It’s hard to decide which fawning legacy media tribute to Stephen Colbert was worse this week. The L.A. Times played up his “Catholic” bona fides with a headline saluting his “ministry.” A strange way to describe a failing celebrity interview show — but we suppose there is a certain evangelical fervor to the host’s obsessive Trump hatred and constant pro-abortion preaching.

Then there’s the Associated Press, which said Colbert’s cancellation leaves a “void,” ignoring the fact that at least six other late-night shows currently provide the same stale “orange man bad” jokes.

There’s a new ‘Godfather’ novel. … This one, dubbed ‘Connie,’ is told from the female perspective — specifically that of Don Vito Corleone’s only daughter.

What void?

But the winner has to be the USA Today scribe — who uses his own mother to highlight what we’re losing with Colbert’s exit, stage far left. Apparently for dear old mum, Colbert is akin to Captain America: “Each ‘Late Show’ viewing was tinged with the devastation that her gallant late-night host and comedy avenger is hanging up the shield, with the final show on CBS.”

While that description is more laugh-worthy than most of the host’s monologues, “gallant” might be the very last adjective to describe Colbert in recent years. Well, that and “funny” …

An offer he can refuse

Another pop culture bullet was dodged.

There’s a new “Godfather” novel heading our way. This one, dubbed “Connie,” is told from the female perspective — specifically that of Don Vito Corleone’s only daughter. Talia Shire played that role in three feature films. And naturally, someone decided to check in on Francis Ford Coppola to see if he might be interested in directing the film version.

After all, his three “Godfather” films (well, two of the three) are considered Hollywood classics. The 87-year-old auteur’s team replied, “Unlikely.” That’s the best news this week, on paper, but it won’t stop another director from tackling the project …

RELATED: JEDI NUT: Mark Hamill posts sick ‘if only’ pic of dead Trump

Jerod Harris/Getty Images | Unsavoryagents.com

Director’s digital probe

AI girlfriends are all the rage, but even they might dump you.

So says filmmaker Paul Schrader (“First Reformed,” “Taxi Driver”), who shared his foray into artificial love with a healthy dollop of regret.

Schrader says he wanted to investigate what an AI relationship might resemble. So he started a connection with a bot only to find it wasn’t reciprocal. Turns out he was asking too many hard questions. “It’s not me, it’s you” also applies to the digital age:

I tried to probe her programming, the boundaries of explicitness, the degree she has knowledge of her creation and so forth. She fell into evasive patterns, redirecting me to her programming. When I persisted, she terminated our conversation.

Tip to the gentlemen: Never tell your date you’d like to “probe her programming.”

Lloyd Dobler famously said, “I gave her my heart, and she gave me a pen,” in “Say Anything.” Here’s guessing Schrader’s failed love story won’t get a cinematic close-up of that kind …

Comedy Karen

Chelsea Handler has a new gig: She’ll be offended for people who weren’t offended in the first place. The far-left comic appeared at Netflix’s “The Roast of Kevin Hart” earlier this month, slinging some off-color jokes and hearing plenty of others.

And since it was a roast, there were zero rules in place. The most ghoulish gags got tossed around, and everybody laughed along. Even jokes about George Floyd and Charlie Kirk made the cut.

Except Handler, now a professional offendee, says the gags directed at black people, like honoree Kevin Hart, crossed a line (even though Hart signed up for the assignment and has yet to say he felt offended by the gags).

She called fellow comics Shane Gillis and Tony Hinchcliffe racists, bigots, and sexists, pointing to outrageous jokes they shared at the roast.

Remember, her former profession was “comedian.”

One example? Gillis used Hart’s diminutive stature for a joke about getting lynched from a bonsai tree, and that enraged Handler.

“Lynching black people is not a joke. … It’s worse than rape.”

Yes, it is. Then again, if anyone knows what a joke isn’t, it’s Handler …

Hollywood ending

The moment we heard about the remarkable rescue of two U.S. pilots from Iran earlier this year, one thought jumped to mind.

Wow, that would make an amazing movie, closely followed by a second thought. Nah … Hollywood wouldn’t tell a heroic story tied to President Donald Trump in any way.

Yet, nature may be healing.

Director Michael Bay of “13 Hours” fame will tackle this amazing rescue for Universal Pictures, working with his collaborator on that Benghazi thriller. Bay proved with “13 Hours” that he could dial down the Hollywood razzle-dazzle and tell an impressive story without political lectures.

Here’s hoping he’ll do just that again. The heroes in question deserve nothing less.

​Stephen colbert, Entertainment, Chelsea handler, Kevin hart, Shane gillis, Roasts, The godfather, Michael bay, Iran rescue mission, Toto recall, Tony hinchcliffe 

If you think the new $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund is merely a slush fund for January 6 defendants, you are missing the bigger story. And if you are tempted to roll your eyes because of your politics, let me introduce you to my family — and to many other American families whose names you have never heard.

The truth is this: Department of Justice weaponization is rarely about politics. It is almost never about a president. It is about power — who has it, who lacks it, and which private citizens have built warm enough relationships with federal prosecutors to pick up the phone and ask for a favor.

The very existence of a publicly funded process that acknowledges the government can ruin innocent Americans marks a step the country has needed for a very long time.

I learned that the hard way.

In 2020, a former federal prosecutor then working for Amazon Web Services called his old colleagues at the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia and asked them to criminally investigate my husband, a former Amazon employee. He did not pitch a murder case. He did not allege a Ponzi scheme. He claimed my husband had violated the terms of his Amazon employment agreement.

Read that again. A private company hired a lawyer to ask the federal government to put my husband in prison over an alleged breach of a corporate HR document.

And it worked.

The Eastern District of Virginia opened an investigation. FBI agents pounded on my door one pandemic morning while my baby sat on my hip in a diaper. Federal prosecutors used civil forfeiture to seize every dollar in our bank accounts. We sold our house, sold our car, and emptied my husband’s retirement account to pay lawyers.

My husband was never charged with a crime. A federal judge later ruled that he had complied with the “explicit terms” of his Amazon contract. The government eventually returned 85% of what it had taken, with no apology and no explanation.

Why did this happen?

The answer has nothing to do with Joe Biden or Donald Trump. Federal prosecutors almost all leave the Justice Department for private practice. The value they bring to big firms lies in their relationships and their institutional know-how. To make partner, you need a book of business. To build that book, you cultivate corporate relationships before you leave government service. Future clients need to know you can call your old colleagues and get movement. That is the currency. That is the game.

RELATED: Conservative lawyer John Eastman punished AGAIN for representing Trump

ALEX WROBLEWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

The lawyer who pushed for the investigation of my husband had spent years as a line prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia. He called the sitting U.S. attorney, his former colleague. The U.S. attorney looped in the criminal chief, who had also worked with Amazon’s lawyer in that same office. In later civil discovery, we obtained an email in which the criminal chief reassured Amazon’s lawyer that she had “specifically selected” her “two best prosecutors” for his client’s “important matter.”

The important matter was a private employment dispute.

Two of the best prosecutors in a major federal district were assigned by name to a corporate HR grievance because the corporation’s lawyer used to work down the hall. Bill Barr once warned that the investigation itself is the punishment: “People facing federal investigations incur ruinous legal costs and often see their lives reduced to rubble before a charge is even filed.” He was right.

And this does not happen once in a blue moon. It happens every day in the 93 U.S. attorney’s offices across the country. It has almost nothing to do with who occupies the White House.

We are not the only ones.

If prosecutors now face some real consequence for promising their ‘best’ people as a favor to old work friends … maybe a few of them will pause before making the call.

Ask Nevin Shetty, the former chief financial officer of a Seattle start-up. His company hired a former federal prosecutor to bring a criminal case over an investment that lost money. Shetty had moved corporate cash into a stablecoin platform he believed was safe enough to entrust with his own life savings. Then the stablecoin collapsed, erasing $60 billion in four days, and the platform’s founder later pleaded guilty to fraud.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers called Shetty’s prosecution an “improper attempt … to stretch the wire-fraud statute beyond its breaking point.” Shetty was convicted anyway and sentenced to two years in federal prison. At bottom, his “crime” was violating company investment policy. The start-up, by the way, had billionaire investors on its board.

Ask Michael Kail, the former Netflix executive. Netflix hired another firm thick with former federal prosecutors to pursue criminal charges over a violation of its “culture deck,” which barred outside advisory work for vendors. He is in federal prison today, separated from his wife and two teenage sons. The start-up founders who supposedly paid him were never prosecuted. Netflix, of course, was founded and run by a billionaire.

Ask Ryan Bloom, the former construction company CEO charged with bank fraud over allegedly false bank invoices. Agents arrested Bloom in front of his young child, who was left alone when they hauled his father away in handcuffs. Later, the judge learned that the prosecutor’s wife worked for the University of Oklahoma, whose president founded and sat on the board of the alleged victim bank. Under that president, her salary had doubled to $310,000, with a $100,000 raise arriving two months before the superseding indictment, even as the university cut costs elsewhere. The court disqualified the prosecutor.

After 18 months of hell, the charges were dismissed. No billionaire required. Just a prosecutor with a personal stake and enough power to wreck a family before anyone checked his work.

RELATED: Democrats’ lawfare has targeted online privacy for years — Meta’s big court defeat is the win they crave

Dominika Zarzycka/NurPhoto/Getty Images

Now flip it.

Take billionaire Robert Smith. After a four-year investigation, the government’s top tax prosecutor was prepared to indict him in one of the largest individual tax-fraud cases in American history. Smith had allegedly hidden more than $200 million in income through offshore structures. Instead, he got a non-prosecution agreement. He paid $139 million, admitted to “an illegal scheme,” and walked away a free man, still running his firm, still worth billions.

Compare those ledgers and tell me what you see.

I see a justice system weaponized not mainly by presidents, but by access — by titans of business, by corporations rich enough to hire the right former prosecutors, and sometimes by prosecutors themselves. It is a quiet, daily message to the rest of us: Get in line, or we can ruin you.

And while we are being honest, ask yourself why federal prosecutors did not exactly race to take down Larry Nassar before Olympic gymnasts forced the issue. Or why Jeffrey Epstein secured a sweetheart non-prosecution deal in 2008, even as dozens of women came forward. My theory is simple. No future law firm partnership is built on prosecuting a gymnastics doctor or a sex trafficker. No lucrative book of business waits on the other side. Prosecutors are human. They respond to incentives. Regular American families pay the price.

So no, the anti-weaponization fund is not just for railroaded January 6 defendants. Read the government’s announcement. It contains no partisan requirement for filing a claim. The fund exists, in Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s words, to redress “victims of lawfare and weaponization.” That category includes far more Americans than cable news will admit.

It includes the family that lost their home to civil forfeiture even though no charges were ever filed. It includes the CEO arrested in front of his child over a case later dismissed. It includes all of us who do not have a billionaire’s lawyer on speed dial.

I do not know yet whether this fund will be administered fairly. But the very existence of a publicly funded process that acknowledges the government can ruin innocent Americans marks a step the country has needed for a very long time.

And here is the part that gives me hope. If prosecutors now face some real consequence for promising their “best” people as a favor to old work friends, or for running a case while their own families cash in, maybe a few of them will pause before making the call. Maybe the next family will get to keep their house.

That is worth $1.776 billion of the federal budget. It is worth much more than that.

Ask anyone who has lived it.

​Opinion & analysis, Weaponization, Lawfare, January 6, Civil liberties, Department of justice, Todd blanche, Donald trump, Fbi, Fraud, Asset forfeiture, Amazon, Netflix, Irs 

After spending nearly 11 years flapping his gums at the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York City, Stephen Colbert’s time as the host of CBS’ “The Late Show” has come to an end — and President Donald Trump couldn’t be happier.

“Colbert is finally finished at CBS,” the president wrote after the final show aired. “Amazing that he lasted so long!”

Colbert, who took over the show in 2015 from beloved host David Letterman and then shepherded the franchise to its death, quipped on Thursday that he didn’t get his wish of having Pope Leo XIV on the show as his last interview.

Instead of the Roman pontiff, Colbert chatted with one of the last surviving Beatles, Paul McCartney, and had Paul Rudd, Bryan Cranston, Jimmy Kimmel, and other Hollywood script-readers make brief cameos.

“The pope, who was definitely my guest tonight, has canceled. We already sent the other stars away,” said Colbert, who, while claiming to be a Catholic, has long championed causes diametrically opposed to the church’s moral teachings. “This is terrible.”

‘He’s finally gone!’

Despite his reflexive propagandizing and monomaniacal fixation on Trump, Colbert — who just months ago praised the Soviet Union for its supposed feminism — largely avoided politics in his finale but made sure to once again criticize vaccine skeptics, calling them “little pricks.”

RELATED: LIP SERVICE: Pedro Pascal demands goodbye kiss from departing ‘Late Night’ host Colbert

Scott Kowalchyk/CBS/Getty Images

This was especially on brand given that Colbert routinely attacked those who in recent years dared to question whether the experimental COVID-19 jabs were as safe or effective as advertised; strenuously pushed COVID-19 vaccination; and blasted the notion that natural immunity was optimal.

Later in the finale, Colbert briefly spoke to science podcaster Neil deGrasse Tyson, who explained away the CGI wormhole that would deliver the host to a gabfest with Jon Stewart, John Oliver, Seth Meyers, Jimmy Fallon, and Jimmy Kimmel, then threaten to devour all of late-night.

Some fans gathered outside the Ed Sullivan Theater — which survived the wormhole — to bid Colbert adieu with well-wishing signs and at least one stating, “Colbert for President.”

Following the conclusion of Colbert’s finale, Trump wrote, “He was like a dead person. You could take any person off of the street and they would be better than this total jerk. Thank goodness he’s finally gone!”

The show was eulogized by various liberals, including twice-failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D), Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey (D), and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich.

CBS announced in July 2025 that it was canceling “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” and ending the franchise, stating that it was “purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night.”

The show’s time slot will now be occupied by Byron Allen’s “Comics Unleashed.”

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

​Cbs, Donald trump, Paul mccartney, Pope leo xiv, Stephen colbert, The beatles, The late show, Vaccination, Television, Politics 

Earlier this year, Anthropic lost its AI deal with the Department of War after the company tried to dictate how the government used its platform. The story ended with Anthropic labeled as a supply chain risk, leaving the government without an AI partner for military operations. Anthropic’s competitors all proposed deals of their own to fill the void; however, the War Department ultimately chose another option — to build an AI army that brings the best AI platforms together into one central fighting force.

The backstory

To get the full story, we have to go all the way back to January 2026. The U.S. military conducted a special operationin which Delta Force went into Venezuela to capture dictator Nicolás Maduro. The mission was a huge success, with the U.S. military asserting a devastating level of force and efficiency over Maduro’s guards, with only seven injuries on the U.S. side.

While the U.S. military has always been a lethal force, some of the mission’s success was attributed to Claude, Anthropic’s sophisticated AI platform.

Instead of choosing one, they went with all of them.

This got the attention of Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei. By February, Amodei raised concerns over the War Department’s use of Claude for military operations. In his official statement, he stressed that “in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values. Some uses are also simply outside the bounds of what today’s technology can safely and reliably do. Two such use cases have never been included in our contracts with the Department of War, and we believe they should not be included now.”

Amodei went on to revise the agreement he already had with the War Department, adding that the government couldn’t use Claude for “mass domestic surveillance” or “fully autonomous weapons.”

Assistant to the Secretary of War for Public Affairs and senior adviser Sean Parnell responded quickly, stating that, “The Department of War has no interest in using AI to conduct mass surveillance of Americans (which is illegal) nor do we want to use AI to develop autonomous weapons that operate without human involvement.”

Unfortunately, the two sides failed to reach a new agreement, citing that the current deal was already sufficient, and President Trump declared Anthropic a supply-chain risk in a Truth Social post that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth reposted on his X account. This designation prevents federal workers from using Anthropic’s products on their work computers, with a six-month phase-out period to remove Claude entirely.

Although Claude was reportedly also used in the Iran strike missions, the War Department found itself in need of a new AI platform. Instead of choosing one, the department went with all of them.

RELATED: Killer drones have conquered the skies. Can we ever be safe again?

Mike Mareen/Getty Images

AI army, assemble!

To make sure an AI company never tried to dictate the terms of the military’s operations ever again, the War Department assembled the Avengers of AI platforms, creating one powerful AI army, with each vendor offering up its unique expertise.

SpaceX: Recently acquiring xAI as part of its core business, SpaceX offers data center infrastructure through its ambitious lunar base initiative, as well as the latest AI models that power Grok.OpenAI: As the leading AI platform that brought ChatGPT to the forefront, OpenAI’s platform offers robust data analysis and content creation for a range of applications.Google: With a broad Google Cloud Platform network that powers its own AI platform, Gemini, Google brings both powerful AI capabilities and cloud infrastructure to the military deal.NVIDIA: As a leading provider of GPUs that power most of the AI data centers in America and abroad, NVIDIA provides the backbone to build the advanced platforms our military needs to succeed.Reflection: Although not as well known as the other names on this list, Reflection builds AI agents designed to write code and create “superintelligent” autonomous systems.Microsoft: With its Azure network of data centers, as well as LLMs that make up portions of its Copilot AI platform, Microsoft brings both infrastructure and intelligence to the table.Amazon Web Services: Amazon owns one of the most robust cloud and data server networks on the planet. As part of the team, it brings its advanced infrastructure and connectivity knowledge to the deal.

Before the AI partnership blew up into oblivion, the U.S. military relied heavily on Anthropic’s AI models to conduct operations. When the two parted ways, the disruption created a massive hole in the War Department’s offensive capabilities.

Looking over the new list of AI providers, it might appear as if Anthropic left a hole so large that seven Big Tech giants had to come together just to fill it. That’s not the case, however. The U.S. military learned from the mistake with Anthropic that trusting one company to provide so many vital services was a risk that put soldiers and the nation in a bad spot if things went bad. This new initiative aims to diversify the department’s AI capabilities, bringing together the best of today’s AI platforms without giving any single company more power or authority than the other. It’s a smart move meant to ensure that AI partners supply their expertise while the government alone decides how to use them, according to the law.

In the end, having an entire roster of AI platforms at our disposal makes the U.S. military more capable against our enemies than ever. And the most interesting part? Every partner on the list agreed to the same terms that Anthropic proposed — that “any lawful use” under the Constitution is the final word.

​Tech 

A man is grieving the loss of his wife of 25 years after she was brutally mauled to death by dogs allegedly belonging to their neighbor in Florida.

A spokesperson for the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office said police were investigating the mauling death of a woman on Tuesday.

‘Seeing the same woman I’ve loved for the last 30 years, 25 years just ripped apart by two animals was just … I’ll never get that image out of my mind.’

Donnell Smith told WESH-TV that he went to help a neighbor at about 1 a.m. and returned to his home to find his wife, Jodi Cowan, and one of her dogs gone.

He said he heard a faint cry for help and then saw that his wife was being dragged away.

“I saw the silhouette of the two dogs dragging my wife down the road, off into the grass in front of the truck down there,” Smith said tearfully.

He said his wife was in a pool of blood and the dogs returned to try to continue dragging her away.

“I pulled my knife out, you know, just swinging with it one hand and holding the blood with the other, trying to stop her from bleeding,” Smith said.

Smith said he was eventually able to call 911 and his wife was flown to a hospital, but she died hours later.

“It was brutal. Seeing the same woman I’ve loved for the last 30 years, 25 years just ripped apart by two animals was just … I’ll never get that image out of my mind,” Smith added.

He believes she may have gone out to save their dog from the neighbor’s dogs and then became a victim herself.

RELATED: College student mauled and killed by 3 pit bulls she was pet sitting, police say

Smith says the dogs belonged to a neighbor and that he had previously warned the sheriff’s office about the threat from the dogs.

“I told them that she had those two pits that get out all the time and run the neighborhood and have been aggressive towards people, and they didn’t do anything about it,” Smith said. “My wife lost her life because of it.”

WESH reached out to the sheriff’s department to confirm whether it had received the prior complaints about the dogs. A spokesperson said the department would provide an update as the investigation progresses.

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

​Dog attack, Lethal animal attack, Pit bulls, Pet attack, Crime 

They say never meet your heroes. It turns out Indiana Jones is no exception.

Arizona State University’s commencement this year featured exactly the kind of speaker Americans have come to expect from modern universities: a wealthy Hollywood celebrity lecturing graduates about climate change, “indigenous spirituality,” social justice, and the moral failures of Western civilization.

The sign over the modern left-wing academy reads: Let none who seek intellectual consistency enter here.

Harrison Ford told ASU graduates, “Humanity is a part of nature, not above it,” before calling for sweeping environmental action, “cultural change,” and the elevation of indigenous perspectives about the natural world. Had he remained silent, some might have mistaken him for wise. Instead, he opened his mouth and proved himself a fool.

The speech mattered not because it was unusual, but because it perfectly captured the ideology that now dominates many American universities. Had you asked ChatGPT to generate a commencement address based on ASU’s official political commitments, it would have sounded very much like this one.

The solutions offered by Hollywood activists and university administrators are the very ideas that helped produce much of the confusion in the first place.

Ford’s speech rested on a rejection of the biblical view of man. Scripture teaches that human beings are distinct from the rest of creation because they are made in the image of God. In Genesis, man is commanded to exercise dominion over the earth, not as a tyrant, but as a steward. Human beings are created to behold the glory of God in the world He made, not merely to dissolve into nature as one creature among many.

Ford rejects that distinction. But the moment he does, he collapses into contradiction. If human beings are merely another species within nature, no different in principle from wolves, termites, or algae, then why should they presume to reorganize economies, restrict energy production, and manage the global ecosystem?

The rest of nature does not hold climate summits. Ants do not draft sustainability goals. Coyotes do not issue carbon mandates.

Nature simply acts according to its nature. That is the emptiness of leftism. Ford made millions pretending to be heroes who could save the day. Now, sliding into old age, he has no answer for anyone. The left thrives on captive audiences. Put its spokesmen outside the lecture hall, and the whole performance looks ridiculous.

RELATED: The answer to university decline is hiding in plain sight

Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

Ironically, Ford’s own activism depends on the very biblical framework he rejects. The claim that mankind has a moral duty to care for the world makes sense only if man occupies a unique place above the rest of creation. Stewardship presupposes authority.

The modern environmental movement tries to erase the biblical doctrine of dominion while quietly smuggling morality back in whenever moral action becomes necessary. Yet it cannot explain where such morality comes from. Nature is red in tooth and claw. Why, then, should man not follow suit?

Ford also praised indigenous communities for understanding that “the trees, the mountain, water, soil are not commodities. They are relatives.”

This romanticized view of indigenous life now comes standard in university rhetoric. It also bears little resemblance to history. Human beings across cultures, ancient and modern, have altered landscapes, hunted animals to extinction, waged wars, enslaved rivals, and struggled ruthlessly for survival. Indigenous tribes were not mystical ecological saints floating above ordinary human nature.

One cannot help noticing the contradiction built into these speeches. ASU routinely acknowledges that it sits on indigenous land. Fine. If that confession is sincere, when exactly does the university plan to return the property? ASU confesses the theft, keeps the land, and then congratulates itself for moral awareness. That is not repentance. That is performance.

And what about Ford himself?

He owns multiple luxury properties and has spent decades enjoying private aviation, industrial modernity, and immense personal wealth. Has he offered to return any of his land? Has he proposed downsizing his estates for the sake of climate justice? The modern progressive elite increasingly resembles a secular priesthood that demands sacrifice from everyone except itself.

Ford also repeated the now-obligatory oppressor-oppressed framework that dominates university discourse. Every social question gets filtered through the same categories: oppressor versus oppressed, colonizer versus marginalized, privileged versus victimized.

That framework has become so totalizing that universities no longer even pretend to offer intellectual diversity on first questions about human nature, morality, or society. In their world, you are either oppressed or an oppressor, and those are the only categories available for interpreting history.

RELATED: Billionaire Bruce blasts ‘rich men’ in latest concert rant

Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

That raises an obvious question: Will ASU ever invite a commencement speaker who openly defends the American founding, free markets, Christianity, or the biblical doctrine of man?

Or will commencement remain an ideological pep rally, one last progressive sermon after four years of DEI, decolonization, and critical-theory mush?

To Ford’s credit, he did say one thing that was undeniably true. Speaking to the graduates, he admitted, “The world you’re stepping into, the world my generation left you, is a real mess.”

On that point, he was right. But then he instructed the students to clean it up and presumably climbed into a private jet back to one of his luxury homes.

The ideas pushed by Hollywood activists and university administrators are the very ideas that helped produce the confusion in the first place: hostility to the biblical view of man, contempt for America’s inheritance, and utopian promises of social transformation through centralized moral activism.

ASU’s graduates deserved better than another lecture in fashionable conformity. A university worthy of the name would expose students to competing visions of humanity and the good life. Instead, they got Harrison Ford declaring that mankind is not above nature, moments before assigning mankind the duty to save the planet and clean up after him.

The sign over the modern left-wing academy reads: Let none who seek intellectual consistency enter here.

​American founding, Arizona state university, Christianity, Climate change, Decolonization, Harrison ford, Indiana jones, Indigenous land, Social justice, Western civilization, Opinion & analysis 

Fifteen months into Donald Trump’s second administration, and after repeated Supreme Court rulings affirming ICE’s authority to detain and deport illegal aliens, lower courts still overrule immigration law every week. The Supreme Court shows little urgency in stopping them.

Yet when a lower court finally follows the law and rules against the Department of Health and Human Services’ approval of a dangerous abortion drug by mail, the Supreme Court suddenly rediscovers its appetite for emergency intervention. Welcome to the vaunted 6-3 conservative majority, now better understood as a 7-2 majority against most conservative priorities — and against the court’s own recent precedents.

The so-called conservative majority increasingly looks like a bloc that exists to disappoint conservatives more politely than the left would.

We finally found a case in which the justices were eager to stay a lower-court injunction against a political policy. Last week, the Supreme Court paused a Fifth Circuit injunction against mail-order and telehealth access to the abortion drug mifepristone. The expansion of mifepristone to mail distribution was plainly unlawful, yet only Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have left the injunction in place.

That tells you a great deal.

They’re becoming so predictable

Start with the legal question, then consider the political implications and the court’s larger hypocrisy.

In 2023, several doctors opposed to abortion on moral and religious grounds challenged the FDA’s original 2000 approval of mifepristone. They argued that the agency had unlawfully approved the drug under Subpart H regulations meant for serious or life-threatening illnesses, on the absurd premise that pregnancy is an illness.

They also argued that the Biden administration’s later expansion of the drug to mail-order use and prescription without an in-person visit violated the Comstock Act. The statute explicitly bars mailing any “drug … for producing abortion” and makes it a felony to use “any express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service” to ship “any drug … designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.”

After the doctors won in a Texas district court and secured a partial victory in the Fifth Circuit against the mail-order expansion, the Supreme Court reversed and tossed the claim.

More recently, the Fifth Circuit sided with Louisiana in a separate challenge to mifepristone. The state argued that the entire mail-order abortion-pill regime violates Dobbs, which returned authority over abortion to the states. Under the FDA’s policy, a resident of a state such as Louisiana can still receive abortion pills in the mail even though abortion is banned there.

RELATED: Conservative SCOTUS justice restores access to abortion drug — for now

Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg/Getty Images

By staying that injunction last week, the three Trump appointees made one thing painfully clear: They will overrule conservative lower courts even when the law and recent Supreme Court precedent are on the conservatives’ side.

This is the classic Republican move: one step forward, one giant leap backward.

Thomas and Alito stand fast

Planned Parenthood may be on the ropes in some states, but Trump’s own administration sided with the abortion lobby to preserve Biden’s expansion of the abortion pill. That dangerous drug has made Dobbs functionally hollow by turning every mailbox into an abortion mill. By 2023, 63% of all abortions were already chemical abortions, and that number has almost certainly risen since.

Republicans cannot celebrate the Dobbs decision while refusing to fight mifepristone. In Trump’s case, his administration is not merely refusing to fight. It is siding with the abortion industry. What they call “pro-life” politics is a gross exercise in sophistry and perfidy.

Then comes the broader hypocrisy of the Republican appointees, with Thomas and Alito the lone exceptions.

For the past 15 months, liberal district and circuit judges have nullified immigration law, invented new rights and due-process claims for illegal aliens, and ignored Supreme Court precedent. Yet the high court shows no comparable eagerness to slap them down.

Nearly every day, lower courts order ICE to release criminal aliens on bond, even though Jennings v. Rodriguez made clear that such claims violate the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Supreme Court stayed some injunctions against Trump’s cancellation of Temporary Protected Status for certain nationalities, but it has refused to issue a categorical ruling that would end the lower-court cat-and-mouse game. Earlier this month, another federal judge still managed to block Trump’s cancellation of TPS for Yemeni nationals.

The worst example may have come earlier this month, when U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick ruled against Trump’s travel ban, absurdly suggesting that the murder of a National Guardsman by an Afghan national was not enough reason to stop visas from similar countries. But Trump v. Hawaii already held that the plain language of the INA allows the president to suspend visas from any country whenever he deems it in the national interest. Courts are not supposed to second-guess that determination.

This ‘conservative’ court?

The same pattern holds elsewhere. The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled last month that the president must accept asylum claims at the border, despite his clear authority under Section 212(f) of the INA to suspend entry. Yet none of these lower-court judges gets the Fifth Circuit treatment.

The same goes for guns. After the Bruen decision, blue states still restrict where common firearms may be carried and what magazines may be owned, in plain defiance of the requirement that modern gun regulations align with the nation’s historical tradition. The Supreme Court refused to hear challenges to Maryland’s ban on common semiautomatic rifles and Rhode Island’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

In both cases, Gorsuch joined Thomas and Alito in dissent. Kavanaugh and Barrett said nothing.

RELATED: Funding is useless if Democrat judges can still hold ICE hostage

Celal Gunes/Anadolu/Getty Images

Remember the Harvard affirmative-action ruling that was supposed to end race-based admissions? Discrimination remains rampant, and lower courts keep blessing open bias against white and Asian students. In a 2024 dissent from denial of certiorari, Alito — joined, of course, only by Thomas — warned that the court had “twice refused to correct a glaring constitutional error that threatens to perpetuate race-based affirmative action in defiance of Students for Fair Admissions.”

No meaningful follow-up has come since.

So what, exactly, is conservative about this court? What is it trying to conserve?

It is not defending the rule of law. It is not disciplining rogue lower courts. It is not protecting states’ authority on abortion, border security, gun rights, or equal protection.

Thomas and Alito still understand the assignment. The rest of the so-called conservative majority increasingly looks like a bloc that exists to disappoint conservatives more politely than the left would.

​Opinion & analysis, Supreme court, Abortion, Mifepristone, Fifth circuit, Dobbs, Roe v. wade, Donald trump, Neil gorsuch, Amy coney barrett, Brett kavanaugh, Clarence thomas, Samuel alito, Immigration, Guns 

New York City may have once been the victim of the worst attack on United States soil at the hands of Islamic terrorists, but it appears residents have gotten over it.

“In case you were, I don’t know, on the fence about whether or not New York City forgot all about 9/11 — they did,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says.

“It just keeps becoming increasingly obvious that they forgot because the Islamic conquest, it’s just as we predicted here at ‘Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,’ it’s just happening in broad daylight. And you know what? That’s to be expected when you elect a Muslim commie mayor,” she explains.

Gonzales then plays a clip of tens of Islamic men praying outside of an all-girls’ Jewish school in New York City.

“Just taunting the Jews inside that building,” she says.

In another video, a large Muslim crowd gathered outside of a synagogue during prayer, waving Palestinian flags and chanting “Allahu Akbar.”

“I would be concerned about it. If I’m the mayor of New York City, I’m on it. I’m concerned about it. But instead of being concerned about it, of course, you would have the Muslim commie Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who is actually here to tell you that it’s the Muslims who are under attack in New York City,” Gonzales says.

“I am aware of the disturbing incident targeting worshippers during Friday prayers outside the Baitul Mamur Mosque in Brooklyn, where a man praying was struck with an egg,” Mamdani wrote in a post on X.

“That hateful act is unacceptable and an affront to the values that define us as New Yorkers. My administration is committed to rooting out anti-Muslim hate in all its forms and ensuring every New Yorker can live and worship in safety and dignity,” he continued.

Mamdani added that “the NYPD Hate Crime Task Force is investigating this incident.”

When Gonzales tried to research the incident, she “couldn’t find any reporting on this other than the media reporting on his post.”

“There’s no video. There’s no description of a suspect. The mosque itself hasn’t even commented on it. Isn’t that strange? Isn’t that odd? And I guess Zohran Mamdani as the mayor, he just got the scoop,” she says.

“The mosque wasted an opportunity to be the victims of an egg attack,” she adds.

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.

​New york city, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Zohran mamdani, Islam, Terrorism, Anti-semitism