The El Paso Times — a newspaper in the megachain Gannett — penned a syrupy profile Thursday thanks to reporter Adam Powell of Congressman Colin Allred (D-TX), whom they celebrated as someone who “isn’t running for cover” from the U.S.-Mexico border and “[d]rawing contrast on border policy” with incumbent Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). Along with a nod to this manufactured push by Democrats to run campaigns centered around “freedom” (read: abortion), Powell scoffed at Cruz as having “taken a hands-off approach to immigration legislation while using crises at the border as fodder for his reelection bids.” Powell proclaimed that Allred “said his opponent's unwillingness to act on meaningful immigration reform continues to hurt Texans in border communities and beyond.” He then uncritically ran a litany of quotes of Allred sounding like he was reciting Senate Democratic talking points. Powell then turned his ire on Cruz (click “expand”): Migrant crossings...are among the lowest experienced during President Joe Biden's administration. Meanwhile, Cruz continues to campaign on failure at the border. A day ago, he posted on social media that Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris "has risked our national security by letting in millions of illegal aliens." Allred recently took his border message to the airwaves with a television ad entitled "Out Here." The ad blasts Cruz for his continued inaction on immigration reform and features law enforcement officers from across the border region, including El Paso sheriff candidate Oscar Ugarte. He likely has a sure bet on votes in the Democratic stronghold of El Paso, undoubtedly bolstered by support from state Sen. Cesar Blanco and U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar, but he also believes the border is a key issue for voters all across Texas. “I think all over the state folks are talking about it,” he said. “Obviously, it's more personal and more front of mind for our border communities but, whether it's Dallas or the Panhandle, this is something people talk about all the time.” In a subhead entitled “[d]rawing contrast on border policy”, Powell again touted Allred’s boilerplate language about “a short- and long-term approach, beginning with the asylum process and the nation's legal immigration system”, targeting “countries behind some of the biggest crowds of migrants” (so, the countries Vice President Harris was supposed to address), and support for the border deal negotiated by the White House, Senate Democrats, and a small group of Republicans. “Allred's position varies wildly from that of Cruz, who has so far during his time in the Senate taken a hands-off approach to immigration legislation while using crises at the border as fodder for his reelection bids,” Powell boasted ahead of an Allred quote falsely claiming Cruz “doesn’t want to do anything” to protect the American people. Fact-check: Pants on fire. Cruz has not only supported the border security measure passed by House Republicans — H.R. 2 — but also Kate’s Law (named after the late Kate Steinele), the Justice for Jocelyn Act (named after a Texas girl allegedly murdered by an illegal alien), the Protect Kids and Parents Act, and the No FAMS at the Border Act of 2024. Most notably, he supported and helped pass the TRANQ Research Act, which became law late last year that targets a deadly street drug by the same name, a tranquilizer that a press release on the law said “is often combined with other drugs like fentanyl and Xanax.” None of that — plus Cruz’s visits to the border — made Powell’s piece. It seemed as though Powell never actually reached out to Cruz’s spokespeople for a comment. The final few graphs were even sillier, falsely claiming Cruz wants to cut entitlements and how “Allred said his campaign is focused on one issue more than any other” in “freedom” and “the right to have control over one's own body”. Once again, it sure comes off like Powell wasn’t concerned about writing a real news story.

On Wednesday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) subpoenaed the political consulting firm where Judge Juan Merchan's daughter, Loren, is employed as the company's president.According to the letter sent to the founder and chief executive officer of Authentic Campaigns Inc., Michael Nellis, the firm has "declin[ed] to comply voluntarily with the Committee's oversight," including failing to turn over any requested documents.'Unprecedented abuse of authority.'Jordan launched the investigation into Loren Merchan earlier this month, arguing that her role with the progressive political consulting firm presents potential "conflicts of interest" for her father, who is overseeing Republican presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump's New York criminal case, where he was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records.Jordan told Blaze News, "If Authentic Campaigns provides services to President Trump’s political adversaries, and Authentic Campaigns stands to benefit financially from President Trump’s criminal trial, it creates — at a minimum — the appearance of a conflict of interest for Judge Merchan, who several experts have said should have recused. After all, he donated to President Biden, imposed an unconstitutional gag order on President Trump, prevented an expert defense witness from providing fulsome testimony, and told the jury they didn’t have to reach a unanimous decision."Authentic Campaigns Inc. raised at least $93 million in campaign donations for two of its Democratic clients by, in part, sending solicitation emails mentioning Trump's New York trial. Judge Merchan has rejected Trump's legal team's repeated attempts to remove him from the case.In an August letter to Loren Merchan, Jordan wrote, "Experts have raised substantial concerns with Judge Merchan, your father, refusing to recuse himself from President Trump's case despite your work on behalf of President Trump's political adversaries and the financial benefit that your firm, Authentic Campaigns Inc., could receive from the prosecution and conviction.""At a minimum, there is a perception that you and Authentic Campaigns could profit considerably from President Trump's prosecution in a forum overseen by your father," Jordan stated.The Ohio representative gave Loren Merchan until August 8 to turn over "all contracts and invoices" and "all documents and communications" related to campaign work for President Joe Biden (D), Democratic nominee and Vice President Kamala Harris, and the Democratic National Committee, beginning in 2023. She was also to provide the committee with all political campaigns referencing Trump's New York case and all communications between her employers and her father or his staff regarding the case.In the subpoena notice to Nellis, the House Judiciary Committee accused Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) of "engag[ing] in an unprecedented abuse of authority by prosecuting a former President of the United States and current nominee for that office.""Of relevance to the Committee's oversight is the impartiality of Judge Juan Merchan, the presiding trial judge, due to his refusal to recuse himself from the case in light of his apparent conflicts of interest and biases."According to Jordan, Nellis has worked and appears to continue to work for Harris' campaign. Nellis has denied claims that the company is currently contracted with Harris' campaign or the Democratic National Committee.Nellis responded by posting the subpoena on social media, calling it "another abuse of power, aimed at promoting a baseless right-wing conspiracy theory that links our company, Authentic, to Donald Trump's fraud trial.""Let us be clear: these allegations against our company are completely false and purely politically motivated," Nellis continued. "This is a blatant attempt to intimidate us and divert attention from Donald Trump's conviction. We refuse to be bullied, and we will not allow House Republicans or MAGA extremists to spread lies about our work. We remain steadfast in our mission and are deeply grateful for the unwavering support of our friends and family during this time."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

While much of the mainstream media has expressed glee at recent polling showing Democratic candidate Kamala Harris surging ahead of former President Donald Trump, a new election forecast spells doom for Democrats.The forecast from polling expert Nate Silver stunned many when it was published on Thursday. "Kamala Harris had one of her worst days in some time in our forecast on Thursday despite gaining in our national polling average," wrote Silver. The forecast says that Trump has a 52.4% chance to win the Electoral College while Harris only has a 47.3% chance to win the presidency. The stats don't add up to 100% because of the small possibility of an electoral tie. Silver explained that the model forecast took into account a bump after the Democratic National Convention and that this likely led to the prediction dropping for Harris. "It assumes Harris’ polls are somewhat inflated right now, in other words — just as it assumed Trump’s numbers were inflated after the RNC," he explained. However, even if her support equalizes in the weeks ahead, Silver says the Harris campaign is hitting stormy seas in the pivotal state of Pennsylvania. He says that recent polling shows Harris only slightly ahead of Trump or behind in Pennsylvania, and that could be a tipping point for the election. "The model puts a lot of weight on this recent data because of all the changes in the race. And you can see why it thinks this is a problem for her," Silver explains. "If she’s only tied in Pennsylvania now, during what should be one of her stronger polling periods, that implies being a slight underdog in November."Many on the left have lambasted Silver's modeling for not sufficiently showing support for the Democrat. Rob Eno, BlazeTV media critic, offered a history lesson to explain why Silver may not be eager to toe the line.After the 2016 election, Nate Silver was one of the few mainstream political professionals to admit he was wrong and adjust his models. Disney-owned ABC bought his company FiveThirtyEight and shortly before this election year let him go. That's probably not by mistake, as he is unwilling to play propagandist ball.There are only 68 days left until Election Day. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

“I take the full responsibility.”Those words by former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — the polar opposite of what she has publicly proclaimed for nearly 44 months — were uttered on Jan. 6 as she and Democratic colleagues watched the unfolding protests and violence at the U.S. Capitol on television, new video shows.While claiming she takes responsibility in one video clip, she lashed out at former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund in another, putting the blame for Jan. 6 on his head.Pelosi also claimed that she wanted the National Guard to “get rid of these people” on Jan. 6, although her office rejected Sund’s request for the Guard just days earlier.Sund said if Pelosi had simply granted his Jan. 3 request for the National Guard, “I don’t think we would be here discussing this today.”'They should have had much more anticipation about the National Guard.'“I am stunned by the repeated statements by Pelosi about there not being any National Guard deployed to the Capitol in advance of the attack on January 6,” Sund told Blaze News, “when it was her sergeant at arms for the House of Representatives who denied my request for support on January 3, and then again repeatedly for 71 minutes while we were under attack on January 6.”The Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight released six new video clips from unaired documentary footage shot on Jan. 6 after Pelosi and other House leaders were evacuated from the Capitol to nearby Fort McNair.The videos had been in the possession of the now-defunct Jan. 6 Select Committee but were not turned over to House Republicans in January 2023 as required by House rules, said U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight. The Subcommittee on Oversight had to obtain the videos directly from Home Box Office Inc., Loudermilk said.“For over three years, Nancy Pelosi has refused to take responsibility for her failure to secure the Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021,” Loudermilk said.“Instead, she has pushed the focus of the failure on President Trump. As speaker, she controlled House operations and security on the House side of the Capitol — which she acknowledges in this HBO footage.”'A complete victory for them'Sitting with other House leaders watching news coverage from Fort McNair shown in one video, Pelosi said, “I don’t care what they say, they should have had much more anticipation about the National Guard.”Pelosi’s statements are at odds with what the House sergeant at arms told Sund, who said he frantically tried to get approval for National Guard help practically from the time the crowds broke through the first police line at 12:53 p.m. on Jan. 6. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) discusses her response to the Jan. 6 violence on a ride to the Capitol on Jan. 7, 2021. Alexandra Pelosi / HBO via Rep. Barry LoudermilkIn one of the videos — filmed by Pelosi’s daughter Alexandra for an HBO documentary “Pelosi in the House” — the speaker was riding in a Capitol Police vehicle on the way to Fort McNair after top leaders were evacuated from the Capitol at 2:15 p.m. The House had just announced a recess due to the breach of the Senate wing door by rioters.“They had to recess the session,” Pelosi said. “It’s a complete victory for them.”As the Capitol Police vehicle navigated traffic with its siren blaring, Pelosi said, “Oh my God, I cannot believe the stupidity of this. And I take the full responsibility.”Pelosi was visibly frustrated at being taken from the Capitol to a secure off-site location. “We going to stay here all day, the rest of our lives, or what?” she snapped. “We’re here until what? The National Guard decides to come and get rid of these people?”'We got to come up with another plan. Pelosi will never go for it.'According to congressional testimony, Sund asked House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving more than an hour earlier for the Capitol Police Board to declare an emergency and approve a request for deployment of the National Guard.“I was advised by Mr. Irving that he needed to run it up the chain of command,” Sund testified before the U.S. Senate in February 2021.The House sergeant at arms is appointed by and reports to the speaker. Under rules in force at the time, the police chief could not even request National Guard help without permission from the Capitol Police Board. Voting members of the board include the House and Senate sergeants at arms and the architect of the Capitol. Sund was an ex-officio member.Sund's initial request to Irving and the Capitol Police Board for National Guard help was made at 1:09 p.m. on Jan. 6. Sund said he made repeated calls for updates from Irving and was told a decision was forthcoming. Pelosi did approve Irving's request to go to the Pentagon for Guard help. That decision was relayed to Sund from the Police Board at 2:10 p.m., three minutes before the Capitol was breached at the Senate wing door entrance.Sund told Loudermilk’s subcommittee on Sept. 19, 2023, that he requested the National Guard three days ahead of Jan. 6, but that request was turned down by Irving because Irving said Pelosi would “never go for it.”According to Sund, Irving suggested he speak to Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger about it on Jan. 3, 2021. Stenger, who died on June 27, 2022, later told Sund that Irving had called to tip him off that the chief was on his way over, Sund testified.“And he told me Paul Irving had called him ahead of time and said: ‘Sund came here looking for the National, asking for the National Guard. We got to come up with another plan. Pelosi will never go for it.’”“I was floored by him saying that,” Sund testified.President Trump authorized use of up to 20,000 members of the National Guard during a meeting at the White House on Jan. 3, 2021, according to Kash Patel, a former senior Trump aide who attended the meeting. Under federal law, the president cannot order the Guard's use for domestic law enforcement. The president can only authorize. In the case of the District of Columbia, either Mayor Muriel Bowser or federal law enforcement could have requested Guard deployment.In another video, shot while Pelosi walked to the subway under the Capitol grounds during evacuation, she said to her Capitol Police protective detail, “Over and over again. Are we prepared for what could happen? Consider the worst. And we didn’t.”Sund said he was hamstrung by a bureaucratic structure that left Capitol Police protection open to partisan politics. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi evacuates the U.S. Capitol after rioters breached the Senate Wing Door entrance on Jan. 6, 2021. Alexandra Pelosi / HBO via Rep. Barry Loudermilk “People need to realize that I was the only chief of police in the U.S. who was restricted by law (2 U.S. Code 1970) from bringing in resources for my men and women without the approval of the Capitol Police Board and congressional leadership,” Sund told Blaze News.“No wonder Congress changed this law in December of 2021, only 11 months after January 6,” Sund said. “If my request for support had been approved on January 3, 2021, I don’t think we would be here discussing this today.”Pelosi and her staff director, Jamie Fleet, attacked Sund in several of the new videos.'We have totally failed'Riding to the Capitol on Jan. 7, 2021, Pelosi said during a phone call, “I never liked Sund. I think he should have been gone a long time ago.”During a meeting at the Capitol with staff that same day, Pelosi said, “What a mess. What a mess,” then asked Fleet, “Do you have any confidence in Sund? What do you think of him?”“We’ve always been skeptical of Sund,” Fleet said. “He has terrible relationships with the union. He has particularly been, I think, not great handling this coronavirus pandemic with the workforce.”Sund told Blaze News he was endorsed by the United States Capitol Police Labor Committee, and police departments from around the country have used USCP’s pandemic plans as a model.In another video clip, Pelosi said, “We have totally failed. We have to take some responsibility for not holding the security accountable for what could have happened.”'I think our focus has to be on the president.'While walking down a stairway with other House leaders after 2:15 p.m. as the Capitol was evacuated, Pelosi asked whether the National Guard had been called.“Are they calling the National Guard? I asked him to do that earlier,” Pelosi said. When someone answered that a call had been made, Pelosi repeated, “And did they call the National Guard? And they didn’t come?”National Guard troops from the District of Columbia were staged within sight of the Capitol the afternoon of Jan. 6. Due to delayed Capitol Police Board approval and bureaucratic wrangling at the Pentagon, troops didn’t arrive at the Capitol until 5:30 p.m., after a massive law enforcement mutual-aid response regained control of the grounds.As Pelosi worked with her staff to craft public statements she was to release in the wake of Jan. 6, she made it a top priority to blame Trump for what she called “an armed insurrection against America.”That focus had to come ahead of any announcements of staff resignations, according to the HBO videos. As a staff member read the draft of a statement being written for her, the speaker interrupted.“Now wait, wait a minute,” she said, speaking on a ride to the Capitol on Jan. 7. “Let me just say this. I think our focus has to be on the president. Let’s not divert ourself.”A staff member interjected that incoming Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had announced plans to fire Stenger, the Senate sergeant at arms. “I don’t even know who that is,” she said, to which a staff member replied, “It’s immaterial. Heads are rolling is what we’re saying.”Pelosi was not deterred on the message to be emphasized.“I don’t want to have it on a par with the insurrection and the impeachment and the rest of that,” she said. “If they ask, I will respond, but I’m not doing it on a par. It’s a diversionary tactic.”Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

On August 19, tech billionaire Mike Lynch died when his yacht capsized off the coast of Sicily due to encountering a violent storm. On the same day, miles away in an English village near Cambridge, Stephen Chamberlain, Lynch’s business partner, was hit by a car while out for a jog. If that wasn’t uncanny enough, the two men were recently acquitted of charges related to alleged fraud. Coincidence? James Poulos thinks not. - YouTube youtu.be “What was strange about the capsizing of this boat [is] there was another ship – another yacht – nearby that was also anchored in the area that was not destroyed and really not even damaged by this storm,” he tells Jill Savage and the “Blaze News Tonight” panel. “There are questions about whether the mast was so heavy that it kept the boat capsized.” However, according to the designer of the boat, the ship was “unsinkable,” which has led to “questions of whether or not somebody sabotaged the boat or left something open that should have been closed during the storm,” Poulos says. As far as Chamberlain’s death goes, British authorities have “the make and model” of the car that hit him, and they have taken “a 49-year-old woman” “into custody.” Suspiciously, when “police put out a call for witnesses … there were none,” says Poulos. In regard to the acquittal that narrowly preceded their deaths, Poulos says that the trial revolved around the “the sale of the firm Autonomy [Corporation],” which Mike Lynch co-founded, “to Hewlett-Packard back in the 2010s.” “This was a huge scandal at the time,” Poulos says. “Hewlett-Packard acquired the company for billions and billions of dollars and then very soon thereafter had to write down about $8.8 billion as a loss.” “There are some interesting questions about who was president of Hewlett-Packard at that time, why his tenure was so short, why he made such a 180 in sort of defining Hewlett-Packard's business model. The acquisition of [Autonomy] was designed to be the piece that allowed Hewlett-Packard to pivot in this massive way from hardware to software.” “Who's behind the deaths?” asks Blaze Media editor in chief Matthew Peterson, acknowledging the swirling conspiracy theories. To hear Poulos’ answer, watch the clip above. Want more from Blaze News Tonight?To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Vice President Kamala Harris assured the left-wing of the Democratic Party that her "values" on issues like energy independence and health care have not changed despite saying she no longer supports her past statements. Harris' interview with CNN's Dana Bash was her first interview after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race when it was clear he was unlikely to win this year's election. During the interview, Harris was accompanied by her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. 'My value around what we need to do to secure our border. That value has not changed.'CNN aired a preview of the interview during the 4:00 p.m. hour. The full interview will air during the 9:00 p.m. hour."Generally speaking, how should voters look at some of the changes that you've made that you've explained some of here in your policy? ... Is it because you were running for president in a Democratic primary? And should they feel comfortable and confident that what you're saying now is going to be your policy moving forward?" Bash asked. “Dana, I think the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed. You've mentioned the Green New Deal. I have always believed — and I've worked on it — that the climate crisis is real, that it is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time. We did that with the Inflation Reduction Act," Harris said, admitting the Inflation Reduction Act was not about reducing inflation but rather shoehorning in progressive policies."My value around what we need to do to secure our border — that value has not changed. I spent two terms as the attorney general of California prosecuting transnational criminal organizations, violations of American laws regarding the passage — illegal passage of guns, drugs, and humans beings across our border. My values have not changed," Harris insisted.Harris did not answer Bash's question, though Bash stated afterward Harris gave the broad answer and promised they got into specific examples of her supposed changes in her policy positions elsewhere in the interview.Former President Donald Trump's campaign shared some of Harris' extreme positions and added, "My values have not changed" to each post.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Kamala's Interview on Climate Change was a Word Salad So Green It's Practically Photosynthesizing (WATCH)

Another Day, Another Flip-Flop: Kamala's Changed Her Tune on Immigration (So Says Campaign Staff)

Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff Tries to Get a 'USA' Chant Going, Fails

Brazil Supreme Court Justice Will SHUT DOWN Country's X Access If Musk Doesn't Cave to Censorship Demands