The Senate worked overnight to advance the GOP’s budget resolution to fund immigration enforcement to the tune of $70 billion in an effort to end the Democrat-induced shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.

From Wednesday afternoon to the early hours of Thursday morning, senators voted on a slew of amendments to advance Republicans’ legislation to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as Customs and Border Protection.

‘Democrats will once again demonstrate to the American people their support for open borders.’

This legislative marathon comes amid the ongoing DHS shutdown that began in mid-February. In March, the Senate approved a funding package to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP in a 2:00 a.m. voice vote, but it was rejected by the House. The House passed its own 60-day continuing resolution to fund the department in its entirety, but it was not advanced in the Senate.

The Senate budget ultimately advanced mostly along party lines in a 50-48 vote just before 3:30 a.m., with Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky voting with Democrats against the immigration funding.

RELATED: Senate approves DHS funding — but there’s a catch

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) lashed out at Republicans for funding “rogue agencies,” claiming they are out of touch with everyday Americans.

“What kind of bubble are they living in?” Schumer asked. “How apart are they with people’s real needs?”

Despite the Democrats’ predictable disapproval of the funding bill, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) remains optimistic that the House will cooperate with the Senate to fund these key agencies. Earlier this month, both Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) agreed on a “two-track approach” that would partially reopen DHS while funding immigration enforcement separately.

“In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited,” a joint statement between Thune and Johnson reads. “In return, Democrats will once again demonstrate to the American people their support for open borders and keeping criminal illegal immigrants in America.”

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

​Cbp, Chuck schumer, Criminal illegal immigrants, Customs and border patrol, Department of homeland security, Dhs, Donald trump, Ice, John thune, Mike johnson, Open borders, Border security, Dhs shutdown, Demacrat shutdown, Lisa murkowski, Rand paul, Politics 

An American company is pushing science fiction to its limits by introducing a mind-reading product, backed by a controversial investor from India.

The product falls under the new category called brain-computer interface technology, with the investor saying he sees his product as the best path to push people into using the brain-tapping gadgets.

‘Securely and wirelessly, understands your thoughts and what you attempt to speak.’

The Silicon Valley startup is backed by venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, an AI and software investor from Bombay State, India. The new company is called Sabi, and it is developing the Sabi Cap, a beanie that reads the wearer’s thoughts and puts them into text on a connected device.

In remarks to Wired, Khosla said that a noninvasive wearable device was the only way to get a lot of people to use the BCI technology.

“The biggest and baddest application of BCI is if you can talk to your computer by thinking about it,” Khosla explained. “If you’re going to have a billion people use BCI for access to their computers every day, it can’t be invasive.”

The technology works by using metal disks placed on the wearer’s scalp that can record their brain’s electrical activity through a technology called electroencephalography. The process is called decoding “imagined speech.”

RELATED: Is Trump’s new White House app unsafe for your security and privacy?

– YouTube

Given that the sensors on the beanie (or a planned baseball cap product) would have to work through hair, skin, and bone, the company plans on increasing the amount of sensors to piece together the required data; 70,000 to 100,000 miniature sensors per beanie have been suggested.

“Given that high-density sensing, it pinpoints exactly what and where neural activity is happening. We use that information to get much more reliable data to decode what a person is thinking,” said CEO Rahul Chhabra.

Sabi’s website describes the “brain reading” process as starting with “brain imaging” with “neuroimaging sensors.”

The company notes that it collects “a lot of brain imaging data” and maps signals into thoughts.

“Securely and wirelessly, understands your thoughts and what you attempt to speak,” the website boasts, touting how one could connect his or her brain to AI.

“AI agents do whatever you can think of. Literally.”

RELATED: Yes, smart TVs are spying on you — and one state is finally fighting back

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

Investor Khosla has been vocally opposed to President Trump on his X page while having a public feud with Elon Musk, who is in the same field with his product Neuralink.

Khosla claimed that Musk wanted to make “white America great again” while saying Musk finds racism “desirable.”

This was in response to Musk stating that white people are a diminishing population.

“Vinod, you’re not just such a pompous asshole that you tried to stop the public from using a public beach near your house, you’ve also gone full retard,” Musk replied.

At the same time, entrepreneur Palmer Luckey mocked Khosla for saying that “decent whites should quit” Tesla and SpaceX and join his own company.

Khosla has also called Trump “not fit to be President” and advocated against his anti-DEI positions by championing a “dire US need” to bring in international students.

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

​Ai agents, Brain decoding, Brain imaging, Elon musk, Mind reading, Neuralink, Return, Science fiction, Technology, India, Tech 

Georgia Rep. Rich McCormick (R) introduced legislation on Wednesday aimed at turning Virginia red by offloading liberal jurisdictions back onto the District of Columbia.

D.C. was established in 1790 through the Residence Act on 100 square miles of land ceded by Virginia and Maryland to the federal government. In 1846, however, Congress passed a law retroceding “and forever relinquish[ing]” present-day Arlington County and the City of Alexandria to Old Dominion, thereby limiting D.C. to the Maryland side of the Potomac.

‘Democrats have spent years manipulating maps and boundaries to rig elections.’

McCormick cast doubt on the legality of the 1846 retrocession, noting in a release that “Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, commonly referred to as the Enclave Clause, grants Congress authority over a federal district ‘not exceeding ten miles square’ made up of territory ceded by state governments to serve as the seat of government. The Constitution does not enumerate any power to retrocede such territories back to state governments.”

The congressman is hardly the first to question the legality of the retrocession.

Radical Republican Sen. Benjamin Wade of Ohio introduced a bill in April 1866 that would have nullified the retrocession. Wade asserted that all jurisdiction over the once-ceded territory was “vested in Congress, whose duty it was then, and forever after, to preserve unviolated and free from all control whatsoever, save that of Congress.”

RELATED: Judge BLOCKS Virginia referendum to gerrymander more Democrats into office

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Nearly a decade later, the U.S. Supreme Court broached the question of the retrocession’s legality in Phillips v. Payne without, however, ruling on its validity.

McCormick maintains that the retrocession of Arlington and Alexandria “has warped the system since then” as evidenced by the recent Virginia redistricting referendum.

Virginia voted on Tuesday in favor of adopting gerrymandered congressional maps.

If the gerrymandering campaign ultimately proves successful — a Tazewell Circuit Court judge blocked the state on Wednesday from certifying the results of the vote, and the Virginia Supreme Court is set to weigh in on the referendum’s legality next week — then 10 out of the state’s 11 congressional seats are all but guaranteed to go to Democrats.

McCormick noted, however, that by dumping Arlington County and Alexandria inside D.C.’s borders — along with their estimated 250,000 “votes that belong to Washington DC” — the political dynamic will dramatically shift in Virginia.

The City of Alexandria voted overwhelmingly in favor on Tuesday — 78.89% to 21.11% — of allowing the General Assembly to adopt the gerrymandered congressional maps. It was the same story in Arlington County, where 79.9% of voters supported the proposed constitutional amendment to adopt the gerrymandered maps.

“Democrats have spent years manipulating maps and boundaries to rig elections,” said the congressman. “The Make DC Square Again Act restores the original ten-mile-square District and ends the artificial advantage Virginia Democrats have recently gained from all the federal bureaucrats moving into Virginia.”

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

​Virginia, Democrat, Blue state, Rich mccormick, District of columbia, D.c., Columbia, Make dc square again, Residence act, Retrocession, Land, Arlington county, Alexandria, Politics 

A 2006 video of Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom has resurfaced and is going viral on social media. The footage shows a 38-year-old Newsom, who was at the time the San Francisco mayor, angrily storming off during an interview after being asked about allegations that he provided alcohol to his 19-year-old girlfriend, Brittanie Mountz, at a public event.

BlazeTV hosts Stu Burguiere and Dave Landau called the video comedic gold. On this episode of “Stu and Dave Do America,” they play the clip and tear into it with hilarious, nonstop banter.

In the video, a reporter asks Newsom for comment on a recent attack of Yale students in San Francisco over New Year’s, to which he replies, “It’s a good reminder how important it is to remind our parents to be good stewards of underage drinking.”

The reporter then pivots to a San Francisco Chronicle column by Philip Matier and Andrew Ross raising questions about whether Newsom’s then-19-year-old girlfriend, Brittanie Mountz, had been drinking alcohol.

“It hasn’t been a very easy week for you, and I wonder whether you have any comment on the Matier and Ross story about the drinking?” he inquires.

“Thank you very much. That was a great cheap shot,” Newsom retorts, before storming off. As he walks away, he adds, “Just know, for the record, it’s increasingly impossible to have a conversation with you. … Just know it’s not personal when I walk by you. If you just send some other reporters, it’s going to be a lot easier.”

“Seems like a pretty rational thing for a reporter to ask, actually,” says Stu.

Dave points out that Newsom’s initial response about underage drinking was at least honest. “Gavin Newsom did say it is important to be a good steward when giving alcohol to minors, which is essentially a male flight attendant that gives alcohol to people.”

“A lot of people are saying there are some signs with Gavin Newsom’s mannerisms and behavior in that interview that indicate to some that maybe alcohol is not the only substance he may have been using at that time,” says Stu. “Would you say that’s accurate?”

Dave, who’s been very candid about his past alcohol and drug abuse, says, “As an expert, I would say yes. He is probably on cocaine.”

While the duo note that this is nothing more than “speculation,” as Newsom has never had any drug charges brought against him, they have a strong suspicion that Newsom’s behavior in the video points to “guilt.”

Dave mocks, “He’s like, ‘This is why it’s getting harder to have a conversation. People keep bringing up stuff I did to teenagers. Maybe if you didn’t bring it up, I could sit there and talk to you.”’

To see the resurfaced clip and hear more of Stu and Dave’s hilarious banter, watch the episode above.

Want more from Stu and Dave?

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

​Andrew ross, Blaze media, Blazetv, Brittanie mountz, Comedic gold, Dave landau, Gavin newsom, Phillip matier, Resurfaced video, San francisco chronicle, San francisco mayor, Social media, Stu and dave do america, Stu burguiere, Underage drinking, Viral video 

A 17-year-old faces five counts of attempted murder in connection with Sunday’s mass shooting near the University of Iowa, in which five people were wounded — including three students.

Iowa City Police said Damarian M. Jones, 17, of Cedar Rapids, engaged in a fight around 1:45 a.m. in the 100 Block of East College Street in the Downtown Pedestrian Mall reportedly involving as many 40 people.

‘Their lives have been forever changed by this senseless act of violence.’

Police said over the course of the fight, Jones obtained a firearm from another individual. During a break in the fight, police said Jones walked away from the other combatants, drew the weapon, and fired six times into the crowded Pedestrian Mall.

Police said five people were struck by gunfire:

One victim suffered a life-threatening wound to her head and remains in critical condition.One victim was struck in the arm and chest, causing serious injuries requiring surgery.One victim was struck in the leg, causing serious injuries requiring multiple surgeries.One victim was struck in the side of the stomach, causing bodily injury.One victim was struck in both legs, causing bodily injury.

Police said of the five victims struck by gunfire, two remain hospitalized.

RELATED: 5 wounded, including 3 students, in shooting near University of Iowa; police release photos of persons of interest

“Their lives have been forever changed by this senseless act of violence,” Iowa City Police Chief Dustin Liston said. “We pray for their full recovery and stand ready to support them in any way possible during this difficult time.”

Police said “none of the victims were the target of this shooting, and there is no reason to believe they were otherwise affiliated with this incident.”

By 3:05 a.m., investigators obtained images of Jones and other persons of interest in connection with the incident.

RELATED: Male, 31, fatally shoots 8 children execution style; 7 were his own kids: Report

Image source: Iowa City Police

Over the course of the investigation, police said they recovered three firearms, numerous firearm accessories, and multiple rounds of ammunition. Police added that investigators received more than 150 tips and served nearly three dozen search warrants.

Jones — who hasn’t been located, police said Wednesday — faces the following charges:

attempted murder (five counts)willful injury assault causing serious injury (three counts)willful injury assault causing bodily injury (two counts)going armed with intent

Officials confirmed to Iowa’s News Now that Jones is number three in the persons of interest photos sent out earlier this week.

RELATED: Masked men open fire after storming into Chick-fil-A; 1 dead, 6 injured; manhunt under way

Image source: Iowa City Police

Police said they are asking the public for assistance and that those with information are asked to contact the Iowa City Police Department at 319-356-5275. In addition, police said those in the area of the shooting with security cameras are asked to review their recordings and contact police with any potential video or information.

Iowa City Area Crime Stoppers is offering a reward of up to $1,000 for information about this incident that leads to an arrest, police said. Crime Stoppers tips can be submitted via the P3 Tips app, online at iccrimestoppers.org, or by phone at 319-358-TIPS (8477), police said. All tips and calls are held in strict confidence and anonymity is guaranteed, police said, and individuals providing information are not required to reveal their identity to collect a reward.

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

​Iowa city, Attempted murder charge, Going armed with intent, Mass shooting, Police, Suspect at large, Suspect named, University of iowa, Willful injury assault, Crime 

Jon Stewart routinely derides President Donald Trump on his Comedy Central infotainment show. This week, however, the cynical liberal found himself reluctantly celebrating the president over a new mental health initiative that could greatly impact afflicted veterans.

Trump signed an executive order on Saturday aimed at accelerating research and removing barriers to psychedelic drugs — including hallucinogenic ibogaine compounds, psilocybin, and LSD — as potential treatments for serious mental illnesses, including PTSD and depression.

‘Credit where credit is due.’

In addition to tasking Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary with reducing product application review times for psychedelic drugs that have received breakthrough therapy designations for treating mental illnesses, Trump ordered the FDA and Drug Enforcement Agency to create a pathway for eligible patients to access investigational psychedelic drugs.

Per the order, the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA must also work with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the private sector “to increase clinical trial participation, data sharing, and real-world evidence generation regarding psychedelic drugs, and shall prioritize drugs that have received a Breakthrough Therapy designation.” Fifty million dollars will also be provided for state-level research into ibogaine.

The White House noted in a fact sheet that over 14 million American adults suffer from a serious mental illness; suicide rates remain alarmingly high; and the suicide rate among veterans is more than double that of the nonveteran adult population.

RELATED: 4 marijuana facts the pro-pot lobby doesn’t want you to know

Jim WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

Afforded an opportunity to speak at the signing ceremony on Saturday, podcaster Joe Rogan revealed that the ball got rolling on the executive order after he “sent President Donald Trump some information” about ibogaine.

Trump confirmed the genesis of the initiative, noting that Rogan “wrote me a little note about this, and I had it checked out. I didn’t just do it. … I went to [HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.] and [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz] and went to some of the people that work for you, real pros, and everybody came back with the same answer.”

“Everybody thought it was incredible, and I told Bobby, I said, ‘Bobby, let’s just do it, and get Oz involved,” added Trump.

The president noted at the EO signing that “these experimental treatments have shown life-changing potential for those suffering from severe mental illness and depression, including our cherished veterans.”

On the April 20 episode of his show, Jon Stewart alerted his liberal audience that he wanted to “give credit where credit is due. We don’t, obviously, often do this.”

“The president did a solid over the weekend,” said Stewart. “President Trump signed an executive order in front of his fraternity brothers fast-tracking the FDA process for novel psychedelic drug treatments for veterans suffering from all forms of PTSD and other psychiatric conditions, including addiction.”

After playing tape from the EO signing and reflexively attacking the president over his unscripted remarks, Stewart stopped himself and said, “I’m sorry. I’m falling into old habits. It’s good. You did a good thing. I’m nitpicking. I apologize.”

Stewart noted further, “A lot of the people are going to get the help they need.”

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

​Department of veterans affairs, Depression, Donald trump, Drug, Drug enforcement agency, Drugs, Executive order, Food and drug administration, Jon stewart, Medicine, Psychedelics, Ptsd, Suicide rates, Veterans, White house, Oz, Kennedy, Makarty, Politics 

As artificial intelligence drives fresh excitement in the tech world, major figures such as Elon Musk are reviving an old political fantasy: universal basic income. The idea has drawn support from a strange coalition, from progressive politicians like Andrew Yang to libertarian thinkers like Charles Murray.

To its advocates, UBI is the obvious answer to a future in which machines displace human labor. But beneath the sleek language of innovation lies the same old welfare-state promise: material comfort in exchange for dependence. Its supporters speak as though it were the natural companion of progress. In reality, it threatens to rob millions of the work, structure, and purpose that give life meaning.

UBI attracts supporters for very different reasons. For Andrew Yang and others on the left, it promises relief from poverty through guaranteed cash transfers. For Charles Murray, it has represented a simpler and more streamlined alternative to the sprawling welfare state. For Elon Musk and many AI boosters, UBI solves the problem of those with too little cognitive ability to compete, left behind in an increasingly IQ-based economy.

Their motives differ, but they share a revealing assumption: that UBI is an inevitable response to progress rather than a political choice with deep moral and social consequences. In each case, the individual is treated less as a citizen with duties and aspirations than as a materialist problem to be managed.

Welfare for all

A version of UBI basically already exists in the United States. With the vast web of interlocking welfare programs offered by the state for things like disability, poverty, child care, minority status, and educational attainment, most people can find a way to qualify for assistance with food or housing. It might not provide a comfortable or desirable life, but if someone doesn’t want to work to survive in America, they often do not have to.

For many people, the state has become not a temporary backstop but a long-term provider. That arrangement may keep some households afloat, but it has not produced a flourishing class of free and self-governing citizens. It has more often produced dependence, passivity, and bureaucratic management.

The case for UBI made by many AI enthusiasts bears a familiar resemblance to the old socialist dream. Human labor may become unnecessary, they say, but machine-driven abundance will replace what is lost. Freed from drudgery, ordinary people will devote themselves to art, philosophy, travel, community, and self-cultivation. The nation will become a republic of fulfilled and creative souls, all liberated from economic necessity. It is an attractive vision. It is also the same old fantasy that material abundance can dissolve the harder facts of human nature.

The idea that AI can produce the predicted level of abundance is itself a huge, untested assumption.

Man is not a machine

AI is well-suited to handling many managerial tasks and repetitive interactions. It is far less capable in situations that require judgment, responsibility, dexterity, trust, and adaptation to messy reality. Even the systems that do work require expensive hardware, enormous energy consumption, and a dense supporting infrastructure. A country that struggles to maintain basic institutional competence should be wary of fantasies about a nearly labor-free future sustained by flawless technical systems. Before promising a world beyond work, the advocates of UBI should first show that the machinery behind that world can actually exist.

Even if one grants the premise that AI could replace most labor and generate enough abundance to meet material needs, UBI would still collide with basic truths about human nature. Men do not work merely to eat. Work gives shape to the day, imposes discipline, teaches competence, and anchors identity. People on welfare in the current system are not known for their high propensity to churn out great American novels or breathtaking sculptures. Instead, welfare recipients tend to watch television, play video games, and do drugs with their free time. Idleness, not unleashed creativity, is the fruit most often produced by removing the human need for labor.

Undoubtedly, some genuinely talented people who are trapped in unfulfilling jobs would benefit from this UBI scenario, but for the average person, it would be a disaster. For most people, even imperfect work provides something essential: structure, routine, responsibility, and a recognized place in the world.

Slaves to the tech plantation

A humanity freed from the necessity of labor would see the Pareto Principle run wild, with a small number of talented and driven people benefiting greatly as the rest fall into idleness. The mortality rate of men spikes when they retire because they lose the structure and meaning that had previously defined their lives.

UBI advocates also have a habit of addressing only the survival aspects of economic behavior while ignoring one of its most important functions — status. The status hierarchy is one of the most important aspects of how humans order our societies, and to determine our place within that hierarchy, we play status games.

Occupations can be extremely desirable for the status they confer, not just the resources they provide. A plumber may earn more than a professor, yet many people would still prefer the title and standing that come with academic life. If AI makes a base level of abundance available, people will compete over something to obtain status. Maybe artisanal, hand-manufactured items will become the new marker of status. The point is that these behaviors are hardwired into humans, and we should not expect them to disappear even if we solve the problem suddenly that they initially addressed.

AI enthusiasts rarely consider the consequences of disconnecting the entire production process from humans. Markets currently seek to maintain an equilibrium between human production and human consumption. There are artificial signals and plenty of distortion, but markets are still human-centered. If you decouple the system from human input by placing everyone on UBI, you create a closed techno-commercial feedback loop that no longer needs to be restricted by human concerns. In such a system, the citizen is no longer a participant but a dependent end user. That is not merely an economic shift. It is a transformation in the meaning of social life.

The danger grows sharper once one considers the political power UBI would concentrate in the state. The U.S. government already plays favorites, denying business loans, college scholarships, mortgage assistance, and other benefits to races, religions, or political affiliations that it finds undesirable. Every payment can become a point of pressure. Every dependency can become a tool of compliance.

It should be obvious that the state would become even more abusive if it became the only distributor of economic goods and services. Incredibly, socialists, libertarians, and techno capitalists can all make the same mistake, though it is not that surprising once you realize the underlying error. Their ideologies differ, but all are tempted by the same thin view of man as a creature defined mainly by material needs. But man is not a machine to be provisioned. We are more than just inputs and outputs; we are creatures who require meaning and purpose. That is something that a universal basic income can never give.

​Abundance, Ai, Auron macintyre, Labor displacement, Ubi, Welfare, Opinion & analysis 

The Southern Poverty Law Center was formally incorporated in 1971 by a pair of Alabama lawyers keen on handling anti-discrimination cases and advancing the cause of civil rights in the United States.

The SPLC morphed over time into a smear- and fear-mongering racket, raking in millions of dollars in contributions — over $106.47 million in fiscal year 2024 alone — and paying its executives gargantuan salaries while both attacking law-abiding conservatives and allegedly funding the very extremism it purportedly seeks to curb.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department announced that a grand jury in Alabama returned an indictment charging the SPLC with 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.

The organization is accused of secretly dumping over $3 million in donated funds to individuals linked to various extremist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, and National Socialist Party of America — groups the SPLC was supposedly fighting against.

‘The SPLC hate group label will almost undoubtedly make it into press reports about future events.’

While liberal donors might now be waking up to the fact that the SPLC is a radical and rotten organization, conservatives have long recognized it as a menace and for good reason: The SPLC’s mischaracterizations and alarmist rhetoric helped set the stage for at least one shooting.

The Family Research Council is a conservative think tank that promotes family, marriage, and the rights of the unborn and speaks forcefully against divorce, pornography, and sexual deviancy. By maintaining orthodox and principled biblical stances on various social issues, the FRC found itself on the SPLC’s radar.

The liberal hate racket listed the Family Research Council as an “anti-gay group” in a winter 2010 report and put it on the same list of extremist groups as the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations — groups that allegedly “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

RELATED: SPLC indictment BOMBSHELL: Charlottesville violence allegedly was a leftist-funded ‘false flag’

Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Heidi Beirich, then-research director at the SPLC, said there was no difference between the FRC and the KKK in the eyes of the SPLC; that “what we’re saying is these [anti-gay] groups perpetrate hate — just like those [racist] organizations do.”

The SPLC’s hate-mongering ultimately set the stage for a terrorist attack against the Family Research Council.

Floyd Lee Corkins II stormed into the office of the FRC in Washington, D.C., armed with a gun on Aug. 15, 2012. Corkins later told investigators that he got the name of the conservative organization from the SPLC’s list of alleged anti-gay groups and that he intended to kill as many FRC employees as he could.

‘They’d love nothing more than to see TPUSA in the crosshairs.’

The terrorist proved unable to execute his massacre thanks to the bravery of Leonardo Reno Johnson, the unarmed security guard on duty that day.

Despite catching a bullet to the arm, Johnson managed to disarm and subdue the shooter.

“Floyd Corkins was responsible for firing the shot yesterday that wounded one of our colleagues and our friend Leo Johnson,” said Tony Perkins, president of the FRC, “but Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

The SPLC displaced any and all blame for the attack, stating the day after the shooting that “Perkins’ accusation is outrageous” and that the FRC “should stop the demonization and affirm the dignity of all people.”

As evidenced by its serial demonization of other conservatives and conservative groups, including Turning Point USA and its founder Charlie Kirk, the hate racket clearly did not learn anything from the incident.

The SPLC’s “Year in Hate and Extremism 2024” report contained a lengthy section titled “Turing Point USA: A Case Study of the Hard Right in 2024.”

This section stated that:

“Charlie Kirk’s TPUSA is a well-funded, hard-right organization with links to Southern Poverty Law Center-identified hard-right extremists and a tremendous amount of influence in conservative politics”;TPUSA under Kirk was “emblematic” of the American political right’s supposed embrace of “aggressive state and federal power to enforce a social order rooted in white supremacy” against a backdrop of “patriarchal Christian supremacy dedicated to eroding the value of inclusive democracy and public institutions”;TPUSA was advancing a “narrow vision” that fights for “white, male, Christian dominance in America” and results in the demonization of nonconforming men, women, and “nonbinary people”; andKirk framed Christianity as superior and Christians as persecuted to justify TPUSA’s “extreme, authoritarian vision for the country that threatens the foundation of our democracy.”

Kirk knew full-well what the hate racket was up to, stating on May 25, 2025, “The SPLC has added Turning Point to their ridiculous ‘hate group’ list, right next to the KKK and neo-Nazis, a cheap smear from a washed-up org that’s been fleecing scared grandmas for decades.”

“Their game plan? Scare financial institutions into debanking us, pressure schools to cancel us, and demonize us so some unhinged lunatic feels justified targeting us,” continued Kirk. “Remember the Family Research Council? An SPLC-inspired gunman went after them. They’d love nothing more than to see TPUSA in the crosshairs.”

The day before Kirk’s Sept. 10, 2025, assassination at Utah Valley University, the SPLC Hatewatch newsletter named Kirk and TPUSA as extremist, according to testimony entered into the congressional record in December.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), chairman of the House subcommittee on the Constitution and limited government, said during the same hearing, “As with FRC, in the aftermath of Charlie’s assassination, there have been no retractions, no accountability, and no acknowledgment of the risks inherent in branding mainstream political figures as existential threats. These incidents, separated by 13 years but linked by the same targeting architecture, underscore a sobering reality. The SPLC’s designations don’t merely stigmatize. They can serve as ideological permission slips for individuals already willing to commit political violence.”

Unlike Corkins, Kirk’s alleged assassin does not appear to have made any mention of the SPLC’s smears against his victim.

FRC president Tony Perkins welcomed the charges against the SPLC on Tuesday, noting that “for years, the SPLC has used its platform to label and target organizations with whom it disagrees, often blurring the line between legitimate concern and ideological attack. That kind of reckless characterization doesn’t just damage reputations, it has put lives at risk.”

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

​Southern poverty law center, Splc, Charlie kirk, Family research council, Frc, Terrorism, Terrorist, Shooting, Attack, Leftism, Liberal, Fraud, Incitement, Radical, Liberalism, Conservative, Turning point usa, Politics 

Today is April 20, a day of celebration for marijuana enthusiasts everywhere. But did you ever wonder how it came to be?

It’s 1971 in Northern California, and a bunch of kids at San Rafael High School are on the hunt for a vast treasure: a secret patch of marijuana plants hidden in the backcountry of nearby Point Reyes.

Chinese organized crime has come to dominate the illegal marijuana trade across the country.

See, an older guy they know has been growing it, but now he’s worried that he’s going to get busted. So he tells the kids they can harvest it all and keep it — free of charge. He even draws them a map.

Every day after classes, they meet at the statue of Louis Pasteur to continue the search — always around 4:20 p.m. They begin using this as code to talk about the project. First “Louie 420,” later shortened to just “420.”

One of the kids has an older brother who is friends with Grateful Dead bassist Phil Lesh. They all start hanging out with the band, and “420” catches on as a sort of all-purpose slang for stoner culture. Later some genius figures out that “420” looks like the date 4/20, i.e. April 20, and here we are.

Oh, and those kids never did find the magical weed farm. And 55 years later, I think I know why. Ready to have your mind blown?

There was no marijuana crop. The guy just thought it was funny to send some dumb high-schoolers on a wild goose chase — complete with a corny treasure map. He and his buddies probably laughed about it once, then forgot about it. Meanwhile, these scrubs are combing through the poison oak in search of their dank El Dorado for weeks.

So when you think about it, 420 is a monument to how gullible and dumb smoking weed makes you.

Also, I’ve just been informed that today is April 23.

Sorry. Ever since they legalized weed out here in California, you can’t roll down your car window without being forced to inhale some sickly sweet cannabis vapors. Everyone in Los Angeles has caught a secondhand high, whether they want to or not.

That’s why I don’t know what day it is, and that’s why it just took me three hours — as well as two “Columbo” episodes and a bag of Funyuns — to write the preceding paragraphs.

Here are some other reasons legalization was a bad idea.

1. This isn’t your parents’ marijuana

Sorry, libertarians, but the whole legalization debate was built on a product that barely exists any more. In the 1970s, levels of THC (the chemical that makes you enjoy jazz music) hovered around 2%-3%. Today, it’s routine to find 15% to 20% THC in your classic “flower” — that green stuff Cheech and Chong smoked.

And nowadays we have a whole new lineup of cannabis concentrates, which can contain up to 60% to 80% THC levels. One minute you’re trying to make “The Dark Side of the Moon” sync up with “The Wizard of Oz”; the next you’re having a vision quest in the Vons frozen food aisle.

2. The psychosis link is real — and better established now

When it came to pot, former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson was firmly in the “it’s just a plant” camp — where any suggestion that marijuana could trigger serious mental health issues was treated as laughable “reefer madness” scare tactics.

Until his wife, at the time a senior psychiatrist at a facility for the criminally mentally ill, made an offhand comment about the latest violent offender she was treating: “Of course he’d been smoking pot his whole life.”

Of course?

That was the moment that sent Berenson digging, ultimately leading to his 2019 book, “Tell Your Children.”

What he found wasn’t a fringe theory, but something closer to a quiet consensus inside psychiatry, supported by study after study: Heavy cannabis use is linked to psychosis, and the link gets stronger with potency and frequency.

None of this means marijuana will cause psychosis in most users. But the fact remains that legalization normalized a product that, for a meaningful minority of users, can trigger something serious — and sometimes irreversible.

This is a trade-off that rarely makes it into the cultural conversation — and never into the marketing.

RELATED: Charlie Kirk urges Trump to reconsider reclassifying marijuana: ‘Protect public spaces for kids’

White House photo

3. Legalization didn’t replace the black market

One of the simplest arguments for legalization was also one of the most intuitive: If you make marijuana legal, the illegal market disappears.

But that didn’t happen.

Take California, the country’s largest legal cannabis market. State analysts and industry observers still estimate the illicit trade to be as large as or larger than the legal one. The reasons aren’t mysterious.

Illegal sellers don’t test, tax, or restrict — so they can move faster and sell cheaper. They can also use banned, highly toxic pesticides to maximize crop yields. This tainted weed often ends up on dispensary shelves right next to regulated dope.

Because enforcement focuses on still-illegal drugs like meth and heroin, the marijuana black market offers an attractive opportunity for criminal networks. Chinese organized crime in particular has come to dominate the illegal marijuana trade across the country — trafficking Chinese nationals to work the farms.

4. ‘Not addictive’ is not really true

“Weed isn’t addictive” has become one of the most repeated — and least examined — claims in the legalization era.

It’s true in a narrow, clinical sense: Marijuana doesn’t typically produce the kind of severe physical dependence associated with opioids or alcohol. But that’s not the only way habits take hold.

What is more common — and easier to miss — is behavioral dependence, building routines around use that are hard to break, even without dramatic withdrawal symptoms.

Research from agencies like the National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that roughly three in 10 users develop cannabis use disorder — a figure that rises with daily use and higher-potency products.

It’s a widespread crisis that is all the more insidious for how undramatic it is: a gradual narrowing of motivation, attention, and energy.

​Legalized weed california, Thc levels increase, Chronic cannabis use, Drugs, Lifestyle