A week ago‚ Politico’s so-called democracy investigator Heidi Przybyla flaunted her stone-cold civics illiteracy and anti-Christian bigotry when she suggested that anyone who believed that our rights came from God was a dangerous “extremist” and “Christian Nationalist.” But following overwhelming condemnation‚ Przybyla published a non-apology on Thursday in which she blamed “clumsy words” for how her hate was “interpreted.” Przybyla opened her piece‚ “The Right Way to Cover the Intersection of Religion and Politics” with a screed about the separation of church and state (Click “expand”): On matters of spiritual faith and the public square‚ two concepts are embedded deeply in American history and law. The Constitution protects freedom of worship. So‚ too‚ does it enshrine the separation of church and state. In principle‚ these two concepts are not merely compatible. They are mutually dependent—one ideal is impossible to sustain without the other. In practice‚ however‚ these two foundational values jostle against each other in the political arena. The tension is natural. People typically get involved in politics and public policy debates because they properly believe there are strong moral dimensions to the choices. People’s sense of right and wrong often is shaped by religious conviction. Every important social movement in American history has been powered in part by this dynamic. At the same time‚ in a democracy — filled with people of all faiths‚ as well as non-believers — politics and lawmaking is an emphatically earthly enterprise. No one gets to impose their wishes on others simply by asserting their confidence that heaven is on their side.     “Every person’s spiritual motivations are entitled to respect. Once these motivations take them onto the stage of politics and lawmaking that will affect the lives of fellow citizens‚ however‚ they will be treated the same as any other political actor‚” she proclaimed. “That means they can expect journalistic scrutiny. They can expect fair and well-reported coverage of their political aims and the tactics used to advance them.” It took Przybyla eight paragraphs to finally address the reason she was writing the article. “Due to some clumsy words‚ I was interpreted by some people as making arguments that are quite different from what I believe‚” she wrote. Despite outlets like NewsBusters posting her anti-Christian comments in their entirety‚ she blamed select “activists” for taking her words out of “context”: The confusion from my words was compounded when they were wrested from the full context of my appearance. Excerpts of what I said were promoted widely in some political circles by some activists whose primary objection‚ I feel sure‚ was not my television appearance but my coverage in POLITICO about the tactics and agenda of political activists who subscribe to a philosophy they call “Christian Nationalism.” “Christianity is a religion. Christian Nationalism is a political movement. As I said on air‚ there is a big difference between the two‚” she finally admitted in paragraph 10. “Reporters have a responsibility to use words and convey meaning with precision‚ and I am sorry I fell short of this in my appearance. Among the passages that caused confusion was my attempt to draw a distinction between Christians and the small set of these people who advocate Christian Nationalism.” She went on to describe how her critics were right in pointing out that America’s Founders did believe in Natural Law and that our rights did come from a higher power above mankind and their presence in the Declaration of Independence; and separately‚ talked about the ideology of Christian Nationalism. She closed with lines from President Abraham Lincoln about God being invoked by both sides in the Civil War. This non-apology came hours after the Family Research Center and the Catholic Vote sent a letter to Politico demanding an apology from both it and Przybyla. The organizations pressed the fact that religious institutions in America have seen an increase in violence being carried out against them and that Przybyla’s words could contribute to it.

Elon Musk appears to have resurrected Twitter’s infamous policy of censoring those who refuse to use a person’s preferred pronouns. What’s worse is that he is now trying to defend it. In January‚ X (formerly Twitter) quietly changed its “Abuse and Harassment” policy to state that the platform “will reduce the visibility of posts that purposefully use different pronouns to address someone other than what that person uses for themselves‚ or that use a previous name that someone no longer goes by as part of their transition.” The changes echo the old Twitter regime’s deadnaming and misgendering policy. But the difference between the old gender pronoun policies and the new one is that X spun the latter with sanitized language and included a slightly lighter penalty. But censorship by another name still stinks to high heaven.  The platform’s revised policy is ripe for abuse as X claims it will rely on the subjective opinions of transgender users to determine whether or not they have been harassed. “Given the complexity of determining whether such a violation has occurred‚ we must always hear from the target to determine if a violation has occurred‚” the X policy reads. Libs of TikTok creator Chaya Raichik called Musk out on his platform’s censorship backsliding in an X post. “Apparently X might’ve reinstated their ‘misgendering’ rule so I gotta test it out…‚” she wrote. Raichik proceeded to bluntly refer to a number of high-profile transgenders by their biological sex to test how heavy-handed X’s new policy would be: “Richard Levine is male. He is a man. Dylan Mulvaney is male. He is a man. Ellen Page is female. She is a woman. If I get suspended you can find me at @libsoftiktok.” She continued: “In all seriousness @elonmusk can you please clarify this? Why the change?” Apparently X might’ve reinstated their “misgendering” rule so I gotta test it out… Richard Levine is male. He is a man. Dylan Mulvaney is male. He is a man. Ellen Page is female. She is a woman. If I get suspended you can find me at @libsoftiktok 🙌🏻 — Chaya Raichik (@ChayaRaichik10) March 1‚ 2024 Musk responded by weakly defending the policy. “This is just about repeated‚ targeted harassment of a particular person‚” he retorted. Musk’s response fails to recognize that the new policy makes X the referee between transgender users who may arbitrarily claim harassment and non-compliant users who refuse to bend the knee to leftist activists and lie about a person’s sex and self-appointed pronouns.  Raichik pointed out this exact problem and the resulting unequal treatment. “Using the correct sex based pronouns for someone is ‘harassment’? We’re being forced to lie?” she asked. “What about harassment in general? There are accounts who repeatedly target and harass specific individuals in an obsessive way. What constitutes ‘repeated’ and ‘targeted’ and why do only one group of people get this special treatment?”  Musk tried to reassure Raichik: “You’re not going to get suspended.” But Racihik dismissed Musk’s assurances as just empty talk: “Yeah just shadowbanned and less tweet visibility.”  Musk appears to have a pattern of flip-flopping on this particular issue. Last April‚ Twitter took deadnaming and misgendering out of its “Hateful Conduct” policy after MRC called the platform out for a massive spike in censorship related to transgender-related posts. In June‚ despite the change‚ X pulled out of a deal with The Daily Wire after it had previously agreed to promote the What Is a Woman documentary reportedly due to “misgendering” in the film. At the time‚ Musk responded with the complete opposite of what his Trust and Safety chief had previously claimed about the documentary. “This was a mistake by many people at Twitter. It is definitely allowed‚” he said in a post at the time. “Whether or not you agree with using someone’s preferred pronouns‚ not doing so is at most rude and certainly breaks no laws.”  Musk added‚ “I should note that I do personally use someone’s preferred pronouns‚ just as I use someone’s preferred name‚ simply from the standpoint of good manners. However‚ for the same reason‚ I object to rude behavior‚ ostracism or threats of violence if the wrong pronoun or name is used.” It seems X is returning to Musk’s preferences as opposed to trying to mirror the law as he has continuously claimed.  Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

President Biden visited Walter Reed Medical Center on Wednesday morning for this 2024 physical ahead of what’s expected to be a brutal reelection fight and as questions about what’s clearly a slowing Biden from a physical and mental standpoint have exploded. Instead of showing skepticism towards those in power‚ the “big three” of ABC‚ CBS‚ and NBC channeled state-run media in places like China‚ North Korea‚ and Russia by trumpeting without question President Biden’s doctor saying he’s “fit for duty” with “no signs of trouble” neurologically.     ABC’s World News Tonight embarrassed itself on Wednesday. Anchor David Muir saw nothing to be worried about‚ boasting “the President’s doctors saying he is‚ ‘fit for duty’” even though “age has become an issue for some voters.” Senior White House correspondent Selina Wang was similar obsequious‚ sharing Biden’s longtime doc Kevin O’Connor gave “him a clean bill of health‚ saying today’s exam found no new concerns” and specifically bragged the President’s “a healthy‚ robust 81-year-old male‚ who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency.”  “Now‚ today’s exam did not include a mental fitness test. The White House saying the President’s doctors have determined he doesn’t need one. And‚ today‚ the White House telling me that the President proves his cognitive abilities every single day by doing his job‚” she concluded. ABC’s chief White House correspondent and lead Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce took the task on Thursday’s Good Morning America to boast Biden’s “doctor says the President is fit to serve” with “no new health concerns over the last year.” and no “mental fitness test” was done because O’Connor “didn't think it was necessary and the White House argues the President passes a cognitive test every day just by doing his job.” What a contrast from 2018 when President Trump went for a physical conducted by then-White House physician and now Congressman Ronny Jackson (R-TX). Hold that thought. NBC senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez was on the case for both Wednesday’s NBC Nightly News and Thursday’s Today. On the former‚ he called the physical “a new reminder of another hurdle for the Biden campaign” with “voter concerns mount[ing] over his age‚ mental acuity‚ and physical fitness for office.” But otherwise‚ Gutierrez went right along with the regime’s line Americans need to accept O’Connor’s terminology that Biden’s “fit for duty...without exceptions or accommodations” and that Biden claimed to reporters doctors “think I look too young.” Instead of relay it himself‚ he played a comical clip of Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre insisting Biden “doesn’t need a cognitive test.” Gutierrez’s Today half-segment should have earned him a pat on the head (click “expand”): HODA KOTB: And‚ Gabe‚ there’s another big headline out there: President Biden received his annual physical yesterday. What were the takeaways there? GUTIERREZ: Yeah‚ Hoda. President Biden was declared fit for duty and‚ overall‚ healthy by his doctor. The President telling reporters yesterday there is nothing different than last year. We did learn that Mr. Biden's gait has stiffened because of age-related wear and tear of his spine and also‚ he has started using a sleep apnea machine and had a root canal in June. In response to questions about his mental fitness following that special counsel report‚ the White House press secretary says his doctors do not think he needs a cognitive test‚ Hoda. Pivoting to CBS‚ Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell had a eye-roll-inducing news brief and chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes did the same with a full segment on Thursday’s CBS Mornings (click “expand”): O’DONNELL [on the CBS Evening News‚ 02/28/24]: And we are learning new details tonight from President Biden’s annual physical. The commander in chief’s doctor says the 81-year-old is “fit for duty.” The report said the oldest President to hold office is healthy‚ active‚ robust‚ and occasionally coughs due to acid reflux. It said his stiffened gait was the result of arthritis‚ a previously broken foot and neuropathy in his feet. Dr. Kevin O’Connor at Walter Reed noted the President still uses a CPAP machine to help with his sleep apnea‚ and he identified no new concerns. (....) CORDES [on CBS Mornings‚ 02/29/24]: What we know‚ Nate‚ is that Dr. O’Connor‚ the President’s doctor‚ said that the only change in the President’s health since last year is that he is now using a PAP machine to help with his sleep apnea. Otherwise‚ the doctor said the President is a healthy‚ active‚ robust 81- year-old. Now‚ this physical was conducted at the Walter Reed Medical Center yesterday. At least ten specialists we’re told‚ examined Biden. Dr. O’Connor said the President’s arthritis is moderate to severe‚ which causes him to walk with a stiffened gait that many have noticed. But the doctor said it isn’t any worse than last year and doesn’t require any additional treatment. Now one test‚ as you mentioned‚ that the President did not undergo was any kind of cognitive test. The White House press secretary told reporters that a neurologist determined that Mr. Biden did not need one. The bottom line in this three-page memo‚ Dr. O’Connor says that he has “no new concerns” about Biden’s health despite constant assertions by Biden’s political opponents about his health‚ Gayle. GAYLE KING [on CBS Mornings‚ 02/29/24]: Nancy‚ are you hearing that people were surprised that he was not asked to take a cognitive test? Is that just no big deal now? CORDES [on CBS Mornings‚ 02/29/24]: I think people were wondering about it‚ but apparently according to his personal doctor and a neurologist‚ they didn’t believe it was necessary‚ so he had a whole host of other tests and examinations‚ but that was something they didn’t feel they needed to look at. In fact‚ the White House press secretary says he gets a cognitive test every day in the Oval Office basically based on the job he does. Thankfully‚ CBS Mornings co-hosts Tony Dokoupil and Gayle King scoffed at Jean-Pierre’s spin‚ both stating it’s “not quite the same” with Dokoupil adding that “[t]he American people...don’t have MDs‚ but they will evaluate that latter test” in November. Returning to Trump and his 2018 physical‚ the liberal media beclowned themselves and were lampooned by patriots like our own Tim Graham and the late‚ great Rush Limbaugh. CBS This Morning went down the rabbit hole prior to the visit‚ boasting on January 12‚ 2018 that Trump was having spend part of his presidency “defending his fitness for office” as “the oldest person ever to become command-in-chief”‚ implying something like Alzheimer’s could befall him.  Worse yet‚ CBS used that chance to reup the decades-long conspiracy theory that Reagan had Alzheimer’s while president. In the press briefing after the exam‚ Jackson faced questions from the likes of ABC‚ Bloomberg‚ CBS‚ CNN‚ NBC‚ and The Washington Post in what we wrote at the time as “long knives...out as the liberal media engaged in their own Pickett’s Charge to save their narrative that Trump’s mentally ill and thus must be removed via Congress or the 25th Amendment.” CBS’s Margaret Brennan went as far as to lobby for Trump be examined for Alzheimer’s while then-ABC correspondent Cecilia Vega demanded to know details about “cognitive tests” and whether he could truly rule out Alzheimer’s and dementia since “there have been reports the president has forgotten names‚ that he’s repeating himself.” In addition to Comedy Central’s The Daily Show quipping “dictator blood” is keeping Trump afloat‚ ABC’s The View‚ CNN (here and here)‚ and MSNBC’s Morning Joe discounted the readout from the physical all-together (as if to suggest it’s fake) and kept alive the suspicion Trump was mentally and/or physically impaired. And‚ when Trump went to Walter Reed in November 2019‚ NBC was set ablaze with speculation‚ deeming it a “health exam mystery” in a chyron and claiming it could have had to do with his heart based on data from his 2018 physical. To see the relevant transcripts from February 28‚ click here (for ABC)‚ here (for CBS)‚ and here (for NBC). To see the relevant transcripts from February 29‚ click here (for ABC)‚ here (for CBS)‚ and here (for NBC).

What’s the difference between foraging‚ scavenging‚ and looting and why does it matter? When might someone need to scavenge? The post Scavenging &; Foraging Fuel‚ Food‚ Water‚ Power‚ and Other Survival Resources appeared first on Survivopedia.

Hunter Biden testified before Congress Wednesday as part of the Biden impeachment inquiry‚ providing lawmakers with a number of damning insights into his foreign business dealings. One insight may prove especially damaging to President Joe Biden‚ better known to the first son's former business associates — and now the world — as "the big guy." Quick background Emails discovered in the trove of unsettling materials on Hunter Biden's laptop prior to the 2020 election — strategically cast as Russian disinformation by intelligence community alumni and other Biden boosters — implicated then-Vice President Joe Biden in some of his son's shady business dealings overseas‚ particularly those in China and in Ukraine. Two emails in particular prompted concerns about Joe Biden's involvement in potentially compromising schemes overseas: a 2015 email from Burisma executive Vadym Pozharsky thanking Hunter Biden for giving him an opportunity to meet and spend time with the vice president; and a May 2017 email outlining a business deal between the Biden family and a now-defunct Chinese energy company linked to the communist regime. In the latter email‚ James Gilliar‚ one of Hunter Biden's former business partners‚ touched on the formation of a new company for a joint venture with CEFC China Energy Co. and discussed how they would divvy up equity in the business. Gilliar along with email recipients Tony Bobulinski‚ Rob Walker‚ and Hunter Biden would apparently each get 20% shares in the business. "Jim‚" referencing Joe Biden's brother James‚ would receive 10%. Gilliar then posed the question of whether the remaining 10% would be "held by H for the big guy?" Even though Bobulinksi‚ Hunter Biden's former business partner and a U.S. Navy veteran‚ confirmed years ago that "the big guy" referenced Joe Biden‚ the president has long maintained he was never involved in his son's dealings. Biden's denial has not aged well. The 'big guy' During his deposition Wednesday‚ which lasted over six hours‚ Hunter Biden was presented with a copy of the May 13‚ 2017‚ email and asked‚ "Have you seen this email before?" "I have. I've seen it‚ I think‚ as we all have‚ 8‚642‚300 times‚" replied Hunter Biden. The questioner skipped right to the bottom of the email‚ noting‚ "It says‚ 'At the moment‚ there's provisional agreement that the equity [in Oneida] will be distributed as follows. ...20 to H‚' which presumably is yourself. Is that correct?" Hunter Biden answered in the affirmative‚ then confirmed the other shareholders referenced in the scheme were Walker‚ Gilliar‚ Bobulinski‚ and James Biden. "And then '10 held by H‚' which would be you‚ 'for the big guy‚' which presumable is your dad‚ correct?" asked the questioner. Hunter Biden proved evasive‚ saying‚ "All I know this is‚ is that‚ number one‚ there's only one agreement that includes Tony Bobulinski‚ that is executed and signed by me. There's only one message that I had as it relates to any involvement that I had with Tony Bobulinski‚ James Gilliar‚ my uncle‚ and Rob Walker‚ and it did not involve my dad." The first son suggested that the ultimate breakdown was for 20 points apiece for Bobulinski‚ Gilliar‚ James Biden‚ Walker‚ and himself. "Nothing do with Joe Biden‚" added the first son. Much later in the deposition‚ Hunter Biden was asked‚ "The reference to the big guy‚ you would agree‚ is a reference to your father?" "I truly don't know what the hell that James was talking about‚" Hunter Biden said‚ referring to Gilliar. "All I know is what what actually happened." After stressing that his father has "never been involved" in or benefited from his business — a suggestion the House GOP indicates it has ample evidence to refute — Hunter Biden characterized the "big guy" comment as wishful thinking. "I think that it was pie in the sky. Like‚ 'Joe Biden's out of the office. Maybe we'll be able to get him involved.' Remember‚ again‚ is that Joe Biden‚ for the first time in 48 years‚ is not an elected official and is not seeking office. And so James is probably like‚ wow‚ wouldn't be great if a former vice president could be in our business together?" said Hunter Biden. Despite initially casting doubt on whether the "big guy" was his father‚ Hunter Biden indicated he shut down the notion of his father's involvement after Gilliar's suggestion. Hunter Biden suggested he told Gilliar‚ "You're out of your mind. My dad knows less about doing cross-border blah‚ blah‚ blah‚ than he does about — I mean‚ it's just ridiculous." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A personal note to Steve Baker: Remember Matthew Lyon. Lyon‚ a congressman‚ was prosecuted by the John Adams administration for violating the Sedition Act — which he did by fiercely criticizing the Adams administration. When he was dubiously convicted‚ the federal marshal who took him to prison made a show of it‚ dragging him around town to let people see an enemy of the government reduced to the condition of a prisoner. Criminal justice was political theater‚ and not by accident. You can read a detailed description of Lyon's ordeal here or a shorter one here. Donald Trump criticized reporters‚ you see‚ and that's unforgivable. Anyway‚ Mr. Baker‚ turn around and put your hands behind your back. Many American writers and activists have been arrested by their government for publishing criticism of politicians or for giving speeches that expressed disagreement with officials. The lawyer and former congressman Clement Vallandigham was arrested by soldiers and tried by a military court for (among other things) calling Abraham Lincoln a tyrannical king who had usurped power by unilaterally suspending the right of habeas corpus during the Civil War. The administration of Woodrow Wilson shut down dozens of newspapers and magazines for criticizing American participation in World War I and questioning the use of conscription‚ while the socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were prosecuted for distributing leaflets that encouraged men to resist the draft. From time to time throughout our history‚ the federal government arrests people for saying things the government doesn't like. It’s a tradition‚ like beer luge or bad cover bands. Steve Baker is about to get the Late Federalist shaming parade for covering the January 6 protest as an independent journalist. As he recently wrote‚ his arrest on Friday is being stage-managed for optics: "The prosecutor informed my attorney that I am to arrive at the @FBI field office wearing 'shorts and sandals. …' Rather than issuing a simple order to appear‚ they seem to feel the need to give me a dose of the personal humiliation treatment." Like Matthew Lyon‚ Steve Baker is getting a political perp walk from the government‚ in a ritual designed to demean a critic. But what happens next is the important part. John Adams and his Federalist administration criminalized disagreement‚ prosecuted critics‚ repressed freedom of speech‚ and lost the presidency to Thomas Jefferson. Their crackdown on dissent was the sign of a dying party. They lashed out as they felt power slipping out of their hands. Matthew Lyon was re-elected to the House of Representatives‚ by the way. From prison. Because voters were disgusted to see him prosecuted for political disagreement. Maybe you can think of some ways to apply that observation today. We join hands across the years with Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries. Thugs and scumbags arrest critics and journalists who work in a spirit of fearless independence‚ and normal people know this. Periods of political repression are followed by periods of popular repulsion and backlash. (Unless you’re Alexander Hamilton‚ in which case you get a Broadway musical.) In 1798 and 1799‚ Federalists knew that all the finest people were Federalists‚ and everyone else was low-status trash. But look how the National Archives and Records Administration describes the Sedition Act today: The laws were directed against Democratic-Republicans‚ the party typically favored by new citizens. The only journalists prosecuted under the Sedition Act were editors of Democratic-Republican newspapers. Sedition Act trials‚ along with the Senate’s use of its contempt powers to suppress dissent‚ set off a firestorm of criticism against the Federalists and contributed to their defeat in the election of 1800‚ after which the acts were repealed or allowed to expire. "Count no man happy until he is dead." Today is temporary and will be followed by another day‚ with other prevailing opinions. And in the long run‚ or even the fairly near-to-medium run‚ most Americans loathe officials who arrest their critics and opponents. History’s clock is running. Joe Biden will be thought of poorly in the very near fut — well‚ OK‚ everybody already thinks poorly of Joe Biden. We have many examples of political repression‚ and none are remembered warmly. But this is where the story turns to dark comedy. While we're remembering historical examples of journalists being targeted and the American response to it‚ take a moment to click on this link and remember something: Donald Trump criticized reporters during his presidency‚ and we heard four years of hysterical fearmongering about how vicious and repressive it was to say that Jim Acosta is an idiot. By the way‚ Jim Acosta is absolutely an idiot. Today the Biden administration takes a right-leaning journalist into custody for covering a political event‚ and the caterwauling adult children who told you that Donald Trump was a lot like Hitler for posting mean tweets about CNN are silent as Steve Baker is handcuffed. Here's another glorious example‚ a zero-self-awareness NPR discussion of the way that the brutal monster Donald Trump behaved a lot like the appalling Wilson administration. He criticized reporters‚ you see‚ and that's unforgivable. Anyway‚ Mr. Baker‚ turn around and put your hands behind your back. Something to remember for the transition to accountability.

Whoopi Goldberg and the other lefties on “The View” are quick to talk over and belittle anyone who disagrees with their shared liberal ideology. However‚ when Dr. Phil was invited on the show‚ he was not about to be silenced. In fact‚ he was the one who did the silencing. Rick Burgess and Bill "Bubba" Bussey play a clip of Dr. Phil stating straight facts about how COVID protocols were damaging to schoolchildren. “The agencies that shut down the schools for two years … [took] away the support system for these children‚” he boldly stated‚ adding that “when they shut it down‚ they stopped the mandated reporters from being able to see children that were being abused and sexually molested and‚ in fact‚ sent them home and abandoned them to their abusers.” Well‚ Whoopi didn’t like that. “They were trying to save kids’ lives. Remember we know a lot of folks who died during this‚” she fired back. “Not schoolchildren‚” he retorted. “Maybe we're lucky they didn't because we kept them out of the places that they could be sick.” “Are you saying no schoolchildren died of COVID?” asked Ana Navarro‚ who looked deeply offended. “I’m saying it was the safest group. They were the less vulnerable group‚ and they suffered and will suffer more from the mismanagement of COVID than they will from the exposure to COVID‚ and that's not an opinion. That's a fact‚” Dr. Phil concluded‚ but before Whoopi or Ana could respond‚ the audience erupted into applause. “You’ve got to love his bravery‚” says Rick‚ acknowledging that it’s unlikely Dr. Phil will be invited back on “The View” any time soon. To see the footage of Dr. Phil shutting down “The View’s” panel of lefties‚ watch the clip below. Want more from Rick and Bubba?To enjoy more legendary comedy‚ political arguments‚ and lessons in common sense‚ subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America‚ defend the Constitution‚ and live the American dream.

A federal judge held veteran investigative reporter Catherine Herridge in civil contempt of court on Thursday for upholding journalistic ethics and not revealing her confidential sources.Federal district Judge Christopher Cooper ordered Herridge to pay a fine of $800 per day until she divulges the information the court wants.Cooper wrote in his order: The Court does not reach this result lightly. It recognizes the paramount importance of a free press in our society and the critical role that confidential sources play in the work of investigative journalists like Herridge. Yet the Court also has its own role to play in upholding the law and safeguarding judicial authority.Fortunately‚ Cooper stayed the ruling for 30 days‚ giving Herridge ample time to appeal before she starts incurring daily fines.The case stems from Herridge's tenure at Fox News. In 2017‚ she reported on a federal investigation into Chinese-American scientist Yanping Chen‚ whom the FBI once investigated over "suspicions of Chinese military ties and whether she had lied on U.S. immigration forms‚" the New York Times noted. The FBI never charged Chen.In 2018‚ Chen sued the federal government‚ alleging that government employees had leaked her information to Herridge in violation of the Privacy Act.Last year‚ Cooper ordered Herridge to reveal the sources of her information about Chen‚ but she refused‚ citing her First Amendment rights.After Cooper's ruling on Thursday‚ Herridge's attorney‚ Patrick Philbin‚ said‚ "We disagree with the district court’s decision‚ and to protect Ms. Herridge's First Amendment rights‚ we intend to appeal."Fox News‚ meanwhile‚ condemned Cooper's ruling for the "deeply chilling effect" that it will have on journalism and the First Amendment.Advocacy groups concerned about the First Amendment and free press also condemned Cooper's decision‚ and the legacy media wrote stories about it. But there was an glaring lack of media outrage over Cooper's decision.In fact‚ by Friday morning‚ CNN was the only cable or broadcast news network that had covered the story on TV — for a mere 13 seconds. — (@) There is also a glaring lack of social media posts from virtue-signaling media pundits and news reporters decrying Cooper's decision and the threat it poses for journalism.Perhaps the lack of outrage from Herridge's colleagues stems from the fact that Herridge‚ an award-winning reporter‚ often reported on topics the legacy media ignores‚ most recently covering allegations of Biden family corruption and the Hunter Biden saga before CBS News decided to terminate her employment.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

UPDATE: 12:51 p.m. ET: Former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy weighed on Baker's arrest and the state of freedom of the press: — (@) UPDATE: 12:37 p.m. ET: BlazeTV contributor Jill Savage noted that she exited the courtroom with Baker who "was able to wear his dress clothes but had shackles on his wrists and ankles. He is expected to be released today. His next hearing is set in DC for March 14th."Original story belowBlaze News investigative journalist Steve Baker — who for years has been searching for the truth about Jan. 6‚ 2021‚ and believes the U.S. government has been targeting him for it — on Friday was charged with four misdemeanors related to his Jan. 6 coverage at the U.S. Capitol after turning himself in to the FBI in Dallas.The charges are:Knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authorityDisorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or groundsDisorderly conduct in a capitol buildingParading‚ demonstrating‚ or picketing in a capitol building Image source: Blaze NewsBaker learned of the charges for the first time Friday and earlier this week told Blaze News that the powers that be wouldn't tell his attorney about the charges because they believed Baker will post them on social media.Baker's Dallas attorney‚ James Lee Bright‚ added to Blaze News that withholding the nature of the charges against his client was a "really unusual" move.Bright told Blaze News that he's "disturbed" about what's happening with his client‚ especially given that Baker has been "in full compliance" all this time. Bright also said the federal government "three-plus years later going after people who were legitimate functioning journalists that day" appears designed to have an "absolute chilling effect."Baker added that when he asked his other attorney‚ William Shipley‚ why the federal government is treating him like this‚ Shipley replied‚ "You know why. You've been poking them in the eye for three years."What's the background?Earlier this week‚ Baker said the FBI instructed him to self-surrender Friday morning‚ and Baker did just that.While Baker said the agency told him to show up at the field office in "shorts and sandals" — which he said typically means authorities want to make it easier to prep an individual for a "humiliation" perp walk routine — Baker‚ dignified as ever‚ arrived in a suit and tie. — (@) Later he was placed in handcuffs‚ walked by a pair of agents to a vehicle‚ and transported to a courthouse. — (@) Blaze Media editor in chief Matthew Peterson — who accompanied Baker to the FBI field office — posted the following reaction: "Tough to watch. Totally unnecessary. There was no reason to take him into custody and have U.S. marshals transport him to the courthouse. We expect and hope to see him on the other side of this in a few hours."Glenn Beck‚ co-founder of Blaze Media‚ wrote in a Friday morning op-ed that Baker's First Amendment battle is ours‚ too: "When the United States government can come after individuals‚ that's when you know our republic is crumbling. I've always said that if they can go after Donald Trump‚ they will go after people like you and me. And now they are. But Steve Baker is not deterred‚ and neither are we."Beck on Thursday asked Baker how he was holding up. Here's how Baker responded: — (@) What else?Baker announced in December that the FBI said the U.S. Department of Justice would be charging him for his Jan. 6 reporting — but two days later‚ he noted that the FBI said his self-surrender was postponed until after Christmas.It's been a waiting game ever since.Attorneys representing Baker in January told Blaze News that the Justice Department might be orchestrating a "retaliation" against Baker over his Jan. 6 reporting."Steve’s actions on January 6 have been known to the Department of Justice for 3 years‚" Baker's attorneys said in a January news release. "But it is only now — after Steve has broken two major stories greatly embarrassing to the DOJ — that he is possibly being targeted for arrest and possibly felony prosecution. Any action taken to put him in handcuffs‚ hold him in custody‚ and have him transported to court by federal law enforcement will be nothing other than retaliation for his recent reporting."Baker discussed his legal saga in a pair of October commentary pieces for Blaze News (here and here)‚ detailing the ins and outs of the federal investigation he's been under following his independent journalistic work on Jan. 6‚ which began before he joined Blaze News.What has been uncovered as a result of Baker's investigations?Baker's first Jan. 6 analysis for Blaze News came last October following countless hours in a House subcommittee office looking at frame after frame of Jan. 6 closed-circuit video — and it had him wondering: did Capitol Police Special Agent David Lazarus perjure himself in the Oath Keepers trial?Soon after‚ the slow pace of getting an unrestricted look at everything recorded on video prompted Blaze Media editor in chief Matthew Peterson's appeal to House Speaker Mike Johnson to release all the videos. On Nov. 17‚ Johnson did just that.Baker's investigative efforts also resulted in two additional analyses‚ both focusing on Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn: "January 6 and the N-word that wasn't" and "Harry Dunn's account of January 6 does not add up. At all."In December‚ Baker alleged that he uncovered major irregularities involving Dunn‚ the Capitol Police‚ the press‚ and U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland).In January‚ Baker asserted that newly released U.S. Capitol closed-circuit TV video clips from Jan. 6 show Lazarus gave false testimony in the Oath Keepers trial. Proof of Perjury | The Truth About January 6 youtu.be Also in January‚ Baker and others were asking what the U.S. government has to hide in regard to the pipe bomb found on Jan. 6 at the Democratic National Committee headquarters. Baker in February wrote another analysis titled "Capitol Police diverted all CCTV cameras away from DNC pipe bomb investigation — except one."Baker penned his latest analysis last week‚ asking why Kamala Harris was at the DNC and not the Capitol on Jan. 6.This story has been updated.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

House Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) announced Friday the release of 5‚000 hours of CCTV footage of the Jan. 6‚ 2021‚ protests. This release coincides with Blaze Media investigative journalist Steve Baker's FBI-compelled surrender in Dallas over his Jan. 6 reporting. According to the Republican congressmen‚ this release is but a trickle compared to the coming flood‚ as far more footage will be released in the coming weeks and months. Additionally‚ at the direction of Johnson‚ faces will not be blurred in the footage in the interest of "getting this work completed as responsibly and efficiently as possible." Already‚ the footage Loudermilk made available to Steve Baker has served to greatly undermine the Jan. 6 narrative advanced by Democratic lawmakers and their allies in the media. Weeks after uncovering various damning irregularities in the story told by and about U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn‚ Baker confirmed in January — on the basis of Jan. 6 footage — that the so-called passerby who discovered the pipe bomb at the DNC happened to be a United States Capitol Police plainclothes officer. In his continued deep dive‚ Baker also found troubling indications that something was off about the pipe bomb investigation from the outset. On the basis of closed-circuit TV video footage made available to him by Loudermilk‚ Baker noted how three cameras controlled by the U.S. Capitol Police and customarily pointed at the DNC office building were strangely turned away from the scene just after the discovery of the alleged explosive device. Despite the cameras' averted gazes‚ Baker nevertheless highlighted curious details about various law enforcement agencies' responses to the discovery of the pipe bombs as well as about the investigation that followed. The release of additional vantages on the Jan. 6 protests and the incidents in the surrounding area may serve to lend additional insights into what actually took place on that fateful day. Videos have been uploaded and now appear on the House Subcommittee on Oversight's Rumble page. Subsequent releases will similarly be reviewed to ensure that footage does not contain sensitive security information. — (@) "House Republicans again commend Chairman Loudermilk and the entire Committee on House Administration for their ongoing commitment to ensuring that there is full transparency surrounding the events of January 6‚" Johnson said in a statement obtained by Blaze News. Last year‚ Johnson indicated he would release 44‚000 hours of footage from the Jan. 6 protests‚ noting that doing so would "provide millions of Americans‚ criminal defendants‚ public interest organizations‚ and the media an ability to see for themselves what happened that day‚ rather than having to rely upon the interpretation of a small group of government officials." In his statement Friday‚ Johnson stressed that the "ongoing work is especially necessary considering the deeply flawed prior investigation conducted by the partisan January 6 select committee‚ which instead of delivering transparency‚ has contributed to defendants‚ public interest groups‚ and the media having to rely upon the interpretation of a small group of government officials." "My subcommittee's investigation has always been about providing the American people with full transparency and complete accountability about what really happened on January 6‚ 2021‚" said Rep. Loudermilk. "As such‚ we have been working tirelessly to make public all U.S. Capitol Police CCTV footage from that day." Loudermilk lauded Johnson for his continued support of the subcommittee's efforts and for his "resolute commitment to full transparency for the American people." "Today's decision will significantly expedite CCTV footage releases‚ all of which will be made available to the American public within the next few months‚ without blurring or editing‚" added the Georgia congressman. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!