For weeks, students at hundreds of schools across the country have walked out of class to protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions. At Rincon High School in Arizona, leaders of the Latino Student Union organized a walkout to oppose the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

The next week, some of those same students demanded the removal of a Turning Point USA club from the Tucson Unified campus. Members of the Latino Student Union petitioned the school board to bar the conservative club from meeting on school property, claiming its presence made them feel “unsafe” and accusing it of a “track history of presenting hate and presenting fear.”

As American life grows more polarized, young people face mounting pressure to treat opposing speech not as something to answer, but as something to silence.

Arizona was not a one-off.

Last fall, students at Royal Oak High School in Michigan walked out over the formation of a Turning Point chapter. One protest organizer complained that the club “spreads conservative views … and those aren’t things that we promote in our school.”

That statement tells you plenty. Students increasingly invoke the language of safety and inclusion not to protect their own right to speak, but to suppress the speech of others.

Royal Oak Schools says the district aims to provide “an inclusive, diverse, safe, and student-first environment” in which students will be “embraced, accepted, challenged, and prepared.” Yet schools cannot claim to challenge and prepare students while teaching them that disagreement itself amounts to harm.

These incidents may still be relatively few, but they point to a broader problem: the spread of speech intolerance from college campuses into K-12 education.

A report released in September by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression found alarming attitudes on college campuses. Among roughly 70,000 students surveyed, 34% said violence to stop someone from speaking can be acceptable, while 72% supported shouting down speakers in rare cases.

College pathologies do not stay on college campuses for long.

Through social media, ethnic-studies curricula, school speech codes, and the influence older students exert on younger ones, the campus habit of treating dissent as danger has moved into elementary and secondary education.

The results have already turned ugly.

RELATED: How liberals let America’s colleges collapse into illiberalism

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

After a walkout at Hayes High School in Ohio in February, one senior said the protest “went as peaceful as it could have gone with the amount of anger that we have.” In reality, an altercation between several protesters and one dissenter ended with three students charged with disorderly conduct. The confrontation appears to have begun when walkout participants repeatedly blew whistles in the student’s face.

In Kansas, student counterprotesters from Olathe Northwest High School were attacked while demonstrating across the street from an anti-ICE protest. Their offense? They merely supported the administration and current immigration enforcement.

Thankfully, these incidents remain uncommon. But the trend should concern parents, teachers, and communities. As American life grows more polarized, young people face mounting pressure to treat opposing speech not as something to answer, but as something to silence.

Whatever one thinks of school walkouts, defenders of these protests usually justify them as exercises in civic engagement and First Amendment expression. Fine. But civic engagement does not mean demanding a microphone for yourself and a muzzle for everyone else.

Students need to learn that free speech cuts both ways. They have every right to voice their convictions. They also have a responsibility to defend the rights of people whose views they dislike, distrust, or even find offensive.

If they do not learn that lesson now, student activism will become less about persuasion than coercion. And young Americans will be trained not to practice liberty, but to imitate the tyranny they claim to oppose.

​Opinion & analysis, Leftism, The left, High school, Student activism, Immigration and customs enforcement, K-12 education, Turning point usa, Tpusa, Violence, Censorship, Safe spaces, Conservative students, Liberal students, Latino student union, Anti-ice protests, Speech codes, Ethnic studies 

A mother and daughter from Kentucky have a simple message for artificial intelligence companies: Go away.

Ida Huddleston and her daughter Delsia Bare say their land has fed the United States for generations, and that isn’t going to change.

‘I’ll stay and hold and feed a nation.’

The quiet family are making headlines over their farmland, which they say has been in their family since the 1860s, after anonymous bidders have made plays to scoop up their property to erect a sprawling data center.

According to Bare, the potential buyers “will not reveal who they are,” telling local Lexington, Kentucky, outlet WLEX that the anonymity of the offer is a huge red flag to her.

The family have been offered $60,000 per acre for Huddleston’s 71 acres and $48,000 per acre for Bare’s 463-acre portion. This puts the total offer at roughly $26 million. WKRC says this is approximately 10 times the going rate for farmland in the area.

Huddleston said she has rejected multiple offers and that she’s not budging.

“What they’ve proposed and have carried on with us is not a business deal; it’s mind harassment,” the 82-year-old told WLEX.

“I said I don’t want your money; I don’t need your money. But I do feel sorry for everybody around us that they’re going to be affected by it.”

RELATED: Sam Altman tells BlackRock he wants AI on a meter ‘like electricity or water’

The economic development director for surrounding Maysville-Mason County previously told WLEX that the potential data center would create 400 full-time positions and over 1,500 construction jobs.

“As far as jobs would go, they would become, if not our largest employer, definitely top three,” director Tyler McHugh said.

However, Huddleston disputed the number of potential permanent jobs, saying, “My guess is you won’t have over 50, and they won’t even be there at this building when it’s said and done.”

The narrative surrounding the family’s lineage has remained very consistent throughout news reports, as have Bare’s reasons for refusing to sell.

“I’ll stay and hold and feed a nation,” she told WKRC. She added that for generations her family has “paid taxes on it, fed a nation off of it, even raised wheat through the Depression and kept the breadlines up in the United States of America.”

RELATED: Data centers are a hidden tax on your burger

Data center in Louisville, Kentucky. Tom Uhlman/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Much of the sentiment was the same for Huddleston, who said she recognizes a sinister pattern.

“They call us old, stupid farmers, you know, but we’re not. We know whenever our food is disappearing, our lands are disappearing, and we don’t have any water. And poison: We know we’ve had it.”

Her message to those who claim it will bring jobs: “I say they’re a liar and the truth ain’t in them. … It’s a scam!”

WLEX had previously reported on a different family who turned down offers of nearly $8 million for their land. In December, Andy Grosser and his father, Timothy, said they were also approached about selling their cattle farm to make way for a data center.

“We do not want to sell,” Grosser said. “The farm is my dad’s, and it means everything to him.”

As for Bare, she compared her love for her land to Scarlett O’Hara in “Gone with the Wind:”

“As long as I’m on this land — as long as it’s feeding me, as long as it’s taking care of me — there’s nothing that can destroy me if I’ve got this land.”

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

​Return, Farm land, Farmland, Kentucky, Big tech, Data center, Ai, Ai data center, America, Patriotism, Tech 

Anyone who watched the recent World Baseball Classic final in Miami — a thrilling matchup between the underdog Venezuelans and Team USA — saw a vivid display of national pride.

Before the game, both teams stood for the Venezuelan and American national anthems. Miami is home to the world’s largest Venezuelan diaspora community. The cheers were thunderous. Every Venezuelan player stood with his cap over his heart and sang every word with conviction. This from a nation scarred by decades of unrest, corruption, and more recently, liberation at the hands of U.S. troops sent by President Donald Trump. Through all that turmoil, they held fast to love of country. “It means everything. This is for our country,” starting pitcher Eduardo Rodriguez said afterward through tears.

A nation cannot survive on procedure alone. It needs loyalty, memory, gratitude, and a shared sense of belonging.

The contrast with the American team was hard to miss. Our players all looked stoic. No one sang. I wondered if they even knew the words.

That scene unfolded as the U.S. Senate debated the SAVE America Act, a bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and voter ID at the polls. Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) framed the matter correctly. “Our republic was founded on a daring claim that free people could govern itself. Not that a free people could drift forever,” he said.

“Liberty is fragile and so it requires structure.”

America’s founders would have understood the point.

In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington urged Americans not only to respect the law but to love their country. “Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections,” he said. “The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism.”

Benjamin Franklin believed immigrants should assimilate, learn the language, and adopt American customs if they wished to become good citizens. Thomas Jefferson tied citizenship to literacy, civic formation, and military readiness. “Every citizen should be a soldier,” he wrote. “This was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free state.”

The SAVE Act may never reach President Trump’s desk. Common sense rarely enjoys smooth passage in Washington. But Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has at least shown some backbone. “We’re going to stay on this bill until it damn well passes,” he said, even if that means “many, many weeks” of debate.

If the MAGA base roars loudly enough, maybe it will.

But the deeper problem runs beyond election law. It concerns whether Americans still understand citizenship as something more than legal status. A nation cannot survive on procedure alone. It needs loyalty, memory, gratitude, and a shared sense of belonging.

RELATED: America’s founders risked the gallows. What are we risking?

Daniel Shirey/WBCI/MLB Photos via Getty Images

That is why the contrast on display in Miami matters. The Venezuelans played as men who still believed their country — mess that it may be — deserved their love. Too many Americans now act embarrassed by their own inheritance.

If we do not protect our elections from illegal votes, we weaken our sovereignty. If we do not insist that new citizens learn English, we weaken national cohesion. If we cannot teach our children to love their country, sing its anthem, and thank God for its blessings, we will hand the nation to elites whose only loyalty is to appetite, profit, and power.

I saw the alternative recently at a Hillsdale College seminar. Before each meal, a student led us in prayer. Then we stood together and recited the Pledge of Allegiance. I had not spoken those words aloud in years. The moment carried real force — 800 voices joined in gratitude, memory, and common purpose. It reminded me that patriotism is not an abstraction. It is a habit.

We should bring the pledge back to schools. We should teach the Bible again. We should teach Western history and literature without apology. We should make English the official language of the United States.

After Venezuela beat Italy in the semifinals, President Trump posted on Truth Social, “Wow … statehood #51 anyone?” He understood something larger in the moment. America does not need another state. It needs more citizens with that kind of spirit.

These are the questions I explore in my new novel, “Trump’s Superpower: A Historical Novel About the Founding Fathers and One Founding Mother,” out in May. In it, the founders return for America’s 250th anniversary and confront what we have done with the republic they risked their lives to build.

Whether we still deserve it may depend on whether we are still willing to sing for it.

​Team usa, World baseball classic, Team venezuela, Save america act, National pride, National anthem, George washington, Trump, Opinion & analysis, Freedom, Socialism, Thomas jefferson, Mike lee, Eric schmitt 

Stand-up comedian Mark Normand believes in making fun of everyone, equally.

When asked about his latest Netflix special, Normand said he wanted to be “inclusive,” meaning he wanted to make fun of people from all walks of life.

‘I want you to admit on this call that they’re a dangerous people.’

Normand told podcaster Shannon Sharpe recently that he gave “equal opportunity” mockery to every group, including “trans, Mexican, black, gay, Muslim, everyone.”

It was one of those specific groups that executives confronted Normand about and wanted it removed from his hour-long set. The comic revealed a phone call he received from top brass recently, and while most would assume he was referring to Netflix — given that his “None Too Pleased” special was just released on the platform — a Normand voiceover told audiences multiple times it was actually Hulu he had the conversation with.

On the podcast “Tuesdays with Stories,” the New Orleans native recalled, “About a week ago or two weeks ago, they said, ‘Send us a couple jokes you like. We’ll chop them up and use that as promo on social media.'”

A week later, representatives allegedly asked the comedian to have a conference call, which he was not looking forward to because it’s “18 Jews on there with a speakerphone and my Jews,” Normand joked with co-host Joe List.

“They go, ‘Yeah, we got some bad news there. We reviewed the special again. We’d like to take out the Muslim joke.'”

Normand explained that staff told him that the last time “a comic did a Muslim joke,” they got bomb and death threats. But the 42-year-old said he refused to take it out.

RELATED: Comic’s hellish Ellen DeGeneres gig: How one word made her blow her top

“I like the joke. It kills. It’s a hot joke,” Normand said, adding, “And you know, no one touches ‘Muzz,'” referring to Muslims.

The comic said he fought for his joke, telling the platform, “You approved it. Now you’re going back.”

The platform allegedly then focused its battle on not removing the joke from the special itself but rather getting Normand to agree that it would not appear in social media promotions. The platform apparently believed social media was where most of the turmoil and backlash spawns from, not from people actually watching the special.

In response, Normand then gave the reps an ultimatum:

“OK. I don’t love it, but OK. I will take it off on one condition,” he recalled saying. Normand then said he told those on the call that he would only approve the social media plan if they admitted Muslims are dangerous.

“I want you to admit on this call that they’re a dangerous people. And they were like, ‘What? No. What, are you crazy?’ And I’m like, ‘You got to admit it, or I’m keeping it, or I’m posting it.'”

Normand said he could hear the commotion through the phone, until he was eventually told they would not adhere to his request, chiefly because it’s “offensive.”

That’s when Normand called out the studio’s hypocrisy.

RELATED: ‘There’s supposed to be freedom of speech’: ‘Saturday Night Live’s’ Kenan Thompson says movie studios suppress edgy comedians

Photo by Valerie Terranova/Getty Images for Bob Woodruff Foundation

“That’s what the call is!” Normand remembered. “You’re calling about this, and I just need you to say it out loud.”

Remembering his phone call had Normand up in arms on the recent podcast, as he mocked the executive class for “signaling” about their beliefs but not standing behind them.

“You can say, ‘Hey, I love this group.’ But then you don’t live near them. You know, we’re all talk. We’re all signaling. We’re all virtuous, but you don’t actually act that way.”

“So they admitted it,” Normand said to his surprise; and while he did reveal he was “half joking” when he made his request, the comedian had a good time getting “a group of HR homos” to say, “All right, they’re dangerous. We’ll see you later,” before hanging up the phone.

As for which platform Normand spoke to, Netflix did not respond to a request for clarification; Hulu did not reply either. Normand seemingly had one special on the latter platform, “Out to Lunch” (2020), but it appears to no longer be available.

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

​Comedy, Align, Stand-up comedy, Netflix, Hulu, Comedian, Muslims, Woke, Censorship, Virtue signal, Entertainment 

Republicans are facing yet another brutal electoral loss after Democrat Emily Gregory sailed through her special election in a deep-red district.

Gregory was elected to represent the 87th district in the Florida House Tuesday night, securing 51.2% of the vote while her Republican opponent, Jon Maples, won just 48.8% of the vote. This district, which includes President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, was previously held by Republican Mike Caruso.

Republicans have not flipped a single Democrat-held seat since Trump was elected.

Caruso, who vacated his seat in August to become Palm Beach County clerk of the circuit court and comptroller, won the seat by 19 points in 2024. Similarly, Trump won the district by 11 points in the 2024 presidential election.

Gregory’s victory is hardly an outlier. Since Trump was elected in November 2024, Democrats have managed to flip dozens of seats in key elections and have come uncomfortably close to defeating other Republicans in deep-red districts.

RELATED: Republican defends congressional airline perks as cost-savings for Americans

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

In 2025 alone, Democrats flipped 25 state Senate and House seats previously held by Republicans out of the 119 seats that were up for grabs through special or regular elections. Democrats flipped 13 seats in the Virginia House of Delegates alone and another five seats in the New Jersey General Assembly, even breaking a supermajority in Mississippi.

Democrats flipped another nine seats, including local elections in Iowa, Pennsylvania, Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Arkansas.

With Gregory’s victory Tuesday night, Democrats have successfully flipped 29 seats previously held by Republicans.

RELATED: Jesse Jackson Jr.’s political comeback fails miserably after he served prison time

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

In contrast, Republicans have not flipped a single Democrat-held seat since Trump was elected in November 2024, offering a bleak forecast for the GOP going into the 2026 midterms.

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

​Mar-a-lago, Donald trump, Deep red district, Flip, Emily gregory, Special election, Jon maples, 2026 midterms, Politics 

Gas prices are all over the place these days, and unless you want to pay top dollar to put the same stuff in your tank that is sold for less down the street, you need an easy way to check local prices without driving all over town. Here are just a few of our favorite apps that can help you find the most affordable gas stations (and maybe even make some money on the side).

GasBuddy

You can’t talk about gas prices online without mentioning GasBuddy. As the most popular option on the list, GasBuddy has been around since Y2K, starting as a website before jumping to smartphones in 2010.

Arm yourself with these apps for a complete look at your local gas prices.

What makes GasBuddy so great is that it offers quick and easy access to all the best prices in your area. In the list view, you can sort options by price, distance, gasoline grade, and whether cash or credit is accepted. You can also tap over to the map view to see nearby gas stations, along with glanceable price tags. GasBuddy is built on crowdsourced data, so if one of the listed gas prices is incorrect, you can report the mistake and submit a price update for other drivers.

Screenshots by Zach Laidlaw/GasBuddy

Google Maps

You probably know Google Maps as one of the leading navigation apps on the App Store and Google Play, but while it’s good at getting directions and checking local traffic, it’s also surprisingly decent at gathering gas prices. Tap on the “gas” tab at the top of the screen (you may have to scroll over to find it) to get an instant view of all local gas stations, along with a quick map and list view of their lowest prices. You can select a gas station to open the overview menu, where you can see prices for regular, mid-grade, and premium gas at your chosen location.

RELATED: New hack poses biggest iPhone threat in 19 years: What you can do

Xaume Olleros/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Scroll down, and you’ll find the “Popular times” graph, which shows the best and worst hours to stop by based on traffic estimates, along with the amount of time you should expect to wait for a fill-up.

Screenshots by Zach Laidlaw/Google Maps

Waze

Waze started as a community-based navigation app that empowered users to share updates about traffic, road hazards, speed traps, and more, all intended to help fellow “Wazers” safely navigate the map. Although the app was purchased by Google in 2013, Waze has largely maintained its unique design and personality, leaning heavily on its crowdsourcing roots to deliver important information to drivers, including gas prices.

To see the prices in your immediate area, tap on the “Where to?” search bar and select “Gas.” Instantly, you’ll find a map of nearby stations, complete with markers advertising their lowest prices. Choose your favorite station to see a full list of prices on regular, mid-grade, and premium gasoline. On this screen, you’ll also see if the station has nearby parking to park your car so that you can go inside for drinks or snacks.

One of the best parts about Waze’s gas price feature is that you can set tracking preferences in the settings menu. You can choose your preferred gas type, station brand, and sorting options to ensure the most pertinent results show up first on the map.

Screenshots by Zach Laidlaw/Waze

Upside

If you enjoy any of the shows on BlazeTV, you’ve probably heard of Upside. While it’s true that Upside has advertised on some of our podcasts, the company did not pay to be featured in this article. The reason this app made the list is because Upside is a genuinely useful service that can help you get cheap gas and even put some money back in your pocket.

Unlike the other apps here that display gas prices on a map, Upside labels stations with the amount of cash back you can earn. To get direct price information, select your preferred station. Prices are listed by the amount you’ll save on premium, regular, mid-grade, and diesel. Make sure you tap “Claim” at the bottom of the page to redeem the offer, and read the fine print below for redemption details.

While Upside can help you save money at the pump, there is one stark limitation — discounts are only available at Upside’s preferred partner gas stations. That means your favorite station might not offer cash back. For what it’s worth, though, Upside claims to support 50,000 stores nationwide, so the chances are high that there are still viable options in your area.

Screenshots by Zach Laidlaw/Upside

Your ticket to savings

Gas is one of those things that you can’t live without, but just because it’s a necessity doesn’t mean you should pay top dollar. Arm yourself with these apps for a complete look at your local gas prices and save money every time you fill up. There’s no point in spending more for the same stuff that another station sells for less.

​Tech 

A 68-year-old retired police sergeant is responsible for a series of kidnappings and rapes in Detroit, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Benjamin Martin Wagner served for nearly 30 years on the Detroit Police force but was arrested in Greenville, North Carolina, decades after the assaults.

Wagner was caught after law enforcement officials finally tested 11,000 rape kits that had been collected from cases between 1984 and 2009.

Prosecutors say Wagner kidnapped and raped five women and girls in northwest Detroit between 1999 and 2003, but they believe there may be other victims.

“The deplorable fact in this case is that the person we are charging has led a double life as a law enforcement officer and serial rapist,” Wayne County Prosecutor Kim Worthy said.

The victims ranged in age from 15 to 23 years old.

“The commonalities were they were walking to school or home from work or simply going to a friend’s house. These happened in the early morning hours, mostly, all on Detroit’s northwest side,” said Worthy.

“He utilized isolation and force. He was armed with a handgun in each and every case,” she added. “He threatened their lives if they reported, and he did not use a condom in any of the assaults.”

Wagner was caught after law enforcement officials finally tested 11,000 rape kits that had been collected from cases between 1984 and 2009. They were discovered in 2009 at a Detroit Police Department warehouse.

Prosecutors said Wagner received several awards and commendations while working as an officer from 1989 until 2017.

Wagner was arrested on March 17 and will be extradited to Michigan.

RELATED: Thug who brutally raped 94-year-old in broad daylight had just been released after other rape charge was dropped, police say

Many police departments across the country have stored rape kits but neglected to test them owing to budget constraints or simple incompetence. One advocacy group believes about 50,000 rape kits have gone without testing, allowing the perpetrators of rape to escape justice and continue victimizing Americans.

“We have betrayed at least a generation of survivors in the way that the criminal justice system and the larger public have responded to sexual assault,” said criminology expert Rachel Lovell of Cleveland State University.

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

​Benjamin martin wagner rapist, Retired police was rapist, Detroit police rapist, Untested rape kits, Crime 

The recently departed Robert Mueller, best known as the Russiagate special counsel, maintained his honor under circumstances far more fraught than the New York Times would like to admit.

To the Times, Mueller was a near-extinct liberal Republican, a straight-arrow institutionalist who resisted Donald Trump’s tawdry politics while avoiding the thuggish legacy of J. Edgar Hoover. That portrait distorts both men. It also misses the real point: Mueller’s conduct during Russiagate, whatever its flaws, looks more honorable when set against the corruption surrounding him.

With all the corruption swirling around him, Mueller himself held the line, even as age and decline had plainly weakened him.

The Times’ swipe at Hoover was as gratuitous as it was ignorant. Hoover had long passed his prime by the 1970s, but beginning in 1924, he transformed a bureau riddled with corruption into a professional law-enforcement agency that promoted rigorous investigative standards around the world. Of Hoover’s successors, only Mueller approached that level of competence while avoiding Hoover’s late-life degeneration.

What the Times missed about Mueller was his stubborn rectitude in finishing the Russiagate investigation without yielding to the partisan pressure for indictment.

Trump, in his usual blunt fashion, responded to Mueller’s death with satisfaction rather than acknowledging him as an honest prosecutor who refused to sign on to a ruinous partisan prosecution.

That refusal matters. The larger Russiagate story is not that Mueller pursued Trump too aggressively. It is that Russiagate itself was one of the most dishonest political dirty tricks in our country’s wild history.

What Russiagate was — and wasn’t

Only Mueller’s refusal to indict saved the country from the further disgrace of charging a president based on a fiction manufactured by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and abetted by corrupt actors in the FBI and CIA, including James Comey and John Brennan.

Properly understood, the special counsel investigation was the capstone of that long corruption. Had Mueller’s deputies, working with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, indicted Trump, as many of them plainly wished to do, the damage would have been irreparable.

For that reason, Mueller’s resistance to the demands of his own partisan aides deserves recognition, not contempt. As his legacy hardens into historical judgment, we should examine the Russiagate investigation for what it was and what it was not.

When Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in May 2017, Mueller was quickly named special counsel. But Comey’s Russiagate inquiry had begun as a counterintelligence investigation, which required no identified crime. Comey privately told Trump that he was not a subject of the investigation as a foreign agent. Publicly, however, Comey let suspicion fester while refusing to clarify that point. Trump’s dealings with Russia were already constrained by the posturing of both Comey and President Obama.

Then came Rosenstein. Urged on by the unctuous Comey, Rosenstein violated the governing regulation by appointing Mueller without first identifying a predicate crime. Only later did Rosenstein and Mueller’s team realize they needed one. So Mueller’s deputies settled on a theory that Trump may have obstructed justice by firing Comey.

That theory never held up. Comey served at the pleasure of the president and could be fired for any reason or no reason at all. Even the crime eventually offered to justify the special counsel’s existence failed as a legal foundation.

So the Mueller inquiry rested on a faulty premise from the start. It was not the first dirty trick played on Trump. It was the last.

RELATED: The case against Clinton, Brennan, and Comey is stronger than ever

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Media malpractice

Have readers learned any of this from the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the self-justifying book later written by Mueller’s deputies? Hardly. Those institutions covered up the illegality while sermonizing about their virtue and Trump’s supposed criminality.

Step backward in time, and the prior outrage appears: the FISA surveillance of the Trump campaign, and later the presidency, approved in October 2016 on the phony strength of the Steele dossier. Andrew McCabe admitted under oath that the dossier formed the basis for the FISA application. That document rested on the cartoonish fable that Trump aide Carter Page had been offered billions tied to an oil interest by Russia’s Igor Sechin in exchange for influencing the Republican platform. The tale was fiction, filtered through suspected Russian operative Igor Danchenko.

That surveillance was not a good-faith mistake. It was a vicious political trick carried out by McCabe and Comey, who had no plausible reason to believe the Carter Page story was true.

Before that came the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, opened on July 31, 2016. Its predicate was equally rotten. Joseph Mifsud, a mysterious professor later treated as Russian-connected, told young Trump aide George Papadopoulos that Russia had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of emails. Then Alexander Downer, the former Australian ambassador, drew Papadopoulos into a conversation and extracted the statement needed to move the allegation into official channels.

But Mifsud was no Russian cutout. He was tied to Western intelligence circles, including Claire Smith, a British official involved in spy vetting. So Crossfire Hurricane itself appears to have been launched not by genuine Russian infiltration but by the oily maneuvering of intelligence allies tied to Comey and Brennan through the Five Eyes network.

And beneath all of it sat the mother of the dirty tricks: Hillary Clinton’s decision to blame Russia for the exposure of internal Democrat emails showing how the DNC had worked against Bernie Sanders. To sustain that narrative, Clinton’s campaign hired Christopher Steele to produce the false dossier alleging Trump-Russia collusion. That was the seed crystal of the entire hoax. It survived only because crooked Hillary had dirty birds running the FBI and CIA.

RELATED: The media’s ‘war on misinformation’ loses all credibility

Deagreez via iStock/Getty Images

Concealing the truth

Once you see that, the real scandal comes into focus. If the Steele dossier triggered Crossfire Hurricane, which led to the false FISA surveillance, which in turn helped justify Mueller’s appointment, then any honest special counsel investigation should have started with the dossier itself. An honest inquiry would have examined whether Clinton, Steele, Steele’s sources, Comey, and Brennan conspired to manufacture the false collusion narrative that became Russiagate.

Instead, Mueller’s deputies chose to ignore the dossier. Their excuse was almost comic: The dossier was too false and unreliable to investigate! But false collusion was the heart of the scandal. Investigating that fraud should have been central, not optional.

They concealed other truths as well. They continued to describe Mifsud as Russian-connected while omitting his far more troubling ties to Western intelligence circles. They kept from the public the extent to which the original predicates for the whole affair were contrived.

Then came the final abuse. Professional ethics require prosecutors to put up or shut up. If they decline to prosecute, they do not defame the subject by insinuating guilt they cannot prove. Mueller’s deputies ignored that rule. In the Mueller report and their later book, they dwelled at length on how Trump may have almost obstructed justice and why they could not “exonerate” him, even though exoneration is not a prosecutor’s task.

In short, Mueller’s deputies concealed the corrupted predicates of the earlier investigations while compounding the damage with their own slanted and misleading account.

Yet with all that corruption swirling around him, Mueller himself held the line, even as age and decline had plainly weakened him. He did not stop his deputies from smearing Trump, and that failure matters. But he remained the thin blue line that prevented one of the ugliest abuses of prosecutorial power in modern American history.

Robert Mueller should be remembered not as the anti-Trump hero or anti-conservative that the New York Times described, but as a conscientious man who kept his footing amid corrupt company.

​Robert mueller, Russiagate, Fbi, Hillary clinton, James comey, Mainstream media, Steele dossier, Crossfire hurricane, Opinion & analysis, Corruption, Fisa abuse, Five eyes, Deep state 

Following the death of action legend Chuck Norris, what might have been a moment of shared cultural reflection has quickly turned contentious. Leftists are already scrutinizing Norris’ film legacy through a political lens — something BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales is tired of.

“Democrats never waste an opportunity to make everything about politics, make death about politics. … This guy was a Hollywood icon, a meme legend, and you would think that we could all just be like, ‘Oh, that’s sad that he died,’” Gonzales says.

One article published by Variety magazine makes this clear, with the headline reading, “Chuck Norris Was a Great Action Star — but Politics May Overshadow His Legacy.”

“Yes, he was a Republican, but he didn’t really wear that with a badge on his shoulder or anything, but weirdly, this isn’t even what the article is taking shots at him about,” Gonzales comments, before reading a paragraph from the article.

“Was Norris a brilliant athlete and top-shelf star? Yes. But there’s no denying that his roles were part of a body of work used to show American strength, might, and the pernicious attraction of taking the law into one’s own hands — something that seems less fun in a year in which our country is funneling money into bombing Iran and ICE agents are acting like one-man militias,” the author, William Earl, wrote.

“Given our nation’s divisions in morality, information literacy, and overall sense of reality, it’s easier to see Norris’ characters as justification for a fringe conspiracy movement rather than a moral standing,” he continued.

Earl went on to ask the question that’s on no one’s mind: “When a star is the poster boy for American exceptionalism and might, at what point does his legacy transition from escapism to dangerous propaganda?”

“What an absolute freaking loser,” Gonzales comments.

“The Democrats make everything unfun. They are unfun, miserable, ghoulish people,” she continues. “But you know what? That leaves us with no shortage of things to talk about.”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

​Sara gonzales unfiltered, Sara gonzales, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Chuck norris death, Chuck norris, Chuck norris politics, Chuck norris republican, Democrats, Variety magazine, Leftism, Leftists 

At the beginning of the year, one of my crystal-ball predictions for 2026 was that Samuel Alito and/or Clarence Thomas would retire so President Trump could replace them before the midterms.

Recent reporting suggests that prediction may prove correct, especially with speculation that Alito is considering stepping down. So I checked with some sources to see which names are circulating as possible replacements.

Why should our side ever put a judge on the Supreme Court who sides with the left on the sanctity of life for any reason?

The reality is Alito is not easily replaced. He has been one of the best Supreme Court justices of this century. His successor cannot be some C-plus or B-minus judge with a fuzzy record and a habit of folding at the wrong moment. The stakes are too high.

That is why one name worries me: Judge Andrew Oldham.

Trump already passed on Oldham for the Supreme Court in 2020 and for good reason. What remains of our constitutional republic does not have time for a “meh” nominee.

Oldham, a former general counsel to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), now serves on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A quick look at his record shows a pattern that should alarm anyone hoping for another Alito.

Let’s start with life.

Alito authored the phenomenal majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade, one of the most wicked decisions in American history. Oldham’s record points the other way. In 2000, Bill Clinton’s FDA treated pregnancy as an “illness” to justify accelerated approval of abortion drugs as the supposed “cure.” Years later, a Trump-appointed district judge rightly rejected that decision, and a Trump-appointed circuit judge backed him. Oldham, however, became the first circuit judge to side with the Clinton FDA’s position on procedural grounds.

The American Family Association called that decision “shockingly weak” at the time. The Supreme Court effectively vindicated that criticism in 2024 when it overturned Oldham by a 6-3 vote.

Why should our side ever put a judge on the Supreme Court who sides with the left on the sanctity of life for any reason?

The concerns do not stop there.

AFA, which tracks judicial nominations as well as any group on the right, has also described Oldham as “soft” on COVID shot mandates. He earned that reputation when he wrote an opinion saying schools need not require children to wear masks, not because masks do not work, but because schools could instead adopt other COVID policies involving vaccines, plexiglass, hand sanitizer, distancing, and more.

The opinion was so weak that no other judge joined it.

Then came gender ideology. Last year, my Blaze Media colleague Daniel Horowitz reported on Oldham siding against doctors and with the Biden administration’s edict that they must perform gender-transition procedures on children by refusing even to hear their challenge. Oldham had a chance to join a Trump-appointed judge who rejected Biden’s grotesque mandate. He passed.

His immigration record raises more red flags.

RELATED: Supreme Court sides with Catholic parents against California on student gender notification — for now

Photo by Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Oldham declined to back a Trump-appointed district judge who ruled against allowing illegal aliens to receive cheaper in-state college tuition than out-of-state Americans. That alone should have disqualified him from serious consideration.

Thankfully, Trump’s Justice Department sued last year to end that practice in Texas, where Oldham’s former client is governor. Once the Justice Department sued, Texas finally conceded the point. Now left-wing groups want the courts to restore that anti-American policy. And which legal precedent are they citing? Oldham’s.

You cannot make it up.

Nor was that his only immigration failure. Oldham also ruled against Abbott when the governor declared an invasion at the southern border two years ago. Does that sound like a judge ready to overturn Plyler v. Doe, the disastrous precedent that for illegal immigration serves much the same function Roe once served for abortion?

Now sensing that his moment may have arrived, Oldham appears to be trying to retcon himself as a reliably based jurist. Even Slate has noticed the pattern — the judicial equivalent of a comb-over meant to hide an obvious weakness. The result has been embarrassing. He now gets overturned with some regularity by one of the most right-leaning Supreme Courts in recent memory.

That tends to happen when ambition outruns conviction.

Oldham once lobbied Barack Obama to appoint Elizabeth Warren, of all people, to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Now he wants conservatives to view him as Alito’s natural heir. That kind of ideological shape-shifting should make everyone nervous. When a man’s career seems driven more by advancement than by principle, it becomes hard to know where he actually stands.

That was never a question with Alito.

Replacing a sure thing requires another sure thing. Oldham is not that. Maybe he has good explanations for parts of his record. But maybe Trump can do better.

This may be Trump’s last chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It would amount to a self-own of historic proportions for the most based president of modern times to replace Alito with someone appreciably weaker than a George W. Bush appointee turned out to be.

​Supreme court, Donald trump, Samuel alito, Clarence thomas, Supreme court justice, Judge andrew oldham, Opinion & analysis, Fifth circuit, Federal courts, Constitution, Dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization, Roe v. wade, Daniel horowitz, Transgender agenda, Gender ideology, Illegal aliens, Plyler v. doe, Elizabeth warren, Consumer financial protection bureau