'We've never had a situation like this come up'

'meet me in person to take back this city'

The Rise of the New Confederacy

The Elitist Media circled the wagons in the immediate aftermath of the indictment and arrest of former CNN anchor Don Lemon over the many civil rights violations committed in the protest-swarm of Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota on January 18th. But after the initial swarm of coverage, the Sunday political shows appeared to be hedging on Lemon. CBS’s Face the Nation didn’t address the matter at all. On NBC’s Meet the Press, the issue of Don Lemon was left to the panel discussion (which was truncated in favor of a lengthy interview with Ken Burns). Welker floated the question out in passing, but the panel didn’t bite. Not a single mention of Lemon beyond Welker’s initial question. BITTER LEMON: The sole mention of the indictment and arrest of Don Lemon on NBC's Meet the Press came as part this introductory question to Politico's Jonathan Martin to kick the panel off and was never again addressed or mentioned. pic.twitter.com/1BLDI7miQi — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) February 1, 2026 KRISTEN WELKER: Welcome. Thank you all for being here. J-Mart, let me start with you. All eyes still on Minneapolis, a lot of developments this week. We learned that 5-year-old boy who had been detained now released. You have former CNN journalist Don Lemon, now an independent journalist, arrested. Add to that, all of the protests. All of it against the backdrop of the midterms. How do you think this plays moving forward in this election cycle? That's it. No one on the panel wanted anything to do with Lemon, and neither did Welker throughout the rest of the show. On ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the show’s namesake host tried to engage Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on L’affaire Lemon:  WATCH: DAG Todd Blanche catches ABC's George Stephanopoulos omitting the appellate court findings from his question casting doubt on the indictment of Don Lemon GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I also want to ask you about the situation in Minnesota. Just this week Don Lemon was… pic.twitter.com/KghvzREv4t — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) February 1, 2026 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I also want to ask you about the situation in Minnesota. Just this week Don Lemon was arrested. The journalist Don Lemon was arrested along with another independent journalist. And he was- this was despite the fact that a magistrate judge and an appeals court refused to approve the request. And the chief federal district judge Patrick Schultz wrote that there was no evidence that Mr. Lemon engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so. So when do you believe that Mr. Lemon crossed the line from reporting on what was going on to criminal activity? TODD BLANCHE: Conveniently missing from what you just showed, George, is the appellate court and a judge on the appellate court who said just a few days later there was clearly probable cause and it wasn't even a close question. So- and by the way, a grand jury, which is what our system has set up to determine whether probable cause exists, concluded that there was probable cause. That indictment is now public. Everybody in this country can pull it up and read for themselves and see what the grand jury found that Mr. Lemon did.  I am not going to comment on the charges specifically because it's not appropriate. But it's interesting that we talk about the First Amendment right. You have a right of freedom of religion, which is just as important as any other right that we have. And George, I don't know if you've watched the videos or read the indictment about what it's alleged that Mr. Lemon did. But if anybody in this country thinks that that is, quote, ”independent journalism”, I would like to have a conversation with you. Now, he obviously has a very good lawyer, he can raise defenses in court to the extent he wants to. But nobody in this country should feel comfortable storming into a church while it's ongoing and disrupting that church service and thinking that we're just going to stand by and let that happen because there is a statute that does not allow that to happen. It doesn't matter if you happen to have a former CNN journalist. It doesn't matter if you're a writer. It doesn't matter if you think you're peacefully protesting. You are not allowed to do that. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're confident he's going to be convicted and the case won't be dismissed? BLANCHE: I am not going to speak to conviction. That would be completely inappropriate. He was indicted by a grand jury in Minneapolis and he’ll have his day in court like everybody else. That’s it. Stephanopoulos then moves on to a question on “retribution.” Note that the Stephanopoulos isn’t interested in challenging Blanche on the merits of the prosecution based on facts laid out in the indictment, instead nibbling around the technical questions of going to a grand jury after the magistrate judge refused to find probable cause. And after getting his behind handed to him on those matters, Stephanopoulos weakly closes with an inappropriate question regarding likelihood of conviction. The lengthiest exchange and defense of Don Lemon came via his former network, on CNN's State of the Union. Host Dana Bash and Blanche had the most significant tussle over Lemon: Watch the full exchange on Don Lemon between CNN's Dana Bash and DAG Todd Blanche, a comedy in three acts: 1. Bash tries to delegitimize the indictment citing lower court's finding of no cause against Lemon, gets WRECKED for misrepresenting the appellate court's findings 2.… pic.twitter.com/8dLHFoaDqX — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) February 1, 2026 DANA BASH: Former CNN anchor Don Lemon and another journalist, Georgia Fort, were arrested on Friday on charges they violated federal law during a tense protest at a Minnesota church. A conservative federal judge, somebody who clerked for Antonin Scalia, already had rejected those warrants and wrote that there is no evidence that those two engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so. Then an appeals court held up that decision. Why did you then bring this case to a grand jury after it already had been rejected by multiple judges? TODD BLANCHE: So, first of all, that appeals court, that's- you’re not right. The appeals court, the- a judge on the appeals court said that there was clearly probable cause and there was absolutely probable cause that a crime had been committed, OK? So- BASH: By journalists? BLANCHE: So it's true that they rejected the mandamus petition, but it -- yes, by Mr. Lemon and others. It's public. And so, yes, you're right. A judge in that court had said there wasn't probable cause. But guess what? Our system doesn't allow judges to make that decision. They can make that decision to get an arrest warrant on a complaint, but only a grand jury can bring forth an indictment. And so that's what we did. We went to a grand jury, which, as you know, are 25 citizens from Minneapolis and around...  BASH: Yes. BLANCHE: ... that decide whether there's probable cause. And that's who returned an indictment. BASH: Mr. Blanche, I want to go- actually, I went through the entire indictment, all 29 alleged overt acts of conspiracy. BLANCHE: Yep. BASH: And there's a lot to ask you about, but I'm just going to pick a few here, OK, starting with Overt Act number 20, which says -- quote -- "Defendant Lemon told his livestream audience about congregants leaving the church and about a young man who Lemon could see was frightened, scared and crying. And Lemon observed that the congregants' reactions were understandable because the experience was traumatic and uncomfortable, which he said was the purpose." Overt Act 21 says -- quote -- "As the operation continued, defendant Lemon acknowledged the nature of it by expressing surprise that the police hadn't yet arrived at the church and admitted knowing that the whole point of the operation was to disrupt." Why wouldn't a jury at trial see this as a journalist observing what is happening, which is protected by the First Amendment? BLANCHE: Well, you conveniently left out multiple allegations in that indictment about what else Mr. Lemon did, including surreptitiously avoiding saying where they were going, being part of the planning, being part of the decisions to make sure the police didn't know this was happening and federal law enforcement didn't know this was happening. There are multiple allegations there. And guess what? He gets to have a lawyer and he gets to have a defense. BASH: Yeah. BLANCHE: And so if he wants to go forward with the defense that, aw, shucks, I was just a journalist, he can do that. But, obviously, as the indictment lays out and what you didn't read on the air, there's a lot of things that Mr. Lemon did that you would never do as a journalist. You would never do that. BASH: Wha-- ok… BLANCHE: Let's be honest. BASH: OK, this is not about me. This is about what happened and this is about kind of the rules of the road. I mean, there are many... (CROSSTALK)  BLANCHE: No, but journalist standards matter. BASH: Wait. Let me finish my question. Let me finish my question and then you have the floor. There are- I can- countless examples of when reporters are embedded with people, with DOD, where we are told not to tell anybody where we're going. There are numerous examples of when we get embargoed information that we can't report from your agency, for example, and that has happened on -- with presidents in both parties, and we withhold reporting it until you say it's time to report it. That's not unusual. And it's not unlike what happened with Don Lemon and Georgia Fort. BLANCHE: Well, listen, I -- you are totally correct that that happens every day and it's happened for decades. But if you watch what Mr. Lemon did, OK -- and I do not want to have a trial right here. It's not fair to him. But I will say that he -- if you watch the publicly available livestreaming that he engaged in, the comments that he made -- I mean, that's what it matters, right? It matters, like, how do we balance the FACE Act, how do we balance freedom of religion, the right of people to worship on a Sunday morning, OK, and the freedom of the press? And it's a balance that we have to engage in. And I agree with you. But my point to you is that I promise you that neither you nor your colleagues can honestly, with a straight face, if you watch everything that he did in the day before with the planning and the day of with what happened, the comments he made while the kids were crying and screaming and racing away, while the parents were looking for their children upstairs... BASH: But he doesn't have a... BLANCHE: ... while they were just trying to -- have a church service. And so... BASH: OK. Bottom-line question for you is, was this really about what you just described, or was it about trying to make an example out of somebody who the president has sparred with? BLANCHE: I don't even know that the president's even ever thought of Don Lemon. I don't know whether that's true or not. But I will tell you, we're not making examples of people. The day after that happened, the attorney general flew to Minneapolis. She was there for three days. What we saw... BASH: OK. BLANCHE: ... there is no scenario under which the American people are comfortable or think that that was right. I'm sorry. So, no, this is not about making an example. It's about justice. BASH: Mr. Blanche, I want to move on. I want to move on. But the White House, on the official Twitter handle, celebrated his arrest with a social media and a chain emoji. And -- so it's pretty clear that they're very well aware in the White House of this. I want to ask about Georgia, because, this week... BLANCHE: No, I didn't say they weren't aware. (CROSSTALK) BLANCHE: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on one second. I didn't say they weren't aware. I didn't say they weren't aware. BASH: And they were celebrating. That was afterwards. (CROSSTALK) BLANCHE: No, no, you said that President Trump had some vendetta or something against Mr. Lemon. I said I don't know whether he even ever thought of Mr. Lemon. I have no idea. (CROSSTALK) BASH: He -- just yesterday, he called him a sleazebag. BLANCHE: I have no idea. You're right there was a tweet that went out. BASH: Just so you know, he called him a sleazebag just yesterday. BLANCHE: After his arrest. After his arrest. (CROSSTALK) BASH: OK. Just -- you said a lot of things before that. And it's mutual. Bash’s exchange was the lengthiest with Blanche among the legacy Sunday shows, and hers was the most extensive defense of her former colleague. And in watching how she fared with Blanche, we see why her colleagues faded back from taking the issue on in a direct manner. The CNN interview is best described as a comedy in three acts.  First, Bash tries to delegitimize the indictment by citing the lower court’s finding of no cause, and tries to misrepresent the appellate court’s findings on cause. Blanche catches her and wrecks her for it. Second, Bash tries to cherrypick the most convenient among the Overt Acts listed in the indictment that best suit her defense of Lemon’s actions as being protected by the First Amendment. Blanche shuts that down by pointing out some of the Overt Acts she omitted- chief among them those moments where Lemon is concealing the location of “Operation Pull Up” and turning the camera off, among many others. Bash then tries to compare these concealment efforts to legitimate embargoes of sensitive information by journalists embedded within government agencies on an operation. Finally, Bash suggested that the indictment is somehow personal, which got laughed out of the room as well. Bash put forth multiple narrative attempts, none of which survived first contact. Beyond cable, there was scant interest in taking up the cause of Don Lemon. We’ll see whether this holds up into the new week or if they take Lemon’s cause up once again.  

In 1865, the economist William Stanley Jevons looked at the industrializing world and noted a distinct, counterintuitive rhythm to the smoke rising over England. The assumption of the time, a naive view that persists with a certain obstinacy, was that improving the efficiency of coal use would lead to a conservation of coal. Jevons observed precisely the opposite. As the steam engines became more efficient, coal became cheaper to use, and the demand for coal did not decline; it skyrocketed.This phenomenon, later called the Jevons Effect, suggests a fundamental truth of economics that we seem determined to forget: When a resource becomes easier and cheaper to consume, and demand for it is elastic, we do not consume less of it. We often consume a great deal more. We find new ways to burn it. We expand the definition of what is possible, not to rest, but to fill the newly available capacity with ever more work.The result is not a workforce at rest.We are standing at the precipice of another such moment, perhaps the most significant since the steam engine. The age of AI is upon us, bringing with it efficiencies that promise to do for knowledge work what mechanization did for physical labor. The rhetoric surrounding this shift is familiar. We are told that AI will free us from drudgery, that it will automate the contract reviews, the basic coding, the marketing copy, and leave us with a surplus of time.Lesson learned?We have heard this song before. In 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that by 2030 technological progress would reduce the workweek to 15 hours. He imagined a world in which productivity was so high that we would opt for leisure. As we survey the frenetic landscape of the American workplace in 2026, we can see that he was largely wrong. We did not take our gains in time; we took them in goods and services.The history of computing serves as a prologue to the current AI moment. When mainframes were scarce and costly, they were tools for the Fortune 500. As costs fell and efficiency rose, through the minicomputer era to the ubiquitous personal computer, we did not declare the problem of computing “solved.” We adopted roughly 100 times more computers with each step change in affordability. The cloud era erased barriers to entry, and suddenly a local shop could access software capabilities that, in the 1970s, were the exclusive province of massive conglomerates.When high-level programming languages replaced the tedium of low-level coding, programmers did not write less code. They wrote much more, tackling problems that would have been previously deemed infeasible. Today, despite the existence of open-source libraries and cloud platforms that automate vast swaths of development, there are more software engineers than ever before. Efficiency simply allowed software to infiltrate every domain of life.RELATED: How Americans can prepare for the worst — before it's too late Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty ImagesNow we have LLMs and coding agents. These tools lower the “cost of trying” still further. A task that once required a team — analyzing customer data with advanced models or building a prototype application — can now be attempted by a lone entrepreneur.From production to orchestrationConsider Boris Cherny, the engineer who created Claude Code and used it to submit 259 pull requests in a single month, altering 78,000 lines of code. Every single line was written by Claude Code. This is not a story of labor reduction; it is a story of a single human scaling his output to match that of a large team. The barrier to initiating a software project or a marketing campaign is falling, and in response, companies are green-lighting projects they would have previously shelved.The result is not a workforce at rest. Instead we see a shift in which the human role evolves from producer to orchestrator. We are becoming “gardeners,” cultivating and pruning fleets of AI agents. The span of control for a single worker increases, one person supervising what five or 10 might have done previously, but those displaced workers do not vanish into leisure. They move on to supervise their own agents, in different projects, expanding the frontier of what is built. This is the Jevons Effect in a strong form. The “latent demand” for knowledge work is proving to be great.In the United States, where the cultural ethos tilts toward growth and innovation, this tendency to convert efficiency into more work is acute. Marketing employment, for example, grew fivefold over the last 50 years, precisely during the era when tools like Photoshop and Google Ads made the job in some ways easier. Efficiency turned marketing from a niche activity into a requirement for every business, spawning sub-disciplines that didn’t exist a generation ago.Why bother?The danger, of course, lies in the lack of distinction between “can” and “should.” An enduring lesson of the Jevons Effect is that efficiency does not confer wisdom. Technology can tell us how to execute a task faster but cannot say whether the task is worth doing. As roles transition into oversight, reviewing, and coordinating the outputs of AI, we must still ask if those outputs are solving meaningful problems. The crucial factor is human judgment. When more things are possible, the burden falls on us to decide what goals are actually worth the time.We are not heading toward a 15-hour workweek. We are heading toward a world of expanding projects, in which efficiency lowers the cost of work and raises the amount we choose to do. The coal is cheaper, the fire is hotter, and we are shoveling as fast as we can.

The Metropolitan Police banned a “Walk with Jesus” event from taking place in a London borough, citing concerns it would provoke the members of the community.'To save Britain, we must reinstate Christianity back into the heart of government.'In a December social media post, the United Kingdom Independence Party announced a march scheduled for January 31 in Whitechapel, a predominantly Muslim community. “Join our parade in Whitechapel worshipping Jesus Christ,” the post reads, describing the month as “dedicated to the holy name of Jesus.”UKIP encouraged individuals who wished to participate in the march to gather outside Whitechapel Tube Station.“Christ is King,” UKIP wrote. “All the Glory and honour to him.”The Metropolitan Police revealed on January 23 that it was imposing conditions on the march “to prevent disorder.” Those conditions included a ban on anyone taking part in the event “in the London borough of Tower Hamlets,” which encompasses Whitechapel. RELATED: Tommy Robinson has the last laugh after politically motivated terrorism arrest: 'Free speech won!' Photo by Vuk Valcic/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images“They have been imposed to prevent serious disorder and serious disruption. Breaching the conditions, or encouraging others to do so, is an arrestable offence,” the Metropolitan Police stated.“We have encouraged UKIP to consider the very real likelihood that their presence in Whitechapel could lead to serious disruption or serious disorder and to consider an alternative proposal,” Deputy Assistant Commissioner James Harman stated. “We are not saying that the UKIP protest, in isolation, will be disorderly. But we do know that many will find it provocative and that provocation is likely to lead to an adverse local reaction.”“We reasonably believe, based on the information available and on previous similar incidents, that the coming together of the UKIP protest with opposing groups who are hostile to its presence would be highly likely to lead to violence and serious disorder,” Harman added.He claimed that the decision was not based on politics or whether the event would offend others, but based “solely on our risk assessment for serious disorder.”Harman insisted that the conditions did not constitute a ban, noting that UKIP was welcome to put on the march elsewhere. “If they will engage with our teams we are confident a less provocative location that avoids the risk of serious disorder can be identified,” Harman said.Authorities noted that it was the second time UKIP had proposed a gathering in the Whitechapel area in recent months. However, it did not explain why the area was deemed a greater safety risk.RELATED: Patriots flood London streets for Unite the Kingdom festival: 'Cultural revolution has begun' Nick Tenconi. Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty ImagesUKIP shared a video from its leader, Nick Marcel Tenconi, on Friday, announcing that participants should gather at Marble Arch, which is located outside the borough of Tower Hamlets. “Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we are fighting for the soul of our great nation," Tenconi stated. "The battle we are in is to save Britain. The war we are in is a holy war. And the crisis we face is spiritual crisis. ... To save Britain, we must unite. But we can only do this if we return to our faith before any kind of unity can be achieved. That’s why we have always failed. To save Britain, we must reinstate Christianity back into the heart of government.”“We will be marching this Saturday, the 31st of January, meeting at Marble Arch at 12 p.m. to honor the holy name of Jesus Christ and to stand up for our faith,” Tenconi announced.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Stephen Moore Sounds the Alarm on 'Fuel Mandates and Loopholes'

ICE Arrests Over 650 in West Virginia During 15-Day Immigration Surge

President Trump Speaks on Iran, Cuba: Some People May Be Shown What 'or Else' Means

Not only can drones help you capture an aerial view of your surroundings but they can also behave like a handheld camera, thanks to this clever mount.