Two meteor showers are visible in the late July skies, and they happen to peak at the same evening in a rare case of perfect timing. Especially visible in the Southern Hemisphere, but also visible farther south in the Northern Hemisphere, the α-Capricornids and the Southern δ-Aquariids will light up the night of July 30th-31st […] The post Two Meteor Showers Will Peak on the Same Night in July and Be Visible in the U.S. appeared first on Good News Network.

Planned Parenthood Faces a Choice: Health Care or Abortion

Trump Warns Hamas: Take This 60-Day Temporary Pause ... or Else

During a Tuesday appearance on Monica Lewinsky’s (yes, the one you’re thinking of) podcast “Reclaiming,” NBC Today show co-host Savannah Guthrie pushed back on her critics with essentially the schoolyard ‘I’m rubber and you’re glue” defense. According to her, if someone thought that she had a political bias in her reporting, it was they who needed to check their bias at the door. Of course, she said this after claiming one side’s arguments amount to claiming the sun didn’t rise that day. “I do think you have so much integrity in your work too. And I imagine, you know, sort of, unless you're a Fox News reporter, you have to keep your political views to yourself,” Lewinsky said as they neared the end of the podcast. Ironically, Lewinsky was one the receiving end of the liberal media’s smears in the late 90s as they desperately tried to defend President Bill Clinton (D). Guthrie responded by saying she’s fine with outlets that let reporters be biased because it’s like the editorial pages of a newspaper: And then certainly as journalists, that's the job, you know, unless you work for an outlet where you're supposed to express your opinion and then fine and everybody knows what that is and that's okay, you know, that– it's like the editorial page of a newspaper. It's existed for a long time. I don't have a problem with that as long as it's transparent. NBC’s sister network MSNBC was likely on her mind with that defense.     Attempting to be self-reflective, Guthrie noted that there were “probably people listening right now, who might say, oh well, she isn't dispassionate at all.” She then argued that “bias is really in the eye of the beholder.” She claimed reporters could no longer be “down the middle” because the “situation that have” in American politics was one where one side is claiming the sun didn’t rise: GUTHRIE: You know, we used to say like it's down the middle, but it's not really, it's more nuanced than that. It's not like you, you know, you don't– LEWINSKY: There is no down the middle. GUTHRIE: It's not down the middle. It’s not like you do a story and you say, “Some say the sun came up this morning. Others say it didn't.” That would be wrong. That would be factually incorrect. And so that is, you know, more and more a situation that we have. The NBC anchor followed up by suggesting she had never tried to “hit you over the head” with her opinions and that if you had picked up on a bias coming from her it was because you were the problem: And we want that credibility that you're– we're not coming here to hit you over the head with one thing or another. You know, again, it's in the eye of the beholder, and I recognize that. What I would just challenge people to think about when they are analyzing whether you're, again, consider yourself of the left or the right or whatever you are, is when you're identifying bias and the people that you are receiving your news from, just to ponder and ask yourself whether it is your bias that is determining that the person you're receiving the news from is biased. But just days before the 2020 election, Guthrie was hosting a Trump town hall for NBC in which she got into the shouting match with President Trump. She was hitting Trump over the head for not requiring masks at his rallies. “No one that says you can't be out there, but it's just about wearing masks and having -- For example, your rallies! Your rallies don't require masks,” she shouted. “But as President, you're right, you want to be a leader, but you also are a leader and a setter of an example.” She also tried to link him to white supremacy despite him actively denouncing it in front of her (Click “expand”): TRUMP: I denounced white supremacy for years. But you always do it. You always start off with the question. You didn't ask Joe Biden whether or not he denounces Antifa. I washed him on the same basic show with Lester Holt and he was asking questions like Biden was a child. GUTHRIE: Well, this is a little bit of a dodge. TRUMP: Are you listening? I denounce white supremacy. What's your next question? GUTHRIE: Do you feel-- It feels sometimes you're hesitant to do so. Like you wait a beat. TRUMP: Here we go again. Every time. In fact, my people came, I'm sure they'll ask you the white supremacy question. I denounce white supremacy. Back with Lewinsky, Guthrie admitted that it’s hard to keep her opinions to herself when reporting, lamenting: “You know, so people sometimes say like, ‘Oh, is it hard for you to keep your personal opinions to yourself?’ I mean, maybe, sometimes, depending on what the subject is…” You don’t say, Savannah. You don’t say. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: Reclaiming With Monica Lewinsky July 1, 2025 00:39:41 – 00:45:52 (…) MONICA LEWINSKY: But talking about integrity and– and I do think you have so much integrity in your work too. And I imagine, you know, sort of, unless you're a Fox News reporter, you have to keep your political views to yourself. How have you sort of straddled– or do you feel you've had to do that? I think you've had to do that. In– in your work with your faith and religion because I feel like I don't see you talking about that a lot. But I also don’t watch it– SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Well I’m not out there to proselytize– LEWINSKY: Right. GUTHRIE: And I’ve certainly talked a lot about it in the book and– LEWINSKY: Right! Right! GUTHRIE: –we launched it on the show and so–  the show has been wonderful and supportive about that. But yes, I mean, this book is not to proselytize other than I hope it's– I hope– I hope it's appealing– LEWINKY: Right, right. GUTHRIE: You know, but that's– LEWINSKY: Yeah. GUTHRIE: –for it's– again gently appealing. And then certainly as journalists, that's the job, you know, unless you work for an outlet where you're supposed to express your opinion and then fine and everybody knows what that is and that's okay, you know, that– it's like the editorial page of a newspaper. It's existed for a long time. I don't have a problem with that as long as it's transparent. You know, it– it's– it's interesting in our world now that there will be people, probably people listening right now, who might say, oh well, she isn't dispassionate at all. She isn't, you know. So that's the interesting thing, you know, bias is really in the eye of the beholder. All I can tell you is what I try to do. Which is to be straightforward, to be accurate, to be fair, to be precise. You know, we used to say like it's down the middle, but it's not really, it's more nuanced than that. It's not like you, you know, you don't– LEWINSKY: There is no down the middle. GUTHRIE: It's not down the middle. It’s not like you do a story and you say, “Some say the sun came up this morning. Others say it didn't.” That would be wrong. That would be factually incorrect. And so that is, you know, more and more a situation that we have. Whereas in the old days when I was starting out, it might be like tax policy, and then you could, you know– everybody wants to see the tax system be more fair. Some say it should be a more progressive tax system that does X,Y,Z. Others say if you loosen regulations and you unburden business, then bubble– and you could have like a– weren't those– wasn't it adorable when we could have those sweet policy disagreements, and now it's so personal, you know, and now it's and that's really unfortunate. It makes the whole thing certainly less enjoyable to cover, but that's not the point, you know, it's not supposed to be enjoyable. But I– I try really hard. I really do, and I know our show does, and I think that Today show is a vestige of a place where we are having a pretty highly curated, certainly the first half hour, first 40, 50 minutes where, you know, it's almost like a nightly newscast, where we're selecting these few stories. And we want that credibility that you're– we're not coming here to hit you over the head with one thing or another. You know, again, it's in the eye of the beholder, and I recognize that. LEWINSKY: Yeah. GUTHRIE: What I would just challenge people to think about when they are analyzing whether you're, again, consider yourself of the left or the right or whatever you are, is when you're identifying bias and the people that you are receiving your news from, just to ponder and ask yourself whether it is your bias– LEWINSKI: Yeah. GUTHRIE: –that is determining that the person you're receiving the news from is biased. So for example, tariffs, you know, we're reporting that, you know, most economists say and most businesses and they're saying they're going to have to right– raise prices. Me reporting that does not make me biased. I'm not rooting for any particular outcome, and to the extent that there are those who have a contrary view, we include that too. But when people say, “Oh, you're so biased, you just keep hitting on this, that or the other,” maybe the bias that you're feeling is that you wish that you were watching someone who agreed with your view of the world– LEWINSKY: Right. GUTHRIE: –and that is okay. But you're hearing something different. And, you know, everybody's– LEWINSKY: I think– GUTHRIE: –we live in a time where everyone's kind of a couch media critic. LEWINSKY: Yeah. GUTHRIE: I think there's good things about that because it challenges everyone to be better, and then there's some parts about it that just really aren't on the level. And it's not an honest– honest critique. I'm here for honest critique, and we all need it and certainly journalism needs it. But you have to be honest with yourself as well about where you’re coming from. LEWINSKY: Yeah, and I– I think the sort of silos that we've created and the echo chambers make it so much harder to hold differing beliefs and to examine our own beliefs or our own bias. And- GUTHRIE: But I find that to be so interesting, you know, I actually– and maybe this is the lawyer in me– LEWINSKY: Yeah. GUTHRIE: You know, I find it very interesting to look at and array all of the different arguments that could be marshaled for or against something. I always want to know. I love having that intellectual discussion without making value judgments, that's not my job. You know, so people sometimes say like, “Oh, is it hard for you to keep your personal opinions to yourself?” I mean, maybe, sometimes, depending on what the subject is, but I also– I always say this a lot to the younger folks coming up– it's like, you know, our opinions really are not relevant whatsoever, and the job is to be able to report an issue, learn about an issue, and your opinion really should be the last consideration that you have. You should be able to– LEWINSKY: Interesting. GUTHRIE: –find out what the facts are, again, what are the arguments for and against. You may come to recognize that one argument seems to have greater strength in one way or the other, and that's fine. You're using your brain and you should, and that should be reflected in your coverage. But, who cares what our opinions are? For example, like, this is probably oversimplified, but like, if you need a heart surgery today, Monica, you wouldn't– if you're the doctor– if I'm your doctor– I don't say like, “I need to do heart surgery on Monica. I don't really like her.” LEWINSKI: Yeah. GUTHRIE: It's a professional job. LEWINSKI: Yeah. GUTHRIE: Your job is to do the job. Which is to report, investigate, deliver the facts. (...)

Picture your local leaders — the ones you elect to defend your rights and reflect your values — stripped of the power to regulate the most powerful technology ever invented. Not in some dystopian future. In Congress. Right now.Buried in the House version of Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a provision that would block every state in the country from passing any AI regulations for the next 10 years.The idea that Washington can prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.An earlier Senate draft took a different route, using federal funding as a weapon: States that tried to pass their own AI laws would lose access to key resources. But the version the Senate passed on July 1 dropped that language entirely.Now House and Senate Republicans face a choice — negotiate a compromise or let the "big, beautiful bill" die.The Trump administration has supported efforts to bar states from imposing their own AI regulations. But with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act already facing a rocky path through Congress, President Trump is likely to sign it regardless of how lawmakers resolve the question.Supporters of a federal ban on state-level AI laws have made thoughtful and at times persuasive arguments. But handing Washington that much control would be a serious error.A ban would concentrate power in the hands of unelected federal bureaucrats and weaken the constitutional framework that protects individual liberty. It would ignore the clear limits the Constitution places on federal authority.Federalism isn’t a suggestionThe 10th Amendment reserves all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the states or the people. That includes the power to regulate emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence.For more than 200 years, federalism has safeguarded American freedom by allowing states to address the specific needs and values of their citizens. It lets states experiment — whether that means California mandating electric vehicles or Texas fostering energy freedom.If states can regulate oil rigs and wind farms, surely they can regulate server farms and machine learning models.A federal case for cautionDavid Sacks — tech entrepreneur and now the White House’s AI and crypto czar — has made a thoughtful case on X for a centralized federal approach to AI regulation. He warns that letting 50 states write their own rules could create a chaotic patchwork, stifle innovation, and weaken America’s position in the global AI race. — (@) Those concerns aren’t without merit. Sacks underscores the speed and scale of AI development and the need for a strategic, national response.But the answer isn’t to strip states of their constitutional authority.America’s founders built a system designed to resist such centralization. They understood that when power moves farther from the people, government becomes less accountable. The American answer to complexity isn’t uniformity imposed from above — it’s responsive governance closest to the people.Besides, complexity isn’t new. States already handle it without descending into chaos. The Uniform Commercial Code offers a clear example: It governs business law across all 50 states with remarkable consistency — without federal coercion.States also have interstate compacts (official agreements between states) on several issues, including driver’s licenses and emergency aid.AI regulation can follow a similar path. Uniformity doesn’t require surrendering state sovereignty.State regulation is necessaryThe threats posed by artificial intelligence aren’t theoretical. Mass surveillance, cultural manipulation, and weaponized censorship are already at the doorstep.In the wrong hands, AI becomes a tool of digital tyranny. And if federal leaders won’t act — or worse, block oversight entirely — then states have a duty to defend liberty while they still can.RELATED: Your job, your future, your humanity: AI just crossed the line we can never undo BlackJack3D via iStock/Getty ImagesFrom banning AI systems that impersonate government officials to regulating the collection and use of personal data, local governments are often better positioned to protect their communities. They’re closer to the people. They hear the concerns firsthand.These decisions shouldn’t be handed over to unelected federal agencies, no matter how well intentioned the bureaucracy claims to be.The real danger: Doing nothingThis is not a question of partisanship. It’s a question of sovereignty. The idea that Washington, D.C., can or should prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.If Republicans in Congress are serious about defending liberty, they should reject any proposal that strips states of their constitutional right to govern themselves. Let California be California. Let Texas be Texas. That’s how America was designed to work.Artificial intelligence may change the world, but it should never be allowed to change who we are as a people. We are free citizens in a self-governing republic, not subjects of a central authority.It’s time for states to reclaim their rightful role and for Congress to remember what the Constitution actually says.

Voters in San Diego County, California, overwhelmingly elected to endorse far-left policies on Tuesday when they went to the ballot box.The five-member San Diego Board of Supervisors is split with two Republicans and two Democrats, but the last seat was won by Paloma Aguirre, a far-left Democrat, over the Republican challenger, Chula Vista Mayor John McCann.She referred to herself as a 'fighter at the county Board of Supervisors who will hold the line against the Trump administration.'Aguirre made it clear that she would use the seat to oppose the federal policies of President Donald Trump."Voters spoke loud and clear: Clean up the sewage crisis, lower costs, and stand up to the chaos, cuts, and intimidation coming out of Trump's Washington," she said in a statement on election evening.She also referred to herself as a "fighter at the county Board of Supervisors who will hold the line against the Trump administration."While it is estimated that 9,500 ballots have yet to be counted, Aguirre has garnered 53.22% to McCann's 46.78% with a lead of nearly 5,000 votes. She claimed victory Wednesday morning, and McCann conceded the election.Aguirre also denied that the area had a homeless crisis, and when asked about her solution to safety issues caused by transients' tents, she said she was more concerned with realtors' signs blocking sidewalks.Some hoped that the homeless crisis as well as the large population of illegal aliens in the county might have pushed enough voters to choose the Republican alternative, but it appears that Democratic policies will continue to dominate San Diego.RELATED: How California’s crisis could lead to a big political shift In December, the board of supervisors voted to strengthen anti-ICE policies and make the county a "super" sanctuary county in anticipation of future deportation policies ordered by Trump.The special election filled the seat that was vacated by Nora Vargas, who abruptly announced in December that she could no longer serve on the board due to safety and security issues. She was the first Hispanic woman to serve on the board and also the first immigrant to serve as well.Vargas' victory in 2020 had flipped the county from red to blue. The county includes about 3.3 million residents, which makes it the second-most populous county in California and the fifth-most populous county in the U.S.On her social media profile, Aguirre listed her pronouns as she/her/ella.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

President Donald Trump declared war on gender ideology and the corresponding child sex-change regime upon retaking office. Despite the best efforts of non-straight activists and overreaching federal judges, the campaign is off to an excellent start — as recently evidenced by Stanford Medicine's partial surrender.Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 28 directing all federal agencies to ensure that medical institutions receiving federal funding "end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children" — an initiative that accords with popular opinion, which is majoritively against sex-change drugs and surgeries for children."Across the country today, medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child's sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions," wrote Trump. "This dangerous trend will be a stain on our Nation's history, and it must end."It's clear that the president meant business — which in practice, has meant putting the sex-change regime out of business.Children's Hospital Los Angeles — which reportedly had patients as young as 3 and billed millions of dollars for hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and sex-change mutilations for minors — announced last month that it was shuttering its child sex-change center after assessing the "severe impacts" of the Trump administration's actions and proposed policies.Stanford Medicine revealed last week that it too was shuttering one of its youth sex-change practices.'Her testes are nonfunctional, and in medicine, don't we often recommend the removal of nonfunctional organs like an appendix?'The Stanford Pediatric and Adolescent Gender Clinic was founded in 2015 by pediatric endocrinologist Tandy Aye.During a 2019 TED Talk, Aye suggested age should not determine when kids can have their genitals surgically removed and/or distorted."Doctors usually allow those who are 18 to make decisions about their procedures and consent so that you can weigh the risks and benefits," said Aye, a member of the World Professional Association of Transgender Health. "Well then, the transgender patient may be one of the most well-informed patients. Who else has had years of psychological evaluation, months of medical therapy, and has thought of this one procedure for so long?"Aye suggested that in the case of a little boy sterilized after being pumped full of puberty blockers, conventional medical wisdom would dictate that his testicles should be removed."Her testes are nonfunctional, and in medicine, don't we often recommend the removal of nonfunctional organs like an appendix?" asked Aye. "So therefore, does it make sense for Avery to wait until she's 18?"Some of Aye's colleagues at WPATH admitted behind closed doors that informed consent by minors was all but impossible.RELATED: Sacrificing body parts and informed consent to the sex-change regime Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesIt's clear that the Stanford clinic shares Aye's eagerness for putting children on the path to sterility and permanent discomfort, stating in its FAQ that it treats "transgender and gender diverse children, adolescents, and young adults" and "will see younger children before puberty starts for education, social support, and referral to mental health and community resources."The clinic is, however, pausing the surgical side of its deformative practice.Stanford told the San Francisco Chronicle in a June 24 statement, "After careful review of the latest actions and directives from the federal government and following consultations with clinical leadership, including our multidisciplinary LGBTQ+ program and its providers, Stanford Medicine paused providing gender-related surgical procedures as part of our comprehensive range of medical services for LGBTQ+ patients under the age of 19, effective June 2, 2025.""We took this step to protect both our providers and patients," said Stanford. "This was not a decision we made lightly, especially knowing how deeply this impacts the individuals and families who depend on our essential care and support."'Children deserve evidence-based care, not irreversible harm backed by political activists.'The decision to pause genital mutilation at the clinic, which will reportedly continue to provide other forms of sex-change "care," was supposedly made before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee Republicans' ban on sex-change genital mutilations and sterilizing puberty blockers for minors on June 18.Similar laws are on the books in 23 other red states.Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman at the medical advocacy group Do No Harm, told Blaze News in a statement, "It is encouraging that Stanford Medicine has joined the ranks of medical systems ending experimental sex-change surgeries on children. However, Stanford Medicine should remain under scrutiny for its history of performing these procedures and its continued use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones on children."RELATED: Democrats' meltdown over SCOTUS child sex-change ruling reveals they learned nothing about 2024 blowout Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images"As the administration continues to investigate and take regulatory action against hospitals that harm gender confused kids, it should by no means give Stanford Medicine a pass until it complies with HHS' recommendations for treating gender dysphoria," continued Goldfarb. "Children deserve evidence-based care, not irreversible harm backed by political activists."As Goldfarb alluded, the Trump administration is bringing the full weight of the law down on those who would mutilate children on the basis of pseudoscience and false, ideologically driven narratives.Attorney General Pam Bondi noted in an April 22 memo that pursuant to Trump's executive order, she was directing all Department of Justice employees "to enforce rigorous protections and hold accountable those who prey on vulnerable children and their parents."Just last week, the FBI launched criminal probes into Boston Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital Colorado, and Children's Hospital Los Angeles — all three listed on medical advocacy group Do No Harm's list of the 12 worst offending institutions that promote sex changes for minors.Time will tell whether the administration will take a similar approach to Stanford.Blaze News has reached out to the Department of Justice for comment.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A mainstream media outlet is once again blasted with online outrage after reducing a vicious transnational gang to a mere "clique," perhaps to distance itself from the tough rhetoric from President Donald Trump regarding illegal immigration.On Tuesday, ABC News published a report about the upcoming sentencing hearing for Alexi Saenz, the 30-year-old leader of Sailors Locos Salvatruchas Westside, a Long Island offshoot of the notorious transnational criminal organization Mara Salvatrucha, better known as MS-13.'In my high school, we had the jocks, the nerds, the MS-13ers.'The story prompted a barrage of outrage for repeatedly referring to Sailors Locos as a "clique.""The leader of an MS-13 clique in the suburbs of New York City faces sentencing Wednesday in a federal racketeering case involving eight murders, including the 2016 killings of two high school girls that focused the nation’s attention on the violent gang," read a social media post from ABC News.The response was swift and fierce: "Of all the propaganda you’ve pushed over the years, describing a gang that murders children as a fun 'clique' is a new low," commented Mollie Hemingway, editor in chief of the Federalist."In my high school, we had the jocks, the nerds, the MS-13ers …," joked Blaze Media contributor Carol Roth."'Clique.' MS-13 is nothing more than a mean girls club now?" added another commenter.Only Regina George and the other Plastics in the iconic 2004 Lindsay Lohan film "Mean Girls" have nothing on Alexi Saenz.RELATED: Lawmaker who visited El Salvador to spring MS-13 gang member attacks Ashli Babbitt as a ‘domestic terrorist’ Photo by Rebecca Noble/Getty ImagesLast year, as part of a guilty plea to federal racketeering charges, Saenz admitted to ordering hits on rivals and others he believed were disrespectful, the AP reported at the time, likewise referring to Saenz's gang division as a "clique." His orders resulted in eight murders and three attempted murders.Among those killed were Kayla Cuevas, 16, and Nisa Mickens, 15, high school friends who were stalked and then beaten and slashed to death with a baseball bat and a machete in 2016. The girls' parents attended Trump's 2018 State of the Union address."These two precious girls were brutally murdered while walking together in their hometown," Trump said at the time. "Six members of the savage gang MS-13 have been charged with Kayla and Nisa's murders. Many of these gang members took advantage of glaring loopholes in our laws to enter the country as unaccompanied alien minors and wound up in Kayla and Nisa's high school."Trump also called for the death penalty for those responsible.RELATED: VIDEO: Democrat melts down during hearing over evidence that Kilmar Garcia is an MS-13 gang member Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll CallSaenz did not end up facing the death penalty, but he is likely to spend the rest of his life behind bars. He was sentenced to 68 years in prison, a decision that likely pleased prosecutors, who pushed for 70.His attorneys pushed for a sentence of 45 years, claiming he is "profoundly sorry" and "on a journey of redemption." They also insisted he is intellectually disabled and had a difficult childhood in El Salvador. Whether Saenz immigrated to the U.S. legally is unclear.Prosecutors dismissed those arguments, claiming that Saenz — aka Blasty, aka Big Homie — has continued to affiliate with the Sailors Locos and commit violence while incarcerated."Indeed, the same pattern of violence and mayhem that has marked his life on the street has not waned with the passage of time," they wrote.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In the trade war with the rest of the world, Canada threatened to tax Big Tech companies in America. However, just a few comments from President Donald Trump caused Canada to back down, and tariff negotiations are back on the table.“So Canada put a charge on some of our companies, and Canada’s been a very difficult country to deal with over the years, and we have all the cards,” Trump said in a press conference last week.“Economically, we have such power over Canada, I’d rather not use it, but they did something with our tech companies today trying to copy Europe. You know, they copied Europe. It’s not going to work out well for Europe, either, and it’s not going to work out well for Canada. They were foolish to do it,” he continued.Trump went on to explain that while America does a “little” business with Canada, they do “most of their businesses with us.”“They’ve had farmers that are getting like 300, 400, 200% in tariffs. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it. We have cases, you don’t read this, and the people don’t report it, but they charge us 400% on some dairy products,” he said, adding, “And it’s not fair to our farmers, and we’ve got to protect our farmers.”“Now, Canada is the second largest United States trading partner after Mexico, also, the largest buyer of United States exports, which is kind of to President Trump’s point, they stand a lot to lose here,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales comments.“This tax plan would have put a 3% tax on companies like Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber, Airbnb, and it also would be retroactive going all the way back to January of 2022. So for some of these companies, I mean, that’s quite a bit of money,” she says.Now, Canada caved and dropped the digital tax plan in order to give themselves more time to reach a deal with President Trump by July 21.Gonzales isn’t surprised by Canada’s move, adding, “It’s the art of the deal man.”Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Several California cities canceled their Fourth of July celebrations, reportedly citing Immigration and Customs Enforcement activities as the reason for the last-minute decision.With President Donald Trump's vow to execute the biggest deportation effort in the nation's history, ICE has increased its efforts to find and detain illegal aliens. 'This disdain for the average citizen is typical of California's Democrat leadership.'California, the state with the largest illegal immigrant population, has been a prime target of the administration's immigration enforcement activities, sparking mass protests and even destructive rioting last month.Now, several California cities are reportedly faulting ICE for their decision to cancel Independence Day celebrations.RELATED: Police union calls on Cudahy vice mayor to resign over video taunting violent street gangs to defend LA from ICE agents Photo by GUILLERMO ARIAS/AFP via Getty Images The city of Cudahy, located in southeastern Los Angeles, announced last Wednesday that it was "postponing" an Independence Day celebration scheduled for July 3 "due to recent events and concerns regarding the safety of our residents." The post did not directly cite ICE activities as the reason for the postponement. As of Tuesday, the event had not been rescheduled.Cudahy Vice Mayor Cynthia Gonzalez faced calls to resign, including from the L.A. police union, after she appeared to call on the city's street gangs to stop ICE's operations.In a now-deleted June video, Gonzalez said, "I want to know where all the cholos are at in Los Angeles: 18th Street, Florencia. Where's the leadership at? Because you guys are all about territory and 'This is 18th Street,' and, 'This is Florencia.' You guys tag everything up, claiming hood and now that your hood's being invaded by the biggest gang there is, there ain't a peep out of you.""Whoever's the leadership over there, just f**king get your members in order," Gonzalez added.Matt Himes, a California resident and the managing editor for Blaze Media's Align, stated, "Last week L.A. County official Cynthia Gonzalez allegedly went on TikTok to encourage local gang members to fight back against ICE. She didn't ask how her law-abiding constituents felt about the prospect of open warfare in their neighborhood. This disdain for the average citizen is typical of California's Democrat leadership."Bell Gardens, a city located just east of Cudahy, also canceled its Fourth of July events, directly citing concerns about immigration enforcement."Out of an abundance of caution regarding concerns for resident safety over federal immigration enforcement activities, the City of Bell Gardens will be canceling the scheduled events between June 24, 2025, and July 10, 2025, including the Movie Nights on June 26 and July 10 as well as the Independence Day Celebration," the city wrote.Since the notice of cancellation, the city has repeatedly used its social media account to promote "immigration workshops." One pinned post reads, "Know your rights! Regardless of your immigration status, you have guaranteed constitutional rights." The post instructs immigrants on how to respond to ICE agents arriving at their home, advising them not to open the door for officers unless they have a warrant signed by a judge."Remain silent and [do] not answer questions from immigration agents," it reads.RELATED: Fear of deportation is crippling Los Angeles businesses so badly, unions are demanding moratorium on rent Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times via Getty ImagesHuntington Park, a city northwest of Cudahy, similarly postponed its Independence Day celebrations, though it did not provide a reason. "The Celebration of Independence scheduled for Thursday, July 3rd has been postponed. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Thank you for your understanding and support," the city wrote. Boyle Heights, located east of the Los Angeles River, postponed its July 4 events, citing ICE activities, according to Alejandra Alarcon, a spokesperson for the office of city council member Ysabel Jurado.Alarcon told the Boyle Heights Beat, "We're responding to the crisis with the presence of federal agents in the community."The outlet reported that celebrations for Boyle Heights, El Sereno, Lincoln Heights, and Northeast Los Angeles will be postponed until sometime in August.Jurado’s deputy for economic innovation and community growth, Lucia Aguilar, was arrested, along with her twin sister, for allegedly assaulting a police officer with a deadly weapon during the anti-ICE riots in June. The twin sisters are the daughters of Rick Cole, a Democratic Pasadena City council memberAs some California cities prioritize shielding illegal immigrants over celebrating Independence Day, critics argue these actions betray the core values of America. Himes stated, "Legal immigrants love July 4 — just like people who've been here for generations. But too bad: What really matters is 'protecting' the people with no respect for our country's laws. Even my neighborhood of the Pacific Palisades (which burned to the ground on the watch of that same Democratic leadership) is having a big July 4 party — my condolences to all my fellow Californians being denied one."Gloria Romero, a former Democratic majority leader in the California State Senate, told Fox News, "They're basically canceling America; they're canceling patriotism.""We are basically led by a far-left, ultra-woke, [Trump derangement syndrome]-suffering fools," she said.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!