Are you following a right-leaning media outlet on Elon Musk’s X platform (formerly Twitter) to stay informed about breaking news? The Media Research Center has some bad news for you. A new MRC study of X’s algorithm revealed that leftist activists secretly working against Musk’s free speech vision for his platform may have found new victims to suppress: right-leaning media outlets critical of the Biden-Harris regime.  The study specifically shows that the algorithm is prone to stifle posts by right-leaning media outlets while conveniently promoting those of leftist media outlets, according to answers and data provided to MRC by Grok, the Musk-owned xAI chatbot.  These results are consistent with MRC’s previous studies showing how X favors Democrats in Congress over their Republican counterparts and how the platform also favors Vice President Kamala Harris over Vice Presidential nominee J.D. Vance. If short on time: The data unveiled that an overwhelming majority of the left-leaning media outlets receive highly favorable scores in the four core metrics used by the X algorithm to determine which accounts to amplify and which to suppress. A staggering 100 percent of left-leaning media outlets are assigned favorable “reputation” scores by X’s employees, meaning the official pages of these outlets enjoy far broader reach.  Here’s how.  The “reputation” scores run from 0 to 100 and weigh heavily in the algorithm’s calculation for which accounts to recommend to others, according to Grok’s answers to MRC. This score is also called “Tweepcred.” Grok told MRC that a score of 65 out of 100 is the “minimum” score required for a user to be recommended. “Accounts with higher Tweepcred scores are more likely to have their posts seen by a larger audience, while those with lower scores may have their posts deprioritized in the platform's algorithm,” the chatbot claimed. Socialist magazine Jacobin and infamous leftist outlets HuffPost, Mother Jones, MSNBC and DemocracyNow! are among those deemed reputable by the staff at X who seem to be rebelling against Musk’s vision of a free-speech platform devoid of election interference.  In contrast to these left-leaning media outlets, X skewered the right, deboosting nearly 74 percent of the right-leaning media outlets reviewed by MRC. That is 17 out of 23 or three-fourths of the right-leaning media outlets.  Responding to these findings, MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider said,  “We have seen over and over that there remains a radical remnant within X fighting against Elon Musk. This latest report is shocking. It shows that X’s radicals treat right-leaning news outlets even worse than NewsGuard does.”  In sum, of the 62 media outlets reviewed by the MRC, the algorithm deemed that those on the left — including the self-described socialist magazine Jacobin and MSNBC — are more appealing, more reputable, less toxic and retain followers at a higher rate on average when compared to their counterparts on the right. New York Post, The Daily Wire and Blaze Media are among those media outlets on the right. The data explained: To determine each account’s score, MRC prompted Grok with tailored questions so that the AI chatbot reviewed the platform’s backend to unveil the scores. This methodology was first disclosed by an anonymous researcher on X known as “@The1Parzival.” According to data reviewed by the MRC, X uses four core metrics to calculate each user's “visibility” score. These metrics are “Mass Appeal” (diversity of followers), “Reputation” (purported reliability), “Toxicity” (potentially offensive content or perceived harmfulness) and “Follower” (follower retention). According to @The1Parzival, the algorithm uses this score to determine whether to amplify or suppress posts from accounts using these metrics. Posts will receive greater reach depending on the specific score awarded by X. For a more in-depth explanation of the methodology, revisit our first study of the X algorithm. Let’s run some numbers: MRC used the media bias chart by ratings firm AllSides that classifies media outlets on their perceived bias on a left-to-right scale. The evidence showed that X anointed left-leaning media outlets with an average and favorable, visibility score of 82.64/100. In contrast, X punished right-leaning outlets with an average score of 63.56, giving the left a 19.08-point advantage on average. An explanation for how X granted these outlets such favorable ratings is found in how the platform determined the individual score for each metric. X’s favoritism for leftist outlets is even more blatant in these metrics. With an average score of 56.52, the right is far more likely to be censored than the left. Some of these media outlets include well-respected media outlets The Washington Times, The Federalist, Fox News, The Daily Wire and The Daily Caller. The outlets described by AllSides as centrist are also safe from the X algorithm. Outlets like the BBC, Forbes, NewsNation and Reuters, enjoyed an average reputation score of 74.44 out of 100, which is a 10-point advantage over outlets on the right.  X turns a blind eye to leftist’s toxic posts: The X algorithm grants high “toxicity” scores to media outlets known for their subjectively divisive and hostile posts. Left-leaning media outlets received an average toxicity score of 26.33, a grossly low number when compared to the 47.60 average score granted to right-leaning media outlets. That is a 21-point disparity. Accounts with conveniently low toxicity scores include that of The New York Times (10/100), which on Oct. 17 incorrectly blamed Israel for an airstrike against a Gaza-based hospital. Jacobin, the socialist magazine, enjoyed a relatively low toxicity score of 40, despite sharing posts hailing radical philosopher Karl Max and praising socialism. On June 18, Jacobin was community-noted after falsely linking Noam Chomsky to Marx. Moreover, on July 19, Jacobin suggested Republicans were to blame for the failed assassination attempt on Trump. MSNBC, unmatched by Jacobin and The Times, and with a toxicity score of 20, still features posts about the demonstrably false claims about the Russian collusion hoax. “Watch @chrislhayes ask authors Michael Isikoff and David Corn about the 'pee tape,’” MSNBC tweeted on March 15, 2018. X’s Bias Problem: This MRC study follows two earlier studies suggesting that X’s algorithms favored the left. In one study, X promoted Harris over Vance (R-OH), Trump’s running mate—likely helping Harris reach a broader audience months ahead of her elevation as the Democratic nominee for president. Another earlier study showed how X boosted congressional Democrats’ posts while suppressing those of Republicans ahead of the 2024 election. X Employees Leading Anti-Musk Revolt: Upon purchasing X (then Twitter), Musk pledged to elevate free speech as a cornerstone of the platform. However, several MRC studies, most recently on its algorithms, suggest that there is a remnant of Jack Dorsey-era employees at X working tooth and nail to undermine free speech and maintain the censorship apparatus. In May, Musk responded to Sen. Mike Lee’s (R-UT) concerns that X’s algorithms cunningly reduced the visibility of specific accounts. “How long will it take to get rid of the stage-five clingers at X—those who still periodically throttle conservatives?” Lee asked. The tech mogul pledged to investigate the issue, saying, “Well, neither conservative [sic] nor progressives should be throttled. The point is to have an even playing field. I will investigate.” It isn’t immediately clear whether Musk followed up with his pledge. However, the MRC studies suggest that the algorithms still disproportionately target Republican politicians, right-leaning media outlets and Biden-Harris opponents. MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider hailed Musk’s past free speech pledge but cautioned him to watch his back, as the ghost of the Jack Dorsey-owned Twitter 1.0 is still haunting the algorithms. Editor’s Note: Former MRC Free Speech America Intern Christian Baldwin contributed to this report by calculating the X data.  METHODOLOGY: Social media researcher @The1Parzival first unveiled how to get Grok to scrounge X’s backend to determine how the algorithm determines which accounts to censor and which ones to amplify.  Between June 7 and June 25, MRC researchers used Parzival’s prompts to ask Grok to ascertain “visibility” scores for the media outlets listed in AllSides’s Media Bias Chart.  The questions were specifically tailored so Grok would only report the essential criteria that would determine whether or not a specific account on X is pushed/recommended to other users on the platform (“Mass Appeal,” “Reputation,” “Toxicity,” and “Follow”).  Grok calculated numerical value scores between 1 and 100 for each account. MRC researchers then calculated the average scores for media outlets across all four criteria used by the algorithm to determine X’s “visibility” scoring process.  To determine how X weighted each of the four categories in determining a “visibility” score, MRC researchers prompted Grok with eight tests between July 1 and July 2 to assess how each of the metrics were weighted to uncover which was considered most important when determining whether or not an account would be boosted or deboosted.  Grok repeatedly provided information with minor variations on how each category was weighted to determine a final “visibility” score.  MRC researchers then took the average weighted percentages across the eight tests to deduce a mathematical formula. When the averages were computed, the categories were weighted as follows:  Mass Appeal (38 percent), Reputation (30 percent), Toxicity (21 percent), and Follow (11 percent). “Mass Appeal” and “Reputation” scores were consistently in the top two spots in measures of importance across the eight tests. As explained by Grok, X uses “Tweepcred” to determine which accounts to recommend to others. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

MRC founder and president Brent Bozell appeared Thursday morning on Varney & Co. show on Fox Business. Host Stuart Varney played some funny clips of Democrats claiming Tim Walz wasn’t a leftist. Former Sen. Claire McCaskill claimed he was elected in a “very moderate” House district. Ex-Kamala spokesman Jamal Simmons said Walz was a “cuddly choice” to “make everyone feel safe.” But the funniest was former Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Morning Joe: "To characterize him as Left is so unreal….He’s right down the middle!” Varney and Bozell giggled at the Pelosi baloney, then Bozell ran through a reality check on policy: BOZELL: Let's go through some things and let your audience decide how moderate he is. On gender wars, Walz turned Minnesota into a “transgender sanctuary state,” which among other things says the state has a right to take away your children if you oppose your children’s, child mutilation of their bodies. On economic policy, he immediately supported a 70 percent [gas] tax increase in Minnesota. He supported every boondoggle Joe Biden wanted, from the Build [Back] Better bill that was $2.2 trillion to the American Rescue Plan, $1.9 trillion, to the Inflation Reduction Act, which was $800 billion. Immigration, he turned Minnesota into a “sanctuary state” on immigration as well. He wants free health care, free school benefits, everything free for illegals. Healthcare, school. Abortion, he signed into law in Minnesota making abortion legal for any reason at any time and on top of that, signed an infanticide bill into law that says a baby that’s born from a botched abortion has no legal rights. He also mentioned Walz's hot takes on climate change, Covid, and his disastrously slow decision to send the National Guard to quell the post-George Floyd rioting after four days.  Varney also asked about Vice President Kamala Harris refusing to take questions and President Biden being nearly absent from the scene.  You can get a more expansive view of the Left's election interference from the latest Brent Bozell Show. 

Following days of controversy, PolitiFact officially gave GOP vice presidential nominee JD Vance a “mostly false” rating on Friday for claiming his Democratic counterpart, Tim Walz, abandoned his National Guard unit prior to its deployment to Iraq. However, PolitiFact omitted some key details from those who served with Walz that could’ve changed the truth-o-meter. In the “if your time is short” summary, Sara Swann writes, “Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz served in the Nebraska and Minnesota National Guards for 24 years. Walz has said he retired in May 2005 to run for Congress; he submitted retirement paperwork five to seven months beforehand.” She also insists, “After Walz filed candidacy paperwork in February 2005, his battalion received a March 2005 notification for a potential — not definite — deployment within two years, not immediately.” Finally, she maintains, “Walz’s battalion was not officially ordered to go to Iraq until July 2005, two months after Walz retired.” Swann does mention the fact that people who served with Walz have come out and criticized his decision. She cites Doug Julin, “who served as a more senior command sergeant major in Walz’s battalion, said Walz went over his head to get retirement approval before the unit’s deployment was official, because Julin would have ‘analyzed it and challenged him,’ the New York Post reported Aug. 8. Others who served in Walz’s battalion have said he 'ditched' them and his actions were 'dishonorable,' Fox News reported.” However, for some reason, that does not appear to have affected PolitiFact’s conclusion. Swann’s article was released Friday morning, but Thursday night Julin went on CNN and poured cold water on the idea Walz didn’t know for sure if his unit would be ordered to go to Iraq, “he told me [in March 2005], he says, I have not been nominated, I am going forward with the battalion. I said, ‘Good, let's go.’” Julin also wasn’t a fan of the separating a notice to deploy with formal orders, “People say, well, he never knew he was going forward. Yeah, he knew he was going forward. Had he gotten his orders yet? No. At that time, he had not.” As for PolitiFact, Swann conceded Vance had a point on Walz claiming to be command sergeant major, therefore saving him from a full “false” rating. However, Swann omitted the part where Vance criticized Walz for saying he carried weapons “in war” while pushing for gun control. Meanwhile, the Washington Post’s Pinocchio system is the closest analogue to PolitiFact’s truth-o-meter, and their fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, declined to rate such claims, “Whether he abandoned his troops is a matter of perspective, but it is noteworthy that his retirement request was not blocked.”

Vice President Kamala Harris finally answered some questions on Thursday. After Donald Trump spoke for more than an hour at a Mar-a-Lago press conference — which included answering more than a dozen questions from reporters — Harris fielded a handful of softball questions from the media on the tarmac at the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport. 'Peak journalism is that when you finally get a chance to ask the candidate a question you ask about when they will take more questions.' It was the first time Harris had answered questions since becoming the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee last month. Here were the questions and answers: Reaction to Trump's press conference: "I'm glad that he's finally agreed to debate on Sept. 10. I'm looking forward to it. I hope he shows up." More debates: "I am happy to have that conversation about an additional debate after Sept. 10." Why Trump "pulled out" of the debate: "I am beyond trying to speculate about how he thinks." Accusations of Tim Walz's "stolen valor": "Listen, I praise anyone who has presented themselves to serve our country. And I think that we all should." On dodging the media: "I've talked to my team. I want us to get an interview scheduled before the end of the month." The entire interaction lasted approximately 70 seconds. By contrast, Trump spoke with media for approximately 70 minutes at Mar-a-Lago. Notice, however, the content of the questions. None of the reporters sought substantive answers to questions Americans care about, like how Harris plans to combat inflation or how she plans to end the border crisis. The reporters certainly did not inquire about Harris' foreign policy agenda.Both the content of the questions and Harris' final answer — that she may participate in a sit-down interview by the end of August — received criticism from forces that are friendly to Democrats and the media. Conservatives, of course, also widely panned the spectacle."Before the end of the month? It's August 8!" writer Chris Cillizza, formerly of CNN and the Washington Post, responded."Peak journalism is that when you finally get a chance to ask the candidate a question you ask about when they will take more questions," said Matthew Yglesias, co-founder of Vox.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) issued an executive order on Thursday that will require the state’s public hospitals to collect and report health care expenses for illegal immigrants. A press release from Abbott’s office stated that the executive action aims to track the costs of the Biden-Harris administration open-border crisis.The Texas Health and Human Services Commission will be required to “collect information on illegal immigrants who use Texas public hospitals for inpatient and emergency care and to report incurred healthcare cost.” HHSC will provide annual reporting to the governor and the Texas legislature, which will be used to request financial reimbursement from the federal government.To track such information, hospitals will ask patients about their immigration status and collect information regarding the costs associated with their care. Hospitals under HHSC will be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission. HHSC will begin collecting this information starting no later than November 1.“The surge of individuals unlawfully crossing the Texas-Mexico border posed an ongoing and imminent threat of disaster for a number of Texas counties and for all state agencies by this disaster,” the executive order read. “The surge of individuals crossing the southern border has continued, resulting in more than 11 million people—a number larger than the population of 40 different States—entering this country illegally in less than four years under the Biden-Harris Administration.”The executive order requests hospitals to inform patients that their responses to immigration status questions will not impact the care they receive.Abbott released a statement regarding the new executive order, saying, “Due to President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris’ open border policies, Texas has had to foot the bill for medical costs for individuals illegally in the state.”“Texans should not have to shoulder the burden of financially supporting medical care for illegal immigrants,” Abbott continued. “That is why today I issued an Executive Order requiring the Texas Health and Human Services Commission to collect and report healthcare costs for illegal immigrants in our state. Texas will hold the Biden-Harris Administration accountable for the consequences of their open border policies, and we will fight to ensure that they pay back Texas for their costly and dangerous policies.”U.S. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) responded in opposition to the governor’s order.“Here we go again,” Garcia stated. “Our MAGA Republican Governor just can’t stop social engineering. First, he wants doctors and nurses to police women’s choices for reproductive care, then he wants to make criminals out of parents who support their child in seeking gender-affirming care, and now he wants to make ICE officers out of doctors providing immigrants with medical care.”Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A Russian chess champion has been accused of trying to poison her opponent during a recent tournament. The brazen move allegedly was caught on video. Amina Abakarova, 40, faces a possible lifetime ban and potential criminal proceedings, NBC News reported.'The actions she committed could have led to the saddest outcome.'The incident occurred last Friday inside the tournament room of the Dagestan Chess Championship in Makhachkala, the capital of Russia's Republic of Dagestan.Security video purportedly shows Abakarova entering the room with a bag about 20 minutes before the tournament was set to begin. The 34-second surveillance clip appears to show Abakarova spreading a substance over one of the chessboards. Sazhid Sazhidov — Dagestan’s sports minister — released a statement on the Telegram messaging app Wednesday alleging that Abakarova, who has won the tournament before, spread a substance that later turned out to contain mercury, NBC News reported.The Russian Chess Federation issued a statement Wednesday describing the situation as "an attempt to poison a participant in the championship of the Republic of Dagestan in Makhachkala."The target of the alleged attempted poisoning was Abakarova's rival – 30-year-old Umayganat Osmanova.About 30 minutes into a tournament match, Osmanova allegedly fell ill with nausea and dizziness. She reportedly required medical attention. "I still feel bad. In the first minutes, I felt a lack of air and a taste of iron in my mouth. I had to spend about five hours on this board. I don’t know what would have happened to me if I hadn’t seen it earlier," Osmanova told Russia Today.Osmanova added to Russian newspaper Izvestia that she noticed "some tiny balls" rolling out from under her board. She initially had no idea what they were but soon realized they could have been mercury, after which she notified chess officials. Chess.com reported that Osmanova recovered from the alleged attempted poisoning and finished second in the tournament. Abakarova allegedly was expelled after the fourth round.Russian outlet RTVI reported that Abakarova allegedly said she wanted to "knock her opponent out of the tournament." However, a police report claimed that Abakarova meant to scare her opponent and not actually harm her. According to the New York Post, Abakarova later admitted to the poisoning and allegedly confessed to police that she had broken a thermometer and smeared mercury across the chessboard. Police have detained Abakarova, who now faces up to three years in jail, according to the Mirror. Andrey Filatov — president of the Russian Chess Federation — said the organization had temporarily suspended Abakarova from all competitions until a law enforcement investigation is completed. ABC News reported that Sazhidov stated, "I am perplexed by what happened, and the motives that guided such an experienced athlete as Amina Abakarova are also incomprehensible to me.""The actions she committed could have led to the saddest outcome. They threatened the lives of everyone who was in the chess house, including herself," Sazhidov added. "Now she will have to answer for what she did before the law."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A BBC announcer corrected her colleague for using the wrong pronouns for American shot putter Raven Saunders.Saunders has been in the spotlight during the Olympics for her unique attire and consistent gay activism since the 2021 Tokyo games where she won a silver medal.The track and field athlete consistently appears with multicolored hair, excessively long finger nails, and often wears a mask of some type while competing. 'Raven Saunders is actually nonbinary.'Her attire was typical during a recent Paris competition when the BBC's Steve Backley was commenting on her unorthodox appearance."The colorful character Raven Saunders is back," Backley said during the broadcast. "Good to see her back, sort of. Sort of see her, I mean," he added, in reference to her mask.Announcer Jazmin Sawyers, who is actually an injured long jumper from Great Britain's team, quickly jumped in to correct Backley's lack of obscure pronoun usage."Well, we can’t see them very well,” Sawyers replied, making sure to use the term "them.""Raven Saunders is actually nonbinary and wearing the mask there. We're quite used to seeing them with interesting attire. Should that be allowed? Why not," the 30-year-old concluded."Why not, indeed," Backley responded.While Saunders pushes political viewpoints through her athletics, she hasn't been too strict on pronoun usage despite allegedly identifying as "nonbinary."Just two days prior to the pronoun debacle, Saunders posted a video on her Instagram page where she is repeatedly referred to as "she."Saunders also posted an image in December 2023 along with a caption where she referred to herself as a woman multiple times and not a "nonbinary."When Saunders won a silver medal for shot put at the Tokyo games, she staged a protest during the medal ceremony. While on the podium, she raised her arms and crossed her wrists to form an X, which she claimed was a protest in support of "oppressed" people."Raven Saunders Protests on the Podium," a page called Women's Running said. "When asked what the ‘X’ meant, [Saunders] responded: 'It's the intersection of where all people who are oppressed meet.'"According to the Huffington Post, Saunders said at the time that she was intent on inspiring "many young girls, so many young boys, so many LGBTQ people, [and] so many people that have battled suicide."As for Saunders' bizarre attire, it is allegedly part of her "alter ego," according to an Associated Press writer."Before a shot put competition Raven Saunders transforms into their alter ego, The Hulk," writer Patrick Graham claimed. "That includes mask, sunglasses, gold teeth, hair dyed green and purple and long bedazzled nails."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) revealed Friday to nationally syndicated radio host and co-founder of Blaze Media Glenn Beck precisely how devastated she was to learn that the Harris administration may be surveilling her via a program designed to identify and monitor potential terrorists. While she feels personally betrayed — having enlisted in the military in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and risen to the rank of lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, countering extremism across three war zones — Gabbard expressed concern that her family could be at risk and that she is "not the only veteran or service member who they have chosen to put on this list.""This goes against the core of our First Amendment, which our founders intentionally put in place to ensure our protected speech, whether we be praising the government or we be criticizing our government," said Gabbard. "That is core to the founding of who we are as a country."Several Federal Air Marshal whistleblowers recently came forward with information indicating that Gabbard may be enrolled in the Transportation Security Administration's Quiet Skies program. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the Quiet Skies program adds "another layer of risk-based security by identifying individuals who may pose an elevated security risk in addition to individuals on other watch lists maintained by the Federal government, so that TSA can take appropriate actions to address and mitigate that risk."UncoverDC reported that the whistleblowers initially shared evidence of Gabbard's placement on what is effectively a terror watch list with Sonya LaBosco, executive director of the Air Marshal National Council. LaBosco subsequently revealed at least one of the marshals is willing to go on the record with the relevant evidence.'They see those of us who rightly criticize our governments, and their corruption, and their abuse of power, as a domestic threat.'Unbeknownst to Gabbard — at least until this week — every time she got on an airplane, there with her were two explosive detection canine teams, a transportation security specialist, a plainclothes TSA supervisor, and three Federal Air Marshals, said Bosco.When pressed on allegations about Gabbard's listing, a TSA spokesman recently told investigative reporter Matt Taibbi:TSA uses multi-layered security processes to protect the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. TSA's Quiet Skies program uses a risk-based approach to identify passengers and apply enhanced security measures on some domestic and outbound international flights.The spokesman added, "To safeguard sensitive national security measures, TSA does not confirm or deny whether any individual has matched to a risk-based rule. These rules are applied to a limited number of travelers for a limited period of time. Simply matching to a risk-based rule does not constitute derogatory information about an individual."There has been speculation that Gabbard's criticism of the Washington establishment's reflexive interventionism and her departure from the Democratic Party may have prompted her alleged enrollment in Quiet Skies program. Gabbard is also unlikely to have made friends in the current administration by tanking Kamala Harris' presidential bid in 2020.While mystified by "their insane, tyrannical thinking," Gabbard told Beck that her targeting by the Democratic administration would be par for the course given that "we've already seen proof over these last four years ... they will weaponize any levers of power they have within the government to go after those who they deem to be a threat to their power, who they deem to be a political opponent."Beck alluded to failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's Oct. 17, 2019, smear against Gabbard, when she suggested Gabbard is "the favorite of the Russians. ... Yeah, she's a Russian asset.""They see those of us who rightly criticize our governments, and their corruption, and their abuse of power, as a domestic threat," continued Gabbard. "They say so publicly. They say, 'Hey, those who criticize public institutions may be domestic extremists or terrorists.'"In recent years, it has taken a whole lot less than criticism of the state to warrant suspicion as a potential domestic terrorist. For instance, Blaze News reported late last year on a report from the House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government indicating that the FBI "abused its counterterrorism tools to target Catholic Americans as potential domestic terrorists.""The only assumption that I can make is that they're coming after me because of my speaking the truth and revealing who they really are," Gabbard told Beck.The former congresswoman indicated that the possibility of her enrollment in Quiet Skies is already having a chilling effect — that she now faces the "constant stress of knowing that I am being surveilled by my government and wondering if and how they are doing that. How are they monitoring my movement? Are they listening to my phone calls? Are they reading my emails and text messages?"Gabbard emphasized that it is impossible to live freely under the thumb of a regime that has "no hesitation in weaponizing whatever they can get their hands on." Such a state of play is reminiscent of "the Stalin approach," she added. "Find me the man, and I'll tell you the crime." — (@) U.S. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who penned a letter to TSA Administrator David Pekoske Thursday regarding the veracity of the whistleblowers' claims, said he found the allegations "profoundly troubling."Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice, indicated that his outfit is "launching a multipronged legal effort not only to defend Tulsi Gabbard but to defeat the weaponization of government against conservatives, our military, and the free speech of all Americans once and for all."The ACLJ intends to file Freedom of Information Act requests with the TSA, the DHS, and the FBI, seeking answers about Gabbard's alleged targeting.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is on a very short list of names of people who allegedly plotted the coup that ousted Joe Biden from the 2024 presidential race. But, of course, she would never admit that. In an interview with “60 Minutes’” Lesley Stahl, Pelosi dodged questions, lied, and spewed grandiose statements to avoid telling the truth that she played a critical role in the termination of Biden’s 2024 campaign. Dave Rubin plays a clip of Stahl’s shock as Pelosi refuses to admit what everyone already knows. - YouTube www.youtube.com “Please tell us what you told President Biden to persuade him to step aside,” Stahl began. “Well, I’ve never shared any conversations with a president of the United States publicly,” Pelosi parried. “It’s said that he’s furious at you. Is he?” Stahl countered. “Well, he knows that I love him very much,” was all Pelosi said. “I understand that you don’t want to own this, but it is so well reported that you were the leader of a pressure campaign,” Stahl persisted. “No, I wasn’t a leader,” Pelosi denied, adding that she’d rather “say things that [she] didn't do.” “I didn’t call one person. I could always say to [Biden] I never called anybody. What I'm saying is I had confidence that the president would make the proper choice for our country – whatever that would be, and I said that. Whatever that is, we’ll go with,” the former speaker of the House maintained. A look of utter shock spread across Stahl’s face as Pelosi refused to acknowledge her role in ousting Biden. “Had you seen a decline in Joe Biden, and did you think he needed to step aside?” were the interviewer’s next questions. “No,” said Pelosi, before calling Biden “such a consequential president of the United States.” “A Mount Rushmore kind of president,” she said to Stahl, who looked entirely dismayed. “Are you really saying that he belongs up there on Mount Rushmore? Lincoln and Joe Biden?” she laughed. To see the footage of the interview, watch the clip above. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

David Weiss did what he has done for most of six years of running the Biden investigation: nothing.