Stembridge News Digest

  • The real tyranny? Institutional groupthink disguised as truth Fri, 09 May 2025 02:00:00 +0000


    Timothy Snyder’s “On Tyranny” has become a pocket-size gospel for progressives in the age of Trump — a secular catechism of 20 rules to resist looming fascism. It’s pitched not just as a historical analysis but as an urgent survival guide, borrowed from the dark lessons of the 20th century. The message is clear: Authoritarianism is always just one election away, and Donald Trump is its orange-faced harbinger.

    Such moral urgency unmoored from historical context tends to collapse into political theater, however. “On Tyranny” is not a serious book. It is an emotive pamphlet that relies less on the actual historical complexities of rising tyranny than on the reader’s willingness to conflate MAGA hats with brownshirts.

    Snyder believes a tyrant is always the populist outsider, never the insider who manages democratic decline in a suit and tie.

    Such historical flattening is the first and most obvious flaw in Snyder’s argument. He leans heavily on the atrocities of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia to suggest that Trump’s rise follows the same trajectory. But this is not serious analysis — it’s emotional manipulation. It’s one thing to warn against patterns; it’s another to flatten every populist movement into a prequel to genocide.

    Snyder, a Yale historian, surely knows better. But “On Tyranny” depends on your feeling like you're living in 1933 — whether or not such historical parallels are actually true. And they’re not.

    A democratic mandate

    Snyder warns against the rise of a single leader claiming to represent the will of the people and establishing a one-party state — equating the 2016 Republican sweep of the White House and both chambers of Congress to Hitler’s consolidation of the Third Reich. Such a comparison isn’t just blatantly false; it’s a cruel dismissal of the democratic will of the people for merely voting in Republican candidates.

    Surely Snyder didn’t accuse Barack Obama of fascist one-party rule when he and the Democrats swept the White House and Congress in 2008. Such electoral outcomes aren’t a harbinger of fascism. No, no! That was a mandate from the American people, democratically spoken, demanding change from the status quo. Voters sent that message loud and clear in 2008 — as well as in 2016 and 2024.

    Snyder’s false equivalency counts on fear rather than critical thinking — any semblance of which would entice Democrats to pause for a moment of self-reflection and listen to what the American people are saying through the electoral process. But Snyder’s one-sided alarmism silences the electoral voice — merely because it rallied behind Trump.

    Civic theater

    Snyder’s advice to citizens reads like a secular sermon: “Defend institutions.” “Stand out.” “Be calm when the unthinkable arrives.” On the surface, it sounds noble — defiant, even. But strip away the aesthetic of resistance, and what’s left is a deeply superficial understanding of civic virtue.

    What exactly are we defending when we’re told to “support the press” or “protect truth”? In practice, Snyder’s rules amount to an uncritical loyalty to legacy institutions that have forfeited public trust — media outlets that gaslight, bureaucracies that bloat, and experts who contradict themselves while silencing dismissive voices.

    Snyder dismisses the possibility that institutions can rot from within, that the loudest defenders of “truth” are often its gravest opponents. Instead, he offers something simpler: the feeling of resistance while catering to the institutional elites.

    The real culprits

    The irony of “On Tyranny” is that the tactics Snyder warns against — censorship, moral panic, political conformity — have not come from MAGA rallies but from the very institutions Snyder holds up as guardians of democracy. It wasn’t Trump who quashed dissenting speech on COVID-19 or colluded with social media companies to throttle viewpoints that didn’t conform with the government’s narrative. It was the political elite and their complicit peddlers in the mainstream media and social media companies.

    Unfortunately for Snyder’s brand, tyranny doesn’t always wear a red hat. Sometimes it comes in the name of “safety,” or “science,” or “social justice.” Sometimes it cancels you over a social media post, not because you’re dangerous, but because you’re not sufficiently obedient.

    If Snyder were genuinely concerned with authoritarianism in all its forms, he might have warned against this progressive impulse to control thought and punish deviation. Instead, he gives it cover — because the real threat, in his mind, is always the populist outsider, never the insider who manages democratic decline in a suit and tie.

    Less performance, more courage

    Snyder is right about one thing: democracies don’t die overnight. But they do die when fear replaces thought, when virtue becomes branding, and when citizens outsource their moral judgment to bureaucracies and mainstream news.

    “On Tyranny” offers the illusion of courage but none of the substance. It is performance art disguised as resistance. To preserve freedom, we should defend institutions and champion truth. But that requires holding corrupt actors in such institutions accountable, whether it be within the federal government or legacy media. That was the democratic mandate communicated loud and clear in 2024, and if Snyder were genuinely concerned about defending democracy, he would listen.
  • The ‘education establishment’ always resorts to fearmongering Fri, 09 May 2025 01:00:00 +0000


    If the U.S. Department of Education suddenly went away, what would change for local families and communities? Not much.

    For starters, the Department of Education doesn’t “educate” anyone. It’s a middleman. Americans send their taxes to Washington, D.C., the bureaucracy takes a big chunk of it to pay staff and overhead, and the rest is sent to states and local communities with a bunch of red tape. Reducing that bureaucracy should save money, which means schools could actually receive more funding.

    Parents are better at making decisions for their children than federal bureaucrats.

    Furthermore, there’s no evidence that the federal involvement has improved education. Since the department was created in 1980, federal per-pupil spending has skyrocketed, but results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress — also known as the Nation’s Report Card — have been largely stagnant.

    Yet a recent Fast Company article declared that ending the Department of Education “would be disastrous for Title I schools,” with a special emphasis on Greater Johnstown Public Schools in Pennsylvania. And who is making that claim? Not surprisingly, it’s largely people who benefit from the current system, including the head of the local and state teachers’ unions, the director of the law firm that’s led efforts to increase school taxes, and the director of a policy center that has historically received substantial funding from unions.

    When your only arguments are nothing more than fearmongering, you’ve ceded the debate.

    Title I will remain

    For better or worse, ending the Department of Education would not end Title I funding, which is supposed to help low-income students. Title I existed before the Department of Education and would likely be administered through a different department if the agency were shuttered.

    As with other federal involvement, we have no evidence that Title I has been effective overall. For example, the Nation’s Report Card has for decades shown a consistent achievement gap between economically disadvantaged and non-economically-disadvantaged students.

    There has been talk of changing how Title I is distributed to improve its effectiveness. One option is converting the funding to block grants that states could administer with fewer strings. This would put decision-making power closer to the students who are impacted by these decisions and enable state leaders to direct funds where they see the most need. It would be an improvement over the current Washington-based system.

    Better still would be to bypass the states and convert the funding to scholarships, enabling parents to choose the educational support that their children need. Ultimately, there’s no constitutional role for the federal government when it comes to education, which makes sense given the impossibility of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., knowing what’s best for children in, say, Pennsylvania.

    One of us was formerly a teacher and principal in Johnstown public schools and is now the principal of Bishop McCort Catholic School, also in Johnstown. He has dealt with Title I firsthand in both environments and seen the problems caused by the red tape and lack of flexibility with the funding. He’s confident that dismantling the Department of Education — and making any federal funds portable so parents could choose the best environment for their children — is the best way to support the students served by Title I.

    Parents over bureaucracy

    And that’s the bottom line when it comes to education. Parents are better at making decisions for their children than federal bureaucrats. Pennsylvania public schools spent nearly $22,000 per student in 2022-23 (the latest data available). In the Greater Johnstown School District, per-pupil spending was more than $23,000. Yet 82% of students scored below proficient in math, and 77% scored below proficient in English. Imagine what parents could do if they could direct even half of that funding to the educational option that worked better for their kids.

    Dismantling the U.S. Department of Education will not destroy education, but it may put a dent in the public schooling bureaucracy. Despite the fearmongering of people who work in the system, less bureaucracy and more freedom for parents and students are good things.

    Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPennsylvania and made available via RealClearWire.

  • Texas bans explicit content in schools — and Democrats are not happy Fri, 09 May 2025 00:13:05 +0000


    If you live in Texas and have school-age children, then there’s some good news. The first Texas GOP priority bill is on its way to the governor’s desk after clearing both chambers — and it bans explicit sexual content in libraries at your children’s schools.

    Currently, there are broad exemptions within Texas law that shield school officials, librarians, and other authority figures from prosecution for distributing material seen as harmful to minors, as long as their goal was to educate the children.

    The bill will allow only law enforcement and judicial officers to use this defense when charged under obscenity laws.

    Sara Gonzales of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” couldn’t be happier, but House Democrats do not share her high spirits.


    “We’re really excited a law protecting children from sexually explicit materials is heading to the governor’s desk,” Gonzales says, adding, “The bill removes any sort of groomer’s defense that they might have in the school system.”

    “And the Democrats were totally up in arms because, you know, they are now the party of illegal gang members and violent criminals and thugs and also groomers,” she continues. “These people really think that it’s the government’s job to teach children about sensitive sex matters, to teach children about all sorts of personal sensitive topics.”

    Erin Zwiener is one of those angry Democrats, who cried “book banning” in response to the new rule.

    “Many of the books that get targeted again and again are books that depict sex, and there is nothing I want more than for our young people to be exposed to what sexual assault can look like so they can avoid it,” Zwiener said.

    “Our kids need books where they learn about sex without experiencing it in their real lives,” she added.

    “I cannot even express to you how sick to my stomach these statements make me. Pretty grossed out,” Gonzales comments. “That’s cute that you want to talk about what you want for my children, not ‘our’ children. This is not collective.”

    Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

  • Trump names Jeanine Pirro of Fox News as interim US attorney of DC after failed Ed Martin nomination Fri, 09 May 2025 00:10:00 +0000


    President Donald Trump named Jeanine Pirro, a former prosecutor and current Fox News host, as the interim attorney general of Washington, D.C., after failing to nominate Ed Martin.

    Pirro has been a stalwart Trump supporter and a host on "The Five" on Fox News. She previously worked as the Republican district attorney of Westchester County, N.Y.

    'During her time in office, Jeanine was a powerful crusader for victims of crime.'

    The president announced the appointment via social media on Thursday.

    "I am pleased to announce that Judge Jeanine Pirro will be appointed interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia," he wrote on Truth Social.

    "Jeanine was Assistant District Attorney for Westchester County, New York, and then went on to serve as County Judge, and District Attorney, where she was the first woman ever to be elected to those positions," he added. "During her time in office, Jeanine was a powerful crusader for victims of crime."

    The 73-year-old has been a friend to Trump for decades.

    The president had capitulated to opposition in the U.S. Senate against the nomination of Martin, especially to that from Republican Sen.Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

    "Most of my concerns related to January 6," said Tillis to reporters. "Where we probably have a difference is I think anybody that breached the perimeter should have been in prison for some period of time. Whether it's 30 days or three years is debatable, but I have no tolerance for anybody who entered the building on January 6."

    The president said in a separate post that Martin would be moved to the Department of Justice as part of three groups meant to investigate the weaponization of the government under the Biden administration.

    "Jeanine is incredibly well qualified for this position, and is considered one of the Top District Attorneys in the History of the State of New York. She is in a class by herself. Congratulations Jeanine!" concluded the president on Thursday.

    Pirro was condemned by both the left and the right in 2019 after she ridiculed Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) for wearing a hijab, which she said was against the principles of the U.S. She was suspended from appearing on Fox News for two weeks following that incident.

    "We strongly condemn Jeanine Pirro's comments about Rep. Ilhan Omar. They do not reflect those of the network, and we have addressed the matter with her directly," read a statement from Fox at the time.

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

  • Trump shrugs at immigration law — here’s what he should have said Fri, 09 May 2025 00:00:00 +0000


    When NBC’s Kristen Welker asked President Trump last Sunday whether illegal aliens have due process rights, he hedged.

    “I don’t know. It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or two million or three million trials,” Trump replied on “Meet the Press.”

    That’s not even close to good enough. Trump should have responded clearly and forcefully: While everyone enjoys due process before being criminally punished, deportation is not punishment. It’s an administrative action that flows from national sovereignty.

    Illegal aliens do not possess the same due process rights as citizens. They can make their case to immigration officials — but those officials retain full discretion to deny their request and carry out removal. We’re not jailing these people; they are free to return home on their own. If they refuse, we remove them — just like any homeowner would remove a trespasser.

    The analogy is simple. If a burglar breaks into your home, you can’t torture or imprison him without a trial. But you absolutely can — and should — force him to leave.

    That’s why deportation proceedings don’t come with government-funded lawyers. The law is clear: “In any removal proceedings before an immigration judge ... the person concerned shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel.”

    The United States must enforce its borders — not apologize for them.

    Trump’s hesitation creates the impression that illegal aliens do enjoy full due process under immigration law — but implementing it would just be too hard. That argument doesn’t persuade. The American people don’t want laws ignored simply because enforcing them is difficult.

    Welker pushed further: “Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?”

    Trump replied: “I don’t know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”

    But we should never confuse what the Supreme Court says with what the Constitution requires. The court has long recognized that immigration law operates under different standards. The power to exclude or remove aliens lies entirely with Congress and the executive branch, not the judiciary.

    What the founders, Supreme Court, and Constitution say

    The constitutional, statutory, and philosophical basis for removing aliens without full judicial due process is overwhelming. The historical record speaks for itself:

    1. Gouverneur Morris, Constitutional Convention debates (1787):

    “Every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted, there can be room for no complaint.”

    2. William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (2nd edition):

    “In a republic the sovereignty resides essentially, and entirely in the people. Those only who compose the people, and partake of this sovereignty are citizens, they alone can elect, and are capable of being elected to public offices, and of course they alone can exercise authority within the community: they possess an unqualified right to the enjoyment of property and personal immunity, they are bound to adhere to it in peace, to defend it in war, and to postpone the interests of all other countries to the affection which they ought to bear for their own.”

    3. Chief Justice John Marshall, The Exchange v. McFaddon (1812):

    “The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.”

    4. Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (1892):

    “It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.”

    5. Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889):

    “That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power.”

    6. Kansas v. Colorado (1907):

    “Self-preservation is the highest right and duty of a Nation.”

    The right to deport is an extension of the right to exclude

    7. Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893):

    “The right of a nation to expel or deport foreigners who have not been naturalized, or taken any steps towards becoming citizens of the country, rests upon the same grounds, and is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrance into the country.”

    8. Justice James Iredell, Charge to Grand Jury (1799):

    “Any alien coming to this country must or ought to know, that this being an independent nation, it has all the rights concerning the removal of aliens which belong by the law of nations to any other; that while he remains in the country in the character of an alien, he can claim no other privilege than such as an alien is entitled to, and consequently, whatever [risk] he may incur in that capacity is incurred voluntarily, with the hope that in due time by his unexceptionable conduct, he may become a citizen of the United States.”

    9. Emer de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” (1797):

    “Every nation has the right to refuse to admit a foreigner into the country, when he cannot enter without putting the nation in evident danger, or doing it a manifest injury. ... Thus, also, it has a right to send them elsewhere, if it has just cause to fear that they will corrupt the manners of the citizens; that they will create religious disturbances, or occasion any other disorder, contrary to the public safety. In a word, it has a right, and is even obliged, in this respect, to follow the rules which prudence dictates.”

    Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere

    10. Lem Moon Sing v. United States (1895):

    “The power of Congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States, or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.”

    11. Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950):

    “The admission of aliens to this country is not a right, but a privilege, which is granted only upon such terms as the United States prescribes. … The decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the [p]resident, who may in turn delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer. ... The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.”

    12. Fiallo v. Bell (1977):

    “This Court has repeatedly emphasized that ‘over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over’ the admission of aliens.”

    13. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952):

    “We think that, in the present state of the world, it would be rash and irresponsible to reinterpret our fundamental law to deny or qualify the Government’s power of deportation. ... Reform in this field must be entrusted to the branches of the Government in control of our international relations and treatymaking powers. We hold that the Act is not invalid under the Due Process Clause.”

    Due process does not guarantee entry or residency

    14. Lem Moon Sing v. U.S. (1895):

    “As to such persons [non-citizens wishing to remain in the U.S.], the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by [C]ongress, are due process of law.”

    15. Galvan v. Press (1954):

    “Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government ... that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly imbedded ... as any aspect of our government.”

    16. Justice Robert Jackson (dissenting), Shaughnessy v. Mezei (1953):

    “Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.”

    Deportation is not punishment

    17. Turner v. Williams (1904):

    “No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens. ... But to declare unlawful residence within the country to be an infamous crime, punishable by deprivation of liberty and property, would be to pass out of the sphere of constitutional legislation unless provision were made that the fact of guilt should first be established by a judicial trial.”

    18. Fong Yue Ting v. U.S. (1893):

    “The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is not a banishment, in the sense in which that word is often applied. ... It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions.”

    Trump never should have equivocated on immigration law — or deferred to his lawyers. The Constitution, the courts, America’s founders, and common sense all say the same thing: Noncitizens do not enjoy an absolute right to remain in the United States. Deportation does not violate due process because deportation is not punishment. It is the lawful exercise of sovereignty.

    The United States must enforce its borders — not apologize for them.

  • 30-year-old thug accused of shooting Philly cop amid brawls near HS: 'You're a damn adult. You're supposed to know better.' Thu, 08 May 2025 23:54:12 +0000


    A 30-year-old male is accused of shooting a 26-year-old Philadelphia police officer amid brawls near a city high school Wednesday — and the police commissioner had harsh words for the suspect.

    Dachan Seay is facing multiple counts of aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer, reckless endangerment, and other related offenses, Police Commissioner Kevin Bethel said the following day, WPVI-TV reported.

    'I'm asking you to say a prayer for this officer and his family, as well as everyone who puts on that uniform to protect and serve Philadelphia.'

    Bethel said several fights were underway outside Overbrook High School in the area of North 59th Street and Columbia Avenue when additional officers were called in, the station said.

    Shots rang out around 2:40 p.m., WPVI said. Gunfire is audible on a cellphone video the station added to its report.

    The commissioner said an adult armed with a weapon got involved, after which a shot was fired into the ground, and the officer was wounded "under his vest" by the the ricochet, the station said.

    The officer — hit by one shot in his stomach — was taken to Penn Presbyterian Hospital where he underwent surgery, officials told WPVI. The officer — who is new to the force, having graduating from the academy in 2024 — was recovering as of Thursday morning, officials told the station.

    "I'm asking you to say a prayer for this officer and his family, as well as everyone who puts on that uniform to protect and serve Philadelphia," Mayor Cherelle Parker told listeners during a Wednesday news conference, WPVI said.

    Bethel added that the officer didn't immediately realize he had been shot, the station said.

    WPVI said the commissioner also had pointed words for the suspect: "You're a damn adult. You're supposed to know better. You're supposed to be the one who has to come in here to de-escalate, not escalate."

    Sources added to the station that a teenager also was apprehended in connection with the incident.

    Far-left Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner told WPVI in a statement that "while this investigation remains open, I want to stress that my office will hold this suspect justly and appropriately accountable for his outrageous actions."

    No officers fired their weapons during the incident, the station said, adding that no other injuries were reported.

    Philadelphia police data indicates Wednesday's shooting was the sixth police-involved shooting in 2025 and the second time an officer was injured in the line of duty, WPVI noted.

    You can view a video report here about the shooting and its aftermath.

    This story has been updated.

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

  • Illegal alien hides in tree for 8 hours in failed attempt to escape ICE arrest Thu, 08 May 2025 23:17:24 +0000


    An illegal alien trying to escape arrest by federal officials climbed a tree and hid for 8 hours before getting captured, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.

    ICE said 29-year-old Raul Ical was wanted for warrants related to entering the country illegally and was found by federal agents and state troopers during a traffic stop on April 29. They said he was a passenger in the car and ran off when they tried to apprehend him.

    'I got to give it to the guy for climbing a tree really quick. That was pretty good thinking.'

    Texas residents of a neighborhood on the west side of San Antonio said they were surprised to see a man scale a ladder, scramble onto a roof, and then climb into a tree at a home near Ceralvo and South Navidad streets.

    Ical stayed in the tree until officers persuaded him to come down and face arrest. He is originally from Guatemala and had been removed in 2013 but returned to the U.S. illegally.

    One woman told KSAT-TV that she returned from running an errand to find officers all over her neighborhood.

    “I just stayed here looking at all the excitement [wondering] when he was going to come and get down,” said the woman, who wanted to remain anonymous. “This is the first time I’ve ever seen anything here around my neighborhood.”

    Mike Howell, who works at a nearby business, credited Ical for his clever attempt at evasion.

    “They walked around and didn’t see him and then looked up and went, ‘Oh!’ There he was in the tree,” the man said. “I got to give it to the guy for climbing a tree really quick. That was pretty good thinking.”

    Howell said he watched as Ical was led away.

    “It was an interesting day. That’s all I can say,” he said. “I imagine his perch was not that comfortable after about two hours or something. I’d imagine he was getting real sore.”

    Video shows Ical being arrested by officials in the news report from KENS-TV on YouTube.

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

  • Repealing the Patriot Act — does Rep. Luna's new bill stand a chance? Thu, 08 May 2025 22:00:00 +0000


    Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) has introduced the “American Privacy Restoration Act,” which aims to fully repeal the Patriot Act and “strip rogue intelligence officers of their extraordinary mass surveillance powers.”

    “Since the passage of the USA Patriot Act in the aftermath of 9/11, intelligence agency officials have used their mass surveillance tools to settle personal scores, interfere in elections, and spy on untold numbers of innocent Americans. This abuse must come to an end,” Luna wrote in a post on X.

    “Do we think that Anna Paulina Luna can actually gain enough support, because we know disarming the deep state is not going to be easy. So will she be able to get enough people to rally around this and get this one done?” Jill Savage of “Blaze News Tonight” asks co-host Matthew Peterson.


    “We don’t even know if Congress will have enough people to get President Trump’s budget passed, so I can’t say, ‘Yes,’” Peterson answers.

    “I’m old enough to remember when the Patriot Act was a predominantly Republican-coded thing,” he continues. “Republicans are the ones who were responsible for the Patriot Act, although there were some people, like the Pauls, we have to give credit to, who realized this was a bad idea.”

    “So that is an enormous challenge, but what’s really refreshing about this, is that here you have a star person in Congress, a real star, coming out and doing something that would’ve been considered radical even five years ago, that needs to be done. So is it a step in the right direction? Hell yeah, it is,” he adds.

    Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?

    To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

  • Jasmine Crockett downplays far-left violence, calls Republicans ‘inherently’ violent Thu, 08 May 2025 21:45:00 +0000


    Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) dismissed violence committed by the far left because, according to her, most of the political violence is coming from Republicans.

    Crockett has seen her profile rise as she speaks out and levels harsh criticisms toward the GOP and President Donald Trump. Since Democrats have no clear leader after their brutal defeat in the 2024 election, Crockett has emerged as a national surrogate for the party.

    "They try to act like, 'Oh, political violence, it’s the Democrats and it’s the liberals,' and it’s like, actually, actually, actually — I mean, I’m not going to say that, like, a left-leaning person cannot be violent because that would be, like, crazy to say that somebody can’t be. But baby, baby, y’all got the white supremacists galore, okay? Like, all of them. You got the Proud Boys, you got the neo-Nazis, you have people that literally should be classified as domestic terrorists because a lot of times that is what they are doing — they’re engaging in domestic terrorism," Crocket said on the podcast "American Fever Dream."

    If any foreign students are found, they will have their visas revoked.

    "I mean, this is who aligns with that. So, like, inherently in, like, who you are, y’all are violent. And most of your violence has to do with people that’s got a little bit of melanin. But nevertheless, like, y’all are a violent group. Like, you attract violent actors. And, like, I’m sorry, I know they tried to make Black Lives Matter out to be the most violent — ‘Oh, what about Black Lives Matter?’ No, no, no," she insisted.

    Crockett's comments this week about the supposed lack of violence from the left were ill-timed as Antifa and other far-left groups reportedly carried out two high-profile attacks on college campuses within days of each other. At the University of Washington, anti-Israel protesters stormed the school's engineering building and caused extensive damage inside. Fires were started outside the building, with part of the mob preventing first responders from putting them out. The occupiers were eventually arrested once more police officers arrived on the scene.

    The University of Washington said a total of 34 people were arrested, 21 of whom were students. The students have been suspended and banned from campus.

    In New York City, anti-Israel students rushed inside a Columbia University library to occupy it. Campus security and New York City police officers did not let the crowd out unless they showed their student IDs. Those who refused were arrested.

    In all, NYPD made over 80 arrests, and the State Department will be reviewing if any of those involved are in the U.S. on student visas. If any foreign students are found, they will likely have their visas revoked.

    Crockett's claims also do not hold up after the wave of violent attacks against Tesla drivers and dealerships by far leftists outraged because of CEO Elon Musk's ties to the Trump administration and the DOGE.

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

  • Senate rejects cryptocurrency bill pushed by Treasury Sec. Bessent Thu, 08 May 2025 21:30:00 +0000


    A pro-cryptocurrency bill supported by Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent was defeated in a procedural vote in the Senate on Thursday.

    The GENIUS bill would have created a new regulatory framework for digital coins and had been negotiated with Democrats. However, they turned on it at the last second. The bill needed to garner 60 votes to continue in the Senate but failed on a largely partisan basis with all Democrats voting against it.

    'The Senate missed an opportunity to provide that leadership today.'

    Forty-eight senators voted in favor of the bill, and 49 voted against it.

    Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota blasted Democrats for what he said was simply an effort to stonewall President Donald Trump.

    “I don’t know why you vote against proceeding to a bill on the floor after you voted to refer that same bill to the floor, which of course makes you wonder if this is about the bill at all or if it’s simply Democrats obstructing because they want to deny Republicans or President Trump a bipartisan win,” Thune said.

    “Now, given the fact that Democrats keep moving the goalposts, it’s hard not to suspect that is the case,” he added.

    Democrat Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona put the blame on Republicans.

    “The Republicans killed it because my colleagues don’t have enough time to read the changes that we have been proposing," he said.

    Bessent warned that defeating the bill would give foreign competitors a leg up on the U.S. in the crypto field.

    "Senators who voted to stonewall U.S. ingenuity today face a simple choice: Either step up and lead or watch digital asset innovation move offshore," he said.

    "For stablecoins and other digital assets to thrive globally, the world needs American leadership. The Senate missed an opportunity to provide that leadership today by failing to advance the GENIUS Act," Bessent added.

    "This bill represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to expand dollar dominance and U.S. influence in financial innovation," he concluded. "Without it, stablecoins will be subject to a patchwork of state regulations instead of a streamlined federal framework that is more conducive to growth and competitiveness."

    Tech website Gizmodo reported that the regulatory framework to be set up by the bill was favored by cryptocurrency enthusiasts because it was weak and encouraged more investment.

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

  • 'There are Chinese spies at Stanford': Shocking report unmasks CCP's espionage at American universities Thu, 08 May 2025 21:25:31 +0000


    The Chinese Communist Party is operating an "extensive" espionage network at Stanford University, according to a new shocking report from the school's independent newspaper.

    The Stanford Review released the startling findings of a months-long investigation into Chinese spying at the research university. The paper's conclusions were drawn from dozens of interviews with Stanford faculty members, students, and experts in technology and Chinese intelligence between July 2024 and April 2025.

    'They use carrots and sticks. If you turn over information, you may get a reward; if you don't, there is a punishment.'

    The extent of China's espionage has remained vastly underreported at Stanford due to "transnational repression, $64 million in Chinese funding, and allegations of racial profiling," the article noted.

    The majority of those interviewed requested anonymity due to fear of retaliation from both the CCP and the university community, the Stanford Review stated.

    The student journalists' inspiration behind the investigation stemmed from this "culture of silence and fear."

    "It is this pervasive silence that has compelled us to write. After interviewing multiple anonymous Stanford faculty, students, and China experts, we can confirm that the CCP is orchestrating a widespread intelligence-gathering campaign at Stanford. In short, 'there are Chinese spies at Stanford,'" the paper read.

    They concluded that China specifically targets Stanford because of its dominance in artificial intelligence, noting that China has declared its plan to surpass the U.S. in frontier technologies.

    The former U.S. National Security Council's Director for China, Matthew Turpin, explained the CCP's influence at Stanford during a China Town Hall, the Stanford Review reported.

    "The Chinese state incentivizes students to violate conflicts of commitment and interest, ensuring they bring back technology otherwise restricted by export controls," Turpin stated.

    China reportedly uses "non-traditional collection" methods, leveraging civilians outside the intelligence community to access sensitive information, such as details regarding innovations. An anonymous faculty member told the newspaper that these methods are used "extensively" to gain knowledge about AI and robotics at Stanford.

    The investigation uncovered an instance where a Chinese national, who was likely a Chinese Ministry of State Security agent, falsely posed as a university student for years. He used his fake identity to target peers, including a student whom the newspaper described as "conducting sensitive research on China."

    Chinese students are required under China's 2017 National Intelligence Law to share information with the CCP.

    ‘Stanford takes its commitment to national security with the utmost seriousness, and we are acutely aware of the threats posed by the Chinese Communist Party to all research universities.’

    "Many Chinese [nationals] have handlers; they [CCP] want to know everything that's going on at Stanford. This is a very normal thing. They just relay the information they have," a Chinese national told the Stanford Review.

    A China expert explained to the newspaper that Chinese nationals respond to this intelligence-sharing mandate in one of three ways: providing as little information as possible, complying to maintain CCP-funded scholarships, or fully cooperating opportunistically to maximize data collection.

    Approximately 15% of Chinese nationals attending U.S. schools receive scholarships from the Chinese Scholarship Council, which requires students to regularly submit "Situation Reports" to diplomatic missions, experts told the newspaper.

    Furthermore, Chinese students are reportedly selected for CSC grants based on party loyalty tests and must sign loyalty pledges. Family members could face financial penalties for students who fail to comply, the Stanford Review reported.

    Turpin told the newspaper, "The Chinese government spends a lot of time collecting data on its overseas students; it has a pretty good understanding of who is doing what and if someone is working in an area of interest [frontier technology]. If students have access to things the government would like access to, it is relatively easy to reach out to an individual. They use carrots and sticks. If you turn over information, you may get a reward; if you don't, there is a punishment."

    The newspaper stated that Chinese students "are victims of their own government."

    University insiders told the Stanford Review that most espionage cases are never publicly revealed.

    "Drawing on anonymous testimony from faculty, students, and China specialists, our investigation confirms that the CCP runs an extensive intelligence‑gathering network at Stanford," the article read. "The existential question is straightforward: How should we respond? First and foremost, the status quo of branding those who discuss this issue as racist must end. We wrote this article not to advance a policy position but to highlight a silenced reality. Sound policy depends on evidence, not repression."

    The Stanford Review wrote in a post on X, "This article was written to present firsthand accounts of an issue that has been silenced due to widespread accusations of academic repression."

    Blaze News reached out to the Stanford Review for comment.

    Stanford University did not respond to Blaze News' inquiries about the alleged culture of fear on campus or the measures it takes to prevent espionage and protect Chinese students from CCP pressure to share information.

    Instead, the university referred Blaze News to its previously released Wednesday statement:

    Stanford takes its commitment to national security with the utmost seriousness, and we are acutely aware of the threats posed by the Chinese Communist Party to all research universities. Stanford has rigorous policies and processes in place to ensure that research by its faculty and students is conducted in a manner that safeguards America's interests. Stanford does not conduct classified or secret research. Stanford has a university-wide process for reporting threats to research security, and carefully assesses all reports. Stanford consults with federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to ensure our policies and procedures are rigorous and protect national security. We are looking into the reports in the Stanford Review article, and have reached out to federal law enforcement to consult on appropriate actions. It is also very important to distinguish between threats posed by the Chinese Communist Party, and Chinese and Chinese-American faculty and students who are at Stanford to learn and contribute to the generation of knowledge, and are valued members of our community.

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

  • Charles Barkley has STRONG thoughts on men competing against women in sports Thu, 08 May 2025 21:15:00 +0000


    NBA Hall of Fame member Charles Barkley said the idea of men playing in women's sports is no longer an argument worth having, as he cannot be convinced.

    Never one to shy away from a loaded question, Barkley was asked by OutKick's Dan Dakich about a recent study Nike is allegedly funding.

    The study, according to Fox News, has been testing how much puberty blockers are needed for male adolescents in order to reduce athletic performance to a level where they could "fairly" compete against females.

    The study first came to light during a New York Times piece in defense of Blaire Fleming, a male athlete who dominated women's volleyball in the NCAA in 2024.

    "Have you seen this thing?" Dakich asked Barkley.

    "I have not, but I'm a make this very simple for you, Dan. Men should not play sports against women," Barkley replied. "I'm not gonna get into all the bulls**t that's going on out here in the world today."

    'I'm never gonna think it's all right for men to play sports against women.'

    Barkley told Dakich on his show, "Don't @ Me," that while he has love for gay and transgender people and is against discrimination, "Men should not play sports against women. If anybody thinks that, I think they're stupid."

    Barkley added that under no circumstances does he think it is appropriate for a male athlete to play against women. He continued, "If anybody have a problem with that, they gonna have to get over it, because I'm not gonna change. I'm not gonna change. I just think it's wrong, period."

    Dakich concurred and lamented that in comparison to all the political positions and arguments that have taken place in recent history, this subject was not one worth fighting over. Barkley again agreed and said he didn't even think the topic was controversial.

    "I'm never gonna think it's all right for men to play sports against women. I don't even think that's controversial. That's the thing that's funny. When you see these debates on television, like, yeah. Men shouldn't play sports against women. I'm done. I don't wanna hear you try to explain it to me. No. No. No. No. No, I don't wanna hear it. I'm not gonna argue with you. Man shouldn't play sports against women."

    Barkley has no issue with making political statements or remarks on social issues that others deem controversial.

    Recently, he said that friend and fellow broadcaster Stephen A. Smith should not run for president for the Democrats, despite pushes from many in the media for him to do so.

    Barkley has also criticized the city of San Francisco on numerous occasions for its mismanagement and inability to solve its homelessness problem.

    On the topic of transgender women, or rather men, in women's sports, Barkley concluded, "There's a lot of s**t we can argue over. That ain't one of them."

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

  • Trump: Participation in World Cup could be 'good incentive' for Russia to end war with Ukraine Thu, 08 May 2025 21:00:00 +0000


    President Trump thinks that allowing Russia to compete in the FIFA World Cup could work as an incentive to help bring peace with Ukraine.

    Trump and FIFA President Gianni Infantino hosted the first meeting of the World Cup task force with the two fielding questions from reporters.

    With the 2026 World Cup being hosted in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, each country will automatically be given a spot in the group stage.

    However, apart from teams that do not qualify, Russia is banned from international soccer competitions in both Europe and the world. In fact, the Union of European Football Associations and FIFA have banned Russian teams at the club level from such international competitions, as well.

    'We hope that something happens and peace will happen so that Russia can be readmitted.'

    At the press conference, Trump was asked about the possible participation of Russia in the next tournament, given its ban.

    "I didn't know that, is that right?" Trump said regarding the ban, as he turned toward Infantino.

    "That is right. They are banned for the time being from playing," the FIFA president replied.

    Trump then joked, "He is the boss, I am not the boss on that."

    Infantino remarked, however, that he thought if peace could be achieved, perhaps Russia could be reinstated.

    "We hope that something happens and peace will happen so that Russia can be readmitted," the Swiss executive stated in a video posted to X.

    Trump added that it was a "possible" scenario that "could be a good incentive" to get Russia closer to peace talks.

    "'We want to get them to stop. We want them to stop," Trump continued. "Five thousand young people a week are being killed, it's not even believable, the Russian soldiers and Ukrainian soldiers mostly, also people in towns."

    "Horrible things going on over there, we are going to get that war stopped," Trump remarked.

    Russia has been banned by most international sporting bodies over the war with Ukraine. Perhaps most notably, the recent 4 Nations Face-Off in hockey that featured Canada, Finland, the United States, and Sweden was a tournament that likely would have included Russia, which is widely considered the second-strongest nation in ice hockey after Canada.

    Russia has also been banned from the Olympics and Paralympics, although athletes can compete under a neutral flag.

    Governing bodies in volleyball, rowing, rugby, and more have levied sanctions against the country for sports.

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

  • 'Absolute animal': Man, 70, who allegedly forced teen into sex slave contract charged with trying to hire hit man to kill her Thu, 08 May 2025 20:45:00 +0000


    A Florida man already accused of forcing a teen girl into signing a "sex slave" contract now faces additional charges alleging that he tried to hire a hit man to kill her before she could testify against him.

    According to the TCPalm, the teen contacted law enforcement to report being sexually assaulted on Aug. 17, 2021.

    'And then if the victim was ... no longer here, he essentially gets sentenced to nothing.'

    Officers with the Indian River County Sheriff's Office arrested Andrew Mustapick 10 days later. He was charged with unlawful sex activity with certain minors.

    The 17-year-old victim alleged that she was forced to sign a "sex slave" contract in exchange for gifts, including a car.

    WPBF-TV reported that the victim told detectives that Mustapick wrote in the contract that the teenager "was to complete these sexual favors on Mondays and Fridays over the next five years."

    According to WFLX-TV, Mustapick purchased a car for the victim's friend so the friend could drive the victim to his house.

    Mustapick took back the 2017 Volkswagen after the girl did not “uphold her end of the contract,” according to Law & Crime. The vehicle had reportedly been registered in Mustapick's name.

    The victim reportedly recorded her last encounter with Mustapick, which she provided to investigators.

    In late March 2025, Mustapick signed a plea of no contest to one count of sexual activity with a minor — a second-degree felony.

    However, the Indian River Sheriff’s Office reportedly received a tip before Mustapick made a plea deal that he was attempting to hire a hit man to kill the teen to prevent her from testifying against him.

    Indian River County Sheriff Eric Flowers said, "So, in March, we were notified of this. Thank you to the person who came forward. We're not identifying them at this time. But we would not be here today if it weren't for that person that came forward and let us know about this."

    According to police, Mustapick met with an undercover detective posing as a hit man for hire on May 1, 2025.

    Mustapick allegedly told the undercover cop that he would offer $40,000 to convince the victim to refuse to testify and then offered another $50,000 to have her killed if she still decided to testify.

    Flowers added, "His plan was to withdraw the plea deal. And then if the victim was ... no longer here, he essentially gets sentenced to nothing."

    Police said Mustapick also was captured on video attempting to dispose of electronic devices, including a laptop and hard drive, by throwing them into the St. Sebastian River. The St. Lucie County Dive Team reportedly recovered the laptop and hard drive as evidence.

    Authorities accused Mustapick of attempting to seek services to "use intimidation or physical force, or threaten" in order to prevent the victim from testifying or ensure the victim's absence from a criminal proceeding.

    Mustapick was detained at the Indian River County Jail on a $7 million bond.

    "This guy is an absolute animal," Sheriff Flowers said during a press conference. "Over eight months he’s going to spend in prison, he’s willing to have somebody bumped off."

    Mustapick is scheduled to appear in court on June 6.

    You can watch the police bodycam video of Mustapick speaking to an undercover cop here.

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

  • Operation Restore Justice soars, but Predator Poachers’ Alex Rosen faces felony after confronting child predator Thu, 08 May 2025 20:30:00 +0000


    Yesterday, FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi announced “Operation Restore Justice,” which resulted in 205 arrests of alleged child sex predators and the rescue of 115 children — a huge win for justice and the Trump administration.

    Patel’s message was spine-chilling in the best way: “If you harm our children, you will be given no sanctuary. There is no place we will not come to hunt you down; there is no place we will not look for you; and there is no cage we will not put you in should you do harm to our children.”

    “Are you confident in that message?” Sara Gonzales asks founder of Predator Poachers Alex Rosen, whose literal job is leading sting operations to expose and confront alleged child predators.

    “The DOJ, who works for us, has a lot to prove, but I think it's in the right direction,” he says.

    Sara is thankful that the Trump administration is at least taking the issue of pedophilia in this country seriously. She recalls how the Biden administration at one point was “taking people who were supposed to work on child sex crimes and putting them on January 6 [cases].”

    Even though the Trump administration has already dramatically cleared the pathetically low bar set by the Biden administration, the truth is that sometimes more manpower is needed. That’s where Rosen’s group comes in, and most of the time, it’s smooth sailing.

    “Local law enforcement is usually great to us,” says Rosen. However, sometimes, it’s his group that ends up being in the crosshairs.

    In March, Rosen was arrested and hit with a felony harassment charge when he confronted a pedophile at a Steak 'n Shake.

    Back in October 2024, Predator Poachers had identified an alleged pedophile named Joshua Teague in Branson, Missouri. They turned him in to local law enforcement, but just 24 hours later, he was released with no charges. Three months later, Teague contacted Predator Poachers’ same decoy with explicit messages, including one about “molesting his 12-year-old sister,” prompting Rosen to confront him in person.

    At Steak 'n Shake, Teague’s place of employment, “I proceeded to read messages in a louder than usual voice, and I referred to him as a pedophile, and somehow I got a felony harassment charge,” he tells Sara, noting that the charge “wasn't even against [Teague]; it was against somebody else in the store.”

    “No threats were made; nothing untrue was said; and of course, I didn't put hands on anybody … and they charged me with felony harassment,” he adds, calling his arrest “collateral” for pointing out the “incompetence” of local law enforcement.

    Teague has thankfully been arrested and is currently being held without bond in the Taney County Jail in Branson, Missouri.

    To hear more details of Rosen’s story, watch the episode above.

    Want more from Sara Gonzales?

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

News Web Sites

Columnist/Blog Web Sites


This page has been visited 56 times today and 79,912 times since May 11, 2015.