Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the State Department had revoked more than 300 student visas. The move allows the Trump administration to deport noncitizens who participated in pro-Palestinian protests at universities across the country.

Rubio defended the decision when asked about concerns over free speech — specifically, whether protesting or writing about foreign policy issues could justify a visa revocation.

No serious nation should defend the rights of foreign nationals actively working to harm it under the banner of ‘free speech.’

“If you are in this country on a student visa and are a participant in those movements, we have a right to deny your visa,” he said. “We are not going to be importing activists into the United States. They’re here to study. They’re here to go to class. They’re not here to lead activist movements that are disruptive and undermine our universities. I think it’s lunacy to continue to allow that.”

Rubio is right.

Whether someone supports Israel, supports the Palestinian cause, or criticizes both, that debate is beside the point.

No one has a right to a U.S. visa — student or otherwise. If a visa-holder engages in speech or activism that violates the terms of the visa — such as promoting violence, disrupting public order, or engaging in unauthorized political activity — the government has the authority to revoke the visa and deport the individual.

A free people’s suicide

The Trump administration has made this position clear, particularly in cases involving pro-Palestinian protesters who have expressed support for Hamas, which the United States designates as a foreign terrorist organization.

But the issue of foreign student activism extends beyond the Israel-Hamas conflict.

An analysis by the Capital Research Center found that many “pro-Palestinian” groups share ties with broader movements that oppose the United States and the West in general. These groups frequently advocate violence to achieve their goals, including the destruction of the U.S., which they label an imperialist “settler-colonial” state.

Revoking the visas of foreign students who disrupt public order or seek to undermine American society is both legal and necessary. But the issue goes beyond campus protests. With hundreds of thousands of student visa-holders from adversarial nations like China, the threat is not just ideological — it’s also a national security concern.

No serious nation should defend the rights of foreign nationals actively working to harm it under the banner of “free speech.”

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to a U.S. education. Attending an American university is a privilege, not a right.

Ideological takeover

Understanding the difference between rights and privileges is essential — especially considering the influence universities have on shaping American political discourse. While student visas are intended for academic study, today’s universities increasingly promote ideological activism over traditional education. And that shift is happening at the same time as the number of international students in the U.S. has grown to over 1 million annually.

At Columbia University, more than 55% of students are foreign nationals — an 18% increase between 2017 and 2022. NYU’s student body is 42% international, up 24% over the same period. This trend is just as pronounced at the graduate level. In 2023, international students made up 42% of Princeton University’s graduate program.

As foreign student enrollment rises alongside campus political activism, the Trump administration has the authority and obligation to respond decisively to the growing influence of ideological movements within universities.

In a series of aggressive actions, the administration has withheld hundreds of millions in federal funding from institutions like Columbia University for what it calls “inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” It has also launched investigations into other universities over allegations of race-based segregation and transgender athletic policies. Through executive order, the administration has taken steps to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education — a long-standing goal for many conservatives since the department’s establishment in 1979.

Whose ‘political will’?

Unsurprisingly, the left has responded with swift opposition, deploying both legal challenges and familiar media outrage.

Several academic groups have filed lawsuits against the Trump administration to stop the deportation of foreign students. Teachers’ unions have sued to block the administration’s move to revoke federal funding from Columbia University, while others have challenged its attempt to shutter the Education Department.

Mainstream media outlets have framed these actions as an “authoritarian power-grab,” accusing the administration of trying to “impose its political will on American universities, which foster curiosity and independent thought.”

Some critics have gone even further, likening Trump’s efforts to confront anti-American activism on college campuses to the Nazi-era program of Gleichschaltung — a system of totalitarian “social control.”

While American universities may be called many things, bastions of “independent thought” are not among them. Claims that Trump is seeking total “social control” are difficult to take seriously, given how heavily university faculty skew left.

A 2023 Harvard Crimson survey found that just 0.4% of Harvard faculty identified as “very conservative,” while 31.8% described themselves as “very liberal.” A broader study of 51 leading liberal arts colleges revealed a 10.4-1 ratio of Democrat to Republican faculty, underscoring a deep ideological imbalance.

This dominance of progressive ideology on campus doesn’t stay confined to the classroom. It flows into national politics, funding Democratic candidates and fueling an activist pipeline that often promotes anti-American narratives.

According to OpenSecrets, Democrats have received more than 70% of all political donations from the education sector in every election cycle since 2002. In 2018, donors from the education industry gave over $64.5 million to Democrats and just $7.8 million to Republicans.

Teachers’ unions show an even sharper tilt. In the 2024 cycle, the National Education Association contributed 98.48% of its donations to Democrats and only 0.79% to Republicans. Employees of the U.S. Department of Education gave zero dollars to Republican candidates.

Rooting out radicals

Given the dominance of left-wing ideology on college campuses and the steady stream of campaign donations from the education sector to Democratic politicians, it’s no surprise that Democrats are fiercely defending what functionally operate as their institutions. Trump’s actions threaten not just campus activism but a political pipeline that helps sustain the left’s long-term dominance.

Far from representing an “authoritarian power-grab,” the Trump administration’s efforts mark one of the first serious attempts by the political right to challenge a system that has traded education for progressive indoctrination.

If the country hopes to reclaim its universities — a goal critical to the republic’s long-term health — rooting out radical activism and defunding ideological strongholds must continue and accelerate. Republicans cannot afford to hand over the nation’s future to those who openly disdain it.

​Leftism, Indoctrination, Anti-semitism, Columbia university, Harvard, October 7 terror attack, Israel hamas war, Anti-american ideologies, Free speech, Donald trump, Marco rubio, Foreign students, Student visas, Deportations, Federal funds, Department of education, Lawsuits, National education association, American federation of teachers, Protests, Authoritarianism, Higher education, Opinion & analysis 

A California man has vowed to “make an example” of a masked vandal who wrecked his Tesla Cybertruck while it was parked in his driveway while his family was sleeping.

Jason Bedell bought his first Tesla, a Model S, in 2015 and still drives it to this day.

‘It’s not a political symbol. It has nothing to do with my political views. It’s just a car.’

When the Tesla Cybertruck was initially released, Bedell was one of the first people in his town of Novato to buy a Cybertruck in February 2024.

Bedell purchased his Cybertruck for the love of the Tesla brand and not for any political reasons.

“I’m just such a fan of Tesla that I had to have one,” Bedell said.

“It’s not a political symbol. It’s just a car,” Bedell told Fox News.

However, Bedell has apparently become the latest victim of the surging vandalism of Tesla vehicles by left-wing dissidents seething with fury at the electric car brand headed by Elon Musk.

At around 4:22 a.m. on March 29, a person dressed in all black with a mask and a hood appeared to “case” the home of Bedell and his family, police said.

Home security cameras caught the suspect leaving and then returning at about 5:41 a.m. with a concrete rock in his hands.

The Novato Police Department said in a statement: “The suspect placed duct tape over one of the security cameras and proceeded to vandalize the vehicle, throwing the concrete at the windshield multiple times, slashing all four tires, and leaving a yellow piece of duct tape with a handwritten note advising the tires had been damaged.”

Bedell said the suspect picked up a “giant cement brick and threw it two or three times against the front windshield, smashing [it].”

The suspect then fled the crime scene.

The Novato Police Department released video of the incident.

— (@)

‘I’m trying to save the environment and be environmentally conscious, and now I’m getting backlash for it.’

“I have a 4-year-old son that was sleeping in the house at the time,” Bedell stated. “So it’s really unsettling that somebody came to my house to do this.”

Bedell stressed that someone launching an attack at his home is “really scary,” especially since he lives in a “very private neighborhood at the end of a cul-de-sac.”

Bedell noted, “This person made a planned attack and came to my house and executed that plan. That’s basically declaring war on me and my property.”

“I don’t know if they’re going to come back. I don’t know what they’re going to do,” Bedell said. “This person is dangerous.”

Bedell told KABC-TV, “I think somebody either followed me home or maybe one of my neighbors.”

The Tesla owner said he felt “violated,” but vowed to get the suspect “caught.”

“I’m sure I’m not the first person, and I’m not going to be the last person [they are] going to do it to,” Bedell declared. “I am set on getting this person caught and making an example out of this person.”

The attack on his Cybertruck came on the same day as the “Global Day of Protest” organized by the “Tesla Takedown” movement to coerce Tesla owners to sell their electric vehicles and press others not to purchase any new Tesla vehicles.

Bedell believes the timing of the attack was not a coincidence.

“I do believe the timing had something to do with this big weekend of protests,” Bedell said.

There were reportedly anti-Tesla protests in at least 253 cities around the world on Saturday, with protesters demonstrating against Elon Musk and his role in cutting wasteful and fraudulent government spending.

“Most people bought these cars way before the election, way before Elon Musk, before any of this happened,” Bedell explained. “It’s not a political symbol. It has nothing to do with my political views. It’s just a car.”

“I’m trying to save the environment and be environmentally conscious, and now I’m getting backlash for it,” he continued. “It’s just the wrong target for people’s hostilities, frustrations, and anger.”

Bedell added, “Some people might be mad at Elon or the government, but they’re taking it out on their neighbors, and they’re taking it out on their friends, on people who have nothing to do with it.”

Bedell is offering a $25,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest of the Cybertruck vandal.

Anyone with information on this case is urged to contact the Novato Police Department at 415-897-4361 or email police@novato.org.

The Novato Police Department noted that this is the second incident in which Tesla vehicles were targeted by vandals. Police did not specify if the two incidents are connected. The investigation remains ongoing.

Several suspects accused of committing acts of vandalism on Tesla vehicles and dealerships have been arrested.

As Blaze News reported this week, a Pennsylvania man is accused of scrawling a swastika on the side of a Tesla. The owner of the electric vehicle confronted the suspect and shared a video of the encounter.

The Colorado man who is accused of firebombing has been arrested and hit with federal charges.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said of the arrest, “Let this be a warning — you can run, but you cannot hide. Justice is coming.”

The FBI has responded to the terrorist threats against Tesla by launching a task force.

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

​Crime, Tesla attack, Elon musk, Tesla attacks, Tesla news, Tesla, Cybertruck, Cyber truck, News 

Yesterday, the Atlantic published an article titled “An ‘Administrative Error’ Sends a Maryland Father to a Salvadoran Prison.” The story claims that the Trump administration accidentally deported an innocent father living in Maryland with protected legal status, but now that he’s in an El Salvadorian “megaprison,” there’s nothing the courts can do about it. According to the article, the Trump administration acknowledged in a court filing that it made a mistake.

“It’s absolutely fake news,” says Liz Wheeler. “This shouldn’t surprise us in the least given that this headline was generated by the Atlantic … the same organization whose editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg is a notorious anti-Trump liar.”

This story, she says, “is the exact same playbook that the left uses every time the Trump administration does anything related to immigration.”

In Trump’s first term, “every time there was a border security bill that came before Congress, anytime there was a criminal illegal alien who committed a crime, anytime there was even the whisper of a deportation that would happen, we would suddenly get inundated with pictures of little children wrapped in tinfoil,” Liz recalls, noting that many of these images were taken during the Obama administration.

This Atlantic story is just another media lie intended to thwart the president from carrying out his mandate.

What’s the truth about this Maryland father then? “He’s an MS-13 gang member.”

MS-13, Liz reminds, lives by the following motto: “Kill, rape, control.”

“MS-13 gang members are known to cut out the living, beating hearts of live victims just for the fun of it, just to prove that they are more brutal and inhumane and demonic than anybody else,” she says.

This “Maryland father” — Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who “came from El Salvador [illegally] in 2011” — was “a ranking member of this gang.”

During his immigration court proceedings back in 2019, ICE deemed him to be “a danger to the public” and “a flight risk.”

“He was given final deportation orders, and yet those orders were never carried out” because the Biden administration operated under a “maximum acceptance” policy and so Garcia “was never kicked out of our nation,” says Liz.

To hear more about Garcia and the heinous media plot to paint him as a victim, 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, Ice, Deportations, The atlantic 

Why does Section 230 exist? Section 230 shields tech companies from liability for the user-generated content they host. If you listened to the 230 absolutists here (one of whom even has a 230 tattoo), the story of 230 might sound like a divine creation story.

In the beginning, God created Section 230. Now, the internet was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the blessings of liberty were hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be Section 230,” and there was Section 230.

So why would Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) even think about sunsetting this law, potentially returning the internet to the world of darkness? In the real story of Section 230, the government created Section 230. And that story begins with good intentions but ends with government overreach.

Let us begin with the good intentions. Imagine that, hypothetically, a rapist and human trafficker becomes a popular social media influencer on X. And one of his victims tweets that he is a rapist and human trafficker. The influencer then files a frivolous defamation lawsuit against not just the victim—but also against X for hosting her tweet.

In that situation, X can invoke the legal shield of Section 230, and the judge will dismiss the lawsuit. But that is only where the story begins, not where it ends.

Imagine that you’re in high school, and you learn from your classmates that there’s child porn of you on Twitter. Multiple people contact Twitter to take it down, and you even provide Twitter a copy of your ID when asked, but it still doesn’t take it down — until a federal agent intervenes.

You sue Twitter, alleging that it violated federal child pornography laws. Twitter does not even attempt to contest that allegation. Instead, it invokes the legal shield of Section 230, and the judge dismisses your claim.

That, in a nutshell, is the real story of Doe v. Twitter: “Twitter does not argue that Plaintiffs have failed to allege a violation of Section 2252A but contend this claim is barred by CDA § 230 immunity. The Court agrees.”

In tech policy, we must analyze the full scope of a law. In Moody v. NetChoice (2024), the court chided both sides for confining their battle to the “heartland applications” of a law and for ignoring the “full scope” of the law’s coverage.

And while the 230 absolutists will defend Section 230 based on its heartland applications — defamation and other forms of tort liability — the full scope of Section 230 touches every single federal and state law, including federal child pornography laws.

Section 230 is the government. It’s a special immunity for the tech industry that’s created by the government. Under normal circumstances, the story of Doe v. Twitter should be a story where injustice triumphs because of government overreach.

Yet, when Sen. Graham and Sen. Durbin attempted to narrowly reform Section 230 for child porn alone, they were met with an apocalyptic reaction from both D.C. lobbyists and D.C. think tanks. And the worst culprits were the (corporate) libertarians who supposedly hate government overreach.

Perhaps that explains why both senators are now trying to sunset Section 230: to obtain leverage for 230 reform. In D.C., the easiest path is one where the Congress does nothing. Today, Section 230 stays the same if nothing happens. Sen. Graham and Sen. Durbin lack meaningful leverage — even if they are attempting to reform 230 for child porn alone.

But if Section 230 sunsets on January 1, 2027, it gets repealed if Congress does nothing. Now Sen. Graham and Sen. Durbin hold the leverage. And while I could speak for hours to debunk the bad (or even bad-faith) arguments against 230 reform, those bad arguments also lose their power when the people making them lose their leverage.

No immunity for child porn does not mean, for example, that a tech company would be directly liable for every piece of child porn that a user posts. No federal or state law imposes such strict liability — in part because that would be unconstitutional under Smith v. California (1959). For all this talk of how Section 230 is “the Internet’s First Amendment,” repealing Section 230 would not repeal the actual First Amendment.

No immunity for child porn does mean, however, that if any incident like Doe v. Twitter were to repeat itself, government overreach would not block the victims from seeking justice.

​Tech, Congress, Section 230, X, Twitter, Government overreach 

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) did not hold back in his criticisms against Rep.-elect Randy Fine (R) after the former state senator won in a special election on Tuesday but by a margin much lower than DeSantis or President Donald Trump.

DeSantis and Fine have become heated rivals after Fine switched his presidential endorsement from DeSantis to Trump during the 2024 primary. In addition to the flip, DeSantis said Fine’s record while in the state Capitol proves he is a “squish” who “repels” voters, as evidenced by yesterday’s election results.

“What happened with Randy Fine is exactly what I said, he would win but underperform. … The president won that by 30 points in ’24. I won it by 35-plus points in ’22. … I won by more than twice what he did in ’22 in that district,” DeSantis said on Wednesday.

Republicans spent millions of dollars to help Fine’s candidacy in the deep-red district. Democrats likewise spent millions to help their candidate in the hopes of an underdog victory. Fine ran to replace former Republican Rep. Mike Waltz, who is now Trump’s national security adviser.

‘So when people see that, our base voters don’t get excited about that.’

DeSantis said he takes issue with how the special election played out because with lower voter enthusiasm for Fine, Democrats and the media are spinning the results as backlash against Trump. “I don’t think it’s true at all for this district,” the governor said. “I think you have a candidate in Randy Fine who, one, is a squish.”

DeSantis pointed to Fine’s support for gun restrictions and fight against the governor’s proposals to help the Trump administration crack down on illegal immigrants in Florida.

“So when people see that, our base voters don’t get excited about that. You’re not giving them a reason to go out and vote. And also, just the way he conducts himself. … He repels people,” DeSantis continued.

In response to DeSantis’ sharp critiques, Fine said, “A dying star burns hottest before it fades into oblivion. I’m focused on working with [Trump] to stop Democrats from taking this country backwards, not working with them. Let’s go.”

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

​Politics 

The Department of Homeland Security announced it would update its U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policy manual to recognize only two genders.

The USCIS Policy Manual, which is described by the agency as a centralized online repository for immigration policies, said in a press release that it is returning to its historical policy of recognizing two biological sexes.

“There are only two sexes — male and female,” DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin declared. “President Trump promised the American people a revolution of common sense, and that includes making sure that the policy of the U.S. government agrees with simple biological reality.”

‘Our immigration system is … not a place to promote and coddle.’

DHS said it was remaining consistent with one of the president’s first executive orders from January, titled Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.

The order stated that ideologues across the country have denied the “biological reality” of sex through increased legal battles, as well as social coercion. The goal, the executive order continued, is to stop men’s access to single-sex spaces and activities designed for women. This includes domestic abuse shelters, prisons, and even “workplace showers.”

McLaughlin added, “Proper management of our immigration system is a matter of national security, not a place to promote and coddle an ideology that permanently harms children and robs real women of their dignity, safety, and well-being.”

USCIS will henceforth determine sex by what is labeled on a person’s birth certificate, or failing that, by using secondary evidence. Secondary evidence is defined as evidence that may demonstrate a fact is more likely than not to be true but does not derive from a primary, authoritative source.

Examples of secondary evidence would be supplemental documentation, or sometimes, testimony alone.

The department also noted it would not issue documents that have a blank sex field or have a sex different than what is labeled on a person’s birth certificate.

This issue becomes more complex as it pertains to immigration due to the vast number of countries that allow one’s sex to be changed on official documents. These countries include many in the European Union, such as: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, and Sweden.

Canada and most South American countries are included in this list, but changes remain illegal in Russia, most African countries, and several Central American countries as well.

According to Equaldex, which maps the legality of legal gender changes across the world, 60 countries allow such changes, with 29 requiring gender surgery in order to gain recognition.

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

​News, Homeland security, Transgenderism, Women’s sports, Woke, Gender ideology, Politics 

Journalist and filmmaker Robby Starbuck is responsible for enormous, multinational brands turning away from diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that have permeated throughout culture and business for more than a decade.

Through Starbuck’s work, Anheuser-Busch, Ford, Harley-Davidson, and Walmart have all pivoted away from their allegedly firmly held beliefs on inclusion.

In an exclusive interview, Starbuck told Blaze News that he holds no hidden agenda or malice toward particular brands or companies; rather, he simply does not agree with race-based hiring practices or funding for sex-based events that often flaunt disturbing content in front of children.

“Being a dad” is his chief motivator, he said. “I don’t want my kids to grow up in a crazy country.”

‘Let’s make the consumer aware.’

From woke to normal

The question has remained: How exactly does Starbuck, an outsider, convince companies that are worth billions to redirect their funding?

“It’s a multipronged effort,” Starbuck began. “The reality is, up until we started this campaign in June [2024], these companies had not seen a whole lot of sunshine on their policies.”

He explained that companies have conducted a lot of DEI-related business “under the radar,” with the average consumers completely unaware that money they were spending at certain stores was helping prop up beliefs they “vehemently disagree with.”

“My concept from the very beginning was ‘let’s make the consumer aware,’ because I think your average consumer has enough choices that they’re going to say, ‘Oh, I don’t want to fund this Pride event.'”

The next steps for Starbuck involved looping in other journalists and content creators with large followings to get the word out and help explain the importance of his work. This, coupled with whistleblowers who have voluntarily reached out to his group, has helped Starbuck conduct open-source investigations.

The approach is simple: Research the company, find out where the money goes, and reach out to its corporate entities to make them aware of it.

“We put everything together to build a picture of what the culture is at a company, what their policies actually are, and then the executives are very aware that we’re not going to drop anything that we’re doing until things have changed,” Starbuck explained.

It has not been easy, though. Starbuck stated that he has faced opposition from a few companies, particularly, he said, Tractor Supply, John Deere, and Harley-Davidson.

Despite other companies losing billions in market value as a result of consumers turning away, Harley-Davidson still held out the longest before eventually announcing the company has no “DEI function” remaining.

The bad press, combined with huge losses from the company’s electric bike venture, caused the motorcycle giant to sell a reported
50% fewer motorcycles in 2024.

Starbuck noted that his results have sent a message to companies pushing DEI that culturally and politically, audiences are not as friendly to these initiatives as they once were.

“Other executives, they don’t want to be that company that tests us again and then has the consumer sentiment turn on them, and then there are serious financial issues in the marketplace. So they recognize that we have an ascendant power, not just in the cultural realm, but also politically,” Starbuck claimed.

Inside the boardroom

When asked what his interactions with executives have been like, the 35-year-old outlined a few different categories of reactions he has received.

The first category was the rare CEO who truly believes in new-age progressivism and wants to see these programs continue. After that, though, Starbuck said there do exist a certain number of CEOs who are blissfully unaware of what their employees are pushing toward.

“Don’t get me wrong; there are some true believers out there, but there are also just CEOs unaware that these parts of the company have been hijacked by activists. Some people balk at that, and they go, ‘How could they be unaware?’ You have to realize for these mega-corporations, the job of a CEO is so compartmentalized in terms of what they look at day to day. They’re not looking at the behaviors of training and HR. Like, that’s just not their ballpark.”

Starbuck said that while some of the CEOs hear veiled complaints about woke operations at their companies, they do not know the extent to which the ideology has permeated through the ranks.

What that means, he explained, is that many CEOs did not exactly realize what they were funding, and many have been “very happy to pull back” and, furthermore, happy that Starbuck has given them a reason to do so.

— (@)

One thing that became clear to Starbuck was that executives are excellent judges of character who, when realizing what kind of person he is, became more receptive to his approach.

“What they’re used to with a lot of corporate activists is they’re used to shakedowns. They’re used to people from the left coming in and they just want their check.”

Without wanting money or an ad campaign, Starbuck has focused on taking what the companies have said are their true values and helping relay that to the consumer. It also has helped his cause to reveal that many DEI programs have simultaneously pushed anti-capitalist agendas alongside their gender activism.

The majority of programs Starbuck has investigated have included literature from Ibram Kendi being recommended to employees. The irony of those teachings, the journalist revealed, is that they explain to the reader that “to be an anti-racist, you must be anti-capitalist,” something that is clearly at odds with the mantra of most CEOs.

As executives have become aware of the “absurdity,” as Starbuck put it, they have happily been willing to pull the funding back in most instances.

Who started it?

At the start of the DEI ride, companies were pulled into a “cultural tide,” according to David Bahnsen.

Bahnsen is the managing partner and CIO of the Bahnsen Group, a firm overseeing more than $4 billion (per
Bloomberg).

The California native agreed that there have been “true believers” who talked themselves into wokeness, but he described the DEI era as being one of the greatest examples of “corporate penance” ever devised. This was a five-year period when meritocracy was abandoned and DEI policies became increasingly common, Bahnsen went on.

“The nexus of media, technology, political power, left-wing academia, and, yes, corporate America; all pulled the marketplace together towards DEI.”

While he noted that the companies themselves were ultimately responsible, Bahsen said that the DEI programs allowed businesses to keep being businesses, while keeping the powers that be at arm’s length through payments of cultural and political messaging.

The 50-year-old added that as the governing parameters have changed, some companies no longer have to “play a game they never actually believed in,” while other companies have been forced to learn the hard way that their ideals are no longer profitable.

Starbuck, on the other hand, pointed to a more sinister plot and alluded to the fact that he has unearthed divisive, deliberate operations infiltrating corporations across the country.

While there is certainly influence from college graduates bringing woke indoctrination into the workplace, Starbuck said there has been a coordinated effort from trained activists who have “absolutely” entered into marketing, public relations, and human resources roles to push DEI.

“It was carefully planned, who would go where and why. … This is a very, very disgusting situation. I’ll put it that way,” he added.

‘Abandoning DEI boosts profits …’

Which way, Western man?

A common question to consumers has been where to turn. Social media, news agencies, and even meat suppliers have popped up in the last decade to cater to a segment of the population who have grown tired of DEI policies.

As these sentiments have increased, Starbuck said it is important to act with “grace” and go with one’s gut feeling, in combination with common sense.

Starbuck revealed that his efforts have been to push companies down a neutral path in order for the results to be long-lasting and not to have a ping-pong effect, in which companies blow with the wind every four years.

“If a company does the right thing, then I think it is incumbent on us to have some grace.”

Starbuck advised that if there is no alternative, then consumers need to start making companies become worthy of their hard-earned cash.

At the same time, though, if an alternative does exist, consumers need to speak with their wallets and support a brand that is more aligned with their values.

The reality is, according to Bahnsen, that companies are seeing a boost in revenue after they abandon DEI principles. A series of immeasurable
and measurable factors like quotas, human resources, legal resources, and untold amounts of bureaucracy have crippled many companies in his view.

While some can still turn a profit, DEI programs do have an assumed cost that weighs on revenue.

“Abandoning DEI boosts profits in the way that a runner taking off heavy ankle weights boosts speed!” Bahnsen joked.

Companies are not human beings, and consumers do not want to know what a company believes, politically, nor do they want the company to even have such beliefs, Starbuck concluded.

While it seems that most are agreeing, in ever-growing numbers, that companies should not be focused on divisive issues, it is also becoming more popular to tell companies that they should be focused on taking the ankle weights off and truly returning to being boring, bland corporations.

​T3, Dei, Diversity equity inclusion, Walmart, Ford, Bud light, Dylan mulvaney, Woke, Wokeness, News 

The Brevard County, Florida, Sheriff’s Department is taking illegal immigration into its own hands and working with federal law enforcement agencies to arrest illegal immigrants within its jurisdiction.

“This operation is actually under Operation Stonegarden. It’s been in place for a couple of years, and the reason why that is important is because this is just part of the ongoing efforts from the state and local level to help the Trump administration,” Blaze Media national correspondent Julio Rosas tells Jill Savage and Matthew Peterson on “Blaze News Tonight.”

Rosas has been embedded with the Brevard County Sheriff’s Department during its Border Patrol operation, and he’s pleased with the action Florida’s taking.

“Governor DeSantis has made it clear that he thinks in order for the Trump administration to really fulfill its campaign promises of mass deportations, states have to utilize every resource that they can put towards actually helping federal law enforcement, because the federal agencies, as vast as they are, they do have limitations,” Rosas explains.

And that’s the point of Operation Stonegarden, which is from the federal government and allows local law enforcement to engage in these kinds of joint task force missions.

“How it works,” Rosas says, “the sheriff’s deputies would be the ones to make a traffic stop, and it could be for any sort of violation.”

“In many of the cases, what actually ended up screwing these guys over that got arrested was not having a license plate properly affixed to a trailer that was bringing along something for landscaping,” he explains.

“Then once it is determined, yes, they’re not here legally for a number of reasons, or they might have a criminal history already that the federal government is aware of, they then get taken into custody, put in a van, and then at the end of the day they brought that van over to Orlando to the processing site over there so that they can kind of complete that process to get them out of the country,” he adds.

Want more from ‘Blaze News Tonight’?

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

​Video, Upload, Sharing, Video phone, Camera phone, Free, Youtube.com, Blaze news tonight, Blaze media, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze online, Blazetv, Blaze news, Operation stone garden, Illegal immigration, Illegal immigrants, Julio rosas, President trump, Brevard county florida, Immigration crisis, Border crisis, Border crisis exposed 

An executive from the Professional Fighters League said it is unlikely that boxing star Jake Paul will cross over into mixed martial arts.

Dan Hardy, PFL’s director of fighter operations for Europe, directly contradicted the promotion’s founder Donn Davis when he said he did not think Paul would make the jump to MMA.

In January, Davis said Paul’s MMA career has been delayed “because he’s killing it in boxing.”

“So will MMA happen with the PFL? Yes, it will. Has it been delayed? Yes, it has. My guess is the fall of this year, but I don’t think it’s going to be before that,” Davis added, per BJPenn.com.

Hardy, a former UFC fighter who joined the promotion at the executive level in 2023, spoke to outlet MMA Fighting and was asked if Paul’s MMA debut had been put off so long that it seemed it was no longer going to happen.

“Yeah, I don’t know. I’m not seeing him make any moves in that direction, certainly from my perspective,” Hardy replied. “I mean, he just called out Anthony Joshua the other day did he not? He’s certainly making things interesting for the combat sports world and he’s definitely a disrupter. That’s the main purpose that he’s serving right now, and he’s a benefit to the PFL in that regard as well.”

Joshua is a highly respected English boxer with a 28-4 record. The 35-year-old last fought, and lost by knockout, in September 2024 to Daniel Dubois.

‘Do we ever see him in MMA? I don’t think so.’

Hardy then dropped a bomb that likely will not please his company’s ownership.

“Do we ever see him in MMA? I don’t think so,” Hardy stated. “I think he’s pretty set on boxing right now. I don’t know, I don’t know, it’s a lot of work for him to cross over into MMA. He’s not going to fight anybody that you’ve ever heard of before, you know, it’s going to have to be a decent name or people won’t watch it. Old guys in MMA could still handle business, I think, with Jake Paul.”

Paul claimed last October that he would be entering the MMA arena following his fight with Mike Tyson.

Earlier in the summer, Paul expressed that he did not want an easy opponent for his first time in the cage and said he could likely “beat Nate Diaz.”

Paul went on, “It would be tough, of course. It’s a 50/50 fight, but I don’t want to go into something where I’m going to be outclassed like fighting Khabib Nurmagomedov in my first fight.”

Nurmagomedov is considered one of the greatest MMA fighters of all time and retired undefeated at 29-0.

Diaz, 39, recently signaled he wanted to return to the UFC having last fought in 2022 when he beat UFC legend Tony Ferguson.

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

​Fearless, Jake paul, Mma, Pfl, Ufc, Boxing, Sports 

When five armed males forced their way into a residence in Los Banos, California, late last month, the homeowner also got himself a gun — and won the confrontation, shooting two of the intruders.

Police Chief Ray Reyna told KFSN-TV that “the homeowner approached the intruders with a gun he legally owns,” after which the chief said a shoot-out ensued at the dwelling near the area of Edward Street and San Luis Street.

‘It was very scary.’

The homeowner shot two of the suspects, Reyna added to the station.

A dispatcher on police scanner audio indicated that one suspect was wounded in the leg and another was wounded in the stomach, KFSN reported.

The two suspects were in custody at a Modesto area hospital, where they were expected to survive, the station said. Los Banos is about an hour south of Modesto.

KFSN said police are searching for the other three suspects, who escaped the home through a bedroom window and then took off in a car.

The chief told the station that at least four people were inside the home at the time of the incident, and they weren’t hurt.

Reyna added to KFSN that he has reason to believe the intruders are not from the area, and he said police are looking into a possible motive.

“It was very scary,” Sergio Juarez told the station before adding that the neighborhood usually is quiet.

KFSN noted that hours after the shoot-out an apparent bloody handprint had stained a gate.

“I moved here because it was a safe neighborhood,” Juarez added to the station. “But looking at it right now, it’s very scary.”

Reyna added to KFSN that there is no outstanding threat to the community, but he’s asking for more information from the public.

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

​Home invasion, California, Los banos, 2nd amend., Guns, Gun rights, Protecting home, Protecting loved ones, Self-defense, Homeowner shoots intruders, Armed intruders, Crime 

Archaeologists believe they have uncovered new evidence of the ancient biblical battle of “Armageddon.”

A significant
archaeological discovery has reportedly been made at the historic site of Megiddo in northern Israel, roughly 18 miles southeast of Haifa.

‘The encounter between Josiah and Necho at Megiddo in 609 BCE was a fateful event in biblical period history and theology.’

The Megiddo excavation site is said to contain over 30 layers of various settlements, dating back from the Copper Age up until World War I, according to
Fox News.

Recent digs at the excavation site unearthed Egyptian and Greek pottery remains from the late 7th century BCE, which may be the evidence to confirm the biblical account of a battle between Judah’s King Josiah and Egyptian Pharaoh Necho II over 2,600 years ago.

According to the Hebrew Bible, King Josiah’s military force battled the Egyptian army at Megiddo in 609 BCE.

King Josiah was killed during the battle.

“There are several clues in the Bible to the participation of Lydians from western Anatolia in the killing of Josiah. One of them is the story of Gog; some scholars think that Gog refers to Gyges, the king of Lydia who, according to the Assyrians, sent mercenaries to serve in the Egyptian army in the 7th century BCE,”
said professor Israel Finkelstein, head of the School of Archaeology and Maritime Cultures at the University of Haifa and longtime director of the Megiddo Expedition.

Gog is a descendant of the prophet Joel in
1 Chronicles 5:4. However, Gog and Magog are described as allies of Satan in the battle against God, according to Revelation 20:7-9 in the New Testament.

The word “armageddon” is
allegedly derived from “Har Megiddo” — the Hebrew word for the “mound” or “mountain” (har) of Megiddo.

The
Oxford English Dictionary notes that “armageddon” in Christian eschatology means “the last battle between good and evil before the Day of Judgement, to be fought (according to Revelation 16:16) in the place of this name. Hence: any dramatic, final, or catastrophic conflict, especially one seen as likely to destroy the world or the human race; (sometimes more loosely) the end of the world.”

Megiddo is mentioned
12 times in the Bible.

The archeological discovery of a noteworthy amount of 7th-century BCE Egyptian pottery at Megiddo suggests that the infamous battle took place there, according to an academic paper published earlier this year in the
Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament.

“The encounter between Josiah and Necho at Megiddo in 609 BCE (2 Kings 23:29) was a fateful event in biblical period history and theology,” the paper states. “Yet, the archaeology of the site failed to supply information about this affair.”

The discovery of unexpected
archaeological artifacts from Egypt and East Greece in Megiddo could point to a crucial military alliance that defeated King Josiah.

“The finds in this layer include an exceptional number of Egyptian-made pottery vessels as well as a significant number of East Greek pottery, usually interpreted as representing Greek mercenaries in the service of the 26th Dynasty,” the paper explains. “These finds shed light on the population of Egyptian-governed Megiddo and hence on the background of the 609 BCE event.”

Dr. Assaf Kleiman of Ben-Gurion University — a senior lecturer at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and senior member of the Megiddo Expedition staff who led the studies — stated these archaeological findings suggest the presence of Egyptian military forces rather than traders.

“The exposure of so many Egyptian vessels, including fragments of serving bowls, cooking pots, and storage jars, is an exceptional phenomenon,” Kleiman stated. “We, therefore, understand it as representing Egyptians who settled at Megiddo in the late 7th century, maybe as part of an army force that arrived at the site following the collapse of the Assyrian Empire.”

“Service of Greeks, probably from western Anatolia, in the Egyptian army of the 26th Dynasty is referred to in both Greek [from Herodotus] and Assyrian sources,” Kleiman explained. “The possibility of the participation of such mercenaries in the killing of Josiah may be hinted in prophetic works in the Bible.”

Kleiman noted that there’s no non-biblical proof of King Josiah but asserted that his existence “has never been doubted in biblical and historical scholarship.”

Archaeologists said they plan to do more research into the site’s Bronze Age roots.

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

​Archaeological artifacts, Archaeological discoveries, Archaeological finds, Archaeological news, Archaeologists, Archaeology, Bible, Archaeological discovery, Christianity, Israel, Faith 

Former NCAA swimmer Lia (William) Thomas said athletes should be able to decide which gender category they compete in.

The former swimmer was infamously ranked 554th in the 200-yard freestyle for men before achieving fifth in the nation against women. Thomas was also the top-ranked swimmer in the country for the women’s category for the 500-yard freestyle, with the distinct advantage of being a man.

Thomas was the keynote speaker at this year’s HiTOPS Trans Youth Forum, a gender activist group aimed at children that describes its mission as “empowering youth with sex education, social support, and affirming communities.”

During an hour-long session, Thomas claimed athletes should self-determine which gender category they compete in, implying that it could be discriminatory if done based on an athlete’s actual biology.

“It has to be the athletes deciding for themselves where they feel most affirmed and most comfortable,” Thomas said, according to the Daily Pennsylvanian. “Having routes that are safe and non-discriminatory, that allow them access to that.”

After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania in 2022, Thomas said he was “devastated” when World Aquatics barred transgender athletes from competing in elite events, including the Olympics.

“I felt so devastated and [felt] grief over losing this access to my sport,” Thomas recalled. “There was no doubt in my mind that I was going to fight this, that this is my sport too, and I’m not just gonna give it up to trans folks.”

Lia Thomas (left) and Riley Gaines (right), March 18, 2022. Gaines became America’s most recognizable advocate for female-only sports. Photo by Rich von Biberstein/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images

‘I just wanted to step away and be able to transition and be myself.’

While at UPenn, Thomas explained that he felt declaring himself a woman might prevent his continued competitition in college athletics and claimed that he initially did not want to continue in sports.

“I looked up … the NCAA transgender policy [during freshman fall] and knew it might be technically possible. … I didn’t think that I could do it.”

Thomas then said the idea of having to confront that he might not be able to compete as a woman contributed to his gender dysphoria, because he had to “pick one,” either swimming or posing as a female.

“I didn’t want to swim. I just wanted to step away and be able to transition and be myself,” Thomas claimed. “But my love of swimming kept me going. … When I had transitioned, I felt more comfortable, and I said, ‘I can do this. I could do both.'”

The former swimmer said he felt more confusion seeing his name or image on social media as part of news stories, stating that he knew what was happening on “a conceptual level,” but was still confused because “on a personal level,” he felt he was “just another college woman competing.”

The HiTOPS organization called for activism following President Trump’s executive order to keep men out of women’s sports. The group said the president does not support the “science and the lived experiences of trans people” because he allegedly wants to remove access to gender procedures and hormones to minors.

The group called the president cruel, ignorant, and guilty of intentionally marginalizing transgender people.

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

​Fearless, Swimming, Ncaa, Riley gaines, Division 1, Transgenderism, Women’s sports, Sports 

Coastal Carolina University has begun a new era that will certainly have football fans across the country asking for reciprocal treatment from their programs.

The NCAA Division I school plays its football at Brooks Stadium in Conway, South Carolina, with a capacity of 21,000. That is the number of fans the Chanticleers plan on feeding multiple times this fall after the school announced ticket holders will have unlimited access to free concessions at home games this year.

The university made the announcement with a playful promo to show that no matter how much food a fan wants, they will get it.

“All games. All fans. Feast for free,” the caption read.

The details were not quite as muddy as fans may have initially thought; the school revealed in a press release that ticket holders will be able to get four items each during every visit to the concession stand. However, there is no limit to the number of times they can pick up food.

The available (free) concessions were announced as hot dogs, nachos, popcorn, fountain drinks, and water.

Chauncey the Chanticleer mascot at Brooks Stadium in Conway, South Carolina. Photo by Isaiah Vazquez/Getty Images

“Our fans are the heartbeat of Teal Nation, and we’re always looking for ways to elevate their game day experience,” said school executive Chance Miller. “With the CCU Kickoff Meal Deal, we’re excited to offer free concessions this fall as a way to say thank you for the energy, passion and support they bring to Brooks Stadium every game.”

With the offer seemingly too good to be true, fans online reacted with suspicion over the idea of free and unlimited access to goods that could easily total over $50 per person under regular circumstances.

“There is 100 [%] a catch behind this,” one fan wrote.

The only catch from Coastal Carolina seemed to be the required access through their custom app. Every time fans head to the concessions stand, they must “scan each trip through the line with the soon-to-be-launched Coastal Carolina Athletics App.”

At least one fan theorized that user data would be the key to the school making its money back through the app, while others wondered if the offer would raise the prices of all other concessions.

The school did not mention whether or not specialty items, like alcohol, would increase in price, rather they noted other concessions would simply remain available for purchase.

“Genuine question- how is this financially feasible?” a concern fan asked.

An Alabama fan offered an outsider’s perspective for the all-you-can-eat offer and cleverly described it as the “greasiest marketing strategy of all time.”

While it remains unclear if the promotion is temporary, the Chanticleers could simply be looking to draw more fans after a disappointing 3-5 conference record in 2024.

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

​Fearless, Football, Ncaa, Fans, Stadium, Carolina, Sports 

When protests erupt worldwide over an American staffing decision, it’s not outrage — it’s orchestration. And the people behind it don’t want you asking questions.

The recent wave of global protests against Tesla and its CEO, Elon Musk, defies logic. Demonstrators have gathered outside Tesla showrooms worldwide, setting cars on fire and destroying lithium batteries. But what exactly are they protesting?

The protests are not about environmental concerns but about control.

Policy decisions can spark domestic outrage in the United States, but why are people in Germany, Sweden, or Ireland suddenly mobilizing against Musk? He is not pushing for global war or implementing trade tariffs that would impact European consumers. His involvement in U.S. government affairs concerns federal budgeting waste, fraud, and abuse. Why would anyone overseas care about this?

Historically, large-scale protests have erupted over issues like nuclear weapons, war, and climate change. Yet, no precedent exists for international demonstrations aimed at a domestic U.S. policy decision — particularly one centered on budget efficiency. So who benefits from this manufactured outrage?

Green hypocrisy

Tesla revolutionized the electric vehicle industry, making sustainable transportation mainstream. Musk developed solar panels, battery storage, and charging infrastructure — technologies environmentalists have long championed. Yet now, the same groups that once hailed electric vehicles as essential to combating climate change are actively working to cripple Tesla.

How does burning Tesla vehicles and terrorizing EV owners advance the fight against climate change?

This contradiction reveals a deeper issue. If climate change truly presents an existential crisis, why would activists seek to dismantle a company leading the charge in clean energy? The only logical explanation is that the protests are not about environmental concerns but control.

Musk’s real ‘threat’

Elon Musk faced little controversy when he pioneered electric vehicles or launched reusable rockets. The backlash began when he became a vocal champion of free speech.

His purchase of Twitter, followed by revelations of government-backed censorship, changed how information moves through digital platforms. That shift marked the moment the outrage machine targeted him.

Opponents have resorted to labeling Musk a “fascist.” But let’s examine this claim. Traditional fascism is defined by state control, forced conformity, and the suppression of dissent. Musk, on the other hand, advocates open dialogue, transparency, and reduced government interference. Calling him a fascist is not only inaccurate but also a deliberate attempt to stifle debate.

When people misuse the term “fascist,” they dilute its meaning. Just as overusing the word “racist” has numbed the public to actual instances of racism, the indiscriminate application of “fascist” shields actual authoritarian behavior from scrutiny. This tactic is not about accurately describing Musk — it is about silencing him.

Who’s behind the protests?

Ordinary citizens do not spontaneously organize coordinated protests across multiple continents in response to a U.S. federal staffing decision. These demonstrations require financial backing, media support, and strategic messaging. So who benefits from damaging Tesla’s brand or silencing Musk?

We live in an era where perception is power. A viral video can ruin a reputation, and a well-crafted narrative can influence elections. If a movement can turn a climate hero into a villain simply for challenging an entrenched system, then it can manipulate almost any public discourse.

Before accepting any narrative at face value, we must ask critical questions: Do these protests help or harm the environment? Are they organic expressions of outrage, or are they carefully orchestrated? Is the term “fascist” being used to expose truth or to suppress dissent? Most importantly, are we sabotaging progress simply because we dislike one of the people leading it?

The manufactured outrage against Musk is not about policy; it is about power. And if we fail to recognize that, we risk allowing those who seek control to redefine reality itself.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn’s FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

​Elon musk, Department of government efficiency, Doge, Federal workers, Layoffs, Tesla burnings, Tesla, Arson, Donald trump, Federal budget, Debt, Deficit, Budget cuts, Protests, First amendment, Fascism, Free speech, Power, Glenn beck, Opinion & analysis 

Fresh off
suggesting that their state could save money by funding abortion and killing 30% more unborn babies, Colorado Democrats are advancing legislation that would classify “misgendering” and “deadnaming” as child abuse.

Should the legislation pass the Democrat-controlled state legislature, parents who dare to refer to a transvestic child using the child’s given name or reality-based pronouns — “he” and “him” in reference to a boy, “she” and “her” in reference to a girl — could lose custody.

Lorena García, one of the Democrats
seeking to make all taxpaying Coloradans financially complicit in abortion, joined Democratic state Sens. Faith Winter and Chris Kolker and fellow state Rep. Rebekah Stewart in introducing House Bill 1312 on Monday.

State law
requires that courts making child custody decisions in accordance with the best interests of a child must consider reports of “coercive control” lodged against the parties involved. House Bill 1312 would modify the definition of one type of “coercive control” and add another.

‘Democrats are the party of delusion and child grooming.’

Among the forms of “coercive control” that courts overseeing custody battles must consider are threats “to publish the individual’s, or the individual’s child’s or relative’s, sensitive personal information, including sexually explicit material, or make reports to the police or authorities.”

The proposed legislation would modify this definition to include as an offense the publication of “material related to gender-affirming health care services.”

The bill would also add “deadnaming or misgendering” as another form of “coercive control.”

An example of “deadnaming” would be to call Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) by his original name, Tim.

In addition to putting those parents grounded in reality at a disadvantage in custody hearings, the Democratic bill would also:

prohibit local education providers from enforcing sex-based dress codes;
prohibit Colorado courts from “applying or giving any force or effect to another state’s law that authorizes a state agency to remove a child from the child’s parent or guardian because the parent or guardian allowed the child to receive gender-affirming health-care services”;
define “deadnaming and misgendering” as discriminatory acts in the “Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act”;
ban the use of transvestites’ original names and real pronouns in places of public accommodation; and
require public entities to use an individual’s chosen name on all forms if provided with the individual’s legal name.

The bill was assigned to the state House Judiciary Committee for its first hearing, where it was
advanced Wednesday in a 7-4 party-line vote.

Republican state Rep. Jarvis Caldwell, one of the four Republicans who voted against the bill’s progression,
underscored that the legislation is “radical.”

Referring to the proposed requirement that Colorado courts ignore the laws and court decisions of other states, Caldwell
asked, “How does HB25-1312 not violate the ‘Full Faith & Credit Clause,’ Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution?”

Kristi Burton Brown, a Republican member of the Colorado State Board of Education,
suggested that the bill amounted to “insanity.”

Libs of TikTok
noted, “Every Democrat voted for this, while every Republican opposed this. Democrats are the party of delusion and child grooming.”

Colorado Democrats
previously voted against a bill making indecent exposure to children a felony, in part because it could supposedly be used to “target” transvestites. Last year, state Democrats killed a bill that would have mandated minimum sentences for predators who buy children for sexual exploitation.

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

​Transgender, Trans, Pronouns, Transvestite, Lgbt, Leftism, Colorado, Democrats, Groomer, Groomers, Child abuse, Lorena garcia, Politics