Old habits die hard. The Oversight Project filed another lawsuit against the FBI today. During the Biden years, we were in court constantly, suing the bureau more than a dozen times over weaponization and abuse. Many of the cases we fought then connect directly to the scandals now surfacing under the Trump administration. We were over the target back then — and Washington doesn’t do coincidences.

But this case is different.

We’re suing the FBI to force transparency — not for politics, but for accountability. Because if we don’t fix this now, we’ll look back and wish we had.

Monday’s lawsuit strikes at a deeper problem: the FBI’s claim that it has been “reformed” and is now “the most transparent in history.” That phrase is absurd on its face. Compared with the post-COINTELPRO reforms and the Church Committee era, today’s FBI is anything but transparent.

We’re suing because the bureau has built a system designed to violate the Freedom of Information Act. Over time, the FBI has developed a “pattern and practice” of breaking the law to hide information. Reporters across the political spectrum can tell you the same thing. The bureau stonewalls, delays, and hides behind boilerplate responses that make a mockery of the law.

Our case asks the federal judiciary to step in and force the FBI to fix this — to overhaul its FOIA process and follow the law it routinely ignores. This isn’t a step we took lightly. For nearly a year, we tried to resolve these problems through other channels. But the bureau’s “fixes” never came.

Bureaucratic shell game

The FBI has perfected a set of tricks to avoid scrutiny. It uses canned denials for well-defined requests, ignores the public-interest standard written into law, and buries documents under layers of redaction. Even by Washington’s anemic transparency standards, the FBI stands out as the worst offender.

This isn’t theoretical. In practice, the Oversight Project submitted requests naming specific agents — like the infamous Timothy Thibault — and identifying internal systems such as the Lync messaging platform. We asked for communications containing key terms like “Republican” or “Mar-a-Lago.” Those are precisely the requests the bureau continues to battle with gusto.

FBI Director Kash Patel deserves credit for some high-profile disclosures, but we can’t depend on him to keep discovering incriminating documents in “burn bags” or forgotten closets. That’s not transparency — that’s triage. The FBI cannot investigate itself or selectively release information without feeding public cynicism.

The point of FOIA is citizen oversight — not bureaucratic discretion. In a republic, the people are supposed to control government institutions, not the other way around.

A pattern of abuse

If the FBI had obeyed its own transparency standards all along, Americans would already know far more about the scandals that shook their confidence in government: Russiagate, the Mar-a-Lago raid, Operation Arctic Frost, the targeting of Catholic parishes and concerned parents, and the January 6 excesses. Each of these was compounded by secrecy and delay.

RELATED: Video sleuth challenges FBI Jan. 6 pipe-bomb narrative, unearths new evidence

filo via iStock/Getty Images

The bureau’s institutional resistance to disclosure doesn’t just protect bad actors — it perpetuates them. It allows corruption to metastasize under color of national security and procedure.

Time to clean house

At some point, the FBI will no longer be in Kash Patel’s hands. That’s why reform should happen now while the issue is in the public eye. The systems that enable secrecy and abuse must be dismantled before the next crisis hits.

We’re suing the FBI to force transparency — not for politics, but for accountability. Because if we don’t fix this now, we’ll look back and wish we had.

​Opinion & analysis, Federal bureau of investigation, Fbi, Freedom of information act request, Foia, Lawsuit, Oversight project, Kash patel, Operation arctic frost, Russiagate, Timothy thibault, Charles grassley, Information, Citizen oversight, First amendment, Secrecy 

Texas’ Senate Bill 12 is a no-brainer. Dubbed the “Parents’ Bill of Rights,” the law has four simple principles for public schools:

1. No DEI training: Schools can’t assign DEI duties or allow race-/gender-based training. Critical race theory ideas about racial superiority or guilt are banned.

2. No sex education without parental consent: Schools cannot provide any instruction on human sexuality, including topics like sexual health or reproduction, without explicit written parental consent.

3. No social transitioning help: Staff can’t help students change names, pronouns, or appearance to match a different gender without parents knowing.

4. No gender-/sex-focused clubs: Clubs focused on sexual orientation or gender identity are banned from recognition, funding, and use of school facilities.

Sara Gonzales — BlazeTV host of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” and the vice president of Texas Family Project, a nonprofit organization aiming to protect children from radical ideology — says SB 12 is “a very reasonable law … to anyone who isn’t a total creep.”

And yet, there are people who are adamant on fighting SB 12. One of those people is Texas Tribune reporter Lindsey Byman, who posted this on Wednesday:

— (@)

As a parent of two Texas schoolchildren, Sara was much obliged to answer Lindsey’s question. In a lengthy, scathing email, Sara told the Texas Tribune journalist exactly how SB 12 has impacted Texans.

Lindsey,

My name is Sara Gonzales, and I have two school-aged boys in Texas. I am also the vice president of Texas Family Project, a nonprofit organization here in the state that has advocated for SB 12 — and much more — to shield innocent children from the predatory claws of radical ideologues.

You asked to hear how the “new policies limiting the discussion/expression of trans identities at public TX K-12 schools” have affected Texans. As you likely already know — or should if you weren’t so blinded by your obvious agenda — this policy simply protects children from being socially transitioned at school, in secret, without their parents’ knowledge. It also prevents teachers from otherwise having conversations with minor children related to their sexual preferences. Any adult who is not a morally bankrupt, mentally ill degenerate would cheer this as a reasonable measure to protect children from harm.

To be clear, I am absolutely thrilled that public school teachers can no longer sexually indoctrinate children without accountability or consequence. It warms my heart to think that these vile perverts who have been radically indoctrinating Texas children into a cult that makes them more prone to depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation could finally be fired. In a just world, their entire lives would be turned upside down as a result of their ghoulish behavior, and their nightmares would be endless.

In fact, I’ll sleep like a baby tonight just thinking about these predators plagued with real-world consequences of sexually indoctrinating and exploiting children.

Texans are united on this: Our hard-earned tax dollars should fund education, not indoctrination peddled by leftist lunatics. History will brand you and the pathetic left-wing propaganda mill you shill for as the villains you are — enemies of children, truth, and decency. Let’s be honest: Your company is circling the drain. It won’t survive much longer; after all, who in their right mind would continue funding a steaming pile of garbage? Tick-tock, Lindsey. Your irrelevance is calling. You can quote me in full.

Yours in unyielding contempt,
Sara Gonzales

Surprisingly, Lindsey was quick to reply. To see her response, watch the episode above.

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.

​Sara gonzales, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Blazetv, Blaze media, Lindsey byman, Transing kids, Transgenderism, Texas, Public schools, Sb12 

It would be easy to demonize John Allen Chau, the Christian missionary who died while trying to bring the Bible to a remote tribe. The 26-year-old could have introduced new diseases to the North Sentinel Island community, causing serious harm. He also vowed to invade a community that craves isolation above all.

Now imagine a Hollywood film capturing Chau’s short, dramatic life. The industry isn’t known for sympathetic close-ups on faith, to be generous.

‘Whenever we go into places where we’re not comfortable, the first thing is, “I have to impose my point of view. Here’s my worldview.”‘

Yet veteran director Justin Lin (“Star Trek Beyond,” the “Fast & Furious” franchise) took a less expected path in bringing the young man’s life to theaters.

Justin Lin. Photo: Giles Keyte

Quick to judge

“Last Days” stars Sky Yang as John, a determined Christian who vowed to do something remarkable with his life. He risked everything to travel to the North Sentinel Island, hoping to share Jesus Christ’s message.

The story ended tragically, but Lin’s film portrays Chau as a kind-hearted lad whose complicated life led him to his fate. Lin isn’t a Christian, but he treated the material with care and empathy. That wasn’t his first reaction.

“It’s very easy to judge and dismiss. That’s what I did when the story broke,” Lin told Align of the initial news reports, the kind of “hot take” that swiftly decried Chau’s fateful decision. “It didn’t sit well with me that I was so quick to judge and dismiss him.”

A father’s story

An Outside Magazine feature on Chau’s life had a powerful effect on the filmmaker. The story shared Chau’s father’s perspective on his late son, among other details.

That rocked Lin.

“I have a teenage son. As a parent, I know exactly what he was going through, how you’re trying to impart your wisdom, make sure they’re not going through any hardships,” he said. “What I learned from that article was that if you do it on your timeline, and your son is not ready, you just miss each other.”

The project didn’t involve fast cars or intergalactic travel, but the change of pace spoke to the veteran filmmaker.

“I really wanted to try something different,” added Lin, even if he wouldn’t have the kind of blockbuster budget at his back.

“It’s going to be a run-and-gun, small crew,” he imagined before reading more from the real Chau’s diary. “In John’s writing, he was clearly inspired by adventure novels and Hollywood films. … I’m going to honor that and be the signpost for our film. … It’s an intimate story, but it has to feel like a big Hollywood film.”

He called in some professional favors to give the film a Tinsel Town sheen that otherwise might not have been feasible.

RELATED: Pistol-packing rabbi targets anti-Semitism in action flick ‘Guns & Moses’

Still courtesy Pictures from the Fringe

Fresh perspectives

Lin approached Chau’s faith delicately, while acknowledging the dubious decisions he made along the way. A mid-film romance ends unexpectedly, for example, allowing for fresh perspectives on Chau’s quest.

That balance came via an extensive effort on the director’s part.

“Whenever we go into places where we’re not comfortable, the first thing is, ‘I have to impose my point of view. Here’s my worldview.’ I made that commitment early on to say, ‘No,’” he said. “Taking three years of my life [for this film] … was to connect with his humanity.”

More with less

“Last Days” looks as lush as a $100+ million film, the kind that Lin routinely delivers. He didn’t have those resources nor an A-list cast to bring John Chau’s life to the big screen. Yang is a minor revelation, while Ken Leung’s turn as the young man’s father is heartbreaking.

Lin has a knack for doing more with less.

“I made a credit card movie for $250,000, and that movie opened the door and gave me all these opportunities,” said Lin of “Better Luck Tomorrow,” his 2002 breakthrough made by maxing out his personal credit limit. The film earned $3.8 million theatrically, a tidy sum given the budget. Hollywood swiftly came calling.

“Last Days” may have an indie sensibility, but Lin still felt the pressure to “nudge” the film in certain directions. The real Chau refused to be “boxed in” by society, yet the film industry tried to do just that with the film.

“Can you make this a Christian movie?” he recalled of the behind-the-scenes chatter about “Last Days.” … I didn’t understand or even appreciate that kind of nudge. … ‘If you really wanna be marketable, you should do more of this.’ Those conversations for me ended very quickly.”

“That is a challenge with independent films … the temptation. … ‘If I give you all this money, can you cast my son?’ Those are all choices you encounter,” he said.

Lin will find himself on more familiar ground with the upcoming “BRZRKR,” based on the Boom! Studios comic book co-created by Keanu Reeves. The “John Wick” star served as an angel investor in “Last Days.”

“I didn’t grow up wanting to make action movies, but I ended up enjoying the process,” he admitted.

The public got a sneak peek at “Last Days” during the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year, months before its Oct. 24 theatrical rollout. The post-screening Q and A left him hopeful he had accomplished what he had set out to do with the film.

“Five minutes in, they could find a common bridge in [the film],” Lin recalled. “We need that now more than ever.”

​Showbiz, Movies, Entertainment, Culture, Sentinel island, John allen chau, Missionary, Christianity, Faith, Justin lin, Fast & furious, Align interview 

Anyone who drives America’s highways knows the story: potholes, cracked pavement, and endless construction zones. States pour billions of tax dollars into road maintenance every year, yet the pavement always seems to crumble faster than it can be repaired. What most motorists don’t realize is that heavy trucks cause much of the damage — and pay almost nothing to fix it.

Federal estimates show that a single fully loaded 18-wheeler can inflict as much pavement damage as nearly 10,000 passenger cars. Fuel taxes and highway user fees from trucking companies cover only a small fraction of the destruction they cause. Taxpayers pick up the rest, footing the bill for constant repaving, bridge work, and the cycle of crumbling roads.

Every additional ton of freight shifted to rail represents pavement preserved and taxpayer dollars saved.

Trucking keeps the economy moving, and freight rail, shipping, and trucking together form the backbone of America’s supply chain. But shifting more freight to rail makes sense. The rail network is self-maintained by the companies that use it, and trains move goods more safely and efficiently than trucks. The more freight we move by rail, the less damage we’ll have to repair on the nation’s roads.

A merger serving Americans

The recently proposed merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern offers an opportunity to improve both our roads and our supply chains simultaneously. By creating a more efficient coast-to-coast rail network, the merger would allow railroads to capture more freight that currently travels by truck — relieving taxpayers of billions of dollars in hidden subsidies for road repair.

Merging Union Pacific’s vast western network with Norfolk Southern’s eastern lines would create the nation’s first true transcontinental railroad — from the Pacific to the Atlantic. For shippers, that means single-line pricing instead of juggling multiple operators to move goods from point A to point B.

It also means faster delivery, fewer interchanges, and lower costs.

Railroads, unlike trucking companies, build and maintain their own infrastructure. Every mile of track, every bridge, and every switching yard comes from private capital, not public funds.

When freight moves from trucks to trains, taxpayers win twice: less highway damage to repair and more freight handled by a system that pays its own way.

The savings aren’t theoretical. Heavy trucks cause roughly 40% of the wear on America’s roads while accounting for only about 10% of total miles driven.

A North Carolina Department of Transportation study found that trucks with four or more axles underpay for road damage by anywhere from 37% to 92%. State budgets from Texas to Pennsylvania tell the same story: Highway repair costs soar while trucking fees barely make a dent.

Every ton of freight shifted to rail means less pavement destroyed and more tax dollars saved.

False cries of monopoly

Naturally, critics of the merger will cry “monopoly,” as they always do when industries consolidate. But that misses the real competitive landscape. In addition to competing with other railroads, rail competes vigorously with trucks, which dominate American freight today.

Trucks control roughly 70% of domestic freight volume — subsidized in part by taxpayer-funded roads. Allowing railroads to offer a stronger alternative isn’t anti-competitive — on the contrary, it’s pro-market. It creates stronger competition for taxpayer-subsidized trucking.

RELATED: DOT withholds $40M from blue state for flouting English requirements for truckers

Photo by Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

At its heart, this merger is a test of whether the Trump administration trusts the free market to deliver solutions. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern are not asking taxpayers to fund their merger. They are not asking for subsidies, grants, or carve-outs. They are investing their own capital to create a system that reduces public costs, strengthens supply chains, and keeps America competitive.

If policymakers are serious about preserving America’s battered roads, as well as strengthening our supply chain infrastructure, the choice is obvious. Let the free market work, and let railroads take more freight off the highways.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Transportation, Department of transportation, Brendan carr, Union pacific, Railroad, Railroads, Freight, Trade, Economy, Jobs, Supply chain 

As October comes to a close, “spooky season” is in full form. Stores are packed with Halloween candy, costumes, and decorations.

Some Christians reject Halloween as synonymous with evil. But why is that? And what is the best way for Christians to respond to Halloween?

Make no mistake: Every day on the calendar belongs to God, and none of them belong to anyone else, including the devil.

How it started

The pagan Celts of ancient Ireland celebrated the new year on Nov. 1. So, much like we celebrate the night before New Year’s Day, they celebrated the night before (Oct. 31), too.

They called it “Samhain” — a night when they believed the dead in the form of ghosts could return to walk the earth. The Celts built huge bonfires, dressed in costumes to disguise themselves from the ghosts, and made lanterns out of gourds (like pumpkins, although they likely used different gourds). The fires attracted many insects, which attracted bats.

When the influence of the Catholic church began extending into pagan lands, sometimes the two cultures influenced each other. The Catholics celebrated All Saints’ Day on Nov. 1 — also known as “All Hallows Day” — which was an occasion to remember the dead, who are supposedly now in heaven.

So Samhain eventually came to be known as “All Hallow’s Eve” or Halloween. And the bats, ghosts, costumes, and jack-o-lanterns made of gourds — the trappings of Samhain — continued to be part of the celebration.

Trick-or-treat origin story

In medieval Britain, a practice called “souling” emerged, where the poor would go door-to-door on Nov. 1 or Nov. 2, offering prayers for the dead in exchange for food, often “soul cakes.”

In Scotland and Ireland, a parallel tradition called “guising” developed in which children and young adults disguised themselves in costumes or masks, supposedly to mimic or hide from wandering spirits, and went door-to-door performing songs, poems, or tricks in exchange for food, nuts, or coins.

The term “guising” comes from “disguise,” reflecting the costume element in modern trick-or-treating.

How it’s going

History is important. But so is understanding what is happening now.

In the U.S., Halloween is primarily about one thing: trick-or-treating. Kids love dressing up in costumes and getting free candy, which is why we start seeing Halloween candy displays about 10 minutes after school starts in the fall — if not earlier.

Trick-or-treating is, of course, driven by commercial candy manufacturers, who make a significant portion of their profit from Halloween-related sales of their highly processed, terrible-for-everyone, garbage candy, which is full of dyes and additives (save us, MAHA!). That’s an “evil” we don’t hear enough about.

But there are those who see evil in every Halloween nook and cranny. Those who proclaim it “Satan’s day” and a peak time for witchcraft and other evil doings. This seems to be based in great part on alleged comments from satanists and witches that I see posted on social media every October — comments thanking Christians for allowing their children to worship Satan one day a year by trick-or-treating.

That’s stupid. Why would we believe or listen to anything self-proclaimed devil worshippers say?

Make no mistake: Every day on the calendar belongs to God, and none of them belong to anyone else, including the devil. I don’t deny people could choose Oct. 31 in particular to celebrate evil. However, for the vast majority of Americans, Halloween is about strolling the neighborhood in costume and collecting candy.

What should Christian families do?

Our highest calling is to love God and love our neighbor. And Halloween brings those neighbors to our door, literally. What if we prayerfully and thoughtfully considered how we can bless those neighbors on Halloween with an eye toward building relationships?

I’m not talking about handing out Christian tracts instead of candy. Don’t be that person. But I am talking about eagerly seeking opportunities to connect with at least one if not more families in your neighborhood with whom you can begin to build relationships.

This, in fact, is why God has you where you live.

Let me tell you about what one family did for Halloween. They set up a pole tent in the driveway, hung lights from it, and under the tent placed their BBQ grill on which they cooked hot dogs. A table held buns and condiments, a bowl of Halloween candy, and jello shots for the adults. They publicized this on the neighborhood webpage a day or two before Halloween.

To be clear, they weren’t Christians seeking to love their neighbor. They were seeking to promote the father’s business. But how might we promote our heavenly father’s business similarly?

Here are some ideas:

If you have access to one, a pole tent in the driveway with lights strung on it is very welcoming on a dark night! Grilling hotdogs is a good idea. Another might be a big crock-pot filled with chili, with paper cups and plastic spoons for serving.A hot drink station with cocoa, cider, tea, etc.Fresh-made pumpkin bread or oatmeal cookies in little treat bags as an alternative to commercial candy.Set out lawn chairs and invite people to sit down and rest for a moment — and if they do, introduce yourselves and get to know their family.Let your kids dress up and pass out the goodies. If you also allow your kids to trick-or-treat, one of you can hold down the fort while the other takes the kids around the neighborhood.Let people know a day or two ahead that you welcome them to come by and “sit a spell,” as the saying goes.

This will cost you time, effort, and money. But it’s a ministry investment in the lives of precious people God has placed in your neighborhood. You can’t love them if you don’t make an effort to know them, and you can’t know them if you never even meet them.

You could also just set out lawn chairs toward the end of the driveway where you will be able to actually see and converse with the adults as you pass out candy. Compliment the kids’ costumes. Ask the adults where they live in the ‘hood. They won’t linger long without a reason to stop at your house, but at least you’ll physically meet some of them.

A few do’s and don’ts, by way of suggestion

DO wear a costume. Bible costumes are fun. So are a lot of others. Don’t be anything that will scare children. Don’t be a witch. Don’t be the devil (duh).DON’T hand out Christian literature that talks about how evil Halloween is. In fact, don’t hand out Christian literature. I heard someone say once that if you feel you absolutely must hand out some kind of Christian tract, you should be handing them out with full-size candy bars!DON’T make it all about your kids and their candy. Recruit them to be part of your family blessing the neighborhood, whatever you end up doing.

If you think Halloween is evil, don’t hunker down in your house with all the lights out. Unless you live somewhere with no trick-or-treaters, get out there and redeem it.

Halloween is an opportunity for your family to bless others and begin forging relationships with lost people in need of Jesus, all by being a good neighbor.

This article was adapted from an essay originally published on Diane Schrader’s Substack, She Speaks Truth.

​Christianity, Christian, Devil, Satan, Gospel, All saints day, All hallows eve, Halloween 

The incoming equipment for U.S. military members is so advanced that it not only looks like a video game but seems like the user is cheating.

The standard helmet for the Army has remained largely the same in the last few decades, save for key updates in blunt force protection. While there may have been additions that allow for microphones and night-vision attachments, nothing has even come close to what is on the horizon.

‘Think of it almost like a hive mind.’

Leaning more toward what a fighter pilot’s helmet is capable of, the new Eagle Eye warfighter helmet from Anduril Industries uses technology that is pretty hard to explain.

The company recently released a stunning display that looks like the first-person view of a video game. Providing a directional map in the bottom corner of the soldier’s view, the optics are immediately recognizable to anyone who has played a video game of that genre; a young man in the Army probably has.

A heads-up display reveals nearby enemies with a red blip, and the soldier digitally selects a tactical strike with a drone on an encroaching vehicle in seconds, all while chatting with other soldiers on his team.

The new helmets make this possible by using a “hive mind” technology that connects soldiers on the battlefield with drones, cameras, surveillance, and their squad mates on the ground; the results are fairly shocking.

RELATED: ‘Insane radical leftists’ are gone: Zuckerberg and Palmer Luckey reunite for US military project

— (@)

“The ability to have night vision, thermal vision, but also the ability to see where all the bad guys are, see where all the good guys are by fusing everyone’s view together. Think of it almost like a hive mind,” inventor Palmer Luckey recently told Joe Rogan.

“If I’m able to see something, you should be able to see it. If a drone can see it, you should be able to see it. Even if it’s on the other side of a building, you should be able to see it and effectively have X-ray vision. And I should be able to command and control all these other systems using this heads-up display interface,” Luckey continued.

Using “intelligence sensors,” the Eagle Eye helmets can detect cellphone signals, radio signals, and even where gunshots were fired, revealing their distance from the soldier.

The Anduril CEO showed Rogan that with a pair of connected augmented reality glasses, the soldier can see all the data being captured by the helmet and show it in real time to the user. This, in conjunction with any drones, cameras, or other soldiers wearing the tech, combine to form a network of data that Anduril says gives America the advantage in an “unfair fight.”

What this results in is the soldier being able to see everything at once, effectively seeing through walls or over hills; if anyone or anything on his team can see it, so can the individual.

Luckey showed off a sample video where a soldier could use the X-ray vision to track his allies through a sea can while engaging enemies, displaying them as skeletal-like figures. Once the allies saw the enemy, the user could see them through a wall too.

RELATED: You can now buy a real-life Jetsons vehicle for the same price as a luxury car

Additionally, the helmets not only have thermal sensors, night-vision censors, and hearing protection, they also have sound amplification. Tactical technology allows the wearer to hone in on sounds coming from a certain direction, while canceling out noise from other directions to better focus on the target.

Anduril boasts that it used no taxpayer dollars to create Eagle Eye and is certainly pushing advanced military technology in the right direction.

The advancements come at the same time the company has revealed its anti-drone technology, in the form of a mobile kit for soldiers on the ground. Drone strikes have become an often-used instant-casualty tactic in the Russia-Ukraine war and are a constant threat for those operating without cover.

These products show that Luckey has put a very real focus on protecting the individual American fighter in attempt to prevent loss of life.

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

​Return, Military, Army, War fighting, Helmet, Palmer luckey, Anduril, Tech