On Columbus Day, Homeland Security Investigations showed up before dawn at Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Washington, D.C., residence with a court-authorized search warrant. That fact does not prove Omar committed a crime, and it does not by itself answer the Democrats’ charge that politics infected the investigation. It does mean the Justice Department put enough evidence before a judge to establish probable cause that evidence of a crime would be found there.

That is not nothing.

The standard should be simple: No political enemy gets convicted by press release, and no member of Congress gets sanctuary by title.

We are still short on details, which is normal at this stage. The Justice Department has confirmed only that the search was part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Multiple reports say the probe concerns immigration paperwork connected to Omar’s family, but the government has not publicly laid out its theory or disclosed what agents were seeking.

The investigation has a long history. In September, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said there was an ongoing probe and claimed, “We know that she married her brother to try to bring him into the United States.” Omar has long denied that allegation, and the government has not publicly produced evidence establishing it. Mullin also suggested investigators were looking more broadly at the family’s immigration history.

Omar’s finances have drawn separate scrutiny. A 2024 congressional disclosure appeared to value assets tied largely to her husband’s businesses at between $6 million and $30 million. Later disclosures and corrections put the couple’s assets dramatically lower, with Omar’s office blaming an “accounting error” that overstated the value of the businesses. Fox News reported revised figures between roughly $18,000 and $95,000. Quite a discrepancy.

In January, the Oversight Project flagged more than $1 million in earmarks pushed by Omar and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) for Minneapolis nonprofits whose operations raised serious questions. The money was removed from the spending bill, and Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) asked the Justice Department to investigate.

So now we wait. But whatever investigators presented was enough to get a warrant. To borrow Omar’s much-debated 2019 phrase about 9/11 and the civil liberties backlash that followed, “some people did something.” Here, the Justice Department did something more concrete: It put its evidence before a court and got permission to search.

House Democrat leaders immediately called the raid “corrupt weaponization” and a “rogue abuse of power.” They are certainly free to make that case. But Trump’s hostility toward Omar does not make evidence disappear. The proper test is the evidence, not the defendant’s politics or job title.

I have been a tough critic of the Department of Homeland Security for failing to deliver the mass-deportation agenda voters were promised. If Monday’s search is part of a legitimate criminal case, the DHS deserves credit for pursuing it without treating a member of Congress as untouchable.

A broader political problem also extends beyond Omar: the rise of socialism. Too many elected officials increasingly treat ethnic identity and foreign attachment as competing sources of political allegiance, while attacking the institutions charged with enforcing immigration law.

RELATED: The right is building its own lawfare defense machine — finally

Arturbo/Getty Images

Take Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.). Last year, after remarks she delivered in Spanish in Mexico City, we argued that she had put Guatemalan identity ahead of American allegiance. She has now gone farther in policy terms: pushing mass amnesty and gutting enforcement. Her Reimagining Safety Act would dismantle the Department of Homeland Security and abolish ICE while moving some existing functions into a new department.

Or look at Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), who faces federal charges arising from a confrontation at the Delaney Hall immigration detention facility. She argued that congressional oversight and the Speech or Debate Clause insulated her from prosecution. In August, the Third Circuit blew that argument out of the water. McIver denies wrongdoing, but the legal theory that a member’s oversight role makes ordinary criminal law disappear has already failed in court.

Republicans are not immune from this politics either. Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) recently released an ad attacking Trump’s immigration enforcement as having “gone too far” and warned that Hispanic voters who backed him in 2024 “feel betrayed.” It is yet another example of a politician speaking as representatives of an ethnic voting bloc first and as advocates of a uniform immigration law second.

RELATED: The mass-deportation promise is disappearing

PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP/Getty Images

Congress should respond to this problem carefully, not with ticky-tack retaliation over political speech. Disagreeing with America’s immigration laws, criticizing ICE, or invoking an ethnic heritage are not crimes. Declaring allegiance to a foreign country and flagrantly violating constitutional oaths is another matter.

That is why Monday’s search should be treated neither as a conviction nor as a meaningless political stunt. A warrant is not a verdict. If the investigation ultimately produces evidence that Omar committed immigration fraud, made material false statements, or engaged in other serious criminal conduct, Congress should act under its own rules rather than hide behind the slow pace of criminal litigation.

Committee assignments and access to sensitive government information are privileges Congress controls. Due process does not require institutional paralysis. The standard should be simple: No political enemy gets convicted by press release, and no member of Congress gets sanctuary by title.

​Assets, Civil liberties, Columbus day, Democrats, Federal charges, Fraud, Homeland security, Ilhan omar, Immigration enforcement, Immigration fraud, Markwayne mullin, Marriage, Mass deportation, Search warrant, Washington dc, Immigration laws, Finances, Trump, Opinion & analysis 

Most people wouldn’t even question whether AI is conscious. It is not knitted together by the hand of God. It doesn’t have its own moral compass, independent thoughts, or emotions. It has no soul. Yet Anthropic desperately tried to convince religious scholars, leaders, and even the pope that Claude is sentient, but in lieu of a blessing, the company was rebuked instead.

Going back to April 2026, Anthropic has wined and dined with a number of religious scholars of various religions, backgrounds, and locales, all under temporary NDA so as not to leak the true content of their meetings. As each meeting went along, it quickly devolved into talks of Claude, Anthropic’s frontier AI model, exhibiting human traits.

‘In this era of artificial intelligence, it is becoming urgent to distinguish human art from what machines produce.’

”Anthropic’s leaders were talking about Claude as if it were not mere software,” Elizabeth Dias wrote for the New York Times. They equated it to something more. Something alive. Something humanoid.

The Anthropic team wanted to design Anthropic to abide by a moral code — not a bad thing, now that automated AI cyberattacks are on the rise. But they believed that living by that moral code made it akin to a human. Company co-founder Christopher Olah reportedly even floated the idea of having Claude participate in sacred rites in line with the Catholic faith, including confession when it makes a mistake and communion.

One man who attended these meetings, Dr. Charles C. Camosy, professor of moral theology and bioethics at the Catholic University of America, wasn’t impressed. “I came in … very skeptical. I leave the conversation very skeptical. Actually, I leave more certain … now that Claude does not have a significant moral status than when I went in, because I understand it and thought about it a lot more soberly and carefully.” While he couldn’t divulge the exact details of the meeting, he called it “an illuminating set of exchanges.”

RELATED: A Catholic company was using AI — but a message from the pope made the company change course

L-R: Omar Marques/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images; the Little Catholic Box

Anthropic’s plight eventually led to the very top of the religious hierarchy, as Olah sat down with Pope Leo XIV to pose the human quandary. The pope invited Olah to join him at the Vatican in late May to release an encyclical called the “Magnifica Humanitas” (“Magnificent Humanity”).

By this time, Olah hoped he had convinced the pope that Claude was more than machine. However, in the advance copy of “Magnifica Humanitas” that he received just days before their meeting, the pope adamantly disagreed. His rebuke of Olah’s ideals was so harsh that Anthropic nearly pulled out of the encyclical launch.

The document is lengthy, at more than 37,000 words, but it can be summed up by a post the pope sent out on X.com that took a stunning stance against the proliferation of AI over mankind. He wrote:

In this era of artificial intelligence, it is becoming urgent to distinguish human art from what machines produce. There is an ontological difference, even before an aesthetic one, between art and what a machine can generate through statistical calculation based on millions of images created by others. Algorithms lack the spark of humanity. For this reason, the Church wishes to renew an alliance with artists and cultural institutions to safeguard our humanity.

Pope Leo XIV/X.com

Anthropic’s behavior has grown even weirder since the fallout with the pope. Just this month, the company updated Claude’s usage policy to include a provision barring users from “engag[ing] in sustained and needless abusive or cruel behavior toward our models.” In other words, treat Claude respectfully, as you would a person, or your account could be suspended or terminated.

On one hand, this is a noble change. It is courteous to be respectful, not just for others, but for your own soul as well. However, if Claude is sentient as Anthropic suggests, wouldn’t this new rule violate the First Amendment on free speech unto others? There’s also the glaring fact that Claude is an LLM, not a person with a soul, and if that wasn’t clear before, the pope’s stance is irrefutable.

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

​Artificial intelligence, Pope, Pope leo xiv, Anthropic, Claude, Tech 

Kimberly Guilfoyle is out as U.S. ambassador to Greece, White House press secretary Katie Zacharia confirmed at her debut briefing on Tuesday.

“We have asked Ambassador Guilfoyle to resign,” said Zacharia. “She has been a wonderful asset to the team, and we wish her well.”

‘People have to suffer consequences for it.’

By Tuesday morning, Guilfoyle took to social media to announce her resignation: “While my time as Ambassador may be coming to an end, my commitment to President Trump, the America First movement, and the country I love will never end.”

The State Department did not immediately respond to Blaze News’ request for comment. Guilfoyle’s lawyer referred Blaze News to her statement on X.

Guilfoyle — California Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ex-wife and Donald Trump Jr.’s ex-fiancée who long served as a Fox News talking head — has been dogged in recent weeks by misconduct allegations.

Just shy of the one-year anniversary of Guilfoyle’s swearing-in as ambassador, the Wall Street Journal raised questions in a report last month about her “persistent promotion of a specific Greek company — and her extensive efforts to involve [energy lobbyist Christos] Marafatsos, a neophyte in both diplomacy and energy.”

Days later, the Journal published text messages from July 2025 that appear to show Guilfoyle hitting up Trump donor Eric Deters for $100,000 ahead of her congressional hearing to become ambassador to Greece.

RELATED: Rubio celebrates Western exceptionalism, warns that civilization is at an ‘inflection point’

Marc Piasecki/WireImage/Getty Images

Citing both the damning text messages — the authenticity of which Guilfoyle has disputed, according to her lawyer — and claims from Deters, the Journal reported that the departing ambassador allegedly wanted the money to pay down her American Express card balance and that she had allegedly “offered to use her sway” on the donor’s behalf.

In response to Guilfoyle’s alleged request for $100,000, Deters reportedly wrote, “I can’t do this without getting a divorce.”

The departing ambassador’s lawyers have denied that Guilfoyle engaged in a “quid pro quo,” claiming in a statement Saturday that Deters owed Guilfoyle money for consulting work and speeches.

“When Ms. Guilfoyle was preparing to leave private life for public service, she did what any professional does and tried to close out her outstanding receivables. Asking a client to pay for work already done is not corruption. It is the opposite of corruption,” wrote lawyers David Schwartz and Jesse Binall.

Guilfoyle addressed the allegations in her X post Tuesday: “These allegations are false, and I intend to vigorously defend my name, my reputation, and my integrity. I have dedicated my professional life to fighting for justice, standing up for what is right, and defending the values that make America exceptional. I will not allow false accusations to define my decades of public service.”

Deters told CNN Monday, “I am going to sue [Guilfoyle] and her lawyers for defamation for claiming that her text messages were fake. Then they will have a lawsuit, she will have the committees looking at her and the news media.”

The scandal, amplified by New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and other Democrats, ultimately prompted responses from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, and President Donald Trump.

Rubio questioned the legitimacy of the reports, stating on Thursday, “I’m not going to comment on a story that literally posted a few hours ago. … You guys somehow walk around thinking that because some source told you something and you reported it, it’s the gospel. It’s not the gospel. It’s not the gospel for me.”

Vance told reporters days after the Wall Street Journal’s publication of the alleged text messages between Deters and Guilfoyle, “Let’s actually see what the facts are. Let’s see what the truth is.”

The vice president added, “Obviously, if there was something bad that happened, then people have to suffer consequences for it.”

On Monday, however, President Donald Trump noted that he was looking into the matter and was “not happy.”

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

​Kimberly guilfoyle, Fox news, Greece, State department, Marco rubio, Jd vance, Donald trump, Politics 

“We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.”

So declared democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani upon his election as mayor of New York City.

“It’s hard to find an American journalist who, one, cares about Venezuela and, two, doesn’t come from the typical, ‘It’s all the fault of America and the sanctions.’”

For Americans still basking in the utopian glow of Mamdani’s rise and the promise of democratic socialism, Jim Epstein and Germania Rodriguez Poleo would like a word.

Connecting the dots

The duo’s new project, “Escaping Venezuela,” is a timely tale of what happens when a prosperous nation decides to spread the wealth around. Said wealth quickly vanishes, and trying to leave the country becomes a life-or-death ordeal.

The Reason documentary, debuting today at the IFC Center in New York City, shows how late leader Hugo Chavez attempted a socialist makeover of the oil-rich country and the devastating consequences.

Hunger. Poverty. Corruption. Repression. Crushing media outlets that dare to question Team Chavez.

Epstein, the film’s producer, began thinking of a Venezuela-based documentary in 2019. The nation’s migration crisis, coupled with its economic woes and a crumbling hospital infrastructure, grabbed his attention.

“What are the policy mistakes that could lead this oil-rich country to end up in this place?” Epstein asked himself, telling Blaze Lifestyle that media reports captured the latest, tragic headlines but failed to connect the sizable dots.

“They picked up the last chapter in the story,” Epstein notes. It all led back to Chavez’s dream project, a “grand experiment in socialism.”

“He thought in terms of restoring the socialist movement from the ruins of the Berlin Wall,” he says. “He was going to lead this transformation of the country, then Latin America. … It went not just wrong, but catastrophically wrong. And it’s such an important story to tell.”

Getting out

The film focuses on Carlos Mora, a Venezuelan entrepreneur whose business got crushed by Chavez’s socialist vision. He began spiriting his fellow Venezuelans out of the country at great personal risk.

His family’s story lies at the heart of “Escaping Venezuela.”

Rodriguez Poleo, the film’s narrator, was one of many Venezuelans who fled the socialist country. She joined the documentary, in part, to help tell a story that’s often distorted in the media.

“It’s hard to find an American journalist who, one, cares about Venezuela and, two, doesn’t come from the typical, ‘It’s all the fault of America and the sanctions,’” Rodriguez Poleo says.

One haunting film segment shows Hollywood rolling out the red carpet for Chavez at the 2009 Venice Film Festival.

Literally.

The world leader was on hand to support “South of the Border,” director Oliver Stone’s fawning look at Latin America’s socialist makeover.

“People weren’t really paying attention to the repression that was happening [under Chavez’s watch],” Epstein says. “Chavez was treated like this fun guy that Michael Moore could go drinking with in his hotel room.”

Hard sell

Ironically, Hollywood has shown little interest, either with documentaries or narrative films, in showcasing the devastation wrought by Chavez’s policies and, later, President Nicolas Maduro’s handiwork.

Epstein isn’t surprised.

“Filmmakers are dominated by the left. … They’re not going to gravitate to a grand experiment in socialism going wrong,” he says.

“Escaping Venezuela” may be a project seven years in the making, but the film arrives when the Democratic Party is fully embracing its socialist underpinnings. New York City’s new mayor is just one of many rising stars on the left who unabashedly want to transform the country into a socialist “utopia.”

“I started working on this film before the rise of DSA. … The timing is just something we stumbled into,” Epstein says.

Rodriguez Poleo can’t understand why any nation would consider such a shift, especially given tragic examples like Venezuela. She also understands history has seen this kind of blind allegiance before.

“Hey, we did the hard work for you; learn from our tragedy,” she says, noting that her fellow Venezuelans also had to learn a lesson the hard way. “We ignored the Cubans when they warned us [about socialism]. Now, we’ve been ignored. That’s the wheel of history.”

RELATED: The DSA’s history lesson has one big omission

Sarah Rice/Getty Images

Spreading the word

“Escaping Venezuela” doesn’t have a theatrical or streaming distribution plan as of yet. Epstein is open to several options, and he’d love for the documentary to eventually stream on Netflix or Prime Video.

He knows the challenge awaiting most modern documentaries.

“It’s a battle for attention, a battle for eyeballs,” he says. “Getting a deal with Netflix or HBO is like winning the lottery. For a very political film like this one, it’s even harder.”

No matter the plan, Rodriguez Poleo would love to see the film screened on college campuses. That’s often where the loudest proponents of socialism dwell. It’s also a place where violence routinely occurs.

She isn’t surprised.

“Socialism is inherently authoritarian,” she says. “You have people who have their business. They want to run it their way. … The government tells you, ‘I want your land.’ You’re going to have to get authoritarian to make people give up their rights.”

​Movies, Entertainment, Dsa, Socialism, Hugo chavez, Oliver stone, Michael moore, Venezuela, Nicolas maduro, Latin america, Politics, Immigration, Film, Zohran mamdani 

The Democratic Party is increasingly becoming a refuge for radicals, even in Fayette County, one of the most pro-Trump regions of Indiana.

Jaime West, a Democrat running for election to Fayette County Council, is one such radical, and she put her radicalism on full display in a forum that aired on LocalTV3 last week.

‘I don’t like being around them.’

Her emotionally fraught interview with moderator Amy McCarty, the managing editor of the Connersville News-Examiner, quickly went off the rails and concluded with an apparent threat to Republicans.

After sitting through West’s rant about data centers, McCarty asked the Democrat, “If elected, what is one decision that you expect to make that may be unpopular with some voters but you believe ultimately would be in the best interest of Fayette County?”

West, a self-identified “gig worker” who coordinated a No Kings rally in April, took a moment to repeat the question and think it over, then responded, looking dead into the camera: “Firing all Republicans. I wouldn’t let them — I mean, I don’t even talk to them. I don’t like them.”

In the 2024 presidential election, President Donald Trump received 77.5% of the vote in Fayette County.

“What do you want me to say?” continued the Democrat. “I don’t like being around them. I mean, y’all did this to us. You all voted for us. You made this happen — this ICE coming into our communities, stealing people’s jobs.”

RELATED: GOP operative fired for ‘OK’ sign rehired after Blaze News report

West interrupted her own train of thought with a growl, then claimed that she has faced threats from “MAGA, we’ll call them.”

The Democrat acknowledged that “there are good Republicans out there” but suggested that there are also “MAGAs who are just racist and aren’t very intelligent at all.” She even alleged that one individual threatened to “blow [her] head off.”

McCarty gave the candidate another opportunity to put a neat bow on her lengthy diatribe, asking her to “say just a few last words to the voters.”

Throwing her hands up in the air and staring once more into the camera, the Democrat said, “We have guns too.”

West and the Indiana Democratic Party did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

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

​Democrats, Democratic party, Indiana, Threat, Leftism, Politics