The Salt Lake Tribune is throwing a fit over the U.S. Supreme Court stripping the ungodly regulatory power of unelected bureaucrats while picking a fight with Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) for daring to support the move.  “Utah politicians are wrong to say the end of Chevron is a boost for liberty,” The Tribune editorial board complained in a whiny July 7 screed targeting Lee and other Utah Republicans who celebrated the Court’s ruling. Under the so-called “Chevron Doctrine,” deference was given to federal agencies' subjective interpretations of ambiguous laws to enforce burdensome regulations on American businesses, which was upended by the Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2023). The Tribune was livid and took a swipe at Lee by likening him to a notorious Star Wars villain: “Sen. Mike Lee chortled that, without Chevron allowing regulators to make decisions, ‘It’s time for Congress to re-learn how to make real laws.’ That is, to make laws that say what the rules are and aren’t left open to bureaucratic interpretation. That’s rich coming from a guy whose entire obstructive legislative career was so well summed up by Star Wars villain Darth Sidious: ‘I have the Senate bogged down in procedure.’” Has anyone ever thought of Sidious as being gung-ho about stripping power away from dictatorial-like federal agencies? Perhaps The Tribune forgot to watch The Empire Strikes Back. Lee clapped back at The Tribune for mixing up its Star Wars metaphors in an exclusive interview with MRC Business: The real problem with The Salt Lake Tribune is that they think unelected bureaucrats should have the power of a Sith Lord, regulating and controlling the masses by force choke. The Supreme Court has given renewed hope for the future of our Republic. Lee hit the nail on the head.The Tribune cried crocodile tears in its first paragraph how the Court’s ruling was gutting “a long-standing legal guideline” that the supposedly benevolent government overlords “used to protect us from foul air, polluted water, adulterated food and ineffective drugs.”  The National Review editorial board stated that the left's “alarms about crippling administrative power are overstated.” The Raimondo ruling did not prevent “the agencies from exercising powers explicitly granted by Congress, or from pursuing cases that could stand up in court.” However, as National Review stated, if Raimondo “provokes in Congress the habit of writing laws, and in agencies the habit of obeying them, all the better. Agencies are but creatures of law, and law is but a creature of the sovereign people’s right to self-government — a government of laws, and not of men.” But The Tribune couldn’t be stopped, and proceeded to fear-monger about power shifting away from tyrannical unelected government bureaucrats over-regulating the free market on a whim to alleged robber barons who are out to just poison people: There is such a thing as federal overreach. But power taken away from the federal government does not magically diffuse through to the people. Power collects, as power always does, in the hands of the already powerful. In this case the corporations that will now enjoy more freedom to poison our planet, your children and you. What a joke. Conservatives are under attack. Contact Salt Lake Tribune at (801) 237-2900 and tell it to stop acting like a shill for the federal bureaucracy.   

United States Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced Wednesday the Risky Research Review Act, which would establish an independent security board to review and approve "high-risk life sciences research" projects seeking federal funding.The first-of-its-kind proposal would create a Life Sciences Research Security Board within the executive branch responsible for conducting "oversight over life sciences research funding across the federal government to protect public health, safety, and national security."'If we had this bill in place ten years ago, we could have prevented the COVID pandemic.'The act defines "high-risk life sciences research" as any research that has a potential dual-use nature or could pose a threat to public health, including "gain of function research, research involving genetic modification or synthetic creation of a potential pandemic pathogen, and activities involving the collection or surveillance of potential pandemic pathogens."Grant applicants seeking to conduct research projects that fall into this category would only be able to receive federal funding with approval from the majority of the security board members.The nine-member board, appointed by the president with Senate approval, would include one executive director, five non-governmental scientists, and two national security experts. The members would serve up to two four-year terms and must not be, or have been within the past three years, a federal employee. Under the proposed act, the security board would be expected to submit annual reports to Congress and online.On Thursday morning, the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held an oversight hearing on "taxpayer funded high-risk virus research."Senators listened to testimony from Dr. Gerald Parker, the associate dean for Global One Health at the College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences; Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, the senior principal and chair at Lewis-Burke Associates health and bioscience innovation practice group and a former senior adviser with the National Institutes of Health; Dr. Robert Redfield, a former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and Dr. Kevin Esvelt, associate professor at MIT Media Lab.During opening statements at Thursday morning's hearing, Senator Gary Peters (D-Mich.) seemed to express that he may not be opposed to legislation similar to the bill proposed by Paul."Our expert witnesses raised to the need for robust oversight over a wide range of high-risk life sciences research both here in the United States and abroad," Peters stated. "Life science research can be critical to protecting public health and our national security. It helps up develop vaccines and improve our diagnostic tests and sharpen our understanding of potential biological threats.""This research can be incredibly dangerous. It puts scientists in contact with harmful pathogens, and they sometimes do not get the necessary training on how to handle them properly," Peters added. "If equipment fails or researchers make an innocent mistake, it can carry serious health risks for the broader public."During his opening remarks, Paul stated, "Over the last four years, compelling evidence has emerged supporting the lab origin of the pandemic and unraveling a web of deception: the vast COVID cover-up.""So what has been done since the discovery that our government is funding dangerous virus research overseas with little or no oversight? The answer is stark and chilling: virtually nothing," Paul remarked. "In this dystopian universe we find ourselves in, it is our duty to challenge the status quo — to shine a light on the darkest corners of government operations, and to protect the freedoms and lives of the people we serve."Wolinetz defended the federal government's oversight of risky pathogen research."Collectively, while this policy framework may be imperfect and should continue to evolve with the science and current threat landscape, it arguably represents the most rigorous oversight of pathogen research in the world," Wolinetz claimed. "If we make it too hard for scientists to conduct and communicate the findings of experiments that expand our knowledge of pathogens, we will be less prepared for the next emerging biological threat."The committee issued a press release announcing the Risky Research Review Act, noting that the funding of such research currently "lack[s] sufficient government oversight, allowing American taxpayer dollars to be spent without appropriate checks."Redfield called the proposed act "a very important bill" that would "ensure national security is prioritized when making U.S. life science funding decisions." He called for a moratorium on gain-of-function research."If we had this bill in place ten years ago, we could have prevented the COVID pandemic," Redfield added.Richard Ebright, the Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers University and laboratory director at the university's Waksman Institute of Microbiology, also voiced support for the proposed legislation."The gaps in current U.S. oversight of research on potential pandemic pathogens place the U.S. at risk of research-related pandemics, with medical, economic, and national security impacts as disruptive and damaging as, or even more disruptive and damaging than, those of the COVID-19 pandemic," Ebright stated. "Addressing the gaps in oversight is essential and urgent."Ebright wrote in a post on X Thursday, "The US has no--zero--regulations with force of law for biosafety or biorisk management of research with any pathogen other than smallpox virus, apart from a requirement to have a biosafety plan, the content of which is left to the discretion of the institution."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Stephen A. Smith is apparently in negotiations with ESPN to become the highest-paid sports commentator — with a $25 million per year contract on the table. After news of the possible deal broke, Patrick Bet-David sat down with Stephen A. Smith on Smith’s podcast. And he may have fanboyed a little too close to the sun. “Talk to me about what your vision is of what America should be,” Smith says to PBD. “What America should be,” PBD repeats, before completely ignoring the question. “You’re the greatest guy in sports commentating ever, right? You’re the GOAT. Everybody calls you the GOAT.” Jason Whitlock is understandably confused by the praise. “Is this a worthy classification? Is he the Michael Jordan of sports commentary?” Whitlock asks Steve Kim. “I’ve never actually heard anyone outside of Patrick Bet-David actually say ‘You’re the greatest of all time in that field,’” Kim says. “Is he going to be the most well paid? Is he the most exposed or overexposed? Is he the one that’s out there the most? Is he the most ubiquitous? Yes.” “But does that necessarily make him the greatest commentator of all time?” he asks, adding, “I never thought of him as the greatest. I don’t think he knows enough, to be honest with you.” Whitlock agrees. “When you start saying that someone is the greatest sports commentator of all time, and he’s worth $25 million a year, this is where my brain goes,” Whitlock begins. “This is all a rigged simulation. This is all a Matrix. And these are people that are supporting the Matrix, who are just like Patrick Bet-David.” “Is he represented by the same agents as Stephen A. Smith? Because it’s such a nonsensical statement. It’s like, you know, ‘Jason Whitlock is the greatest bodybuilder of all time.’ That’s what it’s the equivalent of,” he adds.Want more from Jason Whitlock?To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Star college quarterback Arch Manning will reportedly receive a large payment from video game publisher Electronic Arts after months of holding out from inclusion in an upcoming game.Manning is the youngest star of the famous football family that includes his uncles, Super Bowl winners Peyton and Eli, and his grandfather, football legend Archie Manning.For the latest NCAA football video game published by EA, thousands of student athletes accepted the average payment of $600 and a copy of the game in exchange for their name, image, and likeness.'I'm in the game.'However, with Manning's name holding tremendous potential value, he was one of just a few star players who declined the offer when news started surfacing of the payments in February 2024.It appears someone in the Manning camp made the right call, as it was just announced that the Texas quarterback is set to receive between $50,000 and $60,000 to promote the game and accepted the $600 to be included in it.Meanwhile, college sports reporter Pete Nakos told Blaze News that cover athletes for the game received payments in the low six figures.Manning released a promotional video for the game with his uncle Eli as news broke online."I'm IN the game," Manning wrote, along with the signature "horns up" emoji representing Texas.With the large payment to Manning, it is likely that many other athletes will become holdouts for larger sums in the future. Manning's NIL value is currently ranked at No. 3 in the country, at $2.8 million. Manning is outranked only by fellow football player Shedeur Sanders, son of NFL legend Deion Sanders. Sanders sits at a valuation of $4.9 million for name, image, and likeness.At the same time, gymnast and social media star Livvy Dunne sits in the second spot at $3.9 million.The advent of the NIL era has empowered many student athletes to demand much higher compensation for their names, something that was outright banned before. NFL rookie Marvin Harrison Jr., another NFL legacy athlete, is still in a legal battle over his likeness. In May 2024, Harrison Jr. was sued by apparel brand Fanatics over what the company called a failure to hold up his end of the contract. It was recently revealed that Harrison Jr. was alleged to be compensated $1.05 million over two years by the company.Harrison Jr. has been selling memorabilia on his website after declining to sign the standard agreement with the NFL Players Association to turn over his name, image, and likeness. He did not respond to request for comment; however, the player remarked on signing the NFLPA group licensing agreement during his introductory press conference with the Arizona Cardinals."I'll continue to talk to my team, and we'll do what's best for me moving forward," Harrison Jr. reportedly said. "We'll just take it one day at a time. I just got drafted, so I'm trying to enjoy the moment and be happy while I can at the moment."On3 reported that with over 14,000 players opting in to the NCAA game, EA passed its goal of having 11,000 athletes sign up in what it called possibly the biggest NIL deal ever executed.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrats, media personalities, and other individuals with uneasy relationships with the truth have spent years suggesting that President Donald Trump is "an existential threat to our democracy." The suggestion that the majority decision by American voters to elect a candidate disliked by the political establishment would mean the end of the very system by which they elected him has also been repeated on numerous occasions by the very man most likely to benefit from this narrative: President Joe Biden. Shortly after a Biden official's group successfully got the Democratic incumbent's top rival temporarily removed from the primary ballot in Colorado late last year, Biden tweeted, "Trump poses many threats to our country: The right to choose, civil rights, voting rights, and America's standing in the world. But the greatest threat he poses is to our democracy." 'All these, you know, kind of phrases that are thrown about ... on the op-ed pages of the New York Times and on MSNBC.' All this work to paint Trump as a threat to democracy has effectively been undone. Ezra Klein, the leftist founder of Vox, revealed to a fellow traveler at another leftist blog Wednesday that Biden was not the only Democrat who appears not to have really believed in the existential threat narrative. Tim Miller of the Bulwark told Klein on his podcast that he frequently encounters "this 'democracy is at threat,' 'it's an existential threat,' all these, you know, kind of phrases that are thrown about ... on the op-ed pages of the New York Times and on MSNBC where I frequent." Klein later explained how top Democrats, cognizant of the likelihood Biden will suffer a humiliating defeat in November, can justify not asking him to exit the race despite their peers having floated this existential threat as a likely consequence. 'Unlike Biden and many others, I refuse to participate in a campaign to scare voters with the idea that Trump will end our democratic system.' "Top Democrats believe that if Joe Biden is on top of the ticket, he will lose, but are also not coming out and calling on him to resign. I think there are a lot of ways to say it, but I think one thing that is being revealed is that ... whatever they believe intellectually, they certainly do not believe Donald Trump is an existential threat to American democracy," said Klein. Klein suggested he respected Democratic Maine Rep. Jared Golden's recent op-ed in the Bangor Daily News, which signaled this understanding among Democrats that Trump does not pose a risk to democracy. Golden wrote, "While I don't plan to vote for him, Donald Trump is going to win. And I'm OK with that." "Democrats' post-debate hand-wringing is based on the idea that a Trump victory is not just a political loss, but a unique threat to our democracy. I reject the premise. Unlike Biden and many others, I refuse to participate in a campaign to scare voters with the idea that Trump will end our democratic system," continued Golden. "I urge everyone — voters, elected officials, the media, and all citizens — to ignore the chattering class' scare tactics and political pipe dreams. We don't need party insiders in smoke-filled back rooms to save us. We can defend our democracy without them." "Golden was unusual in saying that, but I think that if you look at how a lot of these Democrats are acting, that is sort of what they believe," Klein told Miller. "People are, like, weighing this set of things, like, 'It would be quite unpleasant for me personally to come out against the president as an elected official in a Democratic Party' and weighing what will happen if Donald Trump wins and saying ... 'I can live with Donald Trump winning.' And I've had people say that to me off the record, to be fair." "Really?" asked Miller. "I've had top Democrats say to me basically something like, 'I don't know why all these Democrats who think Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy are acting the way they are. But the reason I'm acting the way I am is because I don't think that,'" said Klein. "Who the f*** is this?" responded Miller. "Out your sources, Ezra! I'm about to be in leaking-text mode over here myself. Like, that is crazy." "I find it maddening," said Klein. "But I do find it consistent. Look, you can say this is true in a lot of things, right. It's a charge Republicans always throw at liberals, which is that if they really believe climate change is a problem, they wouldn't fly on planes." While Klein's admissions helped kill the existential threat narrative, it was already on life support thanks to Biden's recent interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. Stephanopoulos asked Biden, "If you stay in [the race] and Trump is elected, and everything you're warning about comes to pass, how will you feel in January?" Biden answered, "I'll feel, as long as I gave it my all and I did as goodest as I know I can do, that's what this is about." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

And BOOM: Project 2025 Account OWNS Lyin' Biden With Receipt-Filled Post Debunking Every LIE He's Spewed

'Shining Example of Integrity'! Eric Swalwell Wants Dems to Be MORE Dishonest About Project 2025

Ted Cruz is Straight-FIRE as Sen. Judiciary Cmte. NUKES Judge Nominee Who Wants Men in Women's Prisons

BREAKING: Bid to Hold Merrick Garland in Inherent Contempt Fails in House

Oh My: Gretchen Whitmer Sharpens Knife in CNN Interview As Biden's House of Cards Comes Tumbling Down