration was completely willing to not only do that but threaten your livelihood if you did not go along with this.”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

​Video, Sharing, Free, Upload, Video phone, Camera phone, Youtube.com, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Sara gonzales, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Rfk jr, Robert f kennedy jr, Dr jay bhattacharya, Dr marty makary, The fda, Covid-19 vaccines, Vaccine side effects, Covid vaccine dangers, Biden administration, Covid-19, Trump administration, Make america healthy again 

When the WNBA’s Minnesota Lynx hosted the Connecticut Sun last week, Lynx forward Napheesa Collier decided to make a political statement in honor of the fifth anniversary of George Floyd’s fentanyl-fueled death in Minneapolis.

“George was a father, a brother, and a son. And his life, like every life, held meaning,” Collier told the crowd. “His death exposed the holes that are still in our justice and criminal institutions today. His five-year anniversary reminds us that must continue the fight against criminal, racial, and social injustices. We can not stay silent.”

Collier, of course, failed to include the crimes committed, jail terms served, or the fentanyl and methamphetamine found in Floyd’s system via autopsy.

“She is celebrating and honoring St. George Floyd. Nine times arrested, armed robbery, using a gun on a pregnant woman, high on fentanyl, passing counterfeit $20 bills. The year before the death of St. George Floyd, he nearly died of a drug overdose while being arrested by police,” BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock says on “Fearless.”

“We all know on May 25, 2020, St. George Floyd went off to heaven and now is just a martyr and a symbol of black American excellence. No one black has ever died in a more spectacular, courageous fashion than St. George Floyd, when he couldn’t breathe because he had swallowed enough fentanyl to kill Secretariat and Seabiscuit,” Whitlock continues.

“You’re treating George Floyd, and honoring him, like he’s Jesus. Like his blood offers us salvation and grace,” he adds.

And Whitlock believes Caitlin Clark’s two-week absence from the WNBA has something to do with the over-the-top racial idolatry on display.

“Less people will be paying attention to the WNBA, so they can go back to complaining about their pay, complaining about the patriarchy, complaining about white people. They can go back to doing what they do without any pushback from us. They don’t hate Caitlin Clark; they hate her fans,” Whitlock says.

“They hate our values,” he continues, adding, “They want to live in a bubble where they can do all their insane things without any pushback.”

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Video, Sharing, Video phone, Free, Camera phone, Upload, Youtube.com, Fearless with jason whitlock, Jason whitlock, Fearless, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Napheesa collier, Caitlin clark, St george floyd, George floyd, Black lives matter, Summer of love, George floyd riots, Wnba, Wnba politics, Minnesota lynx, Connecticut sun 

Project Veritas released undercover footage Wednesday that appears to show Democratic National Committee Vice Chair David Hogg and Deterrian Jones, a former staffer in the Biden administration’s Office of Digital Strategy, spill the beans about who was really running the Biden White House.

Their answers might be of interest to congressional investigators on the House Oversight Committee and to Ed Martin, the incoming Department of Justice pardon attorney and director of the DOJ’s Weaponization Working Group, who are looking into who might have been using the autopen to sign documents in former President Joe Biden’s name in the geriatric Democrat’s mental and bodily absence.

‘I can’t stress to you how much power he had at the White House.’

Responding to a question concerning corruption at the DNC, Hogg — facing a potential ouster next month after party elites effectively declared his election null and void — noted the “bigger issue was, like, the inner circle that was around Biden.”

“Jill Biden’s chief of staff had an enormous amount of power,” Hogg allegedly told Project Veritas, referring to Anthony Bernal.

RELATED: Ed Martin floats names of ‘gatekeepers’ in Biden autopen controversy; Trump accuses exploiters of ‘TREASON’

Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

Deterrian Jones told one of Project Veritas’ undercover reporters that Bernal was a “shadowy, ‘Wizard of Oz’-type figure” who “wielded an enormous amount of power.”

“I can’t stress to you how much power he had at the White House,” added Jones.

Jake Tapper and Axios correspondent Alex Thompson’s new book, “Original Sin,” reportedly characterizes Bernal as one of the most influential people in the White House and a key member of Biden’s so-called politburo.

A source familiar with the inner workings of the Biden White House told the authors, “Five people were running the country, and Joe Biden was at best a senior member of the board,” reported the New York Post.

The book claims that “in practice, Bruce Reed was the real domestic policy adviser, Mike Donilon was the actual political director, Steve Ricchetti controlled Legislative Affairs, and Klain controlled a bit of everything.”

RELATED: Justice is coming for Biden’s ‘autopen’ pardons — and Trump’s DOJ just put everyone on notice

Photo by Evan Vucci-Pool/Getty Images

After hearing from a whistleblower involved with the 2020 Biden campaign at the highest levels, Ed Martin — who revealed on May 20 that his investigation into the use of the autopen has actually been under way for weeks — identified the “gatekeepers” who were “dominant characters in the White House.”

Martin’s list partially overlapped with the “politburo” members listed in Tapper’s book — Klain, Ricchetti, and Jill Biden were names common to both. However, Martin also named former Biden adviser Anita Dunn and Barack Obama’s former personal attorney Robert Bauer.

The admissions from Hogg and Jones, coupled with the revelations in Tapper’s book, appear to confirm President Donald Trump’s suspicion, which he expressed to Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck in October, namely that Biden was effectively a figurehead for a “committee” of unnamed bureaucrats.

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

​David hogg, Hogg, Dnc, White house, Biden white house, Autopen, Usurpation, Politics 

President Donald Trump obtained a court victory Wednesday after an official in the copyright department filed a lawsuit against her firing.

Trump has been trying to cut down the size of government, as well as root out political opponents by firing various officials and employees, but Democrats have argued that he is acting unconstitutionally in some cases.

Perlmutter would not be irreparably harmed if she continued to be unemployed.

Shira Perlmutter, former director of the U.S. Copyright Office, filed an emergency bid to reinstate her employment, but U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ruled in favor of the government. Perlmutter had claimed that the firing was “unlawful and ineffective.”

Kelly ruled that Perlmutter would not be irreparably harmed if she continued to be unemployed as the case progressed.

Democratic Rep. Joe Morelle of New York had accused the administration of firing Perlmutter over a dispute about artificial models that would benefit tech billionaire Elon Musk.

“Donald Trump’s termination of Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, is a brazen, unprecedented power grab with no legal basis. It is surely no coincidence he acted less than a day after she refused to rubber-stamp Elon Musk’s efforts to mine troves of copyrighted works to train AI models,” wrote Morelle in part.

RELATED: Judge rules Trump administration must rescind ‘illegal’ order to fire probationary federal workers

Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

“This action once again tramples on Congress’s Article One authority and throws a trillion-dollar industry into chaos. When will my Republican colleagues decide enough is enough?” Morelle added.

Perlmutter is also arguing in her lawsuit that the firing threatens the separation of powers of the federal government insofar as the Copyright Office is intended to advise Congress, and the executive branch firing officers imperils that balance.

Kelly was nominated by Trump to the court in 2017.

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

​Trump vs perlmutter, Copyright official vs musk, Elon musk and government, Trump judge sides with trump, Politics 

After a tumultuous week on Capitol Hill, several Republican lawmakers have expressed frustration with Congress for not yet codifying all of the DOGE cuts. In a quick turnaround, President Donald Trump’s administration is now aiming to codify $9.4 billion in DOGE cuts through Congress as early as next week, an Office of Management and Budget spokesperson confirmed to Blaze News on Wednesday.

The cuts will be presented to Congress in the form of a rescission package from OMB, cutting $1.1 billion in funds to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $8.3 billion in various foreign aid programs, according to an OMB spokesperson. This package comes just days after Trump ally Elon Musk expressed disappointment with Congress’ track record when it comes to codifying the cuts the DOGE has identified.

‘Losing Elon Musk and the DOGE wing of the Trump electoral coalition will be devastating to the GOP’s midterm prospects. But there’s still time.’

RELATED: Elon Musk takes jab at Trump’s ‘big, beautiful, bill’: ‘I was disappointed’

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

“Elon Musk and the entire DOGE team have done INCREDIBLE work exposing waste, fraud, and abuse across the federal government — from the insanity of USAID’s spending to finding over 12 million people on Social Security who were over 120 years old,” Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Wednesday.

“The House is eager and ready to act on DOGE’s findings so we can deliver even more cuts to big government that President Trump wants and the American people demand,” Johnson added.

Some of these programs include a $3 million grant to fund Iraqi “Sesame Street” through USAID, as well as another $3 million for circumcisions, vasectomies, and condoms in Zambia and $5.1 million toward the “resilience of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer global movements” through the United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

NPR and PBS also become a target of OMB’s imminent rescission package because they have functionally served as left-wing outlets subsidized by taxpayers. NPR CEO Katherine Maher has previously referred to Trump as a “fascist” and a “deranged racist,” while PBS has featured multiple programs glamorizing transgenderism, including one show about a trans-identifying man who “comes out to her old-school Ohio bowling league.”

RELATED: Who is bankrolling the anti-MAHA movement?

Photo by Allison Robbert-Pool/Getty Images

The Trump administration’s latest push for Congress to get moving on DOGE cuts comes after Elon Musk himself expressed disappointment with the “big, beautiful bill.” Musk cited concerns over spending, saying it “undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.”

Republican lawmakers like Rep. Thomas Massie and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky also seemed unimpressed by Congress so far. At the same time, BlazeTV host Matt Kibbe told Blaze News that there is still time to preserve the MAGA movement before the midterms.

“Losing Elon Musk and the DOGE wing of the Trump electoral coalition will be devastating to the GOP’s midterm prospects,” Kibbe said. “But there’s still time.”

“As Senator Rand Paul has been pointing out, all of the proposed DOGE cuts can be accomplished through expedited presidential rescission legislation, only requiring 51 votes in the Senate,” Kibbe added. “Why not show us what savings can be accomplished before attempting to pass the ‘big, beautiful bill,’ which includes a $5 trillion increase in the debt limit and $350 billion in new spending?”

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

​Doge, Doge cuts, Codify doge cuts, Congress, House republicans, Senate republicans, Donald trump, Omb, Office of management and budget, Npr, Pbs, Cbp, Elon musk, Usaid, Trump administration, Big beautiful bill, Reconciliation, Rescissions, Dei, Trans, Katherine maher, Rand paul, Thomas massie, Matt kibbe, Maga mandate, Politics