Category: blaze media

San Francisco 49ers defensive end Nick Bosa showed his support for Donald Trump after a victory by crashing his teammates’ postgame interview with a “Make America Great Again” hat.

Following a 30-24 win over the Dallas Cowboys on NBC’s “Sunday Night Football,” three of Bosa’s teammates were participating in an interview with NBC’s Melissa Stark.

As Stark was asking star quarterback Brock Purdy about “what was said” in the locker room during halftime, Bosa approached the two from behind wearing a white hat with the MAGA message written in gold letters.

“Hey,” Stark said to Bosa, ready to hear him out.

With no words, Bosa simply pointed to his hat and ran off-screen.

“All right! Nick Bosa with a message there!” Stark said awkwardly as tight end George Kittle could be heard laughing.

Rumors circulated online that NBC had censored the interaction in subsequent social media posts; however, an official post by the network the morning after the game appeared unedited and included the interaction.

‘I think it’s an important time.’

At a postgame press conference, Bosa was asked about his show of support for the Republican candidate.

“It appeared to be a political statement,” a reporter said to the 27-year-old.

Keeping his comments short, Bosa said, “I’m not gonna talk too much about it, but I think it’s an important time.”

With Trump holding a massive, star-studded rally at Madison Square Garden the same weekend, Bosa wasn’t the only football player to put his politics in the spotlight on the field.

In college football, Texas Tech placekicker Reese Burkhardt also used clothing to get his message across.

Down by 11 points to TCU, Burkhardt ran a fake field goal for a five-yard touchdown.

During his celebration, the kicker pulled up his jersey to reveal a white shirt with “Trump ’24 MAGA” written on it, showing it off to the crowd of fans from two Texas universities.

Unfortunately for the kicker, TCU pulled off a 17-point comeback to edge out Texas Tech 35-34.

Reese Burkhardt of Texas Tech scores on a fake field goal against TCU.Photo by Richard Rodriguez/Getty Images

As for Bosa, he has been a vocal Trump supporter and was seen interacting with the former president at UFC 299 earlier this year. Bosa and Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow were shown shaking hands and embracing the politician before the main event in Miami.

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

​Football, Nfl, Ncaa, Donald trump, Maga, Politics 

Amid political division and societal unrest, the faith community must be a beacon of hope and unity. The National Faith Advisory Board recognizes the vital role of faith leaders, especially pastors, in shaping the nation’s moral and ethical fabric. Through today’s inaugural National Faith Summit and its commitment to empowering pastors, the NFAB aims to unite and mobilize the faith community to speak with one strong voice in the political arena.

Recent studies reveal a concerning trend: 104 million people of faith, including a significant number of Christian churchgoers, are likely to abstain from voting in the upcoming election. This apathy is not insurmountable, however, and the voice of the faithful need not be lost. Research shows that millions of these individuals would be motivated to vote if their pastors encouraged them. This underscores the immense influence that pastors wield and the potential they have to sway the course of the election — and therefore lead America back to righteousness.

Now is the time for pastors to stand boldly where faith intersects with civic responsibility, leading congregations from the pulpit to the polls.

Dr. George Barna, director of research at Arizona Christian University, sums it up well:

Pastors often seek opportunities to have a positive influence in people’s lives and upon the culture and to help the community in which their church is located. This research underscores the fact that simply encouraging people to vote in order to fulfill their biblical responsibility would not only be seen as doing their job while helping the community, but an estimated 5 million regular churchgoers would be likely to vote as a result of that simple exhortation.

Pastors, as spiritual leaders, can bridge faith and civic duty by addressing policy issues through moral and ethical perspectives. This guidance helps congregations make decisions rooted in biblical values. The NFAB supports over 32,000 faith leaders, equipping pastors with resources to engage their congregations on critical issues.

Now is the time for pastors to stand boldly where faith intersects with civic responsibility, leading congregations from the pulpit to the polls. With a strong moral foundation, pastors can inspire believers to make choices that honor God’s Word and transform the nation. The National Faith Advisory Board provides over 32,000 faith leaders with the tools to rally congregations on the issues that matter most.

The National Faith Summit in Atlanta, hosted by the NFAB, will gather more than 1,000 pastors committed to defending life, promoting national strength, upholding family values, and protecting religious freedom. President Donald J. Trump will also attend, emphasizing the faith community’s role in shaping the nation’s future and reflecting on his administration’s collaboration with the church.

The Pastor’s Bill of Rights, a key component of the NFAB’s platform, will be shared with faith leaders at the summit. Many pastors feel apprehensive or fearful about discussing policy from the pulpit, so we aim to empower them by reminding them of their fundamental freedoms and protections. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom from discrimination, and protection from unwarranted government intrusion. By advocating these rights, the NFAB ensures that pastors can exercise their faith and guide their congregations without fear of persecution.

As our nation faces mounting challenges, the faith community stands as the last line of defense — a powerful force ready to change history. United under shared values and unwavering biblical truth, we hold the strength to make a profound, lasting impact on America’s soul. The National Faith Summit marks a defining moment — a call to action empowering thousands to restore and protect our beloved nation. Now is the time to rise together, to draw strength from unity, and to launch a movement that will preserve America for generations to come.

​Church, Religious liberty, 2024 presidential election, National faith advisory board, Pastors, Donald trump, Opinion & analysis 

As Election Day nears, Donald Trump continues to rise in the polls — and Democrats are in full-on meltdown mode.

“Kamala just gave a speech where she said that it’s been confirmed now that Donald Trump said when he was in office that he won’t answer to the Constitution,” Glenn Beck tells Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable.”

“Just horrible. That’s going to get the man killed,” he says, adding that if you believe what Kamala’s peddling, “you’re a moron.”

The left’s rhetoric is meant to spread fear among its voters and could potentially set some of the less stable ones off — as America has already seen with two assassination attempts on the former president.

“We have to pray for this man,” Glenn says. “They kill him, anybody kills him, and it puts our country in a very dangerous place.”

While Stuckey notes that the election is “close,” Glenn disagrees.

“I could be wrong,” he tells her. “I don’t know what the cheating situation’s going to be, but I think this time, there’s a lot of hidden anti-Kamala votes of people that should have voted for the Democrat, would like to vote for the Democrat, but just can’t do it for some reason or another and won’t.”

“If it’s a landslide, and we don’t have an assassination, I think we have a chance of holding it together. They’re going to try everything. Everything that they said about January 6, on what Trump was doing, they’re already saying they’re going to do that if he’s elected,” he continues.

While the lengths the Democrats might go to keep Trump out of office are scary, Glenn relays that our side has to “stay calm” if we’re going to be OK.

“If there is struggle, these people will clamp down and the left, the far-out left, will make it much, much worse. You don’t want anything to happen,” he says. “This thing could go a million different directions. It’s going to take calm, a heart of Christ, and absolute obedience to the gospel.”

“We have to remember that these people do not have the same moral limitations that you or I do,” he adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Upload, Camera phone, Sharing, Free, Video phone, Video, Youtube.com, Relatable podcast, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Allie beth stuckey, The blaze, Blazetgv, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Kamala harris, Hitler, Nazi, Election 2024, Donald trump, Republicans, Democrats 

MSNBC, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, and other Harris allies smeared a Holocaust survivor and tens of thousands of other Americans who attended President Donald Trump’s
high-energy campaign event Sunday at Madison Square Garden, characterizing them as today’s equivalent of Nazis and fascists.

Despite the efforts of New York state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal and other radical Democrats to
shut down the event and a campaign by Lincoln Project false-flaggers to empty the stands, a diverse crowd filled the Garden to hear from numerous speakers, including former first lady Melania Trump, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Hulk Hogan, and Tony Hinchcliffe — a comedian who appears to have broken leftists’ thin skin with his usual cutting humor.

Trump, exuding the joy his opponent once laid claim to, spoke of the dormancy of American greatness during the Biden-Harris years and the prospect of its return and maximization if he wins a second term.

While the crowd of
tens of thousands appeared receptive to the speakers’ remarks, Democrats and their media allies descended into fits of hysteria, leaning hard into preplanned Nazi comparisons and more of the incendiary rhetoric that set the stage for two known assassination attempts.

MSNBC went the distance for the Harris campaign in its
coverage of the event, effectively smearing the multitudes in attendance — including Trump’s numerous Jewish supporters and even a Holocaust survivor — as Nazis and fascists.

In a segment captioned, “Trump’s MSG rally comes 85 years after pro-Nazi rally at famed arena,” MSNBC talking head Jonathan Capehart said that the event was “particularly chilling because in 1939, more than 20,000 supporters of a different fascist leader, Adolf Hitler, packed the Garden for a so-called pro-America rally — a rally where
speakers voiced anti-Semitic rhetoric from a stage draped with Nazi banners.”

MSNBC juxtaposed clips of a Nazi rally with footage from Trump’s event at the Garden.

‘I know more about Hitler than Kamala will ever know in a thousand lifetimes.’

Capehart — who refrained from noting that the Democratic Party held its national conventions at the Garden in 1976, 1980, and 1992 — then appealed to anti-Trump historians Ruth Ben-Ghiat and Anne Applebaum for help smearing Trump and his supporters as Nazi parallels.

Steve Benen, the producer of “The Rachel Maddow Show,”
similarly likened the Sunday campaign event to a Nazi rally, writing, “The Republican’s Madison Square Garden event was ugly. It was offensive. It was vulgar. It was hateful. It drew obvious parallels to the 1939 event.”

Time magazine, which again demonstrated its aversion to the truth last month, released an article ahead of the rally titled “How the Trump Rally at Madison Square Garden Follows a Long Tradition in Politics,” emphasizing that Nazis once gathered where Trump supporters would soon rally.

Jerry Wartski, a 94-year-old Holocaust survivor who survived Auschwitz and the Nazis’ death marches, was among those at the rally smeared by MSNBC and other Democratic propaganda outfits.

Wartski
noted in a recent video, “Adolf Hitler invaded Poland when I was 9 years old. He murdered my parents and most of my family. I know more about Hitler than Kamala will ever know in a thousand lifetimes. For her to accuse President Trump of being like Hitler is the worst thing I’ve ever heard in my 75 years of living in the United States.”

The Holocaust survivor appears to have singled out Harris because of her
suggestion at a recent CNN town hall that Trump is a fascist and previous insinuations on the same theme.

The Nazi narrative embraced Sunday by MSNBC began in earnest earlier this month when Hoylman-Sigal
wrote on X, “Let’s be clear. Allowing Trump to hold an event at MSG is equivalent to the infamous Nazis rally at Madison Square Garden on February 20, 1939.”

At the time, Blaze News senior editor and Washington correspondent Christopher Bedford noted, “A better comparison might have been Young Americans for Freedom’s 1962 Madison Square Garden Rally, when those teenagers organized well over 18,000 attendees, and more outside, for a rally against global communism.”

“New York liberals were shocked then how many of the kids rejected their tired ideas, but guys like Hoylman-Sigal don’t actually know any history, so they just prove their own intolerant bigotries by calling for anyone who opposes their own tired ideas to be shut down,” added Bedford.

Hoylman-Sigal was later aided in his narrative campaign by failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who — apparently happy to forget her husband’s 1992 rally at the Garden —
told CNN that Trump would be “re-enacting the Madison Square Garden rally in 1939.”

‘They are a collection of hypocritical, mentally unstable children.’

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz soon joined in,
saying, “There’s a direct parallel to a big rally that happened in the mid-1930s at Madison Square Garden and don’t think that he doesn’t know for one second exactly what they’re doing there.”

The Democratic National Committee even
projected Nazi accusations onto the Garden’s exterior on the day, claiming, “Trump praised Hitler.”

DNC spokesperson Abhi Rahman
noted on X, “@TheDemocrats are reminding voters that Americans can’t afford Trump’s unstable and unwell behavior — even at his own rallies.”

Critics of the apparently coordinated Nazi smear suggested that the media was not only agitating for violence but diminishing the true horror of the Holocaust and the evil of the Nazis for political gain.

Manhattan Institute fellow Ilya Shapiro
noted, “Those who liken Trump to Hitler and the MSG rally to the Nazi rally aren’t just smearing Trump, but minimizing Hitler/Nazis – which, given the antisemitic nature of the progressive left, may well be the point.”

“INCITEMENT,”
wrote the popular X user @amuse. “Yesterday’s Trump rally was filled with Americans from every walk of life including orthodox, conservative, reform, and secular Jews. I saw a woman in a burka. It wasn’t an anything like a Nazi rally. Shame on MSNBC.”

Dr. Simon Goddek
tweeted to MSNBC, “You deserve to be canceled to the core.”

Some users shared images of John F. Kennedy and other former presidents speaking at the Garden, while others asked whether the Knicks might be Nazi-like for playing at the venue.

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk
wrote, “Never mind that JFK and FDR both spoke at the same arena. Nope, those speeches were fine, because they were Democrats. Now, they’re rewriting the rules so that big political rallies in a big city is ‘Nazi’ behavior. The left call themselves ‘the adults in the room,’ but they are the exact opposite. They are a collection of hypocritical, mentally unstable children. They cannot be allowed to hold power.”

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

​Madison square garden, Msg, Trump, Donald trump, Nazi, Hitler, Godwin’s law, Leftism, Democrats, Tim walz, Msnbc, Capehart, Propaganda, Politics 

President Joe Biden has offered to stump on behalf of his number two, Kamala Harris, in the waning days of election season, only for Harris to give him the cold shoulder, reports indicate.

Several outlets have reported that the Harris campaign is keeping Biden at arm’s length. The following are a smattering of headlines that have been published in just the last few days:

“Harris stiff-arms Biden in final stretch” — Axios,”Kamala Harris Is Ghosting Joe Biden, Who Wants To Campaign With Her” — Times Now,”Wishing he could do more, Biden fades into campaign’s background” — Politico, and”Kamala Harris keeps snubbing President Biden’s requests to campaign for her: report” — the New York Post.

‘There’s really not anything he can do to help at this point.’

​Biden, Kamala harris, Rust belt, Trump, Polls, Battleground states, Politics 

As part of Blaze Media’s three-part mini-documentary series “A Day in the Life of Harry Dunn,” we continue to update readers on how we arrived at this point in our “Truth About January 6” series. You can find part one here.

Despite denials from the U.S. Capitol Police and some congressional investigators, evidence quickly emerged after the January 6, 2021, protests and riots that Capitol Police officers were intentionally under-deployed.

Testimonies from Capitol Police officers in various Jan. 6 trials, along with radio transmissions and whistleblower statements, have provided many answers. These findings also suggest a coordinated cover-up to keep this information from the American public.

If the Capitol Police had been fully deployed that day, the breach likely would not have occurred. Ashli Babbitt and Rosanne Boyland might still be alive, and the Department of Justice’s 1,500 prosecutions — ranging from trespassing to seditious conspiracy — might never have happened. Additionally, members of the Capitol Police, D.C. Metropolitan Police, and several convicted Jan. 6 participants might not have died by suicide in the aftermath.

Although I have long suspected that trained provocateurs manipulated the events of January 6 under the watch of the Capitol Police command center, many believe that frontline, uniformed Capitol Police officers were knowingly complicit and even initiated the violence. Video evidence contradicts that claim.

Here’s a sample of the social media comments that followed my initial blog series — written before my time at Blaze Media — in which I referred to the Capitol Police as “sacrificial pawns” on January 6:

“The Capitol Police were willing participants by following those D.C. fascists’ orders. I have no sympathy for them or their families.”

“Don’t sign up to collect a paycheck defending a corrupt government.”

“They’re a disgrace to the uniform and America. How f***ing dare they.”

“You’re being played.”

These comments came from the political right, but the left wasn’t silent either. Some were quite bloodthirsty, suggesting that every Capitol Police officer should have replicated Lt. Michael Byrd’s gunshot and left us with “a thousand more Ashli Babbitts.” Many who called for defunding the police after George Floyd’s death in 2020 suddenly became strong supporters of “Back the Blue” following the events of January 6, 2021.

In my January 6 writings, I’ve often stressed that I had to reassess some of my initial assumptions as more evidence surfaced. For example, in my first article about January 6, published on January 13, 2021, I misidentified the officers in “fluorescent-sleeved jackets racing down steps toward the first upper tier above street level” as Capitol Police. They were actually members of the D.C. Metropolitan Police.

This may seem like a minor distinction — especially to the “all cops are bastards” crowd — but these details are crucial as we work to uncover and present the full truth of that day. Most importantly, who in the command chain set up or allowed these events to unfold?

When it comes to the many unanswered questions, odd circumstances, and unindicted figures, we don’t need to agree on every detail. We also don’t need to agree on each event, video, or police officer’s actions to find common ground on one key point I’ve emphasized about January 6: I saw bad people doing bad things, good people doing good things, and even otherwise good people doing really stupid things.

This observation applies to both individual protesters and police officers. There were heroes and villains on both sides of that thin blue line on January 6.

My questions about the Capitol Police’s deployment, orders, and actions on January 6 began with my first published article. From the moment my Uber driver dropped me off at the Washington Monument around 9:30 a.m. until I reached the lower west terrace of the Capitol Building at exactly 1:19 p.m., neither I nor my camera saw a single law enforcement officer.

My video captured no police presence at the Washington Monument lawn on January 6.Screenshot/Steve Baker

As the crowd swelled from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, it was hard to imagine not seeing any police presence among such a massive group in the nation’s capital. Police and Secret Service officers heavily guarded the Ellipse stage, where President Trump was set to speak, but the crowd’s density kept me from entering that area. When I eventually started walking from the Washington Monument lawn toward the Capitol Building again, I still didn’t see or capture on camera a single police officer.

As I approached the Peace Monument, sirens signaled the arrival of D.C. Metro Police units. At the Reflecting Pool, I finally spotted Metro Police officers in fluorescent jackets streaming down the Capitol steps toward the lower west terrace.

I then heard the first flash-bang grenades and saw tear gas released on the lower west terrace. No barricades or police lines blocked my way — initial agitators and provocateurs had removed them about 20 to 25 minutes earlier — so I ran to the terrace and began recording the violence at exactly 1:19 p.m., just three minutes after President Trump left the Ellipse stage, more than a mile away.

A screenshot from my video as I approached the Capitol on January 6, 2021.Screenshot/Steve Baker

For a year, I publicly asked: “Why wasn’t there a police presence on the Washington Monument lawn? Why didn’t I see any police on the mile-long walk to the Capitol?” and “Why were so few Capitol Police officers on duty at the Capitol, considering the planned rallies, marches, and legally permitted events on the Capitol lawn that day?”

I initially estimated that fewer than 200 Capitol Police officers were at the Capitol on January 6. A year later, on the anniversary of the event, I returned to D.C. to seek answers. I asked patrolling Capitol Police officers those questions, and I also wanted to know what orders they received that day. I was particularly interested in what seemed like a “stand-down” or “pull-back” order at around 2:00 p.m.

None of the officers I approached on the streets or at the Capitol would answer. At the time, I didn’t know about the nondisclosure agreements Capitol Police had signed under Yogananda Pittman during her seven-month tenure as acting chief of police.

On December 16, 2021, Forbes made a convoluted attempt to answer the question about Capitol Police deployment on January 6:

USCP documents show that at 2 p.m. on that day, only 1,214 officers were “on site” across the Capitol complex of buildings. Congressional investigators concluded, however, that USCP could only account for 417 officers and could not account for the whereabouts of the remaining 797 officers.

In late 2022, when I first met with former Capitol Police officer turned whistleblower Lt. Tarik Johnson, he confirmed that my initial estimate of “fewer than 200” Capitol Police officers at the Capitol Building during the first wave of violence on January 6 was accurate.

Johnson explained that during previous protest events, the standard operating procedure required an “all hands on deck” approach for Capitol Police. On those days, officers working the night shift were required to stay and work a double shift through the next day. But on January 6, Capitol Police command sent those officers home after their shifts, treating it like a routine day at the office.

In a follow-up phone conversation, Johnson revealed more about the deceptions Capitol Police leadership spread regarding force deployment on January 6. Addressing internal department and congressional investigations that claimed officials “could not account for the whereabouts of the remaining 797 officers,” Johnson said, “It’s a bald-faced lie, and you can quote me on that.”

Johnson explained that all Capitol Police officers clock in and clock out electronically at the start and end of each shift. Once clocked in, each officer is tracked throughout the tour of duty, making it impossible for their commanders not to know their whereabouts. This information should still be available in the computer logs — assuming the logs haven’t been erased.

When asked why Capitol Police leadership would cover up information about force deployment, Johnson responded, “Because they don’t want to tell you where the officers were or what they were doing. They don’t want anyone to know how many of our officers were on administrative leave that day.”

My investigations, which include interviews with Capitol Police officers and congressional investigators, revealed further embarrassment, as several officers went into hiding once the violence began, locking themselves in offices and closets.

Another key issue involves the “diversion events,” when two pipe bombs were coincidentally discovered within minutes of the first provocateurs breaching the west side Capitol barricade. The pipe bombs were found at both the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee headquarters — two of nearly 20 buildings under the Capitol Police’s security purview.

Johnson couldn’t estimate how many officers were diverted to the RNC and DNC after the bombs were discovered. However, he emphasized that the emergency response still doesn’t account for the missing whereabouts of 797 officers. He noted that exact records of how many officers were diverted, and precisely who, should be easily retrievable from Capitol Police computer records.

Set up to fail?

The first Oath Keepers trial featured the testimony of Stephen Brown, a Florida-based event planner hired by the controversial figure Ali Alexander, a Trump supporter and founder of Stop the Steal. Brown’s job was to secure permits from the Capitol Police for an event on the Capitol grounds. He was also responsible for organizing the rental of the staging and public address system and coordinating the scheduling of VIP speakers and stage security, handled by members of the Oath Keepers.

Brown testified that he had previously planned many protest events in the nation’s capital, with attendance ranging from as few as 5,000 to as many as 300,000 protesters.

Under direct examination by Oath Keeper Kelly Meggs’ defense attorney Stanley Woodward, Brown described the surprisingly small presence of Capitol officers during the delivery and setup of the staging and PA system. He noted that at previous events he’d organized on Capitol grounds, he had seen “three, four, even five times the size of police presence, including SWAT teams,” compared to what was present on January 6.

The inconvenient truth is that my camera, Stephen Brown’s testimony, and statements by Lt. Johnson and other Capitol Police officers suggest a deliberate under-deployment of officers that day — a day in which we now know, and as I have previously written:

Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, Asst. Chief Yogananda Pittman, head of protective and intelligence operations, the D.C. Metro Police, the United States Park Police, the White House, the Pentagon, the National Guard, both the Senate and House of Representative Sergeants-at-Arms, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, the FBI, and other federal agencies all knew that tens of thousands of protestors would be descending upon the Capitol grounds that day.

An unnamed Capitol Police officer, just days after the melee, told the Associated Press, “During the 4th of July concerts and the Memorial Day concerts, we don’t have people come up and say, ‘We’re going to seize the Capitol.’ But yet, you bring everybody in, you meet before. That never happened for this event.”

According to the Washington Post, only a week after the Capitol was breached, “an FBI office in Virginia issued an explicit warning that extremists were preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and ‘war,’ according to an internal document reviewed by The Washington Post.”

Instead of “all hands on deck,” frontline Capitol Police officers were somewhere between one-tenth to one-fifth strength when it came time to respond to what was coming their way. Whether an operational failure or deliberate under-deployment, this set up the circumstances enabling the breach of the Capitol Building by a relatively small number of aggressive and violent rioters.

Ultimately, it remains inexplicable why only 200 to 300 violent perpetrators wielding sticks, flagpoles, clubs, and bear spray were able to overpower two fully armed law enforcement agencies, the tactical units of nearly every three-letter federal agency, and an unknown number of undercover law enforcement assets to breach what is supposed to be one of the most secure government facilities in the world.

Unless, of course, they were set up to fail. Most Capitol Police officers on duty that day believe that to be the case.

This would explain why Capitol Police union members gave then-acting Chief Yogananda Pittman a 92% “no-confidence” vote only five weeks after her curiously absent leadership from their command center on January 6.

​January 6, Truth about jan 6, Stop the steal rally, Riot, Insurrection, Donald trump, Capitol riots, Capitol police, Ashli babbitt, Rosanne boyland death, Lies, Opinion & analysis 

As Kamala Harris continues to embarrass herself in each new interview, especially her recent one with Bret Baier on Fox News, it’s time to seriously consider the possibility that Donald Trump could win this presidential election.

At any other time in history, this might be a reason to celebrate, make peace with political opponents, and look forward to better days. Unfortunately, the stakes in this election, along with the intense hostility, give conservatives good reason to fear what could happen if Trump wins. As the old Chinese curse goes, “May you get what you wish for.”

A Harris loss would show that most Americans finally understand the status quo no longer serves them and that reform is urgent.

Commenting on Harris’ repeated claims that Trump poses an existential threat and will round up and imprison American citizens, John Daniel Davidson, a senior editor at the Federalist, argued that the primary goal of this rhetoric is to prepare Democrat voters for violent resistance if Trump wins in November. If it also scares more people into voting for her or motivates a few would-be assassins to target Trump, that’s just a bonus. But the real aim is to incite riots across the country, like those in the summer of 2020 — only worse.

Taking a slightly more optimistic view, political commentator Mark Halperin predicts that America could experience “the greatest mental health crisis in the history of the country.” According to Halperin, leftist propaganda has become so strong and pervasive that a Trump victory would completely shatter many people’s reality: “I think tens of millions of people will question their connection to the nation, their connection to other human beings, and their vision of what their future, and their children’s future, could be.”

But a Trump victory may not trigger a national crisis. While both Davidson and Halperin correctly assess the damage leftist gaslighting has done to the mental and emotional state of many Americans, cataclysmic mass tantrums likely won’t follow. Some influencers and pundits will express outrage, but widespread violence in the streets seems unlikely.

Instead, a Trump victory would highlight what many are beginning to notice: Today’s leftism is spent and in decline.

Despite its traditional claim of championing the “rights of the people,” leftism no longer functions as a populist movement. In reality, it has become a collective effort by elites to maintain their power by preserving a system that keeps them rich and in control. Leftism now entails opposing free speech, opening the border, undermining and dismantling cultural institutions, overturning the constitutional order, and pouring vast amounts of money into ineffective programs.

This shift explains why so many union workers, black men, Latinos, and tech bros — once key constituents in the Democratic coalition — are drifting away. Behind the talk of diversity, social justice, and equity lies an agenda that will leave them poorer, less free, less safe, and ultimately less influential. Even if some still vote for Harris out of habit, they are not going to burn the country down or wage civil war against Trump supporters if she loses. Nor will they scream helplessly at the sky. They have no reason to do so.

As Margaret Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” The current system of endless borrowing, taxing, and printing money to fund corrupt regimes, bloated government departments, massive corporate contracts, and entitlements for millions of illegal immigrants is unsustainable. This is why crime is rising, infrastructure is crumbling, and the federal government lacks funds to help victims of devastating hurricanes.

This unsustainability explains why Harris cannot articulate a coherent agenda. It’s not just that she’s incompetent and radical but also that she lacks the resources to deliver on any new promises. Everyone knows a Harris administration would lead to higher taxes, mass amnesty, a crackdown on free speech, more inflation, and the creation of a police state to crush dissent. She has no other options.

A Harris loss in November would make this reality clear. It would show that most Americans finally understand the status quo no longer serves them and that reform is urgent. A small minority of elites and their paid agitators might try to raise hell, but their efforts would be futile.

Look at Argentina after the flamboyant libertarian Javier Milei won the presidential election last year. The fact that he won and delivered on his promises reveals how little influence leftists actually have. Milei took a country deeply in debt, plagued by extreme inflation, and burdened with a bloated government — much like the United States — and, according to writer Joseph Addington, “arrested a catastrophic inflationary spiral, drastically slashed government spending to produce a budgetary surplus for the first time in decades, and completely restructured the Argentine economy and government.”

The same could happen here. Most Americans are well past the point of fussing over Trump’s tweets, his character flaws, or his involvement in the January 6 protests. They know he is not a fascist because he already served one term as president and did a much better job than the administration trying to stay in power. And in their heart of hearts, even most leftists probably know this and will feel inwardly relieved at Trump’s return — even as they make a show of shedding some crocodile tears in November for the sake of form.

​Riots, Anarchy, Donald trump, 2024 presidential election, Kamala harris, Leftism, Crime, Border crisis, Javier milei, Opinion & analysis 

The Biden-Harris administration, in an attempt to deflect blame for the unprecedented immigration crisis it has created and overseen for the past several years, frequently highlights the reduced number of crossings at the southern border. Meanwhile, both the administration and Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign seem to deliberately ignore the escalating situation at the U.S.-Canadian border.

A closer look at the northern numbers

Customs and Border Protection data reveals that the northern border experienced just over 27,000 encounters in fiscal year 2021. By 2024, this number had surged by 637%, reaching nearly 199,000 encounters.

The Swanton Sector, covering 24,000 square miles and including Vermont, along with several counties in New York and New Hampshire, has become by far the most heavily trafficked section of the U.S.-Canadian border.

In fiscal year 2024, Border Patrol agents manning the Swanton Sector encountered more than 19,000 individuals. For comparison, the next busiest northern sector, Blaine — which services Alaska, Oregon, and half of Washington — reported fewer than 2,500 encounters over the same period.

While the number of encounters impacting the northern border’s most heavily trafficked sector may appear inconsequential compared to the staggering reports from its southern border counterparts, the stats reveal a terrifying trend.

Swanton Sector Chief Patrol Agent Robert Garcia stated in an early October post on X, “Border Patrol Agents in Swanton Sector have apprehended more than 19,222 subjects from 97 different countries since October 1, 2023, which is more than its last 17 fiscal years combined.”

Executive order fallacy: Statistical smoke and mirrors

Despite this alarming data, the Biden-Harris administration continues to boast about reductions in southern border encounters. Yet these slightly lower figures remain astronomically high compared to those under previous administrations.

The administration’s numerous so-called “lawful pathways” have hidden the true extent of the immigration crisis. While the number of illegal crossings — defined as individuals attempting to cross the border between ports of entry — has decreased, the overall number of foreign nationals entering the country has been skyrocketing under President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris’ leadership.

The current administration has repeatedly credited Biden’s June executive order, 89 FR 48487 — Securing the Border, for the reduction in illegal crossings over the second half of 2024. From June to September, encounters at the southern border dropped roughly 22%.

‘We still are giving those families that are crossing with their vehicle Notice to Appears, and they took us on the chase.’

The administration claims that the executive action grants the federal government the authority to shut down the border once daily encounters reach 2,500 for seven consecutive days.

However, it includes numerous exceptions, such as expediting the entry process for foreign nationals who used Customs and Border Protection’s CBP One application to schedule an appointment at a port of entry to request asylum.

Moreover, the executive order applies exclusively to the southern border and therefore has no effect on reducing the escalating encounters at the northern border.

Border Patrol agent reveals northern border chaos

Zachary Apotheker, a Border Patrol agent who was previously stationed at the southern border before transferring to the Swanton Sector, told Blaze News, “We’re very slammed up here.”

“I’ve actually worked harder on the northern border than we have down south because, per capita, we have less agents to do so much work,” he said.

“We have a lot of drive-throughs up here, which means people will physically take a vehicle and drive from Canada into America, which should be a massive crime. You’re not just crossing; now you’re taking a vehicle across. You’re driving past an international boundary,” Apotheker explained. “If it’s a family, sometimes they’ve taken us on chases.”

Apotheker recounted an incident in which a vehicle sped past him at 70 miles per hour on a dirt road, driving through the international boundary. He started to pursue but was called off the chase.

“Later on, someone found the vehicle. It was a family,” Apotheker continued. “We still are giving those families that are crossing with their vehicle Notice to Appears, and they took us on the chase. And that’s happened more than once.”

A Notice to Appear, or Form I-862, is given to noncitizens entering the country, instructing them to appear before an immigration judge. Although United States Citizenship and Immigration Services states that this document is “the first step in starting removal proceedings against” the individual, the overwhelmed immigration system means noncitizens receive court dates years in the future, effectively allowing them to stay in the U.S. until their court date.

‘Detaining all individuals without identification … may hamper DHS’ ability to prioritize detention for individuals identified as a possible national security or public safety risk.’

Apotheker told Blaze News, “And the kicker is, if they bring a rental, we tow the rental to the yard. We don’t seize rental vehicles. We tow the rental vehicle. They go back after we release them into the country, and they get the rental back.”

He stated that those illegally crossing the border are “looking at us as a joke.”

“There’s no incentive to stop,” he said. “We have the legal authority to do our job and punish these people, but we’re not allowed to do so.”

“It’s just a game to them,” he added, referring to the illegal border crossers.

Terror watch-list encounters

The Department of Homeland Security’s 2025 Homeland Threat Assessment, published in early October, acknowledged that northern border encounters “continue to increase.”

Through July of fiscal year 2024, CBP reported 283 individuals on the terrorist watch list who attempted to enter the U.S. via the northern border, according to the report. This number was slightly down from the 375 encounters in the previous year over the same time frame.

“In contrast to the U.S.-Mexico border, many watch-list encounters along the U.S.-Canada border occur at ports of entry, and the vast majority of these individuals have legal status in Canada,” the DHS report read.

The agency anticipates that terrorists “will continue their efforts to exploit migration flows and the complex border security environment to enter the United States.”

The DHS’ assessment omitted mention of concerning findings from a September DHS Office of Inspector General report, which discovered that agencies, including CBP, had released noncitizens into the U.S. without identification. When individuals fail to provide identification, it is more challenging for federal officials to determine whether they are on the terrorist watch list.

‘There is also no consistency on what documentation they are saying young people need.’

“If noncitizens do not have identification such as an unexpired visa, unexpired passport, re-entry permit, border crossing identification card, or document of identity and nationality, immigration officers may deny their admission and subject them to removal from the United States without further hearing or review,” the IG report explained. “However, if noncitizens without identification indicate they either intend to apply for asylum or express a fear of persecution in their home country, an immigration officer will refer them for a credible fear interview. If asylum officers determine those claims are credible, these noncitizens may be released into the country to await further hearings or reviews of their claims to admission.”

The report concluded that neither CBP nor Immigration and Customs Enforcement “could determine how many of the millions of noncitizens seeking entry in the United States each year entered without identification and whose self-reported biographic information was accepted.”

These federal law enforcement agencies are not required to record how many noncitizens present identification documents.

The OIG provided the DHS with three recommendations as part of the report’s findings. The DHS rejected all three.

One of the recommendations, directed at CBP, advised the agency to “conduct a comprehensive analysis of the risks associated with releasing noncitizens into the country without identification and develop and implement policies and procedures to mitigate those risks.”

The DHS responded with a non-concurrence, arguing, “Although CBP acknowledges the broad intent of the recommendation, mitigating potential risks associated with releasing noncitizens into the country without identification requires broadly detaining noncitizens, including those noncitizens lacking documentation, for a time exceeding ‘short-term’ detention. … Further, detaining all individuals without identification would seriously risk DHS exceeding its detention capacity, and may hamper DHS’ ability to prioritize detention for individuals identified as a possible national security or public safety risk.”

To this, the OIG countered that without the ability to confirm an individual’s identity, CBP “faces challenges in identifying noncitizens who pose a national security or public safety risk.”

Trusting words over evidence

“We’re taking people’s word,” Apotheker told Blaze News. “The adults may not show up with documents, but then the children may not show up with documents, or maybe false documents. So we’re just taking their word that this child is now this person’s child.”

“We really can’t definitely say, and we can’t track them,” he continued. “A lot of these countries, we don’t have their criminal history.”

‘If we do give them an expedited removal … they still may be granted asylum.’

Apotheker detailed that while adults crossing the border undergo fingerprinting, iris scans, and DNA swabs and are photographed, such biometric data is not gathered for children under 14 years old.

Unaccompanied minors entering the U.S. are handed over to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement, which seeks to place these children with sponsors in the U.S.

“Maybe a relative’s house. How do we even know that it’s the relative’s house, and then who’s following up on it?” Apotheker questioned.

Records released in October revealed that nearly 7,000 unaccompanied children arrive in New York City each year, the New York Post reported. During a city council hearing, experts noted a 60% rise in unaccompanied minors in the city over the last four years.

Jamie Powlovich, a supervisor at the Coalition for the Homeless, informed city lawmakers, “We’ve also seen young people whose passports were falsified so that they could flee.”

“But all their other documents or certificates from their home country to indicate that they are in fact minors and then [the city Administration for Children’s Services] does not take them,” Powlovich said. “There is also no consistency on what documentation they are saying young people need.”

The credible fear loophole and asylum case outcomes

In some circumstances, single adults crossing the border are subject to “expedited removal,” a process intended to swiftly remove them from the country. Apotheker indicated that is not always the case.

“We allow them a credible fear hearing, which is up to an asylum officer to clear,” he told Blaze News. “If we do give them an expedited removal, we’re going to hold them or have them at a holding facility up until the point they have a credible fear hearing. And they still may be granted asylum.”

According to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, if a foreign national “indicate[s] an intention to apply for asylum, express[es] a fear of persecution or torture, or express[es] a fear of return to your country,” he “must be referred to an asylum officer for an interview to determine whether you have a credible fear of persecution or torture.”

Recent data from USCIS, spanning October 2023 to October 15, 2024, shows that out of over 170,000 credible fear cases, fear was not established in approximately 32% of them.

Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse found that in fiscal year 2024, immigration judges denied asylum in 56% of the cases, granted it in 42%, and provided another form of relief in just 2% of cases.

Immigration courts are grappling with a backlog exceeding 1.1 million asylum cases in fiscal year 2024, with foreign nationals waiting more than 1,400 days — almost four years — before their asylum hearing dates.

While many of the Biden-Harris administration’s destructive policies that have led to the open-border crisis can quickly be reversed by a new administration committed to national security, the enormous backlog in immigration courts will likely pose significant challenges well beyond Biden’s tenure in the White House.

CBP did not respond to a request for comment.

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

​News, Open borders, Borders, Northern border, Us-canadian border, Southern border, Biden-harris administration, Biden-harris admin, Illegal immigration, Immigration, Biden-harris, Swanton sector, Customs and border protection, Cbp, Immigration and customs enforcement, Ice, Department of homeland security, Dhs, Zachary apotheker, Politics, T3 

Hard times create strong men; strong men create good times; good times create weak men; and weak men create hard times.

The familiar maxim expresses not just historical truth but also basic biology.

If we keep ignoring this grim reality, the fallout won’t just be flabbier bodies or fleeting mood swings — we’re risking the collapse of the very bedrock that holds society together.

When strong men were busy building the world, their testosterone levels soared. But as times got easier, weak men chose leisure over labor and onanism over industry, indulging in comfort and losing the very hormone that made their ancestors formidable.

Now we’re left with soft times and even softer men — men facing hard times with low drive and even lower testosterone.

High testosterone built America. Low testosterone could destroy it.

A ‘toxic’ waste

The wrongful and absolutely absurd demonization of testosterone hinges on a shallow, reductionist narrative that equates this hormone with uncontrolled aggression.

But controlled aggression is a basic survival mechanism, a tool used not just in times of war but in achieving excellence, protecting the innocent, and driving innovation. Controlled aggression can be a force for good — and it is testosterone that provides it. Indeed, this “toxic” hormone is the lifeblood of masculine vitality.

Low testosterone doesn’t just make men sluggish; it’s linked to a range of debilitating conditions, including osteoporosis, depression, and metabolic syndrome. Credible studies show that men with low testosterone levels have an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease while other studies have identified links to diabetes and cognitive decline.

As you read this, testosterone levels are tanking in the U.S. This isn’t just about muscle or mood; it’s a public health crisis. When a society scapegoats testosterone and vilifies masculinity, it’s not just attacking strong men — it’s endangering itself in a willful act of self-sabotage.

High testosterone-fueled men performed the necessary work that got us where we are today: They built the roads and skyscrapers, led the armies, and defended the vulnerable. And high testosterone-fueled men are needed to maintain the world we’ve inherited.

Contrary to leftist hysteria, it’s not the strong men we should fear but the men too weak to protect what matters.

Beta-maxxing

We’re supposedly living in the “knowledge economy.” How ironic, then, that so many men seem oblivious to a simple fact: Sitting on your a** all day is a disaster for your health — and a testosterone killer.

Despite all the data at our fingertips, it’s as if we’ve collectively ignored what our bodies are screaming at us: Get up and move!

The reality is that manual labor and physical exertion are strongly correlated with higher testosterone levels. Study after study shows that men who engage in traditional manual occupations exhibit higher testosterone levels than their sedentary counterparts.

Evolution has hardwired men to exert, lift, and labor — to embrace physical work. When we sideline this essential biological need in favor of desk jobs and sedentary routines, we undermine our own physiology. We slowly crumble.

Men stuck in sedentary lifestyles aren’t just seeing their testosterone levels nosedive — they’re facing sharply increased risks of depression, anxiety, and even suicidal thoughts. What we’re witnessing is a generation of males cut off from their own biology, soft in body and mind, wandering aimlessly, and without a sense of purpose.

Death by dad bod

And to make matters worse, low testosterone is closely tied to soaring obesity rates — another crisis wreaking havoc on America’s health. Our fixation on convenience, comfort, and screen time is exacting a steep biological toll. In fact, it’s taking lives.

A recent study in the Annals of Internal Medicine revealed that men with the lowest testosterone levels face a starkly higher risk of all-cause mortality. If we keep ignoring this grim reality, the fallout won’t just be flabbier bodies or fleeting mood swings — we’re risking the collapse of the very bedrock that holds society together.

Sadly, the cracks are already showing. Very recently, we saw “white dudes” and “girl dads” cheering on Kamala Harris. The left’s poster boy for masculinity is Andy Cohen — a man so effeminate, he makes RuPaul look like Bear Grylls.

Which raises a rather important question: What can be done to stop America from becoming a nation of Andy Cohen’s?

Measure of man

The first step is figuring out where you stand.

The most reliable way to diagnose low testosterone is through a blood test. Doctors usually measure total and free testosterone levels, along with markers like sex hormone-binding globulin and luteinizing hormone.

A reading below 300 ng/dL often signals low testosterone, particularly if symptoms like fatigue, low libido, mood swings, or muscle loss are present.

Sacking up

Men naturally lose testosterone as they age, but lifestyle choices can hasten this decline. Here are some ways you can naturally boost testosterone.

1. Lift weights

Strength training is crucial. As mentioned earlier, men are built to lift heavy things and put them down — over and over again. Pick up dumbbells, do arm curls, deadlifts, squats, and farmer walks. It’s not rocket science — it’s common sense (another thing in short supply).

2. Go outside

Time outdoors is essential too — exposure to morning sunlight boosts vitamin D, a key player in testosterone production. Get 10 to 15 minutes of direct morning sunlight each day to optimize your circadian rhythms; this, in turn, improves sleep quality.

3. Get sleep

And quality sleep is vitally important — aim for seven to nine hours a night. Sleep deprivation wreaks havoc on testosterone levels.

4. Manage stress

Of course, stress management is also key. Chronic stress spikes cortisol, which directly suppresses testosterone production.

5. Eat right

Diet obviously plays a crucial role as well. Consuming foods rich in zinc and magnesium, such as lean beef, oysters, pumpkin seeds, spinach, and almonds, is essential for maintaining healthy testosterone levels.

These nutrients are key to supporting hormonal balance and preserving your masculine qualities.

It’s also important to avoid foods that can negatively impact testosterone levels, such as soy products, which are high in phytoestrogens that can mimic estrogen in the body.

6. Embrace the struggle

A society that shames strength and glorifies softness sets itself on a path to ruin. As more men spend their days sitting on their butts and lying on their bellies, we risk losing the civilization built on the backs and shoulders of our forefathers.

​John mac ghlionn, Men, Masculinity, Men’s health, Testosterone, Strength training, Lifestyle 

I am a lifelong Democrat, a feminist, a progressive, and a Jew. I marched to Take Back the Night and canvassed for the Sierra Club in college. I volunteered with a domestic violence shelter as a young lawyer. My children and I donned pink p***y hats as we chanted at the 2016 Women’s March in Washington, D.C. I held a “Jews for Black Lives Matter” sign at a BLM rally in Pittsburgh’s Squirrel Hill neighborhood. I took a group of teens to protest the killing of Antwon Rose in downtown Pittsburgh. I became a foster mom during the pandemic. Last summer, I shared my home with a family of Muslim refugees from Afghanistan.

I’ve supported only Democratic candidates for president. I posted a Clinton/Gore sign in my bedroom window before I was old enough to vote. I attended an Al Gore rally in 1996 at the University of Delaware. I volunteered to get John Kerry elected. I contributed to Barack Obama’s campaign. I dressed up in a pantsuit and took my kids with me to vote for the candidate I thought would be the first woman president, Hillary Clinton. In 2020, I voted for Joe Biden.

Islamist ideology is a poison. It is not liberal. It is not progressive. It is not inclusive.

You might think, then, that as a resident of Squirrel Hill, I’d be voting in the upcoming election for Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), state treasurer candidate Erin McClelland (D), U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), and Kamala Harris (D). You would be wrong.

After witnessing the horrors of October 7 and after realizing that too many Democratic Party elected officials and constituents lack the moral clarity to respond effectively to the war Israel is fighting and to the threat of Islamism, I have decided to vote Republican. On November 5, 2024, I will vote for congressional candidate James Hayes (R), state Treasurer Stacey Garrity (R), U.S. Senate candidate Dave McCormack (R) — and, reluctantly, Donald Trump (R).

Most people believe that this is an important election — that its results might even determine the future of our democracy. I agree with them. And that is why, in 2024, I am voting for the party that is more likely to contain Iran and remind it and its terror proxies that America will defeat their threats to democracy and freedom; more likely to support Israel in its defensive, existential war; and more likely to protect civil rights by punishing unlawful acts of violence and anti-Semitic harassment on college campuses.

I am not voting for the party that abandoned the girls of Afghanistan and unnecessarily sacrificed the precious lives of our soldiers there. I am not voting for the party that condemns anti-Semitism on the right while excusing, and even spreading, leftist anti-Semitism and blood libels. I am not voting for the party that is equivocal in its support for Israel as she fights to defend her borders, half the world’s Jews, some of the freest Arab citizens in the world, and Western values, including democracy. I am not voting for the party that chooses appeasement as its foreign policy. I am not voting for the party that took no definitive action as anti-Semitic violence raged on college campuses across the United States.

The threat coming from Iran and its proxies (including those who support them in the West) is a threat to women, LGBTQ+ people, Jews, and other minorities. It is a threat to liberal democracies across the world. We must elect those who will not tolerate an Islamist invasion of a liberal democratic ally and who will make it clear that Islamism will never defeat Western civilization. If the United States permits Islamists to spread their supremacist, misogynist, Jew-hating, freedom-hating ideology, they will do so. While Israelis and others in the Muslim and Arab world are most vulnerable, it is only a matter of time until we are all at risk.

Islamist ideology is a poison. It is not liberal. It is not progressive. It is not inclusive.

Islamists ban girls from school (Afghanistan). They brutally murder gay men, sometimes by throwing them off buildings (Palestinians, Islamic State). They rape, murder, mutilate, and burn Jews (October 7). They kidnap non-Muslim girls into sexual slavery (Boko Haram, Islamic State). They imprison, rape, and murder women who violate hijab rules by daring to expose their hair or neck (Iran). They stone women for having unsanctioned sex or pursuing forbidden love (Taliban, Iran). They kidnap, imprison, torture, and assault women as part of their plan to relegate women to the role of bearing child soldiers for their Islamist army (Houthis).

These are the ways of the “freedom fighters” in support of whom our college campuses have erupted. Islamist leaders happily acknowledge the support they have received from progressive students. The ayatollah of Iran publicly reached out to the student radicals, stating, “You have now formed a branch of the Resistance Front and have begun an honorable struggle in the face of your government’s ruthless pressure — which openly supports Zionists.”

The United States must recognize the imminent threat posed by Islamist ideology. It must defeat Islamists when they dare to cross a democratic country’s border. If they are not stopped, they will continue to spread their vile ways in an Islamic caliphate across the Middle East, Europe, and, eventually, the Americas. They will institute the same regressive laws in other lands that they have instituted in their own.

Today, Israel is actively fighting this threat on seven fronts. If we do not ensure that Israel wins these wars and if we do not help her to defeat the threat posed by Iran soon, we risk not only the lives of persecuted people and other minorities in faraway lands but, in time, our own.

It has been heartbreaking for me to realize that the party I believed would always defend the rights of women and minorities is not interested in defending them against the Islamists. This November, I will vote for those who I believe will fight the hardest to protect democracy and Western civilization.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPennsylvania and made available via RealClearWire.

​2024 presidential election, Donald trump, Israel hamas war, Israel, Islamism, Liberalism, Democracy, Opinion & analysis 

If you’re considering buying a car, odds are you’re thinking about getting an auto loan as well.

Below are seven crucial tips about auto loans that will help you find a financing solution that’s a good fit for your needs so that when the time actually comes to buy a car, you’ll be ready to roll.

1. Aim for shorter terms

If your financial situation allows for it, choosing a shorter loan term offers certain advantages.

Not only will the interest rates be lower the shorter the term, but you’ll save by paying less overall for your vehicle. Plus, you’ll be on the path to paying it off sooner.

If you can’t afford the monthly loan payment on the car you want with a shorter-term loan, then you might consider waiting until you can make a slightly larger down payment.

2. Pay it down

Whatever your dream car may be, the bigger your down payment on it, the lower your interest rate will be. At a minimum, you should try to put down at least 20%. The general rule of thumb is that for every $1,000 you put down, your monthly payment will decrease roughly $18.

3. Time it right

Timing is everything, especially when it comes to buying a car. If you can, wait until the later months like October, November, or December to shop.

Also, try to look later in the month and earlier in the week, as these are the times when salespeople are trying to meet their quotas and therefore are more likely to negotiate down to lower prices.

4. Cover those taxes & fees

Among the things that are often overlooked until the end of the car-buying process are the taxes and fees. If you can, try to account for these in the beginning of the process and pay them off in cash. It may sound like a small detail, but it can save you hundreds of dollars over the course of your loan.

5. Refinance & save

There are many situations where refinancing your existing car loan can save you money. Your credit may have improved or maybe you just want to lower your monthly payments.

Whatever your situation may be, refinancing may be the quickest way to a better interest rate. Try this calculator to see if refinancing might be right for you.

6. Consider going through a credit union

While credit unions can help you consolidate an existing auto loan, they’re also a good first choice to finance a loan.

Walking into a dealership with an already-approved auto loan from a credit union gives you a stronger bargaining position. See if the dealership can beat the rate you have.

7. Use conquest and loyalty discounts

If you are buying a new car, never leave this discount behind. The amount can be $500-$2500 to keep your loyalty or to get you to buy into a competing brand.

​Lauren fix, Auto loans, Car loans, Credit union, Personal finance, How to, Lifestyle, Align cars 

Democrats have never been particularly shy of showing off their true colors, but as Election Day gets closer, they’re becoming even bolder.

Joy Behar of “The View” is a prime example as she ramps up her blatantly untrue rhetoric that paints Donald Trump as America’s Hitler.

“I don’t even know what to say anymore,” Behar told the panel. “If people still follow this fascist pig, then I don’t know what else to say. I really don’t.”

Behar then went on an insane, barely intelligible, totally fabricated rant.

“It’s like, how many times we have to hear him say that referring to immigrants as animals and Hitler called cleansing Germany of all those parasites, referring to immigrants, and he called Jews lice and this guy Trump calls people vermin,” she said, stumbling anxiously through the run on sentence.

“It’s the same language that Hitler used,” she added.

“I think you’ve really hit the note,” Sunny Hostin replied, proving herself as delusional as Behar.

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” is having a hard time even knowing how to respond to their unhinged beliefs.

“I don’t even know that I can analyze that clip,” he says. “When Trump’s talking about ‘vermin’ and all of these other names, he’s not talking about legal immigrants, he is talking about Venezuelan gang members. He’s talking about people that rape people. He’s talking about people who bring fentanyl all over.”

“You’re all idiots and liars,” he continues, adding, “And you know it. That’s you, literally. Ladies of ‘The View,’ you have the job you have because a corporation pays you to sit there and lie so that the Democrats can retain power. It’s as simple as that.”

Want more from Dave Rubin?

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

​Sharing, Upload, Camera phone, Free, Video, Video phone, Youtube.com, The rubin report, Dave rubin, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze media, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Joy behar, The view, Democrats, Republicans, Hitler, Donald trump, Kamala harris, Election 2024, Election news 

As the allegations against Sean “Diddy” Combs become ever more sickening — the latest is that he raped a 13-year-old girl with another celebrity, while a female star watched — one might start to wonder just how he accrued so much power and influence in the first place.

Put bluntly: How did an exceedingly average rapper with no discernible talent become one of the most influential figures in hip hop?

The answer? Clive Davis.

Why has Davis remained so untouchable? The most logical explanation, I suggest, is that he’s a protected government informant.

Call me Daddy

Diddy didn’t rise through musical genius or visionary skill. He wasn’t Tupac, whose words carried the weight of a generation, or Dr. Dre, who transformed the genre with his beats.

No, Diddy’s real talent lay in playing the role of a figurehead, and the man pulling the strings behind the scenes was Clive Davis. It was Davis who saw Diddy’s malleability, his willingness to play the game, and his lack of real power.

Diddy wasn’t chosen for his musical prowess — he was chosen because he was controllable. Davis needed a puppet — someone only too willing to bend over and take it like a “man.” Diddy fit the bill perfectly.

To many readers, the name Clive Davis might not be immediately recognizable. But within the music industry, he holds a reputation comparable to that of Harvey Weinstein in Hollywood. And the comparisons to Weinstein are fitting in more ways than one.

The 92-year-old’s career is riddled with corruption, criminality, and exploitation, all meticulously avoided by sanitized hagiographies that celebrate Davis as the music biz’s benevolent elder statesman.

One cannot discuss Davis without discussing his notorious involvement in the so-called “drugola” scandal while president of CBS Records in the early 1970s. A sleazy update on payola — the practice in which record companies bribe radio station DJs to give certain songs more airplay, artificially inflating their popularity — drugola added heroin and cocaine to sweeten the pot.

The scheme unraveled when David Wynshaw, a CBS executive, was arrested in connection with a heroin ring tied to the mafia.

Wynshaw cooperated with federal authorities, revealing that Columbia had paid $250,000 in bribes to radio stations, particularly those catering to black audiences, to boost the airplay of its artists. This revelation implicated Davis in a wider network that combined corporate interests with criminal activities.

Davis’ proximity to organized crime became increasingly evident as more details emerged. Wynshaw’s testimony revealed weekly payoffs to Kal Rudman, a powerful figure in radio promotion, and Davis himself was accused of misappropriating over $94,000 of company funds for personal use.

Davis’ ties to the Genovese crime family further entangled him in a world where music and mafia operations collided; the Brooklyn-born executive kept up appearances by funneling his dirty money through a maze of shell companies.

Unbelievably, Davis never spent a single day behind bars. The elites don’t just play by different rules — they write them. And in Clive Davis’ case, he’s the one holding the pen.

That’s my boy

In 1993, Davis took the future Diddy (then going by Sean “Puff Daddy” Combs) under his wing, launching Bad Boy Records and making the then-24-year-old the next big name in hip-hop.

And Diddy never, ever forgot his daddy.

His endless praise for Davis — his talk of “forever gratitude” and “LOVE” — is more than just flattery. It’s a confession.

Without Davis, Diddy would be nothing. It was Davis who gave him the industry muscle to launch Bad Boy Entertainment. Every step of Diddy’s rise, from his multimillion-dollar empire to his rather impressive lube collection, traces back to Davis’ early investment.

Of course, as is clear now, Diddy’s success had its casualties. Lisa “Left Eye” Lopes of TLC, a group that skyrocketed to fame only to go bankrupt — thanks to Davis siphoning off their earnings — was one of them.

Always outspoken, Lopes was reportedly gearing up to confront Davis and demand her share. But before she could make a move, Diddy allegedly tipped off Davis, shutting down her plan. Soon after, Lopes died in a car crash in Honduras. Officially ruled an accident, her death left many wondering if it was more than that — a message about what happens when you challenge the wrong people.

Who shot ya?

In truth, Diddy’s entire career has been characterized by dark moments that mysteriously go unpunished. In 1991, at a City College event he organized, a stampede left nine people dead after warnings of overcrowding were ignored.

The tragedy should have destroyed him, yet Diddy, much like his mentor, managed to emerge from the chaos unscathed. The same could be said for the unsolved murders of the aforementioned Tupac and the Notorious B.I.G.

Eminem recently reignited rumors linking Diddy to the murders of the hip-hop heavyweights on his track “Fuel.”

The “Rap God” first hinted at Diddy’s involvement in Tupac’s death on his 2018 dis track “Killshot.” But last month, he took things up a notch, suggesting that Biggie’s murder was also directly tied to Diddy.

With lines like, “Puff’s? Till he’s in police handcuffs, guilty, will he step up?” Eminem makes his accusations clear. With the two biggest names in rap eliminated, Diddy’s path to the top of the musical mountain was cleared.

A path paved by Davis, a man whose influence extends far beyond his perverted protégé.

Collateral damage

Take his relationship with the late, great Whitney Houston, for instance. Publicly, Davis claimed the singer was like a daughter to him, but when she was found dead in the Beverly Hilton, Davis carried on as if nothing had happened.

To be clear, he partied the night away as Houston’s lifeless body lay just a few floors above. Like so many other artists, Houston was a pawn in Davis’ larger game, discarded when she was no longer useful to him.

Why has Davis remained so untouchable? The most logical explanation, I suggest, is that he’s a protected government informant. How else could one operate with such impunity?

The partnership between Davis and Diddy reveals the ugliest truth about the music industry: It’s not about art or talent — it’s about power and control, subterfuge and sabotage. Diddy wasn’t a visionary — he was a sycophantic stooge. Lisa Lopes and Whitney Houston weren’t just stars who burned out too soon — they were collateral damage.

Diddy might be a monster, but never forget Clive Davis — the mastermind who created him.

​Clive davis, Sean combs, Bad boy records, Notorious b.i.g, Tupac shakur, Eminem, Payola, Drugola, John mac ghlionn, Facing the music 

On the topic of masculinity, our current culture is a storm of opinions, claims, and outright dangerous ideas. Many men and women recognize something is off, but we’re often not sure how to respond, and the means by which we oppose the cultural trends can actually end up being counterproductive, making things worse.

Often, we see that the next generation ends up in a pendulum swing from the extreme of the last generation, rather than landing on the truth of the matter.

I myself am an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and I run a coaching practice that blends psychology with the wisdom of early Christian spirituality and modern Orthodox asceticism. An important theme in the Orthodox spiritual lineage is that we cannot look at two errors and find the truth, as is the strategy of the Hegelian dialectic. Seeing two extremes can help us diagnose a problem, but only a direct encounter with the truth itself can give us the solution.

The truth is Christ, and the solution is the cross.

Christ tells us that real happiness comes from loving others, not ourselves.

I went through a phase of exploring different religions and worldviews before becoming an Orthodox Christian. One of the themes that I noticed was fairly universal was the archetypal heroes and villains. Many before me have commented on this phenomenon, such as Joseph Campbell and Jordan Peterson, but I want to hone in on a particular distinction between hero and villain.

What seems to define a hero, even across cultures and worldviews, is that they are sacrificial. We value a character who thinks of others and of their well-being and who sacrifices and even dies for other people. At the same time, we value them being secure in themselves, that they are not being “nice” in order to get something or to protect themselves but that they freely choose to give on behalf of others.

On the other hand, what unites villains is their selfishness. Their top priority is their own power, pleasure, and status. Even when they collaborate with others, their only intention is to use them. Even when they say, “I love you,” it is more about loving the way the person makes them feel. Villains are the pinnacle of objectification, seeing everything around them only in terms of their own desires.

Interestingly, the villain model is very much driven by an evolutionary idea of “survival of the fittest,” yet even the most staunch atheist despises being around someone who actually thinks like this.

Men are often drawn to the archetypes of the hero and the warrior.

Humanity is built to live self-sacrificially like this because we are made in the image of the self-sacrificial God. We are told in scripture that “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Christ is clear throughout the Gospels that if you only love those who love you, you are no different than anyone else.

What is key is that we love when we don’t get something back — that we give without receiving. Much of the gospel is the revelation of our hearts being extremely transactional like the money lenders in the Temple, instead of giving unconditionally like Christ. It is from such a divine heart that he could be abused, tortured, betrayed, spat upon, and more, and yet sincerely pray, “Forgive them Father, they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

Even without appealing to Christianity, we know that the little old ladies who cook for their communities are deeply loved and pass away surrounded by loved ones, whereas those who think only of themselves drive others away.

Christ tells us that real happiness comes from loving others, not ourselves (and it is arguable that loving yourself is an oxymoron, antithetical to the person-to-person nature of love expressed in the Trinity).

The man who runs away from his friends in danger leaves us with a deep pit in our stomachs.

In our quest to understand how to be fulfilled as men, it is important to see that there is a universal answer: to take up our crosses.

Men who rush onto the battlefield, especially to help a fallen comrade, win our hearts. Men who do not get defensive at criticism but can sincerely consider it and admit they are wrong make us feel safer to be ourselves. Men willing even to look like an idiot or to be humiliated, when it helps someone else, end up fathers who produce the most stable children. Over and over, the stable man who gives from inner stability becomes a rock and foundation for his family, his society, and for humanity.

In contrast to this man are two extremes: the outward coward and the inward coward. The outward coward, rather than being kind, becomes “nice” and puts his effort into not making waves. He makes sacrifices, but they are for himself. The inner coward, on the other hand, projects an image of strength and sacrifice, but inwardly it is all about himself. He is usually revealed to be a selfish boy when his inner cowardice is exposed, usually through some kind of humiliation. Deep down, the inner coward deeply fears being exposed. There is, then, a tendency for this type of man to be very narcissistic.

Unfortunately, both of these cowardly men tend to place the blame on the other. The “nice” man tends to blame unkindness on the “strong” man, and likewise the “strong” man blames the weakness of the “nice guys.” Often times, their criticisms of the other are spot on. However, neither of these boyish men can actually solve the problems they complain about, and in fact they even enable each other.

Not only that, but they reveal they don’t understand what manliness truly is at all. They skip the true root of manliness, which is a heart ready to sacrifice, and instead they choose what they personally like or find comfortable.

Deep down, most of us know this isn’t manly or strong at all, that such men break in humiliating ways, and yet we still engage in this behavior instead of seeking a real solution. We watch these archetypes play out over and over in movies and books, with politicians and celebrities, and in our friendships. We feel pity for men whose weaknesses and mistakes (which we often resonate with) keep them from providing for others. The man who runs away from his friends in danger leaves us with a deep pit in our stomachs.

Christ came down to us while we were sinners, where we were at, in the human form that we could understand, and this is the purpose of his Incarnation — to be united with us.

So if true manliness comes from sacrifice, if true masculinity is to live for others, how can we live this out?

First, anything that is difficult for us, anything we don’t like, we should see as a challenge and embrace it. When we see a man overpowered in a film, we feel bad for him. There is something sad about a helpless man, even when it’s understandable. Yet, how often does one comment set us off, or how often are we terrified of what people think of us? Isn’t it more embarrassing to be easily overwhelmed by harmless words than a physical attack?

On the other hand, a man who is unfazed but maintains love, he is the safest refuge anyone could ask for. Orthodox Christian spirituality encourages us in all trials to immediately thank God for trials because they help us let go of our selfish egotism, and I have seen many weak men (including myself) grow tremendously from this practice. “All things work together for the good of those who love Him” (Romans 8:28).

Second, resist the urge to blame others. As soon as Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the garden, the first thing Adam did was blame God and blame Eve. Responsibility is masculine, while blaming others is simply cowardice. It doesn’t mean we can’t diagnose a problem in a technical way, but in the end, the emphasis of responsibility for a man who wants to make a difference is himself. If we are not willing to take on responsibility, we have to ask if we truly want to make things better or simply want to make excuses and justify ourselves. Orthodox spirituality encourages us not to justify ourselves or make excuses, instead leaving such things up to God. Our job is simply to move forward, becoming better men and sacrificing where we have the strength and admitting where we should but cannot. Repentance.

Third, manliness is personal, not a list of rules. Christ came down to us while we were sinners, where we were at, in the human form that we could understand, and this is the purpose of his Incarnation — to be united with us. Likewise, we acquire manliness by associating with truly good men, and we pass on manliness by being good, sacrificial men to the next generation.

Unfortunately, many think about masculinity like the Pharisees, that it is all about rules and image, that if you shoot guns, eat meat, and tell your wife what to do, you become a man. Guns, meat, and headship are fine, but mistaking them for masculinity simply makes us the next contributor to the loss of masculinity in our society.

What we need are images of sacrifice, in our fathers, in our priests and pastors, in our kings and politicians, and most of all in our God!

We must recognize the enemy like a good soldier and be ready to fight him.

The devil loves controlled opposition. Christ’s royal path is straight and narrow, but the devil weaves to the left and right, guiding men to extremes further and further from the path. He could care less what kind of cowardice you have, inner or outward, as long as you live selfishly to validate how he lives, as long as he can give a middle finger to God by pulling us from him.

By engaging in these pendulums, we don’t end up on the straight and narrow, nor do we end up men. Instead, we end up in the weaving chaos of the serpent, his plaything, reacting like a wounded animal to every enemy. “The guilty flee when none pursue” (Proverbs 28:1). We must recognize the enemy like a good soldier and be ready to fight him.

Sometimes fighting him looks like fighting negative thoughts with positive prayers. Sometimes it looks like making stupid faces to make a baby laugh, despite other people thinking we’re an idiot. Sometimes it means letting our wife win an argument, not out of fear but out of mercy. These are all situations that God allows to get our priorities straight as men, but unfortunately, we fall to the temptation of cowardice and end up flailing to defend our image, which always makes us look weak and insecure.

Let us put aside childish things like excuses and blame and be serious about our God-given responsibility as men.

It’s time to stop fighting for masculinity by trying to defend the image or feeling of manliness. Most of us know that buying men’s razors, grilling steaks, shooting guns, and being belligerent aren’t going to make real men or fix our society.

We need to stop judging “according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24), because what matters most is the heart. We must have the same priorities as God, who tells us in 1 Samuel 16:7: “The Lord doesn’t see things the way you see them. People judge by outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”

Those who want to use and abuse humanity certainly hate masculinity, but an even deeper war is being waged in the heart. Our society is trying to erase the concept of the heart entirely, turning words like “hate” into external societal functions rather than heart issues.

Let us put aside childish things like excuses and blame and be serious about our God-given responsibility as men. Let us set ourselves singularly on being sacrificial heroes. Let us live our headship as men by the image of Christ, who gave us that headship — a call not to dominate but to love, not only our wives and children, but everyone, especially our enemies.

Headship was never anything less than a cross, crucifixion for the sake of others. Love does not exist where everything is a transaction, and the cross is the cure to this severe illness.

It is time for men to come together as brothers with a single goal: to take up our crosses and mercifully help each other become good men. May Christ our King guide us!

​Bible, Manliness, Culture wars, Christianity, Christians, Men, Faith 

The Victoria’s Secret annual fashion show used to be a highly anticipated event. Between the elaborate costumes, celebrity singers, stunning models, and high-profile guest list, the show drew millions of viewers from all over the world.

Enter wokeness.

In 2018, the lingerie company jettisoned the uber sexiness that long defined its brand and adopted a more artsy approach to stand in solidarity with the #metoo movement.

Then in 2021, Victoria’s Secret replaced the iconic “angels” with a group of varied models and influencers to show their commitment to diversity and inclusivity.

Last year, the fashion show was replaced with a strange pseudo-documentary featuring little femininity but lots of diversity, including a Nigerian artist who recited poetry.

And now for the cherry on top. This year, the fashion show, which just returned after a six-year hiatus, included two transgender models.

“Transgender models make history at Victoria’s Secret fashion show,” laughs Stu Burguiere, reading from an Entertainment headline.

“Are you kidding me? Is this real?” he asks.

Unfortunately, the answer is yes.

Valentina Sampaio and Alex Consani, two biological males posing as women, strutted down the runway in full-blown lingerie.

Stu displays the pictures of the two models but says he’s afraid to look too close for fear of “whatever might be going on down there.”

If we can learn anything from Victoria’s Secret it’s that “secrets are important, and sometimes you should keep them.”

“Maybe keep the secrets and don’t put them on television,” sighs Stu.

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu’s lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Stu does america, Stu burguiere, Blazetv, Blaze media, Victoria’s secret, Trans women, Transgenderism 

The music industry has gotten really dark. Between depictions of Satan and flirtations with pornography, there doesn’t seem to be much room for good music any more. However, some artists disagree and are pioneering a path away from the evils of the mainstream music industry.

On “Zero Hour,” M.I.A., record producer, rapper, and singer, sat down with James Poulos to discuss her pushback against the mainstream music industry, how music affects the spirit, and the future of music.

M.I.A. described the limitations that are placed on artists who go through the traditional route of music production: “When you’re a musician, it’s the fact that you have to put it through the channels of an industry that it gets corrupted, and it gets put into a box.” She went on to say that “even the producers think the avant-garde is the exact same as the mainstream,” referring to up-and-coming artists who look and act exactly like the most popular people in the industry.

They also discussed the effect of music on people’s spirit, whether we know it or not. She said, “Music directly accesses your spirit, and it does it without permission. … There’s a level of responsibility and knowledge that you have to have, and we don’t have it [in the mainstream music industry].”

While the present state of music is abysmal, M.I.A. has hope for the future: “Music has been hijacked because it became a business. But some people still know the value of music, and good music still exists.” Every path that leads away from the mainstream is an improvement, and M.I.A. hopes to inspire others to break away, too.

To hear more of what M.I.A. had to say about mainstream music, alternative paths for artists in the future, and more, watch the full episode of “Zero Hour” with James Poulos.

​Mia, M.i.a, James poulos, James poulos zero hour, Zero hour with james poulos, Musicians, Tech 

You don’t spend years trashing former Vice President Dick Cheney and then suddenly embrace the GOP leader.

Well, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz do, but
not far-left funnyman Jon Stewart.

The guy they said is unfit to run for president is currently the president. Nobody has any issue with that. Which makes it very obvious that he’s not the president.

During an interview with Walz, the former and current “Daily Show” host had a simple reaction to Cheney’s support for the Democratic ticket:

“No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no!”

When the knucklehead in chief pointed out that they’d also landed the endorsement of a certain mega pop star, Stewart was not consoled.

“What country did Taylor Swift get us to invade?” he asked.

When court jesters have more backbone than your presidential ticket, you know there’s trouble.

Go Wes

Wesley Snipes must be laughing up his sleeve.

The action icon played Marvel’s antihero “Blade” in three films, all before the MCU took over Hollywood in 2008, starting with “Iron Man.” But when Disney decided to revive the vampire slayer, it went to Oscar winner Mahershala Ali to play the lead.

Great choice, but why not Snipes? He’s still fit at 62, and he brought the character back in the summer’s blockbuster “Deadpool & Wolverine.” He hasn’t lost a step.

Maybe the Comic-Con gods have smiled upon Snipes after all. The “Blade” revival has had
more delays than days shooting. The project’s director stepped down earlier this year, and an alleged peek at the early script — which six writers have taken a whack at so far — showed it was as woke as a “Captain Marvel” trilogy.

As Blade himself said, “Some mother****ers are always trying to ice-skate uphill.”

Now the film has been taken off the 2025 release schedule, with no update in sight. Snipes isn’t getting any younger, but why not hand the story back to him and be done with it?

Doc crock

Liberal Hollywood reporters have their heads in the sand. That’s the kindest explanation for missing too many great stories to count.

Need an example? The far-left Deadline shares a podcast recap on the state of documentaries. One takeaway? Gosh,
conservatives just can’t seem to make a decent one.

Really. Really?

“What Is a Woman?”
“Am I Racist?” (the most successful doc in a decade)
“The Fall of Minneapolis”
“How Jack Became Black”
“What Killed Michael Brown”
“Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words”

That’s just off the top of this scribe’s head. “Minneapolis” may be the most impactful film I’ve seen in years. Haunting. Powerful. Unforgettable.

It’s bad enough that Hollywood tilts to the left so hard it hurts. Can’t a few honest journalists cover the biz without liberal blinders on?

Biden his time

It must be nice to be a rebel comic like Tim Dillon.

The podcaster tells the jokes others in the mainstream won’t. The reward? Both a Netflix stand-up special and now a new Netflix comedy called “This Is Your Country.” Think the best of “The Jerry Springer Show” … but intentionally funny.

Now he’s calling out the biggest news scandal of the year. Except no one in the mainstream press will cover it.

Who is our president again?

It’s technically Joe Biden, but we all realized after the June 27 presidential debate that he’s but a figurehead at this point.

So Dillon said as much:

The guy they said is unfit to run for president is currently the president. Nobody has any issue with that. Which makes it very obvious that he’s not the president. Nobody’s worried about his senility in any real sense because he wasn’t removed from the presidency. He’s sitting in the Oval Office supposedly making decisions about America. We’re supposed to believe that.

He’s right. Of course. Late-night comics were too busy raising money for Biden’s doomed re-election campaign to joke about it.

Solemates

Celebrities are always one step ahead of us normies. Maybe two.

Consider Britney Spears and Chelsea Handler. While most of us saps are trying to find our soulmates, these two did it in a heartbeat: They looked in the mirror.

Handler recently bragged that she has a
great relationship with herself and doesn’t need a man, something that threatens the fellas.

Not to be outdone, Spears shared a wedding picture on her Instagram feed
announcing she had married herself.

Can you do a wedding registry for one?

​Christian toto, Tim dillon, Joe biden, John stewart, Entertainment, Chelsea handler, Britney spears, Toto recall 

Does “Bluey” really “turn fathers into mothers”?

That’s the claim Jeremy Pryor makes in a recent article for Align, arguing that that the mega-popular cartoon attacks the traditional family, especially in its depiction of fatherhood.

Any parent — father or mother — who fits Pryor’s description of ‘Bluey’s’ Bandit is in fact an active detriment to his or her children.

Bandit (the dad in “Bluey”), Pryor contends, is “constantly nurturing” and “always present.” He is no disciplinarian but “a plaything” in the eyes of his children.

Don’t blame Bandit

First, let me be clear: I’m not sure that Pryor’s take is quite fair to Bandit, who seems in my limited exposure to “Bluey” perhaps overly gentle but not pathologically so. This is, after all, a preschoolers’ show.

That said, Pryor’s broader point about our mistaken postmodern paternal ideal is well taken. The idea that dads should always be accommodating and never be intimidating is, like most postmodern ideas, an infantile fantasy. It takes no account of human nature and creates misery wherever it is permitted to fester unchecked.

Pryor may have picked a poor example to make a valid point about what children need from their fathers.

Nevertheless, his critique of our modern investment in parental androgyny raises a question worth addressing: What makes an ideal father different from an ideal mother?

Nurture shock

Pryor contends that the very qualities he says make Bandit a lousy father — constant nurture, constant presence, always pleasant playmate — would make a woman an ideal mother.

Putting aside the question of whether Bandit in fact displays these traits to such excess, is that true? I would submit not.

Per Mary Wollstonecraft, the founding mother of feminism before it all went so terribly wrong: “Weak, enervated women” are “unfit to be mothers.” A woman who responds to her child’s every whim is not raising that child to engage the wider world but delimiting his capacity to engage anyone but her. The archetypal term for this insidious maternal figure is the “devouring mother.”

The devouring mother does have a long and storied history; she is an archetype for a reason. But she cannot be considered “traditional.” After all, women throughout most of history could not focus with such martyred self-abnegation on their children. They simply had too many other things to do.

Getting to good enough

Until industrialization, when middle- and upper-class women could for the first time in history devote themselves solely to the domestic welfare of their own nuclear families, nearly all women labored alongside their husbands and children on farms.

In these circumstances, the best a woman could hope for was to be a “good enough” mother: loving and strict and far too busy to be next to her child every second, like the mom in “Little House on the Prairie” or the one in the “Kirsten” books of the original “American Girl” series.

Fortunately, it turns out that “good enough” is what’s best.

Any parent — father or mother — who fits Pryor’s description of “Bluey’s” Bandit is in fact an active detriment to his or her children. Judging by today’s soaring rates of childhood misbehavior, mental health problems, and fragility, we do indeed have far too many such parents.

So if mothers should not be hovering pushovers any more than fathers should, what makes fathers unique and uniquely valuable?

Dad duty

Personally, I have two answers.

First, fathers provide a different kind of discipline — but only to a point. Yes, “talk to Daddy” is drawn as a leveling up of firmness in my house. Mommy is plenty firm, but Daddy has a different impact because Daddy is a man. But I also have four boys and no girls. If I had four daughters and no sons instead, I truly cannot imagine a scenario in which my husband would be the heavy; in fact, it would almost certainly go the other way.

Second, per Pryor, fathers do tend to offer a unique kind of “territory-expanding” and “training,” particularly to sons but also to daughters.

I am a “he’s fine” kind of mom. In part because it’s not my personality and in part because I know it’s not a good idea, I do not gasp or run over when my kid skins a knee or even a chin. I try to respond to what my kid says he needs (sometimes a hug, sometimes ice, often nothing), not react to what I saw.

But I am a mom, and I have my limits.

Checks and balances

I “let grow” pretty well, but when my kids aren’t back to my side exactly when I expect them to be — say, from the library across the street or from a bike ride around the block — I am always on the precipice of running to find them.

My anxiety is inevitably written all over my face. And my kids would surely see that, were I to follow my impulse and dash off at the first suspicion that they might be trying without immediate success to find their way back to me. Fortunately, my husband’s voice is always in my head, and often in my ear: “This is about you getting reassured, not about them being safe. They are fine. They will be fine. Do not worry them with your worry.”

I am beginning to notice that my sons tend to stay calm even when they are unsettled precisely because they have a dad who models that kind of stoicism consistently. Dads do tend, I think, to keep their sights trained more steadily than moms do on the endgame of raising adults who can manage real life, including when it’s scary.

So part of being a “good enough” mom, I guess, is knowing when to get out of the way and let Dad do his job.

​Elizabeth matthew grace, Parenthood, Mother, Father, Bluey, Bandit, Tv, Jeremy pryor, Lifestyle, Blueygate 

Life feels heavy. We’re seeing wars break out, hurricanes wreak havoc, violent crimes being committed against children, election insanity, perversion at every corner, and what feels like constant “bad news” with morally bankrupt people doing morally bankrupt things.

It’s exhausting, and I know I’m not alone in feeling this way. Every day it seems like we’re living more and more in Babylonian times, but this isn’t the first time in history it’s been this way.

‘I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told.’

Tucked in with the other “minor prophets” in the Bible is the book of Habakkuk. We’re not given much information about Habakkuk, but we know he was an atypical prophet who many believe wrote his book after the fall of Nineveh and before the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem. Habakkuk differentiates himself from other prophets since there’s no indication that God asked him to be prophet. Rather, he seems to seek the role out. At this point in history, it was morally dark, especially for those pursuing righteousness and speaking truth like Habakkuk. Strife and contention ruled the land, justice wasn’t served, and “destruction and violence” were ever before Habakkuk and God’s people.

In this short three-chapter book, Habakkuk finds himself discouraged and weary. He struggles with having faith in God while grappling with all the injustice in the world. He cries out to God for help, questioning why God isn’t saving the people from grave evil. Everything he’s ever known is being destroyed and overtaken by pagans.

But we have to remember: God had been faithful time and time again even though His people had been continually unfaithful to Him. The rise of the Babylonian empire and the destruction of Jerusalem were a direct punishment for the sin of God’s people.

God responds to Habakkuk’s cry by inviting him to “look” and “see” among the nations and be astounded. God then tells Habakkuk He’s raising up the Chaldeans, the ruling class of the Neo-Babylonian empire — a gruesome people who viewed their “might” as their god. They placed their confidence wholly in their strength and their strength alone.

It seems odd for this to be God’s response to the distressed prophet, but God doesn’t sugarcoat the situation. God says, “I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told” (Habakkuk 1:5). Here, God is inviting Habakkuk to trust Him even though Habakkuk doesn’t understand why the Babylonians continue plundering his homeland, though God assures him that eventually the Babylonians will “sweep by like the wind” (Habakkuk 1:11).

In spite of God’s challenge for Habakkuk to wait and trust Him, he is still depressed, so he returns to the Lord a second time. He ends his plea asking the Lord if “mercilessly killing nations” will continue. This time, after laying out his raw plea to God, similarly to a Psalm of David, Habakkuk stands at his watch post, stationing himself on the tower.

We don’t know how long he waits, but we know God answers him.

God doesn’t always let us in on what He’s doing or why He’s doing it.

Instead of telling Habakkuk to observe, God calls him to take action. The Lord directs him to write down the “vision,” which was God’s original response to Habakkuk’s first plea: “Write the vision; make it plain on tablets” (Habakkuk 2:2).

Since the weary prophet didn’t heed God’s message the first time, God tells him to inscribe it. By doing this, God’s message can more concretely sink into his heart and mind, where it can be more fully imprinted. There will be an appointed time when the Babylonians are punished, but that appointed time is not yet.

“If it seems slow, wait for it,” God urges Habakkuk in 2:3.

The Lord makes it clear that His timing is everything and His plans are unfolding even if Habakkuk doesn’t understand God’s intended purpose or the timing of it.

“The righteous shall live by his faith,” the Lord gently reminds him in 2:4.

During a time of justice being perverted and evil abounding, God wasn’t absent even though Habakkuk felt like He was.

Time and time again we ask God “why” and we find ourselves doubting His goodness when we see so much evil around us, as Habakkuk did so many years ago.

God doesn’t always let us in on what He’s doing or why He’s doing it. Sometimes it might be because it’s too heavy a load for us if we knew all the details or could peek into the future. But with goodness and kindness, God listened, responded, and reminded Habakkuk of His unchangeable character.

God is doing the same for us in our day and our culture.

Even though the world feels like it is caving in on us and things seem bleak as our world embraces moral relativism — people doing what is right in their own eyes — we know God is in control and reigns on His throne.

Though his circumstances are grim and his homeland is desolate, Habakkuk orients his heart toward hope and truth.

After the back-and-forth dialogue, Habakkuk concludes by praying. He positions his heart toward God in an act of worship, giving praise to the Lord. His circumstances have not changed, but his perspective completely shifts. Even though the fig trees don’t blossom and there’s no fruit on the vines or herd in the stalls, Habakkuk says, “Yet I will rejoice in the Lord; I will take joy in the God of my salvation” (Habakkuk 3:18).

The Lord is His strength while his enemies make an idol out of their own strength. Habakkuk is reminding himself of God’s character, strength, and infinite power. His confession of faith draws him to pronounce, “He [God] makes my feet like the deer’s; he makes me tread on my high places” (Habakkuk 3:19). Here, when Habakkuk refers to a “deer,” he uses a Hebrew word that means “female deer” or “hind.”

These graceful, sure-footed animals are more lightly built than male deer, making them more agile. They are revered for their stability in climbing mountains, cliffs, and rocky terrain without falling. A hind won’t tread on anything that’s not secure and steady under her feet. Just as the female deer is confident in her movement through rugged topography, so are we to be confident through life’s uncertain adversity.

What a powerful picture of Habakkuk’s inner strength rooted in God.

Though his circumstances are grim and his homeland is desolate, Habakkuk orients his heart toward hope and truth. He went from deeply discouraged to rejoicing in the Lord. Nothing changed except his perspective. Habakkuk went from looking at his circumstances to beholding God — and that made all the difference. Just as the hind climbs up steep cliffs without losing her footing, God gives us the same ability to navigate the rough terrain of life and the hardships that often feel unbearably heavy. His strength, not ours.

I find myself feeling like Habakkuk did centuries ago. Our current situation may not be as dire as Jerusalem’s under siege, but we nonetheless see enough challenges in our day to relate to Habakkuk’s state of despondency.

Living in a godless society where our moral fabric continues to unravel rapidly feels wearisome, but we can learn a powerful lesson from this prophet of old: Confidently, we can trust in God, who reigns supreme over all.

​Godless culture, Bible, Habakkuk, God, Prophet, Faith 

Who is Satoshi Nakamoto, the mysterious mastermind behind Bitcoin? According to a new HBO documentary, the answer is Peter Todd.

“Who?” I hear readers asking.

Todd is unknown outside the crypto world. However, he is renowned within it.

A Bitcoin core developer who has played a major role in improving the cryptocurrency’s security and scalability, Todd is a legitimate expert in cryptography and decentralized systems. The Canadian has been a vocal figure in privacy, security, and blockchain governance debates.

However, I argue HBO misses the mark — and badly at that.

Todd himself denies the claim, and his denials make sense when you look at other candidates. Well, one in particular.

This leads us to Paul Le Roux, a South African-born criminal mastermind whose technical genius made him virtually undetectable — until his empire grew too vast to ignore. Le Roux operated in the shadows for years, evading authorities while building a vast transnational crime syndicate. But like all empires built on secrecy and greed, it eventually attracted the wrong kind of attention — for LeRoux, anyway.

To be clear, the grizzled geek isn’t your typical criminal; he’s one with a deep understanding of encryption, one of the foundational elements of Bitcoin. He created E4M, an open-source disk encryption software, which later inspired TrueCrypt — one of the most advanced encryption tools. This background in cryptography aligns perfectly with the skills needed to develop a secure, decentralized currency like Bitcoin. Le Roux’s work in encryption wasn’t just theoretical; he was actively applying this knowledge, which is exactly what someone like Satoshi Nakamoto would need to create a technology like Bitcoin.

The mind and the motivation

The timing of Le Roux’s disappearance from public view is another piece of the puzzle. Satoshi Nakamoto stopped communicating with the Bitcoin community in December 2010. Le Roux, having run a global criminal empire involved in everything from drug trafficking to arms smuggling, was arrested not long after. The fact that Satoshi went silent just as the walls closed on Le Roux appears to be more than a coincidence.

Furthermore, Bitcoin itself, as a concept, fits perfectly into Le Roux’s world. His criminal empire required an untraceable and anonymous way to move money across borders. Bitcoin, designed to allow peer-to-peer transactions without the need for banks or governments, would have been an ideal solution. If anyone had the motive to create such a tool, it was Le Roux. His illegal activities thrived on invisibility and untraceable financial systems, and Bitcoin provided exactly that. The structure of Bitcoin — decentralized, largely anonymous, and resistant to control at the time of his dealings — would have been the perfect financial instrument for someone running a vast international criminal network.

There are also direct links between Le Roux and the Bitcoin community, albeit subtle ones. During the Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit involving Craig Wright (a man who also claims to be Satoshi), a court document included a reference to Le Roux’s Wikipedia page. This raised suspicions that Wright had access to Le Roux’s hard drives or other materials connected to Bitcoin’s creation. While this connection remains entirely speculative, it adds another intrigue to the theory. It’s possible that Wright, who has been widely discredited as Satoshi, may have stumbled upon information linking Le Roux to Bitcoin, which could explain why he included that reference in the legal case. Then, there’s Calvin Ayre, whose connection to both Wright and LeRoux deepens the mystery surrounding Bitcoin’s origins. Despite widespread skepticism, Ayre, a gambling magnate, reportedly backed Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. The theory suggests that Ayre may know Wright isn’t the real Satoshi, but he continues supporting him in gaining access to the private keys.

But wait, there’s more.

What’s in a name?

Le Roux’s alias, “Paul Solotshi Calder Le Roux,” might be one of the most compelling clues linking him to Bitcoin’s creation. The middle name “Solotshi” is strikingly close to “Satoshi,” don’t you think? It’s easy to imagine a criminal of Le Roux’s caliber adopting a clever variation of his name to hide in plain sight, especially in the midst of developing something as revolutionary as Bitcoin. Yes, I know, many will brush it off as a coincidence, but the similarity between the names is pretty hard to overlook.

Even after his arrest, Le Roux remained connected to Bitcoin in surprising ways. In 2020, while serving his prison sentence, he told a Manhattan judge that he planned to start a Bitcoin mining business after serving his time. The grizzled guru specifically mentioned his desire to design faster, more efficient mining hardware. Again, maybe it’s all just coincidental. Then, again, maybe not.

Although there’s no definitive proof that Paul Le Roux is Satoshi Nakamoto, the circumstantial evidence paints a rather compelling picture. Le Roux’s mastery of cryptography, the suspicious timing of his vanishing from the public eye, his criminal motivations, and his tendency to use aliases all line up with the profile of Bitcoin’s mysterious creator. Le Roux is certainly a far more plausible candidate than Peter Todd. Todd, though respected in the cryptography community, has never been associated with the kind of large-scale, secretive operations that would require something like Bitcoin. His skills are undeniable, but he lacks the shadowy, high-stakes background that aligns so well with the motivations behind Bitcoin’s design.

​Bitcoin, Hbo, Satoshi, Le roux, Tech