Klaus Schwab, the founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum, resigned on Easter Sunday amid a whistleblower report about alleged misuse of Forum funds, and the globalist organization’s board voted to launch an independent probe into allegations against him. “Following my recent announcement, and as I enter my 88th year, I have decided to step down from the position of Chair and as a member of the Board of Trustees, with immediate effect,” Schwab said in a statement Sunday. Schwab, 87, had previously announced that he would step down as the Forum’s chairman, and the Forum would launch a succession process to be completed by January 2027. The whistleblower report sped up that timeline. A Schwab family spokesperson denied the allegations in the whistleblower report, which claimed Schwab asked subordinates to withdraw thousands of dollars from ATMs on his behalf and used Forum funds to pay for private, in-room massages at hotels. The report also alleged that Schwab’s wife, Hilde, a former employee of the organization, scheduled “token” meetings in order to justify luxury holiday travel, billing the Forum. The report also repeated concerns about how Schwab treated female employees, warning that his leadership allegedly allowed instances of sexual harassment and discriminatory behavior to go unchecked in the workplace. The Forum had previously investigated these concerns and disputed them. The World Economic Forum Board of Trustees met Sunday to accept Schwab’s resignation. Sources close to the matter told The Wall Street Journal that Schwab asked the board not to investigate the whistleblower report, but the board opened the probe, anyway. The Forum had been shaking up its leadership in recent weeks in response to a previous board probe into its workplace culture. Forum CEO Børge Brende said that investigation did not substantiate the allegations against Schwab. This turmoil comes amid a growing global backlash to the World Economic Forum’s globalist vision. Newly-inaugurated President Donald Trump addressed the Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 23. In his speech, the president condemned the previous administration’s policies, which echoed the Forum’s advocacy. “What the world has witnessed in the past 72 hours is nothing less than a revolution of common sense,” Trump said. “My administration is acting with unprecedented speed to fix the disasters we’ve inherited from a totally inept group of people and to solve every single crisis facing our country.” Among other things, he touted his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord—which the World Economic Forum supports—and his moves to “abolish all discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion nonsense”—another ideological initiative the Forum wholeheartedly backs. Outgoing President Joe Biden awarded George Soros, the Hungarian American globalist billionaire, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. As I wrote in my book, “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government,” Soros-funded groups infiltrated and advised the Biden administration, pushing it in a globalist direction. In addition to the Paris agreement and DEI programs, the World Economic Forum has advocated a host of social and political changes that critics say would empower elites at the expense of personal freedom and economic progress. Schwab co-wrote the book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” published in July 2020, which outlines how the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted social and economic systems and calls for sweeping changes “to create a more inclusive, resilient, and sustainable world going forward.” Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts traveled to Davos, Switzerland, for the Forum’s annual meeting in 2024, and condemned its globalist advocacy. He faulted the World Economic Forum for claiming that climate change poses an existential threat to humanity, that illegal immigration is positive, and that there is no public safety threat in large American cities. “I will be candid and say the agenda that every single member of the administration needs to have is to compile a list of everything that has ever been proposed at the World Economic Forum and object to all of them wholesale,” Roberts said, speaking as a leader of America’s conservative movement. “Anyone not prepared to do that and take away this power of the unelected bureaucrats and give it back to the American people is unprepared to be part of the next conservative administration.” The post GLOBALISTS IN TURMOIL: World Economic Forum Opens Probe Into Founder as Klaus Schwab Resigns appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Two Democrat-appointed federal judges have extended temporary blocks on the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport criminal illegal aliens.   U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein has extended an April 9 order for another two weeks that bars the Trump administration from deporting illegal aliens being held in Southern District of New York without first providing them with an opportunity for a hearing.   During a hearing Tuesday, Hellerstein, a President Bill Clinton appointee, criticized the Trump administration for its approach to deportations.   “This is not the Inquisition, it’s not medieval times,” Hellerstein said.  Until the New York court rules further, Hellerstein’s order prevents the deportation of about a dozen illegal aliens currently detained in the state.   In Colorado, U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney, appointed by President Joe Biden, granted a request from the American Civil Liberties Union to temporarily bar the Trump administration from removing illegal aliens under the Alien Enemies Act.   Sweeney’s order requires the Trump administration to give at least three weeks’ notice to illegal immigrants in Colorado of the government’s intended plan to remove them and requires that illegal aliens be informed of their right to due process.   After designating the Venezuelan prison gang Tren de Aragua as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, the White House announced in March that President Donald Trump would use the powers of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to remove members of the gang from America.   On Saturday, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to pause the deportation of some Venezuelan illegal aliens using the act until the court can rule further.     The High Court did not grant or deny the use of the Alien Enemies Act to remove the illegal aliens, who the Trump administration claims are Tren de Aragua gang members, but instead the justices simply hit pause on the matter.    The flurry of court proceedings on the use of the Alien Enemies Act to remove illegal aliens started making headlines in March when Washington, D.C. based U.S. District Judge James Boasberg directed the Trump administration to stop the removal flights of illegal aliens to El Salvador.   The Supreme Court in early April ruled to lift Boasberg’s temporary restraining order, determining that attorneys for the illegal alien should have filed their lawsuit against the deportations in Texas, where the specific group of illegal aliens in question were being held, instead of filing in Washington, D.C.  Despite ongoing legal challenges to deportation efforts, the Trump administration has carried out more than 100,000 deportations since Jan. 20.  The post 2 Democrat Appointed Judges Extend Block on Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act to Deport Illegal Aliens appeared first on The Daily Signal.

By May 7, all U.S. citizens are supposed to have their federally required “Real ID” so that they can travel by air or enter a federal building. But what about using them to register to vote to ensure they are legally present in the country and eligible to vote in our elections? The SAVE Act, introduced by Republican Texas Rep. (and University of Virginia alumnus) Chip Roy, recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives and now is awaiting action in the Senate. The SAVE Act, among other things, would require proof of citizenship for voter registration in federal elections and strengthen verification processes to ensure voter rolls only contained eligible citizen voters. The Daily Signal sat down with former acting Secretary of Homeland Security, former Virginia Attorney General, and current National Chairman of the Election Transparency Initiative Ken Cuccinelli to talk about the bill’s likelihood of making it to President Donald Trump’s desk. The Daily Signal: Ken, only four Democrats voted for this in the House. Why is an issue that polls so positively among both parties (one Gallup Poll had the support at 84%) so hard to get bipartisan support for? Ken Cuccinelli: This is the elected Democrats, and we see this in the commonwealth of Virginia. We see it in the Congress. They listen to and do the bidding of their radical Left base, even after the last election. Excuses like married women won’t be able to vote. Oh, come on, my wife changed her name to my name. Most married women do that, sure, and they change their documents. And you know, they’re all smart enough to do it. And they all have what they need to do it, if that. And I picked that [issue] because it’s the No. 1 argument they’re making substantively now. They rarely get to substance. It’s usually, “You’re a racist. You’re doing voter suppression. [They say] there’s no need for this. Prove that we need it.” The Daily Signal: They know that you can’t prove a negative. Prove that something didn’t happen. Cuccinelli: It’s a theoretical impossibility. I will say that we can prove positives, like people did vote who shouldn’t have. You look at the [Department of Government Efficiency’s] uncovering of so many Social Security numbers used by illegal aliens in, for example, the Medicaid program. They took the trouble to check some of those against the voter rolls of just a few states and found thousands of people registered to vote and voting. So, you can’t say it isn’t happening, right? It is happening.” The Daily Signal: So, what needs to happen to get it passed in the Senate? Cuccinelli: The real hang-up is, will you get seven senators from the Democrat side to vote to overcome the filibuster to get it passed? And I have to say, I was really disappointed to only see four Democrats vote for this in the House. I was surprised five Democrats voted for it in September. I thought at least some of them would learn their lesson from the 2024 election. I was wrong. Nonetheless, when you’ve got people like [Democrat Sen.] Jon Ossoff in Georgia, who’s up [for reelection] in 2026, we absolutely intend to be lobbying people in Georgia to get him to vote right. [Democrat Sen.] Mark Kelly and Sen. [Ruben] Gallego in Arizona, they’re in a tough spot on this issue. [Sen.] John Fetterman [D-Pa.] has occasionally voted in the Trump direction. And Pennsylvania is really more of a Rust Belt state. And John Fetterman knows that, at least. So, there are a few potential pickups out there, but they are getting so much pressure from their radical left-wing base, and they normally respond to it. They normally give in to it, which then means we’re going to need Republican leadership in the Senate. Thankfully, now that’s John Thune [R-S.D.] and not Mitch McConnell [R-Ky.] looking for must-pass legislation to attach the SAVE Act to—for example, you know, a defense authorization bill, something that everybody hates to vote against—and to put it in there and to pass it with that. That’s the way this has happened in the past, right? And that’s probably what it’s going to take this time.” The Full Interview Our interview with Cuccinelli covered many more things, including the Left’s attempt to make out “Maryland Man” and MS-13 gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia to be a victim of overzealous Trump administration deportations. Listen to the full interview below: The post Will Congress Ensure Only Citizens Vote? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A large wave of funding cancellations from the National Science Foundation (NSF) has abruptly derailed hundreds of research projects, many of which were focused on so-called “misinformation” and “disinformation.” Late Friday, researchers across the country received emails notifying them that their grants, fellowships, or awards had been rescinded; an action that stunned many in the academic community and ignited conversations about the role of the government in regulating research into online speech. Among those impacted was Kate Starbird, a prominent figure in the “disinformation” research sphere and former Director of the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public. The Center, which collaborated with initiatives like the Election Integrity Partnership and the Virality Project, both known for coordinating content reporting to social media platforms, had ties to federal agencies and private moderation efforts. Starbird expressed dismay over the NSF’s move, calling it “disruptive and disheartening,” and pointed to a wider rollback in efforts to police digital content, citing reduced platform transparency and the shrinking of “fact-checking” operations. Grants that were cut included studies like one probing how to correct “false beliefs” and another testing intervention strategies for online misinformation. These projects, once backed by taxpayer dollars, were part of a growing field that often overlaps with content moderation and speech policing; a fact acknowledged by even Nieman Lab, which admitted such research helps journalists “flag false information.” The timing of the cancellations raised eyebrows. The NSF’s action followed a report highlighting how the Trump administration was reevaluating $1.4 billion in federal funding tied to misinformation research. That investigation noted NSF’s involvement in these programs but did not indicate the impending revocations. The NSF stated on its website that the grants were being terminated because they “are not aligned with NSF’s priorities,” naming projects centered on diversity, equity, inclusion, and misinformation among those affected. A published FAQ further clarified the agency’s new direction, referencing an executive order signed by President Donald Trump. It emphasized that NSF would no longer support efforts aimed at combating “misinformation” or similar topics if such work could be weaponized to suppress constitutionally protected speech or promote preferred narratives. Some researchers, like Boston University’s Gianluca Stringhini, found multiple projects abruptly defunded. Stringhini, who had been exploring AI tools to offer users additional context about social media content; a method akin to the soft content warnings platforms deployed during the pandemic—was left unsure about the full scope of consequences for his lab. Foundational to many early studies in this space, the NSF had long played a key role in launching initiatives that shaped how digital discourse was studied and potentially influenced. According to Starbird, about 90% of her early research was NSF-funded. She cited the agency’s vital support in forging cross-institutional collaborations and developing infrastructure for examining information integrity and technological design. The mass termination of these grants signals a pivotal shift in the federal government’s stance on funding initiatives that blur the lines between research and regulation of public speech. What some see as necessary oversight to prevent narrative enforcement, others view as a dismantling of essential tools used to navigate complex digital environments. Either way, the message from Washington is clear: using federal dollars to police speech, even under the guise of scientific inquiry, is no longer a priority. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post NSF Terminates Hundreds of “Misinformation”-Related Grants, Impacting Researchers Tied to Online Speech Flagging Initiatives like EIP and CIP appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

WEF: Klaus Schwab Is a Crook!

NEW: Trump May Cut China Tariffs to Kick-Start Trade Talks

It’s the latest phase of the “Make America Healthy Again” initiative.

Tonight’s edition of Thunderdome, more commonly known as CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip, was spicier than usual as host and’or panelists clashed over such issues as the role of the president in setting monetary policy, and the rise of “right-wing” media as trust in corporate “Legacy Media” continues to crater. Watch as host Abby Phillip absolutely melts down and condescends at conservative panelists Scott Jennigs and Shermichael Singleton over President Trump’s attempts to influence Fed policy (click “expand” to view transcripts): CNN's Abby Phillip crashes out, refuses to allow Jennings or Singleton to get a word in edgewise for having the temerity to suggest that presidents may opine over Fed policy pic.twitter.com/52vYgbTyOU — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 23, 2025 SCOTT JENNINGS: Do you honestly believe the president shouldn't be able to render opinions about monetary policies? ABBY PHILLIP: Scott, you keep repeating something that nobody ever said. No one ever said that Trump cannot have it. JENNINGS: We're having original thoughts here. PHILLIP: No, no, no, no, Scott. No one ever said that Trump can't have an opinion. The question is, should the Fed act based on that opinion? And I think it's just common sense, right? The Fed, it should be acting based on economic information and data, not anybody's opinion. Trump is not an economist, and as far as I can tell, does not even have a good grasp on how trade works, which is really problematic if he's going to then turn around and start telling the Fed how to do stuff. (CROSSTALK) JENNINGS: …is, like, we don't want Donald Trump to have influence over the operation of the government. And, you know, I just think it's wrong.  PHILLIP: We don't want to have Donald Trump have influence over monetary policy. That is how it has worked. That is where the confidence in this system of economics comes. JENNINGS: You said monetary policy. She said DoJ, military, FBI. What were the other -- (CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: Hold on just a second. I'm going to reset because I'm going to change back to the original conversation because, Scott, you are attempting to change the subject multiple times.  JENNINGS: No. I’m trying to decide if the president should have influence on our government. PHILLIP: So, go ahead, Shermichael. SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON: Sometimes I think we forget history. Let's go back to LBJ. LBJ actually flew the Fed chief down to Texas, his ranch and berated him because he was pissed off about some of his decisions. PHILLIP: Uh huh. And then what? SINGLETON: Let's remember. PHILLIP: And then what? SINGLETON: I'm going to make -- PHILLIP: No, no, no. And then what happened? SINGLETON: I want to make my point. PHILLIP: Finish your point. What happened? SINGLETON: Then George H.W. Bush blamed his Fed chair -- PHILLIP: But, Shermichael, I'm going to pause you there. What happened? SINGLETON: So, my point is -- that's not all, my God. The point that I'm trying to make -- PHILLIP: Shermichael, tell me what happened. SINGLETON: History matters here and sometimes -- PHILLIP: It does. JENNINGS: Shermichael, they want him to be a figurehead. They don't want him to be the president. SINGLETON: We talk about Trump. PHILLIP: No, he is the president of the United States. SINGLETON: Can I finish my freaking statement? PHILLIP: No. No, no, no, no, no. SINGLETON: You just interject. I haven't concluded my thought process. PHILLIP: I want to pause here. SINGLETON: So, the point is -- PHILLIP: Shermichael -- SINGLETON: -- there have been previous presidents.. PHILLIP: Hold on. You hold on just one second. SINGLETON: …that had similar thought processes as to the Fed as Trump. That's the simple position I'm trying to make here. PHILLIP: I want to pause on your half-finished history lesson. What did the Fed do after LBJ brought him down to his ranch? SINGLETON: Listen, to LBJ or George H.W. Bush. PHILLIP: So, what is your point? SINGLETON: The point is, previous presidents have been of the mindset similar to Trump that I don't like the decision of the Fed chair, I would like the chair to change their particular opinion. PHILLIP: I feel like I am in an alternative universe here in which you guys keep telling me that I'm saying Trump doesn't deserve to have an opinion. He's a human being. He's the president of the United States. He can have whatever opinions he wants. SINGLETON: That's not what I said. I said that we're forgetting history. PHILLIP: The question is, where is the historical analogy-- SINGLETON: Trump isn't the first president to berate or dislike the position of the Fed chair. That's my point. PHILLIP: Shermichael, where is the historical analogy for the Fed acting on the desire of a president to behave in a particular way and doing so while ignoring economic data? Where is the evidence of that? SINGLETON: That's not the premise of my argument. The premise of my argument is pretty simple. We're making this as if it's breaking news that Trump has a thought process about the Fed he wants restraint and act a certain way. PHILLIP: You cannot bring history about this if you don't want to finish the history. SINGLETON: So have previous presidents. PHILLIP: You're not finishing the history, Shermichael. SINGLETON: Okay. Well, what history am I forgetting here? PHILLIP: You can't bring it into the conversation -- SINGLETON: Please inform me.  PHILLIP: You cannot bring it into the conversation if it is not germane. SINGLETON: Why can’t I? Oh, come on, Abby. PHILLIP: If the Fed did not act on that berating, then how is that a parallel? SINGLETON: So, I don't know how I can be more clear or provide more clarity here. I never stated that the Fed and either of the instances that I provided acted on the thought process or advice or anger of previous presidents. PHILLIP: Okay. Okay. Well, great. SINGLETON: My point is that Trump is acting in a similar manner of previous presidents and we cannot ignore that there. PHILLIP: There's precedents…great. There’s precedents for presidents having opinions. Thank you for that. But there is not a precedent for the Fed acting on those opinions. SINGLETON: I never said that. I never said that. That's not my argument. Normally, Phillip sets the pace of debate and steps in with a ref save when a liberal is getting choked out by one of the conservatives. Here, she very clearly entered the fray- chastising both Jennings and Singleton for thinking their own thoughts on the role presidents should play with regard to monetary policy. Jennings was accused, without evidence, of trying to change the subject. Meanwhile, Singleton was not even allowed to finish his take. It is not often, even by liberal media standards, that we see such an open display of contempt for counter-narrative arguments as was displayed by Phillip. A sneering contempt, by the way, that is at the heart of America’s loss of trust in the media. Fast forward to the debate on the significance of the departure of longtime 60 Minutes producer Bill Owens. CUNY professor Jeff Jarvis joins the panel and caterwauls about what the resignation of Owens and a potential CBS settlement with President Donald Trump may do to CBS’s value, which got a chuckle out of Jennings: Scott Jennings: "I think people have lost trust (in CBS) for a lot of reasons that has nothing to do with this deal. pic.twitter.com/lntf3hosa6 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 23, 2025 JEFF JARVIS: Shermichael, what does this do to the value of CBS, the former Tiffany Network? When people cannot know whether to trust it anymore, when they wonder what stories they'll -- they'll be, and I know you laugh, Scott, because you've been the one with trust. JENNINGS: I think people have lost trust in it for a lot of reasons. But it's nothing to do with this deal. Jennings is not wrong. CBS’s brand value has been eroding for many years now. The former Tiffany Network is essentially the genesis of “fake news”, and anyone doubting that can take a minute and google Dan Rather and Mary Mapes. As a result of an ongoing trust in media that began well before Donald Trump went down the gilded escalator, people go where they believe they will find credible reporting. CBS hasn’t been credible for a long time, and their ratings show it. In another potent exchange, Jarvis continues to grouse about the state of media, and walks right into a Scott Jennings buzzsaw when trying to talk about “right wing media”: Wild exchange: Jeff Jarvis whines about the state of media, gets schooled by Scott Jennings on the reasons behind the ascendancy of "right wing media", and Abby Phillip waves it off in complete denial. pic.twitter.com/pT8V2kU0BA — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 23, 2025 JEFF JARVIS: The bigger question is that mass media are dying. I hate to say this in the middle of (CROSSTALK). PHILLIP: Yeah, we -- we all know that.  JARVIS: Mass media are dying. And so, if you try to think that we're going to be- please everybody, those days are over. You've got to stand on some principle. You've got to stand for something. You've got to be somewhere in this -- in this spectrum. And if you think you're just going to make nice to everybody, the problem is that the right wing, hello, Scott, has, taken advantage of this situation, I think, quite cleverly, quite wisely. They've played into a weakness. JENNINGS: What situation? JARVIS: The situation of media being under attack. And so, they've created a situation where -- JENNINGS: You've almost got it. Keep going. What -- what the right wing is taking advantage of is, finally, the American people saying enough is enough. They're tired of feeling like the mass media screens out one viewpoint versus another in political coverage. They're tired of media institutions favoring one party over another. They're tired of narratives over factual stories. If I had any advice for "60 Minutes" or anybody else, it would be: just cover the news and try to be fair about it and stop putting your finger on the scale, especially during the pandemic. JARVIS: That's -- that's -- you're -- you're talking about the old mass media myth, that you could have this thing that was in the middle. The Walter Cronkite saying, that's the way it is, when it wasn't for many Americans the way it was, when people were pissed off. JENNINGS: People -- but people back in those days trusted the media. JARVIS: No, they just couldn't be heard because there was no truth. And now that we have the Internet JENNINGS: Look at the Gallup poll. It was here, and now it's here. It's fallen off of a cliff. PHILLIP: Yeah, we -- we do have -- we do have that Gallup polling about trust in media. JARVIS: It’s terrible. PHILLIP: And now, as in recent years, and let's be honest, Scott. A lot of this is driven by the rhetoric on your side of the aisle. I mean, it's not -- JENNINGS: You think it's driven by the rhetoric and not the performance? PHILLIP: Absolutely.  Only could a cloistered member of the Acela Media believe, let alone publicly say, that distrust in media is driven by conservatives as opposed to an ongoing pattern of media suck. Conservatives did not suppress Hunter’s laptop or the lab leak theory, or actively participate in concealing Joe Biden’s decline from the American public until book deals could be had. The media did that. Trust numbers reflect that.  Finally, Jennings delivers a roadmap to regaining lost credibility. But will a post-deal CBS (or anyone else in the Legacy Media, for that matter) heed Jennings’ advice? It remains to be seen. .@ScottJenningsKY: My point is this: if you're CBS or any other news outlet, the reason that you have lost trust ought to be obvious to you. And the way to fix it also ought to be obvious to you. And it has nothing to do with Donald Trump and everything to do with the product.… pic.twitter.com/bPk4Xom2Dp — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 23, 2025 JENNINGS: My point is this: if you're CBS or any other news outlet, the reason that you have lost trust ought to be obvious to you. And the way to fix it also ought to be obvious to you. And it has nothing to do with Donald Trump and everything to do with the product. Just try to make a better product that appeals to more people, and the way you appeal to more people is by not crapping on half or more than half of the country because of their values and political viewpoints. PHILLIP: I think that that is a fair, just -- if we were sort of on another planet. Out of context, it is a fair description of what is necessary in this moment. Jennings is right inasmuch as this has everything to do with the product that media are delivering. And because they are Trump-deranged, the product will continue to be Trump derangement. And, on clue, Phillip’s rebuttal proves Jennings’ point. Time will tell whether they adjust. But if Abby’s performance is any indicator, it doesn’t seem likely. An exit palate-cleanser: Watch as former Bernie Sanders advisor Chuck Rocha finds bipartisan consensus with Jennings and Singleton, as they bond over former Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emmanuel getting yelled at by some white Karen progressive podcast host: .@ChuckRocha, reacting to Rahm Emmanuel getting yelled at on an AWFUL's podcast: "That's what I need, another woke white woman telling me what to do." pic.twitter.com/1riUdeEoiq — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 23, 2025 ROCHA: That's what I need. I need another white woman telling me what to do. JENNINGS: I was going to say, I mean, with all due respect to our colleague, him getting yelled at by one of these liberal white ladies on a podcast is like the most-- Shermichael and I cannot get --this is the content America needs. SINGLETON: Oh, it is. (CROSSTALK) JENNINGS: Getting yelled at by liberal white ladies, who are dragging your party into the depths.  

Behold a tale of two music festivals attended by two very similar groups of people – both attended by aspiring hippies in their 20s. Both were high on a sense of fearlessness and freedom that only exists in a Western civilization.  But the similarities between the Nova music festival in Israel on October 7, 2023 and the Coachella concert in April 2025…ended there.  Nova's attendees were descended upon by 7th century murderers and rapists on paragliders, set with the sole mission to exterminate them all. Coachella's comrades were descended upon by the private jets of the rich, and almost famous who took to their stage to cheer on those rapists. Unlike their Israeli counterparts, these coked-out Californians left their festival as smug, yet unharmed, as they had entered it.  Their illusion of elitism remained intact. This episode of “Woke of the Weak” examines the hypocrisy of Coachella’s privileged dilettantes who used their overpriced music festival to egg on the destruction of the very civilization that created their cocoon of comfort. 

After Donald Trump’s inauguration, Joe Biden disappeared from the scene for a while. Most assumed he would bow out of politics completely and spend his days puttering around his Rehoboth Beach retreat. But apparently he’s still got a little gas left in the tank — literally. On April 15 at the 2025 national Conference of Advocates, Counselors, and Representatives for the Disabled in Chicago, Biden delivered his first speech since leaving the White House. In it, he defended Social Security, condemned President Trump for making cuts to the program, and claimed the damage to Social Security is “breathtaking.” But that’s not all he did. Rick Burgess of “The Rick Burgess Show” plays the most cringeworthy clips from the speech. The blundering began immediately. Before his walk-out song was finished playing, Biden launched into his speech. The video shows him yammering away while the music completely drowns out his voice. “He's not just saying, ‘Hey, good to be here.’ He goes into the speech,” laughs Rick. “Completely oblivious,” sighs Greg Burgess. Once the music was cut and people could actually hear him, Biden told a story about Scranton, Pennsylvania, claiming that when he was a child, he’d “never seen hardly any black people in Scranton” but that changed in the fourth grade when he saw “colored kids on a bus.” Rick suspects that this story was not on the teleprompter. Biden went on to stumble through a few lines about the Americans with Disabilities Act before the most embarrassing moment perhaps in his career happened. Mid-speech, a noise that can only be described as a farting sound suddenly rang out over the microphone. There are a lot of theories about it. Some claim a chair scooting off camera was responsible for the sound; others believe a troll added the noise before circulating the video; and then there are those who believe that Biden indeed farted during his speech. The panel watches several versions of the clip, including the one aired by ABC News, and the sound is almost undeniable. Regardless of the truth, Rick, Greg, and Calvin Wilburn can’t help but howl in laughter. “I tried a little cheek sneak there and it had a little more volume than I thought,” Rick mocks. To see the footage and hear more of the panel’s hilarious commentary, watch the clip above. Want more from Rick Burgess?To enjoy more bold talk and big laughs, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.