Apple News should come with a warning label disclosing its radical leftist bias. In November, its editors chose only one article from a right-leaning source, and that source wasn’t even an American outlet. MRC Free Speech America researchers began documenting the stories and outlets featured by Apple News in its top 20 stories each morning on Nov. 3, 2025. Human editors select the top stories on Apple News, which sets it apart from some competing Big Tech news aggregators that rely on automated algorithms, as reported by news outlets including the leftist New York Times. Apple News's direct control of its top stories exposes the platform's bias, especially since only one of the 560 articles examined in November came from a right-leaning source. Seemingly adding insult to injury, the single story came from “lean right,” British outlet The Telegraph. MRC was not surprised by Apple News's inclusion of The Telegraph, given that the article touched on the Sudanese genocide, a topic the elitist media have largely neglected.  To make matters worse, the article was behind Apple’s “Apple News+” premium subscription service. This means that users who do not pay Apple to see its highly biased news roundup could not even view the article. Other articles selected by the Apple News editors about the Sudanese genocide of Christians and other non-Arabs came from outlets such as Al Jazeera, The Washington Post and NBC News. Apple News featured articles from radically leftist outlets such as Vox, The New Yorker, The Atlantic and Vice, during the time frame studied. It also featured articles from fairly local or unknown outlets such as WLRN South Florida, an NPR and PBS affiliate, and the North Dakota Monitor and the Louisiana Illuminator, both States Newsroom affiliates. Yet, Apple News failed to select a story from any of the three right-leaning outlets found among the top 20 most-visited news sites in America: Fox News, the Daily Mail or the New York Post. MRC’s findings leave no doubt about who Apple News is cheering for. Far from just a harmful news aggregator, it is a hub of cherry-picked stories driven by a partisan agenda. Anyone choosing to get their news from Apple should be clearly informed of its bias. Methodology: During the time period Nov. 3 - 30, 2025, MRC researchers examined the top 20 news stories featured on Apple News each day at approximately 10:00 AM EST. Researchers then used the AllSides media bias ratings, which categorize an outlet as “left,” “lean left,” “center,” “lean right” or “right” to determine the overall bias presented by Apple News and calculate the results. Free speech is under attack! Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.  

As reports of Minnesota’s Somali fraud scandals proliferate, liberal media are employing two of their favorite spin strategies to dismiss, downplay and distract from the controversy, analysis by media critic and journalist Becket Adams reveals. In his piece, “Media leap to defend Minnesota’s Somali fraudsters — but trip over the awful truth,” published Tuesday in The New York Post, Adams dissects the media’s efforts to manipulate their audiences via two typical types of bias: Hostile insinuations. Misleading narratives. First, Adams provides examples of how liberal media are employing their tried and true “Republicans pounce” characterization to portray conservatives as predators for pursuing justice: The Guardian: “The right wing has seized on fraud cases in the state.” ABC News: “Trump has seized on the ballooning controversy in recent days …” CNN: “Anxiety grips Minneapolis’s Somali community as immigration agents zero in on the Twin Cities” “Meanwhile, a couple of newsrooms have taken a slightly different approach, arguing that the [Somali] diaspora has been an outright economic boon to the North Star State,” Adams writes, providing examples of how NPR and a local ABC affiliate have used spin to distract from the scandals and create misleading narratives favorable to Minnesota’s Somali community. In NPR’s case, Adams writes, a reporter “assured listeners that the alleged, confirmed and pending frauds were committed by only a ‘small number of folks that don’t reflect the entire community.’” Additionally, Adams notes how the reporter made unsubstantiated claims: “The diaspora has ‘really helped support Minnesota’s growth and businesses,’ the reporter concluded in her signoff, ‘increasing the population and helping a lot of other immigrant communities that are also here” — though her spiel included no facts or figures.’” “Elsewhere on the local scene, a Minnesota ABC News affiliate took a similar tack, this time with some hard numbers, headlined: ‘Somali Minnesotans drive economic growth, pay $67M taxes annually,’” Adams writes, introducing a report by KSTP-TV. However, scrutiny of the very statistics cited by KSTP actually dispel the report’s narrative, Adams explains. For example, Adams calculates that the $67 million paid by Minnesota Somalis comes to only about $630 per-capita in state and local tax contribution, while the average Minnesota taxpayer paid more than $8,000. What’s more, “at least 46% of Minnesota’s Somali community lives [sic] below the federal poverty threshold, making them eligible for SNAP, Medicaid, subsidized housing and other public benefits,” Adams writes. As a result, the Somali community is taking far more from the state than it’s contributing. Instead of citing numbers that accidentally refute their narrative, liberal media would be better off sticking to producing fluff pieces that flatter Minnesota’s Somalis, Adams muses in conclusion.

After nine years of radical leftist leadership, Wikipedia has been converted into one of the left’s most powerful megaphones, and it is hiding its strategy in plain sight. MRC Free Speech America researchers analyzed Wikipedia’s citations across all languages and found that the so-called online encyclopedia cites left-leaning media sources nearly 20 times more often than right-leaning outlets. As a result, the online encyclopedia amplifies outrageous allegations from elitist media outlets, including claims that Vice President JD Vance harbors “white supremacist” views, blood libel accusations against Israel, and even a “misinformation” jab placed at the top of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk’s page immediately after he was assassinated.  This imbalance is not just a quirk of “volunteer” editing, but a direct result of how Wikipedia is designed to operate. Editors rely on Wikipedia’s list of designated “reliable sources,” which overwhelmingly greenlights left-wing media sources like CNN and Mother Jones while restricting or banning right-of-center outlets. The result is clear: Wikipedia’s pages push the ideology of its radical leaders, and broadly promote a leftist agenda. Key Findings Wikipedia overwhelmingly favored left-leaning media sources (5,320,017 citations versus 292,250), with editors citing radical leftist outlets such as MSNBC, Mother Jones, The Associated Press, The Daily Beast, The Nation, The New York Times, 18.2 times more than right-leaning sources like the New York Post, Real Clear Politics, The Daily Wire, The Federalist or The Washington Examiner.  In head-to-head comparisons within regional markets, the results were much the same. Wikipedia cited left-leaning outlets like The New Yorker and The Washington Post significantly more than their right-leaning counterparts like the New York Post and The Washington Times. Wikipedia’s obvious favoritism of elitist media in its citations underscores MRC’s previous reporting, which showed that Wikipedia uses an effective blacklist to suppress right-leaning media on its pages. Wikipedia Favors Left-Leaning Sources Far More Than Right-Leaning Outlets Wikipedia favored leftist, anti-Trump sources like CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times across the board. In fact, Wikipedia cited the radically left-wing New York Times more than any other outlet, a whopping 1,675,628 citations. Wikipedia editors cited another pillar of the left, The Associated Press, 137,939 times. The AP not only pushes leftist propaganda but also attempts to institutionalize leftist language on issues like transgenderism and abortion across the media landscape. Wikipedia’s editors also cited leftist sources like Time magazine (175,940 citations) and Yahoo News (338,173 citations) constantly across the so-called online encyclopedia’s webpages. Wikipedia editors even cited the media empire of leftist billionaire Michael Bloomberg (Bloomberg News), infamous for its ESG campaigns, 140,017 times.  By contrast, Wikipedia editors almost completely ignored One America News Network (OAN), citing the media outlet only 35 times across Wikipedia. They didn’t do much better for other right-leaning outlets, providing only 435 citations for The Daily Wire. For context, neither one of these two right-leaning outlets had as many citations as the anti-Trump publication The Bulwark, a one-note, anti-Trump publication founded in 2018 with 451 citations on Wikipedia.  In fact, OAN and The Daily Wire, as well as The Blaze (434 citations), Just the News (128 citations), The Federalist (389 citations), and other right-leaning sources were cited less than any of their leftist counterparts. Similarly dismissed by Wikipedia, Breitbart (1,133), Newsmax (1,123 citations) and The Daily Caller (665 citations) received fewer citations than any leftist sources, except Semafor (622 citations).  And Wikipedia editors did not just starve out the right while elevating the left’s elitist media. They heavily cited the left’s JV team media outlets as well. Wikipedia provided citations for The Daily Beast (28,038) The Nation (11,575), Vox (24,756), Mother Jones (8,326) and Jacobin (2,706) thousands of times each.  Wikipedia Favors Left-Leaning Regional Market Competitors Over Their Right-Leaning Counterparts  Editors on Wikipedia also routinely chose left-leaning sources over right-of-center competitors within the same regional market. The most stark example of this left-wing favoritism is in New York, where Wikipedia only cited 224-year-old right-leaning paper the New York Post 41,127 times, while bolstering its similarly situated, left-leaning print competitors. As already noted above, The New York Times is the most cited outlet on Wikipedia, referenced over 40 times more often than the right-leaning outlet that broke the Hunter Biden laptop story. Meanwhile, Wikipedia even cited The New Yorker (63,166 times) and The AP (137,939 times) significantly more than the Post.  Also in New York, Wikipedia cited leftist economic news outlets Bloomberg News (140,017 times) and Business Insider (67,204 times) more than Fox Business, which only had 3,692 total citations. Radical leftist outlet Huff Post was cited 31,445 times, while The Nation was cited 11,575 times and Soros-funded ProPublica was cited 6,733 times. Meanwhile, their right-leaning counterparts National Review (9,544 times), The Epoch Times (1,293 times) and The Free Press (only 217 times) were minimally cited across Wikipedia’s webpages. Wikipedia included hundreds of thousands of citations from New York-based outlet CNN— 396,069 citations to be precise—dwarfing the 125,917 times Wikipedia cited Fox News. The so-called encyclopedia also boosted the leftist Big Three Networks with a combined number of citations nearing CNN’s total: ABC News (83,509), CBS News (95,393 citations) and NBC News (88,969 citations). That’s not even mentioning the tens of thousands of citations combined for NBCUniversal’s other two leftist products: CNBC (55,932 citations) and MSNBC (6,893 citations).  Similar results played out for comparable outlets that Wikipedia cited with their headquarters located in and around America’s other national media hub, Washington, D.C. Even though MRC analyzed more right-leaning outlets compared to left-leaning outlets in the Washington, D.C. regional market, Wikipedia still cited left-leaning outlets significantly more than right-leaning outlets.  In fact, Wikipedia editors cited “Democracy Dies in Darkness” elitist outlet The Washington Post more times (376,260 citations) than all right-leaning outlets combined, regardless of regional market (292,250 for all right-leaning outlet citations) and over 10 times more than its regional market right-leaning competitors (only 37,048 citations). Add in other left-leaning competitors like USA Today (227,603 citations), National Public Radio (137,849 citations), Politico (59,014 citations), The Atlantic (49,989) and Alternet (1,998 citations) on top of The Post’s already gaudy number, and there is quite simply no comparison. Put another way, Wikipedia cited six left-leaning outlets in the Washington, D.C. regional market nearly 23 times more than their 12 right-leaning competitors. The most cited right-leaning outlet in the Washington, D.C. area was The Washington Times, which Wikipedia cited 16,775 times, fewer than 5% of the times it referenced The Washington Post. Other right-leaning outlets cited by Wikipedia include: the Washington Examiner (6,476 citations), Real Clear Politics (5,551 citations), the Christian Broadcasting Network (3,321 citations), The American Conservative (1,473 citations), The Epoch Times (1,293 citations), The Daily Caller (665 citations), The Washington Free Beacon (598 citations), The Federalist (389 citations), The Dispatch (247 citations), Independent Journal Review (131 citations) and Just The News (128 citations). As for news outlets from the U.K., Wikipedia cited The Guardian — an aggressively anti-Trump British publication — 960,799 times. Its right-leaning counterparts, the Daily Mail and The Spectator, however, were only cited a total of 69,112 times and 924 times respectively. Wikipedia Favoring Elitist Media Citations Underscores MRC’s Exposé of Wikipedia’s Effective Blacklist In February, MRC revealed that right-of-center media sources, as determined by the AllSides Media Bias Chart, were effectively blacklisted, suppressing their use across Wikipedia pages except for in limited circumstances. Meanwhile, 84% of elitist media sources were deemed “generally reliable.” Since the MRC study was released, Wikipedia has partially greenlit one right-leaning media source, The Washington Free Beacon. As noted by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, this heinous list majorly impacts Wikipedia’s biased “Neutral Point of View” policy (NPOV). Sanger has blasted Wikipedia’s current NPOV policy since it is limited to “significant views” published by “reliable sources on a topic,” and gives editors leave to dismiss views they label “fringe” or “minority.” And even the list editors use for “reliable sources on a topic” is heavily tilted to the left.  In addition to exposing Wikipedia’s effective blacklist, and now its effects on media source citations in this study, MRC researchers have also exposed specific examples of Wikipedia’s awful conduct.  MRC has exposed Wikipedia for stripping away now-Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s medals from the top of his page—even going so far as to delete some—in order to avoid giving “undue emphasis” to his military career. Wikipedia editors targeted Hegseth with personal attacks on his page, inflating it with negative content, doing so after President Donald Trump nominated him. Wikipedia editors did much the same to many Trump nominees, accusing now-Attorney General Pam Bondi, now-Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, now-HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and now-FBI Director Kash Patel of spreading conspiracy theories or making false claims.  The leftist propaganda website did not limit itself to Trump administration officials, however. The online encyclopedia also cited Al Jazeera for its definition of the terrorist group Hamas, even though Al Jazeera whitewashes Hamas terrorism and is funded by the same government that sheltered Hamas’s leaders.  Wikipedia’s leftist tilt should come as no surprise considering its radical leadership.  The former chief operating officer of baby-killing Planned Parenthood, Maryana Iskander, currently runs the Wikimedia Foundation. From 2016 to 2021, Wikipedia was run by current NPR CEO Katherine Maher, who labelled Trump a “racist,” while downplaying the violent and destructive Black Lives Matter riots of 2020 and brow-beating white followers with racist abuse and radical leftist messaging. For example, Maher berated white people in 2020, telling them that “white silence is complicity.”  Speaking about Wikipedia in her role as CEO, Maher also outlandishly claimed that “our reverence for the truth might have become a bit of a distraction that is preventing us from finding consensus and getting important things done.” Maher even bashed the First Amendment as an obstacle to countering so-called misinformation, before saying, “it also means that it is a little bit tricky to really address some of the real challenges of where does bad information come from, and sort of the influence peddlers who have made a real market economy around it.” Methodology: MRC researchers searched all languages of Wikipedia using its publicly available API on Nov. 18-19, 2025 to determine how many times Wikipedia editors cited each of the “right,” “lean right,” “center,” “lean left,” and “left” sources that appear on the publicly available AllSides Media Bias Chart. The Bulwark is not listed on the AllSides Media Bias Chart. Conservatives are under attack! Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

The Las Vegas Raiders played the Denver Broncos this past weekend, and no one was angrier about the results than Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy, who took to social media to rant about the end of the game.“We need this entire segment investigated by the NFL. Third and three, 24 seconds. The spread is Denver minus eight and a half. They were up 24-7 by the way, with like two minutes to go. He spikes the ball. Why are you spiking the ball with 16 seconds in a 10-point game is beyond me,” Portnoy complained.“The game is over. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a spike in that situation. But we’re just starting, boys and girls,” he continued, before angrily breaking down another absurd play.“Game’s over. And then Pete Carroll runs out the field goal unit and kicks a field goal to end the game with no time. This guy, prison. This ref, prison. Pete Carroll, prison. NFL, prison. This is the most rigged game I’ve ever seen in my entire life. Disgusting. Prison,” he added.“I agree with Dave,” BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock tells BlazeTV contributor Steve Kim on “Fearless.” “I mean, that is absolutely disgusting, and it makes no sense. Can you defend any of this?”Portnoy, whose anger was due to how the potential rigging of the game would affect those gambling on it, is not the one who Whitlock and Kim feel bad for.“Portnoy is doing pretty well. I get the sense whatever money he lost, he’s going to be good. We don’t have to send him a GoFundMe campaign,” Kim comments. “But there’s a reason why I don’t gamble.”Want more from Jason Whitlock?To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Inmates at the Lee Correctional Institution in Bishopville, South Carolina, will have to settle for their normal cafeteria fare this week, as officials intercepted a drone drop carrying ingredients for an "early holiday Old Bay crab boil and steak dinner," according to an X post from the state Department of Corrections.Indeed, the illicit delivery included steak, crab legs, and even a container of Old Bay Seasoning. Also added to the package were cigarettes and two large bags of marijuana.'I’m guessing the inmates who were expecting this package are a bit crabby.'Fox News reported that the contraband was captured early Sunday morning."Seems some folks were planning an early holiday Old Bay crab boil and steak dinner along with their marijuana and cigarettes — all dropped by a drone at Lee [Correctional Institution]," the X post said. — (@) Officials at the maximum security prison recovered the drone along with the package, WLTX-TV reported, adding that no arrests have been made."As you likely know, we often see odd items included in contraband packages, but this was a bit unusual, even for us," SCDC spokeswoman Chrysti Shain told Fox News. "I’m guessing the inmates who were expecting this package are a bit crabby." The cable news network added that the SCDC and the Lee County Sheriff’s Office actually have spent years combatting ongoing drone drops at the Lee Correctional Institution."Contraband is a real threat to prisons across the country, and we fight nightly attacks from drones dropping dangerous drugs — often fentanyl and meth — onto prison yards," Shain added to Fox News. "We go to extraordinary lengths to combat drones."More from Fox News:In 2022, an eight-month investigation at Lee Correctional led to 20 arrests and the seizure of 12 drones, as well as 100 pounds of contraband, authorities reported.Additionally, officers discovered three abandoned drones in the woods near the prison fences.Law enforcement reported that the drones involved have grown larger and are capable of carrying heavier loads."These large drones can carry heavier and heavier packages," Lee County Sheriff Daniel Simon said in a 2022 statement, according to the cable news network. "We are working hard to stop them from getting in the wrong hands."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Days after Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk's assassination, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) did her apparent best on "The Breakfast Club" radio show to downplay the link between Democrats' incendiary rhetoric and political violence.Crockett said, "Me disagreeing with you, me calling you 'wannabe Hitler,' all those things are not necessarily saying, 'Go out and hurt somebody.'""I literally have never said anything to invoke violence," claimed Crockett. "I challenge somebody to go and find a clip of a Democrat invoking violence."'Not only are we gonna punch back, but we about to beat you down.'The Republican Party has finally obliged Crockett, providing her with a compilation of various instances where Democrats made remarks that could be construed as calls for or rationalizations of political violence.The video, released in the wake of Crockett's announcement on Monday that she is running for a U.S. Senate seat, includes 20 provocative statements from Democrats including:former Biden Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo's September 2024 remark to liberal talking head Mika Brzezinski, "Let's extinguish him for good," referring to President Donald Trump. Brzezinski pressed Raimondo for clarification, asking, "And 'extinguish,' you mean vote him out?" to which Raimondo said, "Yes, absolutely. Vote him out. Banish him from American politics."California Rep. Maxine Waters' suggestion to a mob in June 2018, "Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up, and if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out, and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' (N.Y.) suggestion to fellow travelers in January that when it comes to the Trump agenda, "We are going to fight it legislatively, we are going to fight it in the courts, and we're going to fight it in the streets."California Rep. Eric Swalwell's suggestion to CNN in August that "when they go low, we are going to bury them below the Capitol."U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed's assertion in August that when it comes to "Trump and his ghouls," "when they go low, we don't go high. We take them to the mud and choke them out."The August 2020 suggestion by Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley, who is one of the 58 Democrats who voted against a resolution condemning Charlie Kirk's assassination, that "there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives."California Gov. Gavin Newsom's suggestion on a podcast in August that "we're fighting fire with fire, and we're going to punch these sons of bitches in the mouth." Newsom was referring to Republicans whom he suggested moments earlier were radicals working to rig the 2026 midterm elections.California Rep. Derek Tran's suggestion in August, "It's time for us as a party to get together and fight back, punch back, and make sure that they stay down. And you know what? Kick them when they're down because they deserve it."RELATED: Liberals' twisted views on Charlie Kirk assassination, censorship captured by a damning poll Photo by Arturo Holmes/Getty ImagesThe Republican compilation also included some of Crockett's own best hits.One of the excerpts in the compilation was taken from Crockett's March interview with KXAS-TV's Phil Prazan where she said that in order to win an election in Texas, "You punch. I think you punch. I think you're OK with — you OK with punching."In the same interview, Crockett referenced former Rep. Colin Allred's electoral defeat last year by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and suggested the Democrat should have been more combative with his Republican opponent, saying, "I mean, like, this dude [Cruz] has to be knocked over the head, like, hard, right. Like, there is no niceties with him — like, at all. Like, you go clean off on him."Crockett — who has rooted for foreign nations engaged in trade disputes with the U.S.; told radicals that Elon Musk must be "taken down" amid firebombs; characterized Republican voters as stupid; issued racist remarks; mocked the handicapped; and dubbed the commander in chief "an enemy to the United States" — had another instance of violent rhetoric featured in the GOP's compilation.The second excerpt, taken from a press conference in August, shows Crockett say, "I am here to tell you: Not only are we gonna punch back, but we about to beat you down."NOTUS reported this week that the National Republican Senatorial Committee "has actively worked behind the scenes to encourage Rep. Jasmine Crockett to jump into the Senate Democratic primary in Texas, believing she will be the easiest opponent to beat."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

I must admit to having a complicated relationship with Dinesh D’Souza’s documentaries.As much as I have enjoyed several of them, I find that they falter in a few ways: They often lack staying power, offering little incentive to return to them after the moment has passed; they are too self-referential — filtering every issue through D’Souza’s own perspective; and they are preoccupied with energizing sympathetic audiences rather than persuading skeptical ones.Where the film is likely to receive its fiercest pushback is on the subject of eschatology — the theology of the end times.This last flaw is especially frustrating. Catering to the conservative base is easy, but with D’Souza’s resources and backing, his films could be far sharper — and far more enduring — if they focused on timeless themes rather than re-litigating the 2020 election or attacking whoever happens to be running for president that year.Chasing the 'Dragon'It was with this in mind that I went into D’Souza’s newest effort, "The Dragon’s Prophecy." A loose adaptation of the Jonathan Cahn book of the same name, the Angel Studios production examines the fallout of the October 7 terrorist attacks and the subsequent two-year war between Israel and Hamas (which effectively ended with a ceasefire on October 10). Sharpness, at least, is not a problem this time. The film arrives at a harrowing moment. Tucker Carlson is condemning “Christian Zionism” as heresy; New York City has just elected a mayor who wants to arrest the prime minister of Israel; and bipartisan resentment toward American Jews hasn’t been this pronounced since Pat Buchanan implicitly blamed them for supporting the Gulf War.Anti-Zionism — and its adjacent anti-Semitism — is enjoying a fashionable resurgence, while support for the Israeli government sits at an all-time low.D’Souza confronts these trends head-on. He calls out Carlson — as well as the far-left bloc of House Democrats known as "the Squad" — by name, even integrating footage from Carlson’s combative June interview with Ted Cruz. The result is a forthright defense of Israel, one that bluntly characterizes Hamas as rapists, murderers, and terrorists — and depicts the group's atrocities in unflinching detail, including phone calls in which militants boast to their parents about their killings.Intentional shockIt’s a grisly watch. The film includes insurgents shooting dogs and civilians, and it lingers on the aftermath of violence. But the shock is intentional. As Ambassador Mike Huckabee tells D’Souza, the war is “an eternal battle between good and evil,” with Israel on the side of the angels and Hamas aligned with “the Dragon.”Amid this devastation, D’Souza wanders the Holy Land and laments that Israel is a place where “nothing is ever solved or resolved,” a region with “no solutions and no idea what the problems even are.” Yet his moral clarity never wavers. He even calls the construction of the Islamic Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount “the true colonialism.”His mission is to locate meaning in the conflict. To that end, he speaks with Jewish victims, archeologists uncovering evidence of ancient Israelite history, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who uses the occasion to swat at his American critics and to praise Donald Trump.Disputed dispensationWhere the film is likely to receive its fiercest pushback is on the subject of eschatology — the theology of the end times.Because D’Souza’s target audience is predominantly Christian, the most vocal critics may be anti-dispensationalists, whose views have become increasingly common among Catholics and mainline Protestants. They correctly note that dispensationalism is a 19th-century American theological development and that the popular notion of a “rapture” is relatively recent.As the Protestant theologian Brian Mattson writes, “In the grand historical sweep of Christian theology, Dispensationalism is a new arrival.” He explains that its architects argued that salvation unfolds across distinct dispensations, meaning that God’s promises to Israel remain intact for ethnic Jews even as the New Testament opens salvation to Gentiles. “God has two separate ‘tracks’ for the salvation of humanity,” he writes. Thus the national promises to Israel persist in perpetuity.This is the framework behind the "Left Behind" franchise — 16 books and five films — and it places the modern state of Israel at the center of Revelation in a way that traditional Christian readings do not.There are legitimate biblical critiques of dispensationalism, just as there are bad-faith motives for attacking it. Mattson notes that many Gen Z “America First” Catholic converts now regard Israel as an unnecessary “foreign entanglement,” while others deploy “heresy” language as a thin veil for anti-Semitism.RELATED: Haunting play 'October 7' lets Hamas terror survivors speak Phelim McAleerEnd-times evidenceStill, D’Souza’s film is thoroughly dispensationalist. Israel’s present turmoil is portrayed as evidence that the end times are near, that evil is intensifying, and that God is making Himself more visible through signs and miracles. The fate of Israel, in this reading, is inseparable from the fate of the world.The film’s second half is a series of interviews with Israeli archeologists who discuss evidence for figures like King David and Pontius Pilate, treating their discoveries as confirmations of Scripture. When combined with commentary from a Messianic Jew such as Jonathan Cahn, the Israeli-Gaza conflict becomes a mystical drama between cosmic good and cosmic evil.That argument rests on a contested theological system. However one responds to the film’s defense of Israel, it must be filtered through the angular lenses of American dispensationalism — a hurdle many viewers may be unwilling to clear.Centrist appealThere are smaller criticisms as well: The film appears to lean heavily on AI-generated imagery, which raises its own questions about execution. But in the main, the film is preaching to the broad American center — those who support Israel without belonging to either extreme.Despite these theological quirks, the film ultimately does something I have long wished D’Souza’s documentaries would do: It speaks clearly and with conviction about an issue that possesses lasting moral weight.Israel will remain a defining struggle for decades. October 7 is only one chapter of that broader conflict. In taking it on, D’Souza presents a moral argument to a conservative audience that is increasingly drifting from him. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, he is operating on the level of enduring questions of faith rather than the transitory skirmishes of electoral politics. For once, he isn’t simply preaching to the choir.

Having just passed the three-month mark since Charlie Kirk was publicly assassinated while speaking to a crowd of students at Utah Valley University, Kirk's accused killer is set to appear in court in person for the first time. Tyler Robinson, charged with aggravated murder and several related charges, and his lawyers are set to appear in court on Thursday. 'This is something that could impact generations to come.'Robinson's legal team and the Utah County Sheriff's Office have asked Judge Tony Graf to limit the media's presence in the case, according to the Associated Press. In fact, they have requested a ban on cameras in the courtroom. Legal analyst and California-based trial attorney Roger Bonakdar pointed out to Fox News that information access has shifted dramatically as the case has progressed.RELATED: New attorney for Charlie Kirk's suspected assassin requests more time to go through 'voluminous' evidence Judge Tony GrafPhoto by Scott G Winterton-Pool/Getty Images"When they first arrested Tyler Robinson, the information tap was at full blast," he said. "They told us that they had audio recordings from Tyler Robinson and a purported confession. They told us that there was video footage from a local fast-food restaurant. They were very, very almost oversharing in the beginning."But that "oversharing" has ended, Bonakdar continued: "Now they've shut that tap off, and they're saying you can't even come to court and hear about what we're doing when most of it's probably procedural."Many media outlets and high-profile figures have pushed back against the closed-door proceedings and advocated for greater transparency in the case.Erika Kirk, Charlie Kirk's widow and now-CEO of Turning Point USA, has advocated to keep news cameras in the courtroom, noting that she, her family, and TPUSA have all been under intense scrutiny since her husband's brutal public execution. "There were cameras all over my husband when he was murdered," she told Fox News' Jesse Watters in an interview last month. "There have been cameras all over my friends and family mourning. There have been cameras all over me, analyzing my every move, analyzing my every smile, my every tear. We deserve to have cameras in there.""Let everyone see what true evil is," Erika Kirk added. "This is something that could impact generations to come."The tension lies between a heavily invested public's desire for new information in a very high-profile case and preserving a fair trial for the accused. The judge has ordered that Thursday's hearing be held in person and open to the public to the greatest extent possible. Judge Graf has also ordered that no information may be disclosed from Robinson's October 24 virtual proceeding, which reportedly determined that Robinson could wear plain clothes during court appearances but must also wear restraints because of security concerns. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

He was the songwriter, guitarist, producer and primary vocalist for the popular band that broke though with the #1 single, "Make It With You." The post Remember David Gates, Who Led the ’70s Group Bread? appeared first on Best Classic Bands.

The House-passed National Defense Authorization Act is an antidote to the administration’s unserious National Security Strategy.