If America had an official “documentarian laureate,” Ken Burns would be a shoo-in for the job.

Over the last four decades, the filmmaker has devoted his career to capturing the country’s history and culture, in works ranging from “Baseball,” “Jazz,” and “The National Parks: America’s Best Idea” to his groundbreaking 1990 masterpiece “The Civil War.” And despite his avowed “yellow-dog Democrat” tendencies, he has done so with remarkable nuance.

Those rallying around the American cause are portrayed as a loose collection of criminals, anarchists, slavers, and exiled aristocrats united by high Enlightenment ideals.

Now, just in time for America’s 250th anniversary, Burns has returned with a new six-part PBS series exploring how it all got started.

Fanfare and apprehension

“The American Revolution” arrives with suitable fanfare — and an almost absurdly star-studded cast of voice-over artists. Tom Hanks, Morgan Freeman, Samuel L. Jackson, Paul Giamatti, Josh Brolin, Meryl Streep, Ethan Hawke, Edward Norton, and Michael Keaton are among the luminaries who provide narration.

Even so, there has been a level of apprehension surrounding the show, particularly among conservatives. Could a commemoration of America’s founding even work in our current moment — when even mild appeals to patriotism and national unity seem to stir up bitter partisan disputes?

Burns seems to have a found a way around this by making his retelling as clinical and unromantic as possible. He is clearly passionate about the American project, but he is unwilling to embrace the mythological or nationalistic sides of that passion.

Whose revolution?

“It’s our creation story,” historian Rick Atkinson says as he discusses the importance of the Revolution. But most of the experts Burns showcases prefer to focus on the negative, puncturing what one calls the “unreal and detached” romanticization of the founders.

Instead, we’re invited to ponder the role that slavery and the theft of Native American land played in the fight for independence — not to mention a fair amount of unsavory violence perpetrated by the revolutionaries.

While the series does a good job of covering the conflicts between 1774 and 1783, it takes frequent detours to discuss the issues surrounding the revolution: the role of women contributing to the war, the perspectives of English Loyalists as they became refugees fleeing the conflict, the madness of the Sons of Liberty’s antics, and the perspectives of slaves trying to survive and find liberty too.

RELATED: Yes, Ken Burns, the founding fathers believed in God — and His ‘divine Providence’

Interim Archives/Boston Globe/Getty Images

Living in the tension

A pronounced classical liberalism pervades the storytelling, one reflecting the secular Enlightenment idealism that a “new and radical” vision for mankind could be found through self-determination and freedom, apart from the aristocratic and theocratic haze of Europe.

This vision acknowledges progressive criticism of the era’s slavery and classism, but tries to integrate those faults rather than use them as grounds to discard the entire experiment. It attempts to live within the tension of history and sift out what is still valuable, rather than abandon the project altogether.

Indeed, Burns is generally good about avoiding any sort of score-settling or modern politicking, shy of a few buzzwords. He constantly uses the word “resistance” and ends with a reflection on the potential ruination of the republic by “unprincipled demagogues,” proudly quoting Alexander Hamilton that “nobody is above the law.”

The show’s consensus is overwhelmingly that the values of the Revolution were greater than the severely flawed men who fought it. To Burns, it was not merely a war, but a radical ongoing experiment in human liberty that escaped the colonies like a virus and changed the world forever. He certainly doesn’t want to throw out the liberal project, and so he constantly circles back on defending the war’s idealism.

Idealism and discomfort

This accounts for the show’s title, focusing on its revolutionary implications. It wasn’t just a war, but a change in the way people thought. The show argues that “to believe in America … is to believe in possibility,” and that studying the Revolution is important to understanding “why we are where we are now.”

Unfortunately, the intervening 12 hours require the viewer to swallow a fair share of dubious and rather inflammatory claims, including that George Washington was primarily driven by his class interests as a landowner, that popular retellings often “paper over” the violent actions of the revolutionaries, and that the founders were, on balance, hypocrites.

Its overall perspective is that it is impossible to tell the nation’s origin story in a way that is “clean” and “neat,” with clear heroes and villains. Those rallying around the American cause are portrayed as a loose collection of criminals, anarchists, slavers, and exiled aristocrats united by high Enlightenment ideals.

“The Revolution” wants both this idealism and discomfort to sit equally in your mind, as you ponder how morally compromised men could change the world. As one of the historians asks, “How can you know something is wrong and still do it? That is the human question for all of us.”

Overall, Ken Burns’ latest proves a very bittersweet watch, hardly the sentimental reflection on Americanism that the country’s approaching 250th anniversary demands, but also too idealistic and classically liberal to comfortably fit anyone’s agenda. It wants to lionize the founding’s aspirational values of democracy, equality, and revolution, while assiduously avoiding praising the people involved.

It’s a remarkably watchable and entertaining work of sober disillusionment.

​Entertainment, Culture, Television, Pbs, Ken burns, Documentaries, Film, The american revolution, History, Review 

With the season for Christmas shopping now in full swing, Amazon is testing out a new service for much faster deliveries.

On Monday, Amazon announced the limited launch of Amazon Now, a delivery feature promising swift deliveries in 30 minutes or less.

Amazon Now is first launching in parts of Seattle, Washington, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The announcement called the service “ultra-fast” delivery.

Amazon Now is first launching in parts of Seattle, Washington, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

RELATED: Amazon wants Warner Bros. so it can rule your screen

Photographer: Bess Adler/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The service focuses on essential household items and groceries. Amazon’s press release explains it will be using “specialized smaller facilities designed for efficient order fulfillment.”

Prime members will have to pay delivery fees starting at $3.99 for an order, and non-Prime members will have to pay $13.99.

Amazon will continue to offer Prime members its usual same-day, overnight, and next-day delivery options.

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

​Politics, Amazon, Philadelphia, Seattle, Prime, Prime members, Amazon now, Amazon prime, Ultra-fast, Washington, Pennsylvania 

Odell Beckham Jr. is being roasted online by fellow athletes and other NFL personalities for a resurfaced video that went viral over Thanksgiving weekend.

In October 2024 on “The Pivot” podcast with former NFL players Ryan Clark, Fred Taylor, and Channing Crowder, OBJ made a comment about money that many interpreted as tone-deaf, given the majority of Americans are struggling with the rising cost of living.

In the clip, he says, “Bro, you give somebody a five-year $100 million contract, right? What is it really? It’s five years for $60 [million]. You’re getting taxed. Do the math. That’s $12 [million] a year, you know, that you have to spend, use, save, invest, flaunt, like whatever.”

“Just being real. I’ma buy a car. I’ma get my mom a house. Everything costs money. So if you spending $4 million a year, that’s really $40 million over five years — $8 [million] a year — and now you start breaking down the numbers, it’s, like, that’s a five-year span of where you’re getting $8 million. Can you make that last forever?” he continued, adding that people who “ain’t us” couldn’t possibly understand this kind of struggle.

And the response online was essentially: You’re right — we can’t understand your luxury problem of an eight-figure salary.

Jason Whitlock, BlazeTV host of “Fearless,” says OBJ’s real problem is the black culture that’s conditioned him to think that any pushback on his financially “irresponsible behavior” is just racism or white folks selling out black excellence.

“What he’s basically saying is, like, ‘Hey, white people can’t relate. They don’t get it — all the pressure that we’re under and … all the people we have to help,”’ Whitlock translates.

Whitlock — who grew up legitimately poor, spent years grinding to achieve financial success, and had to assume financial responsibility for both his mother and grandmother at a young age — says he knows “the pressure that OBJ is talking about.”

But this kind of pressure isn’t unique to black people. Whitlock says he’s seen his “adoptive family,” who’s white, navigate the same scenario of having money and feeling obligated to help out struggling friends and family.

The pushback OBJ has received for his comments sparked some defensiveness. On December 2, the free agent tweeted:

— (@)

Whitlock says OBJ’s inability to receive criticism is a result of the “feminized matriarchal culture” of “excuses and delusion” he exists in.

When this is your context, “you end up embracing a lifestyle and an image that will make you [an] old, broke joke — and that’s what OBJ is,” he says.

To hear more of Whitlock’s take, watch the episode above.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

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

​Fearless, Fearless with jason whitlock, Jason whitlock, Blazetv, Blaze media, Odell beckham jr, Obj, Nfl, Ryan clark, Channing crowder, Fred taylor 

I’m one of those people who likes to write in cafés. I like the atmosphere. And the people. And the smell of espresso machines.

Recently I was walking in a newly developed area of my hometown (Portland) and discovered a new coffee place.

I ordered the house-blend coffee. I took it to the cream-and-sugar counter and poured a little milk into it. Much to my horror, the milk curdled instantly.

It looked like an excellent writing spot. There were solid tables and comfortable chairs and a window you could look out when you weren’t typing.

That smell

But then I went to the counter, where I recognized the distinct smell of a certain kind of Pacific Northwest coffee.

It’s the smell of artisanal roasting, done on the premises. Or in some cases, a small roaster nearby who provides the café with elaborately packaged organic, roaster-to-retail, artisanal coffee beans.

In other words: left-wing coffee.

That’s right: left-wing coffee. In case you haven’t noticed, there’s now left-wing and right-wing coffee. And as you’d expect, left-wing coffee is terrible.

*******

Stumptown

The best example of left-wing coffee is Portland’s own Stumptown brand. Stumptown has spread all across the world and at one point was widely advertised as Alaska Airline’s exclusive in-flight brand.

And what does Stumptown taste like? It tastes like someone poured a little orange juice into your coffee. Or some other acidic, citrusy liquid. This gives it a weird, tangy taste initially. And then a bitter, sour aftertaste.

The important thing is: It’s bad. It tastes bad. But that isn’t surprising. That’s what the left does. It takes good things and makes them bad. Movies? Architecture? Your local library? The left can ruin almost anything.

Now you might say: But all artisanal coffee doesn’t taste the same! Ah, but it does! Even though each individual coffee roaster handcrafts his coffee in his own unique fashion, somehow, by some strange process, all the artisanal coffee tastes remarkably similar and equally awful.

Coffee curdle

My favorite experience to relate about left-wing coffee came when I visited a popular Portland café with a friend.

I’d been there many times, so I knew the coffee there was artisanally roasted and therefore barely drinkable. But the café was buzzing with people, and my friend liked it, and there were good seats available for people-watching. So here we were.

I ordered the house-blend coffee. I took it to the cream-and-sugar counter and poured a little milk into it. Much to my horror, the milk curdled instantly.

Alarmed, I took my cup back to the counter and explained to the barista guy (with a man bun) what had happened. He shrugged. “Yeah, it does that sometimes; it’s the acid in the coffee.”

I said, “Why is there acid in the coffee?”

“It’s just the type of bean,” he said. “Sorry about that. Maybe don’t put milk in it?”

*******

The reason these artisanal-roasted coffees are left-wing is because left-wing people drink it. And serve it. And roast it. And brag about it.

It is a trend that began in coastal cities during the “locally sourced,” “farm-to-table” craze. It continues to exist to this day in college towns and other progressive strongholds in the rest of the country.

Leftists always want to change things. Especially things that people already like. They changed sports (they added gambling). They changed sex (they added pornography). They changed marriage (they added no-fault divorce).

So now they changed coffee by adding citrusy, floral, nutmeg-flavored, acidic, rainforest-protecting coffee beans that taste bad.

But that’s what they do. Bad is good to leftists.

RELATED: Corporate America turned coffee shops into cubicles. A more human cafe culture is fighting back.

Hertiage Images/Getty Images

Where the girls are

A couple years ago, I met a young Texan living in Warsaw, Poland, who agreed with my assessment of the leftist coffee problem but insisted it was still worth it to patronize “artisanal roaster” cafés because those were the best places to meet trendy girls. He said this was the case all over Europe.

And he was right. Everywhere I went on that trip, I googled “artisanal roasters” to find cafés. And sure enough, that’s where the hipsters were, the trendoids, the pretentious expats, the people wearing “statement glasses.”

This is also the case in L.A., San Francisco, New York, Seattle, and all the other leftist strongholds. Which reveals an obvious truth: that most hipsters, most trendsetters, most influencers are, at heart, brainless conformists.

If everyone else is drinking the terrible coffee, they’ll drink it too.

Take the ‘hints’ — please

So if Stumptown is left-wing, what coffee is right-wing?

I would say that any coffee that tastes like coffee is right-wing. Especially if it’s good. Like McDonald’s, Dunkin’ Donuts, Tim Hortons, Peet’s, or Starbucks.

If it doesn’t have words like “ethical” or “fair trade” or “locally sourced” and doesn’t have “hints” of lavender blossoms or “notes” of Scandinavian pine cones, it is probably right-wing.

If there are no drawings on the package of impoverished indigenous South American folks, suffering under the yoke of American capitalism, it is probably right-wing.

If the most descriptive thing it says on the packaging is “100% Arabica coffee,” it is probably right-wing, and it probably won’t curdle your milk.

Good to the last drop

My own favorite coffee shop in Portland is a quiet student café near Portland State University. It is an outlier in its coffee selection. It only serves ILLY brand coffee.

The ILLY company started in 1933. The original founder also invented this little thing called the ESPRESSO MACHINE. So I would guess he knew what he was doing.

Three generations later, ILLY is still one of the most loved and respected coffee companies in the world.

And guess what? ILLY doesn’t taste like anything except coffee. And it is delicious.

It is so good, I don’t even buy it to make at home. Because I don’t want to get used to it. I prefer to visit that one particular café once or twice a week to luxuriate in the perfect cup of coffee.

*******

The good news is, nobody is talking about Stumptown coffee anymore. Alaska Airlines has come to its senses and returned to ordinary coffee for in-flight customers.

And I’m guessing that even the trendiest young people will eventually abandon bad coffee. They have taste buds too.

But of course, leftists will continue to seek out new areas of Americana to mess with. Get ready for equitable corn flakes, nonbinary toothpaste, rainbow-infused gasoline for your car. At this point, I wouldn’t put anything past them.

​Lifestyle, Stumptown roasters, Coffee, Artisanal, Starbucks, Barista, Blake’s progress 

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) joined Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck to share his reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Republicans’ proposed redistricting map. He also talked about his recent actions against the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

On Thursday, SCOTUS temporarily approved the GOP’s redistricting efforts in Texas for use in the upcoming midterm election. As a result, Republicans are likely to gain five additional seats in the U.S. House.

‘The Supreme Court beat down the lower court for violating that precedent.’

The Supreme Court’s latest decision overturned a lower court’s order, which would have required Texas to return to 2021 district lines.

Abbott joined “The Glenn Beck Program” on Friday morning to share his thoughts on the recent Supreme Court decision, calling it “huge news” for Republicans across the U.S.

“This is total vindication for the state of Texas, for the legislature,” Abbott told Beck.

The Texas governor explained that the map was redrawn to “fully” comply with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent as well as “truly represent the values of people of our state.”

Abbott accused the lower court of abandoning precedent previously established by SCOTUS.

“The Supreme Court beat down the lower court for violating that precedent,” he told Beck.

RELATED: Supreme Court allows Texas redistricting map for midterm elections; liberals dissent

Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images

During Friday morning’s interview, Abbott also discussed his effort to remove the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ tax-exempt status, citing the organization’s alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Abbott sent a letter to Secretary Scott Bessent earlier this week requesting that the Treasury Department open an investigation into the group and suspend its tax-exempt status.

“CAIR has historic connections to terrorism,” Abbott stated. “Here’s the bottom line: If CAIR doesn’t want to be labeled as a terrorist organization, if it wants to shed its early ties to terrorism, it needs to stop supporting those who are identified by the federal government as supporters of terrorism.”

“Because they support terrorists to this day, that is exactly why they deserve, for one, to be labeled a foreign organization, and, for another, why they should not be receiving the benefits of a 501(c)(3) organization,” he added.

RELATED: Islamist groups in Texas rake in $13M in taxpayer-funded grants amid Abbott’s battle against Sharia law

Greg Abbott. Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

CAIR sent its own letter to Bessent the following day, claiming to debunk the governor’s accusations.

“Governor Abbott is afraid,” CAIR stated. “He knows that his proclamation targeting CAIR-Texas is unconstitutional, so now he is desperately trying to find another way to target our organization.”

“Unfortunately for Mr. Abbott, his lies about us are easily disprovable and the truth about him is clearly evident: He’s an Israel First politician who is obsessed with CAIR because our lawsuits have defeated his attempts to silence Texans critical of Israel three times in a row. We look forward to defeating him in court for a fourth time soon, God willing,” CAIR’s statement read.

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

​News, Council on american-islamic relations, Council on american islamic relations, Cair, Greg abbott, Abbott, Texas, Glenn beck, Redistricting, Redistricting battle, Midterms, Midterm elections, Politics 

President Donald Trump and members of his administration have worked doggedly over the past year to broker a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine.

While there have been multiple instances when an end to the bloodshed appeared within reach, Presidents Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin have both repeatedly thrown up obstacles to sealing the deal — in most cases over proposals regarding territorial concessions and security guarantees for Kyiv.

There are, however, others actors in the mix who appear content to stymie the U.S.-mediated peace negotiations.

English-language notes allegedly detailing a conference call held on Monday between Zelenskyy, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and numerous other EU leaders revealed the extent of the contempt and distrust some European leaders have for the United States as it relates to Washington’s role in the peace talks.

According to the notes that were leaked to the German publication Der Spiegel, Macron suggested that there was a chance that the U.S. — a nation that has kept Ukraine viable with the help of hundreds of billions of dollars and top-notch armaments as well as by sanctioning its foe — might “betray” Ukraine.

“There is a chance that the U.S. will betray Ukraine on territory without clarity on security guarantees,” Macron reportedly said, adding that the territorial matter presents “a big danger” for Zelenskyy.

Macron was among the EU leaders who rejected Trump’s original 28-point peace plan last month and echoed an old complaint that certain proposals would require EU consent. His office has claimed that he “did not express himself in these words” as described in the notes but did not indicate how he had expressed himself.

RELATED: Zelenskyy’s hold on power uncertain as criminal charges reach his inner circle

Photographer: Nathan Laine/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Merz, whose nation is set to pass a new conscription scheme, reportedly said that Zelenskyy must be “very careful” in the talks ahead, noting that “they are playing games with both you and us.” Der Spiegel indicated that the “they” Merz referred to was likely Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who have been working on the peace negotiations.

Alexander Stubb — the Finnish president who complained in a recent interview that “all the conditions for a just peace we’ve talked so much about over the past four years are unlikely to be fulfilled” — reportedly said on the conference call, “We must not leave Ukraine and Volodymyr alone with these guys,” again apparently referring to the U.S. representatives.

The notes for the call, which several participants confirmed to Der Spiegel had taken place, indicate that Rutte agreed, stating, “I agree with Alexander that we need to protect Volodymyr.”

While a spokesperson for Zelenskyy told Der Spiegel he did not want to comment on the content of the call, the Ukrainian president said in a statement on Thursday, “Ukraine is prepared for any possible developments, and of course we will work as constructively as possible with all partners to ensure that peace is achieved — and that it is, after all, a dignified peace. Only a dignified peace provides real security, and we fully understand that this requires — and will continue to require — the support of our partners.”

The White House did not respond to Blaze News’ request for comment.

On Tuesday, Putin suggested European leaders were undermining the peace process, stating, “They don’t have a peace agenda; they’re on the side of the war,” reported the Associated Press.

The Russian president further accused the Europeans of introducing “demands that are absolutely unacceptable to Russia,” thereby “blocking the entire peace process.”

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

​Europe, European, Zelenskyy, Zelensky, Macron, France, Germany, Ukraine, Merz, Russia, Kyiv, Donald trump, Witkoff, Peace, Peace deal, War, Politics 

If anyone from a backward and unstable country could be vetted for anti-American hostility, it would have been someone like Rahmanullah Lakanwal, the Afghan national who allegedly shot two National Guardsmen in Washington, D.C., the day before Thanksgiving. He had been vetted by the CIA, worked with our military in Afghanistan, and was later approved for asylum alongside his wife and five children.

And still, he turned his gun on the very country that took him in. How many more reminders do we need before we shut off the spigot?

Tackling America’s economic challenges will be tricky. But an immigration shutoff is easy. Trump can — with the stroke of a pen — halt all entries that threaten national security.

In response to the attack, President Trump vowed to “permanently pause migration from all third world countries.” Many Americans hoped this meant fulfilling the pledge he made nearly a decade ago: “A total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

On Thanksgiving Day, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joseph Edlow announced a “full-scale, rigorous reexamination of every green card” holder from “every country of concern.” When pressed, Edlow pointed to the 19 countries listed in Trump’s June 4 proclamation, “Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.”

That June order established two tiers of restrictions.

Full restriction: Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen.

Partial restriction: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela.

This week, the White House announced its intention to pause all immigration from all 19 countries and freeze naturalization applications from nationals already here.

It’s a start. But it doesn’t address the larger reality: Even a total shutdown of these 19 countries barely dents the scale of Islamic-world migration into the United States.

By my calculations, these countries account for only 27% of Muslim-origin immigration in 2023 — and just 18% of our intake from the Islamic world over the past decade.

Ten of the 19 targeted countries are majority-Muslim. But there are 39 other majority-Muslim countries — most overwhelmingly Muslim — from which we admit well over 100,000 green-card recipients each year.

Here is the updated breakdown of immigration from all majority-Muslim countries in 2023 and over the prior 10 years:

Blaze Media

This is a numbers game. You simply cannot import roughly 175,000 Muslim migrants every year — not counting tens of thousands more on student and temporary visas — without replicating the social unraveling we have seen in Europe.

Trump’s expanded ban would block about 47,000 of these arrivals annually. But it leaves massive sending countries — Bangladesh, Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Uzbekistan — effectively untouched.

Blaze Media

The problem with limiting the moratorium to these 10 Islamic countries (plus nine other hostile or unstable states) isn’t just numerical. It’s philosophical. The order implies that we are only concerned with countries that have poor diplomatic relations or inadequate data-sharing with the United States.

But the challenge of Islamic migration has never been solely about vetting. Most individuals who embrace Sharia supremacism, support suicide attacks, or reject Western norms are not sworn members of al-Qaeda or Hezbollah. The issue is ideological — a form of unreformed Islam that never passed through the Enlightenment and remains fundamentally incompatible with liberal Western society.

For decades, small-scale migration masked this reality. But we have admitted roughly 3 million Muslims since 9/11. They cluster, build Qatari-funded or Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated mosques, and reproduce the same ideological ecosystem from which they emigrated. High-volume flows reinforce the problem exponentially.

And contrary to the foreign-policy establishment’s assumptions, hostility does not only come from “enemy” states. In fact, migrants from “friendly” governments often pose greater risks. Regimes such as Egypt and Jordan suppress their own Islamist movements. Uzbekistan bans full beards. These governments contain radicalism at home — and we import the very people they fear.

We’ve seen the consequences repeatedly. A sampling:

Akayed Ullah, who arrived from Bangladesh in 2011, detonated a pipe bomb in the Port Authority Bus Terminal, declaring support for ISIS. Bangladesh now sends more than 18,000 immigrants annually.Sayfullo Saipov, who came from Uzbekistan in 2010 on a diversity visa, murdered eight people in a truck attack in Manhattan while shouting “Allahu Akbar.”Dilkhayot Kasimov, Abdurasul Juraboev, Abror Habibov, all Uzbeks, conspired to support ISIS, discussed attacking President Obama, and scouted U.S. military targets. We continue admitting over 5,000 Uzbeks per year through the Diversity Visa Lottery — a program Trump should end immediately.Muhammad Khair Alabid, a student from Egypt, plotted a Fourth of July vehicle-bomb attack in Cleveland.Mohamed Sabry Soliman, also from Egypt, firebombed a pro-Israel rally in Boulder in 2025, killing one and injuring 12. He and his family were admitted by the Biden administration and overstayed. We have issued more than 100,000 green cards to Egyptian nationals in the past decade.Muhammad El-Sayed, admitted from Jordan on a diversity visa, built an ISIS-linked terror cell in Minneapolis, scouting military bases and Jewish centers.Abdullah Muhammad Zain-ul-Abideen, a student visa-holder from Jordan, provided material support in the Garland, Texas, terrorist attack on the “Draw Muhammad” event.

RELATED: Wajahat Ali says quiet part out loud in attack on Trump’s re-migration plan: ‘Mistake that you made is you let us in’

Photo by Cindy Ord/Getty Images for BAFTA

The most glaring case of false security is Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, a Saudi military trainee brought here on an A-2 visa. In 2019, he murdered three American service members at Naval Air Station Pensacola. He was here because our government trusted Saudi vetting.

This is the pattern: Working with a regime is not the same as trusting its people. In many cases, these governments fear their own populations. Yet we continue importing those populations at scale.

For example: The United States and Israel prop up the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan precisely because its people are more radical than their rulers. Yet we have brought in over 72,000 Jordanians in the past decade. If those populations are too dangerous for their own government, why do we assume they are safe for ours?

When it comes to transformational immigration policy, there is no such thing as “lukewarm hell.” Trump should impose a full moratorium on all Islamic-majority countries and abolish the Diversity Visa Lottery entirely.

Tackling America’s economic challenges ahead of the midterms will be tricky. But an immigration shutoff is easy. Under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Trump can — with the stroke of a pen — halt all entries that threaten national security.

He has already done it for 19 countries. He has no reason not to finish the job.

​Opinion & analysis, Immigration, Islam, Donald trump, Immigration ban, Muslims, Citizenship, Green cards, Afghanistan, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Muslim brotherhood, Jihad, Terrorism, Terrorists, Vetting, Immigration and customs enforcement, Immigration and nationality act, National security, America first, Diversity lottery, Visas, Visa overstays 

Following the tragic shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C., last week, allegedly by an Afghan national, President Trump has ramped up his rhetoric against foreigners coming into our country. Now his administration is taking action with some important policy changes.

On Thursday, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced a major slash in the duration of work permit validity, according to the Washington Post.

‘It’s even more clear that USCIS must conduct more frequent vetting of aliens.’

Specifically the new policy affects asylum seekers by changing the work permit authorization period from five years to a mere 18 months.

“Reducing the maximum validity period for employment authorization will ensure that those seeking to work in the United States do not threaten public safety or promote harmful anti-American ideologies. After the attack on National Guard service members in our nation’s capital by an alien who was admitted into this country by the previous administration, it’s even more clear that USCIS must conduct more frequent vetting of aliens,” USCIS Director Joseph Edlow said in a Thursday press release.

RELATED: Suspect in Guardsmen shooting tied to Biden’s Operation Allies Welcome

Photo by MANUEL BALCE CENETA/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

USCIS stated in the press release that these changes to maximum validity period for Employment Authorization Documents are part of a broader policy update to ensure more thorough screenings of foreigners.

Fwd.us, an immigration advocacy group, told the Washington Post that the move is expected to impact hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers.

The group also estimated that around 1.4 million of the three million asylum seekers currently in the United States are working.

These policy changes come shortly after it was revealed that the suspected shooter is an Afghan national tied to the Biden-era migrant relocation program, Operation Allies Welcome.

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

​Politics, Uscis, Joseph edlow, Biden, Asylum seekers, Us citizenship and immigration services, Aliens, Foreigners, Asylum, Operation allies welcome