Category: blaze media

Suddenly, artificial intelligence is everywhere — generating art, writing essays, analyzing medical data. It’s flooding newsfeeds, powering apps, and slipping into everyday life. And yet, despite all the buzz, far too many Americans — especially conservatives — still treat AI like a novelty, a passing tech fad, or a toy for Silicon Valley elites.

Treating AI like the latest pet rock tech trend is not only naïve — it’s dangerous.

The AI shift is happening now, and it’s coming for white-collar jobs that once seemed untouchable.

AI isn’t just another innovation like email, smartphones, or social media. It has the potential to restructure society itself — including how we work, what we believe, and even who gets to speak — and it’s doing it at a speed we’ve never seen before.

The stakes are enormous. The pace is breakneck. And still, far too many people are asleep at the wheel.

AI isn’t just ‘another tool’

We’ve heard it a hundred times: “Every generation freaks out about new technology.” The Luddites smashed looms. People said cars would ruin cities. Parents panicked over television and video games. These remarks are intended to dismiss genuine concerns of emerging technology as irrational fears.

But AI is not just a faster loom or a fancier phone — it’s something entirely different. It’s not just doing tasks faster; it’s replacing the need for human thought in critical areas. AI systems can now write news articles, craft legal briefs, diagnose medical issues, and generate code — simultaneously, at scale, around the clock.

And unlike past tech milestones, AI is advancing at an exponential speed. Just compare ChatGPT’s leap from version 3 to 4 in less than a year — or how DeepSeek and Claude now outperform humans on elite exams. The regulatory, cultural, and ethical guardrails simply can’t keep up. We’re not riding the wave of progress — we’re getting swept underneath it.

AI is shockingly intelligent already

Skeptics like to say AI is just a glorified autocomplete engine — a chatbot guessing the next word in a sentence. But that’s like calling a rocket “just a fuel tank with fire.” It misses the point.

The truth is, modern AI already rivals — and often exceeds — human performance in several specific domains. Systems like OpenAI’s GPT-4, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s Gemini demonstrate IQs that place them well above average human intelligence, according to ongoing tests from organizations like Tracking AI. And these systems improve with every iteration, often learning faster than we can predict or regulate.

Even if AI never becomes “sentient,” it doesn’t have to. Its current form is already capable of replacing jobs, overseeing supply chain logistics, and even shaping culture.

AI will disrupt society — fast

Some compare the unfolding age of AI as just another society-improving invention and innovation: Jobs will be lost, others will be created — and we’ll all adapt. But those previous transformations took decades to unfold. The car took nearly 50 years to become ubiquitous. The internet needed about 25 years to transform communication and commerce. These shifts, though massive, were gradual enough to give society time to adapt and respond.

AI is not affording us that luxury. The AI shift is happening now, and it’s coming for white-collar jobs that once seemed untouchable.

Reports published by the World Economic Forum and Goldman Sachs suggest job disruption to hundreds of millions globally in the next several years. Not factory jobs — rather, knowledge work. AI already edits videos, writes advertising copy, designs graphics, and manages customer service.

This isn’t about horses and buggies. This is about entire industries shedding their human workforces in months, not years. Journalism, education, finance, and law are all in the crosshairs. And if we don’t confront this disruption now, we’ll be left scrambling when the disruption hits our own communities.

AI will become inescapable

You may think AI doesn’t affect you. Maybe you never plan on using it to write emails or generate art. But you won’t stay disconnected from it for long. AI will soon be baked into everything.

Your phone, your bank, your doctor, your child’s education — all will rely on AI. Personal AI assistants will become standard, just like Google Maps and Siri. Policymakers will use AI to draft and analyze legislation. Doctors will use AI to diagnose ailments and prescribe treatment. Teachers will use AI to develop lesson plans (if all these examples aren’t happening already). Algorithms will increasingly dictate what media you consume, what news stories you see, even what products you buy.

We went from dial-up to internet dependency in less than 15 years. We’ll be just as dependent on AI in less than half that time. And once that dependency sets in, turning back becomes nearly impossible.

AI will be manipulated

Some still think of AI as a neutral calculator. Just give it the data, and it’ll give you the truth. But AI doesn’t run on math alone — it runs on values, and programmers, corporations, and governments set those values.

Google’s Gemini model was caught rewriting history to fit progressive narratives — generating images of black Nazis and erasing white historical figures in an overcorrection for the sake of “diversity.” China’s DeepSeek AI refuses to acknowledge the Tiananmen Square massacre or the Uyghur genocide, parroting Chinese Communist Party talking points by design.

Imagine AI tools with political bias embedded in your child’s tutor, your news aggregator, or your doctor’s medical assistant. Imagine relying on a system that subtly steers you toward certain beliefs — not by banning ideas but by never letting you see them in the first place.

We’ve seen what happened when environmental social governance and diversity, equity, and inclusion transformed how corporations operated — prioritizing subjective political agendas over the demands of consumers. Now, imagine those same ideological filters hardcoded into the very infrastructure that powers our society of the near future. Our society could become dependent on a system designed to coerce each of us without knowing it’s happening.

Our liberty problem

AI is not just a technological challenge. It’s a cultural, economic, and moral one. It’s about who controls what you see, what you’re allowed to say, and how you live your life. If conservatives don’t get serious about AI now — before it becomes genuinely ubiquitous — we may lose the ability to shape the future at all.

This is not about banning AI or halting progress. It’s about ensuring that as this technology transforms the world, it doesn’t quietly erase our freedom along the way. Conservatives cannot afford to sit back and dismiss these technological developments. We need to be active participants in shaping AI’s ethical and political boundaries, ensuring that liberty, transparency, and individual autonomy are protected at every stage of this transformation.

The stakes are clear. The timeline is short. And the time to make our voices heard is right now.

​Opinion & analysis, Artificial intelligence, Grok, Chatgpt, Open ai, World economic forum, Goldman sachs, Unemployment, Liberty, Surveillance, Globalism, Disruption, Economy, Deepseek ai, Luddites, Big tech, Big government 

With his Blue Origin space cadettes safely back on terra firma, Jeff Bezos has turned his attention to a more earthly concern: shaking up the auto industry.

Bezos-backed EV company Slate Auto unveiled its stripped-down, $20,000 answer to Tesla’s pricey Cybertruck in Long Beach on Thursday.

Like the iconic Model T, the Truck is affordable, customizable, and American-made.

The compact, two-seat pickup is the key to the tech mogul’s latest ambitious plan: to make EVs affordable for the average American. Priced at $27,500 before a $7,500 federal tax credit, it’s designed to undercut competitors like Tesla’s Cybertruck, which starts at a whopping $82,235.

The problem? That very same EV tax credit may soon be on President Trump’s chopping block.

Can Slate Auto’s bid succeed? Here’s why this truck is a potential game-changer — in spite of the hurdles it faces.

Crank windows, no screen

True to its no-frills name, the Truck is a master class in simplicity. The base model comes with crank windows, no infotainment screen, and unpainted plastic body panels.

Want music? There’s a phone mount and an optional Bluetooth speaker.

The Truck is a throwback to the days when vehicles were about function, not flash. With a 150-mile range from a 52.7-kWh battery (or 240 miles with an optional upgrade), it’s built for practicality, boasting a 1,400-pound payload and 1,000-pound towing capacity.

Plus, it can transform into a five-seat SUV with a conversion kit, offering versatility that’s rare at this price point.

The Truck may be a direct challenge to Elon Musk’s EV dominance, but it also seems to have taken its cues from another automative visionary: Henry Ford.

To a T

Like the iconic Model T, the Truck is affordable, customizable, and American-made.

Slate assembles the cars in Indiana, then bypasses dealerships — and avoids the usual markups — with its direct-to-consumer sales model. The “We Built It, You Make It” ethos encourages owners to personalize with accessories, from color wraps to speakers, potentially boosting Slate’s profits through high-margin add-ons.

With $111 million raised in 2023 and backing from heavyweights like L.A. Dodgers owner Mark Walter, Slate has the financial muscle to see this through.

Credit pulled?

But here’s the catch: That $20,000 price hinges on a federal EV tax credit that may vanish under Trump’s policies. Without it, the Truck’s cost creeps into the $30,000 range, especially if consumers opt for upgrades like power windows or a paint job.

Many potential buyers — think retirees or young workers — may not qualify for the credit anyway, as it’s income-based. Add to that the EV market’s cooling demand, with Cox Automotive noting average EV prices at $59,205, and Slate faces a tough road.

Competing against established players like Ford’s $26,995 Maverick, Slate must prove its reliability as a startup, a challenge that sank Fisker and Lordstown Motors.

So will Slate’s Truck succeed or fail? It’s a brilliant concept for budget-conscious buyers craving a simple, American-made EV. But without tax incentives and with a volatile market, Slate’s success will depend on flawless execution and consumer trust.

For now, Bezos has thrown down the gauntlet, and you can bet Musk is paying attention.

Prime opportunity

Slate isn’t Bezos’ first turn into the EV lane. In 2019, Amazon invested $700 million in EV startup Rivian, pledging to buy some 100,000 delivery vans by 2030. So far, that deal has been more about sustainability PR than the bottom line. While Rivian claims to be inching toward profitability, the company continues to operate at a loss.

Trump is the only threat to Slate’s ability to compete on price. Soon after the Truck’s launch, Tesla announced plans for an even cheaper entry-level EV. The vehicle — likely a more basic version of the 2025 Model Y SUV — is expected to start production in June.

Here’s an idea: Why not go with a name consumers already know and love? “Amazon launches EV pickup truck.” These cars will sell themselves — especially if you throw in free insurance for Prime members.

​Align cars, Lauren fix 

A federal judge issued a scathing ruling against the Trump administration for an executive order issued against the Perkins Coie law firm that she claimed violated the Constitution in numerous ways.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said Friday that the order violated three separate amendments to the Constitution and ordered that it be permanently blocked.

‘Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power.’

Perkins Coie is known for its involvement in the Trump dossier debacle, where dubious documents were collected in an attempt to substantiate accusations against President Donald Trump that he was colluding with the Russian government.

Howell said in the 102-page ruling that Trump’s order against the firm violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth amendments.

“Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution, which requires that the government respond to dissenting or unpopular speech or ideas with ‘tolerance, not coercion,'” she wrote.

She compared Trump to a character from Shakespeare’s play Henry VI, who famously says, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” and explained that the order was in the same direction as totalitarianism.

“Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power,” she explained.

Howell had previously issued a temporary ruling against parts of the order and criticized the administration for violating the First Amendment.

“Regardless of whether the president dislikes the firm’s clients, dislikes the litigation positions the law firm takes in vigorous representation of those clients, or dislikes the results Perkins Coie achieved for its clients,” Howell wrote, “issuing an executive order targeting the firm based on the president’s dislike of the political positions of the firm’s clients or the firm’s litigation positions is retaliatory and runs head-on into the role of First Amendment protection.”

Howell was appointed by former President Barack Obama.

“I am sure that many in the legal profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through here,” Howell said in the previous ruling.

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

​Trump vs perkins coie, Perkins coie, Judge beryl howell, Judge howell vs trump, Politics 

A viral video showing a Pennsylvania woman defecating on the hood of another person’s car led to her arrest on Thursday.

The graphic video was captured by a bystander who posted it to Instagram. Prospect Park police investigated the video and identified the woman as 44-year-old Christina Solometo of Ridley Park.

The police chief lamented that the news coverage had given the city a bad reputation.

The incident occurred on 4th Street and Madison Avenue in Prospect Park on Tuesday. Police said the woman’s actions were the result of road rage after one person cut another person off in traffic. The owner of the car didn’t report the incident to police.

Solometo was charged with indecent exposure, disorderly conduct, criminal mischief, harassment, and depositing waste on a highway.

She was recorded yelling at a reporter, “I have a sickness!” as she was being place into a police cruiser.

Solometo’s family told WCAU-TV that there was more to the story and only said that they were seeking legal representation.

The police chief, David Madonna, lamented that the news coverage had given the city a bad reputation.

“I know it’s being joked on a lot. There’s all kinds of puns and innuendos online, but bottom line: We are treating it seriously. It can’t happen in this community. No town wants this to happen in their town,” said Madonna. “The recognition a town gets over this kind of thing, it’s really unwelcome. We don’t want this.”

He said that news agencies across the globe had contacted them for a comment about the case.

Solometo was also recorded laughing while in police custody, and she flashed a broad grin in her booking photo.

Video of the incident with some parts blurred out can be viewed on the Fox digital news report on YouTube.

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

​Viral video defecation, Road rage defecation, Prospect park defecation, Crime, Christina solometo 

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has reintroduced the aptly named PELOSI Act in Congress, which aims to ban members of Congress from engaging in insider trading.

The bill’s title, the PELOSI Act, stands for “Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments” — which is essentially calling out former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the questionable way she made millions in the stock market.

“Most members of the public think it’s already banned,” Hawley explained in a statement regarding the proposed act. “And when I say, ‘Actually, it’s 100% legal,’ they say, ‘Why?’ And there’s no good answer to that question.”

“Nancy Pelosi is the poster child for all of this,” Sara Gonzales of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” comments. “I mean, you’ve seen her estimated net worth — $250 million.”

“I’m not a mathematician, but I have a hard time understanding how someone who makes $175,000 a year in Congress for the 289 years that she’s been alive somehow ends up with a net worth of $250 million,” she continues.

The act would not completely ban elected officials from investing, as they could still invest in mutual funds, ETFs, and U.S. treasuries.

However, Gonzales isn’t hopeful things will change.

“The problem here is that I don’t think this will ever happen, because there are too many people on both sides of the aisle who are doing this right now,” Gonzales says. “They are profiting off of their position, and it just feels like there’s no end in sight.”

“You’ve got a couple of good guys like Josh Hawley who’s like, ‘Hey, we should do this.’ You’ve got a couple of good guys like Ted Cruz who are like, ‘Hey, we should have term limits.’ And the rest of them are like, ‘Nah, let’s just do this forever and get really rich,’” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

​Free, Upload, Sharing, Video phone, Camera phone, Video, Youtube.com, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Sara gonzales, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Nancy pelosi insider trading, The pelosi act, Senator josh hawley, Josh hawley, Corrupt politicians, Congress corruption 

A “settlement in principle” has been reached in the $30 million federal wrongful death lawsuit by the estate of Ashli Babbitt against the federal government, two attorneys said in a hearing in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on Friday afternoon.

No terms were disclosed in a hastily called hearing before U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes. The hearing was scheduled to handle a motion from Terrell N. Roberts III, Babbitt’s previous attorney, who on May 2 sought a restraining order and a lien for at least 25% of the gross amount of any settlement.

‘I have no idea why you’re talking right now.’

Judge Reyes ultimately denied Roberts’ request for a temporary restraining order, but not before the tense hearing descended into shouting. At one point, she repeatedly snapped at a Judicial Watch attorney representing Aaron Babbitt and the estate of his late wife.

Judicial Watch filed the $30 million wrongful death lawsuit in January 2024, alleging the federal government bears responsibility for Ashli Babbitt’s death during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd fatally shot Babbitt. The Biden administration later moved the case from San Diego to Washington, D.C., a change Judicial Watch has opposed.

The suit claims Byrd acted negligently when he stepped from a concealed position inside the House Speaker’s Lobby and fired a single shot at 2:44 p.m. as Babbitt attempted to climb through a shattered window. According to the complaint, Byrd failed to follow the proper use-of-force protocols and violated multiple departmental policies.

A trial in the suit is scheduled for July 2026.

Photo by Joseph M. Hanneman/Blaze News

During the hastily called hearing, Reyes scolded Judicial Watch attorneys Robert Sticht and Richard Driscoll for allegedly not communicating with Roberts quickly enough regarding the potential settlement.

Judge Reyes, nominated to the bench by former President Joe Biden in 2022, repeatedly lost her temper during the 30-minute proceeding. At one point she shouted, “Mr. Stitch [sic], stop talking! Stop talking!”

At the time, Sticht (pronounced “sticked”) was explaining that Judicial Watch objects to Roberts being a party to the case as an “intervenor” while settlement negotiations are ongoing. He said even after a settlement agreement is signed, Roberts would have at least 30 days to seek attorney’s fees for his work.

The judge again cut him off.

“I have no idea why you’re talking right now,” Reyes said. “It’s not responsive to anything Mr. Driscoll and I are talking about right now, OK?”

Sticht replied, “Oh, it is.”

“Mr. Stitch [sic], it’s really not,” Reyes snapped. “You know how I know it’s not relevant? I’m the one who determines whether I think it’s relevant. I’m telling you it’s not only not relevant; it’s totally unresponsive to what Mr. Driscoll and I are talking about.”

Attorneys said they hope to get a settlement agreement signed by May 8. Judge Reyes had already set a May 12 hearing to handle Roberts’ original February 2025 motion to intervene in the case and seek attorney’s fees. Judicial Watch filed its objections to that motion shortly after.

Roberts said he received a phone call from a national news media outlet on May 1 saying a settlement had been reached in the Babbitt lawsuit. He told the reporter he knew nothing about it. Roberts filed the motion for the temporary restraining order at 10:40 a.m. Friday.

Photo by Sam Montoya/Blaze News

When Sticht made a remark about Roberts getting his case information from a reporter, Judge Reyes cut him off.

“When I tell you just stop talking, you stop talking. And you are not going to make snide remarks in your responses to my questions that are not only snide but don’t answer my question,” Reyes said. “OK? So my question is not about where Mr. Roberts gets his information.”

“I’m frankly quite annoyed that a national reporter got to Mr. Roberts before any of you,” the judge added. “I just think that is beyond unprofessional.”

Judge Reyes said she could not understand why Judicial Watch did not respond to Roberts in the hours before Friday’s hearing was scheduled. She also said Roberts should have contacted Judicial Watch sooner to advise them of his motion.

‘Your objection is noted.’

Roberts said he had tried to reach Sticht and Driscoll shortly before he filed the motion Friday morning.

“But that does not excuse you all not trying to reach Mr. Roberts to try to head this off at the pass by making the simple point that, yes, there was a settlement in principle,” Judge Reyes said. “I mean, that would’ve been just a matter of professional courtesy to call Mr. Roberts back since he didn’t have the information when he called you in the morning.”

Judicial Watch attorneys said the Justice Department lawyers drafted the agreement in principle late Thursday. Sticht said he had not yet reviewed it.

Judge Reyes suggested Babbitt’s attorneys were not being fully forthcoming, which prompted an objection by Sticht.

“From on now on, anything settlement related, you all need to be in communication with each other [in] real time,” Reyes said. “All right? I’m done with this, ‘I … have this little bit of piece of the case and so [I] can’t tell you anything about this other piece of the case.’”

Photo by Aaron Babbitt

“I object to that, your honor,” Sticht replied.

“Your objection is noted,” the judge replied, not allowing Sticht to continue.

Driscoll told the judge that his only role in the Babbitt matter is representing Aaron Babbitt and Ashli Babbitt’s estate regarding attorney Roberts’ efforts to become an intervenor.

Roberts told Judge Reyes he has no desire to be a party to settlement discussions, but wants timely notification of finalization of any settlement so he can seek a lien.

Reyes ordered the parties to file a status report on May 5 or 6.

Aaron Babbitt hired Roberts on Jan. 18, 2021, and Roberts investigated the killing in preparation for filing a lawsuit. Roberts withdrew from the case in late February 2022, and Judicial Watch later agreed to represent Babbitt in seeking justice for his late wife.

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

​Politics 

A California man has been found guilty of murdering his ex-girlfriend. Police say her final moments were recorded on a chilling voicemail.

The true crime tragedy began on Sept. 2, 2020, when 25-year-old Laura Sardinha changed her locks at her apartment because she was in fear of her ex-boyfriend — 39-year-old Craig J. Charron. Sardinha also had a restraining order placed against him, which several other women reportedly had done as well.

‘Cold-hearted murder.’

That same day, Sardinha was on a three-way phone call with her mother and her best friend around 1:15 p.m.

However, the call was interrupted for a horrific reason.

Despite all of her precautions, Charron allegedly broke into Sardinha’s apartment unit.

She allegedly screamed, “Oh my God, he’s here!”

Sardinha’s friend hung up the phone call and contacted 911.

Soon, Sardinha reportedly called her friend back and left a chilling 37-second voicemail message that would record her final tragic moments.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Sardinha was heard screaming, “He’s gonna kill me!”

The woman also allegedly yelled, “Get away from me!”

Police arrived at the crime scene to find Sardinha dead and Charron bleeding from wounds to his chest and neck.

‘He was the aggressor 100% of the time.’

Charron’s attorney, Michael Guisti, argued during the trial that his client acted in self-defense.

However, prosecutors asserted that Charron inflicted the stab wounds on himself with a serrated steak knife to make it appear as a self-defense case.

“It doesn’t matter if he self-inflicted wounds, or if she defended herself,” Orange County Deputy District Attorney Janine Madera stated. “He was the aggressor 100% of the time.”

At about 6-feet tall and weighing 220 pounds, Charron stood about nine inches taller and weighed over 100 pounds more than Sardinha, prosecutors noted.

“She can’t cut lemons and limes reliably with a knife, let alone defend her life,” Madera claimed. “He towered over her.”

Madera described Sardinha’s death as “cold-hearted murder” and said of the voicemail recording, “You don’t hear the defendant on it, and his silence is absolutely deafening. He’s enjoying taking his time killing her.”

Madera noted in her closing statements at Charron’s Tuesday trial in Santa Ana that “if you listen to it carefully, you hear a woman narrating her own murder.”

Charron claimed during the trial that he could not recall much of the encounter with Sardinha but described it as “hazy.”

However, Charron insisted that Sardinha had threatened him with a knife and that he stabbed his ex-girlfriend only in self-defense.

During the trial, Charron reportedly described himself as a former combat medic with a 100% disability rating who had received psychiatric treatment at a United States Department of Veterans Affairs hospital.

“I didn’t quite comprehend what was happening in the moment,” Charron claimed. “It’s taking me a second to understand I’m being cut up.”

During the trial, three of Charron’s ex-girlfriends testified that they had taken out restraining orders against him.

“One woman said he choked her and hit her in the head with a wine bottle,” according to the Times. “Another said he slapped her and poured vodka on her head. A third said he pinned her to a wall and punched a man who was in her company.”

After less than one day of deliberations, a jury found Charron guilty of first-degree murder. He faces a maximum punishment of life in prison.

Charron is scheduled to be sentenced on July 25.

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

​Murder, True crime, True crime news, Homicide, California crime, Crime, Guilty verdict 

Mass immigration has had a profound impact on many industries in America, and one of them is the trucking industry — which the Trump administration is tackling with an executive order.

According to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, the executive order “will be an order directing the Department of Transportation to include English literacy tests for our truckers.”

“This is a big problem in the trucking community, that unless you’re in that community, you might not know. But there’s a lot of communication problems between truckers on the road with federal officials and local officials as well, which obviously is a public safety risk,” Leavitt explained in a recent press conference.

“So we’re going to ensure that our truckers, who are the backbone of our economy, are all able to speak English,” she continued.

Gord Magill, trucker and author of “End of the Road,” has warned that it’s not just benign communication issues occurring — but that they can and have turned deadly.

“We have all these extra drivers on the roads who do not speak English, and that’s sort of a problem given that the language of the road is English. All your highway signs are in English, all your weather reports are in English, all of your enforcement officers are in English,” Magill tells Jill Savage and Matthew Peterson of “Blaze News Tonight.”

“What happened is that the accident statistics for trucks started to increase, so you started seeing more collisions and more people involved in fatal collisions,” Magill continues, noting that it all began after Biden’s “trucking action plan.”

“There was a COVID demand spike, which is why Biden did this trucking action plan, and then that dissipated, and we’ve been in what’s called a freight recession basically for the last three years, and American legacy trucking companies, mom and pops, medium-sized carriers, have been going out of business left, right, and center,” he explains.

“But this number of insource drivers remains the same, and more and more of them are getting in accidents. Like the statistics show an increase year-over-year since 2016 since this loophole was opened and has been going higher since 2021,” he adds.

Want more from ‘Blaze News Tonight’?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Blaze media, Blaze news tonight, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Blaze podcast network, Blaze podcasts, Blazetv, Camera phone, Free, Immigration crisis, Joe biden, Mass immigration crisis, Mass immigration trucking, President donald trump, President trump, Sharing, Trucker crisis, Truckers, Trucking, Upload, Video, Video phone, Youtube.com 

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Illinois over state efforts against businesses using a federal program meant to weed out illegal aliens from being hired and competing with U.S. citizens for jobs.

Illinois officials have implemented legislation that complicates and discourages the use of E-Verify and threatens to punish businesses with fines for noncompliance. The federal government alleges that the “Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act” infringes on federal immigration authority.

‘Such advance notice requirements could prompt an alien employee to not show up to work on the day of inspection or avoid detection …’

“This Department of Justice is committed to protecting American workers, employers, and enforcing federal immigration law,” said U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi in a press release about the lawsuit.

“Any state that incentivizes illegal immigration and makes it harder for federal authorities to do their job will face legal consequences from this administration,” she added.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, signed the bill in August after it was passed by the legislature, and it went into effect in January just as President Donald Trump entered office.

Critics of the law said that it put employers in an untenable position, as they faced fines from the state if they followed federal law, but faced federal fines if they followed the state law. The state law could impose fines as high as $10,000 for noncompliance.

“Not only are these fines inconsistent with federal law, but such advance notice requirements could prompt an alien employee to not show up to work on the day of inspection or avoid detection by immigration authorities,” read the press release.

Illinois state Sen. Javier Cervantes, a Democrat, who was the primary sponsor of the law, said that it was intended to “protect marginalized workers from unfair enforcement action during their employment.”

Chad Mizelle, Bondi’s chief of staff, praised the lawsuit on social media.

“We are going after Illinois for restricting E-Verify. To eliminate illegal immigration, encourage self-deportations, and protect U.S. workers, we MUST shut off unlawful job access,” wrote Mizelle.

“There will be consequences for any state that incentivizes illegal immigration,” he added.

Illinois Democrats had previously run afoul of the courts after they simply banned the use of E-Verify by employers in 2007. That law was found to be in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and shut down in 2009.

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

​Trump sues illinois, E-verify in illinois, Trump vs illinois, Illinois immigration, Politics 

For years, many have suspected that the Biden administration deliberately allowed criminals to enter the U.S. through lax border policies.

A breaking report has just revealed that it’s true — the Biden administration knowingly released illegal immigrant convicted sex offenders into the nation.

To get the scoop on this bombshell report, Sara Gonzales spoke with journalist Breanna Morello, host of “The Breanna Morello Show,” who just yesterday unveiled exclusive U.S. Department of Homeland Security documents obtained through a lawsuit, documenting the release of convicted sex offenders into the United States.

“What we’re now learning is that the Biden regime released convicted sex offenders into the United States. We know this because the documents that the administration said didn’t exist suddenly now exist,” says Morello.

The documents Morello refers to are a series of forms that were used to process illegal alien convicted sex offenders before their release into the country.

The first form required these criminals to “[register] for a sexual deviancy counseling program within 14 days of them being released into the United States.” The second form required them “to register as a sex offender here in the United States” within “seven days” of their release.

“Also in these documents is a checklist for supervisors, who are going through each sex offender to verify that they’ve done what they should be doing according to the Biden administration, and it also includes contacting the victims or the witnesses of the … crime that took place … and making sure that they’re aware that these individuals have been released into the United States,” Morello explains.

Sara’s jaw is on the floor.

“DHS knew that these people were sex offenders, and they said, ‘It’s OK, because they’re going to sign a document, and they’re going to super duper pinky swear that they are not going to do it anymore, and they’re going to sign up as a sex offender, and we’re just going to take their word for it.’ Like that’s actually what was happening?” she asks.

“Yeah,” is Morello’s frank answer. “They thought by making them go to sexual deviance classes … that they were somehow going to be productive members of society.”

Even more disturbing is the fact that many of these convicted sex offenders were permitted to board domestic commercial flights in the United States using DHS documents, which included details of their sex offender status, as identification.

When Morello submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to TSA to find out if illegal immigrants had been permitted to board commercial flights without standard IDs during the Biden administration, she was ignored.

After suing TSA, she eventually obtained the DHS documents, which not only proved that convicted sex offenders were released into our country but also that TSA agents used their DHS paperwork identifying them as sex offenders to permit boardings.

Morello filed the lawsuit in 2024 but only received the documents after the Trump administration took office and a new FOIA officer complied.

“That means between DHS, ICE, and TSA, all of these agencies were completely neglecting their oath, and their oath is to protect the American people,” says Morello.

The Biden regime “purposely infiltrated our country with people who they knew would be a danger to American citizens. To me, this is the clear-cut definition of treason,” says Sara. “You have people like Laken Riley who lost their lives to these illegal sexual predators, and you have to wonder how many of those people, who killed and raped American citizens, were on that freaking list to begin with.”

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

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

​Sara gonzales, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Blazetv, Blaze media, Breanna morello, Illegal immigration, Biden regime, Open borders, Biden open borders, Dhs, Tsa, Ice 

New jobs numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey show that the rate of government workers who work from home has plummeted precipitously.

The work-from-home rate was one of the criticisms that President Donald Trump lobbed at federal workers once he took office, and it appears that the Department of Government Efficiency has taken a toll.

‘A downward plunge for federal workers clearly happened after President Trump took office.’

The analysis was published by Mike Konczal, the senior director of policy and research at the Economic Security Project.

Konczal found that the work-from-home rate among government workers severely dropped since Trump took office in January.

Prior to Trump taking office, the work-from-home rate among federal government workers was far higher than that of private workers and state government workers. The rate peaked at about 35% near Election Day in November and began falling until it hit 18.2% in the latest numbers from April.

At the same time in November, state government workers worked from home at a rate of about 24% and private workers worked at about a rate of 22%, far lower than the federal rate.

Federal government workers now work from home at a lower rate than private workers, whose rate is 20.8%, and state government workers, whose rate is 21.9%.

Konczal said that the drop in work-from-home rates must be a result of the efforts from Trump and the DOGE.

“While monthly numbers have some volatility and aren’t seasonally adjusted, a downward plunge for federal workers clearly happened after President Trump took office, pushing federal remote work below the private sector after being elevated,” he wrote.

But he also argued that cutting telecommuting costs more in the long run and decreases overall “state capacity.”

In January, Trump signed an executive order calling on all department heads to “terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person.” Many of the work-from-home policies were left over from the shutdown from the coronavirus pandemic.

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

​Doge victories, Doge vs work from home, Work from home rate drops, Trump vs federal worker, Politics 

Republican Governor Ron DeSantis’ administration has offered the federal government an extensive plan as to how Florida can marshal its assets and resources to increase the number of deportations, a key campaign promise made by President Donald Trump as a solution to the Biden-Harris border crisis.

The Florida Immigration Enforcement Operations Plan, obtained by Blaze News, outlines the efforts being made at the state level now, the problems the state is running into, and the solutions the state can provide if given approval from the federal government.

“We are proposing an integrated federal-Florida state approach that encompasses the entire illegal alien identification-apprehension-detention-removal cycle. We believe that this approach could be leveraged to mitigate many of the bottlenecks that attend to the detention and removal portions of the existing cycle, not just in Florida but nationally,” the report says.

One part of the removal process that has been cited as a big obstacle is the lack of detention space that would be required to hold the number of illegal aliens necessary to carry out mass deportations.

The FIEO report states there are several brick-and-mortar locations in the northeastern and southcentral regions of the state that could serve as detention centers. Due to Florida’s robust response to natural disasters, the state’s emergency management division and its partners can “establish detention centers capable of housing up to 10,000 undocumented aliens. … These facilities can be fully operational within 72 hours and require up to 96 hours to begin setup.”

‘There may come a time when, without federal assistance, a long-term immigration support mission may become fiscally untenable.’

The problem is that while the detention centers can be brought up to requirements set by the National Detention Standards used by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the “standards are so limiting that many county jails cannot meet the standard. … It is anomalous that facilities adequate to confine U.S. citizens are not deemed adequate to house illegal aliens.”

The report calls for the Department of Homeland Security to suspend the NDS while ensuring detainees’ needs are met.

To help with illegal immigrants who want to self-deport, the Florida Division of Emergency Management “is able to supply personnel to assist with purchasing commercial flights for eligible individuals, limited to those that do not have a criminal record.” Self-deportations are “the least fiscally demanding course of action available.”

FDEM would also be the agency responsible for carrying out state-run deportation flights, but ICE “must specifically request assistance and must reimburse the state for actual costs.”

DeSantis revealed on Thursday that he is recommending using the Judge Advocate General’s Corps within the National Guard to act as immigration judges. Training for the JAGs would be conducted by the Department of Justice, not DHS.

“To serve as Immigration Judges, JAGs must be federally activated (Title 10) to exercise immigration authority; JAGs could not support in State Active Duty under the command of the Governor and would be directed/stationed at the needs of the federal government,” the FIEO explains.

The FIEO report does warn that the “federal government has shown itself to be very hesitant to commit to any form of reimbursement to past or future immigration operations. There may come a time when, without federal assistance, a long-term immigration support mission may become fiscally untenable.”

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

​Politics 

The family of a pro-Palestinian protester says that their home was raided by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who were investigating the posting of officers’ personal information.

Annie Yang and YuZong Chang told KABC-TV that they were awakened by investigators from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security at their Irvine home in California on Thursday morning.

Drone video captured ICE agents entering the Irvine neighborhood on Thursday morning, and neighbors recorded video from their windows.

The couple said the officers were looking for their son, Michael Chang. His father told KABC that they were investigating posters that exposed personal details of ICE officers in public places in Los Angeles about three months prior.

“They say they traced back the IP,” said Yang.

“They want to find out what’s Michael’s involvement in this,” said Chang.

Drone video captured ICE agents entering the Irvine neighborhood on Thursday morning, and neighbors recorded video from their windows.

The couple said that officers did not find their son but instead took the family’s router and hard drive as part of a criminal search warrant. Chang said that their family photos were stored on the confiscated hard drive.

“I asked the agent if they wanted to talk to him directly, because we have no clue. So we did, along with the agents, so the agent explained everything to him,” Yang added.

The couple said that their son moved to New York in March. They added that he had been arrested over his participation in a pro-Palestinian protest at UC Irvine, but he served community service and had the charges dropped.

“That never happened to us before,” said Chang about the raid.

“I feel like I was in a movie set or something. It was so unreal,” said Yang.

ICE issued a brief statement confirming only that agents conducted a search.

“ICE agents, with assistance from U.S. Secret Service, executed a federal search warrant as part of an ongoing criminal investigation. We are unable to provide any additional information at this time,” the statement read.

Scenes from the raid can be viewed on the news video report from KABC on its YouTube channel.

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

​Pro-palestinian anti-ice, Posters of ice officers, Libs vs ice officers, Irvine ice raid, Politics 

The controversial “60 Minutes” episode featuring then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris has now been officially nominated for an Emmy — and not for Outstanding Writing for a Comedy Series.

On Thursday, the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences announced the nominees for the 2025 News and Docs Emmys. Among the nominees for Outstanding Edited Interview is “The Democratic Ticket,” the interview between “60 Minutes” correspondent Bill Whitaker and Harris.

’60 Minutes perpetrated a Giant FRAUD against the American People.’

While “60 Minutes” interviews of major presidential candidates at the peak of election season are nothing new, this interview drew significant criticism after the episode that ultimately aired last October differed notably from a preview of it.

In a preview promoted by CBS News, Harris gave one of her infamous word-salad responses to a question about Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In his question, Whitaker implied that Netanyahu was not “listening” to the Biden-Harris administration.

“Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region,” Harris replied in the preview.

However, when the episode aired, Harris gave a less scattered, slightly more germane reply. “We’re not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end,” she said.

Then-candidate Donald Trump immediately cried foul, claiming that the network had “sliced and diced (‘cut and pasted’) Lyin’ Kamala’s answers to questions.” He later went so far as to argue that the change amounted to “election interference” and filed a $10 billion lawsuit against CBS News for “doctoring” the interview.

The network eventually released the unedited video footage, as well as a full transcript of the interview, revealing that both clips came in response to the question.

Trump spoke out about the discrepancy as recently as this week, claiming in a Truth Social post that the final answer that aired “was not good” but at least did not “show Gross Incompetence” like the preview answer did.

“In other words, 60 Minutes perpetrated a Giant FRAUD against the American People, the Federal Elections Commission, and the Federal Communications System,” Trump railed on Wednesday.

Late last month, “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens announced his resignation, citing an inability “to make independent decisions based on what was right” for the show’s audience. Many have speculated that pressure at the network stemmed from Trump’s lawsuit, which could be on the verge of a settlement now that both sides have agreed to mediation.

Owens and others at CBS News reportedly strongly oppose settling the lawsuit.

The other nominees for Outstanding Edited Interview are Hoda Kotb’s interview of Celine Dion on NBC News, a CBS interview with SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a “20/20” interview with Brittney Griner, and yet another “60 Minutes” interview, this time with Pope Francis.

In response to the nomination of the Harris interview, White House communications director Steven Cheung quipped, “Of course it’s nominated for best editing, because it takes some serious talent to edit Kamala’s answer into something that’s coherent and understandable, which in the end they still failed to do.”

CBS News did not respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

The news Emmy award ceremony is scheduled to air on June 25.

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

​Emmy awards, Emmys, 60 minutes, Bill whitaker, Kamala harris, Donald trump, Lawsuit, Cbs news, Bill owens, Politics 

President Donald Trump chalked up a victory in the trade war against China after the communist government quietly dropped the tariffs on some products, according to a report.

Trump backed off from many of the reciprocal tariffs he had issued after a stock market crash, but he kept the massive tariff against China after it retaliated with its own tariffs. Retailers are reporting many economic repercussions from the curtailing of imports from one of the largest trading partners to the U.S.

‘Maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more.’

According to a Reuters report, China has exempted some products from its 125% tariff and is reaching out to U.S. companies to let them know about the trade capitulation. The report cited sources who wanted to remain anonymous about the “whitelist” of tariff-exempt products.

The covert policy allows China to continue its defiant tone in public while trying to ease the pain of the trade war behind the scenes.

Critics of Trump’s trade war point to a recent report indicating that the gross domestic product from the U.S. shrunk in the first quarter of 2025 for the first time in three years. The president blamed the policies of former President Joe Biden for the news in that report.

Ocean container bookings from China to the U.S. dropped by 60% after Trump announced the tariffs in April and have not recovered, according to Flexport, a shipping company based in San Francisco.

Trump has indicated that he’s willing to reduce the tariffs on China but will not drop them completely.

“We’ve been ripped off by every country in the world, but China, I would say, is the leading … candidate for the ‘chief ripper-offer,'” Trump said at a Cabinet meeting Wednesday.

He also downplayed any possible negative effect on product availability because of the tariff tiff.

“Somebody said, ‘Oh, the shelves are gonna be empty.’ Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more,” he added.

Flexport CEO Ryan Petersen told PBS that he expects product shortages will lead to job losses in the months ahead if there’s no further de-escalation in the trade war.

“It’s going to be much more about the layoffs that follow,” Petersen said. “That’s where the real pain is going to be felt. Shortages mean companies aren’t selling stuff and therefore don’t have the profits that they need to pay their workers.’’

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

​Trump china trade war, Trump tariffs on china, China blinks, China vs trump, Politics 

Earlier this week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a short-lived attempt to block President Trump’s new tariffs. Fortunately, in this case, he lost. Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote.

Paul played all of the libertarian greatest hits, from calling tariffs “taxation without representation” to claiming they represent big-government tyranny. He ignored one key fact: Donald Trump ran, and won, on an explicitly pro-tariff platform. The American people voted for this.

If Paul really wants to reduce the size and scope of government, he has no choice but to support Trump’s tariffs.

The reality is that tariffs are the form of taxation most compatible with small government. That’s why America’s founders — and every president on Mount Rushmore — supported them.

How tariffs promote small government

Tariffs shrink the power of government in three ways. First, they reduce foreign demand for U.S. debt, limiting borrowing. Second, they promote full employment, reducing welfare dependency. Third, they protect American businesses from foreign state interference.

America has run trade deficits every year since 1974. The cumulative total, adjusted for inflation, approaches $25 trillion. In 2023 alone, the trade deficit in goods and services neared $920 billion.

We didn’t pay for that deficit with domestic production. Instead, we sold off assets — real estate, stocks, and bonds. China and its trading partners ship us goods, then buy up our future in return.

That includes our debt. Foreign demand for Treasury bonds has exploded because countries like China must recycle their trade surpluses somewhere. This artificial demand makes it easier — and cheaper — for Washington to borrow without raising yields.

Foreign entities now hold $8.5 trillion in U.S. public debt, about 29% of the total. The explosion started in 2001 when China joined the World Trade Organization, and our deficits soared.

The result? Washington spends recklessly. And the cost of servicing that debt — over $300 billion in interest payments to foreign creditors — bleeds out the economy. That’s roughly equal to our annual trade deficit with China.

Higher tariffs would shrink the trade deficit and lower foreign demand for American debt. That would limit Washington’s access to cheap credit — exactly what fiscal conservatives should want.

Long term, if tariffs replaced the income tax as the government’s primary revenue source, federal borrowing would face a hard cap. Unlike the income tax, tariffs are avoidable. If rates rise too high, people buy domestic. That reality places a natural limit on tax revenue and borrowing capacity.

In short: Tariffs enforce fiscal restraint.

Tariffs favor work over welfare

Since 2001, the U.S. has lost more than 5 million manufacturing jobs — along with the service jobs that depended on them.

Offshoring gutted labor’s bargaining power. When employers can threaten to send jobs to China, wages stagnate. Productivity no longer guarantees compensation. Workers take what they can get, or they’re replaced.

This “race to the bottom” helped erode middle-class wages and drive up welfare dependency. Over 10 million Americans now qualify as chronically unemployed, with many dropped from the labor force entirely.

As I explain in my book “Reshore,” mass job loss carries political consequences. Unemployed citizens are more likely to vote for higher taxes, expanded social programs, and even socialist policies. Poverty breeds dependency — and dependency fuels government growth.

Even if you buy the libertarian argument that tariffs “distort” markets, the result still favors liberty. The jobs tariffs protect are real. They preserve dignity, reduce welfare rolls, and shrink government.

Work is cheaper — and better — than welfare.

Good fences make good neighbors

Paul argues that tariffs let government “pick winners and losers.” He wants the market to decide.

Well, sure. That would make sense — if America competed on equal footing. But we don’t. Chinese businesses don’t operate under free market conditions. They’re backed by the Chinese Communist Party, which props them up with subsidies, below-market financing, land-use preferences, and outright theft — up to $600 billion per year in American intellectual property.

U.S. small businesses can’t compete with state-sponsored enterprises. That’s why entire American industries, towns, and families have disappeared.

Tariffs serve as economic fences. They shield American firms from foreign governments — not just foreign competitors. That protection restores actual market competition inside the United States, where private companies can go head-to-head without facing a communist superstate.

And economic competition isn’t just about firms. It happens at every level: workers vying for jobs, companies for customers, nations for global influence. Globalism collapses these layers into a single, rigged marketplace where the biggest government wins — and right now, that’s Beijing.

Tariffs restore order by separating national economies enough to maintain fair play. They enhance domestic competition while preserving international boundaries. Most importantly, they keep the CCP — the world’s largest and most authoritarian government — from dominating American markets.

If Rand Paul really wants to reduce the size and scope of government, he has no choice but to support President Trump’s tariffs.

​Opinion & analysis, Rand paul, Tariffs, Taxes, Trade deficit, Trade war, Manufacturing, China, Donald trump, Jd vance, Debt, Treasury bonds, World trade organization, Wto, Reshoring, Foreign investment, Property, Affordable housing, Welfare, Employment, Limited government, Middle class 

Beyonce kicked off her “Cowboy Carter” tour by starting her set with “The Star-Spangled Banner” — but the performance wasn’t as pro-America as one might assume by the sound of it.

On the stage behind Beyonce, while she performed the national anthem, was a message blown up in bright red lettering: “Never ask permission for something that already belongs to you.”

“This is supposedly meant to reflect the tour’s themes of reclamation, empowerment, and unapologetic ownership, especially as a black woman in spaces like country music,” Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” reads.

“We know that she’s not like a patriotic American. We know that she hates conservative values, that she obviously campaigned with Kamala Harris,” she continues, adding, “And I’m sorry, if you have truly patriotic values, you are not going to support Kamala Harris. You’re just not.”

While some users on social media thought Beyonce singing the national anthem was patriotic, what they didn’t realize is that she cut off the national anthem partway through and began singing her song “Freedom,” which is known as a BLM anthem.

“That is meant to be symbolic of, you know, this isn’t actually patriotic, we have work to do,” Bri Schrader, Allie’s producer, chimes in.

“It’s supposed to be a critique of America. That in order, really, for us to be patriotic Americans or for America to be what she’s supposed to be, we need more rights, and America is turning into this authoritarian place, of course, under Trump, and we as black people have been trampled upon,” Stuckey says.

“And so here I am, oppressed Beyonce, because people don’t know this, but Beyonce is very oppressed. She has no rights, no free speech rights, has no rights at all,” she continues, adding, “Poor Beyonce.”

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.

​Camera phone, Video phone, Sharing, Free, Upload, Video, Youtube.com, Relatable, Allie beth stuckey, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Beyonce, Cowboy carter, Star spangled banner, The national anthem, Beyonce tour, Beyonce kamala harris, Donald trump, President trump, Relatable with allie beth stuckey 

Tucker Carlson
said Friday that the Trump administration should come to Russell Brand’s “rescue,” suggesting that the actor and populist commentator slapped with sexual assault charges last month “has no shot at a fair trial because Britain is no longer a free country.”

The Metropolitan Police of London
announced on April 4 that Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service authorized them to charge Brand, 49, with one count of rape, one count of indecent assault, one count of oral rape, and two counts of sexual assault.

Police first launched their investigation in September 2023 after a trio of liberal media outfits — the Sunday Times, the Times (U.K.), and Channel 4 — detailed sexual misconduct allegations against Brand raised by four women.

One woman claimed Brand raped her in 1999; another said she was indecently assaulted in 2001; a third claimed she was orally raped and assaulted in 2004; and a fourth woman claimed she was sexually assaulted between 2004 and 2005. The accusers have not been identified.

Brand, who remarried after his divorce from Katy Perry and now has three children,
denied the allegations and stressed that all of his relationships have been consensual. He insinuated further that there may be an insidious “agenda at play” aimed at silencing him.

‘He criticized the government for using Covid to turn the UK into a totalitarian state.’

Around the time that Channel 4 originally debuted the sexual assault allegations, the British government attempted to pressure Rumble and other social media platforms to prevent Brand from being able to monetize his online content.

According to Canadian state media, Rumble called the request “extremely disturbing” and indicated it would not “join a cancel culture mob.”

Whereas Rumble stood firm against statist pressure, YouTube suspended monetization of Brand’s channel, citing harmful off-platform behavior despite the absence of a court conviction.

Carlson noted in his Friday post, which was subsequently shared by the accused, that Brand was a darling of the British liberal establishment until “he
criticized the government for using Covid to turn the UK into a totalitarian state” at which point “the accolades abruptly stopped.”

“A government TV station accused Brand of committing sex crimes against anonymous women they refused to name. Government officials called for his opinions to be scrubbed from the internet,” continued Carlson. “Last month, British prosecutors charged Brand with rape and sexual assault. None of the charges are backed by hard evidence. All of them supposedly took place more than 20 years ago, one of them in the 1990s.”

‘I KNOW I’m innocent.’

“The entire case is transparently political and absurd, a near-identical replay of the fake rape charges authorities brought against Julian Assange 15 years ago,” added Carlson.

Carlson made his plea within hours of Brand’s Friday appearance at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London, where Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring
reportedly granted Brand bail — on the condition that he keeps the court informed of where he is staying in the U.S. or U.K. — and ordered him to appear at the Central Criminal Court on May 30.

Ahead of his 12-minute-long court appearance, Brand
noted, “If you’re innocent, you WELCOME scrutiny. I welcome a trial — gladly — because I KNOW I’m innocent.”

“Over the last few years, millions of foreigners have applied for asylum in the United States. Russell Brand actually deserves it. Say a prayer that the Trump administration comes to his rescue,” wrote Carlson.

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

​United kingdom, Britain, Russell brand, Tucker carlson, Donald trump, Trump administration, Asylum, Political persecution, Rape, Accused, Accusation, Sexual assault, Brand, Carlson, Trump, Politics 

The federal government is accusing school districts in Washington state of coercing their staff into hiding the “gender identity” of children from their parents and confusing the students.

The Title IX investigation was announced by the Department of Education after the Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction was accused of imposing rules on school districts that require them to implement policies that allow males in female sports and female-only facilities.

Another allegedly mandated policy included forcing districts to refrain from notifying parents of a change in their child’s “gender identity.”

These alleged policies appeared to have come following a series of bizarre investigations from the office of the superintendent.

According to a district letter, the office opened an investigation after a complaint claimed that “non-cisgender” students and staff were being discriminated against because they were not asked what their pronouns are.

“The District discriminates against students and staff based on gender identity (all non-cisgender identities) by expressly prohibiting District staff from asking any student their gender pronouns.”

While the district in question originally determined it had not violated anyone’s rights or discriminated against its pupils, it soon faced scrutiny from one of its high school teachers.

The teacher, who claims to always ask students for their pronouns, wanted the right to refer to all students as “they/them” until learning what their preferred pronouns were. However, the staff member was told that such an act lent credibility to the idea that an agenda was being pushed on students.

The teacher was also noted as a “student group adviser” for the “the Gay Straight Alliance.”

Another complaint, seemingly made by the same person, alleged that the rule about not asking for pronouns “creates a systemic barrier towards full inclusivity of LGBTQ students” and “prohibits teachers from reaching out to a protected class of students.”

Despite the fact that teachers were still allowed to use the preferred pronouns of a student if the student requested it, the complainant made a series of appeals to the district.

‘If true, these are clear violations of parental rights and female equality in athletics, which are protected by federal laws.’

At the end of the letter, the district determined that it would rescind the directive of not asking pronouns and would “permit staff to invite students to share their gender pronouns in optional, nonpublic formats.”

In addition to forced training about “bias based on gender expression and gender identity,” the district said it “will not proactively share information about any students’ gender identity without the student’s consent or a legal obligation to do so.”

U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a press release that the state appeared to have been using its position of authority to “coerce its districts into hiding ‘gender identity’ information from students’ parents.”

She added that school districts appeared to have adopted policies that “covertly smuggle gender ideology into the classroom, confusing students and letting boys into girls’ sports, bathrooms, and locker rooms.”

“If true, these are clear violations of parental rights and female equality in athletics, which are protected by federal laws that will be enforced by the Trump Administration,” McMahon concluded.

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

​Fearless, Lgbt, Women’s sports, Title ix, Transgenderism, Washington, Sports 

OnlyFans “influencer” Bonnie Blue rose to fame after sleeping with over 1,000 men in a single day — and she doesn’t seem fazed by it one bit.

“The big 1,000 was completely done,” Blue happily said in a video posted to social media while clad in a robe. “The room was absolutely full. Then we did groups of five, like one after the other of fives. I wanted to give people more time, so then it went down to, like, one-on-ones.”

“So, like, one person would watch whilst I was with somebody, and then it would literally just be like a rotating circle,” she continued.

And Bonnie Blue might have even more news.

“There’s good news, everybody,” Stu Burguiere of “Stu Does America” says. “You’re going to be surprised to hear, if you took health class in eighth grade, that experience of having 1,000 different men inside of her may have — we don’t know for sure because we don’t know when this happened — but may have resulted in a pregnancy.”

“In just eight months’ time, I am so excited to do the world’s biggest livestream of a birth,” Blue said in another video uploaded to social media.

“Now, look, I don’t think a lot of people want to see her have sex with 1,000 men. I think it sounds pretty icky. But I assure you, no one wants to watch a livestream of the birth. That’s not a thing,” Stu comments.

But it’s not just the potential for a livestream that bothers Stu.

“We’re talking about an obviously horrible way to build a family, and I don’t even know how big that family would be. Would you have 1,000 different dads? Would you go on Maury Povich and maybe try to figure out who the dad was? That would be highly rated, I suppose,” he says.

“It’s a horrible way to conceive a child, a horrible way to go through this. This is — you’re going to be surprised to hear — not really all that biblical. It’s not the path to a nuclear family that most people would design,” he continues.

“That being said, that child still deserves a chance to live. Even a baby conceived in these bizarre and ridiculous circumstances still has value,” he says, adding, “In a very strange, roundabout way, she should be commended, and has a heck of a lot more moral fortitude than a lot of women who go and abort their child and end their lives for no good freaking reason.”

Want more from Stu?

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

​Camera phone, Video phone, Sharing, Free, Upload, Video, Youtube.com, Stu does america, Stu burguiere, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Bonnie blue, Pro life, Abortion, Anti abortion, Abortion rights, Feminism, Lily phillips, Feminist propaganda, Pro life message