Category: blaze media

On November 18, six Democrat lawmakers released a short online video titled “Don’t Give Up the Ship,” in which they encouraged service members and intelligence personnel to reject “illegal orders” from the Trump administration.

While the video posited that the administration “is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens” and acting in ways that threaten the Constitution, it did not substantiate its claims with any evidence or examples of illegal orders, leading many — President Trump included — to call it sedition.

When Glenn Beck got wind of the scandal, he posted the following, which President Trump then reposted.

Today on “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn expounded on his warning, urging the need for four actions to be immediately taken to prevent the unraveling of our republic.

1. Congress must censure the mutinous 6

“If lawmakers can publicly encourage military resistance without consequence, then Congress has surrendered its moral authority. You cannot police the executive branch; you can’t oversee the intelligence agencies; you can’t demand transparency if you cannot police your own members,” says Glenn, calling censure necessary “constitutional maintenance.”

“If Congress refuses to [discipline the lawmakers who made the video], then the precedent remains, and it gets worse. And history shows us no nation survives a politicized military — ever.”

2. Pentagon must publicly reaffirm: ‘We obey the president’s lawful orders’

The military has to “restate the chain of command publicly and immediately. The joint chiefs don’t need a press conference; they don’t need hearings. They just need to say the United States armed forces obey all lawful orders of the president,” says Glenn.

“That’s the firewall between an American republic and every failed nation in history.”

3. SCOTUS must slam the door on Boasberg’s secret spying precedent — immediately

Glenn urges the “the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court: Close the door on the Boasberg case” immediately.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg “opened a door that is so dangerous,” says Glenn, by approving secret grand jury subpoenas and gag orders in the 2022-2023 Arctic Frost investigation — launched by the FBI and special counsel Jack Smith to probe Trump allies’ efforts to overturn the 2020 election — that let the executive branch seize phone records from at least nine Republican senators without any notice to Congress for over a year.

“No judge — no matter how noble his intentions — has the authority to rewrite the separation of powers. If one branch can secretly spy on another, then you have no checks and balances. You have a surveillance government,” says Glenn, insisting that the Supreme Court must “intervene.”

“If they don’t, this is the new normal,” he warns.

4. If media and elites stay silent, the American people must stand up and demand consequences

“In a functioning republic, this is supposed to be where the media steps in. This is where the cultural leaders, the voices — left, right, center — stop obsessing over clickbait and start explaining to the people what just happened, why it’s unprecedented, why it matters, [and] how we as citizens need to respond,” says Glenn.

But as of now, that’s not happening in media, academia, or Hollywood.

The reason for their silence, says Glenn, is “because America’s cultural class no longer sees its role as the guardian of the republic” but rather as “guardians of ideology.”

If their failure continues, it’s the role of the American people to “step in,” Glenn says.

In order to do that, citizens must put aside their political beliefs and party affiliations and focus on the big picture.

“This is about whether the military stays under civilian authority, whether our adversaries overseas are given the indication that we are ripe for the taking. This is about judges that want to erase the separation of powers. … Most importantly, this is about whether your children will inherit a functioning republic,” Glenn says.

“You don’t riot; you don’t panic; you don’t despair. We are headed into Thanksgiving. Give thanks for the crosses that we bear; give thanks because our liberty, our freedom — should we decide to keep it — will be more valuable to us. But you should call your representatives. … You need to demand transparency; you need to insist on consequences.”

Rage, division, and apathy, Glenn warns, will get us nowhere. The answer is “citizenship.”

“If we sleep through this, the system will break — guaranteed. But if you wake up, stand up, and insist on boundaries, eventually it will happen.”

To hear more of Glenn’s encouragement and analysis, watch the clip above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, Sedition, Truth social, Donald trump, Don’t give up the ship, Blazetv, Blaze media 

A WNBA player just may have put a tired debate to rest for good.

Indiana Fever guard Sophie Cunningham responded to comments made by a panel of male basketball players last week, and her willingness to agree with them might land her in hot water with gender activists.

‘Men are just stronger, bigger, athletic; they just are a different build.’

On Tuesday, NBA players Michael Porter Jr. and Lonzo Ball and former pro LiAngelo Ball shot down claims from WNBA star Paige Bueckers, who said she could beat NBA player Josh Hart one-on-one. The panel also denied former NBA player Pat Beverley’s claim that the WNBA champions could beat an NBA team.

By Thursday, Cunningham said dozens of people had sent her the remarks looking for her reaction.

“This is my personal opinion, but if you are a professional football player, basketball player … if you’re in that elite-level group, yeah, you should be able to beat the girls,” she explained. “Like, I’m not surprised by that.”

The 29-year-old then delivered a blunt message to her peers: “I just don’t get why it’s continuing to get brought up. And like, if women are saying that, like, he couldn’t beat them, yeah, he could. Any NBA star or player could beat a female in high school,” she said.

Cunningham’s co-host on the “Show Me Something” podcast, West Wilson, had a different approach to Porter’s comments. He put forward the notion that Porter has some sort of issue with women that caused him to bring up the topic.

RELATED: NBA players finally drop brutal truth bombs on WNBA stars: ‘It should be common sense’

Wilson said Porter has been “talking about true women” for the last two years, adding that he believes the Brooklyn Nets player is “weirdly insecure about women being around him” and their “reflection of him.”

The co-host was silenced when he read the contextual argument made by Porter. However, he omitted the portion of Porter’s remarks in which he said he had played against Cunningham when he was in the eighth grade and easily defeated her.

“My sisters went to University of Missouri, and I was still a young dude, and they had me playing on the scout team,” Porter said last week. “And they had a few WNBA players on their team, like Sophie Cunningham and a couple others. I think I was in seventh or eighth grade.”

Cunningham then brought her co-host back down to earth with her next comments, admitting that a team of elite eighth-graders could indeed handle adult women on the court.

RELATED: WNBA player complains chartered planes are too small: ‘We are grateful, but there’s still work to be done’

– YouTube

“If they’re future pros,” she prefaced, “… it’s probably true.”

Cunningham continued, stating the obviously biological differences.

“I don’t want to be unrealistic or delusional, like, men are just stronger, bigger, athletic; they just are a different build. And so if you put them up against females, well, yeah, they’re gonna win. Duh,” she said.

Wilson asked if any WNBA players thought they could beat a group of high-school boys, and Cunningham was more than willing to put a nail in the coffin.

“Dude, there’s no way. … If you put their best high-school [players] against the best WNBA … the male and female are just so different. I just don’t think that’s a fair matchup,” she admitted.

Interestingly, the duo went on to discuss Cunningham’s basketball history, which included discussions of playing with Porter’s older sisters.

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

​Fearless, Nba, Wnba, Basketball, Women’s sports, Sexism, Gender, Sports 

A federal judge dismissed the cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James Monday.

Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the two indictments, ruling that President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer Lindsey Halligan was invalidly appointed to her position.

‘No one is above the law.’

Currie said that “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment” to serve as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia “were unlawful exercises of executive power and hereby set aside.”

Prosecutors who work alongside Halligan said U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has the authority to choose whom to appoint to the position and that the 120-day period interim U.S. attorneys serve operates as a temporary check-in system for appointees.

RELATED: Eric Swalwell offers melodramatic response to Trump DOJ probe: ‘I refuse to live in fear’

Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images

“The implications of a contrary conclusion are extraordinary,” Currie said of Halligan’s appointment. “It would mean the government could send any private citizen off the street — attorney or not — into the grand jury room to secure an indictment so long as the Attorney General gives her approval after the fact. That cannot be the law.”

Currie dismissed the cases without prejudice, keeping the door open for the cases to be refiled, though whether they will be remains unclear. The Department of Justice may also opt to appeal Currie’s decision. Blaze News reached out to Bondi’s office for comment.

Comey was indicted in September for “serious crimes related to the disclosure of sensitive information,” with the Department of Justice alleging that the former director lied to Congress.

“No one is above the law,” Bondi said in a statement following the indictment. “Today’s indictment reflects this Department of Justice’s commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case.”

RELATED: Letitia James gives unhinged rant after court hearing for bank fraud allegations: ‘This is not about me!’

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

James was indicted shortly after Comey in October over allegations of bank fraud and providing false statements to a financial institution. If James had been convicted, she would have faced up to 30 years in prison and up to $1 million in fines on each count.

“The charges as alleged in this case represent intentional, criminal acts and tremendous breaches of the public’s trust,” Halligan said in a statement following the indictment. “The facts and the law in this case are clear, and we will continue following them to ensure that justice is served.”

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

​Letitia james, Pam bondi, James comey, Lindsey halligan, Lawfare, Donald trump, Department of justice, Fbi direcor, Cameron currie, Politics 

After attending a somewhat run-of-the-mill novus ordo Mass with only a few redeeming qualities, my husband and I decided to visit another church in Nevada that is possibly one of the most hated and misunderstood Christian denominations — even with the Latter-day Saints and Seventh-day Adventists.

It was both his and my first time attending a Jehovah’s Witness church.

‘I personally don’t want to go to heaven, but want to remain on Earth when we’re resurrected. I want to live among the animals and trees and plants and not rule over others.’

We walked 40-some minutes to the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses and were greeted warmly, even though we were two minutes late and the congregation had already begun singing the first hymn. The setting might have been bland, but I felt I had achieved a bucket-list goal.

For years I’d tried to visit a Kingdom Hall. The Jehovah’s Witnesses were one of the last churches to reopen nationwide after COVID, offering online meetings for nearly two and a half years, until summer of 2022. Even after that, many remained closed for another year, and a large portion still host hybrid Zoom/in-person gatherings for the immune-compromised.

Kingdom Hall

To many, the inside of the meeting hall would appear no different from a conservative Protestant church. Most women wore skirts or business suits; the men were in full suits. The carpet was gray, the walls plain, decorated with a few pictures of flowers. There were no windows.

Rows of theater chairs faced a pulpit. Though the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have ordained ministers, any baptized man may teach from Scripture. On the day we visited, a guest speaker from Idaho — tailored suit, bright red tie — delivered a sermon much like any Protestant pastor’s, citing extensive Bible verses to support his points. There was no American flag, unsurprising given JW pacifism. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not vote, and while they don’t forbid self-defense, they register as conscientious objectors during drafts. They believe that those who live by the sword will die by the sword (Matthew 26:52).

RELATED: Church-hopping: Confessions of an itinerant worshipper

Keturah Hickman

The sermon

The message, titled “Is There in Fact a True Religion from God’s Standpoint?” began with statistics: 85% of the world identifies as religious, 31% Christian, across 45,000 denominations — with a new one forming every 2.2 days. “But how does Jehovah want to be worshipped?” he asked.

He read from Mark 7:6-7 and James 1:26, then cited Solomon: True religion is to fear God and keep His commandments (Ecclesiastes 12:13). More verses followed — Isaiah 48:17-18, Micah 6:8, Matthew 7:16 — arguing that true belief and conduct must fit like a well-tailored suit, not mismatched pieces.

He condemned most Christian denominations for justifying slavery so that men might Christianize pagan souls for the kingdom of God. He pointed out that the Jehovah’s Witnesses never supported such horrid beliefs. (He failed to mention that slavery was already abolished by the time they came along.) He warned against fatalism, ancestor worship, and faith in human institutions. “If a religion permits or promotes practices the Bible condemns, it is not true,” he said, citing Colossians 3:10, John 8:32, James 3:17-18, and others.

“Truth is found in the word of God,” he concluded. “When we love the word, we are peaceable.”

The sermon ended with the JW hymn “My Father, My God and Friend (Hebrews 6:10).”

All along the Watchtower

After the hymn, an elder read from “The Watchtower,” the denomination’s monthly study magazine. Before the group was called Jehovah’s Witnesses, it was the Watch Tower Society, founded by Charles Taze Russell in 1881.

The article that day was “Jehovah Heals the Brokenhearted” (Psalm 147:3). The elder read each paragraph aloud, then passed the microphone for congregants — men and women, in person or on Zoom — to share reflections.

Here are some highlights.

Satan wants us to wallow in our feelings. Jehovah wants us to defy Satan and serve Him. When we do that, He sees us and is moved to help us.Jehovah doesn’t keep track of our sins, but only of the good we do.Jehovah does not put a time limit on our prayers as if it were a therapy session. We can pray to Him for as long as we like, and He’ll keep listening.The Son’s sacrifice forgives our past sins so we can move ahead into the future.We can comfort each other by being gentle and genuine.We are not to blame for how others hurt us.

It was repetitive but sincere — an hour-long group meditation on comfort and resilience.

The service ended with another hymn. There was no tithe, and communion is held only once a year for those who believe they are among the 144,000 destined for heaven.

The congregants

Afterward, several congregants welcomed us. One woman, Linda, about 70, explained that she had converted from Protestantism before marrying.

“There aren’t many differences between us and other churches,” she said, “except that we don’t teach what other places teach.”

“Such as?”

“We teach that Jehovah is Almighty God and that Jesus is His son and our Messiah. And we don’t believe in hellfire,” she said. “You can’t really find that idea in the Bible.”

I asked her if that meant that she believes everyone goes to heaven or if they just die.

She said, “The Bible says 144,000 go to heaven to be kings and priests to be the government of the kingdom of heaven that will come to Earth. I personally don’t want to go to heaven, but want to remain on Earth when we’re resurrected. I want to live among the animals and trees and plants and not rule over others.”

Linda gave me a small Bible — I gladly accepted it because it was lightweight and would fit perfectly into my backpack, and until now I had only been able to carry a New Testament. She explained to me that the Jehovah’s Witnesses didn’t approve of many of Scofield’s notes in the KJV and that their version had more accurate cross-references. I love having various versions of the Bible to read through, so there was no complaint from me!

She invited us to join her husband and friends at a cafe for a late lunch. And so we went with about 20 other congregants. I sat by a woman just a little older than I. Ozzy had been raised in the Jehovah’s Witnesses and had spent much of her youth as a traveling nanny. She told me that nearly six years ago she had married a Grace Baptist Church man and had a daughter with him. They eventually divorced. “I’m just grateful my daughter is learning about God in both homes she’s raised in,” she said.

Although Ozzy did not speak ill of her ex-husband, it was clear that she thought her expression of faith was more valid than his. So I asked her what was different between the two theologies, in her opinion.

“That’s a good question,” Ozzy said. “Not much.”

Then she added:

Except how we define the Trinity — you know, you can’t find that word in the Bible. I’ve searched every translation of the Bible, so I know. We both believe in the concept, though JW is more literal and bases their definition on how the Bible describes it. We believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate entities united by a common will. Grace Bible Church is more Catholic when they talk about the Trinity.

After a day with them, I found them sincere and Bible-focused, hardly cult-like. They loved God, quoted Scripture freely, and treated us with warmth — even when I somewhat aggressively asked about one of their more infamous beliefs.

“I have heard that your church does not allow people to get blood transfusions and that this has caused many people to die.”

“Yes, we believe blood is sacred and not to be spilled in war nor ingested for any reason,” Linda responded. “But blood can be divided into four components, and it is okay to receive any of those minor fractions.

“Most people don’t even need blood transfusions as much as they used to,” she added, noting that “scientists have discovered that there are healthier ways to fill a low blood count with supplements and iron.”

Are the Witnesses a cult?

I’m not sure what makes a group a cult any more. Some say it’s when people follow a man rather than the Bible — but the Jehovah’s Witnesses have no central figure. They encourage personal Bible study.

Interestingly, 65% of members are converts — adults who join by conviction, not birth. While many leave, those who stay do so deliberately. Angry ex-members exist in every religion, and that alone doesn’t define a cult.

Much of JW doctrine is nothing your average Protestant would quarrel with: anti-abortion but pro-birth-control, personal responsibility for family size, and no institutional oversight (beyond guidance from JW Broadcasting in New York). There’s also no enforcement mechanism for rules on blood transfusions or holidays.

There are 8.6 million Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide, compared to 15.7 million Jews, 17 million Mormons, and 22 million Seventh-day Adventists. Many Protestants single out the denomination’s rejection of transfusions, but the Jehovah’s Witnesses are neither faith healers nor anti-medicine. They are pacifists but politically moderate and scientifically literate.

Charles Taze Russell

Jehovah’s Witnesses founder Charles Taze Russell was raised Presbyterian. At age 13 he left his church to embark upon a kind of quest for the truth, for a time backsliding into unbelief.

Known for writing Bible verse on fences as a way to evangelize, he founded a group called the Bible Student Movement in 1879. Much like Mormons, the Two by Twos, and the Jim Roberts Group, his group grew by sending out pairs of men to preach the word of God directly from the Bible.

Despite Russell’s zeal, his life was riddled with scandal. He divorced his wife after she demanded a larger editorial influence on “The Watch Tower.” He sued for libel often, occasionally winning — one time the jury mockingly ruled in his favor but gave him only one dollar, and so he filed an appeal and received $15,000.

After wrongly predicting the end of the world numerous times, Russell died in 1931. The group split apart. Approximately a quarter of the members remained faithful to Russell’s successors and began calling themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Their use of the name “Jehovah” also irritates critics, though it appears in the King James Bible (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4).

Their rejection of the Nicene Trinity remains the sharpest point of division — a doctrine codified by the Catholic Church and later adopted by nearly all of Protestantism. It’s an irony of history: Protestants who define themselves against Rome still use Rome’s creed as the boundary of belief. Disagreement with that doctrine, however, does not make a faith a cult.

The trend to schism

One striking point from the sermon stayed with me: Every 2.2 days a new denomination is created.

Until the 16th century, Christianity had only a handful of branches. Now there are 45,000. The JW speaker said it is because everyone seeks truth; I think it’s because we’ve forgotten love.

As Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13: “If I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.”

What merit is truth without love? God does not honor self-righteous division. This, perhaps, was Martin Luther’s and Henry VIII’s greatest sin — their pride tore Christ’s body into pieces.

Protestants readily maintain friendly regard for Judaism, which does not accept Christ’s divinity, while showing far less tolerance for groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, or Adventists — who profess Jesus as Lord and Redeemer.

For this reason, I urge believers: Visit all churches. Seek unity where possible. Not to follow fads, but to love the whole body of Christ — even the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

​Faith, Abide, Christianity, Jehovah’s witnesses, Cults, Sects, Protestantism, Catholicism, Lifestyle, Church-hopping, Culture 

Last week, a woman was lit on fire while riding the Blue Line in Chicago during an unprovoked attack. Now new evidence has emerged that this was not only a preventable attack, but a judge let the accused attacker off easy after a brutal assault that was caught on camera back in August.

And the judge, Teresa Molina-Gonzalez, has apparently proudly spoken about her unconventional approach to criminal justice in her position of authority.

‘However, I had a chance as a prosecutor to make a difference as to what cases come in.’

Libs of TikTok posted a video of Judge Molina-Gonzalez apparently boasting about her soft-on-crime approach in a 2021 speech about the “power of diversity,” according to a screen slide.

RELATED: Chicago mayor obliterated by ActBlue strategist over ‘absolutely insane’ response to woman set on fire on train

Photo by Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images

The judge is heard talking about a common $354 fine in the video: “Some of the judges that I work with came from money, so $354 is no big deal. But to most of the people that come to my courtroom, it is a big deal.”

“And so I always offer them the opportunity to do community service.”

Judge Molina-Gonzalez also seemed to suggest that she filtered the cases based on whether the defendants “look like” her.

“You know, being a Latina in the office, people would tell me, like, ‘Don’t you feel like you’re prosecuting your own people?’ But it’s true, there are a lot of defendants that look like me. However, I had a chance as a prosecutor to make a difference as to what cases come in. I had a chance as a prosecutor to decide what offers were appropriate,” she can be heard saying, seemingly referring to her time as a prosecutor.

She also claimed in an interview posted to the Illinois courts website that “diversity on the bench is important because it allows all people to be represented. It instills faith and integrity in our judicial system.”

Lawrence Reed, the 50-year-old accused of lighting the Chicago woman on fire, reportedly has a rap sheet of over 70 arrests and 13 convictions prior to the barbaric attack last Monday.

Judge Molina-Gonzalez placed Reed on a lenient electronic monitoring system after he allegedly slapped a female social worker unconscious in August.

“I can’t keep everybody in jail because the state’s attorney wants me to,” she said at the time after the prosecutor warned that an ankle monitor “could not protect the victim or the community from another vicious, random, and spontaneous attack,” according to CWB Chicago.

The female victim, 26, is reportedly still in the hospital in critical condition.

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

​Politics, Chicago, Lawrence reed, Judge teresa molina-gonzalez, Dei, Activist judge, Woman lit on fire 

Democratic congressional candidate Aftyn Behn’s political past has once again come back to haunt her.

Behn, who currently serves in the Tennessee state legislature, has failed to navigate her on-the-record remarks ahead of the December 2 special election to replace former Republican Rep. Mark Green. Despite running to represent Tennessee’s 7th congressional district, Behn has expressed disdain for the district and critical resources that assist constituents.

‘I don’t remember these tweets.’

Behn was confronted on MS NOW about a series of now-deleted tweets where she apparently advocated to dissolve the police department in 2020, the same summer as the George Floyd riots.

One of these tweets read, “Good morning, especially to the 54% of Americans that believe burning down a police station is justified.”

RELATED: Trump cracks jokes with Mamdani in cordial Oval Office meeting: ‘I’ve been called much worse’

Photo by SAMUEL CORUM/AFP via Getty Images

“Yeah, I’m not going to engage in cable news talking points,” Behn said. “But what I will say is that, you know, our communities need solutions. We need local people deciding … solving local problems with local solutions … and that’s not the overreach of a federal government or a state government of which we are dealing with in Nashville and our cities across the state.”

The MS NOW anchor pressed Behn to clarify her comments repeatedly, but she failed to do so.

“Once again, I don’t remember these tweets,” Behn said.

RELATED: ‘You’re a piece of s**t’: Nancy Mace and Cory Mills clash in heated exchange after failed censure

This is not the first time Behn’s past remarks have landed the Democrat in an uncomfortable situation. She previously expressed severe disdain for Nashville, the very city she is running to represent.

“I hate the city, I hate the bachelorettes, I hate the pedal taverns, I hate country music, I hate all of the things that make Nashville, apparently,” Behn said.

“I hate it.”

In a video posted to X on Thursday, Behn seemed to deny that she hates Nashville, admitting that she takes issue with “the bachelorettes” and “pedal taverns” but ultimately blames Republicans for her comments.

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

​Aftyn behn, Tennessee, Mark green, Msnbc, George floyd, 2020 riots, Nashville, Defund the police, Democrats, Congress, Political violence, Deleted tweets, Politics 

Four unidentified individuals arrived at a south Florida home Saturday evening and tried to force their way inside, the Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office told WPLG-TV.

However, the homeowner was armed with a gun and opened fire.

‘Everyone has a duty and a right to defend themselves when attacked. Good job homeowner!!!’

Indeed, gunshots and a male hollering in pain are audible on two home surveillance videos that are part of WPLG’s report. The station in a separate story said it all went down in the area of Southwest 141st Street and 110th Avenue in Miami-Dade’s Richmond Heights neighborhood around 6:40 p.m.

The homeowner struck one of the subjects in the upper body, deputies told WPLG, adding that the other three individuals fled the scene in an unknown direction.

The wounded male died at a nearby hospital, the station said, adding that the Homicide Bureau of the sheriff’s office has taken over the investigation.

RELATED: Elderly Texas homeowner armed with hunting rifle spots burglar who broke through back door. It doesn’t end well for intruder.

The mother of the fatally shot male told WPLG the next morning in the separate story that she’s “in shock, disbelief” and “hurt.”

The mother, who did not provide her name, added to the station that while she was told that her son “tried to break into someone’s house,” she also noted, “That’s not him.”

Commenters under WPLG’s Facebook post about the mother’s reaction offered a number of opinions in the aftermath:

“I am truly sorry for this mother, but the son apparently was involved with the wrong people and participated in a fatally stupid crime,” one commenter wrote. “No doubt that the homeowner feared for his life with four men trying to force their way inside. Either she really didn’t know her son at all, or he was easily misled.””I’m pretty sure she is distraught,” another user observed. “But the bottom line is her son committed a crime. I feel bad for her, but not for him. Break into my home and find out.””Everyone has a duty and a right to defend themselves when attacked,” another commenter declared. “Good job homeowner!!!””The son should have made better choices, and he would still be here,” another user noted.”Play FAFO in Florida and this is the result!!!” another commenter exclaimed. “Love our freedom to protect ourselves.”

Authorities were continuing to search for the three remaining suspects, WPLG reported, adding that those with information can call Miami-Dade Crime Stoppers at 305-471-TIPS.

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

​Crime thwarted, Florida, Attempted home invasion, Intruders, Self-defense, Fighting back, Fatal shooting, 2nd amend., Guns, Gun rights, Richmond heights, Miami-dade sheriff’s office, Crime 

For more than two centuries, the great American novel has tempted writers who dreamed of capturing the country’s soul between two covers.

From Melville’s “Moby-Dick” to Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby,” from Faulkner’s haunted South to Steinbeck’s dust-caked plains, these novels shaped the way Americans saw themselves. Even in decline, the form still attracted giants. Updike, Roth, Morrison — writers who made words shine and sentences sing. Each tried to show what it means to be American: to dream, to stumble, and to start again.

To compound matters, ‘Ingram’ isn’t just a story of exploration, but also one of self-exploration, in the most literal and least appealing sense.

Now comes comedian, filmmaker, and repentant sex pest Louis C.K. to try his hand at what turns out to be … a not-great American novel. In truth, it’s awful.

Road to nowhere

“Ingram” reads like a road map to nowhere — meandering, bloated, and grammatically reckless. The prose wanders as if written under anesthesia. Sentences stretch, then sag. The paragraphs arrive in puddles, not lines. There’s an energy in C.K.’s comedy — a kind of desperate honesty — that, on stage, electrifies. But on the page, that same honesty slips into self-indulgence. The book is less “On the Road” and more off the rails.

To be clear, I love his comedy. I’ve seen him live and will see him again in the new year. He remains one of the most gifted observers of human absurdity alive — a man who can mine a half-eaten slice of pizza for existential truth. But this is not about comedy. This is about writing. And C.K. cannot write. The pacing, the architecture, the restraint — none of it is there.

Rough draft

The story unfolds in a version of rural Texas that seems to exist only in C.K.’s imagination, a land of dull prospects and even duller minds. At its center is Ingram, a poor, half-feral boy raised in poverty and pushed out into the world by a mother who tells him she has nothing left to offer. His education consists of hardship and hearsay. He treats running water like sorcery and basic plumbing like black magic. C.K. calls it “a young drifter’s coming of age in an indifferent world,” but it reads more like rough stand-up notes bound by mistake.

The writing is atrocious. Vast portions of the book read like this:

I couldn’t see my eyes, but I knew what was on my throat was a hand by the way it was warm and tightening and quivering like you could feel the thinking inside each finger, which were so long and thick that one of them pressed hard against the whole side of my face.

Or this:

I sat up, rubbing my aching neck til my breath came back regular, and I crawled out the tent flap myself, finding the world around me lit by the sun, which, just rising, was still low enough in the sky to throw its light down there under the great road, which was once again roaring and shaking above me.

Sentences stretch on like prison terms, suffocated by their own syntax, gasping for punctuation. The dialogue is somehow worse. Ingram’s conversations with the drifters and degenerates he meets on his journey stumble from cliché to confusion, the rhythm of speech giving way to nonsensical babble.

RELATED: Bill Maher and Bill Burr agree Louis CK should be welcomed back in Hollywood

Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images

A gripping tale

To compound matters, “Ingram,” isn’t just a story of exploration, but also one of self-exploration, in the most literal and least appealing sense. There’s a staggering amount of masturbation. C.K. doesn’t so much write about shame as relive it, page after sticky page. His public fall from grace plays out again and again, only now under the pretense of art. It’s less confession than repetition — self-absolution by way of self-abuse, and somehow still not funny.

Any comparisons to writers like Bukowski or Barry Hannah are little more than wishful thinking. Bukowski was grimy, but in a graceful way. He wrote filth with style, turning hangovers into hymns.

Hannah’s madness had a tune to it, strange but unmistakably his own. Even Hunter S. Thompson, at his most incoherent, had velocity. His sentences tore through the page, drug-fueled but deliberate.

C.K.’s writing has none of that. He tries to channel Americana — the heat, the highways, the hard men who dream of escape — but his clumsy prose ensures the only thing channeled is confusion. As C.K. recently told Bill Maher, he did no research for the book, and that much is evident from the first page. His characters talk like they were written by a man who’s only seen Texas through “No Country for Old Men.”

Don’t quit your day job

In the history of American letters, many great writers have fallen. Hemingway drank himself into oblivion; Mailer stabbed his wife; Capote drowned in his own decadence. But their sentences still stood. Their craft was the redemption. With “Ingram,” C.K. has no such refuge. The book exposes the limits of confession as art — that point where self-exposure turns into self-immolation. It could have been great; instead, it’s the very opposite. The only thing it proves is that writing and performing are different callings. Comedy forgives indiscipline. Literature doesn’t.

The great American novel has survived worse assaults — from bored professors, from self-serious minimalists, from MFA factories that mistake verbosity for vision. But rarely has it been dragged so low by someone so convinced of his brilliance. There’s perverse poetry in it, though. A man who was caught with his pants down now delivers a novel that never pulls them back up.

​Louis c.k., Great american novel, Literature, Culture, Entertainment, Ingram, Comedy, Hollywood, Review 

Florida Republican Rep. Byron Donalds’ bid to succeed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) just received another challenge from a fellow Republican.

On Monday morning, James Fishback, founder and CEO of investment firm Azoria, officially launched his bid for the governor’s seat in 2026.

‘Congressman Byron Donalds can’t be our next governor because he won’t fight for Florida like Ron DeSantis has.’

In a campaign launch video posted on X, Fishback, 30, says he will “stop the H-1B scam, tell Blackstone they can’t buy our homes, cancel AI Data Centers, and abolish property taxes.”

“Nowadays, not all Republicans are the same. If a Republican politician supports the H-1B scam that fires our workers, he can’t be our next governor,” he said in the video.

RELATED: Republican turncoat announces Democrat bid for Florida governor’s seat

Al Diaz/Miami Herald/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

“Congressman Byron Donalds can’t be our next governor because he won’t fight for Florida like Ron DeSantis has.”

Fishback emphasized his outsider status in the campaign video: “I’m not a politician. I’m an investor and a businessman.”

Fishback promised to visit all 67 counties in Florida in the coming months because “Florida’s next governor has to be someone you can see, talk to, and even debate with.”

“Florida is our home; America is our birthright; and we will never let them steal it from us,” Fishback’s website reads.

Fishback’s X profile emphasizes making Florida affordable for families.

Fishback is also the founder of the Incubate Debate, an organization that encourages middle and high school students to debate and equips teachers with a no-cost “Teacher Toolkit.”

Donalds, who currently represents Florida’s 19th district in the U.S. House and has received Trump’s endorsement in the Florida gubernatorial race, has consistently led Democrat David Jolly, a former Republican, in early polling.

Fishback joins a very crowded gubernatorial race, with over 30 candidates having already filed.

Blaze News reached out to Fishback’s campaign but did not immediately receive a response.

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

​Politics, Florida, Gubernatorial race, Ron desantis, James fishback, Byron donalds, David jolly, Florida governor, Azoria 

A New York City subway rider was stabbed in the stomach after asking his attacker to stop talking loudly on his cell phone aboard a train Saturday morning, police told the New York Post.

The attacker allegedly responded to the request by punching the 54-year-old victim several times in the face before stabbing him in the gut, police told the Post.

‘I guarantee you they were being loud on purpose to have a reason to stab someone.’

The attack occurred aboard an E train at the Jamaica Center–Parsons/Archer station in Queens around 11 a.m., police noted to the paper.

The attacker jumped off the train at the station and was on the loose, police told the Post, while the victim was taken to Jamaica Hospital in stable condition.

The victim’s daughter told the paper in a follow-up story that more police are needed in the NYC subway system.

“They’re supposed to be on the station,” the daughter, who requested anonymity, told the Post on Sunday. “I don’t really see them as much anymore.”

The paper added that the victim was “heading home from his restaurant gig” when the attack occurred.

“It’s a crazy world we live in,” the daughter told the Post as her father — a waiter — recovers in the hospital.

Commenters on WPIX-TV’s Facebook post about the attack agreed:

“Despicable behavior!!!” one commenter declared.”Sounds about right for NYC,” another user said, adding that “NY needs more lenient gun laws for law-abiding citizens.””I guarantee you they were being loud on purpose to have a reason to stab someone,” another commenter wrote.”F**king animals,” another user said.”This cant be true — remember when [Democrat Gov. Kathy] Hochul said it’s safe?!” a commenter reacted with just a bit of sarcasm sprinkled in.”I can’t anymore,” another user lamented. “I just don’t get it.”

Stabbing spike?

The Post said the stabbing occurred just a day after a homeless man was charged after being caught on video allegedly slashing two men in their faces on a Queens subway platform last week.

More from the paper:

Tyquan Manassa, 28, was charged Friday in connection to the Wednesday afternoon attacks on two men on the southbound platform of the E and F train at the Union Turnpike station in Kew Gardens, the NYPD said.

Manassa was identified as the stabbing suspect after cops busted him for a separate, unhinged outburst at the Ward’s Island shelter where he’d been staying Thursday, sources said.

RELATED: ‘White boy,’ ‘cracker’: Subway rider dares to glance at hollering female behind him — so she veers into beatdown mode: Cops

“Unfortunately, I feel like it happens so often that it’s kind of like we’re desensitized to it,” Fatima Shahid, 18, told the Post in regard to subway violence.

Shahid, who lives in the area, added to the paper that “it does make me feel a little unsafe. I’m glad that I don’t take the train as often as I used to. … So I feel a little OK, but I know that somebody who does it every day would be scared and feel unsafe.”

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

​New york city, Subway, Queens, Stabbing, Suspect on the loose, Police, Talking loudly, Cellphone, Violence, Crime 

Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA analyst, was featured along with five other Democrat lawmakers in a video last week urging the military to “refuse illegal orders” from the Trump administration.

Neither Slotkin nor the other Democrats bothered identifying in the video precisely which orders were illegal. They did, however, insinuate that the administration posed a general threat to the U.S. Constitution.

‘To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal.’

After the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces took issue with the apparent call for rebellion and identified those responsible as “traitors,” the six Democrats began painting themselves as victims.

In the process of attempting to shift attention from her action to the president’s reaction, Slotkin made a telling admission that casts the controversial video in a whole new light — namely that she couldn’t identify a single “illegal order” from the Trump administration warranting refusal.

The president took notice when Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck explained why this was a “BIG DEAL.”

Crying victim

President Donald Trump characterized the apparent call for rebellion as “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL” and noted in a Truth Social post on Saturday that “MANY GREAT LEGAL SCHOLARS AGREE THAT THE DEMOCRAT TRAITORS THAT TOLD THE MILITARY TO DISOBEY MY ORDERS, AS PRESIDENT, HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME OF SERIOUS PROPORTION!”

‘There is now increased threats against us.’

In the wake of Trump’s rumblings about possible sedition, the Democrats in the video went on the defensive, reading a similar script.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said, “Donald Trump is threatening me with arrest and execution because I’m upholding my oath to the Constitution and standing with our troops,” and suggested that the controversy boiled down to a political disagreement.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) similarly suggested that Trump’s response — not his and the other Democrats’ apparent call for rebellion — was cause for concern, claiming, “Because of what he says, there is now increased threats against us.”

“He should understand that his words have, you know, could have serious, serious consequences,” Kelly told CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” adding that the president’s response to potentially seditious implorations was at odds with Republicans’ criticism of violent rhetoric in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

RELATED: ‘SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR’: Trump demands arrest of ‘traitor’ Democrat congressmen for ‘dangerous’ video

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Image

Pennsylvania Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, another Democrat featured in the video, echoed the same talking points and claimed that Trump’s response “reveals far more about his authoritarian instincts than it does about anything that we said. In fact, he made our case for us.”

Slotkin once again joined the chorus, suggesting in a video statement that Trump “threatened” her and the others with the textbook consequences for sedition “because he didn’t agree with a video we put out.”

Telling admission

The Michigan Democrat went farther in her Sunday interview with Martha Raddatz of ABC’s “This Week,” suggesting that Trump was “trying to get us to shut up because he doesn’t want to be talking about this,” said Slotkin.

‘Couldn’t you have done a video saying just what you just said?’

Silence may have been to Slotkin’s benefit, because she ended up admitting that she issued the call to disobedience without being able to identify a single illegal order handed down by the administration.

— (@)

“There is such things as illegal orders. That’s why it’s in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, going back to Nuremberg, right? And it’s just a — it’s a totally benign statement,” said Slotkin. “And if the president is concerned about it, then he should stay deeply within the law.”

When Raddatz asked whether Trump had issued any illegal orders, the Michigan Democrat said, “To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related to Venezuela.”

“So it was basically a warning to say, like, if you’re asked to do something, particularly against American citizens, you have the ability to go to your JAG officer and push back,” Slotkin said later in the interview.

Raddatz pressed the issue, asking, “Couldn’t you have done a video saying just what you just said? ‘If you are asked to do something, if you are worried about whether it is legal or not, you can do this.'”

The host noted that the video as-is “does imply that the president is having illegal orders, which you have not seen.”

The Michigan Democrat wasn’t the only individual featured in the video who proved unable in recent days to name a single illegal order issued by the administration.

When asked flatly on MSNOW which orders she was telling troops to refuse, Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.) couldn’t name one.

When pressed again on CNN whether she or any of the other Democrats in the video have heard tell of illegal orders from service members or the broader national security community, Goodlander tried talking around the question, alluding only to certain service members’ alleged “concerns” about the legality of certain orders.

‘BIG DEAL’

On Sunday, Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck flagged Slotkin’s admission and noted, “Democrats just told our military not to follow ‘unconstitutional orders’ — while admitting none exist. WHY IS THIS A BIG DEAL? They knew and know, that the message wasn’t for our soldiers … it was for the Global leadership.”

“If a video like this were aimed at Putin’s military, we’d assume Russia was unstable or nearing a coup,” continued Beck. “They didn’t give good advice, nor weaken Trump. They weakened America — signaling doubt to allies and opportunity to enemies. They are tilling the soil color revolution. Reckless beyond words.”

In the post, which President Trump promptly shared on social media without comment, Beck noted that the alleged offense in question is “not treason but a very serious crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2387.”

Trump also shared Beck’s elaboration on 18 U.S.C. § 2387, in which he noted it is a federal crime to advise, urge, or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty among members of the U.S. military with the intent to interfere with American military operations.

— (@)

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

​Sedition, Rebellion, Democrats, Cia, Elissa slotkin, Uprising, Donald trump, Military, Mark kelly, Chrissy houlahan, Jason crow, Poliyivd, Politics 

President Donald Trump struck a second deal last month with the world’s largest drugmakers, promising lower costs for American patients. The industry claims cooperation, offering help for consumers and expanded domestic production. Yet those same companies have raised prices on nearly 700 prescription drugs since January.

Big Pharma hopes the most unconventional president will fall back on the most conventional policy: granting the largest firms regulatory advantages, taxpayer-funded promotion, and freedom to keep ratcheting prices upward.

Trump should expose the game Big Pharma has played for years and force the industry to compete in a real marketplace.

Trump’s instincts are right. Americans pay inflated prices, and he has confronted the industry’s excesses. But Big Pharma spent decades building cartel-level dominance. Few industries mastered regulatory capture more effectively. The pharma industry wins higher prices while concealing the system that keeps costs rising.

The industry’s tactics follow a predictable pattern. With its right hand, Big Pharma announces a partnership with the White House. With its left, it secures guaranteed government contracts, political protection, and federally promoted products. Independent analysts warn that rebate schemes encourage price hikes. The dynamic mirrors a retailer inflating list prices before Black Friday to create the illusion of deep discounts.

The federal government helps tip the scales. Regulatory frameworks favor the largest drugmakers and block smaller competitors, keeping profits high and patients in the dark.

Patients pay the price

What the industry calls reform resembles a shell game that protects profits and punishes patients. The Food and Drug Administration created an “accelerated approval” pathway to speed lifesaving treatments. In practice, the system advantages the largest corporations. A 2020 study found that increases in FDA regulations boosted sales for major firms while cutting sales for smaller companies by 2.2%. Smaller manufacturers cannot absorb substantial compliance costs, which means cheaper or more effective drugs never reach the market or arrive years late.

Patients pay the price. Follow-up studies for expedited approvals lag for years, and many drugs never show clear benefits. Harvard researchers found that nearly half of cancer drugs granted accelerated approval fail to improve survival or quality of life. The FDA withdrew one in four such drugs and confirmed substantial benefit for only 12% of the rest. The drugs generated revenue, but they offered little hope to patients who paid dearly for treatments that did not deliver.

RELATED: The hidden hospital scam driving up drug prices, coming to a state near you

Deagreez via iStock/Getty Images

Meanwhile, prices keep climbing. Since Trump left office after his first term, cancer drug prices rose faster than Biden-era inflation. Median list prices for new medicines more than doubled between 2021 and 2024, surpassing $300,000 a year. In 2023 alone, drug companies raised prices by 35%. The Rand Corporation found that Americans spent more than $600 billion on prescriptions in 2022 — almost triple what patients in other developed nations pay.

Competition, not cronyism

Families facing cancer now shoulder thousands more out of pocket while Big Pharma posts record profits. Trump deserves credit for recognizing how unfair practices and Democrat policies pushed drug costs beyond the reach of average households.

A better path is within reach. Real reform depends on competition rather than political connections. Trump can break the illusion by opening the market, lowering barriers to entry, and cutting regulatory burdens that keep smaller firms out. He should expose the game Big Pharma has played for years and force the industry to compete in a real marketplace.

​Opinion & analysis, Donald trump, Big pharma, Prescription costs, Prescription drugs, Health insurance, Hospitals, Regulatory capture, Food and drug administration, Fda, Black friday, Profits, Free markets, Economics, Regulations, Compliance, Competition 

Everybody has a diagnosis these days.

Not just adults — kids too. It doesn’t matter if you’re 8 or 38, there’s someone somewhere waiting to explain away whatever’s different about you.

Perhaps you find your work excruciatingly boring and hard to care about precisely because it is excruciatingly boring and hard to care about.

It’s not a quirk of your personality or a flaw in your character or a wound in your soul. It’s a illness. Never mind that the symptoms are vague or the evidence that it’s a discrete medical condition are lacking — a pharmaceutical cure will fix it.

Just pop this pill, and you will be like everyone else. Isn’t that what you want?

All the rage

All the kids these days have ADHD or autism. Which often makes me wonder if any of them do. Or if these conditions exist at all.

Autism certainly seems real in its extreme forms, but I am not at all convinced that it’s at the far end of a continuum. I don’t really think being a little “on the spectrum” is a thing. Those people are just a little weird and need stronger guidance on how to get on in life.

I have a friend who was an engineer at Google. He told me half the people he worked with claimed to be “on the spectrum,” and according to him, it was all bull. They didn’t have medical problems; they had personal problems. They were guys who never learned how to interact normally, so they just ended up being kind of weird and rude.

As for ADHD, it’s so obscenely overdiagnosed that it’s essentially fake at this point. The market has been so oversaturated by ridiculous and erroneous diagnoses that whenever I hear about another kid with ADHD, it tells me more about the doctors and the “system” and less about the kid.

Boys will be boys

Are some kids better at sitting down at a desk for three hours at a time? Sure. Are more girls than boys better at doing it? Yes. Is there a gender factor here when it comes to diagnosis? Absolutely.

Boys don’t learn the same way girls do. But much of modern education ignores this fact. So when boys fidget or get bored, it gets chalked up to ADHD. This is more or less common knowledge by now. So the only thing a boy being diagnosed with ADHD tells me is that he doesn’t get enough recess.

Of course, there are extreme cases. There are kids who genuinely don’t seem to be able to focus at all. Something like actual ADHD exists in a small number of boys, but that doesn’t negate the broader truth: Instead of seeing people as individuals with different strengths and weaknesses, we decide to overmedicate when someone isn’t exactly like everyone else.

My mom worked with special ed kids. Some of them had mild disabilities, some more extreme. In some cases, it was clear they would need supervised care their entire lives. But in other cases, it wasn’t clear just what, if anything, was wrong — besides a certain learned helplessness reinforced by doctors and parents.

Pill and chill

Nowadays ADHD diagnoses aren’t just for kids; adults are getting in on it too. Believe it or not, an increasing amount of men and women, especially women, in their 30s and 40s are discovering that they too have ADHD — a discovery that inevitably “explains everything.” My wife sees reels on Instagram all the time, along with ads selling various solutions.

What’s that? You couldn’t focus at your computer, clicking on an excel spreadsheet, sending pointless emails for seven hours at a time? Shocking. No, you don’t need ADHD medication. You need to do something else with your life. Perhaps you find your work excruciatingly boring and hard to care about precisely because it is excruciatingly boring and hard to care about.

Overmedicalization and overdiagnosis is a deep problem in our society. Not just because the result is an increase in prescription drug use, but because the individual human being is lost or suffocated a little bit at a time. Everyone is different. Everyone has skills, and everyone has weaknesses. Everyone learns in a different way, and everyone focuses on different things too.

RELATED: Drugged for being boys: The TRUTH behind the ADHD scam

Blaze Media

Free agency

Some people are just a little awkward, a little weird, a little absent-minded, or a little dry. Sure, they should try to meet society halfway in some reasonable sense — but that happens through early teaching, parental guidance, community expectations, and personal effort, not through a pill you pop every day. For most of the 20th century, we relied far more on those nonmedical supports.

All the pill-popping flattens our individualism and undercuts our own agency as humans. It presupposes that one cannot make oneself better, one cannot work to act right, and that one doesn’t have any control. This is a lie. Yes, of course, there are people who suffer with truly debilitating problems who need medication, and they should get that medication. But it is a small fraction of the population. Most people can make themselves better when they set their minds to it.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not anti-psychiatry. I’m not into alternative medicine or any of the hippie stuff. I’m not denying that there are people with problems who are helped most effectively with medication. I’m thankful for the blessings of modern medicine and the advancements we continue to see every year.

But we have a problem with overdiagnosis in our country. We have a problem with losing sight of the individual. We have a problem with people who want to give up their agency and turn it all over to a pill, and we are worse off because of it.

​Men’s style, Family, Lifestyle, Health, Adhd, Autism, Big pharma, Pharmaceuticals, Fatherhood, The root of the matter 

Antifa radicals have been causing chaos throughout America for years and have finally been designated as a terrorist network by the Trump administration.

However, they’re still getting away with crimes.

“Antifa radicals in Berkeley, California, disrupted a Turning Point USA event outside of UC Berkeley, punched a conservative in the face. The conservative gets arrested,” BlazeTV host Christopher Rufo tells co-host Jonathan “Lomez” Keeperman on “Rufo & Lomez.”

“But our policy prescription is, the administration has to dismantle the left-wing terror networks, whether it’s Antifa, other organized militant groups. They have to actually get mugshots, case numbers, inmate numbers,” he continues.

“The tangible evidence that these left-wing terror networks, which are essentially saying that we can control the streets in places like Portland, we can veto peaceful conservative speech in places like Berkeley — we have to ensure that they can no longer do so and can no longer exert control through violence,” he adds.

While Rufo points out that Antifa is still out there disrupting whatever it can, Lomez notes that it was a “huge step in the right direction” that it has at least been designated as a terrorist network.

“The administration is making the right moves and/or saying the right things. What’s missing is the conspicuous action so that your average American, let alone Trump supporter, but just your average American goes, ‘Yeah, I don’t like Antifa, and the administration is doing something about it, and that’s good,’” Lomez says.

But the next step is taking the terrorist designation and doing something with it.

“Let’s just take this case at UC Berkeley, this recent event. The attorney general, Pam Bondi, released a great tweet,” Rufo says.

“Antifa is an existential threat to our nation. The violent riots at UC Berkeley last night are under full investigation by the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force. We will continue to spare no expense unmasking all who commit and orchestrate acts of political violence,” Bondi wrote.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, and pursuant to his Executive Order designating Antifa as a domestic terror organization, the Department of Justice and our law-enforcement partners are dismantling violent networks that seek to intimidate Americans and suppress their free expression and First Amendment rights,” she added.

While Rufo is glad to see Bondi using such strong wording, he’s skeptical.

“Why hasn’t UC Berkeley been defunded? Just say, ‘Hey, we’re withholding funds until you can establish a basic environment of civil discourse,’” Rufo says.

“You have to make sure that the directive that comes from the, you know, FBI director’s office, the attorney general’s office, you have to make sure that it means something at that regional level, at that agent level,” he explains.

“And I am not convinced that the current leadership, that the current structure, the current techniques that they’re using has sufficiently done that,” he adds.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Video phone, Upload, Sharing, Camera phone, Free, Video, Youtube.com, Rufo & lomez, Chris rufo, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Lomez, Antifa, Uc berkeley, Tpusa event, Terrorist designation, Left wing militant, Left wing violence 

The United States Senate is broken, and most Americans know it — including President Donald Trump. A chamber that once passed laws with a simple 51-vote majority, a practice that held for more than a century, now demands 60 votes for nearly anything of consequence.

Defenders call this the “world’s greatest deliberative body,” guarding minority rights. In reality, the 60-vote threshold is a rule the Senate invented in the last century — and one it can discard tomorrow.

The filibuster transformed from a test of stamina into a tool for avoiding hard votes — and, today, a convenient excuse to delay or kill the America First agenda.

Article I lists exactly seven situations that require a supermajority: overriding vetoes, ratifying treaties, convicting in impeachment, expelling members, proposing constitutional amendments, and two obscure quorum rules. Passing ordinary legislation is not on the list.

The Senate’s tradition of unlimited debate — the seed of modern filibusters — wasn’t designed to create a supermajority requirement. It was an accident.

In 1806, on Aaron Burr’s suggestion that the Senate rulebook was cluttered, the chamber deleted the “previous question” motion, the mechanism the House still uses to end debate and vote. No one understood the implications at the time. Filibusters didn’t appear until the 1830s, and even then they were rare because they required real endurance. Senators had to speak nonstop, often for days, until they collapsed or yielded.

How the filibuster became a weapon

Everything changed in 1917. After 11 anti-war senators filibustered Woodrow Wilson’s bill to arm merchant ships on the eve of World War I, the public revolted. Wilson demanded action. The Senate responded by creating Rule XXII — the first cloture rule — allowing two-thirds of senators to end debate.

Instead of restraining obstruction, the rule supercharged it. For the first time, a minority didn’t need to speak until exhaustion. They only needed to threaten it. The majority now had to assemble a supermajority to progress.

The filibuster transformed from a test of stamina into a tool for avoiding hard votes — and, today, a convenient excuse to delay or kill the America First agenda.

The Senate has rewritten its filibuster rule many times since. In 1975, it lowered the cloture threshold from two-thirds to three-fifths (60 votes). In 2013, Democrats eliminated the filibuster for most presidential nominees; in 2017, Republicans applied that same exception to Supreme Court justices.

These changes all point to the same reality: The filibuster is not a sacred tradition. It is a standing rule, created and amended by simple-majority votes. The Senate can change it again any time.

The myth of ‘unprecedented change’

Filibuster defenders insist that ending the 60-vote rule would be radical.

It wouldn’t. In reality, it would restore the practice that governed the Senate for its first 128 years — unlimited debate, yes, but no supermajority threshold for passing laws.

RELATED: Democrats reject ‘current policy’ — unless it pays their base

DOUGBERRY via iStock/Getty Images

Defenders also claim the filibuster forces compromise. History says otherwise. The biggest legislative achievements of the last century — Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — all passed when the filibuster was weakened, bypassed, or irrelevant.

What we have now is not deliberation. It is paralysis: a rule that allows 41 senators, representing as little as 11% of the country, to veto the will of the rest. The Senate already protects small states through equal representation and long tenures. Adding a 60-vote requirement for routine governance is not what the framers intended.

The fix

The solution is straightforward. The Senate can return to simple-majority voting for legislation. It can keep unlimited debate if it wishes — but require a real talking filibuster that ends when the minority runs out of arguments or public patience. Or it can leave the system as it is now and watch President Trump’s America First agenda stall for another generation.

The filibuster is not a 230-year constitutional safeguard. It is a 108-year experiment born in 1917 — and it has failed. The Senate invented it. The Senate can un-invent it.

​Opinion & analysis, Senate, Constitution, Filibuster reform, Nuclear option, Cloture, History, Supreme court, Supermajority, 2026 midterms, Wesley hunt 

The Bible isn’t meant to be a selective tool from which we cherry-pick elements we like and leave behind those truths with which we disagree.

But many of our politicians have a penchant for taking this very approach, with some on the hyper-progressive side commonly enacting policies that directly fly in the face of Scripture.

It’s a diabolical form of spiritual manipulation meant to prey on people’s thoughts and emotions.

Amid the mayhem, some of these individuals have simultaneously perfected the art of gaslighting, often times unexpectedly emerging from the abyss to quote the Bible as an appeal to truth when it suddenly seems to serve their policy proclivity.

Case in point: California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) recently waxed poetic on the Old and New Testaments, wielding the Bible to condemn the Trump administration over the impact of the recent government shutdown.

Newsom announced during a press conference that he had filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a government program that provides food to low-income Americans.

“It’s also interesting to me because I spent a little time at a wonderful Jesuit university,” Newsom said. “If there was anything I remember about my four years with Father Cos is that the New Testament, Old Testament have one thing dominantly in common — Matthew, Isaiah, Luke, Proverbs. I mean, go down the list. It’s around food. It’s about serving those that are hungry. It’s not a suggestion in the Old and New Testament. It’s core and central to what it is to align to God’s will, period, full stop.”

But he wasn’t done there. The liberal governor went on to say that “these guys need to stop the BS in Washington, D.C.,” and took further aim at political foes who often tout the importance of prayer and yet supposedly don’t align with him on these issues.

“They’re sitting there in their prayer breakfasts,” Newsom continued. “Maybe they got an edited version of Donald Trump’s Bible and they edited all of that out. I mean, enough of this. Cruelty is the policy. That’s what this is about. It’s intentional cruelty, intentionally creating anxiety for millions and millions of people, 5.5 million here in our home state.”

The outrageousness of these statements is beyond anything comprehensible. Newsom isn’t wrong that feeding the poor and helping those in need is a core tenet of Jesus’ call for humanity to love God and love others. But the hypocrisy here is limitless.

The Bible also says a lot about religious liberty, protecting life, and putting God above the whims of man, yet we don’t see Newsom offer the same level of energy on those issues.

RELATED: How liberals hijack the Bible to push their agenda on you

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

It’s become beyond remarkable to watch some of our politicians behave and legislate in ways that are openly hostile toward the Bible and Christianity, but then start unleashing verses and Christian claims when it’s convenient for their own political agendas.

It’s a diabolical form of spiritual manipulation meant to prey on people’s thoughts and emotions — and it’s particularly rich coming from a political crop of people who have spent the past few years warning about the purported perniciousness of so-called Christian nationalism.

In 2024, Newsom responded to President Donald Trump’s re-election by calling a special session aimed at addressing “reproductive freedoms, immigration, climate policies, and natural disaster response.”

The governor somehow missed the biblical lessons on the value of life, as his statement at the time warned that Trump would likely continue the “assault on reproductive freedom” and limit “access to medical abortion.” Newsom also worried over any “expanding conscience objections for employers and providers.”

The reality is that California is hardly governed as a bastion of Christian and biblical thought. Quite the contrary: In California, basic freedoms are often on the chopping block, with bizarre battles and strange debates taking root.

Newsom was also recently under fire for a post on X seen by many critics as missing the mark on prayer. After the August shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minnesota, Newsom went after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

At the time, Leavitt criticized MSNBC host Jen Psaki’s controversial comments about the shooting after Psaki proclaimed, “Prayer is not freaking enough. Prayers does [sic] not end school shootings. Prayers do not make parents feel safe sending their kids to school. Prayer does not bring these kids back. Enough with the thoughts and prayers.”

When Leavitt called these remarks “insensitive and disrespectful” to those who believe in the power of prayer, Newsom proclaimed, “These children were literally praying as they got shot at.” Newsom’s failure to understand prayer — and his attempt to step into the debate in what felt like an effort to purportedly score political points — wasn’t only unneeded, but it was also grotesque.

Of course, Newsom’s official press office recently did invoke prayer — to lambaste Trump. “Please pray for our President,” a post read. “He is not mentally well.”

Once again, the governor seems to be using faith to push political antics.

These incongruities, when it comes to faith rhetoric, aren’t unique to Newsom. We see it unfold again and again from politicians who seem to rely upon Scripture and faith themes when it’s convenient or expedient, yet other elements of their rhetoric and policy-making ignore elementary biblical truth.

Interestingly, the San Francisco Chronicle noted that Newsom’s invoking of Scripture, in particular, has ramped up in recent weeks.

“In recent months, the California Democrat’s rhetoric has become strikingly biblical,” the outlet noted. “Even his mocking ‘patriot shop’ — which mimics the merchandise sold by President Donald Trump to raise money for his political work — sells a Bible (though, as part of a long-running gag, it is always sold out).”

The Chronicle noted that Newsom has cited his Catholic faith in the past for his choice to end state executions and that he has sometimes referred to his Jesuit education. But, according to the Chronicle, “his overt and repeated references to scripture are new in the past few months.”

Some observers believe Newsom could be gearing up to appeal to middle America and other voters for whom faith is a central part of their identity.

At this point, that’s unclear. But what is evident is that his selective policy-making and proclamations are incongruent — and anyone paying close attention should keep that in mind as they watch Newsom continue to weaponize the Bible for his own political ends.

​Gavin newsom, Christianity, Christian, Progressive christian, Bible, God, Jesus, Prayer, Faith 

America runs on diesel. From freight haulers and farm equipment to fire trucks and snowplows, diesel engines are the torque behind our economy.

Yet the same engines that built the nation’s backbone are now in Washington’s crosshairs — strangled by layers of federal regulation that threaten the people who keep America moving.

Fire departments, ambulance services, and municipal snowplows all run on diesel. If their vehicles can’t move, lives are at risk.

The Environmental Protection Agency insists it’s cleaning the air. But for those who live and work beyond the Beltway, these mandates aren’t saving the planet — they’re shutting down livelihoods.

Cost of clean

Since 2010, every diesel engine sold in the U.S. has come fitted with diesel particulate filters and selective catalytic reduction systems — components meant to capture soot and neutralize nitrogen oxides. In theory, they’re good for the environment. In practice, they’re crippling the very trucks that keep shelves stocked and first responders rolling.

DPFs clog, SCR units freeze, and when that happens, engines “derate” into limp mode — losing power until the system is fixed. A single failure can leave a truck stranded for days and cost upwards of $5,000 to repair. For independent owner-operators, who haul 70% of the nation’s freight, that can mean the difference between survival and bankruptcy.

Even worse, under the Clean Air Act, simply repairing or modifying those failing systems can make a mechanic a federal felon.

Tamper tantrum

Meet Troy Lake, a 65-year-old diesel expert from Cheyenne, Wyoming. For decades, Lake kept his community’s fleets running — farm trucks, snowplows, ambulances, and school buses. But when emissions systems began failing in subzero temperatures, Lake found himself forced to choose between obeying Washington’s regulations or keeping critical vehicles on the road.

His fix? Remove the faulty components and reprogram the engine to restore performance — a commonsense solution that kept essential services moving. But the EPA saw it differently. Under federal law, “tampering” with emissions controls carries up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines per vehicle.

In June 2024, Lake pleaded guilty to one count of emissions tampering. By December, a federal judge sentenced him to a year in prison. His shop was fined $52,500 and shut down. Ironically, during his sentence, Lake worked on the prison’s own diesel equipment — the same skills that, outside those walls, had made him a criminal.

Now home but barred from his trade, Lake carries a felony record that cost him his business, his rights, and his reputation — all for keeping his community’s engines running.

Endless repair cycles

No one disputes that diesel exhaust can harm air quality. The EPA’s emission rules dramatically cut pollution over the past decade. But these results have come at an unsustainable cost to the people who depend on diesel most.

According to the American Trucking Associations, emissions-related repairs account for roughly 13% of total maintenance costs for Class 8 trucks. Each incident costs an average of $1,500 and countless hours of downtime. Multiply that across millions of trucks, and the burden on small businesses and rural economies is staggering.

Farmers, truckers, and local governments can’t afford the endless repair cycles. For them, Washington’s mandates translate to fewer working trucks, higher consumer costs, and dangerous response delays in emergencies.

Senator Lummis fights back

Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis (R) sees what’s happening. She’s watched the federal government criminalize working Americans while ignoring the real-world consequences of its rules. In October 2025, she introduced the Diesel Truck Liberation Act — legislation designed to restore sanity and balance.

The bill would:

Remove mandatory federal requirements for DPFs, SCRs, and onboard diagnostics;Limit the EPA’s enforcement powers over diesel tuning and emissions deletes;Protect mechanics and operators from prosecution for performing practical repairs; andProvide retroactive relief — vacating sentences, clearing records, and refunding fines for past convictions.

A call for flexibility

Environmental advocates warn that such legislation could reverse decades of progress under the Clean Air Act.

That’s a legitimate concern. Clean air matters. But it’s also true that today’s engine tuning and filtration technologies are far more advanced than those available when these mandates were written. Recent research shows that advanced, model-based engine controls and “virtual sensors” can significantly cut nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions and help engines stay within strict tailpipe limits while reducing dependence on extra physical sensors and minimizing urea and fuel penalties.

Even current EPA leadership has acknowledged the need for flexibility and modernization. The question isn’t whether we should protect the environment — it’s whether rigid, outdated enforcement is the best way to do it.

And the impact doesn’t stop at the loading dock. Fire departments, ambulance services, and municipal snowplows all run on diesel. If their vehicles can’t move, lives are at risk. A snowstorm doesn’t care about EPA compliance, and neither does a heart attack.

Who makes the rules?

Opponents of the Diesel Truck Liberation Act argue that removing emissions hardware would increase pollution, disproportionately harming urban and low-income communities. Supporters counter that Washington’s policies have already created economic inequality by crushing rural economies and small operators.

The divide isn’t really about clean air — it’s about who gets to make the rules. Should unelected bureaucrats in D.C. dictate how a farmer in Wyoming runs his truck? Or should local communities have the flexibility to balance environmental goals with economic reality?

RELATED: Trucker perfectly dismantles electric vehicle narrative in 2 minutes: ‘You would need to pack 50,000 pounds of batteries!’

Image via @MusicScarf/X (screenshot)/Photographer: Emily Elconin/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Common sense prevails

The Diesel Truck Liberation Act doesn’t aim to destroy the Clean Air Act. It aims to reform it. It recognizes that environmental protection must work hand in hand with reliability, safety, and economic survival.

For people like Troy Lake, it’s about justice — not just for one man, but for thousands of mechanics and operators who’ve been punished for solving real problems in real America.

And there’s already a hopeful sign: President Trump recently issued a full pardon for Lake, acknowledging that enforcing broken regulations against hardworking Americans is not justice — it’s overreach.

The next step is whether Congress will follow through. The bill currently sits in the Senate Environment Committee, with hearings expected later this year. If it passes, it could set a precedent for rethinking how environmental policy is enforced — and how to protect the people who keep America running.

America’s diesel fleet isn’t the enemy. It’s the engine that powers our nation — from coast to coast, farm to factory, and every highway in between. Reasonable environmental goals are achievable, but not through criminalizing those who fix the equipment that keeps this country alive.

The question facing lawmakers is simple: Will they choose common sense — or continue punishing the very people who make modern life possible?

​Diesel, Emissions, Lifestyle, Trucking, First responders, Troy lake, Donald trump, Align cars 

“Nothing is free.” I can still hear my dad saying this whenever I excitedly told him I got something for “free.” I would argue, “But it was free for me,” and he would reply, “Yes — because someone else paid for it.”

That is exactly how many of the 40 million Americans hooked on food stamps and government assistance think. It feels “free,” but it is paid for by hardworking taxpayers — like yours truly. And a government that can feed you can also starve you.

On paper, socialism looks compassionate — until you remember history and human nature.

In the wake of the New York mayoral election, socialism is trending again. Zohran Mamdani is just the latest pawn to make it look flashy and appealing.

Even worse, progressive Christians have jumped on the bandwagon, insisting that socialism is biblical and pointing to Acts 2 as their proof text. They say, “We need to feed the hungry,” “We need to provide for the homeless,” “We need to sell what we have so others have more.” These are admirable sentiments. But they are often advocated by people who rarely offer up their own property or pocketbooks, though they are eager to demand yours.

But who is the “we” in Acts 2?

The answer is simple: the church — not the government.

Acts 2 took place during Pentecost, when Jerusalem was crowded with Jewish pilgrims from across the empire. After thousands came to faith, many stayed longer than expected, creating urgent, unusual needs. In response, believers shared what they had. Acts 2:44-45 says Christians “had everything in common” and “were selling their possessions” and distributing the proceeds “as any had need.”

A few important clarifications:

These were Christians, not government officials.Their giving was voluntary, not legislated.Their generosity was rooted in personal sacrifice, not state coercion.This was a temporary response to a specific moment, not an economic model for nations.

The early church practiced radical generosity because the situation demanded it — not because God or scripture command state-run redistribution. It was compassion from the heart, not a political system.

Socialism starts and ends with a deadly sin

Socialism is inherently immoral because it is built on envy — one of the seven deadly sins. Envy is a resentful desire for what someone else has. Scripture warns against it repeatedly because it is rooted in covetousness: “Do not covet.” Proverbs says envy “rots the bones.” Galatians tells us not to provoke or envy one another. It is part of the “acts of the flesh,” something to root out of our lives entirely — not something to build public policy around.

Socialism claims it reduces inequality by redistributing resources “fairly.” In practice, that means taking from those who earn and giving to those who don’t, with the government deciding how every penny is spent. The poor become dependent, the productive get punished, and the state grows stronger.

On the NYC campaign trail, Mamdani promised a buffet of freebies — free child care, free bus rides, rent control, city-run grocery stores. Margaret Thatcher famously and pointedly said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

Economist Thomas Sowell put it even more bluntly: “What do you call it when someone steals money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes money by force? Robbery. What do you call it when politicians take someone else’s money and give it to people likely to vote for them? Social justice.”

That is how Mamdani won and why the fantasy of socialism keeps selling. There’s a reason the mousetrap always has “free” cheese.

Interestingly enough, Mamdani also claims to be in favor of feminism and woke policies at the same time — but these contradict with his Muslim faith entirely. His ideas end up at stark odds with Christian values and the dominant moral language of modern progressives alike.

As believers, we must reject his ideas altogether and fight for what is true and good for human flourishing.

Socialism sounds compassionate — but it’s not

On paper, socialism looks compassionate. Everyone gets something “free,” and everyone is supposedly happier. It can even sound like something Jesus would endorse — until you remember history and human nature.

The Bible promotes voluntary generosity, not government-run redistribution. From “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15) to Paul’s reminder that giving should never be “under compulsion” (2 Corinthians 9:7), scripture keeps ownership and charity in the realm of personal moral choice. With socialism, religious liberty — living out your faith convictions — goes out the window completely.

Every nation that has embraced socialism — from the Soviet Union to Venezuela — has collapsed into shortages, inflation, and hunger. Power consolidates at the top, innovation dies, dependence grows, and people lose freedom, dignity, and hope.

RELATED: How one ancient sin empowers wokeness, socialism, and cancel culture

bauhaus1000/iStock/Getty Images

Human nature hasn’t changed, and it will not change any time soon. No one wants to build a business through blood, sweat, and tears only to watch the government seize most of the earnings and waste them. The more you make, the more the state takes.

Arthur Brooks’ research in his book “Who Really Cares” shows conservatives give about 30% more to charity than liberals — even though liberals earn slightly more. Conservatives volunteer more, give blood more often, and donate more time.

Why? Because voluntary, faith-driven generosity is far more effective than state-mandated redistribution.

Socialism is born from envy, mandated by force, and finished by famine. It has never worked, and it will not magically work now. Socialism in practice is like being a zoo animal: fed and controlled, but never free. Liberty lets you roam, build, create, and live with dignity.

I will choose freedom over control every single time.

The Bible doesn’t endorse socialism — and neither should we

Scripture calls believers to voluntary generosity and selflessness. It never once advocates for government coercion or its reckless policies. And America’s heritage of Christian-informed self-governance affirms personal responsibility and limited government.

That’s why the Bible doesn’t endorse socialism, and that’s why Mamdani’s state-centered vision should concern anyone who values Christian freedom and America’s founding principles.

Government has a role, and the church has a role. They are not the same. And because politics deals with morality, Christians must be engaged — especially when socialism resurfaces dressed up as compassion.

My dad was right: Nothing is free. Not then, not now, not ever. Someone always pays for it.

​Christianity, Christian, Bible, Socialism, God, Jesus, Zohran mamdani, Faith 

As President Donald Trump toured Israel and the region celebrating his newly brokered Gaza ceasefire agreement last month, several Israeli families received unexpected video calls from their loved ones still held captive in Gaza.

After more than two years without information, many suddenly found themselves staring at the faces they feared they might never see again. “I love you! I can’t wait to see you already!” cried one shocked mother.

In a post-truth environment, Hamas has learned how to set the terms of debate, frame Israeli actions, and pressure global institutions.

Behind each hostage stood a Hamas militant in a green headband and full face covering. Before release, the militant gave a command in broken Hebrew: “Post this on social media. Put this in the news.”

It was a scene both surreal and deliberate. For Hamas, the call was not simply a gesture ahead of a ceasefire. It was the final stroke in a propaganda campaign the group has refined into a core battlefield strategy.

Across the war, Hamas moved far beyond the low-tech, grainy videos of earlier terror groups, like al-Qaeda 25 years ago. Borrowing lessons from Russia, China, Iran, and ISIS, it adopted a multi-platform media operation built on drone footage, high-definition body cameras, Telegram networks, curated databases, and a constellation of Instagram influencers.

The goal was simple: Demoralize Israelis, energize supporters, and sway public opinion abroad — especially in the United States and Europe, where diplomatic pressure could yield concessions no battlefield victory could deliver.

Instagram combatants

Influencers became frontline assets. Saleh Aljafarawi, a 27-year-old Instagram personality, chronicled rubble tours and took selfie videos with children and activists, overlaying them with music to evoke sympathy. His content racked up millions of views.

Motaz Azaiza, another influencer, surged to more than 16 million Instagram followers while documenting scenes on the ground and conducting street interviews. A graphic video credited to him — viewed more than 100 million times and widely disputed — showed what appeared to be bleeding toddlers pulled from wreckage.

Hamas-aligned Telegram channels such as Gaza Now and Al Aqsa TV amplified their posts around the clock. Western media outlets often ran these images uncritically, including allegedly starving children later shown to have congenital conditions unrelated to the conflict.

But the visual blitz was only one part of the strategy. Hamas understood that controlling the premises of the debate mattered as much as controlling the images. That is why organizations such as the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs relied heavily on casualty numbers supplied by the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health. Those tallies — widely framed as disproportionately civilian — drove international diplomatic pressure on Israel and fueled student protests across American campuses.

‘Broadcast the images’

A recently declassified memo from Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar revealed the strategic logic behind the group’s media doctrine. Mixed among military instructions were orders to create “heart-breaking scenes of shocking devastation,” including directives for “stepping on soldiers’ heads” and “slaughtering people by knife.” Body-camera footage from the Oct. 7 massacre reflected that intent.

To execute the strategy, Sinwar empowered a spokesman known as Abu Obaidah, who was killed in an Israel Defense Forces strike last year. Under his direction, Hamas expanded its propaganda arm from roughly 400 operatives during the 2014 conflict to more than 1,500. Every battalion and brigade gained its own deputy commander for propaganda, each trained in field filming, livestreaming, and rapid editing inside decentralized “war rooms.”

One category of production featured Israeli hostages forced to deliver scripted messages from tunnel captivity, urging Israelis to protest their government. These videos were released with trilingual subtitles and high-end visual effects. They accelerated domestic pressure inside Israel to accept a deal on terms favorable to Hamas.

During the January 2025 exchange, Hamas choreographed the release events with precision. Operatives filmed every moment with high-definition lenses as hostages were paraded before Red Cross representatives and instructed to wave to crowds. Slogans appeared in Arabic, Hebrew, and English — some tailored to Israeli politics (“we are the day after”), others crafted for Western activists (“Palestine — the victory of the oppressed”).

Iran funds roughly $480 million annually in state propaganda efforts through its IRIB broadcaster. It is reasonable to assume Hamas directs a significant share of its estimated $2 billion budget into communications.

RELATED: The genocide that isn’t: How Hamas turned lies into global outrage

Photo by ZAIN JAAFAR/AFP via Getty Images

Perception shapes policy

The investment has paid off. A Quinnipiac poll found that half of Americans — and 77% of Democratic voters — believe Israel committed a “genocide” in Gaza. A Cygnal survey shows Israel at -21 net favorability among voters younger than 55. Younger Americans, who consume more social media, are almost three times more likely than older voters to view Hamas favorably.

Substance remains another story. A majority of Americans — 56% — oppose or remain ambivalent toward the two-state plan frequently cited by foreign governments and activist groups.

But perception is shaping policy. Hamas has become a dominant force in the narrative battle, feeding imagery, statistics, and talking points directly into Western media ecosystems. In a post-truth environment, the group has learned how to set the terms of debate, frame Israeli actions, and pressure global institutions.

Israel and its allies cannot afford to treat communications as an afterthought. Effective messaging is a force multiplier — not a cosmetic accessory. It frames the battlefield, shapes public opinion, and constrains diplomatic options.

The war showed that Hamas understands this. It is time its opponents understood it too.

​Opinion & analysis, Israel hamas war, Israel, Hamas, Media bias, Propaganda, Social media, Genocide, Abu obaidah, October 7 terror attack, Iran, United nations, Gaza ministry of health, Lies 

Last week, Glenn Beck released an exclusive, tell-all interview with Cracker Barrel CEO Julie Masino that extracted the juiciest details regarding the country chain’s disastrous and quickly walked-back attempt to modernize its beloved old-timey brand. Glenn pulled no punches about the failed revamp: It was “just stupid from start to finish.”

Masino insisted that it was never her intention to change the iconic Cracker Barrel brand. She claimed that her goals were to boost engagement after COVID did immeasurable revenue damage, address common customer complaints (like uncomfortable chairs and dim lighting), and make practical adjustments to a busy logo that wasn’t conducive to an iPhone screen.

“The intent was not ideological. It was not to put the old version of Cracker Barrel in a box,” she vowed.

But given the fact that many believe the rebranding was indeed rooted in left-wing dogma, like DEI, Glenn asked the question point-blank: “Had the company embraced DEI as a culture?”

Masino initially gave an indirect answer: “Cracker Barrel has always been about welcoming everybody in. I think before I was here, we had different policies. We’re here to take care of people. We’re here to make sure everybody can work here, can be welcome here.”

But Glenn, unsatisfied with her response, pressed harder: “Every American wants that. … When a brand … all of a sudden makes it a point of saying, ‘Boys can be girls, and they should be in the girls’ locker room,’ I don’t need that from my brand; I don’t want that from my brand. You as individuals can make whatever choice you want, but don’t preach to me from a corporate place.”

“What I’m asking you — was [making political statements] part of any of the strategy?” he repeated.

“No, it’s pancakes. Yeah, we’re not trying to make political statements,” Masino said, insisting the rebranding initiative was always about “food and experience.”

Glenn pushed back again with the analogy of “Uncle Ted” moving into Grandma’s house. “He’s now taking care of Grandma, but he’s getting rid of all of the doilies that have been on Grandma’s table, and you’re like, ‘That’s not Grandma.’”

“You were messing with Grandma’s house,” he boldly accused.

“We’re sorry that that’s what people feel. That was not the intent. … It hurts me because I don’t want people to be mad at Cracker Barrel. Our job is to make people love Cracker Barrel,” Masino said.

“And so, even trying to invite new people in, it was always about, how do we show them the magic that is Cracker Barrel, the stories of America, the stories of our guests? … That’s what we want everybody to love.”

To hear more of the interview, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The glenn beck podcast, Glenn beck, Blazetv, Blaze media, Julie masino, Cracker barrel, Cracker barrel caves, Cracker barrel boycott