A secretive dark money group with ties to the Democrat Party is shelling out up to $8,000 a month to influencers to parrot left-leaning talking points.

The Chorus Creator Incubator Program is said to be funded by the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which has funneled money to dozens of left-leaning influencers, according to a report from WIRED magazine.

Those paid through the program include Olivia Julianna, a Gen Z activist who spoke at the DNC; Loren Piretra, an Occupy Democrats YouTuber who worked as a Playboy executive in the past; and Barrett Adair, who runs an American Girl Doll meme account.

Other influencers include Suzanne Lambert, also known as “Regina George liberal”; Arielle Fodor, an education creator with 1.4 million followers on TikTok; and Sander Jennings, the older brother of trans influencer Jazz Jennings.

In the Wired magazine expose written by Taylor Lorenz, she explains that the only rules the influencers must abide by in order to get their money is they must keep it a secret, and they must agree to restrictions on their content.

“Creators told Wired that the contract stipulated they’d be kicked out and essentially cut off financially if they even so much as acknowledged that they were part of the program. Some creators also raised concerns about a slew of restrictive clauses in the contract,” the article reads.

“It’s a lot of money,” BlazeTV host Alex Stein comments on “Prime Time with Alex Stein.” “It’s not like ridiculous money, but it just shows you how easily somebody can be bought. I guess we could all use $8,000 a month though.”

“So basically $100,000 a year, that’s a pretty good gig,” he adds.

Want more from Alex Stein?

To enjoy more of Alex’s culture jamming, comedic monologues, skits, and street segments, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Sharing, Free, Upload, Video, Camera phone, Video phone, Youtube.com, Prime time with alex stein, Alex stein, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Democrats, Liberals, Leftism, Democrat influencers, Dark money, Dark money politics, Taylor lorenz 

While the mainstream media amplifies and obsesses over conspiratorial voices on the right in order to smear conservatives, the left is not without its own crazed hallucinations.

One of the more entertaining but maddening theories being spread by those on the left on social media and other platforms is the idea that the first assassination attempt against President Donald Trump was staged to garner support from his followers.

‘This gets me SO F’king ANGRY!! ***100% STAGED***’

After the incident in Butler, Pennsylvania, many on the left immediately began claiming that the entire affair had been staged. Some even said that the ear injury was faked because the president healed so quickly.

“That shooting so f***ing staged dawg they clipped Trump’s ear with a damn rubber bullet,” said one account on the day of the attempt: “omfg he just won the election.”

That tweet got more than 230,000 likes and millions of impressions on the X platform.

“When asked about his ear yesterday, trump said ‘I heal quickly,'” said another account only a month later. “… This gets me SO F’king ANGRY!! ***100% STAGED***”

This bizarre conspiracy theory still persists on the X platform, with tens of thousands of people liking and retweeting messages for more than a year.

“In a DESPERATE attempt to win votes, get elected and avoid prison, trump STAGED an assassination attempt in Butler, PA. He is guilty of 2nd degree murder! The TRUTH is a WHISPER away!!!” read one post with more than 21,000 likes from Oct. 2024.

“Donald Trump’s assassination attempt was staged. If it was real, the Secret Service would have rushed him off the stage. Instead, they propped him up & let him stand there out in the open saying ‘Fight!’ three times,” read another post from January with more than 129,000 likes.

RELATED: Hillary makes a new accusation in the election conspiracy theory

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

“Trump’s approval rating is tanking so it’s probably time for another staged assassination attempt to goose his numbers,” read another post from April with more than 2,800 likes.

And it still continues. This is from a little more than a week ago: “This was all staged by Trump! Why did he not have blood on his hair???? Cause he wasn’t shot!!!!” read the post with more than 5,300 likes.

Despite the nutty claims on social media, there is no evidence that the attempt was staged. Even some mainstream media outlets have slapped down the bizarre theory.

“The ‘staged’ claims are Pants on Fire. The FBI is investigating the shooting as an assassination attempt. It was witnessed by thousands of rally attendees, including dozens of news photographers and reporters,” read a report in PolitiFact that was republished at PBS News.

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

​Trump assassination staged, Left wing conspiracy theories, Liberal conspiracy theories, Butler assassination attempt, Politics 

The horror of a man setting out to murder children at church defies belief. The Minnesota Catholic school shooting last week left the nation stunned, with many grasping for explanations and redirecting grief into attacks on gun policies, school security, and even, outrageously, on prayer itself.

But one factor demands attention: the worsening mental health crisis in America. Our culture increasingly enables, rather than treats, serious psychological disorders. And in this case, one condition in particular — transgenderism — deserves special scrutiny.

The recurring presence of trans-identifying shooters should alarm every lawmaker and every medical professional.

The emerging facts about the shooter reveal a deeply disturbed individual. His writings and grotesque images showed a man in desperate need of psychiatric care, yet he found affirmation instead of help. His delusions were encouraged, not confronted, and the result was catastrophic.

The pattern is becoming familiar. This tragedy mirrors the 2023 Nashville shooting, where a woman identifying as a man killed six students and teachers at her former Christian school. Other recent attacks, from Colorado Springs to Aberdeen, Maryland, also involved trans-identifying shooters.

Meanwhile, a staggering number of young Americans are being swept into this delusion. Surveys suggest that nearly 1 in 3 teenagers now claim some form of trans or “gender-diverse” identity. The trend skews heavily under age 35, a clear sign that cultural indoctrination and medical malpractice are driving young Americans to deny biological reality.

The truth remains unchanged: Humanity has two sexes. Males produce small gametes, females produce large ones. That is the basis of reproduction. That is science. “Follow the science,” we are told — until it points somewhere inconvenient.

Parents are bullied with the claim that failing to “affirm” their child’s identity will cause suicide. Schools push the ideology on children barely old enough to read. Doctors who should offer counseling instead pump minors full of dangerous hormones, mutilate their healthy bodies, and reinforce the lie that society, not their confusion, is the real problem. The result is not relief but deeper misery and hostility.

RELATED: Trans-identifying man with a ‘twisted mind’ said, ‘I want to die,’ before opening fire on Catholic Mass in Minneapolis

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

The Minnesota shooter himself admitted the betrayal in his final writings, expressing regret over the “brainwashing” he had embraced. His screeds were filled with self-loathing that soon turned outward. When “affirmation” fails, when surgeries and hormones leave the underlying pain untouched, some lash out — against themselves or against others.

The responsibility for the massacre in Minneapolis rests with the man who plotted, armed himself, and carried out this evil act. His hatred was written in loathsome slogans on his weapons and shouted through his crimes. But America ignores the mental health crisis feeding such hatred at its peril.

The recurring presence of trans-identifying shooters should alarm every lawmaker and every medical professional. It is past time to end the malpractice of so-called gender-affirming care. Those struggling with gender dysphoria need real psychiatric help, not a dangerous charade. Until that happens, more atrocities will follow — and more innocents will get hurt.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Annunciation, Annunciation catholic school, Annunciation church and catholic school, School shooting, Transgender, Gender affirming care, Mental illness, Mental health, Delusions, Murder, Mass shooting, Transgenderism, Malpractice 

Robot wives, robot sex partners, and even robot entrepreneurs have made headlines this year, but what about robot umpires?

It seems every baseball fan has called for robot umpires at some point in the 2025 season, especially after fans saw an automated ball-strike challenge system being used during the 2025 MLB All-Star Game.

‘The meter maids of baseball.’

Multiple calls garnered a challenge from players that changed the course of the game, leaving viewers to invoke the digital strike zone placed on screen whenever an umpire gets a call wrong.

But are the umpires actually getting worse?

Using numbers from a recent Umpire Scorecards post, overall accuracy for umpires in 2025 is 93%. While this may seem low, it’s a combination of called-ball accuracy averages (97%) and called-strike accuracy averages (88%).

Scoring the average accuracy rating of an umpire throughout the course of the season and weighing that against what is expected of them, we see that fewer umpires are dipping below the expected performance levels year over year.

In 2022, 35 umpires had an average accuracy rating below what was expected of them. In 2023, that number was 27, and in 2024, it was 21. In 2025, that number dropped to just 16.

Looking back through these years, not only are poor averages less abundant, but the MLB even seems to be getting less lenient about giving inaccurate umpires the go-ahead to call games.

RELATED: First female MLB umpire shocks fans with her call on the very first pitch

First female MLB umpire Jen Pawol at PNC Park on August 24, 2025, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Photo by Justin Berl/Getty Images

Umpires with below-average accuracy ratings are calling fewer games than before.

In 2025, five of the six worst under-performing umpires (in terms of average accuracy vs. expected accuracy) have played five games or fewer. Just four umpires inside the bottom 10 for worst accuracy overall have umpired more than five games.

Perhaps those umpires will be seen more in the final 30 games of 2025, but it seems unlikely they will reach anywhere close to the number of games that inaccurate umpires got in 2024.

MLB umpiring even took a step forward — or back, depending on fan perspective — with a female umpire appearing twice so far.

Some took Jen Pawol, the first female umpire to call balls and strikes in a regular season game, as an end-of-days scenario for the league, but it was not as bad as expected. While Pawol did not actually rattle any cages in her debut and performed just below average, her second game went mostly unreported when she performed better than her first.

Still, it should be noted that Pawol has the fifth-worst overall accuracy for umpires this season and the third-worst against the expected average. But with what seems to be the new normal, she has been limited to just two games all year.

While poor performers are getting the nod less frequently and fewer umps are below average, fans are still unhappy.

RELATED: This isn’t just baseball — it’s a rebellion in cowhide

Kansas City Manager Matt Quatraro argues with home plate umpire Ryan Addition on August 13, 2025, at Kauffman Stadium in Kansas City, MO. Photo by Keith Gillett/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images

Experts and analysts say it’s because of the umpires’ attitudes.

“I’m ready to get rid of the mall cop macho mentality these guys have officiating the game,” baseball broadcaster Gary Sheffield Jr. told Blaze News. “Get me an automated system when it’s ready so we can get back to baseball.”

Sheffield had previously shared sentiments with Blaze News that he thought any “below-average” umpire should be fired, male or female.

Former Division I and pro player Leo Dottavio agreed, telling Blaze News that he’s been involved in “countless games that were decided by umpire error.”

Adding that it was clear to him in the past that umpires had been influenced by player attitudes or outside sources, Dottavio plainly stated, “It’s time for the robo ump.”

Now a comedian, Dottavio stressed that he has grown to despise the average umpire as a fan and called average umpires “a bunch of beta males trying to get back at the true … kings, the guys on the field.”

It does seem that no matter what stats the MLB boys in black (or blue) put up, they certainly have an image problem. Fan reactions show this, referring to them either as bullies, or as Dottavio joked, “the meter maids of baseball.”

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

​Fearless, Umpires, Mlb, Baseball, Referee, Labor day, Sports 

Buc-ee’s may be technically categorized as a “convenience store,” but for millions of Americans, it’s more like a roadside pilgrimage. No matter how big its new stores are, they remain packed. The chain has a fanatically loyal customer base, and it has become a destination for those not fortunate enough to have a Buc-ee’s nearby.

What’s the draw? Buc-ee’s has enormous restrooms that are immaculately clean, cheap gas with often more than 100 pumps, a kitschy-fun shopping experience, and exceptional food — including Texas barbecue and an in-house bakery. In addition, it’s heavily staffed with low-turnover, career employees.

I shudder to think of the destruction that would be brought upon the Buc-ee’s business model if private equity decided to “fix” its operations.

Buc-ee’s is thriving by rejecting numerous destructive “best practices” currently embraced by corporate America and private equity.

Fortunately for Buc-ee’s, it’s still privately owned by its founders, Arch Aplin and Don Wasek, whose business acumen came from running convenience stores and working directly with customers and employees. They weren’t poisoned by an elite business school education, where modern executives learn that customers are prey and employees are a pestilence whose compensation reduces executive bonuses.

The winning formula

The magic formula to Buc-ee’s success is built on a very simple foundation: clean restrooms and cheap gas. It first developed its cult following in Texas by being a place you could always count on for a clean restroom while driving the interstates. Good candies, food, and pastries then added to the appeal.

Nowadays, the same foundation is in place: clean restrooms and cheap gas. But once a customer walks inside to use the restroom, a wonderland of food and products awaits. The food and merchandise are not necessarily cheap, but they’re high-quality, and many customers enjoy making those purchases as part of their Buc-ee’s experience. But it’s still possible to visit Buc-ee’s for gas and a potty stop without paying a premium.

Standing up to Wall Street

By contrast, Las Vegas tourism is down dramatically — in no small part because of the city’s outrageous pricing. The old Vegas model of cheap buffets and affordable rooms to get people into the casinos was not unlike Buc-ee’s lure of clean restrooms and cheap gas. But the Wall Street wizards now in control of Vegas have ditched the old model in favor of revenue-mining every possible moment of a visitor’s stay.

As Jeffrey Turner explained on his Substack, “The MBAs and data-crunchers at the corporate casino have installed Disneyland pricing into their models.”

Buc-ee’s still understands the power of the previous business model that Las Vegas abandoned: Provide a high-quality “loss leader” — or two — to get the customers in the door, and then provide high-margin products that entice them to open their wallets.

For those who work at Buc-ee’s, it’s more than a job — it’s a career. Buc-ee’s doesn’t consider its staff to be “unskilled” labor who deserve near-minimum wages. Their excellent compensation results in lower turnover and better customer service. The food at Buc-ee’s might be a little more expensive than at a nearby fast-food joint, but it’s of much higher quality and served by professional staff — things customers will gladly pay a premium for.

As I discussed in a recent column, revenue mining has become an all-too-common corporate business strategy these days, especially in private equity. Revenue mining exploits customers while slashing costs to the bone, shipping jobs oversees, firing veteran employees who know the business best, wrecking customer service, downgrading quality, and killing innovation. That pernicious strategy may briefly produce record short-term profits, but it also destroys customer loyalty and brand value.

I shudder to think of the destruction that would be brought upon the Buc-ee’s business model if private equity decided to “fix” its operations.

RELATED: Fear the beaver: How a gas station became a cult (and why you should consider joining)

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The famous Buc-ee’s restrooms by themselves produce no revenue, and they occupy significant square footage. Its full-time staffers make about $40,000 annually simply to keep these restrooms clean. In other words, the restrooms are a loss leader, drawing customers in but producing no revenue. That’s anathema to private equity.

Private equity would slash the restroom maintenance, eliminate or outsource the cleaning crews, and decrease their square footage. Or maybe they’d try to charge admission to the restrooms. But they would undoubtedly kill the golden goose — the restrooms — and thus lose the golden egg that gets customers to the checkout registers.

A job sign outside a Buc-ee’s in Alabama recently showed that several manager positions within a Buc-ee’s pay in excess of $100,000 per year, and the store’s general manager can earn more than $200,000 per year. Wall Street or private equity would waste no time in slashing Buc-ee’s employee head count and compensation, assuming it would increase the bottom line. But it wouldn’t; it would simply destroy the staffing that makes Buc-ee’s success possible.

RELATED: Corporate America is eating its seed corn — and our future

Photo by Tim Grist Photography via Getty Images

Private equity would also be aghast at the “lost revenue” from offering below-market gas prices. Estimates are that Buc-ee’s sells about 400,000 gallons of gas per day. Just charging 5 cents more per gallon would bring in an additional $7 million annually, all things being equal.

But all things aren’t equal.

A success story worth copying

Buc-ee’s sells such a high volume of gas because its prices are lower. Buc-ee’s understands that a lower gross profit per gallon with higher volume produces more gross profit than lower volume at a higher price. But more importantly, those swarms of cars fueling up on inexpensive gas are full of people who stroll inside and purchase high-margin discretionary products. It’s a simple concept that is alien to rapacious financial wizards, but one that’s well understood by retailers on the ground.

Buc-ee’s success is a refutation of prevailing business wisdom. May it serve as an example to the next generation of business leaders on the importance of developing a loyal customer base with abundant staff, career wages, great customer service, high-quality products, and an enjoyable customer experience.

​Opinion & analysis, Buc-ee’s, Wall street, Private equity, Private ownership, Gasoline, Prices, Toilets, High margins, Sales, Sales volume, Customer service, Cheap gas, Loss leader, Loyalty 

Eighty years ago, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ushering in the nuclear age. Many analysts claimed those weapons forever changed the nature of war. They were wrong.

Two centuries earlier, Prussian theorist Carl von Clausewitz defined war as a violent clash of wills — a cyclical struggle of action, reaction, chance, and chaos. That description fits every era, from Thucydides to today.

Putin has nothing to lose by threatening to use nuclear weapons. He has everything to lose by actually using them.

The nature of war doesn’t change. What does change is its character, shaped by technology, geography, and culture. Nuclear weapons altered that character profoundly, preventing a U.S.-Soviet clash but never abolishing Clausewitz’s law of the battlefield.

From hot to cold

After 1945, nukes put a ceiling on global conflict. Compare the bloodletting between 1914 and 1945 with the relative restraint that followed. Fear of annihilation imposed boundaries.

Cold War strategy revolved around the “escalation ladder.” NATO knew it could not match Soviet conventional strength in Europe, so U.S. planners threatened to climb the rungs:

Tactical nukes: Battlefield use against enemy units nearby.Theater nukes: Regional strikes on key military targets.Strategic nukes: Long-range strikes on an enemy’s homeland.

At first, Washington believed it had escalation dominance, but that illusion collapsed in the 1970s as Moscow built powerful counterforce weapons and theater nukes. America’s fallback was no longer credible.

The U.S. answered with modernization — Minuteman III, MX, and Trident missiles at the strategic level; Pershing II deployments in Europe at the theater level; and new conventional doctrines like AirLand Battle and the Navy’s Maritime Strategy. This layered approach restored balance.

From cold to frozen

With the Soviet Union’s collapse, nuclear centrality in U.S. policy faded. By 2010, the Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review declared Russia no longer an adversary. Nuclear strategy atrophied.

Trump 43 reversed course, seeking to revitalize deterrence against a resurgent Moscow. Joe Biden returned to the Obama approach. Trump 45 has emphasized preventing Iran from joining the nuclear club, but strategy toward Russia remains unsettled.

Nuclear relevance today

Russia’s war in Ukraine reignited fears of nuclear escalation. Both Moscow and Washington maintain roughly 1,400 deployed warheads each, plus reserves. Thanks to satellite guidance, modern systems now strike with pinpoint accuracy. A smaller yield can achieve the destructive power once requiring a much larger blast. Some fear this makes nuclear weapons more “usable.”

RELATED: Trump’s Pentagon overhaul: Purging woke agendas, restoring readiness

Douglas Rissing via iStock/Getty Images

Could Putin employ a tactical nuke to break the stalemate? Possibly. Russia fields low-yield warheads and delivery systems like the Iskander-M (NATO code: SS-26 “Stone”). But Moscow also has advanced non-nuclear options — thermobaric bombs, massive bunker-busters, and electromagnetic pulse warheads capable of crippling electronics across miles. These weapons achieve nuclear-like psychological and operational effects without crossing the nuclear threshold.

So far, NATO aid to Ukraine has mirrored Soviet and Chinese support for North Vietnam — decisive but short of direct conflict. And Russia has escalated through massive conventional strikes on Ukraine’s power plants, command centers, and cities, deliberately raising the human and economic costs. The effect mirrors nuclear terror: darkness, disruption, and despair.

That’s why Putin has no military incentive to use actual nuclear weapons when his conventional arsenal achieves the same result.

Putin’s nuclear Rubicon

Technological advances have blurred the line between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons, lowering the odds of Russia crossing the nuclear Rubicon. But Clausewitz warned that war always brings chance, uncertainty, and friction. Nuclear weapons magnify all three.

Putin can posture, threaten, and hint. But as one commentator put it: “He has nothing to lose by threatening to use nuclear weapons. He has everything to lose by actually using them.”

​Opinion & analysis, Nuclear war, Nuclear weapons, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Atomic bomb, Donald trump, Nuclear posture review, Strategy, Soviet union, Russia, Ukraine, War, Conventional weapons