It’s not often that the liberal ladies of The View actually have divergent views, but when those happen, they don’t know how to deal with it. During Friday’s show, staunchly racist Sunny Hostin lashed out at white men and was on so on the defensive about racist Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs that she couldn’t recognize that pretend independent co-host Sara Haines was critiquing them from the left. That misunderstanding led to the two of them clashing over the effectiveness of DEI. What triggered their conversation about DEI was a soundbite of former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg daring to question how DEI got implemented. “It is how Trump Republicans are made if that comes to your workplace with the best of intentions, but doesn't actually get at what we're -- what would actually matter and what's at stake,” he explained. “I think he got that so wrong and I think it was so tone deaf considering what’s going on,” proclaimed Hostin. “All of it. I thought all of it was tone deaf.” Hostin then proceeded to attack white men and put actions of people in the past on those of today, suggesting that they don’t have their jobs based on merit: From 1776 to 1965, you have basically white men in charge of everything. Right? Women, people of color, we’re left out of just equality, equality of opportunity, that sort of thing. And I think when that equality starts popping up in terms of diversity programs, equality now feels like oppression to those people who were at the top of the ladder, not necessarily because of their merit but because of their identity. “If the problem is these programs, what is the solution? What – Should we just then depend on the benevolence of Elon Musk and white billionaires to hire women and people of color?” the staunch racist demanded to know.     Later in the conversation, Haines jumped in with her own soundbite of the Democratic National Committee’s winter meeting to show the ridiculousness of how DEI currently got implemented (Click “expand”): UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 1 (singing): You fight on, you fight on, when your government is doing you wrong. [Transition] UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 2: You may vote for two males, two females, two of any gender, okay, nope, you can't do that because we've got to balance. You could vote for one of any gender, okay? Our non-binary gender, excuse me. After the clip, Haines argued that people were “losing sight of the spirit of what DEI was by doing this in this fashion.” Adding: “…because of the times we live in, it's so politically charged, so many are frustrated that people are pushing back on DEI, that they're not taking a minute to pause that maybe DEI itself needed improvements in its actual application.” Hostin was so wired to defend DEI at all costs that even when Haines cited a DEI professional’s critiques of how to better implement such programs, she was meeting with the hostility reserved for those trying to abolish it outright: HAINES: The results of this are saying that there were people there that needed help with the diversity, the equity, the inclusion, bringing people on, the pay disparity still exists. They aren't getting the jobs. So, not every critic of DEI, which I'm one of them, says that it can't do better! HOSTIN: DEI programs make sure that the most qualified candidates traditionally excluded from opportunity are given the chance to compete. So, this notion somehow that blind hiring could work, I think that's something, but it's not about -- FARAH GRIFFIN: But wouldn’t it take the race or identity out of it and it would be purely based on what you put forward? HOSTIN: But it's not about merit. Because the people that are in these DEI programs are already the best of the best. “She is saying the companies end up doing tokenism rather than helping by the way the approach DEI,” Haines noted of failed implementations of DEI. “It’s not tokenism!” Hostin exclaimed. Haines was approaching fixing DEI from the left and was so blinded by her knee-jerk need to defend it, that she couldn’t see that she was battling an ally. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View February 21, 2025 11:02:41 a.m. Eastern (…) PETE BUTTIGIEG: It is how Trump Republicans are made if that comes to your workplace with the best of intentions, but doesn't actually get at what we're -- what would actually matter and what's at stake. [Cuts back to live] JOY BEHAR: So, do you agree with him that DEI initiatives drove voters Trump and what else can be done to make sure everyone is represented on an even playing field? SUNNY HOSTIN: You know what I think? BEHAR: What do you think, Sunny? HOSTIN: I like Pete, of course, but I think he got that so wrong and I think it was so tone deaf considering what’s going on – BEHAR: Which part? HOSTIN: All of it. I thought all of it was tone deaf. Because what happens is when – from 1776 to 1965, you have basically white men in charge of everything. Right? Women, people of color, we’re left out of just equality, equality of opportunity, that sort of thing. And I think when that equality starts popping up in terms of diversity programs, equality now feels like oppression to those people who were at the top of the ladder, not necessarily because of their merit but because of their identity. Right? And so in my view, when you look at the stats, it is really clear from McKenzie actually, a consulting firm that Pete used to work for. That firm found that companies with more diversity, financially and socially outperformed those that are less diverse. So, the business case for diversity, equity, and inclusion, it makes sense, and I think we can all agree that we want our workforce to reflect what our world looks like. BEHAR: I think he does too, though. Don’t you? HOSTIN: No, I think he does, but my question really, I think we need to reframe the discussion. If the problem is these programs, what is the solution? What – Should we just then depend on the benevolence of Elon Musk and white billionaires to hire women and people of color? BEHAR: No. HOSTIN: Should we just depend on corporations to on their own make the workforce more diverse? They didn't do it from 1776 to 1965, why do we think it's going to be any different? (…) 11:06:55 a.m. Eastern SARA HAINES: I want to jump in because the David Axelrod conversation you're talking about was in reference to the DNC winter meeting that happened over a few days and just want to show a click clip of what went down. [Cuts to video] UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 1 (singing): You fight on, you fight on, when your government is doing you wrong. [Transition] UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN 2: You may vote for two males, two females, two of any gender, okay, nope, you can't do that because we've got to balance. You could vote for one of any gender, okay? Our non-binary gender, excuse me. [Cuts back to live] HAINES: So. BEHAR: So, what about it? HAINES: What he's referring to is they're losing sight of the spirit of what DEI was by doing this in this fashion. And while people are reacting because of the times we live in, it's so politically charged, so many are frustrated that people are pushing back on DEI, that they're not taking a minute to pause that maybe DEI itself needed improvements in its actual application. We're seeing a lot of things, one was New York Times staged fake interviews with diverse candidates, a woman – Sorry, Wells Fargo, The New York Times reported it just to be clear. A woman or person of color after the position had been filled to check off their boxes of minority inclusion. That's not helping anyone. So a lot of the problem is that -- HOSTIN: But that implies the woman wasn't qualified for the job. HAINES: There was no job. But Lily Jiang who wrote for Harvard Business Review; reputable place. She's a critic. She says she's a DEI strategist and consultant. And one of the things she said is: DEI was never focused on the results, it was just the commitment to the results. So companies would hide under this idea of ‘we're so progressive’ with no -- not a lot of benefits or not always benefits to the people they claim to be helping. So, some ways you change it; Sunny, you've been asking it all day, what are the things? HOSTIN: What's the solution? HAINES: So, she has solutions. She’s saying focus on measurable results like pay equity, physical and psychological safety, holding network events, blind hiring. There are a lot of things that you can -- BEHAR: Blind hiring, that makes sense. HAINES: Right. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: But isn't that merit-based. Isn't that the whole argument that DEI is against? HAINES: She dug in because she's a consultant on DEI for companies for ten plus years and what she's saying is regardless of the – FARAH GRIFFIN: Blind hiring is the opposite of DEI? HOSTIN: No, that's not true. HAINES: The results, for anyone listening still – FARAH GRIFFIN: You cannot mention -- HAINES: The results of this are saying that there were people there that needed help with the diversity, the equity, the inclusion, bringing people on, the pay disparity still exists. They aren't getting the jobs. So, not every critic of DEI, which I'm one of them, says that it can't do better! HOSTIN: DEI programs make sure that the most qualified candidates traditionally excluded from opportunity are given the chance to compete. So, this notion somehow that blind hiring could work, I think that's something, but it's not about -- FARAH GRIFFIN: But wouldn’t it take the race or identity out of it and it would be purely based on what you put forward? HOSTIN: But it's not about merit. Because the people that are in these DEI programs are already the best of the best. HAINES: She is saying the companies end up doing tokenism rather than helping by the way the approach DEI. HOSTIN: It’s not tokenism! FARAH GRIFFIN: I mean, I can tell by the number of times I’ve had people in corporate America be like, “lean into the fact that you're an Arab American.” I don't ever want somebody to be able to look at me and say you are a DEI hire. (…)

What a joke. The same outlet that tried to paint America’s inflation situation before the 2024 election as Yankee Doodle Dandy! is doing the backstroke now that Donald Trump is president. That's some convenient timing.  Axios chief economic correspondent Neil Irwin released a damning story Thursday headlined, “Inflation warning signs mount.” Irwin wrote that “Bond markets are betting that inflation will stay elevated in the years ahead, and some evidence from business surveys and forecasters points in the same direction.” What this meant, argued Irwin, was that “the Trump administration and the Federal Reserve face a headwind in securing a return to low inflation — concerns that have escalated just in the last few weeks, as the president has threatened tariffs on a variety of U.S. trading partners.” “Securing a return to low inflation?” This is the same reporter who on July 1, 2024 was celebrating to the cyberverse that President Joe Biden’s so-called “soft landing seems to have stuck.” Later that month, Irwin was adamant that “[t]he soft landing was very much intact this spring.” On Election Eve, Irwin propagandized that “the U.S. economy is by most measures stronger than it has been in modern election cycles” with some exceptions. “Inflation has, of course, weighed on public sentiment. But over the 12 months ended in September, the Consumer Price Index rose only 2.4%,” Irwin gaslighted at the time. Now, Irwin’s flipped like a pancake on a griddle and made it seem like that supposed soft-landing he blathered on for months about is actually still “stuck” in mid-air, as was evidenced by the chart he plastered over his new piece: The gap between interest rates on standard U.S. Treasury securities and inflation-protected bonds gives a window into how much bond investors expect prices to rise in the future. That gap, known as the breakeven rate, has been on a tear in recent weeks. But we shouldn’t expect anything less from Irwin. After all, when Irwin was senior economic correspondent at the New York Times in November 2021 (when inflation was 6.8 percent), he tried to make Americans out to be ungrateful idiots for whining so much about prices going to the moon when they had so much going for them. “Americans Are Flush With Cash and Jobs. They Also Think the Economy Is Awful,” read his headline at the time. Despite Biden enacting policies that predictably launched inflation into orbit that year, Irwin instead tried to blame the supposedly “more powerful force” of “the psychology of inflation” for turning Americans against the Biden economy. “Americans are, by many measures, in a better financial position than they have been in many years. They also believe the economy is in terrible shape,” Irwin audaciously claimed. Keep it up Irwin. We can see right through your nonsense.

With the networks having already established over the last few weeks a totally-not-coordinated stream of sympathetic laid off federal workers to attack the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and President Trump, NBC’s Today added another wrinkle Friday by cheering liberal rabble rousers shouting at House Republicans during constituent townhalls. It’s not entire surprising as they did this repeatedly (like here and here) back in 2017 in the first year of Trump’s first term.     Chief White House correspondent Peter Alexander made sure to brag to viewers about this supposed national groundswell: Now, new fallout. Constituents in some districts giving their Republican representatives an earful, lashing out at them for supporting the massive federal layoffs and budget cuts by the Trump administration and DOGE, Elon Musk's outside agency as you just saw, Musk is celebrating his team's work. After citing Musk spent early Thursday night at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) “driving home his rapid shredding of the federal government” with a gifted chainsaw, Alexander went full bore on the town hall issue: “[S]ome Republicans are now facing constituent pushback over the President and Musk's vision…taking questions about DOGE’s work this week.” In the first clip, he played an angry boomer shouting at Congressman Rich McCormick (R-GA): “What's not reasonable is taking this chainsaw approach. [SCREEN WIPE] Why is this being jammed down the pipes so rushed and sloppily?” Alexander shared another of a woman asking Congressman Cliff Bentz (R-OR) “who is paying for DOGE” and then only a small clip of Bentz saying amid boos that “we are looking into that now to find out” as he didn’t “know the answer.” “And last night, tensions boiled over at a Republican congressman's town hall in Georgia over the President's executive orders and budget cuts,” Alexander continued. This gave way to an older woman shouting at McCormick with a clear, partisan agenda: “The people would like to know what you, the congressmen and your fellow congressmen, are going to do to reign the megalomaniac at the White House.” The NBC correspondent also found polling to back his thesis up: “All of it as a new Washington Poll finds President Trump has a 45 percent approval rating with a majority 53 percent disapproving of his job as president. 57 percent say he’s exceeded his authority while just 34 percent approve of Elon Musk and his handling of the job.” Other portions of his report were standard anti-DOGE drivel, down to a portion like this that included a sympathetic government worker (though they at least disclosed in a chyron that he was a union representative) (click “expand”): ALEXANDER: The administration’s latest cuts coming at the IRS. The President’s top economic adviser saying the number of cuts could exceed 3,500 that Democrats have warned could have a catastrophic impact on the IRS season with some veteran IRS workers saying it could affect how quickly you get your refund. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 66 VICE PRESIDENT DANIEL SCHARPENBURG: The work is going to get backed up and so, private citizens are going to be like, the IRS is not doing their job and it’s because we're getting hallowed out. ALEXANDER: The White House defending all of the layoffs across government. KEVIN HASSETT: We're studying every agency in deciding who to let go and why and we're doing so very rationally. To see the relevant NBC transcript from February 21, click here.

California Sen. Adam Schiff (D) spent weeks pearl-clutching over the possibility that Kash Patel might become the first FBI director of Indian descent. To Schiff's chagrin, the U.S. Senate confirmed Trump's pick Thursday. After democratic processes that Schiff recently vowed to defend produced another result he didn't like, the Democrat went on MSNBC to vent, claiming that the confirmation of the popular president's choice was evidence America is in a "constitutional crisis." Earlier in the day, Schiff, Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D), and a particularly thin crowd of fellow travelers met outside the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., to make one last pitch for why Patel should not be confirmed. Schiff, who misled the nation about the FBI's use of a FISA warrant to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and championed the Russian collusion hoax, characterized Patel as a "political hack [who] does not deserve to be in this building" and "lacks the character to do this job." 'We find ourselves in really uncharted waters.' Prior to the majority of the California Democrat's peers indicating they believed otherwise and confirming Patel in a 51-49 vote, Schiff told MSNBC talking head Lawrence O'Donnell — who set the stage by claiming that Patel "was absolutely unimaginable as being qualified for any form of federal service prior to Donald Trump winning the presidency" — that Americans are now living in an "upside-down, terrible world." "We find ourselves in really uncharted waters," added Schiff, later adding that he believes the nation is in a "constitutional crisis" that "can get worse if they start ignoring court opinions." Schiff, fresh off condemning Trump for firing various inspectors general and federal employees, stressed that if the next administration is Democratic, it must ensure Patel does not complete his 10-year term. Patel previously called Schiff "the worst criminal in Congress in the last 250 years," accusing the Democrat of lying and seeding false information to set up a presidential impeachment where he ultimately served as a lead manager for the prosecution in the House. Schiff was among the congressional Jan. 6 inquisitors who received a pre-emptive pardon from former President Joe Biden; however, those pardons cover them only for their involvement in the Jan. 6 investigation. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A California school district with terrible math and English scores has notified parents that it will be stocking menstrual products in boys' bathrooms. The Long Beach Unified School District said Thursday that officials would be implementing the state's Menstrual Equity for All Act for students in third grade to those in 12th grade. 'We also encourage families to speak with their children at home about the appropriate and safe use of menstrual products.'In standardized testing from the district in 2024, fewer than half of the tested students met or exceeded the state standard for English, and only 36.4% of students met or exceeded the state standard for math. The email to parents said that the policy was meant to "ensure that any student who menstruates — including transgender boys and nonbinary students — can access these necessary products with dignity and discretion." The law was passed in 2023 and says free menstrual products must be provided in all school bathrooms for girls, in all of the all-gender bathrooms, and at least one boys' bathroom. Prior to the latest law, California required the products only for students in grades six through 12. "Dispensers are currently being installed in restrooms across our school sites, and we appreciate your patience as we complete this process," the letter read. "We also encourage families to speak with their children at home about the appropriate and safe use of menstrual products."The goal of the bill was to ensure "period equity" among students. The issue became a damaging talking point in the 2024 presidential election, when critics of the Democratic ticket mocked Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, the Democratic vice presidential candidate, for providing tampons in boys' bathrooms in the state's schools. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt swatted down an NBC News reporter's attempt to create a narrative that Republicans across the country do not agree with the cost-cutting measures the Trump administration has taken to reduce spending. "We’re now hearing from constituents in some traditionally red districts right now complaining about what they say is the chain-saw approach and saying that it’s been done very sloppily — the cuts to jobs and spending. How do you respond to that criticism?” Peter Alexander asked without providing a specific example.'We will not be deterred from people like you and the press who are clearly adamantly opposed to cutting waste.' "I love how the media takes a few critics when the overwhelming response from the American people is support for what this administration is doing. If you look at the public polling, 70% of Americans, according to CBS, believe that President Trump is delivering on the promises he made," Leavitt replied.Leavitt went on to say that the intentions to cut down on government spending were not a secret during then-candidate Trump's 2024 campaign."We can all have our own opinion about what is wasteful spending. Republicans have praised the president for cutting wasteful spending. But fraud, of course, is a crime. So have you turned over evidence of fraud to the Justice Department? And when should we expect to see those indictments?” Alexander then asked.Leavitt said she believes the wasteful spending on things like surgery to remove the healthy breasts of gender-confused females in Mozambique is fraudulent to the American taxpayer. She further pointed to an inspector general's report that found Social Security fraud running more than $71 billion."It was in one report over multiple years, from 2015 to 2022," Alexander interjected."Why is the media so against cutting waste, fraud, and abuse from the government? ... We will not be deterred from people like you and the press who are clearly adamantly opposed to cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, but we know that American taxpayers at home, who have been struggling with an inflationary crisis, don’t want their tax dollars going towards crazy DEI programs in countries overseas," Leavitt added.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The New York Yankees are changing course from a long-standing tradition of banning beards and will allow players to sport beards that are deemed properly groomed. Yankees managing general partner Hal Steinbrenner, son of deceased Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, released a statement addressing the "alteration of Yankees facial hair policy." Steinbrenner said that in recent weeks he spoke to many current and former Yankees from different eras to get their perspective on the team's "long-standing facial hair and grooming policy." The Yankees have traditionally banned players from having beards or long hair, a tradition that dates back to the 1970s, according to the New York Times. George Steinbrenner reportedly started the policy because he believed neater facial hair would increase the professionalism and discipline levels of his players. The Yankees' policy was deemed among the most strict of any rules of its kind in the sports world and therefore was one of the most famous team policies. Hal Steinbrenner said ongoing internal dialogue had been taking place for "several years," but the decision ultimately lands at his feet. He revealed in his statement that he concluded that some beards would be authorized by the team. "After great consideration, we will be amending our expectations to allow our players and uniformed personnel to have well-groomed beards moving forward. It is the appropriate time to move beyond the familiar comfort of our former policy." — (@) Former Yankees player Cameron Maybin said in 2023 that fans might be "surprised how much more attractive the Yankees would be" if the team got rid of its facial hair restrictions. However, Maybin had a more cordial reaction to the rule than former Yankee Don Mattingly in 1991. The team captain was allegedly pulled from the lineup because he wouldn't cut his hair. He was quoted as saying he was "overwhelmed by the pettiness" of the situation. He soon relented, the New York Times stated. The ordeal soon reached the status of cultural event when it was parodied on "The Simpsons" in 1992. After notoriously evil power plant owner Mr. Burns created his own work baseball team, Mattingly was included and subsequently kicked off the team for not trimming his sideburns. Don Mattingly in 1991. Focus on Sports/Getty Images "Mattingly, I thought I told you to trim those sideburns! Go home! You're off the team for good!" Mr. Burns yelled at Mattingly, who had shaved the sides of his head out of confusion. Other rules in a similar vein have included the Chicago Bulls' headband ban that spanned from 2004 to 2016. Coach Scott Skiles made the move after reportedly being unhappy with forward Eddie Robinson's attitude and effort. Skiles did allow center Ben Wallace to break the rule in 2007, claiming he "left it up to the guys who have been here if they wanted to make an exception for Ben." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Two Democrat city councilpersons and one influential Democrat operative in Bridgeport, Connecticut, have turned themselves in to police in connection with alleged election tampering.On Friday, Councilmembers Alfredo Castillo and Maria Pereira as well as Wanda Geter-Pataky, the Bridgeport Democratic Party vice chair, walked into a Connecticut State Police station after warrants were issued for their arrests, according to videos shared by John Craven of News 12 Connecticut.Accusations have swirled around the trio for years, as Blaze News has chronicled at length. In 2019, Castillo and Geter-Pataky allegedly mishandled absentee ballots during the contentious Democratic mayoral primary. At the time, both worked for the campaign of longtime Mayor Joe Ganim, whose decades in office was interrupted by a seven-year stint in prison for political corruption.A former resident of Castillo's district alleged back then that Castillo picked up an absentee ballot from his home before he ever had a chance to fill it out. Castillo initially denied knowing the resident or working to procure him an absentee ballot. He then later reportedly admitted that his handwriting appears on portions of the ballot but continued to say he never took possession of it."Not me. I didn’t take no absentee ballot. I don’t do that," Castillo said, according to the CT Mirror. "I don’t touch none of that stuff. ... He didn’t give me no ballot."Geter-Pataky also allegedly filled out an absentee ballot without proper authorization during the 2019 mayoral primary election. She was likewise accused of tampering with a witness.Additionally, Geter-Pataky is at the center of controversy in the 2023 Democratic mayoral primary, once again involving Mayor Joe Ganim. An ardent Ganim supporter and then an employee of City Hall, she appeared to be caught on surveillance video stuffing a City Hall drop box with stacks of absentee ballots just days before the election.The surveillance footage was so alarming that a judge later tossed the results and demanded a primary do-over, though Ganim prevailed over his opponents in the second primary as well as the general election. As in 2019, the results of the 2023 Democratic mayoral primary swung to Ganim almost exclusively on absentee ballot dumps on election night.The CT Post reported that the warrants issued recently for Geter-Pataky and Castillo are related to the 2023 election. However, it is unclear what Castillo has been accused of doing in that case.'Despite commonsense voter integrity measures that could be implemented, Connecticut state Democrats tells us corruption is not a problem.'Pereira is also accused of meddling with absentee ballots in 2023. According to a resident of a low-income apartment complex that was heavily targeted during the primary campaign season, "Maria Pereira came to my home and took the ballot. She indicated that she would mail it for me. She told me what line to vote for and I sign[ed] it.""For 4 years Maria Pereira has taken my voting ballot and stuffed it in her bag to drop it off," another resident wrote in a letter. "Maria likes to bribe the seniors, bringing them Christmas presents ... buying them food, getting them little things."Screenshots of handwritten notes scribbled on what appear to be absentee ballot materials and shared on X by Craven of News 12 Connecticut indicate that Pereira — or someone pretending to be Pereira — attempted to influence the way people completed their ballots."You get to vote for whoever you want, just like I get to choose which residen[ts] I help or don’t help," Pereira allegedly wrote on one person's absentee ballot instructions.On another set of instructions, she allegedly wrote, "No one will ever know!" followed by a heart and her name.As she exited the CSP station on Friday, Pereira made a brief statement: "I’m going to win. I’ve defeated the Bridgeport PD four times with zero convictions. I’m going to win this, too."Pereira, Castillo, and Geter-Pataky are all scheduled to appear in court on March 6."I've been told there's an active warrant, and they've provided the option of voluntary surrender," said Frank Riccio, Castillo's attorney."It's my understanding that yes, she is surrendering on a warrant today. Anything else it would be inappropriate for me to comment on at this point," added Geter-Pataky's attorney, Robert Gulash.Leaders of the Yankee Institute, a government watchdog organization in Connecticut, indicated to Blaze News that these cases demonstrate the need for better guardrails on the election system."It is impossible for Connecticut’s voters to have confidence in the outcomes of the elections here without meaningful voter integrity reforms — including voter ID requirements," Yankee Institute President Carol Platt Liebau said in a statement to Blaze News."Our state is facing a crisis of competence in our voting system where the public no longer trusts the ballot boxes that can be easily stuffed and absentee ballots that are being found to be manipulated," said Yankee Institute fellow Frank Ricci, who also serves as a Connecticut fire chief. "Despite commonsense voter integrity measures that could be implemented, Connecticut state Democrats tells us corruption is not a problem — the arrests and video tapes tells us the real story."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The chest itself was disintegrated and rusted, but the invaluable items inside were in pristine condition — and are now headed for display. The post Cache Of Silver Stolen By The Nazis During World War 2 Found Buried At A 14th-Century Castle In Poland appeared first on All That's Interesting.

DISPARATE IMPACT: ABC News Says Transgender and Nonbinary L.A. Residents Hit Hardest by Wildfires