House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer sent a letter Friday to Tova Noel, one of the guards in Jeffrey Epstein’s prison unit, seeking her testimony on March 26. Noel, a guard at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City, was accused of failing to complete regular checks on Epstein before his death. Epstein, a convicted sex offender, died in a prison cell in what was determined to be a suicide.  “Due to public reporting, documents released by the Department of Justice, and documents obtained by the committee, the committee believes you have information that will assist in its investigation,” Comer, a Republican from Kentucky, wrote.  Noel was one of the prison guards fired for allegedly falsifying records to say they checked on Epstein. The other guard was also charged, but a federal judge dismissed the charges in January 2022 after the guards completed a deferred prosecution agreement. According to a 2019 release by the Justice Department, the initial indictment stated that the two guards “repeatedly failed to complete mandated counts of prisoners under their watch in the MCC’s Special Housing Unit,” and instead “sat at their desk, browsed the internet, and moved around the common area of the SHU.”   The indictment added that “as a result of the defendants’ conduct, no correctional officer conducted any count or round of the SHU from approximately 10:30 p.m. on August 9 until approximately 6:30 a.m. on August 10,” when the guards said they discovered Epstein’s body. After the 2022 dismissal, Noel’s lawyer Jason Foy said: “The shortcomings and mistakes made by Ms. Noel were a result of inexperience, lack of proper and sufficient training, and being put in a position to fail by the leadership of MCC and the Bureau of Prisons.” The Daily Signal left phone and email messages with Foy for this story. He did not respond by publication time.  The committee has investigated alleged mismanagement of the Justice Department’s investigation into Epstein and associate Ghislaine Maxwell. It has also reviewed the subsequent investigations of Mr. Epstein’s death.  Further, the committee has investigated how Epstein and Maxwell sought to curry favor and exercise influence to protect their illegal activities. The committee has notably interviewed former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, as well as Maxwell. The panel also interviewed businessman Les Wexner, and Epstein accountant Richard Kahn.  The post Comer Calls Epstein Guard to Testify After Records Raise Questions appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Zohran Mamdani met with the “Dealmaker in Chief” during an unexpected visit to the White House in late February to discuss a massive housing project. While plans to increase housing supply could lower rents if implemented, achieving broad affordability might just be an empty promise if socialist ideology prevails in New York City. Solving the housing crisis is a bipartisan issue, but the mayor’s campaign promise of rent control is not the silver bullet. And ever since he stacked the Rent Guidelines Board with a likeminded leftist majority that has the power to freeze rent for nearly 1 million units, disastrous rent-stabilized apartments may come to fruition. Aggressive government intervention does the opposite of making housing more affordable. Instead, market-based solutions such as prudent deregulation, streamlined permitting, and removing barriers to housing construction would drive supply up and stabilize rents. Take the case of Argentina’s rental market after implementing the 2020 Lipovetzky Law. This law mandated rent controls and housing regulations that extended minimum lease terms, regulated annual rent adjustments, and required rents to be paid in pesos. From June 2020 to December 2023, long-term rental listings on Zonaprop, one of Argentina’s largest real-estate platforms, fell 53%. The dramatic decrease in the supply of available long-term units caused real rental prices to rise by approximately 50% in the Buenos Aires metro area. Socialist rent control policies created a housing shortage, upwards of 200,000 vacant units, and through-the-roof prices. But when Javier Milei was elected in 2023 and repealed the Lipovetzky Law, it took just seven months for rental supply to increase by 212%. Rental listings on Zonaprop rose by 15,300 units, a 180% increase as of February 2025. And not only did rental supply increase, but the real price of renting decreased by nearly 27%. Eradicating rent control and onerous housing regulations empowered Argentinian landlords to set rents at competitive rates and allowed the “invisible hand” of free-market supply and demand to dictate housing price and quantity. This, in turn, produced rental agreements that were beneficial for both tenants and landlords. Mr. Mamdani’s plan of imposing a four-year rent freeze on approximately 1 million rent-stabilized apartments would, akin to Lipovetzky Law outcomes, lower housing supply, reduce housing quality, and push uncontrolled unit prices up. A 2022 survey by the National Association of Home Builders and the National Multifamily Housing Council found that 87.5% of landlords would avoid building in jurisdictions with rent control policies in place. Reduced or even negative profit margins discourage development in controlled areas, exacerbating housing shortages. So, landlords may convert rentals, sell their properties, or withdraw units from the market to avoid regulations and the low returns that result from price ceilings. With lower housing supply, rents for New York City residents rise. Across America, an estimated 40.6% of total development costs can be attributed to regulations and compliance at all levels of government, with the highest average compliance costs being alterations to building codes over the past 10 years. Approximately 50,000 apartments in New York City are vacant as of December 2025 due to the cost of bringing the rentals up to code. It’s not that landlords don’t want to get housing back on the market; rather, it’s the lack of future revenue due to rent stabilization policies which prevents these landlords from profiting or, in some cases, breaking even. Simply owning a rent-controlled property is an unprofitable venture. A Columbia Business School study found that a 100% rent-stabilized building in the Bronx under a four-year rent freeze, assuming 2% rent growth and a 5% expense increase, would lead to negative cashflows for the property within 16 years. And with no way to profit, landlords often cut back on upkeep and maintenance, leading to deteriorating buildings and a decline in housing quality. This creates a doom-loop in which high demand for cheap rent-controlled apartments drives up the price of unregulated dwellings, but low-profit incentives for landlords leads to vacancies, quality deterioration, and a shortage of “affordable” units. Rather than pursue socialist rent control policies (which have failed time and time again), Mayor Mamdani should use Javier Milei’s market-based approach to Argentina’s housing market as a guideline for New York City. Affordable, quality housing does not result from arbitrary rent freezes or state intervention. Rather, supply-side market solutions that remove inefficient government meddling and lower construction costs would incentivize developers to build, landlords to profit and refurbish dwellings, and rents to be realistically priced for all New Yorkers. The post Mamdani’s Rent Freeze Proposals Ice Out New York City’s Housing Market appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. At a government forum on “hate speech” in Madrid, Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez introduced a new digital project with a blunt name: HODIO. The acronym stands for Huella del Odio y la Polarización, translated as the Footprint of Hatred and Polarization. The plan is like a scoreboard for social media speech. A government system will monitor platforms, count what officials classify as hate speech, and release public rankings twice a year. The prime minister made clear that the rankings are meant to apply pressure. “We will publicly display the results so that everyone knows who stops hate, who looks away, and who makes a business out of hate,” Sánchez said. In short, the Spanish government will measure how much objectionable speech appears on major platforms, rate each company, and publish the results for public scrutiny. The system will run through OBERAXE, the Spanish Observatory against Racism and Xenophobia, a government body tasked with monitoring discrimination. OBERAXE will apply “recognized academic criteria,” according to Sánchez, to track the spread of hate speech online. Of course, the government defines what qualifies as hate speech. The same government then measures its presence across platforms. The numbers will become the basis for public rankings. Those rankings arrive with clear consequences. Platforms that perform poorly can expect public criticism, regulatory attention, and the possibility of legal pressure. Sánchez framed the process as a method of accountability. “From now, I think social media must be held publicly accountable for every piece of hate content they allow,” he said. HODIO enters a system that already exists. Sánchez described a coordination mechanism launched in July 2025 between the Spanish government and major technology companies, including Meta, X, Google, and TikTok. Representatives from the companies meet with officials each quarter. The meetings review examples of content that the government classifies as hate speech and discuss how platforms can remove more of it. According to Sánchez, the effort has already produced results. Platforms were deleting 22 percent of flagged content several months ago. The number now stands at 51 percent. He described that improvement as progress. He also called it insufficient. HODIO appears designed to push the number further upward. Public rankings can add a layer of pressure that private meetings lack. Sánchez used the forum to criticize anonymous speech online. He argued that social networks have lowered the barrier for hostility. Platforms have “reduced the cost of hating…because just one click is enough, almost always, from the cowardly anonymity that reinforces impunity and aggressiveness,” he said. The remark places anonymity in the center of the debate. Anonymous speech has long served whistleblowers, dissidents, and activists who face retaliation. In Sánchez’s framing, it serves aggressors who hide behind a screen. The difference in perspective reflects a broader policy direction. Governments across Europe are exploring identification requirements or age verification systems tied to social media accounts. HODIO is one piece of a broader set of proposals Sánchez highlighted during the forum. The Spanish government is pushing measures that include criminal liability for platform executives when illegal content appears on their services. Another proposal targets algorithmic systems that promote or recommend prohibited material. Sánchez also reiterated support for age verification rules that would prevent users under sixteen from accessing social networks. One item drew particular attention. The government is working with Spain’s public prosecutor to pursue what Sánchez described as “infringements committed by Grok, TikTok and Instagram.” The same government that defines hate speech will monitor it, measure it, and issue public ratings of companies based on compliance. Content can disappear from platforms before courts review the decision. Sánchez attempted to address the criticism during his speech. “We are not talking about those who say that we intend to censor,” he said. “We are not talking about uncomfortable opinions. On the contrary. We are talking about messages that, for example, compare people with plagues. Dehumanization again. That justify violence against women or that celebrate aggressions against women. Dehumanization again.” He argued that tech leaders abandoned that understanding when they “decided to impose their political agenda on social networks.” The claim arrived in a speech announcing a government program that monitors speech, scores companies based on removal rates, and coordinates with prosecutors investigating specific platforms. The HODIO reports will appear every six months. Each edition will rank the major platforms based on how much hate speech the system detects. For the companies involved, the incentive structure is clear: censor or else. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Spain’s HODIO Program to Monitor and Rank Social Media Platforms on “Hate Speech” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. There are regulatory disputes. There are political disputes. And then there is the curious spectacle of a British media regulator cheerfully announcing that being sued in the United States is, apparently, a job well done. That, in essence, is the position of Melanie Dawes, the head of Ofcom, who has decided that legal warfare with American tech companies is proof that her agency’s censorship demand strategy is working. Which is a bit like a traffic warden declaring success because the drivers have begun throwing traffic cones at him. The clash sits inside Britain’s vast new regulatory machine known as the Online Safety Act, a piece of legislation that leads Ofcom to believe it has the power to fine foreign technology companies if they fail to deal with “harmful” speech online. What constitutes “harm” is, of course, decided by the state. And Ofcom has begun using those powers. One of the first targets was the message board 4chan. The platform received a fine from the regulator. Instead of quietly paying it, 4chan’s lawyers did something that appears to have surprised the regulator. They marched into the United States legal system. The dispute has quickly become less about one website and more about a fundamental disagreement between two legal traditions. Britain believes its regulator can impose obligations on foreign platforms run by foreign people on foreign servers. Many American lawyers believe the attempt runs straight into the constitutional wall known as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. When Dawes appeared on the BBC’s Today program and was asked about the lawsuit, she sounded remarkably cheerful about the conflict. “We’ve seen quite a lot of pushback, but we expected that, and we will use all the tools at our disposal to keep forcing through that change. I mean, it’s very difficult for me to talk about individual investigations. That one remains live…we’ve got significant legal pushback in the US, but I see that as a sign that we’re having the impact we want.” It is an unusual standard for success. Most regulators prefer companies to quietly comply rather than launch cross-Atlantic constitutional fights. The Wider Offensive The dispute with 4chan is only one front. Ofcom has also sent letters to several of the largest social media companies demanding stronger age verification measures: Meta platforms such as Facebook and Instagram Snapchat ByteDance’s TikTok Google’s YouTube Roblox Corporation’s Roblox X Corp.’s X Dawes has given them until the end of April to respond. “I think they’re quite uncomfortable about this. We’ve given them a deadline of the end of April to come back to us. We’re strongly encouraging them to publish those letters when they come back to us. And whether they do or not, we will publish the responses in May. It’ll be a report card on the industry, on those six companies, and we will then follow up with enforcement action where we need to.” The regulator appears desperately eager to prove it can make American platforms sweat. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UK Speech Regulator Chief Melanie Dawes Says US Free Speech Lawsuits Are “a Sign That We’re Having the Impact We Want” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Tyler Robinson's Defense Wants Everything Hidden from the Public

Mini but mighty magnets could be revolutionary devices.

Nice guys don't always finish last.

Wednesday’s PBS News Hour offered some rare media coverage of one of President Trump’s legislative priorities, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, his popular voter ID bill based on the idea that ineligible ballots from non-citizens should not dilute the votes of American citizens, while holding every state to the same voter verification standards. The SAVE ACT, which has passed the House but faces a struggle in the Senate because of the filibuster, received the typical PBS treatment given to conservative legislation, with left-leaning, unlabeled “experts” offering a warped view. White House correspondent Liz Landers led the slanted coverage. Landers: If passed, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE America, Act would transform voting in this country in two major ways. It would require all Americans to prove U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, and it would require all voters to show an I.D. when voting in person or by mail. Voters submitting absentee mail ballots would have to provide a photocopy of their I.D…. President Donald Trump: We don't want people that aren't citizens of our country voting. We don't want people that aren't studied, and we don't want people that can't love our country voting in our elections. So it's very simple. Liz Landers: But it's not that simple. By any definition, the number of ballots cast illegally and by noncitizens in America elections is incredibly small. David Becker, Executive Director, Center for Election Innovation and Research: We know our elections are more secure than ever. We know we have more protections and checks and balances against fraud than ever… Landers: A study by the Trump administration's Department of Homeland Security found that, of the 49.5 million voter registrations that were checked for the 2024 election, about 10,000 cases were referred for additional investigation of noncitizenship. That's roughly 0.02 percent of names processed.... In 2024, PBS turned to Becker -- a former employee of the liberal group People for the American Way -- to "debunk" Fox host Greg Gutfeld. Then Landers selectively cited polling data. Landers: And Americans are not overly concerned about the chances of voter fraud. In our new PBS News/NPR/Marist poll out today, 66 percent of Americans are confident their state or local government will run fair elections in November, which is down from 76 percent in October 2024; 33 percent of adults believe the biggest threat to safe and secure elections is voter fraud. Republicans are much more concerned about this than Democrats. The bolded above sentence probably explains why Landers is poo-poohing voting concerns. PBS is stuffed with Democrats. We can bet there's not a Republican in the News Hour studio. Landers ignored other polls showing the popularity of the contents of the bill, including: proof of citizenship (75%), voter ID (81%), and states removing non-citizens from voter rolls (80%). She did allow a pithy clip from the White House. Karoline Leavitt, White House Press Secretary: You need an I.D. to go and purchase alcohol. You need an I.D. to go to the library and check out a book. And so the president thinks you should have an I.D. to vote in our nation's elections. Landers offered melodramatic spin and liberal language like “disenfranchisement” to characterize something as basic as ensuring only citizens can vote. Millions "could" be denied the opportunity to vote. Landers: But requiring I.D. documents like passports and birth certificates could disenfranchise millions of people. As usual, the elitist press exaggerates the effect of so-called voting restrictions. Remember the 2021 Georgia state law, which among other things expanded voter I.D. requirements, and was smeared as a return to Jim Crow? Yet turnout actually increased for the 2022 mid-term elections. Landers continued: “About half of Americans don't have passports and many do not have a copy of their birth certificate. The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that more than 21 million Americans lack ready access to those documents.”  This was accompanied on screen by a close-up of the relevant Brennan Center post. Landers did not explain the Brennan Center is a leftist group headed by Michael Waldman, a former speechwriter for President Clinton, who recently trashed the SAVE Act as "a drive by President Trump and his administration to undermine the 2026 election. It is unprecedented, outlandish." PBS did not acknowledge that the registration requirements of the actual bill would only apply to newly registered voters. The act includes directives to states to establish alternative ways for applicants to establish their citizenship even if they don’t have the required documents (something in the interest of the states to do, if only to retain voting power). It accommodates the disabled or those who have changed their name. As usual, PBS loaded up on arguments and experts from the Left while it claims to serve the entire public.  A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Hour 3/11/26 7:30:22 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: President Trump vowed this week not to sign any bills into law until a sweeping new voting bill is passed. Our White House correspondent, Liz Landers, takes a closer look at its prospects. Liz Landers: Early Sunday morning, hours after returning from Delaware, where he took part in the solemn observance of the return of remains of six U.S. soldiers killed, President Trump posted about the SAVE America Act. Quote: "It supersedes everything else," he wrote, and -- quote -- "must go to the front of the line. I as president will not sign other bills until this is passed." President Donald Trump: And, perhaps most importantly, I'm asking you to approve the SAVE America Act. (Cheering) Liz Landers: If passed, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE America, Act would transform voting in this country in two major ways. It would require all Americans to prove U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, and it would require all voters to show an I.D. when voting in person or by mail. Voters submitting absentee mail ballots would have to provide a photocopy of their I.D. The bill would also require states to frequently review voter rolls and remove any noncitizens. And it would mandate states share voter registration data with the federal government, which most states have refused to do, a move backed by several federal judges. President Donald Trump: We don't want people that aren't citizens of our country voting. We don't want people that aren't studied, and we don't want people that can't love our country voting in our elections. So it's very simple. Liz Landers: But it's not that simple. By any definition, the number of ballots cast illegally and by noncitizens in America elections is incredibly small. David Becker, Executive Director, Center for Election Innovation and Research: We know our elections are more secure than ever. We know we have more protections and checks and balances against fraud than ever. And we also know that this administration has gone out hunting for fraud with all of the tools of the federal government over the last year, and they have found virtually none. Liz Landers: A study by the Trump administration's Department of Homeland Security found that, of the 49.5 million voter registrations that were checked for the 2024 election, about 10,000 cases were referred for additional investigation of noncitizenship. That's roughly 0.02 percent of names processed. In Georgia, a 2024 audit of its 8.2 million registered voters found only 20 noncitizens who had registered. Rick Hasen, UCLA School of Law: If you're a noncitizen and you sign under penalty of perjury that you are a citizen and you're eligible to vote, you're committing a felony which could render you not only deportable, but also get you jail time. And for what? For -- to have one vote. So it's really not the way that elections are stolen. Liz Landers: And Americans are not overly concerned about the chances of voter fraud. In our new PBS News/NPR/Marist poll out today, 66 percent of Americans are confident their state or local government will run fair elections in November, which is down from 76 percent in October 2024; 33 percent of adults believe the biggest threat to safe and secure elections is voter fraud. Republicans are much more concerned about this than Democrats. Karoline Leavitt, White House Press Secretary: You need an I.D. to go and purchase alcohol. You need an I.D. to go to the library and check out a book. And so the president thinks you should have an I.D. to vote in our nation's elections. Liz Landers: But requiring I.D. documents like passports and birth certificates could disenfranchise millions of people. Rick Hasen: If you're poor, you're moving a lot, you're say a student who's gone away to college, you have changed your name because you have gotten married or for some other reasons, all of those people would have more difficulty obtaining these documents. Liz Landers: About half of Americans don't have passports and many do not have a copy of their birth certificate. The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that more than 21 million Americans lack ready access to those documents. And voting rights advocates say the SAVE America Act requirements could disproportionately affect older Americans and low-income voters, another concern, newly married voters. A 2023 Pew survey found that more than 80 percent of women and 5 percent of men change or hyphenate their names after marriage, meaning their passport, birth certificate and other documents may not align, requiring additional paperwork to register to vote. Tammy Patrick, National Association for Election Administrators: I don't think there's anyone that wants ineligible voters to participate in our democracy, full stop. But what we do want to make sure is everyone who is eligible doesn't have obstacles that they have to overcome in order to participate.

The Florida 20-year-old accused of giving birth in a toilet, watching her newborn drown, and then burying the baby in her back yard has bonded out of jail.Anne Mae Demegillo was granted a $250,000 bond and must follow conditions such as turning over her passport, wearing a GPS monitoring device, and having no contact with any minors, WESH-TV reported.'It baffles me, to be completely honest. Sometimes you can't explain everything.'The station noted that during the bond hearing, Flagler County Sheriff’s Detective Shannon Smith testified that "I did ask her, if knowing what she knew now during our interview, if she could go back 48 hours and change how she handled the outcome of this, if she would change it, she said she doesn't believe that she would."Flagler County Sheriff Rick Staly said Demegillo admitted to watching the baby drown and cleaning up the blood after giving birth in her bathroom, WFTV-TV reported: “She did tell us that she was hoping that the baby would hurry up and die."WESH said the state argued for no bond, citing Demegillo as a threat to the community and a potential risk for destroying evidence. But Demegillo's attorney, Michael Politis — who acknowledged that "there is something obviously that is off" regarding his client — argued that "there's no diagnosable mental condition ... but I think as far as the community and the danger to the community, I don't think this is. This is an isolated episode," WESH reported.Records show Demegillo bonded out Thursday afternoon, and WESH cameras caught her quickly walking — and then running — away from the jail and ignoring reporters' questions.RELATED: Florida female, 20, gives birth in toilet, leaves newborn girl there, waits until baby 'stops crying and moving,' cops say Demegillo last week claimed she thought the infant was deceased, so she hid the infant in a duffel bag in her closet and went about her normal daily routine, the Flagler County Sheriff’s Office said.When Demegillo returned home last Thursday night from a theater performance in New Smyrna Beach, she buried the deceased infant in a shallow grave in her back yard, officials said, adding that at no point did Demegillo contact emergency services for assistance.Chief Deputy Joe Barile of the sheriff's office noted to WESH in a previous story that "it baffles me, to be completely honest. Sometimes you can't explain everything."The newborn girl weighed three pounds, six ounces, and measured 18 inches long, WESH reported added.Demegillo faces aggravated manslaughter charges, WESH said. But the station noted that the state attorney's office said it expects to file more charges against her, including tampering with evidence.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

As many lawmakers in Washington debate election rules and as tensions rise overseas, Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck says several headlines that appear unrelated are actually telling the same story about the state of American institutions.“I want to connect a few stories that on the surface look completely unrelated, but they’re actually not. They’re all telling you the same thing about how power is working in America right now,” he says. Glenn begins by pointing to the Senate’s expected vote on the SAVE Act, a proposal that would require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections.“This is a complete sham,” he says. “Now, this is just a bill that says you have to prove you’re a citizen to vote in American elections. Think about that for just a second. Just this basic idea. If you’re voting in the United States, you should be an American citizen.”Senate procedure, Glenn explains, allows lawmakers to avoid publicly defending their positions.“Originally, if you wanted to block a bill, all you had to do is stand on the floor and talk hour after hour, day after day. ... But today, you don’t have to do that anymore, because it’s hard. You just threaten a filibuster and then walk away. And you need a 60-person vote to bring it back to the floor,” Glenn says.He argues the result is a process that lacks transparency and accountability.“No speeches, no fight, no accountability, OK? No courage, just a zombie filibuster,” Glenn comments.Lawmakers, he says, could force a more visible debate if they chose to.“They could keep the Senate in continuous session for day after day after day, and if Democrats want to block voter citizenship requirements, then let them stand there for 24 hours a day explaining why. Make them hold the floor. Make them say it out loud,” Glenn says.He then points out that the election debate is happening while larger global developments unfold.“See, that’s the disconnect here,” he says. “The world is playing geopolitical chess for the whole game, and Washington is arguing whether the players are even allowed to sit at the board.”For Glenn, the larger issue is what these headlines reveal about the condition of American institutions.“The institutions that are supposed to protect trust, elections, law enforcement, government spending, the media are all under strain at the same time. They’re not broken beyond repair, but they are deeply strained,” he says.Restoring confidence, he argues, will require "principles, transparency, and courage."“Transparency means letting Americans actually see the fight, whether it’s a Senate filibuster or an FBI investigation. Courage means you have to be willing to stand there and defend your position in the light and let the chips fall where they may,” he explains.In the end, Glenn says the truth will eventually surface.To hear more, watch the video above.Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.