The president of the Brownstone Institute argued that a crucial upcoming  Supreme Court case is so key that it effectively places Americans’ free speech rights on trial.  Brownstone president Jeffrey Tucker wrote in a March 1 column that he “never witnessed anything as crucial to the future of the idea of freedom itself compared with what will transpire on March 18‚ 2024.” That is the day on which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Murthy v. Missouri’s arguments “concerning whether the government can force or nudge private companies to censor users on behalf of regime priorities.” The legal interpretation of the First Amendment and its freedoms will thus be at stake. MRC Free Speech America’s unique CensorTrack.org research was central to the Murthy v. Missouri suit. The Supreme Court will be deciding if pre-trial intervention is needed after it previously stayed a lower court’s injunction restricting government censorship efforts‚ Tucker explained. “A ruling for the defense‚ which is essentially the government itself‚ will give license to every federal agency – including those that operate in secret like the FBI and CIA – to threaten every social media and media company in this country to delete any and all content that runs contrary to the approved narrative‚” he warned. Tucker insisted‚ “Free speech is everything. If we don’t have that‚ we have nothing and freedom is toast. All other problems pale in comparison.” Ascertaining the truth on any topic requires free speech‚ he added‚ and Big Tech companies have already developed an acute obsession with censoring free speech. These tech companies “work in cooperation with government and those tasked by government to do elite bidding‚” Tucker wrote. He cited the Twitter Files and the vast network of government Tech censorship collusion they exposed. Anyone who disagrees with the leftist “Great Reset” agenda is silenced‚ he explained. Supreme Court justices will be “shocked” by the “trillion-dollar industry” to crush speech‚ Tucker predicted. “Every federal agency is involved‚ deeply embedded in the operations of all media companies and digital technology‚” affecting everyone’s life‚ he accused. He compared Big Tech companies to the Soviet propaganda papers of yesteryear. Except now there is a “global industry” of censorship‚ ensuring only approved opinions can be seen online. And with Big Tech trying to program censorship into algorithms and artificial intelligence‚ this is a particularly key issue. The vital liberty that the constitutional framers greatly valued is at stake‚ Tucker concluded. “As I say‚ this is surely the most important issue we face. A decision by the Supreme Court to let this go on – seeing no real issue here – will lead straight to our doom and the death of freedom itself.” 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.

CNN liberals Kate Bedingfield and Ashley Allison‚ both former Biden campaign officials from 2020‚ were left stammering and bewildered during Sunday’s State of the Union (the CNN show with host Jake Tapper) when Republican commentator Scott Jennings and former Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) ran circles around them and schooled them on President Biden’s border disaster. Things got interesting after Allison bloviated about how “Democrats get up and try and show a story of how we can move this country forward” while Republicans were being “disingenuous.” “Well‚ I'm surprised to hear you say that it's wrong to mislead the American people and not have much to say about Joe Biden's State of the Union‚” Jennings shot back‚ noting that Biden was more apologetic about calling the man who killed Georgia college student Laken Riley an “illegal” than he was about calling her “Lincoln’: I'm not as worried about SNL as I am worried about what Biden told NBC when he apologized for calling the murderer of Laken Riley “illegal.” He had it right in the speech‚ and then he got bullied by his left flank into changing it: ‘Well‚ it's undocumented.’ And then‚ even more outrageous‚ he said: I'm not going to insult people like that‚ because they built the country. This TRIGGERED Bedingfield‚ who immediately started shouting at Jennings about how “He did not apologize!” Jennings embarrassed her by pointing out that the killer was “very documented” as a dangerous criminal (Click “expand”): BEDINGFIELD: I mean‚ that is just -- that is ludicrous framing! He did not apologize. JENNINGS: Why did he change it? BEDINGFIELD: He did not apologize to the... JENNINGS: Why does he insist on speaking... BEDINGFIELD: Because‚ for a... JENNINGS: He -- the White House is putting out -- the White House is putting out press releases calling illegal aliens “newcomers.” Now he's saying‚ ‘Well‚ I shouldn't have said ‘illegal.’ It's -- he's really documented.’” And you know why? Because he is documented to have murdered someone‚ to have broken our laws‚ to have been in this country -- he's very documented.     Bedingfield began to lecture Jennings about how “language matters” and how “our economy is humming‚ which it is‚ by the way‚ is because...” Jennings expertly referenced Biden’s own words on illegal immigrant criminals by interjecting to add: “Because of murderers coming across the border?” The two liberals were less than amused with being upstaged (Click “expand”): ALLISON: No‚ Scott! BEDINGFIELD: And he wasn't -- but‚ Scott‚ this is disingenuous‚ okay? This is disingenuous! ALLISON: Yes. JENNINGS: I'm sorry... BEDINGFIELD: And you know it. He was not apologizing to the murderer. JENNINGS: Okay. BEDINGFIELD: He stood up at the State of the Union and said‚ this is horrible‚ it is horrific what happened. And he‚ frankly‚ bested Marjorie Taylor Greene... JENNINGS: Then he walked it back. After Tapper stepped in to give Brown some air to speak‚ the former Senator noted that while Biden was “talking about Snickers bars and Doritos. He should have been talking about the number one issue‚ which is immigration‚ number two issue‚ which is the economy. And those things are not being addressed.” The liberals fell back to the already played-out talking point that Republicans walked away from a border deal (of course‚ there was no explanation about why it took until an election year for Democrats to attempt anything with the border). And as Allison was pontificating about how illegal immigrants were coming here “fleeing persecution‚” Brown interrupted to demand they “follow the laws” and come in legally. It was Allison’s turn to be TRIGGERED‚ as she started ridiculously shouting at Brown about how there were supposedly no immigration laws in place and that Republicans needed to pass some. Brown pointed out the truth that there were laws already on the books that could be utilized (Click “expand”): BROWN: Listen‚ then follow the laws. Follow the laws. Put the laws that are in place. ALLISON: But you have to have the actual...But you have to pass laws! You have to pass laws to follow them! BROWN: Listen‚ no‚ you don't need to pass the laws. You have plenty of laws in place right now. ALLISON: No! BROWN: Just do it legally. Listen‚ I was there. I was there. And I worked on this issue. ALLISON: Well‚ then why don't the Republicans pass the law? BROWN: And it's not working under this administration. And it's the number one issue. And he's completely ignoring it. “We‚ under President Trump‚ we had an enormous amount of people coming here through the legal process. You're talking about a president right now who has not done his job when it comes to illegal immigration‚” Brown pointed out. Before shifting the topic‚ Tapper said that he loved “the passion at the table today.” “It’s early‚” Brown quipped. “Especially with daily savings‚” Tapper added. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s State of the Union March 10‚ 2024 9:43:35 a.m. Eastern (…) ASHLEY ALLISON: And I think it was a tell that this is what the election cycle is going to be‚ that Democrats get up and try and show a story of how we can move this country forward‚ and you have people who show up after who give a response‚ whether it be Katie Britt or Donald Trump‚ that is not filled with truths and is disingenuous. SCOTT JENNINGS: Well‚ I'm surprised to hear you say that it's wrong to mislead the American people and not have much to say about Joe Biden's State of the Union. I mean‚ people are more worried about Katie Britt's thing than some of the things Joe Biden said‚ including yesterday on NBC. I'm not as worried about SNL as I am worried about what Biden told NBC... TAPPER: What did he say? JENNINGS: ... when he apologized for calling the murderer of Laken Riley “illegal.” He had it right in the speech‚ and then he got bullied by his left flank into changing it: ‘Well‚ it's undocumented.’ And then‚ even more outrageous‚ he said: I'm not going to insult people like that‚ because they built the country. TAPPER: Let's put up -- I will come to you in a second. Let's put up the video‚ so people know what Scott's talking about. Oh‚ we don't have the video. OK‚ I'm sorry. But‚ yes‚ he did say -- he did correct himself to say... KATE BEDINGFIELD: He did not apologize! I mean‚ that is just -- that is ludicrous framing! He did not apologize. JENNINGS: Why did he change it? BEDINGFIELD: He did not apologize to the... JENNINGS: Why does he insist on speaking... BEDINGFIELD: Because‚ for a... JENNINGS: He -- the White House is putting out -- the White House is putting out press releases calling illegal aliens “newcomers.” Now he's saying‚ ‘Well‚ I shouldn't have said ‘illegal.’ It's -- he's really documented.’” And you know why? Because he is documented to have murdered someone‚ to have broken our laws‚ to have been in this country -- he's very documented. BEDINGFIELD: Because language matters. Language is important. JENNINGS: Yes. BEDINGFIELD: And Joe Biden is trying to build a coalition of people to get elected president -- reelected president of the United States. He is trying to bring in a community of people who care about that kind of language. And‚ in Donald Trump‚ you have somebody who uses language to divide‚ to sow hate‚ to make people feel unwelcome. Yes‚ this -- our country is a melting pot. And a big piece of why our economy is humming‚ which it is‚ by the way‚ is because... [Crosstalk] JENNINGS: Because of murderers coming across the border? ALLISON: No‚ Scott. BEDINGFIELD: And he wasn't -- but‚ Scott‚ this is disingenuous‚ okay? This is disingenuous. ALLISON: Yes. JENNINGS: I'm sorry... BEDINGFIELD: And you know it. He was not apologizing to the murderer. JENNINGS: Okay. BEDINGFIELD: He stood up at the State of the Union and said‚ this is horrible‚ it is horrific what happened. And he‚ frankly‚ bested Marjorie Taylor Greene... JENNINGS: Then he walked it back. BEDINGFIELD: ... in a very childish effort to try to get -- to try to trap Biden on the issue. That’s just disingenuous. TAPPER: Ambassador Scott Brown‚ former Senator Scott Brown‚ what did you make of the State of the Union address? What did you make of the response? FMR. SEN. SCOTT BROWN (R-MA): Well‚ first of all‚ he needed to do well. People were looking at two things‚ number one‚ to see if he could get through the speech and doing it without making any mistakes‚ and I thought he did that. But they were also looking for some very big answers on the issues that matter. Immigration‚ as you can see‚ what's happening right here‚ it's a volatile issue. And the president had an opportunity to keep in place President Trump's policies‚ and he chose not to. And now he's blaming the Senate and Congress about a bill. Listen‚ it's all rhetoric. He has the -- as Obama had done‚ had a phone and a pen to actually resolve these issues immediately‚ and he should have done it before. By the time his administration's over‚ we have 10 million now. We could have 15 to 20 people here illegally. They are illegals. And it's -- just walk through D.C. Go to any city and see what's happening where minorities in Boston‚ in Roxbury‚ are being displaced from people who are here illegally. And it's wrong. And I thought the speech‚ quite frankly‚ he's talking about Snickers bars and Doritos. He should have been talking about the number one issue‚ which is immigration‚ number two issue‚ which is the economy. And those things are not being addressed. BEDINGFIELD: Well – Well‚ they – they were. I mean‚ I guess two things I would say to that. First is‚ if the issue is so significant and important‚ why is it Republicans who walked away from an incredibly effective bill? BROWN: Listen‚ a bill -- you know as well as I do‚ being up there‚ that a bill is -- it's rhetoric. He should have done something for the last three years‚ and he hasn't done anything on it. And he won't use his pen‚ like President Obama did. ALLISON: Wait a minute. That's not true‚ though. JENNINGS: But wait. He did. He did use his pen to cancel Trump's work. ALLISON: No‚ no‚ no‚ no‚ no. The first bill that the Biden administration -- one of the first bills the Biden administration presented was a bill on immigration. He... [Crosstalk] ALLISON: Let me just finish this for a second. He changed the Trump policy because this country‚ perhaps with the exception of me‚ was made off of immigrants that got to selectively choose to come to this country and build it. I'm sure most of you have an immigrant story in your family. And that is what these individuals are doing. They are coming to this country fleeing persecution‚ seeking safety – BROWN: Listen‚ then follow the laws. Follow the laws. Put the laws that are in place. ALLISON: But you have to have the actual...But you have to pass laws! You have to pass laws to follow them! BROWN: Listen‚ no‚ you don't need to pass the laws. You have plenty of laws in place right now. ALLISON: No! BROWN: Just do it legally. Listen‚ I was there. I was there. And I worked on this issue. ALLISON: Well‚ then why don't the Republicans pass the law? BROWN: And it's not working under this administration. And it's the number one issue. And he's completely ignoring it. [Crosstalk] BEDINGFIELD: Can I say one substantive thing? TAPPER: Yeah‚ Kate. BEDINGFIELD: Can I just say one substantive thing‚ which is that there are limits to what a president can do via executive order. BROWN: President Obama did it. President Trump did it. JENNINGS: There weren't any limits on day one. BEDINGFEILD: And – and – and -- JENNINGS: Where were the limits on day one? BEDINGFIELD: And President Trump's executive orders were overturned by the courts. And that is the same concern that the Biden administration has. The Biden administration has tried to pursue bipartisan‚ effective immigration laws that would actually withstand court scrutiny. And the fact... [Crosstalk] ALLISON: Why did they walk away from that bill? BEDINGFIELD: ... to have walked away from that. ALLISON: Because your party is being led by Donald Trump‚ who talks about people who are coming seeking persecution -- from seeking persecution in their country‚ he calls them poisoning the blood. He calls them vermin. He creates hate and chaos. There was a bill on the floor that could have been passed. And your party said no. And why is that? Because you don't want to have the melting pot of America? These... BROWN: Listen‚ that's false rhetoric. BEDINGFIELD: Because you want to have the issue to campaign on. ALLISON: A senator just said it. BROWN: We are an amazingly inclusive country. BEDINGFIELD: Donald Trump also said it. BROWN: We‚ under President Trump‚ we had an enormous amount of people coming here through the legal process. You're talking about a president right now who has not done his job when it comes to illegal immigration. It's not me talking. You look at every border state throughout the country. Every state is being dramatically affected by his terrible policies affecting our economy‚ our kids. You name it‚ it's upside down. Just walk through D.C. You can't even do it anymore. BEDINGFIELD: Senator Lankford‚ the lead Republican... BROWN: Yeah‚ listen‚ I love the guy. He's great‚ but I disagree with him. I disagree with him. BEDINGFIELD: ... just said on this show that Republicans walked away because they wanted the issue for the campaign. BROWN: I disagree with him. BEDINGFIELD: That's just a fact. JENNINGS: Kate. Kate. Do you think everything Joe Biden has done on immigration to this point has him in good stead with the American people or not? BEDINGFIELD: I think that he is an incredibly aggressive position moving into the rest of this campaign‚ because Republicans have thrown up their hands and said‚ we don't want solutions - ALLISON: That's right. BEDINGFIELD:  - we want politics. The American people don’t want that. BROWN: We just want him to secure the border. TAPPER: So‚ one quick thing I want to bring up -- and I love this -- the passion at the table today. [Laughter] TAPPER: No‚ I do. BROWN: It's early. TAPPER: But there is one -- especially with daily savings. ALLISON: Right? [Laughter] (…)

An American woman was raped by an escaped convict while she was sailing on her yacht in the Caribbean‚ according to police. The woman from Virginia and her husband are believed to have been killed after they were tossed overboard by the escaped fugitives last month. A spokesperson for the Royal Grenada Police Force told the Daily Mail‚ "Atiba Stanisclaus was charged by the Grenadian police with one count of rape on Kathy Brandel."The 25-year-old Stanisclaus‚ along with 30-year-old Ron Mitchell and 23-year-old Trevon Robertson‚ were charged with two counts of capital murder for the deaths of Brandel and Ralph Hendry. The three murder suspects were also charged with escaping lawful custody‚ housebreaking‚ robbery‚ and two counts of kidnapping. As Blaze News previously reported‚ Brandel and Hendry were sailing their yacht on a "dream" boating voyage in the Caribbean. The married couple of 27 years had anchored their yacht in Grenada's capital of St. George's. The American couple's yacht‚ named the Simplicity‚ was located on Feb. 21 by authorities on the neighboring island of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. There were no signs of Brandel or Hendry. However‚ law enforcement said the crime scene on the yacht was "consistent with signs of violence.""The entire interior of the vessel and its decks were ransacked‚" the Coast Guard’s commanding officer reportedly wrote in an internal memo.The couple's possessions were strewn everywhere on the vessel and blood was found throughout the boat‚ according to police. Investigators believe the three murder suspects commandeered the yacht a day after they broke out of a prison in Grenada on Feb. 18. Grenada police commissioner Don McKenzie said in a news conference that the escaped convicts "disposed of the occupants" while sailing the hijacked yacht between Grenada and St. Vincent.The bodies of Brandel and Hendry have yet to be found. The couple were experienced boaters and had been sailing for more than a decade. Brandel's son — Nick Buro — told WRC-TV‚ "They were super careful to be safe all the time. Everywhere they went everything they did‚ safety was their top‚ top concern. So this unfortunate accident‚ I think‚ it came out of nowhere for them.""This is something that is completely unexpected‚" Buro added. "And wrapping our brains around it and trying to understand a senseless act of violence against two people while they were just living their lives in their home‚ essentially‚ because Simplicity was their home. They didn't have another home.... And having that safety and security taken away from them abruptly and [having] them attacked ... where they live‚ it's just‚ it's unimaginable."The suspects were originally arrested on robbery charges. Mitchell had also been charged with one count of rape‚ three counts of attempted rape‚ and two counts of indecent assault and causing harm‚ according to Grenada police.The three suspects are scheduled to appear in court on March 27. New Details in American Couple Hijacked on Yacht‚ Allegedly Thrown Overboard www.youtube.com Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Department of Justice issued a gag order on February 15 that requires immigration judges to seek department approval before speaking publicly‚ the Associated Press reported.The National Association of Immigration Judges has previously been outspoken regarding the nation's growing backlog of immigration cases. There is currently a backlog of approximately 3 million cases. According to the Transactional Records Access Clearing House at Syracuse University‚ each immigration judge has been assigned 4‚500 cases each as of December. Judges can typically complete approximately 750 cases per year‚ the New York Post reported.Chief Immigration Judge Sheila McNulty's February order requires the DOJ's approval for the union's members "to participate in writing engagements (e.g.‚ articles; blogs) and speaking engagements (e.g.‚ speeches; panel discussions; interviews)." McNulty cited the Federal Labor Relations Authority's November 2020 decision to strip the union of its collective bargaining power. The decision decertified the NAIJ's union status‚ thereby removing its protections."The agency understands this is a point of contention for you‚ but any bargaining agreement related to that point that may have existed previously is not valid at present‚" McNulty wrote in an email last month to NAIJ leadership‚ the Government Executive reported. "Please consider this email formal notice that you are subject to the same policies as every [Executive Office of Immigration Review] employee."Matt Biggs‚ president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers‚ the parent union of the NAIJ‚ stated that the gag order is "unprecedented.""It's a pretty draconian directive‚" he added.Biggs told the Post that the union's members have "never been muzzled before.""They speak on behalf of the nation's immigration judges‚ and they have a very‚ very critical and important perspective to share with the public with the press and with the Congress‚" he continued. "Now‚ all of a sudden‚ out of the blue‚ their management at the Executive Office of Immigration Review put a muzzle on them."Biggs called the order "outrageous" and "un-American‚" the AP reported."Why are they trying to silence these judges?" he questioned.Biggs speculated that the recent gag order may be in response to Judge Mimi Tsankov's testimony before the Senate committee in October‚ during which she blamed the growing immigration case backlog on the DOJ's "inability to effectively lead."Matt O'Brien‚ a former immigration judge who now works as the director of investigations at the Immigration Reform Law Institute‚ told the Post‚ "[T]his administration wants a compliant immigration judge workforce that will find a reason to approve any cases assigned to it. As a result‚ the Department of Justice has a vested interest in prohibiting the NAIJ from drawing public attention to flaws in that approach."Tsankov declined the Post's request for comment‚ stating‚ "Following the receipt of an email [from] chief immigration judge Sheila McNulty on February 15‚ I'm not permitted to participate in writing or speaking engagements‚ including interviews‚ in my capacity as President of the National Association of immigration judges‚ without supervisory approval."The Executive Office of Immigration Review did not respond to requests for comment from the Post‚ the Government Executive‚ or the AP. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

As the conflict between Israel and Hamas has just passed its fifth month‚ pro-Palestinian activists have wasted no time in censoring and bullying pro-Israel voices out of the cultural zeitgeist. The latest casualty was Guernica Magazine's removal of a heart-wrenching piece of nonfiction written by Joanna Chen — a British writer and translator whose family moved to Israel after her brother was killed in a traffic accident. The piece‚ entitled "From the Edges of a Broken World‚" tells the story of Chen's move from England to Israel and her work with Road to Recovery — "a nongovernmental organization founded by Yuval Roth‚ whose brother was kidnapped and killed by Hamas in 1993."Chen wrote that the organization transported Palestinian children in need of lifesaving medical care to Israeli hospitals. Before the slaughter of 1‚200 Israelis on October 7‚ volunteers would pick up Palestinian children — accompanied by parents and grandparents — from checkpoints near the West Bank. Chen wrote‚ "I usually drive to the Tarkumia checkpoint‚ close to Hebron‚ a fifteen-minute journey from my house in the Ella Valley.""Before this present war‚ I would pick up my passengers around 5:30 a.m.‚ everything still shrouded in shadow when I left the house‚" Chen continued. She went on to recall the horrific events of October 7‚ writing that "sirens filled the air" and "rockets began falling close to my village." And despite all the uncertainty surrounding the attack and the fallout thereof‚ Chen said that she and her husband‚ Raz‚ "donated blood at a hospital in Jerusalem‚ waiting in line for six hours along with hundreds of other people."After October 7‚ her work with Road to Recovery came to a screeching halt. She questioned how she could carry on knowing that Hamas "had massacred and kidnapped so many civilians‚" adding that Road to Recovery members had even been kidnapped‚ including Vivian Silver‚ "a longtime Canadian peace activist."Chen noted that it was difficult to square what had happened to innocent Israeli lives on October 7 with what has since happened to innocent Palestinians dwelling in a dismantled Gaza. She went on to say that she started driving children to Israeli hospitals just weeks after October 7‚ even though members of her family were against it. Despite the nuance and care given to such a sensitive subject‚ Chen's piece was quickly removed by Guernica Magazine for reasons that are still unclear. While the piece was archived and can still be read online‚ the site simply reads: "Guernica regrets having published this piece‚ and has retracted it. A more fulsome explanation will follow."Blaze News has reached out to Chen and Guernica Editor-in-Chief Jina Moore Ngarambe for comment‚ but neither immediately responded to a request for comment.Chen's story about a war-torn Middle East apparently did not sit well with pro-Palestinian activists — many of whom are within Guernica's ranks. Sonny Bunch — the culture editor at the Bulwark — posted four screenshots to X on Sunday‚ appearing to show that individuals associated with Guernica Magazine planned to resign from their posts after Chen's piece was published. Bunch wrote‚ "'Lefties doing ritual resignations from opinion mags because someone wrote a slightly challenging essay' remains one of my favorite Twitter subgenres." — (@) One such X user‚ Madhuri Sastry‚ wrote that she intended to resign as "co-publisher" from Guernica after Chen's piece was published. She also released a lengthy explanation as to why she intended to leave the outlet. "I am resigning from my position as co-publisher of Guernica Magazine due to the publication of 'From the Edges of a Broken World.' It is‚ among many things‚ a hand-wringing apologia for Zionism and the ongoing genocide in Palestine." — (@) "I am deeply ashamed to see this piece in Guernica's pages‚ and sincerely apologize to the writers‚ readers‚ and supporters who feel betrayed by this decision. I stand by my courageous staff members who have been holding us accountable every step of the way. I am sorry we have let you down‚" she continued. The X user went on to say that she was not responsible for any editorial decisions and noted that she had previously flagged a separate piece by Chen‚ entitled "Voices of Palestine‚" and suggested it not be published. Guernica appears to have taken Sastry's suggestion and decided not to publish it.Sastry concluded her statement by calling for the resignation of "the editor-in-chief [Ngarambe]‚ as the senior most person responsible for overseeing the processes that resulted in this publication decision." She also said that though there can be no redemption for this decision‚ there must "be accountability."Shortly after members of Guernica announced that they would resign‚ the outlet quickly removed Chen's piece. Ngarambe has not yet provided an explanation as to why the piece was removed or why she made the editorial decision to publish it if it was not reflective of the outlet's political allegiances in the first place.Another X user summed up Chen's piece‚ writing‚ "* Declined to serve in the IDF * Volunteered to drive Palestinian children to hospitals * Donated blood for Gaza in 2014 * Had complex feelings about the war And this is beyond the pale‚ really??" — (@) It is still not clear if those who threatened to resign have done so or if they merely threatened to do so.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Radical lefties rejoice as we finally have proof that trans women can get pregnant. Or do we? Pat Gray plays a video that’s since gone viral of a trans woman celebrating his first positive pregnancy test. “You guys‚ I took a pregnancy test. I thought something looked a little suspicious‚” the man said into the mirror while holding his protruding stomach. “But yeah‚ I took a pregnancy test‚ and I was positive. I’ve been on hormones for around three years‚ and I knew that this was gonna eventually be able to happen‚ and I’m super happy‚” he continued‚ before showing the plus sign on the test. What are we seeing here? History being made? A satirical skit mocking those who believe men can bear children? Or a medical phenomenon caused by who-knows-what unnatural procedures? In Pat’s opinion‚ the video is probably a joke. “It might be making a point‚” he says. “But you don't know anymore‚ man! We are living in the strangest timeline‚” says Keith Malinak. And it’s true — it is nearly impossible these days to tell the difference between mockery and the next culture war. Watch the video below and decide for yourself. Want more from Pat Gray?To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world‚ subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America‚ defend the Constitution‚ and live the American dream.

An elderly New Mexico homeowner fatally shot a burglary suspect after a struggle in the homeowner's residence over the weekend‚ Española police said. Española is about a half-hour north of Santa Fe.What are the details?Police said they got a call early Saturday morning about a burglary in progress in the 500 block of Middle San Pedro Road. Police said arriving officers learned an elderly homeowner confronted the burglary suspect in the residence‚ after which a struggle ensued‚ and the homeowner shot the suspect at least once.The burglary suspect was pronounced dead at the scene‚ police said."This is an ongoing and active investigation‚ and further details will be provided in the coming days‚" police added.How are people reacting?Commenters underneath the police department's Facebook post about the incident are giving plenty of kudos to the elderly homeowner:"The homeowner has every right to protect himself and his property‚" one commenter wrote. "It's called the Second Amendment. The governor can use a lesson on it and this incident.""While I am grateful the elder homeowner is physically fine‚ what about the mental status[?]" another user wondered. "And I hope the elder doesn’t get charged because our country is so far left that RIGHT is wrong and WRONG is right! We need our guns! My comment isn’t up for debate‚ so if you want to pick a fight do it with yourself‚ I’m stating my thoughts.""FAFO good for the homeowner. It’s time we take matters into our own hands‚" another commenter declared. "Nothing is being done in this town to curb the crime. Drugs and homelessness [are] out of control. ...""Prayers for peace for the homeowner‚" another user implored. "God watch over this family.""And remember the left wants to take your guns‚" another commenter opined. "This is why the right to bear arms is so important. Don’t make yourself a victim; you deserve the right to stand up for yourself."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A 78-year-old woman has been awarded millions from a lawsuit against police officers after a jury found that the woman's rights were violated when Denver police executed a search warrant on her home.Law enforcement performed a SWAT-style raid on Ruby Johnson's home after using a cellphone-finding app in an attempt to locate evidence.Jurors found that two officers were liable for the raid‚ the officer who initiated the affidavit for a search warrant and the sergeant who approved it. Johnson was awarded $1.25 million from each in punitive damages and $1.26 million combined for Johnson's pain and suffering‚ totaling $3.76 million.The city will be ordered to pay the total damages‚ despite the officers being individually sued on behalf of Johnson by the Colorado ACLU.The legal ordeal began when a thief stole a truck from a Denver hotel in early 2022. The victim claimed that his truck contained "four semi-automatic handguns‚ a tactical military-style rifle‚ a revolver‚ two drones‚ $4‚000.00 in cash‚ and an old iPhone 11‚" CNN reported.According to the lawsuit‚ the "sole basis" for connecting the crime to Johnson's residence was through the use of Apple's "Find My" app‚ which is used to locate an iPhone user's cellphone.The lawsuit also claimed that after the theft victim informed police that he had found the location of his items using the app‚ one of the officers drafted an affidavit for a search warrant based on the app's results.The affidavit allegedly had typos in the date‚ with the lawsuit also alleging it was approved hastily and without following proper protocol. The approving officer was said to have only signed the approval form without adding his name‚ badge number‚ and date.The lawsuit also claimed that the search warrant affidavit showed a screenshot from the app in question‚ which featured a circle that simply noted a general area where the iPhone may be. The circle reportedly encompassed "at least six different properties" and parts of "four different blocks.""Readily available user guidance that Apple posts on the internet about the ‘Find My’ app makes it clear that this screenshot eliminated any rational possibility that the pings justified a search of Ms. Johnson’s home‚" the complaint said. Police officers omitted the material information and misled the judge‚ the plaintiffs also claimed.Johnson is seen on video in a bathrobe and shower cap being apprehended by police‚ as she was allegedly forced to wait for hours as a team searched her home. Police also allegedly ignored the woman's instructions on how to open her garage and instead used a battering ram to smash open the door leading into it.City officials and Denver police did not respond to CNN or NBC News' request for comments‚ but the Denver Police Department did release a statement in regards to the matter."We hope to continue to work with Ms. Johnson's family through her attorneys to resolve this matter without further litigation‚" the statement read.The department also said that Police Chief Ron Thomas has ordered an internal investigation into the incident.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Economist Gary Cohn‚ a Democrat‚ is refusing to let President Joe Biden pull the wool over Americans' eyes.To help Biden win re-election‚ the Biden administration is promoting a narrative about the economy that is more bark than bite. For example‚ at his State of the Union address last week‚ Biden minimized inflation‚ claimed to have created "15 million new jobs‚" and blamed corporations for the high prices of goods‚ which he calls "shrinkflation."But the truth is not the rosy picture that Biden painted‚ Cohn said Sunday on CBS News' "Face the Nation" — especially when it comes to inflation."Inflation has a compounding effect. Meaning‚ as you look at inflation year over year‚ you're adding up those numbers. You're not starting at a zero every year‚" Cohn explained. "If we had 6% inflation last year and now we have 4% inflation‚ that's 10% inflation."Because "there's a huge cumulative effect to inflation‚" Cohn said that in his scenario of 10% inflation‚ that means a basket of groceries that once cost just $100 now costs over $125 because inflation increases "add up.""So‚ when people are being told‚ 'Consumers‚ you're wrong‚ inflation's heading [down]—' no‚ they're right‚ it is actually more expensive?" host Margaret Brennan followed up."They're completely right. They're completely right‚" Cohn responded. Not only is inflation cumulative‚ but what Biden doesn't tell you is that shrinking inflation does not mean prices of goods also decrease. Instead‚ prices continue to increase‚ but at a smaller rate. This is an important distinction‚ and it's where Biden's positive message about inflation gets lost in reality. Prices aren't going down‚ and the purchasing power of the dollar has been diminished. For all of Biden's talk about inflation decreasing‚ groceries cost Americans 25% more today than in January 2020.This is why poll after poll shows that Americans are dissatisfied with Biden's economic record. Combine inflation with high interest rates‚ which the Federal Reserve justifies to control inflation‚ and you get a bad recipe for re-election."People were losing purchasing power‚ and that's why people were angry‚" Cohn said of the inflation crisis. "And then take on top of that the high interest rate environment where‚ if you thought you might have been in a position to buy a house because you saved money‚ you go out to get a mortgage at 7% or 8%‚ you can't afford a house."People got very frustrated because the costs of their everyday lives got very expensive and the cost of investing in their future by buying a home got nearly impossible‚" he explainedLike Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

1. You don't need to have shared interestsIf you're a man seeking marriage‚ understand that no woman is ever going to love talking about your interests. You say you’re looking for a “smart” woman‚ but you might be looking for a woman who does not exist. The smartest woman in the world is still a woman‚ and women are simply different. Women do not care about anything like you care about your ideas‚ values‚ and goals. That's one reason they want to marry men (at least the ones who still do). A good wife will tolerate you enthusiastically expounding on your interests for an unreasonable number of minutes‚ perhaps twice per week. If you think that true love is when a woman stays up late with you debating the Weimar Republic or the feasibility of high-speed rail in the United States — I’m sorry but you’re almost certainly going to be disappointed. Even in the best of marriages!Single men who think they’re struggling to find a sufficiently smart woman are really suffering from a male friendship problem. 2. IQ is overratedMore unmarried men should consider marrying a beautiful‚ lower-IQ girl from a rural church. Even an intelligent man does not need or want from a woman impressive opinions about foreign films. "A little simple‚ but I love 'em" are words spoken by many happy husbands (and many happy wives no less).My wife is smart‚ and I suspect we’re close in IQ‚ but we spend most of our little time together talking about the kid‚ finances‚ what’s for dinner — maybe some light chat about current affairs and internet debates. It goes without saying that you want someone in your ballpark of IQ‚ but I meet many successful‚ unmarried men who have utterly unrealistic requirements around things like “intellectual conversation.” Objectively speaking‚ highfalutin‚ g-loaded conversation is just a very small fraction of what the married life entails.3. Too much 'mating strategy' can work against youIronically‚ the “manosphere” has nurtured many single men into an overly intellectualized attitude toward women. Many men are now so well studied in the science of mating that the fairer sex is now incomprehensible to them. They sought the truth about women‚ and they received it in such a strong dose that they now hope to find a type of woman who doesn’t exist.4. A woman can't make up for your lack of satisfying male friendshipsThroughout the entire history of mankind‚ any man who prizes intellectual intensity has no other choice but to go find it among other men. There are many reasons for this; not one is misogynistic. Thus I suspect that single men who think they’re struggling to find a sufficiently smart woman are really suffering from a male friendship problem. They need to stop evaluating women so aggressively on uber-male traits such as “intellectual intensity” and rather go find more intense male friends.5. You might be overestimating your need for intellectual stimulationIf a man struggles to find satisfying intellectual intensity‚ there is one long-standing and always available solution. It’s the classical solution and perhaps the only solution‚ ultimately. The solution is to think‚ speak‚ and write more intensely in public‚ which usually means more courageously. If a man is not immediately turning other men into intense sparring partners‚ all he needs to do is increase his own intensity until the desired effect. If a man is not up to this challenge‚ he doesn’t really lust after intellectual intensity. He lusts after a gentle‚ predictable interlocutor who will sweetly celebrate his mind and pull his ideas out for him. Such a man flatters himself by calling that intelligence and intellectual intensity. If any woman naturally enjoyed such things‚ they would have no need to marry a man! Any man who really values intellectual intensity should go get it immediately. It’s free and on tap‚ everywhere. Perhaps it is only then they will find the woman they’re looking for.