Illegal Border Crossings Plunge From Record High at U.S.-Mexico Border

Damning new details in Hunter Biden’s case have emerged, one of which Sara Gonzales calls “very explosive.” According to whistleblower Gary Shapley, the CIA blocked federal investigators from interviewing Hunter Biden’s "sugar brother" Hollywood lawyer Kevin Morris during the five-year tax probe into Hunter’s tax crimes. The House Oversight Committee and Judiciary Committee chairman were informed by the whistleblower that the intelligence agency stopped IRS and Justice Department investigators from interviewing Morris in August 2021. The whistleblower also claimed that two DOJ officials were “summoned to discuss Kevin Morris” to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, for their investigation into Hunter Biden. “They were provided a classified briefing in relation to Morris, and, as a result, we could no longer pursue him as a witness,” Gonzales reads. “What it said,” she adds, shocked. Apparently, it was unclear how the CIA became aware that Morris was a potential witness and why agents were not told about the meeting in advance or invited to participate in it — which is a “deviation of normal investigative processes.” “You know what else is a deviation of normal investigative processes? For the CIA to be involved in a domestic tax fraud investigation,” Gonzales says. “I don’t think the CIA is supposed to be involved in these sorts of domestic matters.” “So, why in the hell is the CIA breaking the law seemingly to intervene in a domestic investigation? Who is the CIA asset? It’s got to be one of them, right? It’s got to be either Hunter Biden or his buddy Kevin Morris,” she says, adding, “It’s making more sense as to why Hunter was involved in so many foreign companies, why he was involved in Burisma, why he was involved in CEFC.” “So, I think America needs to know: Is Joe Biden’s son a CIA asset?” 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.

A group of illegal aliens who were recently attempting to scale the border wall dividing Texas from Mexico entered into a tense confrontation with Border Patrol agents, according to an aerial video taken by the Texas Department of Public Safety.The video, taken this week, captured the illegal immigrants while they were attempting to descend a rope ladder draped over the border wall. As law enforcement officials on the ground approached the scene, several individuals on the other side of the wall began throwing rocks and sand at the responding officers, according to Texas DPS. One individual appeared to chuck water bottles at authorities while they were attempting to make arrests, the video showed.'The video illustrates recent behavior by these groups.'Two illegal immigrants perched at the top of the wall entered into a back-and-forth tug of war with a Border Patrol agent over the rope ladder, the footage captured. Eventually, the two individuals gave up and retreated back into Mexico.The Santa Teresa Station is located in the El Paso Sector. In the first seven months of fiscal year 2024, the sector has experienced more than 180,000 encounters, according to Customs and Border Protection data."This week, DPS provided air support to Border Patrol Agents responding to a group of illegal immigrants attempting to climb the border wall near the Santa Teresa [Port of Entry] & illegally enter the U.S. The video illustrates recent behavior by these groups in the El Paso Sector—throwing rocks, sand & water bottles at responding agents," Texas DPS wrote in a Thursday post on X. — (@) In March, a massive group of more than 200 illegal aliens tore down the concertina wire at the border and shoved past Texas National Guardsmen, Blaze News previously reported. The caught-on-video altercation occurred at Gate 36, a closed area of the border that is not a designated port of entry. The illegal immigrants, mostly adult males, were accused of participating in a riot.El Paso County Judge Ruben Morales dismissed the charges, claiming he was forced to do so because the state failed to provide a transfer order to move the cases from district to county court.A similar incident on April 22 also occurred at Gate 36. Morales dropped the charges against the illegal immigrants in that case as well, claiming that there was no evidence of "probable cause" to indicate that the individuals participated in a riot. District Attorney Bill Hicks called for a grand jury to decide on the case after he claimed Morales refused to review additional evidence. The group of 12 El Paso citizens effectively overruled Morales' judgment, deciding to indict more than 140 illegal aliens on misdemeanor riot participation charges.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Former network host Don Lemon was pressed on his positions about the government's COVID-19 response, online censorship, and the views he expressed as a host on CNN.Lemon sat down with personalities Kyle Forgeard and Aaron "Steiny" Steinberg from the Nelk Boys, as well as entrepreneur Bradley Martyn for the "Full Send Podcast" that saw tougher questioning than audiences would see on most network news broadcasts.Lemon faced significant pushback from Martyn and Forgeard regarding his stances on the COVID-19 vaccines and the spread of online "misinformation."The former CNN anchor's position was that he predominantly believed that the information given by vaccine advocates, health officials, and the government was generally in good faith and had the goal of saving "the most amount of people.""Did they make mistakes along the way? Absolutely, but that's life," Lemon said. The 58-year-old explained that he thought not getting vaccinated or not wearing a mask was "selfish" and that citizens should have been doing what was best for their fellow man.'I paid $2,000 for a fake [vaccine card].'Martyn pushed back, however."The COVID vaccine is here now, take it," Martyn summarized the overarching narrative as. "Listening to [Chris] Cuomo speak and what other people are talking about now, they knew there was other methods that people could have done, Ivermectin was one of them.""I believe in medicine, I believe in science, and I believe my government is looking out for me and trying to do the best for me," Lemon replied. "Scientists, doctors ... if virologists are telling me that this vaccine is safe, and Ivermectin has no effect on the virus, then I'm going to take the vaccine."Lemon then disagreed with Forgeard when he said the media was shaming people if they weren't vaccinated and that deaths were then the fault of the unvaccinated."I think the people were being selfish about that. If you don't want to get the vaccine then don't get the vaccine, but don't be expected to be able to do and go places where people are who got the vaccine.""And work, and make a living, right?" Martyn interjected. "Couldn't you have seen that the whole legacy media was saying, 'You need this,' and to a lot of people it was like, 'Is this just about protecting and helping people or this about Big Pharma and big business?'"Lemon called that a "conspiracy theory" and again cited that the virus was "something nobody knew about, something that was new and that was killing people."After Forgeard and Martyn revealed they did not get vaccinated, and Lemon did, Forgeard noted that he obtained a fake vaccine card."I paid $2,000 for a fake one."'Me, personally, it's not for me to decide, but I think there is an inherent advantage when someone plays in a women's sport and perhaps they are stronger.'Limiting 'misinformation'"This was an usual time in the entire world, we don't live in that time now, and things have eased up," Lemon said about online censorship, excusing the removal of opinions he said would have been misinformation.Martyn pointed out that while Lemon was able to go on network television shows and talk about his opinion on the matter, content creators, himself included, literally could not go online and express countering opinions."Some people knew, but they were silenced," Martyn continued. "I can accept [that it's over] but ... it's about the people whose lives were ruined, you can't just go, 'It's over sorry, it's different now.'"Lemon then tried to compare ruined lives from COVID lockdowns to those who were put in jail for smoking pot."I think if people are spreading misinformation and lies ... I believe in freedom of speech, but I think if people are actively spreading misinformation that's going to hurt people and if it's going to put their lives or safety and their health at risk then I think it should be corrected," he added."It's just so impossible to find misinformation at such an early stage of a virus, too. Who decides what's misinformation?" Forgeard countered.Transgender theoryThe topic shifted to transgender athletes playing against women, with Steinberg noting that women had a "spectacular year" in sports, only for the South Carolina women's basketball coach to state that men should be able to play in women's basketball."Do you think biological men should be able to play in women's sports?" Forgeard asked Lemon directly."I think that it should be studied, but I do think ..." Lemon replied."What are you studying?" Forgeard asked."Physically, men are stronger and faster than women. So, I have questions about it myself. Me, personally, it's not for me to decide, but I think there is an inherent advantage when someone plays in a women's sport and perhaps they are stronger," Lemon clarified.The answer mirrored many of the former CNN host's replies, which were appeals to authority whether it referred to doctors, health officials, educators, and more.The latter was used when he was asked about children being taught gender theory in school."I don't think there's anything wrong with kids having knowledge," he said about children, citing that he was not an educator, so it wasn't his place to say. Forgeard asked if that included telling children "they can be whatever gender they want." Lemon compared it to being told that he could be Superman when he was a child."We all had very similar things told to us," Lemon retorted."Career-wise, not gender-wise," Forgeard clarified."I don't believe as a whole that kids are being indoctrinated into anything," Lemon said, citing that he went to Catholic school and still was gay.The podcasters also asked Lemon to clarify what LGBTQ+ stood for and why gays are grouped in with transgender people. Forgeard remarked Lemon's explanation was easier to understand than that of a transgender person."I think the gay people are better spokesman for the trans people, because the trans people are not that good at defending their own issues.""It takes a gay person to come in and really defend them logically."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Kansas City confirmed they have fired the city employee who used the government account on X, formerly known as Twitter, to post the area Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker lives in after leftist backlash to his commencement speech at a private Catholic college. Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas confirmed the employee was fired during an interview with KCMO Talk Radio on Thursday, according to KBTX. The city also released a statement, "The employee has been separated from the City workforce for violation of City policy by posting outside the scope of authorized City communications. The City will have no further comment on the post or individual employees related to it.” 'I don’t think he was speaking ill to women.' The initial post was up for nearly 30 minutes before it was deleted. The city's account then posted an "apologies" for the "error." — (@) "Over the past 24 hours, some seeking to harass, bully, and intimidate have sent slurs and threats to and shared photos of women employees with no involvement with recent City posts. Honestly, please just stop, be decent. The buck stops with me. Please leave them alone," Lucas said in response to the outrage of the city's post. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey threatened to sue the city for abusing it position to go after Butker for his religious beliefs. "I will enforce the Missouri Human Rights Act to ensure Missourians are not targeted for their free exercise of religion," Bailey announced. — (@) Chiefs head coach Andy Reid and quarterback Patrick Mahomes said they support Butker when asked about his pro-family speech he gave at Benedictine College. “I don’t think he was speaking ill to women,” Reid said. “He has his opinions, and we all respect that. I let you guys in this room, and you have a lot of opinions that I don’t like, so.” “I’ve known him for seven years. I judge him by the character he shows every day, and that’s a good person. That's someone who cares about the people around him, cares about his family,” Mahomes explained. “We’re not always going to agree. He said certain things I don’t necessarily agree with.” Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrats and their allies in the liberal media are desperately working to undermine the U.S. Supreme Court and blunt its conservative edge. This public-private campaign has been focused on painting Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas as ideologically compromised culture warriors, incapable of weighing impartially on cases relating to the Jan. 6 protests or to former President Donald Trump. The same partisans who were silent in April on the matter of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's partiality in the Idaho case related to gender, have impotently demanded in recent weeks that Alito recuse himself from various cases — cases in which House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), and other critics are politically invested. Getting increasingly desperate and having failed to manufacture sufficient outrage over Alito's American flag and divestment from Bud Light's parent company, the public-private campaigners found another item to take issue with: the "Appeal to Heaven" flag, which was allegedly flown over the justice's New Jersey beach house last summer. This latest attack, centering on a flag designed by an aide-de-camp to then-General George Washington and flown by American patriots in the Revolutionary War and patriots since, may similarly prove fruitless. Background Blaze News previously reported that Obama hagiographer Jodi Kantor kicked off the latest leg of the private-public campaign on May 16 with a piece in the New York Times entitled, "At Justice Alito's House, a 'Stop the Steal' Symbol on Display." The so-called "Stop the Steal" symbol in question was the American flag, which Alito's wife, Martha-Ann Alito, supposedly flew "in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs." Alito told the times he had nothing to do with the incident and Kantor produced no evidence tying the alleged flag inversion to support for the Jan. 6 protests. That did not, however, stop Kantor from insinuating a connection, leaning upon the interpretation of a partisan neighbor and adopting the accusatory framing of leftist "experts." Once the Times established the narrative, Democratic lawmakers ran with it. 'He must recuse himself from cases involving the 2020 election and former President Donald Trump.' Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, "Justice Alito should recuse himself immediately from cases related to the 2020 election and the January 6th insurrection, including the question of the former President's immunity in U.S. v. Donald Trump, which the Supreme Court is currently considering." Adopting the same script, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in a statement, "Samuel Alito should apologize immediately for disrespecting the American flag and sympathizing with right-wing violent insurrectionists. He must recuse himself from cases involving the 2020 election and former President Donald Trump." The Times followed up with another piece building upon Kantor's initial framing with the help of former Marshall Project activist Abbie Vansickle. Various other Democrats and leftist publications joined in, suggesting that Alito's future involvement in cases even peripherally related to Trump or Jan. 6 would shake public confidence in the Supreme Court. Failing to arouse the mass indignation they apparently wanted, the public-private campaign tried a new angle on Monday. Law Dork published a blog post entitled, "Justice Alito sold Bud Light stock amidst anti-trans boycott effort." CNBC and other left-leaning outlets carried this story along with the suggestion that Alito's divestment from Anheuser-Busch InBev — months after it became clear the company would not soon recover from the boycott over its collaboration with a transvestite activist — was "suspicious" and again evidence of partisanship on the justice's part. "If the sale was in response to the Bud Light controversy last year, he might have an appearance-of-bias problem when it comes to future court cases related to trans rights," Gave Roth, executive director of leftist activist outfit Fix the Court, told CNBC. Forty-five Democrats sent Alito a letter Tuesday demanding he reuse himself from the cases of Trump v. United States and Fischer v. United States, complaining that his decisions might otherwise "profoundly affect the future of a past and potentiality future President, and of democracy itself." Again, their efforts appear to have been in vain. Another offending flag Kantor penned another alarmist piece Wednesday, this time aided by former Bellingcat research director Aric Toler and former Washington Post researcher Julie Tate. '[The justices'] decisions will shape how accountable [Trump] can be held for trying to overturn the last presidential election and his chances at regaining the White House in the next one.' The article again insinuates political bias on the part of Alito, and a link between the justice and Jan. 6 on the basis of his alleged possession and hoisting of a nonpartisan flag of historic significance. In July and September 2023, someone snapped a photo of "An Appeal to Heaven" flag allegedly flying above Alito's New Jersey beach house. Long before the New York Times decided it was controversial, the U.S. National Park Service indicated why a maritime residence might be an appropriate spot to hoist such a flag: "This particular flag became familiar on the seas as the ensign of the cruisers commissioned by General Washington and was noted by many English newspapers of the time." Ahead of the 2019 National Day of Prayer, Republican Illinois state Rep. Chris Miller's office noted that this flag, which features a pine tree along with the Lockean motto "An Appeal to Heaven" or "An Appeal to God," was "used originally by a squadron of six cruiser ships commissioned under George Washington’s authority as commander in chief of the Continental Army in October 1775." "The design of the flag came from General Washington's secretary, Colonel Joseph Reed," continued the statement from Miller's office. The pine tree had long been a New England symbol being depicted on the Flag of New England flown by colonial merchant ships dating back to 1686. Leading up to the Revolutionary War it became a symbol of Colonial ire and resistance. The colonists resented the restrictions on the timber used for their needs and livelihoods. Prohibitions were disregarded and they practiced 'Swamp Law,' where the pines were harvested according to their needs regardless of statutes. In New Hampshire enforcement led to the Pine Tree Riot in 1772, one of the first acts of forceful protest against British policies. It occurred almost two years prior to the more well-known Boston Tea Party protest and three years before open hostilities began at the Battles of Lexington and Concord. The pine tree was also used on the flag that the Colonists flew at the Battle of Bunker Hill in June 1775. Ted Kaye, secretary for the North American Vexillological Association, told the Associated Press that the Massachusetts Navy adopted the pine tree flag in 1776 and used it until 1971. Jared Holt, a senior analyst at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue — a foreign think tank that has been accused of labeling mainstream conservative views as disinformation — told the Associated Press this historic flag has been linked to a "patriot" movement that obsesses over the Founding Fathers and the American Revolution. "Others adhere to a Christian nationalist worldview that seeks to elevate Christianity in public life," the liberal outlet warned, echoing Holt who went on to call Alito's alleged flying of the flag "alarming." Holt, evidently ready with a blanket accusation, said that those who fly the flag tend to support "more intolerant and restrictive forms of government aligned with a specific religious philosophy." Former Vice President Mike Pence, no fan of the Jan. 6 protesters, has underscored that the flag is part of "our proud heritage of Faith and Freedom and every American should be proud to fly it." In her piece for the Times, Kantor concern-mongered that the same justice who allegedly flew this historic American flag will rule on a case that "could scuttle some of the charges against Mr. Trump, as well as on whether he is immune from prosecution for actions he took while president." 'This is a threat to the rule of law and a serious breach of ethics, integrity, and Justice Alito's oath of office.' Kantor appears to clarify what is ultimately at the heart of the effort to neutralize Alito, referenced also in Democratic lawmakers' Tuesday letter: "[The justices'] decisions will shape how accountable [Trump] can be held for trying to overturn the last presidential election and his chances at regaining the White House in the next one." Once again, Democrats are doing their part. House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) — whose adult son was arrested and charged in January 2023 with assault and battery on a Boston police officer — said in a statement Thursday, "Justice Alito has displayed flags at his homes that support insurrection against our government, promote religious nationalism, and attack free and fair elections." "This is not just another example of extremism that has overtaken conservatism. This is a threat to the rule of law and a serious breach of ethics, integrity, and Justice Alito's oath of office," continued Clark, absent any confirmation Alito flew the flag. "At minimum, he must recuse himself from any cases involving January 6th, Donald Trump, and the security of our elections. Anything less will tarnish our judicial system and democracy." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

First American Tourist Held in Turks and Caicos for Possessing Ammo Will Pay Fine and Be Released

Here's Some MSNBC Dejection About What's Worrying Voters to Go With CNN's Case of the Sads

'Assault': Disturbing Tactic Used by Rashida Tlaib Handler on Reporter Raises Big Questions

Biden's State Dinner Has Hunter, Garland, Even Obama - With a Bonus Weird Comment From Joe