Category: blaze media

The wife of an NFL legend is looking to unseat a Democrat in a district that has long been controlled by the left-wing party.

The congressional seat, NJ-09, is held by Democrat Nellie Pou, who won by less than 5% of the vote in 2024.

‘Congresswoman Nellie Pou has a charmed life.’

The district has been held by Democrats since the early 1980s, but that is not scaring off Tiffany Burress, a Pittsburgh native. Pittsburgh is also where her husband, former wide receiver Plaxico Burress, spent the first part of his NFL career, playing for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Plaxico won the Super Bowl with the New York Giants in 2008, beating the undefeated New England Patriots led by Tom Brady, 17-14. The former Michigan State star caught the game-winning touchdown pass from quarterback Eli Manning.

According to the New York Post, Mrs. Burress serves on the Workers’ Comp committee of the New Jersey State Bar association, has been recognized as for her work as an attorney, and is a former college athlete at Penn State.

The seat she hopes to win also includes MetLife/Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, where the Giants play.

RELATED: Ketanji Brown Jackson still can’t define ‘woman,’ yet rewrites sex law

Photo by Johnny Nunez/WireImage

“Congresswoman Nellie Pou has a charmed life. Fifty years on the government dime, never had a private sector job. In 1997, doors started opening,” Burress said in her campaign ad, which alleged that Pou has been gifted all her government roles.

Burress said that while doors opened for Pou, she herself has “busted through them,” on top of being willing to call out Republicans when they are wrong.

The campaign for Rosie Pino, who is also running as a Republican, told Fox News Digital that Pino is the “only proven winner in this race.”

“Supporting an unknown, untested, out-of-touch candidate who does not reside in the district and changed her party affiliation a few weeks ago just to run for office, would be the political equivalent of shooting ourselves in the leg — dividing the Republican Party and forfeiting the opportunity to hold the critical House Majority,” said Pino spokesman Kennith Gonzalez.

RELATED: Police shoot New Jersey man who allegedly charged them with machete — then find gruesome scene inside his home

Democrat support for the N.J. seat has lessened over the years; Democrats won with 74% of the vote in 2012 and remained around 70% until 2020.

That year, incumbent Democrat Bill Pascrell (now deceased) won with just 65.8% of the vote, and that number dropped to 55% in 2022.

In 2024, Pou won with just 50.8% of the vote; the leading Republican got 45.9%.

At the same time, the district has voted heavily for Democrats in federal elections — until 2024.

In 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020, at least 59% of voters in NJ-09 chose the Democrat presidential nominee. In 2024 however, Trump won the district 49% to 48%.

As it stands, New Jersey’s state Senate is majority blue, with 25 seats held by Democrats and 15 by Republicans.

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

​News, Sports, Plaxico burress, Nfl, Football, Democrats, New jersey, Congress, Politics 

When Hillary Clinton was asked to sit for a sworn deposition on Wednesday morning as a part of the House’s bipartisan probe into Jeffrey Epstein, she refused to appear. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, also defied a subpoena to appear before the House Oversight Committee.

Now the House Oversight Committee will begin contempt of Congress proceedings.

“Now on the one hand, it’s rather upsetting to see more Democrats use this situation as just another political pawn. But on the other, Donald Trump has the opportunity to do the funniest thing ever and finally make good on one of his biggest campaign promises,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says.

“And now remember, the Democrats said, ‘Oh, it’s the Republicans who don’t want to investigate. It’s the Republicans who don’t want to release the files.’ Actually it’s the Republicans right here who are trying to investigate. The Republicans run the House,” she continues.

“And Bill and Hillary Clinton right there, kind of key figures in this whole thing. They should probably tell us what they know,” she says, adding, “I mean, hey, Democrats, if we’re serious about getting to the bottom of this, we should hear from those two evil ghouls on the screen, shouldn’t we?”

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) has announced he will be moving to hold the pair in contempt — but they don’t appear to be willing to go quietly.

“This past year has seen our government engage in unprecedented acts, including against our own citizens. People have been seized by masked federal agents from their homes, their workplaces, and the streets of their communities. Students and scientists with visas permitting them to study and work here have been deported without due process,” a statement from the Clintons began.

“The people who laid siege to the U.S. Capitol have been pardoned and called heroes, agencies vital to the country’s national security have been dismantled,” the statement continued.

Finally after pointing out more grievances they have with the Trump administration, they wrote, “Every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this country, its principles, and its people, no matter the consequences. For us, now is that time.”

“I mean, you just couldn’t make that up if you tried,” Gonzales laughs.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

​Sharing, Camera phone, Video, Upload, Video phone, Free, Youtube.com, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Sara gonzales, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Clinton, Bill clinton, Hillary clinton, Jeffrey epstein, The epstein files, James comer, The house oversight committee 

Host Nikki Glaser says she wanted to keep her patter mostly nonpolitical at the 83rd Golden Globe Awards on Sunday.

But the comic wasn’t too shy to try out the junked jokes on “The Howard Stern Show” earlier this week.

‘You just don’t say that guy’s name right now.’

On ICE

Reading from her phone, Glaser started with a couple of barbs aimed at Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“I was going to come in at some point and say, ‘I’m hearing from the bar that we’re out of ice. And you know, we don’t really need ice. And actually, I hate ice.'”

Glaser said the joke was a little too simple and off the mark, though.

“It just felt like, oh, even that’s just being too trivial. … It’s hard to strike the right tone,” she said, according to Variety.

Orange man banned

The 41-year-old also admitted to scrapping an idea Steve Martin sent her about the president renaming the show’s venue to the “Trump Beverly Hilton.”

“You just don’t say that guy’s name right now,” she explained. “I just want to give it space.”

RELATED: Trump-appointed prosecutor who uncovered Somali fraud in Minnesota resigns

Glaser told Stern she’s no longer as precious about cutting material as she used to be.

“You just gotta move on and [say] ‘let’s just write a better joke.'”

Mixed signaling

Many of the celebs in attendance didn’t seem to share Glaser’s determination to keep the proceedings nonpartisan. Some sported pins in protest of ICE with slogans like “Ice Out” and “Be Good.”

The latter is in reference to Renee Good, who was shot and killed by an ICE agent while allegedly attempting to ram him with her car.

The award show host still took jabs at the network airing the ceremonies, mocking CBS for allegedly pulling a story about the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement.

“And the award for most editing goes to CBS News! Yes, CBS News: America’s newest place to see BS news,” Glaser said during the awards.

RELATED: Tom Brady tells Jeff Ross to ‘never say that s*** again’ after a joke about the owner of the New England Patriots

Photo by Rodin Eckenroth/Getty Images

Just kidding

Glaser also shared a few rejected jabs at the A-list nominees, including riffing that “One Battle After Another” star Sean Penn received his nod for “Best Neck Veins.”

She also mocked Penn’s co-star Leonardo DiCaprio for “always squinting.”

“I mean, I assume it’s to read your girlfriend’s ID. Just making sure that the year starts with a two,” she added.

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

​Align, Trump, Ice, Immigration, Minnesota, Awards show, Golden globes, Comedian, Comedy, Entertainment 

The Trump administration revealed that a government contractor leaked information about the military operation in Venezuela earlier this month.

‘There could be some others, and we’ll let you know about that. We’re hot on their trail.’

The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that the FBI searched the home of one of its reporters, claiming the raid was part of an investigation into Aurelio Perez-Lugones.

Perez-Lugones is a Maryland resident who was working as a systems engineer and information technology specialist for a government contracting company when federal authorities arrested him. He has maintained Top Secret security clearance since at least 2000, according to a January 9 affidavit.

Federal prosecutors accused Perez-Lugones of printing screenshots of a Top Secret report, as well as writing classified information on a notepad and taking the sheets of paper home. When authorities searched his home last week, they allegedly found multiple documents that were marked as Secret, including a document found in his lunch box.

The criminal complaint claimed the documents were related to “national defense.” However it did not specify any details, such as whether the information pertained to the United States’ recent operation in Venezuela.

FBI Director Kash Patel shared a statement on Wednesday about the recent arrest of the leaker and that individual’s ties to the Washington Post.

RELATED: ‘Government whisperer’: FBI searches home of WaPo reporter who allegedly obtained classified info from accused leaker

Photographer: Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

“This morning the @FBI and partners executed a search warrant of an individual at the Washington Post who was found to allegedly be obtaining and reporting classified, sensitive military information from a government contractor — endangering our warfighters and compromising America’s national security,” Patel wrote.

During an interview with Fox News, Attorney General Pam Bondi described the leaker as an IT contractor who had been working with the Department of War and allegedly leaked information related to “a foreign adversary.”

“The great men and women of the FBI executed a search warrant at the direction of Kash Patel and my office on the reporter’s home, seizing the devices that contained classified material regarding our foreign adversaries,” Bondi stated.

RELATED: Online sleuths spot numerous signs that a US strike on Iran is imminent

Attorney General Pam Bondi. Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

President Donald Trump also addressed news about the alleged leak, describing the suspect as the “leaker on Venezuela.”

“A very bad leaker. So there could be some others, and we’ll let you know about that. We’re hot on their trail,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Wednesday, adding that the alleged leaker would “probably be in jail for a long time.”

Trump officials have confirmed that the suspected leaker is in custody.

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

​News, Donald trump, Trump, Trump administration, Trump admin, Pam bondi, Kash patel, Fbi, Federal bureau of investigation, Venezuela, National defense, Washington post, Aurelio perez-lugones, Leaker, Politics 

Vice President JD Vance cast the tiebreaking vote in the Senate Wednesday night after some Republicans bucked President Donald Trump on a key war powers resolution.

Vance voted to block a war powers resolution aimed at reining in Trump’s authority to greenlight military operations in Venezuela. The vote was tied at 50-50 after Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Susan Collins of Maine defied their party to defy Trump, requiring Vance to break the tie.

‘You know what? That’s good enough for me.’

The resolution ultimately failed in the Senate after Trump and his administration, particularly Secretary of State Marco Rubio, lobbied lawmakers to change their votes.

The war powers resolution was originally advanced last week with the help of Murkowski, Paul, and Collins as well as Republican Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Todd Young of Indiana. Both Hawley and Young eventually flipped their votes, allowing Vance to block the resolution altogether.

RELATED: Vance casts tiebreaking vote after Republicans betray Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill

Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

Hawley explained his initial support for the war powers resolution, saying he was concerned and unclear about the extent of American intervention in Venezuela.

“For me, this has always been about ground troops,” Hawley said in an interview with Fox.

“That’s not something that I think I would want to do.”

“What the secretary of state said to me very clearly is, ‘We’re not doing that,'” Hawley said. “‘We don’t have ground troops in Venezuela. This is not another Iraq. We’re not going to occupy Venezuela.’ And you know what? That’s good enough for me.”

RELATED: Vance casts tiebreaking vote to advance DOGE cuts after Republicans defy Trump

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Defectors like Murkowski emphasized their opposition to Nicolas Maduro and his regime but argued that “no meaningful end state has been articulated, and U.S. forces and assets remain fully postured in the region.”

“Even when an action is justified and its outcome welcomed, the Constitution is clear that Congress is a co-equal branch of government with an essential role in decisions that place the United States on a path toward sustained military involvement,” Murkowski said in a statement on X. “Excluding Congress from that process risks eroding public trust and blurring strategic objectives.”

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

​Jd vance, Donald trump, Marco rubio, Nicholas maduro, Josh hawley, Todd young, Rand paul, Lisa murkowski, Senate republicans, Senate democrats, War powers, War powers resolution, Venezuela, Politics 

How many years of graduate biology did you need to learn the definition of “woman”? Zero. Children grasp the difference between male and female before they can spell either word. Yet liberal Supreme Court justices and the lawyers who argue before them now treat that distinction as unknowable.

This confusion did not happen by accident. Once a culture rejects God’s creation and natural law, nonsense fills the vacuum.

If you cannot define the subject, you cannot defend it. If you cannot name what a woman is, you cannot decide a case where the law turns on protecting women as a class.

God created the world with real distinctions. Those distinctions do not depend on feelings, desires, or political fashion. When people refuse to think according to what is, scripture describes the result as a “darkened mind,” a mind that cannot grasp even basic truths.

This week, the Supreme Court confronted that reality. The cases before it, arising from West Virginia and Idaho, ask whether biological males who identify as female may compete in women’s sports. The exchanges between the justices and counsel revealed more than legal disagreement. They exposed an unwillingness to define the very terms the law requires.

Several of the court’s conservative justices asked what should have been the most basic question: What does it mean to be a man or a woman?

Justice Samuel Alito pressed an attorney for the ACLU on that point. The attorney conceded that he could not offer a definition of “man” or “woman.” He even admitted his notes warned: “Don’t define sex.” Alito then asked the obvious next question: How can a court determine whether discrimination “on the basis of sex” has occurred if no one will say what “sex” means?

That exchange should have ended the argument.

Congress wrote Title IX in 1972. “Sex” meant biological sex. It did not mean “gender identity,” self-conception, or an internal psychological state. It meant male and female. Everyone understood that because everyone lived in that reality.

Yet one attorney urged the justices to avoid deciding the case on the definition of sex, arguing that Title IX’s purpose was not to define sex accurately but to prevent discrimination. That move should make every American nervous.

Discrimination with respect to what? Opportunities based on what? You cannot prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex while refusing to say what sex is. That is not legal reasoning. That is verbal fog.

RELATED: ‘That would have to apply across the board’: LGBT radicals panic as SCOTUS signals win for girls’ sports

Photo by Oliver Contreras / AFP via Getty Images

Justice Sonia Sotomayor leaned into the confusion by suggesting that excluding a biological male who identifies as female from women’s sports is “by its nature” a sex-based classification requiring heightened scrutiny. Notice what happened. The argument claims no one can define sex, yet it demands courts treat sex as a controlling legal category. A category of what, exactly? The reasoning collapses under its own weight.

This is what a darkened mind looks like in public office. People use words after they drain them of meaning. They demand that others affirm a contradiction and call it clarity.

Human beings have understood the difference between boy and girl across centuries and civilizations. This is not advanced biology. It is ordinary knowledge that undergirds family, language, and society.

So what changed?

The distinction between male and female did not become complicated. It remained simple and permanent. That permanence blocks any ideology that tries to rebuild reality around will and self-definition. God created male and female. No court can repeal creation.

Progressive jurists increasingly treat being “assigned” a sex at birth as oppression. The individual must claim sovereignty over reality. The self becomes god. Identity becomes law.

This worldview also reveals hypocrisy. Liberal justices demand that society submit to one person’s internal feelings about identity, while dismissing the concrete concerns of women who do not want to compete against men in zero-sum athletic contests.

RELATED: Top UK court deals devastating blow to cross-dressing activists

Photo by Oliver Contreras / AFP via Getty Images

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson exposed that contradiction when she questioned why the “fear” of women should govern policy. That question reveals the priority system: One set of feelings can redefine reality and restructure competition; another set — concerns about fairness, safety, and equal opportunity — counts for little.

Justice Jackson famously said she cannot define what a woman is, yet she presents herself as a defender of women’s rights. That contradiction matters. If you cannot define the subject, you cannot defend it. If you cannot name what a woman is, you cannot decide a case where the law turns on protecting women as a class.

Natural law has been pushed aside. The created order is treated as optional. What remains is raw will — whatever a judge, an activist, or an institution demands at the moment. That is not law. It is power dressed up in robes.

The consequences extend beyond sports. Women lose opportunities. Men receive rewards for denying reality. Courts move from recognizing truth to enforcing ideological compliance.

Scripture teaches that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10). What we witnessed from liberal justices was the opposite: fear of acknowledging God’s created order. When leaders refuse to name basic truths, they do not climb toward enlightenment. They descend into madness.

When justices on the highest court in the land cannot say what a woman is, the problem is no longer sports. The problem is spiritual.

​Opinion & analysis, Supreme court, Title ix, Transgenderism, Boys in girls’ sports, Trans athletes, Equal protection, Definition, Equality, Sports, Gender, Ketanji brown jackson, Samuel alito, Sex, Discrimination, Constitution 

Tensions are rising rapidly in Minneapolis, Minnesota, after yet another ICE-involved shooting.

On Wednesday night, video footage from journalist Nick Sortor went viral, showing one of the latest developments in the conflict.

‘This federal response is growing every day. Send in the MARINES next!’

The video shows federal officers with identification indicating that they are from the Bureau of Prisons, a major development in the federal government’s efforts to control the situation. The prison guards are wearing riot gear and blockading a street to keep a rowdy crowd of rioters from the DHS agents behind them.

Other videos from the area appear to show rioters breaking into police vehicles and stealing police equipment. Some also reportedly threw rocks, ice, and incendiary devices at officers.

RELATED: Trump threatens Insurrection Act after ambushed ICE agent shoots illegal alien: ‘Put an end to the travesty’

Photographer: Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images

“This federal response is growing every day. Send in the MARINES next!” Sortor captioned the BOP video, in part.

Sortor attributed this development to Attorney General Pam Bondi. Blaze News has reached out to the DOJ for comment.

At the end, the video pans around to show a view of dozens of protesters near the line of guards.

One rioter can be heard shouting, “Why the f**k are you here?” and “What more do you f**king want?” before some in the crowd begin chanting, “They’re not qualified!” at the guards.

The video was posted just hours after an ICE agent was “ambushed by three individuals” and was forced to fire a defensive shot at an illegal Venezuelan alien during an attempted arrest, DHS claimed.

The alien suffered a non-life-threatening gunshot wound to the leg and was taken to the hospital, as was the ICE officer.

Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act on Thursday morning given the rising tensions between law enforcement and the increasingly violent rioters.

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

​Politics, Nick sortor, Ice, Dhs, Bureau of prisons, Ice agents, Deportations, Trump, Rioters, Insurrection act 

After a hard-fought battle with cancer, the beloved “Dilbert” creator Scott Adams has passed away — and Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck is devastated.

“We pause for a minute. Not for a punch line,” Glenn begins solemnly.

“We pause for a man who quietly became something far more important than most people ever realized. Scott Adams, for most of his life, was just a cartoonist. As if just a cartoonist is a small thing. He was a cartoonist that connected with us because there was so much wisdom in that little man, that everyman,” he says.

“He was a guy we all loved. After you heard his political views, I’m sure half of the country did not love him. But he became a guiding light for so many people who are just willing to think honestly,” he continues.

“You didn’t have to agree with him. He just asked you to think. He became a mentor in a way to so many people just trying to understand how influence really works. He was a guy who was changing his life, and he would mentor us through our lives by watching how he was dealing with things. He really was a philosopher who was disguised as a stick-figure artist.”

And he was a man who found the courage to convert to Christianity in his final moments.

“You’re going to hear for the first time today that it is my plan to convert. So I still have time, but my understanding is you’re never too late. And on top of that, any skepticism I have about reality would certainly be instantly answered if I wake up in heaven,” Adams said in a video he recorded before his passing.

“And so to my Christian friends, yes, it’s coming. So you don’t need to talk me into it. I am now convinced that the risk-reward is completely smart. If it turns out that there’s nothing there, I’ve lost nothing. But I’ve respected your wishes, and I like doing that. If it turns out there is something there and the Christian model is the closest to it, I win,” he continued.

“So with your permission, I promise you that I will convert,” he added.

“I love that,” Glenn says, “because even there he’s being honest.”

“But while Scott said that lightly, I doubt he took that lightly,” he says. “He was a deep thinker.”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

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

​Free, Sharing, Video phone, Upload, Video, Camera phone, Youtube.com, The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze originals, Blaze online, Scott adams, Dilbert, Dilbert cartoon, Philosophy, Christianity, Cancer 

A male is accused of knocking multiple victims amid violent robberies in downtown Chicago last summer.

Michael Seawood, 24, of East Chicago, Indiana, is charged with robbery, aggravated battery causing great bodily harm, and aggravated battery in a public place, CWB Chicago reported.

The victim was struck in the back of the head and knocked to the ground, after which Seawood and his accomplices allegedly took his phone, wallet, and other items, the outlet noted, citing prosecutors.

Seawood and at least one accomplice attacked a 52-year-old around 2:30 a.m. July 6 in the 400 block of North Lower Michigan Avenue, the outlet said, citing prosecutors. During the attack, the victim fell to the ground motionless and suffered a broken jaw that required surgery to have plates installed, the outlet added.

What’s more, a 28-year-old man visiting from Las Vegas tried to intervene in the attack, but prosecutors said Seawood allegedly punched him and knocked him to the ground where he also was motionless, CWB Chicago reported.

While the two victims were incapacitated, Seawood & Co. allegedly went through their pockets and took cash and phones before leaving the area, the outlet said.

On Aug. 1, Seawood and multiple accomplices allegedly attacked a 29-year-old man in the 100 block of East Illinois Street in the Streeterville neighborhood, CWB Chicago said. The victim was struck in the back of the head and knocked to the ground, after which Seawood and his accomplices allegedly took his phone, wallet, and other items, the outlet noted, citing prosecutors.

RELATED: Chicago thug accused of randomly punching mother of 11 in face, knocking her out on downtown street — and White House reacts

Armando L. Sanchez/Chicago Tribune

On Aug. 2, Seawood and two accomplices allegedly attacked and robbed two brothers, ages 19 and 22, near the corner of Michigan Avenue and Lake Street in the Loop, CWB Chicago reported.

The two victims were walking south on Michigan Avenue when Seawood allegedly punched the younger brother in the face, after which the victim fell to the ground and briefly lost consciousness, the outlet said. When he regained consciousness, the victim saw Seawood and two other men going through his pockets and stealing his wallet, the outlet said, citing prosecutors.

The older brother told police one of the attackers hit him and knocked him to the ground as well, but he wasn’t sure which one attacked him, CWB Chicago said. Once the older brother was on the ground, Seawood & Co. allegedly went through his pockets and took his phone, cash, and cards, the outlet added.

Three Chicago police officers subsequently recognized Seawood as one of the violent robbers, prosecutors told CWB Chicago.

Judge John Hock ordered Seawood detained pending trial, CWB Chicago said.

Cook County Jail records indicate Seawood was booked Sunday on no bond; his next court date is Jan. 20.

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

​Physical attacks, Chicago, Arrest, Robberies, Knockouts, Aggravated battery causing great bodily harm, Aggravated battery in a public place, Downtown, The loop, Crime 

By now, you have seen the headlines about Grok creating nonconsensual images of real people and reposting them online for the world to see. You may even have spotted these images in your X feed. Not only is the emergence of this kind of content a problem for the platform, but it’s especially risky when you remember that the fate of the republic rests partly on the shoulders of X and Elon Musk.

The story so far

This is a rapidly developing story, so the details are likely to expand in the coming weeks. So far, this is what we know.

Last week, a barrage of X users were found using Grok to digitally remove the clothing of photos containing real women, often putting them in bikinis or other skimpy outfits. While this is bad enough on its own, some users even targeted minors — including one of the prominent actors in “Stranger Things” — to swap outfits for something inappropriate, and Grok complied.

We have to address how Grok’s behavior could impact X on the world stage.

After plenty of blowback on the web, Elon Musk issued a firm statement, warning, “Anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.” The X Safety account later doubled down with the same message, explaining that the platform takes action against CSAM content on X by removing the images, suspending accounts, and even working with local law enforcement as necessary.

That wasn’t enough, however. Although Musk and company scrubbed the social network of the illegal imagery depicting minors, users continued to undress photos of real adult women without discretion. As a result of further inaction, U.S. Democrats asked Apple and Google to remove X from their app stores (though that hasn’t happened yet), the U.K. instated a law that makes it illegal to create nonconsensual intimate images, and Malaysia and Indonesia blocked Grok altogether.

This ultimately prompted Musk to remove Grok’s image creation and editing tool from public access, instead restricting it to paid users, where any illicit activity can be attached directly to users’ accounts and identities.

A self-imposed problem of reckless proportions

The problem of Grok creating nonconsensual images is bad enough on its own. In the United States, we have nonconsensual intimate images laws that prohibit the threat and distribution of private photos and videos. More specifically, the Take It Down Act was designed to protect victims of such content, and posting it on X violates the platform’s user policies.

The worst part is that none of this needed to happen. The fact that Grok can remove the clothes of unconsenting users — adults or otherwise — is an entirely self-made problem that could have been avoided with some proper guardrails. It should not have been an option in the first place, but now that it is, we have to deal with it. Even more important than that, we have to address how Grok’s behavior could impact X on the world stage.

RELATED: Ted Cruz pelted with insane AI memes as X bans unpaid users from editing pics with Grok

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

1. One more reason to block free speech

Foreign governments have already been looking for excuses to ban X from their slice of the public square ever since Musk opened the platform to free speech in 2022. This latest stunt is the final reason they need to prove that X is “dangerous” to their people, and places like the U.K., Malaysia, and Indonesia are already moving ahead with laws to restrict or downright ban access. This is bad, of course, because X is one of few online platforms that not only values free speech but encourages it. When users lose access to X, wherever they are, they lose access to the truth.

2. A test of political loyalty

While the governments that already hate Elon Musk are a lost cause, legal missteps with Grok unnecessarily test the loyalty and values of U.S. politicians who are friends with Musk. Lawmakers on the right now have to choose between regulating Grok to protect X users who were harmed by the photos and giving Elon a pass while he self-governs the platform into a better place. Meanwhile, the left will continue to villainize Musk, Grok, and X every chance they get, no matter what happens. It’s a tough position to be in, and it’s a shame that it had to come to this at all.

3. Users lose when Grok goes out of control

The deepfake photo scandal has made users — especially young women — more cautious about posting photos of themselves on the platform. Users shouldn’t have to worry about someone creating and sharing intimate images crafted out of their own content. At the same time, users who flock to X for news, engagement, and information shouldn’t have to dodge these photos as they pop up in their feeds, either. The worst part is that Grok is complicit in the whole thing. At this point, Grok’s behavior is making users leery about coming to X instead of bringing them to the platform, which is the last thing X needs as Threads gains ground.

4. Grok is better bot than this

If nothing else, the images Grok has created are legally dubious, and whether the image creation/editing feature is available to the general public or locked behind a subscription paywall, this isn’t a capability that Grok should have. Other AI platforms, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google Gemini, block this type of content wholesale. Yes, Grok has always valued free speech above the others, and that is great for users, but deepfakes go beyond the First Amendment. It’s simply illegal to create nonconsensual intimate content of real people and share it online. Further, Musk’s AI platform is far too clever and sophisticated to debase itself down to an adult content creation bot, and that bit needs to be removed from Grok’s source code.

We need X more than Grok

X is so much more than the public square. It’s a bastion of free speech where people of all walks of life from around the globe can speak their minds and share ideas that otherwise would go unheard.

Because of X, the truth about so many topics that would otherwise have been relegated to the shadows has been exposed. Just this past week, footage of Renee Good surfaced, showing that she tried to run over the ICE agent who took her life in self-defense. Without X, the leftist media narrative that she was an innocent woman simply driving away from the scene would have permeated the web and we never would have known the truth. Before that, we saw the protests in Iran erupt as its oppressed citizens fought for freedom. And before that, Nick Shirley exposed the multibillion-dollar fraud unraveling in Minnesota over the Somali-run business debacle. And on and on and on.

X is a vital piece of our political landscape, helping the people combat lies, scandals, censorship, and the left (though I repeat myself), and we’ll need X again in the future when the time is right. The platform it has become is far too important to be a test bed for Grok’s edgiest features. The prevalence of the digital public square, the ability to expose corruption, and the sustainability of the republic all hinge on X maintaining its position as a free, open, and truthful platform, and it would be a terrible shame if Grok’s unchecked features got in the way.

​Tech 

Despite their vilification by Democrat officials and an 8,000% increase in death threats, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents continue in Minneapolis and other dangerous sanctuary jurisdictions to make arrests — 70% of which are reportedly of criminal illegal aliens charged or convicted of a crime in the United States.

When attempting to make one such arrest on Wednesday evening, a federal law enforcement officer was savagely attacked not only by the illegal alien he was pursuing but by a pair of onlookers who apparently felt compelled to frustrate the administration of justice.

‘Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a FAILED governor and a TERRIBLE mayor encouraging violence.’

The incident resulted in an apparent defensive shooting, which radicals seized upon as yet another excuse to attack police, engage in wanton destruction, and altogether ramp up what the Department of Justice is now referring to as an “insurrection.”

The shooting

The Department of Homeland Security indicated that around 6:50 p.m. local time, federal agents attempted to arrest an illegal alien from Venezuela. The suspect peeled away in his vehicle and fled the scene but ultimately crashed into a parked car.

While the suspect proceeded to take off running, an agent, who has been identified as an ICE officer by U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commander Gregory Bovino, caught up with the Venezuelan in the 600 block of 24th Avenue North.

When the ICE officer attempted once again to make the arrest, “the subject began to resist and violently assault the officer,” said the DHS.

Seeing the two men struggling on the ground, two individuals exited a nearby apartment and allegedly began attacking the officer with a shovel and a broom handle, enabling the illegal alien to break free.

The Venezuelan allegedly proceeded to use one of the two improvised hitting implements to strike the outnumbered officer.

RELATED: Blocking ICE with ‘micro-intifada’: Good’s group taught de-arrest, cop-car chaos before her death

Photo by Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Image

“Fearing for his life and safety as he was being ambushed by three individuals, the officer fired a defensive shot to defend his life,” said the DHS.

The two alleged attackers and the Venezuelan — who sustained a non-life-threatening gunshot wound to the leg — reportedly barricaded themselves in the apartment but were ultimately flushed out. The illegal alien and the officer were taken to the hospital, and the two suspected attackers were placed in custody.

Minneapolis police were ultimately joined at the scene by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and the FBI.

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara confirmed that a broom and a snow shovel were found at the scene of the struggle and indicated “at least one person may have assaulted federal law enforcement.”

The Minneapolis reflex

O’Hara indicated that in the wake of the struggle and shooting, a mob assembled and began “engaging in unlawful acts.”

In addition to pelting law enforcement officers with incendiary devices, ice, rocks, and other projectiles, rioters ransacked and vandalized federal vehicles, videos showed.

Mayor Jacob Frey (D) wasted no time in fanning the flames, referring to ICE during a press conference on Wednesday night as an invading force that’s supposedly rounding up American citizens.

“I’ve seen conduct from ICE that is disgusting and is intolerable,” said Frey.

After demonizing ICE and championing anti-ICE protests, Frey suggested that radicals “taking the bait” weren’t helping.

Gov. Tim Walz (D) also responded with mixed signals, characterizing federal agents as villains and recommending resistance but also suggesting that Minnesotans should remain peaceful.

“You’re angry. I’m angry. Angry is not a strong enough word,” Walz said in a video address on Wednesday night. “You are not powerless, you are not helpless, and you are certainly not alone. All across Minnesota people are learning about opportunities, not just to resist, but to help people who are in danger.”

The Justice Department evidently saw the signal through the noise and accused the two Minnesota Democratic Party leaders of incitement.

“ICE operates in thousands of counties without incident. Men and women doing their jobs, protecting us from criminal aliens,” said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. “Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a FAILED governor and a TERRIBLE mayor encouraging violence against law enforcement. It’s disgusting.”

“Walz and Frey,” continued Blanche. “I’m focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise.”

President Donald Trump threatened on Thursday morning to invoke the Insurrection Act “if the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job.”

Trump noted that many presidents have utilized the Insurrection Act of 1807 and that it would “quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great state.”

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

​Minneapolis, Minnesota, Us immigration and customs enforcement, Immigration, Trump administration, Ice, Department of homeland security, Homeland security, Dhs, Shooting, Venezuela, Venezuelan, Riot, Protest, Insurrection, Politics 

A few days ago, I found myself in a text exchange about two women killed by agents of the state.

One was Renée Nicole Good, a 37-year-old activist mother shot last week by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. The other was Ashli Babbitt, a 36-year-old U.S. Air Force veteran shot by a Capitol Police lieutenant inside the Speaker’s Lobby on January 6, 2021.

Are words being used to think — or to show whose side someone is on?

I asked what I thought was a simple moral question: Does the state ever have the moral right to kill an unarmed person who poses no immediate lethal threat?

I did not try to provoke. I did not claim the cases were the same. I said plainly that the facts, motives, and political contexts differed. My own answer was no. The purpose was not to merge the stories, but to test whether the same moral rule applied in both cases.

I was asking my friend to reason with me.

The response was not an argument. It came as a rush of narrative detail, moral verdicts, and firm insistence that the question itself was illegitimate. “Not comparable.” “Straw man.” The stories did not clarify the rule. They aimed to shut down the conversation.

But what struck me most was not the emotion. It was the disconnect.

I asked about a principle. I received a story. I tested a rule. I got a verdict. We used the same words — justice, murder, authority — but those words did very different work.

The exchange failed not because of tone or ideology. It failed because we spoke different civic languages. More troubling, we no longer agree on what civic language is for.

More than a failure of civility

For years, we have blamed polarization and tribalism. We shout past one another. We retreat into bubbles. All of that is true. But the deeper problem runs deeper than disagreement.

We no longer share a civic vocabulary shaped by common expectations about clarity, restraint, and universality.

We still speak words that are recognizably English. But we use the same words to reach very different ends.

One civic language treats words as tools for reasoning. Call it “principled” or “rule-based.” Questions test limits and consistency. Moral claims aim at rules that apply beyond one case. Disagreement is normal. When someone asks, “What rule applies here?” the question is not an attack. It is the point.

This language shapes law, constitutional argument, philosophy, and journalism at its best. Words like “justified” or “legitimate” refer to standards that others can test and challenge. If a claim fails under scrutiny, it loses force.

The other civic language works differently. Call it “narrative” or “moral-emergency” language. Here, words signal alignment more than reasoning. Stories carry moral weight on their own. Urgency overrides abstraction. Questions feel like invalidation. Consistency tests sound like hostility.

RELATED: The day the media taught me it’s always wrong to be right

treety via iStock/Getty Images

In this mode, terms drift. “Murder” no longer means unlawful killing. It means moral outrage. “Straw man” stops meaning logical distortion and starts meaning emotional offense. “Not comparable” does not mean analytically distinct. It means do not apply your framework here.

Neither language is dishonest. That is the danger. Each serves a different purpose. The breakdown comes when speakers assume they are having the same kind of conversation.

The principled speaker hears evasion: “You didn’t answer my question.” The moral-emergency speaker hears bad faith: “You don’t care.”

Both walk away convinced the other is unreasonable.

Moral certainty over moral reasoning

Social media did not create this divide, but it rewards one language and punishes the other. Platforms favor speed over reflection, story over rule, accusation over inquiry. Moral certainty spreads faster than moral reasoning. Over time, abstraction starts to feel cruel and questions feel aggressive.

That is why so many political arguments stall at the same point. Facts do not resolve them because facts are not the dispute. The real question is whether rule-testing is even allowed. Once someone frames an issue as a moral emergency, universality itself looks suspect.

A simple test helps. Is this person using words to reason toward a general rule, or to signal moral alignment in a crisis?

Put more simply: Are words being used to think — or to show whose side someone is on?

RELATED: I don’t need your civil war

Photo by Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

Once you see this, many conversations make sense. You understand why certain questions trigger anger. You see why consistency tests go unanswered. You recognize when dialogue cannot move forward, no matter how careful you sound.

This does not mean outrage is always wrong. It does not mean people should stop caring. It does mean we need better civic literacy about how language works. Sometimes restraint is a virtue. Walking away is not cowardice. Declining to argue is not surrender.

What cannot work is trying to make a principled argument within a moral-emergency frame.

America’s founders understood this. They designed institutions to slow decisions, force deliberation, and channel arguments into forms governed by rules rather than passion.

If we fail to see that we now speak different civic languages, we will lose the ability to talk calmly about the ideas and ideals that should bind us together. The alternative is full adoption of moral-emergency language — where persuasion gives way to force.

Too many Americans have already chosen that path.

​Renee nicole good, Shared language, Law and order, Social media, Opinion & analysis, Argument, Civic institutions, Language, Debate, Good faith, Disagreement, Logic and reason, Immigration and customs enforcement, Ashli babbitt, Facts, Civility, Tribes 

I live in Madison County, Montana. Long before cable panels debated corruption and accountability, this place learned a hard lesson about what happens when government goes bad.

In the 1860s, Bannack served as the territorial capital of Montana. Henry Plummer was its elected sheriff. He wore the badge, swore the oath … and built the gallows.

Healthy institutions correct themselves. Unhealthy ones protect themselves. Madison County learned that lesson the hard way. Minnesota is confronting it now.

And according to many who lived here at the time, he also ran the crime.

Plummer and his deputies were accused of leading a gang of road agents who robbed and murdered travelers hauling gold through these mountains. Stagecoaches were ambushed. Men vanished. Fear became routine. Complaints led nowhere. The law appeared to be shielding the very violence it existed to stop.

So the citizens acted.

In 1864, a vigilance committee arrested Plummer and two of his deputies. No formal trial followed. No appeals. The man who built the gallows was hanged on them.

Historians still debate Plummer’s guilt. They do not debate why the vigilantes emerged. People believed government had become part of the threat rather than the safeguard. When authority no longer restrained crime, citizens concluded that authority itself required restraint.

That story unsettles. It should. But it is real, and it matters now.

The distance between frontier Montana and modern Minnesota is not as wide as we might like to think.

Minnesota is now reckoning with one of the largest public-assistance fraud scandals in American history. Billions of taxpayer dollars intended to feed children and support vulnerable families were siphoned through nonprofits that faced minimal oversight and little urgency to address obvious red flags.

Warnings surfaced early. Audits flagged problems. But the payments continued anyway.

It was a prolonged, systemic failure, not a single clever con.

RELATED: Trump has the chance to end the welfare free-for-all Minnesota exposed

Photo by Mandel NGAN / AFP via Getty Images

As the scope became clearer, more voices spoke up. Questions multiplied. The alarms grew louder. Yet the machinery kept moving. Oversight failed to halt the flow of money in real time. Accountability arrived only after exposure, not before.

For many watching, the most disturbing fact was not that warnings existed but that raising them changed nothing.

Imagine a medical provider entrusted with managing a patient’s pain. The patient is vulnerable, dependent, unable to advocate fully. Now imagine discovering that the provider has been siphoning the medication, not to heal, but to feed a personal addiction.

The first problem is theft.

The deeper problem is betrayal.

The most dangerous problem involves everyone who noticed and did nothing.

That provider violates something fundamental. So does a government that tolerates corruption while presenting itself as a caretaker.

This summer, America turns 250. There will be speeches, reenactments, and familiar lines from the Declaration of Independence. We will hear again about equality, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those words deserve their place.

But Americans have developed a habit of quoting the Declaration selectively.

“All men are created equal” fits neatly on a bumper sticker. The context Thomas Jefferson supplied fits less comfortably. He warned about power, corruption, and the responsibility citizens bear when government betrays its charge.

The founders did not merely announce ideals. They warned about consequences.

They wrote that governments exist to secure rights and that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” That sentence is often cited. The one that follows rarely is: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.”

These were not men eager for upheaval. They understood that stability is precious and easily lost.

But they continued, warning that when “a long train of abuses and usurpations” reveals a consistent design toward despotism, resistance becomes not merely permissible but necessary.

The prophet Jeremiah put the problem bluntly: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9).

RELATED: ‘Shameful revisionist history’: America250 faces scrutiny after posting ‘progressive propaganda’

Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images

That realism about human nature runs through both scripture and the Declaration. The framers carried it forward into the Constitution. They assumed power would be abused. They assumed ambition would seek advantage. They assumed virtue would require reinforcement.

So they divided authority, erected checks and balances, and made corruption harder rather than trusting leaders to be better.

Vigilance was the price of liberty. When a people become absorbed in the pursuit of happiness and neglect the pursuit of accountability, history intervenes.

In this Montana county, the story of Sheriff Plummer serves as a reminder of what happens when authority receives blind trust and accountability arrives too late.

The lesson does not praise vigilantism. Vigilantism signals collapse, not health. When citizens feel forced outside lawful systems, failure has already occurred upstream.

Unchecked corruption creates pressure that does not dissipate on its own. Healthy institutions correct themselves. Unhealthy ones protect themselves.

Madison County learned that lesson the hard way. Minnesota is confronting it now. America itself may be closer than we care to admit.

Every summer, tourists pass through this county on their way to Yellowstone National Park. In Virginia City, students retell the story of Sheriff Plummer, often dressed in Old West attire, offering visitors a taste of frontier drama.

The story feels safely distant. A relic of a rougher age.

But news from Minnesota sounds less like reporting and more like repetition.

A century from now, what story will students tell about Minnesota?

Then, as now, theft was dismissed. Warnings were minimized. Institutions protected themselves rather than correcting themselves. Trust eroded quietly before it collapsed publicly.

Corruption ignored does not remain contained. Betrayal tolerated becomes precedent. Institutions that refuse correction eventually lose consent.

History shows what follows. When authority protects itself instead of the public, legitimacy erodes quietly, then collapses suddenly. By the time citizens reach for drastic remedies, lawful ones have already failed.

Madison County learned that lesson in blood and with rope. Minnesota is learning it through audits and indictments. The difference is only the stage of decay.

History does not repeat itself as theater forever. When its warnings go unheeded, it returns as judgment.

​Institutions, Curruptions, Government curruption, Minnesota fraud, Founding fathers, Opinion & analysis, Madison county, Montana, Henry plummer, Law and order, Vigilante justice, Revolution, History, America 250, Gallows 

West Virginia has banned young men like Becky Pepper-Jackson — a transgender 15-year-old — from competing in girls’ and women’s sports.

While the law has been blocked by lower courts, conservatives and fathers — like BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere — are hoping that the outcome will be different at the conservative-dominated Supreme Court.

“The 15-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson is the sole transgender student athlete in the entire state of West Virginia, according to her attorneys and her bid to continue playing competitive sports is in the hands of the Supreme Court,” Stu reads from a Washington Post article on “Stu Does America.”

Jackson’s lawyers argued that the ban discriminates against him for being transgender, which they believe violates his constitutional equal protection rights.

However, the state argued that the ban is necessary in order to preserve fairness in women’s sports, which means that Becky Pepper-Jackson — who the state also argued has an unfair physical advantage like all biological males — is no exception.

“This is something that literally everyone knows. And when I say literally everyone knows it, I mean not just you and me. … Everyone, including far-left lunatics, understand this. They all know it. They all know it in their hearts, in their minds. They all know it,” Stu says.

“What they admit publicly, what they argue publicly, is something totally different many times. But they all know what the truth is here. Every single one of them. This is not, like, some mysterious information we’ve stumbled upon. I didn’t dig through a government report and find some little notation at the end that indicates, ‘Wow, we discovered new information,’” he continues.

“That’s not what’s going on here. This is just blatantly obvious things that everyone understands,” he adds.

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.

​Upload, Free, Camera phone, Video phone, Video, Sharing, Youtube.com, Stu does america, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, The supreme court, Becky pepper jackson, Transgender rights, Transgenders, Men in womens sports, Trans women, Mental illness 

An autopsy report on the remains of an 11-year-old girl found in a plastic bin behind an abandoned home contains disturbing details about her death.

The report said there was amphetamine as well as an antihistamine present in the body of Jacqueline “Mimi” Torres-Garcia. There was also evidence that she had been starved before dying.

Her body had been ‘folded into a tight fetal position’ and placed into a laundry bin that was put into a black garbage bag.

The girl’s remains were found in October behind the Clark Street home in New Britain, Connecticut.

She only had a single blueberry in her stomach and weighed only 27 pounds despite being 4’8″ tall. The report said she had a “near absence of subcutaneous fat.”

The medical examiner ruled that her cause of death had been fatal child abuse with starvation. The manner of death was found to be homicide from maltreatment and neglect.

The autopsy report also found no injuries to the girl’s head, body, or neck.

Her body had been “folded into a tight fetal position” and placed into a laundry bin that was put into a black garbage bag. That was put into the 40-gallon rubber tote that was found behind the boarded-up home, according to the State of Connecticut Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.

Police arrested the girl’s mother, Karla Garcia, and the mother’s boyfriend, Jonatan Nanita, for her murder. The girl’s aunt, Jackelyn Garcia, has also been charged with other charges related to her murder.

Her mother was charged with murder, tampering with evidence, and intentional cruelty to a child, among other charges. Nanita was charged with murder and intentional cruelty to a child.

RELATED: Mom allegedly left children in filthy apartment with trash, human and animal feces: police

An arrest warrant said that all three had allegedly admitted to “intentional restraint, neglect, and cruelty.”

Police said at a press conference in October that Torres-Garcia had likely died in the fall of 2024, about the time of her 12th birthday on Jan. 29.

The mother and boyfriend had previous arrests for violent criminal behavior, while the girl’s aunt had been arrested previously for causing risk to a minor.

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

​Girl starved to death, Mother and boyfriend kill child, New britain child murder, Crime, Jacqueline "mimi" torres-garcia 

In “Politics,” Aristotle explains that political rule comes in three basic forms: rule of one, rule of the few, and rule of the many. Each form has a healthy and a degenerate expression. Monarchy and tyranny describe rule by one. Aristocracy and oligarchy describe rule by the few. Polity and democracy describe rule by the many.

What separates the good from the bad in each category is not structure but motive. A king governs for the common good. A tyrant governs for himself.

Despite the millennia that separate us from Aristotle, the philosopher’s portrait of tyranny feels uncomfortably contemporary.

Aristotle does more than classify regimes. He explains, in cold and unsentimental terms, how tyrants preserve power once they seize it. His warnings, written more than 2,000 years ago, read less like ancient theory and more like a field manual.

The tyrant begins by eliminating rivals. He fears competition, especially from men of spirit and competence. Anyone admired for virtue, courage, or leadership poses a danger because excellence inspires imitation. Such men are removed through exile, execution, or disgrace.

Next the tyrant attacks institutions that allow citizens to form bonds. Aristotle lists common meals, clubs, educational gatherings, literary societies, and discussion groups. Any shared practice that fosters trust, loyalty, or independent thought threatens despotic rule. Organization creates solidarity, and solidarity creates resistance.

The tyrant also forces citizens to live publicly. Privacy breeds conspiracy. Public life enables surveillance. Aristotle describes rulers who compel their subjects to remain visible so that dissent never escapes notice. Long before Bentham’s panopticon, Aristotle understood that constant observation disciplines behavior.

Surveillance alone does not suffice. Tyrants cultivate networks of informers to uncover thoughts that cannot be seen. Citizens learn to treat one another as potential threats. Suspicion replaces trust. Speech becomes guarded. Silence becomes safety.

Aristotle could not have imagined digital surveillance, but he would have recognized its function. Technology merely perfects a strategy the ancients already understood.

Social bonds must then be weakened. The tyrant sows discord between neighbors, friends, and families. These relationships form the first line of resistance to centralized power. When trust dissolves at the most intimate level, organized opposition becomes nearly impossible.

Poverty also serves the tyrant. Aristotle observes that despots deliberately exhaust their populations with endless labor. The goal is not productivity but distraction. Citizens too busy to rest or reflect lack the energy to conspire.

He cites the construction of the Egyptian pyramids as an example of forced labor designed less to achieve a purpose than to consume a people’s strength. The task glorifies the ruler while leaving the population depleted.

War further strengthens despotism. Constant external threat convinces citizens that they need a strong ruler to survive. Crisis suspends normal limits. Emergency justifies control. Under perpetual conflict, organization becomes treason.

Aristotle claims that tyranny, the degenerated rule of one, borrows from the worst features of democracy. Despots empower groups unlikely to organize independently against them. He mentions women and slaves not as moral judgments but as political calculations within the ancient world.

The logic remains familiar. Tyrants elevate those dependent on the regime and hostile to existing social hierarchies. Dependence fosters loyalty. Resentment supplies enforcement.

Flattery plays a crucial role. Tyrants surround themselves with sycophants who inflate their ego and confirm their righteousness. Men willing to abase themselves rise quickly. Men of honor refuse to flatter and therefore remain dangerous.

Flattery becomes a sorting mechanism. Those who value dignity exclude themselves. Those who crave favor advance.

Aristotle adds that tyrants prefer foreigners to citizens. Citizens possess memory, tradition, and moral expectation. They know how things once were and how they ought to be. Foreigners lack these attachments, and they are happy to flatter the ruler who elevated them.

This arrangement benefits both sides. The tyrant gains enforcers without local allegiance. The foreigner gains status, wealth, and protection. Without the ruler, he has nothing.

RELATED: Do you want Caesar? Because this is how you get Caesar.

Blaze Media Illustration

Despite the millennia that separate us from Aristotle, his description of tyranny feels uncomfortably contemporary. Surveillance now operates through algorithms and cellphone cameras rather than forcing everyone to live at the city gates, but the purpose remains unchanged. Security replaces liberty. Total observation replaces trust.

Our institutions remove ambitious and virtuous individuals while elevating compliant managerial drones. Debt binds the population to endless labor. Work consumes life without building independence. Citizens remain busy, anxious, poor, and isolated.

Cultural and political authorities weaken family, denigrate religion, and discourage independent association. Community dissolves into administration. Loyalty transfers from neighbors to systems.

Ruling classes increasingly rely on populations with little connection to national history or tradition. These groups have no reason to defend inherited norms and every incentive to please those who grant them status.

Some details differ but the formula for tyranny does not. Aristotle understood tyranny because he understood human nature. His analysis endures because the same impulses govern power in every age.

There is nothing new under the sun.

​Opinion & analysis, Aristotle, Tyranny, Philosophy, Liberty, Totalitarianism, Panopticon, Surveillance, Police state, Technology, Algorithms, Ancient, Modern, Wealth, Poverty, Public good, Labor, Distraction 

A newly released surveillance video shows a handcuffed Florida female pulling a gun hidden in her pants and opening fire in a moving sheriff’s cruiser after a traffic stop.

Last June, Rheanna Harden — then 22 years old — was accused of driving with a suspended license, providing false identification to law enforcement, and possession of drugs, the Marion County Sheriff’s Office told WESH-TV.

Court records indicate Harden told investigators she got angry about how she was treated on the way to jail, WFTV reported, adding that she told investigators she said a prayer moments before opening fire.

But despite the deputy checking Harden three times, he never found a gun hidden in her pants, WFTV-TV reported.

In surveillance video WFTV said it recently obtained recorded inside a sheriff’s department cruiser, Harden is seen searching for something in her pants while sitting in the back of the patrol vehicle, WESH said.

Deputies said Harden was “flexible” enough to grab a gun from her pants and open fire while inside the cruiser, WFTV reported. The deputy was driving the vehicle at the time of the shooting, WESH added.

The patrol car crashed into a utility pole before the deputy managed to exit the cruiser and return fire, WESH said, citing the sheriff’s office.

Harden suffered shoulder and hip injuries, and the deputy suffered a graze wound near his right eye, authorities told WESH, which added that both Harden and deputy were hospitalized and later released.

The surveillance video also shows that Harden was able to get her left hand out of her handcuffs at least once, WFTV reported, adding that the deputy handcuffed her three times.

Indeed, investigators added to WFTV that Harden was able to pull off the shooting using a small revolver, despite having been handcuffed behind her back and patted down before her arrest.

Court records indicate Harden told investigators she got angry about how she was treated on the way to jail, WFTV reported, adding that she told investigators she said a prayer moments before opening fire.

Reports indicate Harden fired six rounds.

As you likely expect, Harden was hit with additional charges after the incident — namely attempted second-degree murder of a law enforcement officer and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the sheriff’s office told WESH.

Harden — who was denied bond — has a lengthy criminal history out of Bay County, which includes fleeing and eluding law enforcement officers and grand theft, WFTV said.

Her next court date is Jan. 29, jail records show.

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

​Arrest, Attempted murder charge, Florida, Hidden gun, Woman shoots at deputy, Marion county sheriff’s office, Crime 

Whitney Cummings mocked and ridiculed the hypocrisy of liberals during her appearance on Joe Rogan’s incredibly popular podcast.

Cummings was explaining how she came to have some conservative beliefs after being liberal and seeing the contradictory claims and beliefs they held.

‘We believe in climate change and the sea is rising, but we live on the coast! Like, would you buy a house on the beach if you truly believe that?’

“I was as liberal — I had blue hair, you guys! I rescue pit bulls. It doesn’t get any more liberal than me!” she joked. “But the whole idea with being liberal is like, you had me at, ‘We’re not racist, everybody’s equal,’ diversity, but then it turns into diversity but not diversity of thought!”

She said that she was not an expert in politics but could easily pick up on hypocrisy.

“So, it just started to just be like, hold on, you know, we don’t believe in gender, but we need a female president. And you’re like, huh?” she said. “And it’s like, ‘My body my choice,’ unless it’s a baby that needs a vaccine for hepatitis B, which comes from butt sex!”

“And sharing needles,” Rogan added.

“And sharing needles!” she agreed. “And then, we believe in climate change and the sea is rising, but we live on the coast! Like, would you buy a house on the beach if you truly believe that?”

Rogan and Cummings were ridiculing a far-left socialist scheme espoused by a housing activist who had been hired by newly inaugurated New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

RELATED: Libs are outraged at Jay Leno’s comments about politics in comedy amid cancellation of Stephen Colbert

Photo by Michael S. Schwartz/Getty Images

Video of the interaction was posted to social media, where it garnered millions of views. The entire podcast with Cummings can be viewed on the show’s YouTube channel.

She went on to express support for Democratic politician Beto O’Rourke, which Rogan appeared to oppose. He said that there would likely be a backlash to Mamdani’s policies, and it might lead to Republican control of the city.

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

​Whitney cummings on liberals, Anti liberal commedian, Joe rogan podcast, Liberal hypocrisy, Politics 

After being subpoenaed by the Republican-led House Oversight Committee to provide closed-door deposition testimony related to their past associations with Jeffrey Epstein and the federal government’s handling of investigations into his horrific crimes, both Bill and Hillary Clinton failed to appear on their scheduled testimonies.

The former president and Secretary of State sent letters in advance stating that they would not appear, condemning the subpoenas as legally invalid and politically motivated.

Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) has since announced that the committee will proceed with contempt of Congress proceedings against both Clintons, with a committee vote planned for next week, potentially leading to a full House vote and referral to the Justice Department.

BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler says that this is President Trump’s second chance to do what he should’ve done a long time ago: Arrest Hillary Clinton.

“Bill and Hillary Clinton think they’re above the law. Well, in a sense, nothing else is new. They’ve thought they were above the law for a long time because sadly, quite tragically, they have been,” Liz says. “They’ve virtually never been held accountable for anything wrong that they have done, and so in a sense, who can blame them for thinking that they can get away flouting the law once again?”

She recalls that back in 2022, former Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro were both hit with two counts of criminal contempt of Congress and spent four months in federal prison as a result.

In their joint letter, the Clintons claimed executive privilege — the implied power of the U.S. president and executive branch officials to withhold certain confidential communications from Congress, courts, and the public. While this might go unchallenged for the former president, there’s no chance it’ll work for Hillary, Liz says.

“Who does Hillary Clinton think she is? Well, I know she thinks that she’s the president of the United States, but she’s not. She was the Secretary of State. She was a senator. She was a first lady. She’s now a private citizen. She’s exempt from nothing,” she says.

The list of crimes that should’ve already landed crooked Hillary behind bars is long: “She abused her position of power, especially when she was Secretary of State, to enrich herself and her husband. She engaged in pay-to-play quid pro quos, where she sold access to herself and to the vice president, even to the president.”

“And when she was caught, what did she do?” Liz asks. “Well, she brought out BleachBit … a computer program to essentially nuke every piece of information on a piece of technology so that there’s no possibility of any forensic analysis.”

“Lock her up.”

To hear more of Liz’s analysis, watch the episode above.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

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

​The liz wheeler show, Liz wheeler, Blazetv, Blaze media, Bill clinton, Crooked hillary, Epstein, Clintons, Clinton crime family, Hillary clinton 

The co-owner of a Michigan sandwich shop says he doesn’t care about the backlash from his profanity-laced rant against Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.

The post was addressed to ICE and placed on the official Facebook page for Fatty Lumpkin’s Sandwich Shack in Muskegon, where it received a lot of attention.

‘F**k your BLATANT fascism. You are NOT welcome at Fatty Lumpkins Sandwich Shack.’

“No more quiet today. F**k YOU. NO F**K YOU!!! Do not EVER set foot in this establishment without a warrant. You will be denied service. You will be laughed at and escorted out. We will immediately call 911 the second I see anything resembling your presence on our private property,” read the post from Brett Gilbert.

A screenshot of the screed was posted on social media by the popular “Libs of TikTok” account.

“F**k you. F**k your murderous ways we all saw on full display today,” the co-owner added. “F**k your disregard for due process and our beloved constitution. F**k your lack of humanity based on manmade borders. F**k your dear leader, everything he stands for, and every single person that supports anything he or you do/represent. F**k your bonuses while essential services go unfunded.

“Most importantly … F**k your BLATANT fascism,” the post continued. “You are NOT welcome at Fatty Lumpkins Sandwich Shack. You NEVER will be. Our food is too good for you but beyond that our humanity transcends your callousness. You no longer get to enjoy the delicious food, art, etc. that your chosen enemies produce. We are not you and you are not us. Stay away!!!”

In comments to WWMT-TV, Gilbert said that his business had tripled over people showing their support for his comments.

“A lot of people have talked about the language in the post, and I don’t really care,” Gilbert said. “It’s just not that big of a deal. They’re words. I think the actions that are happening right now are a lot more significant, and something that people should be concerned about.”

RELATED: ‘Nazi trash’: Unhinged outrage ensues after ICE posts video of Santa deporting illegal aliens

Gilbert said he accepted that some people would no longer eat at his shop because of the post.

“Sometimes you have to not care about that stuff,” he added. “Not everything is about money. At the end of the day, I know I’m going to take care of myself and the people I love and this is part of that.”

A sandwich was also used as a weapon by a man against National Guard members in Washington, D.C., but the assault case was tossed out of court by a grand jury in November.

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

​Business owner hates ice, Anti-ice protest, Brett gilbert muskegon, Politics, Fatty lumpkins sandwiches