Category: blaze media

The season of family road trips is upon us, and the open highway stretches ahead. You’ve packed the snacks, filled the tank, and are bracing yourselves for the first backseat skirmish over disputed elbow territory.

You consider keeping the peace via the usual distribution of digital Xanax — a screen and headphones for each underage passenger. But then a crazy idea hits you: Couldn’t we spend this time together? You know, making memories and such?

From cave rescues in Thailand to high-seas hostage escapes, ‘Against the Odds’ is the kind of storytelling that gets everyone quiet in the car (a rare feat).

“When do we get there?” The plaintive query, no doubt the first of a series, breaks your train of thought. Twenty-two minutes in — a new record. Then, the kicking starts.

Little thumps on the back of your seat, soft enough for plausible deniability and maddeningly off-rhythm, the kind of thing that could break a man once that white-line fever sets in …

May we suggest putting on a podcast? Nothing like good, old-fashioned, audio-only entertainment to make the miles fly by. Here are five family-friendly favorites to get you started.

RELATED: What moving my family to Budapest has taught me about America

nedomacki/Getty Images

‘Intentionally Blank’

Hosted by bestselling fantasy author Brandon Sanderson and sci-fi/horror writer Dan Wells, “Intentionally Blank” is like hanging out with your two funniest friends and listening to them shoot the breeze about everything from what makes a good villain to a running tally of notable food heists.

Try this episode: Ranking Our Favorite Cryptids
You’ve heard of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster — but what about the Mongolian Death Worm?

‘Sports Wars’

Serena vs. Venus, Kobe vs. Shaq, Hulk Hogan vs. the world. Each season of “Sports Wars” takes you on a journey through some of the most intense rivalries across every sport, from basketball and tennis to football and wrestling. By turns hilarious and tragic, these stories of big personalities and high stakes will keep the attention of fans and non-fans alike.

Episode: Brady vs. Manning: Family First
Quarterbacks Tom Brady and Eli Manning are two of the most dominant players in the history of the NFL. Pit them against each other, and you’re looking at the most epic rivalry since the Pirate’s Booty ran out six exits ago.

‘Against the Odds’

Never give up! That’s the core message at the heart of “Against the Odds” and it’s thrilling real-life accounts of survival. From cave rescues in Thailand to high-seas hostage escapes, it’s the kind of storytelling that gets everyone quiet in the car (a rare feat). Be prepared for a few intense moments but nothing that crosses into R-rated territory.

Try this episode: Thai Cave Rescue: Lost
Seven summers ago, the world held its breath as courageous rescuers worked against the clock to save a boys soccer team trapped in a treacherous Thai cave. This six-episode season’s compellingly vivid account is gripping but not graphic — ideal for older kids who like suspense.

‘How I Built This’

Every product you use has a story, whether it’s the socks (Bombas) your son just threw at his sister or the chicken fingers (Raising Cane’s) that she spilled all over her car seat. “How I Built This” host Guy Raz gets some of today’s most successful entrepreneurs to spills the beans on the ups and downs of launching a brand. If you want to know how to succeed and be inspired by people who’ve battled back and made their mark on the world, this is the podcast for you.

Try this episode: Spikeball: Chris Ruder
Ever dream of kicking off the latest sports craze? That’s what Chris Ruder did when he revived a favorite game from childhood and turned it into Spikeball — and he tells the whole story here. Bonus points for inspiring kids to think beyond apps and startups.

‘Spooked’

When the headlights start coming on and the sugar crash hits, there’s nothing like a ghost story to keep the blood pumping. The unique thing about “Spooked” is that its stories are true — and told by the people who experienced them. With a runtime of around 27 minutes per episode, the stories are long enough to suck you in but not so long that they drag on. Yes, some hauntings can get a bit intense (more than one takes place during the Vietnam War), but generally the vibe is eerie without tipping over into nightmare fuel.

Try this episode: Borderlands
A U.S. Border Patrol agent encounters something strange while on night patrol in the Arizona desert; and a Sri Lankan woman’s mysterious illness requires a supernatural cure. Suspenseful and atmospheric while leaving plenty to the imagination.

​Lifestyle, Podcasts, Road trips, Vacation, Summer, Culture, Recommendation 

The unfolding fallout between Elon Musk and the Trump administration over the past month hasn’t stopped Musk’s companies from breaking new ground in their industries. Tesla’s newly launched service may change transportation as we know it.

Following years of delays and hype from Elon Musk, Tesla launched the long-awaited, fully autonomous Cybercab in Austin, Texas, on Sunday. The service uses brand-new Tesla Model Y cars with no add-ons, meaning that all Model Y Teslas are capable of fully autonomous driving.

RELATED: Jeff Bezos jolts Tesla with $20,000 Cybertruck killer

Photo by Stanislav Kogiku/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Musk shared his excitement about the announcement on X, calling this achievement a “culmination of a decade of hard work.”

On top of being fully autonomous, Robotaxi also “automatically syncs your media & streaming settings before picking you up.”

Tesla invited a small group of users to test out the new service in the capital city for a flat fee of $4.20, Business Insider reported.

Tesla’s X page reposted several users’ first experiences with the fully autonomous ride service. Many of them reported that the ride was smooth and enjoyable. One user posted a screen recording of his attempt to leave a tip, which was met with a humorous error message.

While this service is currently only available in Austin, Texas, following the soft launch, Tesla has created a new portal for users to receive updates about Cybercab coming to their area in the future.

​Tech, Tesla, Model y, Cybercab, Robotaxi, Elon musk, Austin texas 

The Department of Homeland Security issued a national terrorism advisory bulletin on Sunday warning that Iran-linked extremists might seek to execute retaliatory attacks on American soil in the wake of the U.S. B-2 bombings of Iranian nuclear sites.

The previous U.S. administration’s failure to secure the southern border, its cover-up of the rise in terrorism-linked migrants, and its release of hundreds of Iranian nationals into the homeland altogether appear to have helped create the environment in which such threats are viable.

Masoud Pezeshkian, the president of Iran, told French President Emmanuel Macron in a call on Sunday, “The U.S. has attacked us; what would you do in such a situation? Naturally, they must ­receive a response to their aggression.”

RELATED: DOD reveals stunning new details following Trump’s attack on Iran

Iranian leader Ali Khamenei. Photo by ATTA KENARE/AFP via Getty Images

The Iranian regime apparently intends to respond to the American bombings of the nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan in part by closing the Strait of Hormuz, which would disrupt global oil and gas supplies. According to Iranian state media, the Shiite nation’s parliament agreed on Sunday to take this consequential step, but the final decision rests with Iran’s national security council.

The Trump administration indicated that the decision to close down the shipping lane, which roughly 20% of the world’s oil and gas transits, would be a “suicidal move.”

The Iranian regime, designated by the U.S. as a state sponsor of terrorism 40 years ago, might entertain other suicidal forms of retaliation.

The DHS suggested that Iran may rely upon diasporic radicals to follow through on its promised revenge, noting that “low-level cyber attacks” against American networks by pro-Iranian hacktivists and by Tehran-backed actors are likely.

In terms of kinetic attacks, the terrorism advisory noted that “the likelihood of violent extremists in the Homeland independently mobilizing to violence in response to the conflict would likely increase if Iranian leadership issued a religious ruling calling for retaliatory violence against targets in the Homeland.”

“The ongoing Iran conflict is causing a heightened threat environment in the United States,” added the DHS bulletin. “Iran also has a long-standing commitment to target U.S. government officials it views as responsible for the death of an Iranian military commander killed in January 2020.”

It wouldn’t be the first time in recent years Iran hatched violent plots targeting individuals on American soil.

For example, a Pakistani radical traveled from Iran to the U.S. in 2024 to allegedly avenge the death of Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian terrorist and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander who was snuffed out by an American airstrike at Iraq’s Baghdad airport on Jan. 2, 2020. Asif Raza Merchant was arrested on July 12 for allegedly plotting to assassinate Trump and other public officials.

Years earlier, Iranian intelligence officials and assets targeted a New York-based critic of the regime. One of the men involved in the plot was Niloufar Bahadorifar, an American citizen living in California.

‘We have zero information?’

“Since the start of the conflict, we have seen media releases by foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) — including Hamas, Lebanese Hizballah, the Houthis, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, among others — some of which have called for violence against U.S. assets and personnel in the Middle East because of Israel’s attack,” said the DHS bulletin. “The conflict could also motivate violent extremists and hate crime perpetrators seeking to attack targets perceived to be Jewish, pro-Israel, or linked to the U.S. government or military in the homeland.”

RELATED: Why the right turned anti-war — and should stay that way

Photo by Qian Weizhong/VCG via Getty Images

Retired San Diego Border Patrol Chief Patrol Agent Aaron Heitke told members of the House Homeland Security Committee in September that the Biden-Harris administration concealed from the American public information about illegal aliens with terrorism ties as part of its effort to “quiet the border-wide crisis.”

Heitke delivered the following bombshell:

In San Diego, we had an exponential increase in [Special] Interest Aliens (SIAs). These are aliens with significant ties to terrorism. Prior to this administration, the San Diego sector averaged 10-15 SIAs per year. Once word was out that the border was far easier to cross, San Diego went to over 100 SIAs in 2022, way over 100 SIAs in 2023, and more than that this year. These are only the ones we caught. At the time, I was told I could not release any information on this increase in SIAs or mention any of the arrests. The administration was trying to convince the public that there was no threat at the border.

Former Republican Rep. Anthony D’Esposito (N.Y.) asked Heitke what was known about the gotaways who had entered the U.S.

When Heitke responded, “None,” D’Esposito said, “Zero information of millions of people — some of which have been found to be on the terror watch list — we have zero information?”

“Correct,” said Heitke.

Citing data recently provided by a Border Patrol agent, the Center Square reported that over 700 Iranian nationals who illegally stole into the U.S. were ultimately released into the homeland by the Biden administration.

Late last year, Texas Department of Public Safety troopers reportedly apprehended seven Iranian SIAs in Maverick County as well as military-aged men from Afghanistan, Egypt, and Turkey.

“It is our duty to keep the nation safe and informed, especially during times of conflict,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement to Blaze News. “The ongoing Israel-Iran conflict brings the possibility of increased threat to the homeland in the form of possible cyberattacks, acts of violence, and anti-Semitic hate crimes.”

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

​Terrorism, Iran, Tehran, Assassination, Violence, Israel, Bombing, Department of homeland security, Dhs, Kristi noem, Immigration, Border security, Illegal immigration, Politics 

Republicans are in a fix. Medicaid costs have exploded over the past six years, and the system is rife with waste, fraud, and abuse. Democrats don’t want to do anything meaningful about it, but large majorities of voters support most of the Republicans’ proposed tweaks. Well … all except one, which pits old-guard Republicans against the populist insurgents.

But a solution exists.

As a body, the Senate is reliably more than a decade behind the rest of the country, politically. But political realities still do have an impact.

Medicaid — federally subsidized health care for the poor — is out of control. Since 2019 (or during COVID and President Joe Biden’s time in office), the federal expense has ballooned 56.5%. There are currently 72 million people on the rolls, or about a quarter of the American population. Republicans want to do something about it, and they’re right to.

Some of the GOP’s proposals are remarkably popular with the American public. Cutting the deceased from the rolls, for example, polls at 86% approval — about as close as you’re going to get to everybody these days. Similarly, cutting illegal immigrants from the rolls polls at 82%.

Democrats say it isn’t happening — but they sure seem angry about it.

Take work requirements. A new rule would make able-bodied adults without dependents do something — anything — to qualify for benefits. Work. Volunteer. Train. Whatever. And Americans overwhelmingly support the idea.

As it turns out, so do most people collecting benefits.

Then there’s this: thousands of working-age adults who self-report spending four or more hours a day watching TV or playing video games. Requiring those folks to work polls lower, but still polls at 72% approval.

Now comes a less popular idea — but no less important.

Some states are dodging their share of Medicaid spending by gaming the system. A convoluted scheme lets state governments shuffle money back and forth with hospitals, inflating how much they appear to spend. That trick boosts their federal match and lowers what they actually have to pay.

Here’s how it works. States are supposed to split Medicaid costs 50-50 with the federal government. But instead of paying a hospital $100 for a procedure and getting $50 back, a state will pay $106, then slap the hospital with a $6 tax — so the state’s net cost is still $100. But because the state “spent” $106, Washington reimburses the state $53 instead of $50. Congratulations: The federal taxpayer just got fleeced for an extra three bucks.

That example comes from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget — a nonpartisan watchdog group that wants the loophole closed.

It’s a classic shell game. It undermines the spirit of federal aid and violates basic fairness. Yet it persists — partly because it’s buried in bureaucracy and partly because few politicians want to pick a fight with hospital lobbyists or state budget directors.

The scam may be obvious. Fixing it won’t be.

That’s because nearly every state south of Alaska plays this game to some degree — but rural, low-tax states depend on it the most.

Rural hospitals operate on thinner margins. Fewer beds. Older, poorer patients. Less insulation from federal policy swings. Obamacare made a bad situation worse.

In the past 15 years, 139 rural hospitals have either shut down completely or converted to outpatient-only facilities. A third blamed Obamacare directly. That’s more than three times the annual closure rate of urban or suburban hospitals.

Bigger hospitals typically collect the lion’s share of the kickback under the provider tax scam. But rural hospitals live on the edge — which makes them more dependent on that extra funding and more exposed if it goes away.

And that’s where the GOP’s internal conflict begins.

Rural states tend to lean Republican. So do rural voters more broadly. Cities and suburbs go blue; the countryside votes red. That means this fight pits two factions within the party against each other: fiscal conservatives who want to end the grift vs. populist conservatives more concerned with shielding vulnerable Americans — the “forgotten men and women” Trump made central to his coalition.

For one group, it’s about principle. For the other, survival.

The fight also feeds into Democrats’ hoped-for battle, which ignores all the pesky details about illegal aliens, dead recipients, and able-bodied men and instead focuses on any threats to rural hospitals and the poor. They’d much prefer to say Republicans cut your health care — a talking point that polls strongly in their favor — and run on that in the midterm election.

The White House is well aware of this reality, so it wants a fix. Republican Sens. Josh Hawley (Mo.), Susan Collins (Maine), and Jim Justice (W.V.) all represent just the sorts of states a provider tax crackdown would impact hardest and have proposed a separate Rural Hospital Stabilization Program to soften the blow and protect the 700 or so hospitals already on the margins. It’s a long-needed fix, but the kind of thing previously ignored by a Republican Senate that leans toward traditional supply-side economics.

As a body, the Senate is reliably more than a decade behind the rest of the country, politically. But political realities still do have an impact, and this is just the type to push senators to action. The rest of their cuts are important and poll very well. Instead of cracking down on a faulty system that has already just slowed the problem down, there’s a chance here to come up with a better solution. It’s worth taking seriously.

Glenn Beck: No, Mike Lee isn’t paving over Yellowstone for condos

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, 2016: Provider tax limits should be on the table for Medicaid reform

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

​Opinion & analysis, Politics 

Since 2022, 38 bodies have been found in or near Lady Bird Lake in Austin, Texas. The most recent was recovered just earlier this month. On June 3, a teenage male kayaker was found two days after he swam into a deep part of the lake without a life jacket and disappeared under the water.

Many of the deaths in and around Lady Bird Lake have been attributed to accidental drownings. Other deaths have been ruled suicides and drug overdoses; only one death has been declared a homicide.

However, several cases remain unknown. Another disturbing fact is that 30 of the 38 bodies were males, 60% of which were between 30 and 49 years of age, leading many locals to suspect a serial killer, given serial killers usually target victims with specific characteristics — especially age and gender.

The Austin Police Department has insisted that no evidence supports the existence of a serial killer, but locals are not convinced. Several petitions for police to investigate drownings as potential homicides have been filed. Many believe that the proximity of Rainey Street, a nightlife hub with numerous bars and clubs, has led to men being drugged and lured to Lady Bird Lake where they were intentionally drowned.

While the city has implemented safety upgrades, including increased patrols, fencing, lighting, and cameras around the lake, APD has maintained that no serial killer is on the loose.

Dave Landau, BlazeTV host of the comedy series “Normal World,” sides with the locals.

He reads from a recent Buzzfeed article, detailing how in 2022, “A cluster of six bodies were found” — all males with “similar features.” The following year, “Five more bodies were found, again, all men,” who had apparently “gone missing after having a night out on the nearby Rainey Street.”

“So it looks like we have the Lady Bird Killer on our hands, ladies and gentlemen,” he says.

As for APD’s denial that there’s a serial killer on the loose, Dave thinks there’s a chance law enforcement “may not tell the public what they’re looking at” to avoid hysteria.

To hear more about the scandal that’s got the people of Austin in an uproar, watch the episode above.

Want more ‘Normal World’?

To enjoy more whimsical satire, topical sketches, and comedic discussions from comedians Dave Landau and 1/4 Black Garrett, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Normal world, Dave landau, Lady bird lake, Austin, Texas, Rainey street, Austin texas, Lady bird lake killer, Serial killer, Blazetv, Blaze media 

On June 23, Americans mark the 53rd anniversary of Title IX being signed into law. This landmark legislation gave women the opportunity to fairly compete in athletics. Unfortunately, thanks to the extreme left’s ridiculous desire to force women to compete against men, Title IX is under threat.

As the highest-ranking woman in Congress, I am proud to introduce a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives to commemorate Title IX’s enactment and celebrate women’s and girls’ contributions to education and athletics. It’s time all members of Congress go on the record supporting Title IX and women in sports.

Our daughters can depend on Republicans to protect women. We are fighting to end the insanity created by extreme leftist Democrats.

The erosion of Title IX protections is harming young girls. For example, in my home state of Michigan, a transgender water polo player was allowed to compete in the national championship, leading to an unfair advantage and a sham outcome.

Recently, during track and field competitions in Washington and California, biological boys stole victories that should have gone to girls. These biological boys would likely never have seen the podium had they competed against men. Allowing this behavior, which I often describe as the ultimate form of bullying, is ironic given our nationwide efforts to eliminate it.

Instead of wrongfully celebrating these boys who are stealing victories from women, we should recognize and celebrate rightful champions Lauren Matthew, Jillene Wetteland, Lelani Laurelle, and Kira Gant Hatcher. They put in the work and were forced to compete unfairly against biological males, only to have their hard-fought victories snatched away.

The parents, teachers, classmates, and administrators who allowed this to happen and are responsible for this miscarriage of justice should be ashamed. Instead of cheering on women and Title IX, they cheer for the destruction of women’s sports.

As a woman, a mother, an athlete, and a coach of young girls, I am appalled. The fact that anyone would rather allow biological men to compete in women’s sports than protect our girls is reprehensible. Where are the feminists who have dedicated their lives to protecting women and women’s empowerment? No matter how hard Democrats try to deny it, biological men have an inherent advantage over women in sports.

President Trump and House Republicans have taken action to prevent these nightmares from happening in the future. House Republicans passed the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, and President Trump signed an executive order to protect girls and keep men out of women’s sports. Just this month, Education Secretary Linda McMahon recognized June as Title IX Month.

RELATED: I played against the best, but never a man. Here’s why.

Photo by Focus on Sport/Getty Images

These actions resulted in the NCAA announcing a new policy protecting women athletes from men competing in women’s sports. Despite multiple states having followed suit, not all girls are protected.

This led President Trump to threaten to cut federal funding to California if the state continues allowing transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports. In my opinion, he absolutely should. The president has already begun the process of stripping Maine of federal funds for a similar act of defiance. If states value this extreme, woke ideology more than federal funding for their students’ education, they should lose it.

Fifty years following the ratification of the 19th Amendment, Title IX gave women equal footing in the world of athletics, and now Democrats are trying to set all our young women back. Our girls deserve better.

Our daughters can depend on Republicans to protect women. We are fighting to end the insanity created by extreme leftist Democrats. And we won’t stop until every girl and woman has the right to fairly compete in sports.

If that means defunding every state, defeating every extreme left-wing Democrat governor, and demoralizing every biological male who steps foot on a women’s athletic field, we will.

We fought for more than 50 years for this right. I won’t let it end under my watch.

​Opinion & analysis, Title ix, Democrats, Republicans, Congress, Transgender athletes, Transgender agenda, California, Washington state, 19th amendment, Sports, High school, Track and field, Biological males in women’s sports, Women’s sports, Women’s rights, The courts 

In his first term, President Donald Trump chased Democrats’ laser pointer; now, they’re chasing his. No issue illustrates this like immigration; it’s become the Democrats’ red dot. Whenever, wherever, and however Trump moves it, Democrats can’t help pouncing.

In his first term, Trump reacted to everything Democrats and the establishment media did. He couldn’t help himself, as though always compensating for having lost the 2016 popular vote. Forever taking their bait, his tweets poured forth. His frequently abrupt policy and political changes cost him on Obamacare — and popular support, too. Throughout his first term, Trump never had a favorable job approval rating in the RealClearPolitics Average of national polls.

Of all the things Trump has pursued, nothing has exercised Democrats like his crackdown on illegal immigration.

In his second term, circumstances have markedly reversed. Democrats have been reacting to Trump since before he took office — if not since before he won it.

The tables have turned

Even before his inauguration, Democratic leaders ran to microphones to announce their defiance. As they did, they picked politically questionable issues. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-Ill.) proclaimed he was opening his state to more transgender surgeries; California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) proclaimed support for electric vehicle credits.

When Trump talked about a third term, even with the Constitution clearly blocking it, Democrats and the establishment media were apoplectic. Once in office, they were opposed to the Department of Government Efficiency with equal vehemence.

In short, if Trump proposed it, Democrats opposed it. They couldn’t help taking the bait. However, of all the things Trump has pursued, nothing has exercised Democrats like his crackdown on illegal immigration.

Democrats flounder on immigration

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D-N.J.) , boldly proclaiming that he was harboring an illegal immigrant, dared ICE to come — until ICE said they intended to. Democratic officials stormed a New Jersey ICE holding center. When a Milwaukee judge was arrested for allegedly helping an illegal immigrant avoid ICE capture, Democrats rallied around her, despite a judge’s job being one of impartiality on cases before the bench.

When Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported from Maryland, the accused MS-13 gang member became a Democratic cause célèbre. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) went to El Salvador to have cocktails with Garcia; other Democratic members of Congress followed. Nationwide, Democrats have prominently counseled illegal immigrants on evading ICE.

Still, the Los Angeles uprising this month took Democratic efforts (or lack thereof when it comes to enforcement) to another level. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) — who already had bungled wildfires that caused enormous damage — and Governor Newsom stood by as the city descended into anarchic chaos due to protests over ICE doing its job.

Trump called in the National Guard. Next, the Marines. Meanwhile, Newsom called press conferences — and sued. He sought to cast himself as a political paladin, a knight-errant in defense of not enforcing immigration law.

Democrats feel the pressure

The better term for Newsom and the rest of the Democrats rallying to the cause of blocking the deportation of immigrants in the country illegally would be “knights-in-error.” More accurate in terms of immigration and law enforcement policy, it would be more accurate still in terms of politics.

Having already given Trump a winning issue, they are now gift-wrapping it in images: attacking law enforcement, rioters, outside agitators, destruction, looting, burned-out vehicles, a city aflame. Each picture is a winner for Trump, each one a loser for Democrats.

RELATED: Trump’s immigration crackdown works: 1 million illegal aliens reportedly self-deport

Photo by Rebecca Noble/Getty Images

To understand how big a loser these visuals are for Democrats, just look at the polling numbers.

RealClearPolitics’ final average for President Joe Biden’s job approval on crime was 38% approval and 59% disapproval — a margin of negative 21 percentage points. On immigration, Biden’s final job approval average was 33.5% approval and 64.8% disapproval — a margin of negative 31.3 percentage points.

With negatives like these, why do Democrats insist on fighting on this terrain? Why Trump does is clear: His job approval on immigration is 51.5% approval versus 47% disapproval — a positive 4.5 percentage points.

The figures on reduced illegal immigration and overall crime since he took office only burnish the law-and-order credentials Democrats are thrusting on him.

Americans want immigration reform

Even in California, increased law enforcement is a winner. California’s ballot measure that increased penalties for shoplifting and drug possession — and undid an earlier ballot measure relaxing these — passed overwhelmingly last November.

Non-deluded Democrats have also voiced their concerns with picking this losing fight. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.) have both had the temerity to swim against Democrats’ lemming tide.

Immigration has become a laser pointer for Trump to use on Democrats. With every flash of the red dot, Democrats instinctively respond, each time believing that one more pat of the paw, one more snap of the jaw, and they will have seized what is forever a pounce away.

Contrary to outward appearances, Democrats do, in fact, have an agenda: Trump’s. Or rather, Trump’s agenda has them. And on immigration, it has Democrats right where Trump wants them.

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

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Gavin newsom, Newsom, Democrats, Democrat, Illegal immigration, Illegal immigration crisis, Illegal aliens, Illegal immigrants, Immigration crackdown, Donald trump, Mass deportations, Polls, Jb pritzker 

President Trump last week announced a deal in principle with China: The U.S. will impose 55% tariffs on Chinese goods, while China will respond with a 10% tariff on American goods. In return, China will continue supplying rare earth minerals and magnets, and Chinese students will keep attending American universities. The deal’s finer details remain in flux.

Noticeably absent from the agreement? Any commitment from China to protect American intellectual property. That’s no accident. China denies stealing American IP altogether, chalking up clear examples of theft to normal “market behavior.”

Trump is the first president in half a century to take trade seriously. But tariffs alone won’t fix this.

And in a way, they’re right. IP theft is normal in China. Some of the country’s most successful firms, like Huawei, were built on stolen American technology. For the Chinese Communist Party, theft isn’t an embarrassment. It’s a strategy.

The great Chinese rip-off

In 1983, much of China was still preindustrial. No engines, no tractors, no cars. Labor happened by hand or with the help of animals. Rural China looked a lot like colonial America.

But in just a few decades, China transformed into an industrial superpower. It now produces three times more industrial output than the U.S., including 24 times more steel and far more oceangoing ships. It has the world’s largest economy by purchasing power.

How did they do it? Theft.

RELATED: Without tariffs, the US is defenseless in an economic war

Moor Studio via iStock/Getty Images

A 2024 House Homeland Security Committee report estimates that China steals between $300 billion and $600 billion in American IP annually. A 2017 report from the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property drew similar conclusions. If we use a midpoint estimate and track the losses back to 2001 — when China joined the World Trade Organization — America has lost nearly $10 trillion in intellectual property to China.

China gets this technology in several ways. First, through direct espionage. Only 29% of these operations target military secrets. The rest focus on industrial and commercial tech: manufacturing methods, chemical formulas, blueprints. Espionage alone accounts for roughly $180 billion in losses each year.

Second, through counterfeiting. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 60% of all counterfeit goods sold worldwide come from China. In the U.S., that number rises to 87%. Counterfeiting costs U.S. businesses up to $291 billion per year.

Third, through piracy on Chinese e-commerce platforms. The United States Trade Representative reports that American rights-holders lose billions thanks to widespread digital theft of films, music, software, books, and branded products. Of the $2.16 trillion in Chinese e-commerce sales in 2024, roughly 40% were pirated or counterfeit. That’s $864 billion in lost profits — just last year.

Americans deserve to benefit from their own labor and ingenuity. But China continues to loot our IP with impunity, and our leaders let it happen.

The golden goose gets gutted

Beyond outright theft, China siphons off American technology through strategic corporate acquisitions and forced technology transfers.

The U.S. runs a trade deficit with China of more than $300 billion annually. To cover it, we sell assets — ownership stakes in American companies. Chinese investors target U.S. tech and industrial firms, acquire shares, then funnel proprietary information back to China. Once the intellectual property is transferred, they sell off their holdings.

Technically legal. Strategically disastrous.

China also compels U.S. companies to “partner” with Chinese firms when setting up operations inside the country. The Chinese side runs daily operations and learns the ropes. In exchange, Americans share their tech. Eventually, the Chinese copy the technology, replicate the products, and compete directly with the very companies that taught them.

That’s how Huawei rose to prominence. The company reverse-engineered American products, then used its home-field advantage to grow into the world’s third-largest smartphone maker.

China’s strategy works. And American businesses, addicted to short-term profits, keep falling for it. The consequences aren’t just economic — they’re geopolitical. This is how the CCP turned a rural backwater into a peer competitor.

Trump is the first president in half a century to take trade seriously. But tariffs alone won’t fix this. As I argue in my book “Reshore,” the only way to win this fight is to bring America’s factories home. Reshoring means economic independence. It also cuts off China’s access to the technology they’ve been stealing for decades.

Until then, we’re funding our own decline.

​Opinion & analysis, Donald trump, China, Trade war, Tariffs, Trade, Trade deficit, Debt, Rare earth minerals deal, Intellectual property, Theft, Innovation, Research, Manufacturing, Reshore, Us trade representative, Steel, Imports, Exports 

Naomi Epps Best is a Christian graduate student at Santa Clara University studying family and marriage counseling — and what she was forced to partake in was so inappropriate that she wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed sounding the alarm about her experience.

“One of the final classes I have to do to graduate is called human sexuality, and that is a requirement for marriage and family therapists in California,” Best tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable.”

“But when I first enrolled in this course in summer of 2024, I dug into the syllabus, and I was shocked by the sexual ethic that was being not just presented but promoted. I immediately discovered sadomasochistic erotica,” she explains.

Sadomasochism is when people derive pleasure from inflicting pain on another person, or when people derive pleasure from being hurt.

When Best was forced to read an erotic story that went into disturbing detail as an example of this subject, she was told that it was “an inoculation to sexual content that we might one day come across.”

Even worse, Best was put into a group of four people, including a man, and they were told to “discuss their masturbation.”

“I said no,” she tells Stuckey. “Also in that class, the final exam was an 8-to-10-page comprehensive sexual autobiography. So they were asking us to answer questions like, ‘When did we first start masturbating?,’ ‘What are key sexual moments in our history?,’ ‘Detail our sexual past,’ and ‘What are our erotic goals for the future, and how will we achieve those?’”

“So, when I read that, I said, ‘I’m not writing my sexual inventory for anybody to read.’ So I tried to get an accommodation, and I was denied. The chair said that this requirement has been in place since the 1980s,” Best explains, noting that it’s a violation of the American Psychological Association’s ethical codes.

“As well, there was a pornographic illustration guide that was openly hostile to the Christian faith. It was written, quote, ‘as revenge for my Catholic upbringing,’” she continues. “There were just crude illustrations of all sorts of sex acts with however many number of people, and I didn’t want to read that. I think that it is probably illegal to force me to consume pornography.”

Not only was Best disturbed by the content, but she confirms to Stuckey that it was “purposefully titillating” material.

“So it was supposed to be turning people on,” Stuckey says, disgusted. “I mean, this is what pornography does — it rewires your brain to desire certain things.”

“I mean, the teachers just sound like perverts, and they’re forcing their students to play along in their fetishes. That’s what it sounds like,” she 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, Video, Video phone, Sharing, Free, Youtube.com, Relatable, Allie beth stuckey, Relatable with allie beth stuckey, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Naomi epps best, Family and marriage therapist, Santa clara university, Catholic university, Satanic, Lgbtqia agenda, Leftist agenda 

Congressional hearings can serve the public — when followed by real action. They can expose wrongdoing, shape public opinion, and force accountability. But when the hearings end and nothing follows, they become a substitute for meaningful oversight — a way to check the box and collect headlines without doing meaningful work.

That’s the routine Americans have come to expect: dramatic sound bites, viral clips, and lawmakers patting themselves on the back for sending strongly worded letters. Unless Congress breaks that habit now, the autopen scandal risks becoming just another lost opportunity.

The Biden administration may have dodged the 25th Amendment, but Congress can’t dodge its duty.

Last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing focused on the use of the autopen under President Joe Biden. The stakes couldn’t be higher. As Oversight Project board member Theo Wold put it in his testimony, the United States did not have a fully functioning president for the past four years. Biden’s longtime Senate colleagues know it — and should have testified as fact witnesses. Instead, all but two Senate Democrats — Dick Durbin of Illinois and Peter Welch of Vermont — boycotted the hearing. That includes Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), whose receipt of an autopenned pardon raises a glaring conflict of interest.

Senate Republicans showed up and asked the right questions. They grasped the core issue: Biden’s lack of capacity and his inability to direct subordinates. Unlike previous administrations, the Biden White House appears to have used the autopen not for convenience, but as a way to obscure who actually ran the government — skirting the 25th Amendment without invoking it.

The hearing raised serious constitutional concerns. What happens when top officials prefer an incapacitated president over triggering a process designed to protect the country? Several senators floated the idea of reforming the 25th Amendment. That’s a conversation worth having. But it means nothing without follow-through.

So what should happen now?

First, the Senate should demand every record related to the Biden administration’s use of the autopen. That includes documentation of who authorized its use and a log of every instance it was used. As Wold testified, these records exist — or their absence signals a much deeper problem. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) quickly pledged to pursue them.

Those materials fall under the Presidential Records Act and remain off-limits to the public. Trust me, we would have been in court months ago to procure their release if we could get them. Only Congress or the Trump administration can obtain them. If they stall, they’ll be complicit in the cover-up.

Second, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson must testify. Their book “Original Sin” relied on more than 200 sources. If they know something the public doesn’t, they have a moral — and potentially legal — obligation to come forward. The Senate invited them to the hearing. They declined. The next request should come in the form of a subpoena.

RELATED: Oversight Project over target: Dems seethe as facade of autopen presidency comes crashing down

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Third, Congress should use the same tools the January 6 select committee wielded with abandon. That includes subpoenas for documents, phone and bank records, and private communications from staffers and political operatives who helped prop up the “autopen administration.” If these individuals claim executive privilege, Trump should waive it — just as Biden did during the Jan. 6 probe.

Finally, the House had better follow through. Kentucky Republican Chairman James Comer’s promised interviews and depositions can’t be treated as political theater. They must become the backbone of a real investigation.

Accountability won’t happen unless the public demands it. Americans should track every step — or failure to act — and hold Congress to its promises. The country doesn’t need another performance. It needs answers.

The Biden administration may have dodged the 25th Amendment, but Congress can’t dodge its duty. The biggest scandal in modern American history demands more than six-minute cable news hits and clips for social media. It requires courage, subpoenas, and a willingness to pull every legal lever available.

The public has largely caught on to the ineffectiveness of “strongly worded letters” and now will have a perfect test case to judge whether Congress means business or if it’s the same old tired, do-nothing routine.

It’s time to get off X and into the trenches.

​Opinion & analysis, Joe biden, Dementia, Autopen scandal, Congress, Senate judiciary committee, Investigation, 25th amendment, Oversight project, Constitution, Conflict of interest, Dick durbin, Adam schiff, Jake tapper, Alex thompson, Original sin book, Cover up 

If you’ve never heard the name Elad Gil, you’re not alone. He’s not a headline-chaser or a techno-evangelist. He doesn’t preach on panels. He doesn’t tweet manifestos. He doesn’t need to. His name travels in whispers, passed from boardroom to boardroom like a trade secret. Yet what Gil is quietly engineering could shape the economy for decades, perhaps even forever.

Not through invention, but through subtraction.

Gil made his money the Silicon Valley way — early and often. Google, Twitter, Stripe, Airbnb. He was a ghost in the margins, always one chess move ahead. But now, the ghost is stepping into the light. According to TechCrunch, Gil has turned his attention to service businesses: accounting firms, law offices, and marketing agencies. Stable. Predictable. Bloated with white-collar workers. The kinds of jobs parents once prayed their children would land. And that’s exactly why he’s targeting them.

Is it heartless? That depends on whether you think hearts belong in the workplace.

The model is surgical: Acquire the business, replace the humans with AI, use the freed-up cash to buy the next one, and repeat. Some might refer to it as innovation. I prefer to label it consolidation through automation. A system designed not to disrupt but to dismantle, not just head count but entire categories of human purpose.

Take a beat to really absorb that. Gil isn’t automating the future. He’s converting the present. Turning human institutions — businesses once run by people, for people — into stripped-down algorithmic systems. Places where your skills, your degree, and your job title don’t mean anything any more. Because the thing doing your job now doesn’t sleep, doesn’t complain, doesn’t have flings with colleagues, and doesn’t ask for a raise.

A machine with no need for you

Gil’s investments include Klarity, which uses AI to automate back office work across industries as varied as accounting, finance, health care, insurance, and law – where it helps remove the need for junior associates and legal clerks. Pricey legal work, a crucial upward mobility pipeline for generations, is especially in the crosshairs; there’s also HarveyAI, catching on fast in elite law firms across the U.S. Entire tiers of legal support are becoming obsolete. In marketing, meanwhile, firms like Copy.ai and Jasper are turning copywriters and ad creatives into legacy roles. It’s not “do more with less.” It’s “do everything with code.”

Is it heartless? That depends on whether you think hearts belong in the workplace.

Gil and his cohort don’t. To them, the human being isn’t a collaborator. It’s a friction point. A legacy system waiting to be deprecated. Unlike the robber barons of a century ago — who, however brutally, still depended on human labor to build their empires — today’s technocrats don’t need you. They need your data. Your patterns. Your output, divorced from your existence. This is a different species of capitalism. Not extractive, but excisive.

And let’s be honest — this isn’t just about greedy investors. Gil’s strategy lands because many of these jobs, for years, have been pointless. A generation of college graduates was funneled into open-plan offices to send emails, fine-tune slide decks, and sit through meetings that led nowhere. The “bulls**t job” economy, as David Graeber put it, was never built to last. But that doesn’t mean what replaces it will be better or more humane.

You can call these jobs expendable. Maybe they were. But they still structured lives. They paid mortgages. They gave people routine, insurance, and purpose. They were a way in. And now, increasingly, they’re a way out — out of the economy, out of relevance, out of the social contract.

RELATED: BlackRock’s illusion of choice: Are investors truly empowered — or manipulated?

SOPA/Getty Images

Ontological redesign

Some cheer this shift. Let the accountants go. Let the copywriters retrain. Let the middle managers find something “real” to do. But real where? And for whom?

The jobs replacing these eliminated roles don’t exist — not at scale, not at pay, not with stability. The idea that workers can simply upskill and move into “AI oversight” or “prompt engineering” is a Silicon Valley fairy tale. For every prompt engineer making $300K, there are a hundred people waiting tables or fighting with gig apps for scraps.

When the AI wave rolls over the white-collar workforce, there’s no levee to stop it. No new Roosevelt. No Marshall Plan for knowledge work. Just the slow, quiet disappearance of millions of people from the center of economic life. And when the lights go out in those buildings, when the consultants, creatives, and coordinators vanish from LinkedIn, what comes next?

Nothing.

Gil’s model isn’t just about economic efficiency. It’s about ontological redesign. It asks: What kinds of people should exist in a digital economy? And the answer, increasingly, is: fewer. Fewer thinkers. Fewer doers. Fewer citizens with jobs that anchor them to a class, a community, and a sense of contribution.

What remain are consumers. Subscribers. Passive users of a system run by invisible technocrats who, like Gil, don’t need to advertise. They don’t govern with slogans. They govern with math. With marginal gains. With software that logs on when you’re asleep and decides that, actually, you’re no longer needed.

There are no protests for this kind of change, no uprisings, and no villains twirling mustaches on TV. The great erasure is happening in silence — in HR spreadsheets, calendar invites that never get sent, and job postings that never go live.

And the most sinister part?

It works.

Profits go up. Costs go down. Investors cheer. Business schools start case studies. Politicians, desperate not to look Luddite, parrot the line that “AI will create more jobs than it destroys.” And they may even believe it.

But such a belief doesn’t mirror reality. In fact, it ignores it.

The automated and displaced

Let’s say you’re 42, mid-career, working at a regional law firm or a mid-tier marketing agency. You’re not a thought leader. You’re not building apps in your spare time. You’re just … working. Supporting a family, trying to get ahead.

Your firm gets acquired by one of Gil’s AI-forward portfolio companies. Your job is “automated.” No severance, just a link to an AI help center and a webinar about how to “future-proof your skills.” Good luck. Try Fiverr. Try Upwork. Try not to drown. The truth is, people like you don’t get retrained. You get sidelined.

And the longer you’re out, the harder it gets to claw your way back in. Not because you’re unqualified, but because the rules changed in the blink of an eye. Because the economy stopped needing you.

To be fair, Gil didn’t invent this trajectory. He’s just executing it more efficiently — and more quietly — than most. He’s not building a Terminator. He’s building infrastructure. Tools, workflows, and systems designed to remove human labor the way a surgeon removes a tumor: cleanly, clinically, with minimal disruption to the host.

But make no mistake. Once you strip out enough of those pieces, the whole system fails. Not with a bang, but with quiet resignation. So when your child asks what job he should pursue, what do you tell him? If a degree in law or accounting can be outpaced by an LLM trained on Reddit threads and the Harvard Law Review, where does that leave stability? What becomes of upward mobility or any sense of security at all?

Gil may not be the architect of dystopia, but he is its quiet contractor, making acquisitions one at a time.

The question isn’t whether we stop him. It’s whether we recognize what he represents and whether we’re willing to fight for a future in which relevance isn’t defined by whether or not you can be replaced by a line of code. Because if we don’t, then the most terrifying part won’t be what Gil builds.

It’ll be what he no longer needs.

Us.

​Ai, Elad gil, Lifestyle, Big tech, Attention economy, Return 

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance answered tough questions about the successful U.S. attack on Iran in a pair of interviews on Sunday morning.

The Trump administration is touting the success of “Operation Midnight Hammer” in which a fleet of B-2 bombers flew deep into Iran and obliterated sites known to be associated with Iran’s nuclear development capabilities. Iran has not yet retaliated but had issued numerous threats against the U.S. before the strike.

‘It will have a lot more impact on the rest of the world, a lot more impact on the rest of the world. That would be a suicidal move on their part because I think the, the whole world would come against them if they did that.’

Rubio had a lively discussion that veered into debate with Margaret Brennan of “Face the Nation” on CBS News. Brennan tried to corner Rubio on whether the U.S. was pressing for regime change in Iran in their exchange, but Rubio made it clear that their only goal was to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

“A serious foreign policy is one that’s focused on identifying what our national interest is. You don’t have to like the regime,” said Rubio.

“There are a lot of regimes around the world that we don’t like. Okay, but in this particular case, what we are focused on is not the changing of the regime. Okay, that’s up to the Iranian people if they want to do that, but that’s not what we’re focused on. Our national interest is about one thing, and that is Iran not getting anywhere near the capability to weaponize and have nuclear weapons. They’re not going to get anywhere near that capability. The President has made that clear from day one,” he continued.

“Our preference for solving that problem, that very specific problem, is through diplomacy. We’ve said that. We’ve given it every opportunity. They played games, they tried delay tactics,” Rubio added.

RELATED: President Trump threatens Iran with further attacks in national address touting ‘spectacular military success’

Rubio considered the possibility of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, a move that would significantly imperil the oil trade, and warned that Iran would earn the ire of the entire globe if it did so.

“If they mine the Straits of Hormuz, the Chinese are going to pay a huge price,” he said. “And every other country in the world is going to pay a huge price. We will too. It will have some impact on us. It will have a lot more impact on the rest of the world, a lot more impact on the rest of the world. That would be a suicidal move on their part because I think the, the whole world would come against them if they did that.”

Brennan also pressed Rubio on the national intelligence assessment that found no evidence that Iran’s supreme leader had ordered nuclear weaponization. Rubio argued that this didn’t matter because Iran had all the elements to enrich uranium and obtain nuclear weapons.

“That’s irrelevant. I see that question being asked in the media, that’s an irrelevant question, they have everything they need to build the weapon,” Rubio said before getting interrupted by Brennan.

“That is the key point in U.S. intelligence assessments. You know that,” she replied.

“No it’s not,” he fired back. “I know that better than you know that, and I know that that’s not the case. You don’t know what you’re talking about…”

Rubio went on to say the intelligence didn’t matter and he pummeled Brennan with the known evidence that Iran could obtain nuclear weaponization if unopposed.

“Forget about intelligence. What the IAEA knows they are enriching uranium well beyond anything you need for a civil nuclear program,” he said. “So why would you enrich uranium at 60%, if you don’t intend to one day use it to take it to 90% and build a weapon? Why are you why are you developing ICBMs? Why do you have 8000 short range missiles and two to 3000 long- mid range missiles that you continue to develop?”

“Understood,” she replied.

Rubio also asserted that the U.S. would respond if Iran retaliated against U.S. bases in the Middle East.

‘If they continue to support terrorism, nuclear weapons programs, then they’re going to find overwhelming American force from the American military.’

In an interview with Jon Karl on “This Week” on ABC News, Vance stayed consistent with the messaging from the White House that their only goal with the bombing operation was to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. He also warned that the U.S. was prepared to respond with “overwhelming force” if Iran retaliated.

“If they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon, you’re also going to see overwhelming force from the American people. So, we’ve got really the ball in Iran’s court here,” he said.

“If they make smart decisions, I think they’re going to find us willing to work with them. If they continue to support terrorism, nuclear weapons programs, then they’re going to find overwhelming American force from the American military. That is really the choice before the Iranians. And that’s a choice only they can make.”

RELATED: DOD reveals stunning new details following Trump’s attack on Iran

Vance also responded to a comment from Dmitri Medvedev, the former president of the Russian Federation, who said that Iran still had nuclear enrichment capabilities and their program would continue.

“I think it’s a bizarre response, but I also don’t know that that guy speaks for President Putin or for the Russian government,” said the vice president.

“One of the things that we’ve picked up, Jon, in our conversations with the Russians over the last few months, despite our many disagreements, of course, with the state of Russia, they’ve been very consistent that they don’t want Iran to get a nuclear weapon,” Vance explained.

“Iran having a nuclear weapon, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, is a disaster for pretty much everybody. It’s one of the few issues where Russia, China and the United States have broad agreement is that we don’t want to see a nuclear arms race in the Middle East,” he added. “So, what the president did was very important. I’ll let President Putin speak to what the official Russian position on this is.”

While it is too early to assess if Iran’s nuclear capabilities have been completely wiped out, Vance said that the operation ensured that Iran no longer has the capacity to obtain weapons-grade uranium.

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

​Operation midnight hammer, Jd vance on iran strike, Marco rubio on iran strike, Iran retaliation to us, Politics 

In what may come as a shock to many, Chad O. Jackson believes that the civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. was not the force for good that he’s been celebrated as, but rather a “force for bad” and a “detriment to black culture.”

“The propaganda really made him larger than life, especially in the wake of his being martyred,” Jackson tells BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock on “Fearless,” noting that a huge claim made after he rose to fame was that racial relations were now “good.”

“When it comes to race relations being quote, unquote, good, I think a lot of it is sophistry,” Jackson explains. “Because what it really is, Jason, is white people walking on eggshells around black people so as not to offend them, so as not to say the wrong thing, so as to look cool.”

“It turned black people into a protected class, and that was the worst thing that I think could happen to black Americans,” he continues. “Because you get this sense of entitlement, this kind of walking around being smug.”

“I mean, black people today can be openly racist against white people. You see it on national television, no less, and sports and movies. It’s just everywhere. And so, you mean to tell me that’s an example of improved race relations?” he adds.

Whitlock doesn’t disagree with Jackson, noting that “we’re living in that time where smart people and brave people are openly questioning everything we’ve been taught.”

“One of the main reasons I do it is because I look at how big and bold the lies are that are being told right now. We went through a 10-, 15-year period of Black Lives Matter. From Trayvon Martin all the way through George Floyd, where the mainstream media was telling us there was a genocide being executed by police against black men,” Whitlock explains.

“I just saw, hold on, the media is pretending there’s this wild epidemic and pandemic, and the Bloods and the Crips are not a threat; it’s the police,” he adds.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

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

​Upload, Camera phone, Video, Video phone, Sharing, Free, Youtube.com, Fearless with jason whitlock, Fearless, Jason whitlock, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Martin luther king, Chad o jackson, Mlk project, Civil rights, Black lives matter, Mlk exposed 

California drivers, brace yourselves. Starting July 1, 2025, you could be paying 65 cents more per gallon — pushing gas prices to a staggering $8 by 2026.

Why? Because California regulators, fresh off the repeal of the federal electric vehicle mandate, are going full speed ahead with stricter clean fuel standards — which critics say amount to a hidden tax and a deliberate attempt to force drivers into electric vehicles.

‘This is engineered to make gas so expensive you’re forced into an EV, whether you want one or not.’

Back in November, the California Air Resources Board — an unelected group appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom — voted to update the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The new rules penalize gasoline and diesel producers and reward low-carbon fuel options like EV charging infrastructure.

Cleaner fuels, higher prices

CARB’s goal is to cut the carbon intensity of transportation fuels 30% by 2030 and 90% by 2045. Fuel producers that exceed carbon limits must purchase credits, a cost that gets passed straight to you at the pump. While regulators tout benefits like reduced air pollution and $4 billion in new clean energy investments, experts project these rules will raise gas prices by 47 to 65 cents per gallon next year — and possibly $1.50 more by 2035.

Meanwhile, two major California refineries are shutting down, reducing capacity by over 8%. That means less supply and even higher prices. Some forecasts, including one from the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, warn of $8 gas by 2026.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calls it “blatant price gouging” by an “unelected board of wealthy bureaucrats.” He’s filed a public records request to expose what he says is a coordinated effort to bypass voters and crush gas-powered mobility.

About climate — or control?

The timing of this update is no accident. It came just days after the 2024 election, ignoring nearly 13,000 Californians who petitioned for a delay. Republican Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil, co-sponsor of a bill to repeal the changes, warns that rural and working-class Californians can’t afford the hike.

Even after the Office of Administrative Law paused the plan in early 2025 due to procedural issues, CARB was given 120 days to revise and resubmit — keeping the threat alive.

RELATED: California gas-car ban overturned by Senate

The Enthusiast Network/Getty Images

Despite growing backlash, CARB has refused to revise its original 47-cent cost estimate, even as outside experts warn it could be far higher. Climate economist Danny Cullenward slammed the board’s secrecy, saying it erodes public trust.

Jones put it more bluntly: “This is engineered to make gas so expensive you’re forced into an EV, whether you want one or not.”

California in charge?

California’s policies don’t stop at its borders. About a dozen other states — covering 35% of the U.S. population — have adopted its EV sales targets, including the 2035 gas vehicle ban. States like New York, Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts are now weighing how to enforce similar goals without federal backup.

While none of these states has matched California’s aggressive LCFS update, many use credit-based emissions programs that punish traditional fuels. Meanwhile, California’s refinery closures could send regional gas prices up 10 to 20 cents, even in states that don’t adopt LCFS-style rules.

The result? A creeping increase in gas prices across the country, driven not by market forces but by regulatory agendas.

Not buying it

An AAA survey earlier this month found that 63% of Americans are unlikely to buy an EV, citing cost, insurance, and lack of charging stations. In California, where electricity rates are double the national average, even charging an EV isn’t much cheaper than filling a tank. With EV financing averaging $783 per month and $105 billion in taxpayer subsidies on the line, the current system favors wealthier households — while working families pay more for both gas and electricity.

And it’s not just pump prices. The added costs ripple through the economy — affecting groceries, shipping, manufacturing, and transportation. The combined impact of the LCFS hike, refinery closures, and a scheduled excise tax bump could raise gas prices by as much as 90 cents per gallon in 2025.

Meeting consumers, not mandates

The auto industry is responding to real-world demand — not government mandates. With the federal EV mandate repealed, manufacturers are shifting their focus to hybrids and fuel-efficient gas cars while scaling back some EV plans. While new EV factories are still being built, carmakers are hedging their bets, giving consumers more options, not fewer.

That’s a refreshing contrast to California’s top-down approach.

Freedom vs. forced transition

California defends its LCFS update as a critical step toward its 2045 net-zero target. But critics argue that the environmental benefits are exaggerated and the economic burden is real. EVs, for instance, release 26% more tire particulate pollution than gas cars, posing their own environmental risks.

And if gas really hits $8 per gallon, the state’s policies may not just be unaffordable — they’ll be unsustainable.

Whether you live in California, Nevada, Arizona, or a state following California’s lead, this is about more than gas. It’s about who decides how you live and what you drive. With the federal EV mandate off the table, it’s time to ask: Should unelected regulators in Sacramento get to control the fuel in your tank?

Taking back the wheel

Will lawmakers block the 65-cent hike? Will other states follow California’s lead? If you care about affordability and choice, now’s the time to make your voice heard. This isn’t just about a gallon of gas — it’s about the freedom to drive what works for you.

For more on this, check out my video here.

​Gas prices, California, Lifestyle, Ev, Ev mandate, Donald trump, Align cars 

If you haven’t noticed, Mark Zuckerberg is having a midlife crisis, and unfortunately for the rest of us, he’s got billions of dollars to work through it.

After fumbling Llama — Meta’s answer to ChatGPT that landed with all the impact of a jab from Joe Biden — and watching OpenAI’s ChatGPT become a household name while his chatbots gathered digital dust, Zuck is now throwing nine-figure salaries at anyone who helps usher in superintelligence. In other words, godlike AI. The kind that will apparently save humanity from itself.

The warning signs were all there. First came the pivot to jiu-jitsu. Then the hair. Out with the North Korean intern bowl cut, in with a tousled look that whispers, “I read emotions now.” And then — God help us — the gold chains. Jewelry. On a man who once dressed like a CAPTCHA test for “which one is the tech CEO.”

We’re likely looking at AI trained on the digital equivalent of gas station hotdogs — technically edible, but nobody with options would choose them.

Call me a skeptic. I’ve been called much worse. The same man who turned Facebook into a digital landfill of outrage bait and targeted ads now wants to control the infrastructure of human thought. It’s like hiring an arsonist to run the fire department, then acting confused when the trucks keep showing up late and the hoses are filled with gasoline.

Diversifying dopamine

Facebook’s transformation from college networking tool to engagement-obsessed chaos engine wasn’t an accident — it was the inevitable result of a company that discovered outrage pays better than friendship. While Google conquered search and Amazon conquered shopping, Meta turned human connection into a commodity, using Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp to harvest emotional reactions like a digital strip mine operated by sociopaths.

The numbers tell the story: Meta’s revenue jumped from $28 billion in 2016 to over $160 billion today, largely by perfecting the art of keeping eyeballs glued to screens through weaponized dopamine. The algorithm doesn’t care if those eyeballs are watching cat videos or cage fights in a comment section; it just wants them watching, preferably until they forget what sunlight feels like. Now, Zuckerberg wants to apply this same ruthless optimization to artificial intelligence.

The pattern is depressingly familiar: Promise connection, deliver addiction. Promise information, deliver propaganda. Promise intelligence, deliver … what, exactly? Given Meta’s track record, we’re likely looking at AI trained on the digital equivalent of gas station hotdogs — technically edible, but nobody with options would choose them.

The growth trap

Zuckerberg’s AI pivot reveals a fundamental truth about modern tech giants: They’re trapped in their own success like digital King Midases, except everything they touch turns to engagement metrics instead of gold. Sure, Meta still owns three of the most used platforms on Earth. But in the age of AI, that’s starting to feel like bragging about owning the world’s nicest fax machines.

Relevance is a moving target now. The game has changed. It’s no longer about connecting people — it’s about predicting them, training them, and replacing them. And in this new arms race, even empires as bloated as Meta must adapt or die. This means expanding into whatever territory promises the biggest returns, regardless of whether they’re qualified to occupy it. It’s venture capital Darwinism: Adapt or become irrelevant.

RELATED: Mark Zuckerberg is lying to you

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

When your primary product becomes synonymous with your grandmother’s political rants and your uncle’s cryptocurrency schemes, you need a new story to tell investors. AI superintelligence is that story, even if the storyteller’s previous work involved turning family dinners into ideological battlegrounds.

The Altman alternative

Comparing Zuckerberg to Sam Altman is like asking whether you’d rather be manipulated by someone who knows he’s manipulating you or someone who thinks he’s saving the world while doing it. Altman plays the role of philosopher-king well. Calm and composed, he smooth-talks AI safety as he centralizes power over the very future he’s supposedly protecting. Zuckerberg, by contrast, charges at AI like a man chasing relevance on borrowed time: hyperactive, unconvincing, and driven more by fear of obsolescence than any coherent vision.

The real question isn’t who is worse. It’s why either of them — men who have already reshaped society with products built for profit, not principle — should now be trusted to steer the next epoch of human development. Altman at least gestures toward caution, like a surgeon warning you about risk while sharpening the scalpel. Zuckerberg’s model is simpler: Keep breaking things and hope no one notices the foundations cracking beneath them.

Zuckerberg’s real genius (if you can call it that) lies in understanding that controlling AI isn’t about making the smartest algorithms. It’s about owning the infrastructure those algorithms run on, like controlling the roads instead of building better cars. Meta’s massive data centers and global reach mean that even if its AI isn’t the most sophisticated, it could become the most ubiquitous.

This is the Walmart strategy applied to AI: Undercut the competition through scale and distribution, then gradually degrade quality while maintaining market dominance. Except instead of selling cheap goods that fall apart, Meta would be selling cheap thoughts that fall apart — and taking your society with them.

The regulatory void

The most alarming part of Zuckerberg’s AI crusade isn’t his history of turning every good intention into a cautionary tale. It’s the total absence of anyone capable of stopping him. Regulators are still trying to untangle the damage social media has done to public discourse, mental health, and America itself, like archaeologists sifting through digital rubble. And now they’re expected to oversee the rise of artificial superintelligence? It’s like asking the DMV to run SpaceX: painfully unqualified, maddeningly slow, and guaranteed to end in catastrophe.

By the time lawmakers figure out what questions to ask, Zuckerberg will already own the answers and probably the lawmakers too. The man who testified before Congress about data privacy while reaping user info like a digital combine harvester now wants to build the systems that will make those hearings look quaint. It’s regulatory capture with a time delay.

Zuckerberg’s AI venture will likely follow the same trajectory as every other Meta product: promising beginnings, rapid scaling, quality degradation, and unintended consequences that make the original problem look like a warm-up act. The difference is that when social media algorithms prioritize engagement over accuracy, people share bad takes and ruin Thanksgiving dinner. When AI systems optimize for the wrong metrics, the collateral damage scales exponentially, like going from firecrackers to nuclear weapons.

The man who promised to “connect the world” ended up fragmenting it like a digital sledgehammer. The platform that pledged to “bring the world closer together” became a master class in division, turning neighbors into enemies and family reunions into MMA fights. Now he wants to democratize intelligence while building the most centralized cognitive infrastructure in human history.

Mark Zuckerberg has never built anything that worked as advertised. But this time is different, he insists, with the confidence of a man who has never faced consequences for being wrong. This time, he’s not just connecting people or sharing photos or building virtual worlds that nobody visits. He’s building artificial minds that will think for us, decide for us, and presumably share our private thoughts with advertisers.

What could go wrong?

Everything. And if and when it does, there won’t be a “delete account” button. The account will be your mind, and Mark Zuckerberg will own the password.

​Mark zuckerberg, Meta, Sam altman, Open ai, Ai, Return 

A 66-year-old grandmother traveled to an Aldi grocery store on the South Side of Chicago one afternoon earlier this month — and she had her 6-year-old grandson in tow, CWB Chicago reported.

After parking in the Aldi lot, the grandmother pulled her purse from the trunk of her black 2024 Buick SUV, and she and her grandson began walking toward the grocery store, the outlet said, citing a detention proffer from Cook County prosecutors.

Gilmore got away in the victim’s SUV, prosecutors told the outlet, adding that surveillance video captured the June 8 incident in its entirety.

But what began as an everyday shopping trip soon took a terrifying turn.

RELATED: Second suspect arrested after suburban Chicago couple obediently handed over valuables to armed males in front of their home

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

Prosecutors told CWB Chicago that 18-year-old Keshawn Gilmore confronted the grandmother with a black handgun and demanded the grandmother’s keys and even “grappled” with her as her young grandson stood nearby.

Gilmore got away in the victim’s SUV, prosecutors told the outlet, adding that surveillance video captured the June 8 incident in its entirety.

The suspect soon ran out of luck, however.

License plate readers on the Dan Ryan Expressway picked up the stolen SUV around 4:30 p.m., CWB Chicago said, adding that Chicago police spotted the vehicle around 30 minutes later near 19th Street and Albany.

RELATED: ‘I’ll blow your head off’: Carjacking victim threatened crook after turning the tables on him. Now carjacker learns his fate.

Photo by Joseph Weiser/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images

Gilmore was behind the wheel, prosecutors told the outlet, adding that two passengers also were in the vehicle.

More from CWB Chicago:

When officers tried to stop the vehicle, Gilmore allegedly sped off, running red lights and stop signs. But the chase ended two minutes later when Gilmore crashed at 3200 South Kedzie, ejecting a juvenile passenger from the SUV’s back seat. All three occupants, including the juvenile, fled. But cops caught Gilmore, still wearing the same clothing seen in the Aldi video, officials said.

Police allegedly found a Glock handgun on the driver’s floorboard, its “distinct shape” matching the weapon in the store video, and a second handgun on the passenger floorboard, prosecutors said in a detention petition.

Judge Shauna Boliker ordered Gilmore detained as a safety risk, the outlet said, adding that he faces charges of aggravated vehicular hijacking, aggravated fleeing, aggravated possession of a weapon, unlawful transportation of a stolen vehicle, and resisting police.

The Cook County Sheriff’s Office on Thursday told Blaze News that Gilmore was still in custody with no bond listed.

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

​Arrest, Carjacking, Chicago, Grandmother, Grandson, Crash, Police chase, Aldi, Crime 

On a recent episode of “Kibbe on Liberty,” Matt Kibbe sat down with nationally recognized political changemaker Steven Olikara, senior fellow for political transformation at the USC Schwarzenegger Institute and the founder of Millennial Action Project (now Future Caucus), the largest nonpartisan organization of young elected leaders in the U.S.

In their conversation, the two expressed their hopes that populism — a political approach that aims to represent the interests of commoners against a perceived elite or establishment — will eventually conquer the two-party system that crushes the voice of the people.

The current political culture in America, says Olikara, has both Republicans and Democrats saying, “We know what’s best for you,” but what they should be saying is, “We want to hear from you.”

Kibbe, a self-described “libertarian populist,” agrees, arguing that populism is “the right side of history because the other side is the machine” — “a collusion of government power and corporate power.”

The question is, can populism garner enough support to break the political establishment?

The answer, says Olikara, is yes. Support for populism is high. The issue is the entrenched elites who rig the system to snuff out any non-establishment opponent.

In his experience campaigning in the 2022 U.S. Senate primary in Wisconsin as a Democrat with a strong bent towards populism, his team would “get the most applause out of all the candidates” at campaign events, and yet they could rarely secure a debate to get their “ideas out to a statewide audience” because “all the other campaigns in the party were making an extra effort to make sure there were no debates.”

On the rare occasion he did secure a debate, he was often declared the winner. However, “just as those sparks were flying, the Democratic establishment effectively ended the race 10 days before the election,” says Olikara. “They said, ‘We don’t want to wait to hear what the people have to say. We’re going to violate our bylaws and endorse the establishment candidate.”’

Despite Olikara’s popularity, Mandela Barnes, a well-known Democrat with strong party support, was endorsed by key figures, making his win in the primary nearly certain.

“I got phone calls from a number of senior Democratic leaders calling to apologize to me why they’re not only breaking their bylaws but breaking their promise that they had made to me to be neutral in the primary,” says Olikara, noting that these leaders will admit they’re more concerned about money and control than the people’s voices being heard.

“If you just let ideas breathe a little bit, if you let people express their voices, that’s the kind of democracy I believe in,” he says.

Kibbe shares Olikara’s sentiments, comparing the current two-party system to having “Taylor Swift” or “the most obnoxious country musician” as your only options for music. “I like the democracy that is Spotify, where I can listen to my weird, very fringy … versions of music that I like,” he analogizes.

Unfortunately, for now it’s Swift or honky-tonk. “They make it so that you have to choose their candidate or that really bad guy on the other side,” Kibbe laments. “We go through this cycle every two to four years, and it’s pretty disheartening for anybody that imagines that we could give people in democratic America choices that they would actually be proud of.”

However, President Trump’s 2016 rise to power as a system-breaker is proof that populist movements can challenge the two-party establishment.

“He’s the first guy to sort of take over a party, at least since maybe since Abe Lincoln,” says Kibbe. “Now he is the party, so it was impossible to run against him in his last primary.” But even though Trump proved the system could be broken, “the Democrats seem still hell-bent on preventing a real primary.”

Olikara is hopeful that in 2028, Democrats will allow “the first truly open democratic primary since 2007 and 2008,” when Barack Obama — “not the establishment candidate” — “emerged and defeated the Clinton machine,” a victory he says is “on par with Trump winning the 2016 Republican primary against the establishment.”

“The moment is perfect for it — like there’s clearly no field-clearing candidate. It’s wide-open. Democrats are in the wilderness now, which usually means a new voice, a new movement, can emerge,” he says. “It’s all set up for them, and yet there’s a good chance they still shoot themselves in the foot.”

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

Want more from Matt Kibbe?

To enjoy more of Matt’s liberty-defending stance as he gets in the face of the fake news establishment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Matt kibbe, Libertarian, Populism, Donald trump, Barak obama, Steven olikara, Blazetv, Blaze media, Kibbe on liberty 

I spent the first nine months of my life separated from my mother — not because of cruelty or neglect, but because Ireland enforced its immigration laws.

My mother, a U.S. citizen in her late 20s, traveled to Ireland to visit her brother while pregnant with me. Medical complications during her pregnancy made further air travel unsafe, and she overstayed her visa. After my birth, Ireland’s immigration rules required her to leave while officials sorted out my paperwork.

A nation without enforcement invites chaos, and chaos always hurts the most vulnerable first.

As a result, I — a U.S. citizen by birth and by heritage — spent my infancy with a foster family in a foreign country.

I don’t blame Ireland for enforcing its laws. I don’t blame my mother for traveling when it was risky. Life handed us a difficult situation, but the government didn’t become the villain. That experience taught me a truth that applies directly to America’s current debate over deportation and family separation.

Enforcement isn’t cruelty

My story doesn’t qualify as a sob story. It’s simply the fact of the matter. For years, activists and media outlets have flooded Americans with emotional tales of children separated from their parents during deportation. The usual narrative paints Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents as soulless monsters tearing families apart for sport.

That’s nonsense.

I lived through separation. I understand the pain. But I also understand something else: Nations enforce laws not because they’re heartless, but because they must.

RELATED: One bad order could undermine Trump’s strongest issue

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

My mother’s visa violation led to our temporary separation. The U.S. does the same to those who violate our immigration laws. These actions don’t stem from hatred or malice. They serve the purpose of preserving order, national sovereignty, and the rule of law.

I know what loss feels like

I spent my earliest months far from the woman who gave me life. I never had the chance to meet my father — he was murdered before I could know him. My mother died of cancer when I was 7. Separation and loss defined my childhood.

But I’ve never blamed the Irish government for upholding its laws. Immigration enforcement didn’t cause my father’s death. It didn’t cause my mother’s cancer. Life brings tragedy, sometimes with no one to blame.

Emotional pain doesn’t make law enforcement unjust. It makes law enforcement necessary. Countries must uphold their borders. And when they fail to do so, real people suffer — on both sides of the law.

The American system is under siege

The United States faces a historic immigration crisis.

In 2019, during President Trump’s first term, ICE arrested approximately 143,000 aliens and removed more than 267,000. In 2024, under Joe Biden, those numbers shifted: 113,431 arrests, 271,484 removals — despite over 11 million border encounters during his term. That dwarfs the roughly 3 million encounters under Trump’s entire administration.

The Department of Homeland Security also reports that 1.4 million inadmissible aliens received parole into the country’s interior. As of mid-2024, nearly 650,000 criminal illegal aliens remained on ICE’s non-detained docket — free to roam the United States.

That doesn’t seem like compassion. That’s more like collapse.

These figures signal a breakdown of accountability. And when laws go unenforced at this scale, tragedy doesn’t just grow — it multiplies.

Responsibility, not blame

I only had a handful of years with my mother. I understand the impulse to blame something — or someone — when that kind of pain hits. But blame rarely leads to truth. It deflects responsibility and gives emotional suffering a temporary target.

It’s a political crutch as much as a psychological one. But what if we stopped pointing fingers and started taking responsibility? Every choice brings consequences. That’s not cruelty — it’s Newton’s third law in action.

Walk into someone’s home uninvited, and that person has every right to call the police. Try to explain away the trespass, and it won’t change the fact that the law exists to protect the homeowner. If we accept that principle at the level of private property, we should respect it at the level of national borders.

Not every story is the same

My situation 30 years ago was different from what we see today. My mother, aside from a parking ticket, had no criminal history. She didn’t intend to break the law. In contrast, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 44% of prosecuted illegal immigrants today already have a criminal record.

I didn’t arrive in America through human smugglers. I wasn’t trafficked. I wasn’t handed over to a fraudulent sponsor.

I came home because my grandfather — a World War II veteran and political organizer — fought for me. He used every resource he had, including connections to Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), to bring me back to the United States. I flew across the Atlantic on the lap of a decorated American soldier, finally returning to the country that already recognized me as its own.

We owe the next generation better

That’s why I can’t accept the argument that lawlessness is compassion. It isn’t.

We owe it to every child born here, raised here, or separated like I was not to replace justice with sentimentality. A nation without enforcement invites chaos, and chaos always hurts the most vulnerable first.

This debate isn’t about cruelty. It’s about sovereignty. It’s about clarity. It’s about preserving a system that works for those who follow the law — and holding accountable those who don’t.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Immigration, Immigration crisis, Immigrants, Immigration enforcement, Law enforcement, Donald trump, Immigration and customs enforcement, Deportations, Visa overstay 

The globalist fairy tale is finally unraveling — and not a moment too soon.

For decades, Americans were sold the shiny promise of globalization: open markets, booming trade, cheaper goods, and peace through economic integration. But behind the glittering sales pitch was a brutal reality — the slow, deliberate hollowing out of the American middle class.

Trump’s tariffs are not just about trade. They’re about rebuilding what our elites sold off piece by piece.

Enough of this.

President Donald Trump’s recent announcement on tariffs sent the elites — those who profited most from this decades-long experiment — into full panic mode, and for good reason. Their gravy train may finally be running out of track.

This isn’t about economic theory. This is about the lives, livelihoods, and dignity of the American people — especially those in towns and cities that once hummed with the sound of industry.

How it started

The North American Free Trade Agreement was the appetizer in a global feast that served American manufacturing to foreign competitors on a silver platter. Even President Bill Clinton, at the NAFTA signing ceremony in 1993, seemed eager to get past the domestic details and embrace the coming wave of globalization.

By the early 2000s, the United States was importing at unprecedented rates. Today, the trade deficit with the European Union alone is $235 billion. That’s not trade — that’s surrender. Our deficit with Europe hasn’t fallen below $100 billion since 2011.

None of this happened by accident.

It began with a handshake in 1972, when President Richard Nixon traveled to Mao Zedong’s China. At the time, China was riding bicycles and rationing rice. No one imagined that opening the door to trade would lead to the economic superpower we face today.

But by 2001, that door had been blasted open. China joined the World Trade Organization, committing to lower tariffs and removing trade barriers. American markets were flooded with cheap Chinese goods — and American workers were left holding an empty lunch pail.

The result was a trade deficit with China that ballooned to $295 billion last year. That’s the largest deficit we have with any country. Our total trade deficit in 2024 was a record $1.2 trillion — the fourth consecutive year topping $1 trillion.

The human toll

The fallout from this one-sided relationship with China is staggering. A 2016 MIT study found that, in the decade following China’s World Trade Organization entry, the U.S. lost 2.4 million jobs — nearly a million in manufacturing alone. The researchers concluded that international trade makes low-skilled workers in America “worse off — not just temporarily, but on a sustained basis.”

You’d think a quote like that would be plastered across every office in Congress. But no. The political class — especially on the left — chose to ignore it.

Instead, they wring their hands in confusion when working-class Americans turn to a leader like Donald Trump. “Why are they so angry?” they ask, while standing atop the wreckage of towns they helped dismantle.

About that wreckage

In Galesburg, Illinois, Maytag once employed 5,000 workers. The last refrigerator rolled off the line in 2004. The site is now rubble and weeds.

Youngstown, Ohio — once a titan of American steel — has lost 60% of its population since the 1970s. Gary, Indiana, once home to U.S. Steel’s largest mill, has over 10,000 abandoned buildings. In Flint, Michigan, over 80,000 GM jobs vanished. By 2016, over half of men ages 25 to 54 in Flint were unemployed. Buick City, once a symbol of industrial might, was demolished in 2002.

Detroit, once richer than Boston, is now 40% poorer. The U.S. auto parts industry lost 419,000 jobs in the decade after China joined the WTO.

Even NPR admitted that “the China Shock created what looked like miniature Great Depressions” in these areas.

From dream to despair

Between 2000 and 2014, America lost 5 million manufacturing jobs — the steepest decline in American history.

Meanwhile, in the same time period, corporate profits soared 600%. CEO pay has ballooned to 290 times that of the average worker. In 1965, it was 21 times. Since 1978, CEO compensation has grown by over 1,000%. Regular worker pay? Just 24%.

They told us the rising tide would lift all boats. Turns out, it mostly lifted yachts. And the rest of the boats? Capsized.

This economic assault came with a steep psychological toll.

A 2017 Princeton study found a link between rising deaths of despair — suicide, alcoholism, drug overdoses — and job losses in trade-exposed areas.

Since 1999, overdose deaths in America have increased sixfold. In Ohio, they rose 1,000% between 2001 and 2017. The hardest-hit areas? Deindustrialized, working-class communities.

The American middle class is vanishing. In 1971, 61% of households were middle class. By 2023, it was just 51%. In 1950, manufacturing jobs made up 30% of total U.S. employment. Today, they make up just 8%.

RELATED: Why tariffs are the key to America’s industrial comeback

Bet_Noire via iStock/Getty Images

There are fewer Americans working in manufacturing today than there were in 1941 — before we entered World War II — despite our population more than doubling.

This collapse hit black workers especially hard. Between 1998 and 2020, more than 646,000 manufacturing jobs held by black Americans disappeared — a 30% loss in that sector.

A reckoning long overdue

Trump’s tariff push is a long-overdue confrontation with the failed consensus of globalization. For 25 years, the arrangement has been spectacular — for China and for U.S. corporations chasing cheap labor. But for America’s workers and towns, it has been catastrophic.

Yes, the corporate press is scoffing. CBS News recently “fact-checked” Trump and Vice President JD Vance’s claim that America has lost 90,000 factories since NAFTA. The correct number, they said, was actually 70,500.

Oh? Only 70,500? As if that’s supposed to be reassuring.

These aren’t merely statistics. These are livelihoods — entire communities turned into ghost towns. Every shuttered factory was once a promise of stability, dignity, and upward mobility. And with each closure, that promise was betrayed.

We’ve allowed globalization to crush the backbone of this country — the working men and women who don’t show up on CNBC but who built the very foundation we all stand on.

Trump’s tariffs are not just about trade. They’re about sovereignty. They’re about self-respect. They’re about rebuilding what our elites sold off piece by piece.

This is not a perfect plan. But it’s the first real attempt in decades to confront the human cost of globalization. It’s a wager that America can still choose dignity over dependence, self-sufficiency over servitude.

Let’s hope we’re not too late.

​Opinion & analysis, Free trade myth, Free trade, Tariffs, Rust belt, Globalization, Nafta, Bill clinton, China, World trade organization, Trade deficit, Debt, Jobs, Offshore, Reshoring, Exports, Imports, Richard nixon, Mao zedong, Mit, Gary indiana, Galesburg illinois, Flint michigan, Youngstown ohio, Ceo, Salaries, Drugs, Addiction, Overdose deaths, Manufacturing, World war ii 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine revealed stunning new details following President Donald Trump’s historic strikes against Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday.

Hegseth and Caine confirmed deception was involved to execute “Operation Midnight Hammer,” commending the American military who “performed flawlessly” during the mission. Part of the fleet of B-2 bombers flew West over the Pacific as a decoy while the “main strike package” headed East before striking Iran at about 6:40 pm Eastern Standard Time.

‘When this president speaks, the world should listen.’

Hegseth also clarified that only the Iranian nuclear targets were “devastated” and that civilians were not targeted.

“Many presidents have dreamed of delivering the final blow to Iran’s nuclear program, and none could, until President Trump,” Hegseth told reporters during a press conference Sunday. “The operation President Trump planned was bold and it was brilliant, showing the world that American deterrence is back when this president speaks, the world should listen.”

“No other country on planet Earth could have conducted the operation that the chairman is going to outline this morning, not even close,” Hegseth added.

RELATED: President Trump threatens Iran with further attacks in national address touting ‘spectacular military success’

Caine also confirmed that American troops in the region were not notified in advance of the strikes, but were placed on high alert due to increasing tension and risk in the region.

“This operation underscores the unmatched capabilities and global reach of the United States military,” Caine said. “As the President clearly said last night, no other in the military in the world could have done this.”

Operation Midnight Hammer was executed without any internal leaks, only notifying members of Congress immediately after the strike took place.

Hegseth also reiterated that the president does not intend to escalate the conflict to a full blown war, but has threatened Iran with further military action if they retaliate.

RELATED: Praise, prayers, and impeachment: Reactions pour in following US attack on Iran

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

“As President Trump has stated, the United States does not seek war, but let me be clear,” Hegseth said. ‘We will act swiftly and decisively when our people, our partners, or our interests are threatened. Iran should listen to the president of the United States and know that he means of it every word.”

Trump announced the attack shortly after he arrived at the White House on Saturday afternoon. Notably, the president didn’t speak with the press when he stepped off of Marine One and onto the South Lawn, but he did pause to admire his new towering flag poles before entering the White House.

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

​Donald trump, Pete hegseth, Dan caine, Dod, Department of defense, Israel, Iran, Middle east, Iran strike, Iran bombing, Iran nuclear program, Operation midnight hammer, White house, Trump administration, Peace through strength, No new wars, Politics