Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) promised to fight for Americans’ right to free speech against government censorship‚ even when this censorship is outsourced to private companies.  Bishop went on MRC’s UnCensored with MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider on Feb. 29 to discuss his bill‚ the “Censorship Accountability Act‚” which Bishop said “might be the most important thing I've done in Congress.”  Bishop slammed Democrats for what Schneider described as a multi-federal agency effort to fund censorship regimes and "silence conservative voices in the name of trying to attack 'Russian disinformation.'" The lawmaker said in response: “[Democrats] don't want to give up their latest weapon of choice. Their latest weapon of choice is to use federal agencies to use faceless‚ nameless bureaucrats buried in the bureaucracy to go and harass the ever-living life out of conservative Americans for what they believe in.”  Related: WATCH: Rep. Bishop ‘Troubled’ by Dystopian Views of Ex-DHS Bureaucrat on Censorship Bishop and Schneider discussed several cases where federal employees worked with private partners “to wipe the government’s hands of direct involvement” in the censoring of conservative Americans. Addressing the potential censorship outsourcing‚ Bishop’s bill aims to enable Americans to sue any federal employee who may subject Americans “to the deprivation of any rights‚ privileges‚ or immunities secured by the First Amendment.”  Bishop noted a pattern of bad behavior dating back to the Obama administration’s IRS targeting scandal of 2013 when the federal government was directly weaponized against conservative groups. He went on to list more recent examples‚ including government pressure on tech companies during the 2020 election.  You May Also Like: More Accountability! Proposed Bill to Allow Citizens to Sue Censorship Regime Bishop attacked federal agencies for meeting with the management of social media companies “once a week” and pressuring them to remove user content. “What possible interest does the federal government legitimately have to do that?” Bishop asked‚ after detailing this coercive behavior.  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.

The unanimous 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down liberal state efforts to remove former President Trump from their 2024 ballots had the liberal media in a tailspin‚ on Monday. In the minutes following to release of their decision‚ CNN Newsroom host Jim Acosta was clearly irked as he absurdly whined that no one else in the history of America had appealed their cases more than Trump‚ he even argued that such appeals went against the very nature of the American justice system. “There are a lot of Americans out there‚” Acosta announced‚ possibly channeling his own frustrations‚ “They're just their blood is boiling over what Donald Trump did on January 6‚ what he did leading up to January 6‚ and they – they just think that he's just getting lead off the hook scot-free left and right.” He would go on to rant about how the Supreme Court avoided addressing the question of if Trump was an insurrectionist or was involved in inspiring one: It sounds like what we're talking about in anticipation of this decision that they were going to find an off-ramp to not deal with the prickly question as to whether or not Trump committed insurrection and should be kicked off the ballot because of that.     Acosta’s anger seemed to boil over during a conversation with former Trump lawyer Jim Schultz. “And Jim‚ what do you say to all those Americans out there who are watching this who are frustrated and say Trump is getting away with breaking the law?” he demanded to know. He decried that Trump “files appeal after appeal‚ he tries to delay every proceeding that's brought against him” and suggested it all “goes against what our judicial system should be about.” Without evidence‚ Acosta insisted that Trump was “treated differently” by the legal system “than just about everybody else in this country.” “I mean‚ just about anybody else would not have the ability to appeal things until kingdom come‚” he huffed. Shultz pointed out that that was exactly how the legal system was supposed to work and Acosta started shouting over him in protest: SHULTZ: Well‚ actually they do have the ability to do that as part of our justice system. ACOSTA: Well‚ for all practical purposes‚ that doesn’t happen. I mean‚ the vast majority of defendants out there don't have the resources to drag everything out in umpteen different cases across the country. In addition to Acosta’s unreasonableness‚ CNN host Dana Bash was upset that Trump was likely going to do what every other politician did when they scored a legal victory: play it up. “[Trump is] a politician and...a figure who takes things and will turn them the way that he wants America and the world to see them‚” she lamented. “Unfortunately for America‚” she later whined‚ “the court isn't necessarily wrong that this is the way the framers wanted it to be. They wanted Congress‚ the people who are closest to their constituents to be able to make the rules and the laws.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN Newsroom March 4‚ 2024 10:10:52 a.m. Eastern (…) DANA BASH: But you know‚ Donald Trump better than most; covered him for many‚ many years— JIM ACOSTA: A little here and there. BASH: Many year‚ as a reporter covering him as a politician and as a figure who takes things and will turn them the way that he wants America and the world to see them. I will be shocked if Donald Trump doesn't‚ as soon as he can‚ get out there and argue‚ not only that the Supreme Court is behind him‚ but he's probably going to argue – even though there's nothing in here that specifically says‚ as Elie [Honig] importantly pointed out‚ anything about what happened on January 6‚ it's just procedural about whether the states or Congress have a right. He will claim victory and I'm guessing he will do it in a more-broad way than this decision actually says. (…) 10:15:40 a.m. Eastern ACOSTA: There are a lot of Americans out there. They're just their blood is boiling over what Donald Trump did on January 6‚ what he did leading up to January 6‚ and they – they just think that he's just getting lead off the hook scot-free left and right. But I mean‚ let's dive into the legal part of this because you have to put those emotions to the side and talk about what's in this ruling and what the Supreme Court has done here. On page six of the opinion‚ Laura‚ it says this‚ “We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office‚ but states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section Three with respect to federal offices especially the presidency.” (…) 10:16:31 a.m. Eastern ACOSTA: It sounds like what we're talking about in anticipation of this decision that they were going to find an off-ramp to not deal with the prickly question as to whether or not Trump committed insurrection and should be kicked off the ballot because of that. (…) 10:25:39 a.m. Eastern ACOSTA: And Jim‚ what do you say to all those Americans out there who are watching this who are frustrated and say Trump is getting away with breaking the law‚ that he files appeal after appeal‚ he tries to delay every proceeding that's brought against him in a way that is just it just goes against what our judicial system should be about? I mean‚ isn't he treated differently than just about everybody else in this country? I mean‚ just about anybody else would not have the ability to appeal things until kingdom come. JIM SHULTZ: Well‚ actually they do have the ability to do that as part of our justice system. ACOSTA: Well‚ for all practical purposes‚ that doesn’t happen. I mean‚ the vast majority of defendants out there don't have the resources to drag everything out in umpteen different cases across the country. (…) 10:32:06 a.m. Eastern BASH: Unfortunately for America‚ the court isn't necessarily wrong that this is the way the framers wanted it to be. They wanted Congress‚ the people who are closest to their constituents to be able to make the rules and the laws. That doesn't change the fact that because of gerrymandering in the House and all kinds of other issues‚ they're not doing their job on a lot of these big issues. (…)

After testy testimony before Congress several weeks ago‚ it appears that time may be clicking away for TikTok‚ the communist Chinese government-tied social media app that is all the rage with our nation’s youth. Amid the fanfare of love him or hate him‚ Elon Musk’s X platform (formerly Twitter)‚ TikTok had faded into the background a bit‚ but it remains a pernicious and deeply troubling part of the social media universe.  Just ask President Joe Biden. In a perplexing if not hypocritical move‚ basement Biden 2.0 continues to use the app for his reelection campaign‚ posting nearly 50 TikTok videos after having banned roughly 4 million federal employees from using it‚ among other data security measures. But there are still deep concerns about TikTok’s use of data‚ including data from children‚ and how the communist Chinese government may or may not have access to it. New social media usage statistics provide a cause for concern and should give one pause‚ especially considering the fact that American kids are using TikTok 60 percent more than U.S.-based YouTube. And if that wasn’t bad enough‚ 33 percent of American adults are scrolling through the Chinese social media juggernaut as well. The fear of this open portal for American’s information heading to the Chinese Communist Party is why several states have already implemented bans on the app. The bad news here is that of late the mounting pressure to ban the app in the U.S. has largely subsided given the multitudes of other major issues that are ripping at the fabric of the country. But add to that fact this from The Wall Street Journal just over a month ago: “TikTok Struggles to Protect U.S. Data From Its China Parent.” A little-known unit called “Project Texas” was created to allay fears that China is hoovering up Americans' data to one day use against them‚ but according to The Journal even this group is sharing info with parent company ByteDance‚ which has ties with the communist Chinese government.  But the problems don’t stop there. CBS News’s 60 Minutes just a few weeks ago uncovered how videos posted on TikTok are providing illegal immigrants with “step-by-step instructions” for hiring smugglers and entering America through a small gap along the southern border. From MRC Free Speech America‚ more on this bit of news: “The 60 Minutes segment showed illegal aliens pouring through a gap in the border fence. ‘We wondered how all of these migrants knew about this particular entryway into California‚’ correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi began. ‘The answer was in their hands.’ The video shows Alfonsi talking with migrants and learning they utilized TikTok. Alfonsi reported that a TikTok post instructs migrants on hiring smugglers.  Videos on TikTok are providing migrants with step-by-step instructions for hiring a smuggler and illegally entering America through a small gap in the southern border fence. https://t.co/WbQBF6SSUE pic.twitter.com/mIGhEjBYox — 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) February 5‚ 2024 “TikTok bans illegal content‚ including ‘content which promotes or facilitates illegal services’ and ‘national security-related offenses.’ The Communist Chinese government-tied app’s own policy also bans ‘human exploitation‚ including trafficking and smuggling’ content‚ but in doing so‚ the platform does still allow ‘for migrants and refugees to be able to document their journeys.’” Aside from a few voices cautioning against and/or calling for an outright “ban” of the platform following this revelation from 60 Minutes‚ Congress‚ the media and‚ by extension‚ the American people have all failed to keep their eye on the ball regarding the very real threat being thumbed through daily by Americans (predominantly our kids) in the millions. Indeed‚ we live in a time where at 13 Baltimore High Schools there is not a single student proficient in math — not one. But this begs the question: how many of those kids are getting their actual education‚ such as it is‚ from TikTok on their phone?  Some of this played out in the halls of Congress as Big Tech CEOs‚ including Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg‚ Snap’s Evan Spiegel‚ Discord’s Jason Citron‚ TikTok’s Shou Zi Chew and X’s Linda Yaccarino testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. For his part‚ Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) did not hold back while grilling the Big Tech executives. “You have blood on your hands‚” Graham told them. “You have a product that’s killing people.” And in one dramatic moment‚ Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) — who has routinely pounded Big Tech for its lack of action — even asked Facebook head honcho Zuckerberg if he would apologize to the parents of children allegedly harmed by his product in the chamber‚ at which point‚ awkwardly‚ the CEO kind of did so. Say what you will about Facebook‚ or even X for that matter‚ but they do not have strong ties to communist China the way TikTok does‚ and that means that the latter presents a very different and grave threat.  Take this example from an MRC Free Speech America exclusive last year: “Fox News China expert Gordon Chang said that TikTok is untrustworthy and the CEO can’t necessarily guarantee how user data is used by the Communist Chinese government; former member of the Defense Intelligence Community Scott Kieff said that the U.S. should believe China when it reveals that it’s being nefarious; and former Deputy National Security Adviser KT McFarland noted the disturbing ways the Chinese government can use TikTok to influence Americans.” Many experts‚ including Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr‚ have stated that there may be no other way to combat the impact of TikTok on Americans than an outright ban. “There simply isn't ‘a world in which you could come up with sufficient protection on the data that you could have sufficient confidence that it’s not finding its way back into the hands of the [Chinese Communist Party]‚’” Carr warned.

A bill that would criminalize small amounts of drug possession and overturn a decriminalization motion from 2020 passed in the Oregon state Senate and will head to the governor's desk.House Bill 4002 passed in the Oregon House with a 51-7 vote and subsequently in the state Senate with 21-8 vote‚ recriminalizing possession of small amounts of drugs such as heroin or methamphetamine.As Breitbart reported‚ possession would be punishable by up to six months in jail and enables police to confiscate drugs. Drug treatment would also be offered as an alternative to criminal penalties."With this bill‚ we are doubling down on our commitment to make sure Oregonians have access to the treatment and care that they need‚" said Democratic state Senate Majority Leader Kate Lieber‚ one of the bill’s authors.She added that it would "be the start of real and transformative change for our justice system."Under the new law‚ five grams or more of specified drugs constitute "substantial quantities‚" which would increase criminal sentencing and be used to justify punishment for other crimes‚ such as drug trafficking.Other drugs listed included fentanyl‚ cocaine‚ psilocybin‚ and more.Governor Tina Kotek has not openly stated whether she will sign or veto the bill‚ however Oregon Public Broadcasting noted that the governor has alluded to the idea of recriminalizing drug possession.Much of the worry around drug use in the state has come from an opioid epidemic. Blaze News reported many of the troubling statistics leading up the state's vote‚ including that fatal overdoses have skyrocketed.According to Oregon Health Authority data‚ the number of fatal overdoses was 824 in 2020. Then‚ after decriminalization‚ there were 1‚189 fatal overdoses in 2021. Preliminary data indicated the number of deaths from overdoses in 2022 was over 1‚100.OregonLive.com also noted that in the year ending September 2019‚ there were 77 known fentanyl deaths. In the year ending September 2023‚ there were reportedly 1‚268 overdose deaths.Criticisms came from other Democrats who said it was a return to a "punishment narrative" that has failed for half a century."I’m concerned that it (the bill) will attempt to use the same tactics of the past‚ and fail‚ only to reinforce the punishment narrative that has failed for 50 years‚” said Democratic Senator Lew Frederick.The senator also said he worried that more people will be put into the court system rather than becoming healthier.At the same time‚ Oregon is in an official state of emergency — enacted in late January 2024 — due to its fentanyl crisis.The new bill reportedly encourages law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to refer individuals convicted of possession to drug treatment programs. $211 million has been allocated in the bill.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Raul Ortiz served as chief of Border Patrol for nearly two years‚ holding the position from August 2021 until his retirement last summer. Shockingly‚ Ortiz never talked to President Joe Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris a single time during his tenure as leader of the Border Patrol‚ despite serving during the height of the border crisis."I've never had one conversation with the president or the vice president‚ for that matter‚" Ortiz said in a new interview. "I was the chief of the Border Patrol. I commanded 21‚000 people. That's a problem." — (@) Ortiz‚ moreover‚ said he believes the Biden administration has "most definitely" sent "mixed messages" to migrants."We need to make sure that Central America‚ South America‚ Mexico‚ that those regions understand that if you pay a smuggler and you cross in between the ports of entry and you do not have a legitimate claim to some sort of asylum benefit‚ you're gonna be sent back‚" Ortiz said.While he did not specify the content of those "mixed messages‚" Ortiz's response indicates that he believes the Biden administration virtue-signaled its way into the migrant crisis with rhetoric and executive action — like rescinding many Trump-era immigration policies — that communicated to migrants around the world the U.S. is open and willing to accept them.The problem with Ortiz's admission is obvious: Biden and Harris‚ the "border czar‚" cannot provide effective oversight of the border crisis management if they do not communicate with key on-the-ground leaders.Ortiz retired last year several months after he publicly contradicted Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas‚ who for years insisted the border is "secure." But that's not true‚ Ortiz told lawmakers in March 2023.When asked by House Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green (R) if border agents have "operational control" of the border‚ Ortiz confirmed‚ "No‚ sir.""About 10 years ago‚ we used operational control as a measuring stick of our effectiveness along the southwest border‚" Ortiz explained. "My new strategy is geared towards mission advantage."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Emmitt Smith and Ron DeSantis disagree about diversity‚ equity‚ and inclusion.Smith‚ the NFL’s all-time leading rusher‚ believes DEI programs are essential to the success of his alma mater‚ the University of Florida. DeSantis‚ a Yale and Harvard grad and the sitting governor of Florida‚ believes DEI is toxic and should be eliminated.Why is it OK for DEI zealots to take over HR departments? Why do they get to pass out $10‚000 speaking fees to outside evangelists?DeSantis last year signed a law that compelled the University of Florida to axe its 13-person DEI department‚ which took effect Friday. The act enraged Smith‚ the Dallas Cowboys great. He released an angry statement on Sunday: I’m utterly disgusted by UF’s decision and the precedent that it sets. Without the DEI department‚ the job falls to the Office of the Provost‚ who already has their hands full‚ to raise money for the university and continue to advance the academic studies and athletic programs. We cannot continue to believe and trust that a team of leaders all made up of the same background will make the right decision when it comes to equality and diversity. History has already proven that is not the case. We need diverse thinking and backgrounds to enhance our University and the DEI department is necessary to accomplish those goals. Instead of showing courage and leadership‚ we continue to fail based on systemic issues and with this decision‚ UF has conformed to the political pressure of today’s time. To the many minority athletes at UF‚ please be aware and vocal about this decision by the University who is now closing the doors on other minorities without any oversight. And to those who think it’s not your problem and stay on the side lines [sic] and say nothing‚ you are complicit in supporting systemic issues.Whom should we believe: the football player or the governor?I believe the governor. That will put me at odds with many black people. We’ve been trained to evaluate all situations through the lens of race‚ not right and wrong. Emmitt Smith is black. DeSantis is white. Diversity‚ equity‚ and inclusion allegedly benefits black people.I don’t believe it does. It primarily convinces black people that their real expertise and contribution to society is managing the mindset of white people. It promotes a harmful codependency.Years ago‚ I had a friend who was a mid-level editor at ESPN. He was not a good editor. He wrote poorly. He saw his strength as managing people and formulating ideas. He told me he would always have a job at ESPN because he could be a voice in the room that would stop a white executive from saying or doing something that was racist.I asked: “That’s your strength? Stopping white people from revealing their bigotry?”That’s the reality of DEI. It’s a department filled with blacks‚ the LGBTQ‚ and women who are in charge of managing the thoughts of white decision-makers. Their job is to impose and normalize a Marxist way of thinking on race‚ sexuality‚ and gender roles. It’s a cult. If you disagree with the DEI department‚ you’re labeled as racist‚ homophobic‚ transphobic‚ and/or misogynistic.DEI departments — in academia and corporate America — are the enforcement arm of the Marxist revolution. Emmitt Smith foolishly believes skin color determines whether there will be diversity of thought at Florida. DEI departments eliminate diverse thoughts and install a superficial color diversity. The people leading DEI departments have no real skill beyond imposing their worldview on the work or academic culture. They don’t fix engines‚ work an assembly line‚ develop technology‚ research medical advances‚ teach history‚ or anything of the sort. They provide no tangible value. They evangelize for Marxism. As a Christian‚ I’d love for universities and corporations to fund Father‚ Son‚ and Holy Spirit departments. These mid-level executives would make sure that the work and academic cultures were consistent with a biblical worldview. If anyone disagreed with FSH‚ they would be labeled anti-Christian and placed in a two-week seminar to realign their thinking. Of course‚ everyone would object to companies and state-funded universities creating departments to impose a religious worldview. Why is it OK for DEI zealots to take over HR departments? Why do DEI zealots get to pass out $10‚000 speaking fees to outside vendors/evangelists?It’s all a giant Ponzi scheme. They promote and exaggerate racism to justify their six-figure jobs. They’re not attempting to eliminate racism. The more bigotry they discover or invent‚ the more valuable they are.George Floyd justifies the DEI department at the University of Florida and at Costco. An endless supply of white executives need advice on how to properly honor a black career criminal who overdosed on fentanyl while being restrained by police. The same goes for Juneteenth. Or maybe they tell the school president how to respond when the sensitivities of some black students are offended because there aren’t enough black students in their dorm. This is the career of a six-figure-salaried DEI executive. They mitigate the guilt of their white saviors and make sure everyone at work publicly agrees with same-sex marriage or at least has the good sense never to publicly object. They are the Department of Expanding Ignorance.

Sic semper tyrannis — “Thus always to tyrants” — is the state motto of Virginia‚ which was my home for the first five years I served as an FBI special agent. Virginia is also the home to the FBI Academy at Quantico. I don’t know if it is poetic or ironic that this motto adorns the flags flying over the land where new agents accept their badges‚ their duty weapons‚ and their credentials identifying them as special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That is usually a proud moment for what my fellow FBI whistleblower Steve Friend calls a “system idealist.” One must be a system idealist to take on the duty of “investigating violations of the laws of the United States‚ collecting evidence in cases in which the United States is or may be a party in interest‚ and performing other duties imposed by law.” That is what every agent’s credentials say. No FBI agents prior to the Capitol riot case in 2021 saw a squad-wide let alone bureau-wide effort to pursue misdemeanor investigations. But that list is cursory job description. Every agent also swears an oath. The oath of office is a sobering paragraph for a system idealist. It is a commitment to the duty‚ but also to the limits‚ that the U.S. Constitution imposes on those who agree to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.” The most critical section of the Constitution for a limited agent of the government (that is what is “special” about federal agents — a limited set of authorities) is the Bill of Rights. The first 10 amendments are the original restrictions on government power. First among equals is the freedom of religion‚ freedom of speech‚ the freedom of the press‚ and the freedom to peaceably assemble to petition the government for a redress of grievances. My friend Steve Baker was taken into custody on Friday in violation of the constitutional commitment of FBI agents in the Dallas field office‚ on the sworn word of an agent from the Raleigh Resident Agency under the Charlotte‚ North Carolina‚ field office. Those agents carried out a political agenda handed down from a Department of Justice that is prosecuting political targets of opportunity in a way that has disgraced the once-respected FBI. It is no exaggeration to say that the FBI threw out all normal procedures and agency norms to pursue peaceful and non-peaceful protesters who attended a single‚ black-swan event at the U.S. Capitol on January 6‚ 2021. A waste of time and resources “The FBI doesn’t waste its time pursuing misdemeanors.” I recall this statement from an early lecture by Michael J. “Bull” Bulzomi‚ a hilarious and legendary FBI agent and legal instructor. Bull was brash and to the point. He was loud and entertaining. He didn’t mince words while others might toe the line. The FBI doesn’t waste time with misdemeanors because the FBI is only interested in big fish. Major fraud. Interstate organized crime. Bonnie and Clyde. The Dillinger Gang. Big game. That is the lesson every bureau trainee learns. As a special agent of the FBI‚ you don’t waste your time on minnows. Your job is to land whales. Anyone in real law enforcement can tell you‚ however‚ that mileage on that statement may vary. But I would like to suggest that no FBI agents prior to the Capitol riot case in 2021 saw a squad-wide let alone bureau-wide effort to pursue misdemeanor investigations. No one swore out a criminal complaint for a journalist accused of being present and walking around while some other federal crime took place. And no one has doggedly pursued a man who exercised his sacred and God-given right to engage in speech‚ press‚ and assembly because it was unpopular with a political regime in this way. The First Amendment was not written to protect gardening tips or small talk. It was implemented because the men who wrote it had just successfully completed an insurrection and overthrow of a regime they believed was tyrannical. The First Amendment was written to protect hate speech‚ inflammatory speech‚ incendiary speech‚ and all other speech about which the federal government is mandated by charter to remain agnostic. The actions of the Justice Department and the FBI have proven they will willingly and brazenly violate that critical restriction. Question the next order I am constantly amazed to see agents carry out their present-day orders. I didn’t work with unjust or dishonorable people when I was a special agent. Quite the contrary; most of the front-line agents (whom we call “brick agents”) were likeable and relatable. We didn’t bring politics or much outside flavor to the job because it wasn’t an appropriate environment. The agents involved in putting cuffs on Steve Baker likely had no idea who he was or why he was being transported. “Another J6er” is almost certainly the scope of the briefing they received. I hope that after seeing the thoughtful‚ intelligent‚ humble‚ and patriotic man they moved in leg irons and a belly band to be read pathetically weak misdemeanor charges‚ they will question the next order. But there is no reason for us to expect a change because past performance is the best predictor of future behavior. The FBI broke its own rules pursuing January 6 subjects for violations big and small. Why stop now? Of course‚ Steve Baker is not the first journalist to be charged and possibly convicted and imprisoned for attending or covering the events of that day. But he has been the single most damaging investigator exposing how fraudulent and biased the Department of Justice narrative has been over the past three years. It seems clear that the FBI has donned the blinders of “just doing my job” and the system idealists will become the worst abusers of the oath they swore to follow. The FBI has become the tool of tyrants. It has allowed itself to be captured by ideology and political purpose. In the words of a senior brick agent‚ “Even though the work I am doing is good‚ [the FBI] is irredeemable.” In truth‚ the FBI has abused its principles and its prestige and squandered its hard-won credibility with many Americans to serve an inaccurate narrative. Steve Baker has deeply wounded that narrative. And he was paraded in front of a courtroom in shackles for his trouble. Sic semper tyrannis.

Pennsylvania State Police placed a trooper on restricted duty after he arrested the head of Philadelphia's Office of LGBT Affairs along with her husband during a traffic stop over the weekend in the city‚ the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.A portion of Saturday's arrest of Celena Morrison and her husband Darius McLean — CEO of a transgender resource center — was caught on video.While state police charged the couple with resisting arrest‚ obstruction of justice‚ disorderly conduct‚ and summary traffic citations‚ the paper said the office of city District Attorney Larry Krasner declined the charges‚ and Morrison and McLean were released from custody Saturday evening.What are the details?The Inquirer‚ citing state police‚ said the trooper pulled Morrison over on Interstate 676 for driving a grey Infiniti sedan with an expired and suspended registration‚ driving without headlights activated in the rain‚ illegally tinted windows‚ and driving too close to another car.After the traffic stop‚ McLean pulled up behind them‚ the paper said‚ adding that state police said McLean “became verbally combative” and “refused multiple lawful orders" after the trooper approached him.The trooper attempted to arrest McLean‚ and Morrison tried to intervene‚ the Inquirer said‚ adding that she also was arrested.In Morrison's video of the arrest‚ she was heard yelling‚ “I work for the mayor! I work for the mayor!” as McLean was lying on the shoulder of the freeway‚ the paper said."Please‚ just stop. No! It's cause I'm black‚" McLean was heard saying‚ according to WPVI-TV."It's not 'cause you're black‚" the trooper replied‚ according to the station.The trooper then walked toward Morrison and told her to "turn around" and "give me your hands‚ or you are getting tased‚" WPVI reported. At one point‚ Morrison was heard saying‚ “He just punched me‚" the Inquirer said.More from the station:The video continues to record while on the ground."This was a simple traffic stop cause you didn't have your lights on. You're tailgating‚" the officer explains to the couple. "Then‚ I don't know who you are. I don't need somebody rolling up on me.""There was no need at all‚" one person is heard saying."You were about to tase me. You pulled your gun on me‚" another voice says."You were fighting with me‚" says a third voice."No‚ I wasn't fighting you‚" someone responds.Anything else?State police are conducting an internal investigation over the incident‚ the paper said‚ adding that during the unnamed trooper's restricted duty‚ he won't be on patrol.Jane Roh‚ spokesperson for the DA’s office‚ told the Inquirer that no charging decisions have been made‚ and officials are investigating all aspects of the incident.The paper added that Mayor Cherelle Parker noted in a social media post‚ "A video circulating on social media that depicts a portion of the incident is very concerning to me‚ and I will have no further comment until the investigation has been completed." DA investigating controversial traffic stop after Philadelphia official‚ husband arrested on I-76 youtu.be Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Blaze Media investigative journalist Steve Baker made an appearance on Friday before a U.S. magistrate judge in the North District of Texas in Dallas. The hearing was at 10:00 a.m.‚ and its only purpose was to formally advise Baker that a federal criminal complaint was filed naming him as a defendant in the District of Columbia federal court‚ to confirm that he had legal counsel to represent him‚ and to place him under a series of court-imposed conditions that he must abide by while his case is pending. This was what is known as an “out-of-district appearance” — an appearance in a federal court that is not the venue where the charges are pending. During my 21 years as a federal prosecutor with the Department of Justice‚ I participated in this same type of hearing hundreds of times. They are routine‚ they are simple‚ and they are generally short when the government is not seeking to keep the defendant in custody and have him transported by the United States Marshal to the district where the charges are pending. We decided to remain cooperative. If what we feared might happen actually did happen‚ then it would be recorded for the country to see. I was told ahead of time by the assistant U.S. attorney handling the case that the government would not be seeking Steve’s detention. In my more than two decades as a prosecutor‚ I never was involved — not one time — in an initial appearance on misdemeanor charges where the defendant was told to report first to the FBI to be fingerprinted and photographed before going to the courthouse. Yet those were the instructions I was given for Steve’s “surrender” ahead of his initial appearance on the complaint that had been filed and signed by a federal judge in the District of Columbia. Before the Justice Department decided to charge him‚ I had a conversation with the prosecutor in mid-December. I asked to be advised if and when charges were filed and said that I would have Steve appear at the nearest federal courthouse for an initial appearance at a date and time he was told to do so. I wanted to avoid the scene of an FBI SWAT team making a forced entry into his residence at 6 a.m. to arrest him. The prosecutor agreed he would do so and that no SWAT arrest would be made. Steve was required to show up at the FBI offices in Dallas at 7 a.m. The instructions were for him to wear shorts‚ a T-shirt‚ and footwear such as sandals or flip-flops — in 40-degree weather. That made me suspect that what was planned was exactly what ended up happening‚ but I could get no further explanation ahead of time. Steve arrived at the designated time‚ but wearing a jacket‚ tie‚ and slacks. He never went inside the actual FBI office building but was instead met at the guard shack where visitors must check in before being escorted into the building. Two agents fingerprinted and photographed him‚ and then they did what I had suspected — they handcuffed him and put him in the back of an FBI vehicle for transport to the courthouse. Steve was “arrested‚” even though we had offered to have him appear voluntarily at the courthouse on a specified date and time for his initial appearance — the normal way the Justice Department has handled misdemeanor cases since I first started doing this work in 1992. We considered disregarding the instructions and having him simply “surrender” to the U.S. Marshal’s Office at the courthouse. That would have been the normal process. But we decided to remain cooperative and follow the government’s instructions. If what we feared might happen actually did happen‚ then it would be recorded for the country to see. The government is not allowed to decide what press coverage it likes and what press coverage offends it and take prosecutorial action based on those judgments. Before the appearance with the magistrate‚ because the FBI had “arrested” Steve‚ the U.S. Marshal’s Office and courthouse security added a belly chain‚ box cuffs‚ and leg shackles. That involves a chain around the waist‚ with handcuffs in the front attached to the chain so the defendant can’t move his arms up and down or side to side. Another chain goes from the belly chain down to a chain attaching two ankle cuffs to each other. Shackled that way means all a defendant can do is shuffle his feet with security officers usually on both sides. Ten minutes after the hearing ended‚ Steve walked out of the courthouse through the front doors like anyone else. He could have — and should have — walked into the courthouse the same way. Nothing justifies what Department of Justice put Steve Baker through on March 1. All for a journalist who spent 37 minutes inside the Capitol recording the events of January 6 as they unfolded. The criminal complaint is dated February 21‚ 2024. It took 1‚141 days for the Department of Justice to decide that a journalist covering an international news event was a legitimate target of a federal criminal prosecution. The Justice Department had been threatening to take this step for more than two and a half years‚ ever since the FBI first contacted Steve and asked for him to sit for an interview in North Carolina. Eventually Steve did sit for that interview‚ answering their questions about his recollections of the day and his actions. Later he handed over all the video he had taken to the FBI and federal prosecutors. It seems noteworthy that the Justice Department finally felt the need to take this step just weeks after Steve broke stories for Blaze Media about members of the U.S. Capitol Police who likely committed perjury during one or more January 6 trials. Steve also happens to be one of a very small number of journalists working closely with multiple House committees studying video evidence of the events of January 6 that has not yet been made public. Our defense will make plain for the entire country to see that there were dozens of journalists — some working for media companies and others who were freelancers like Steve was at the time — who both were present on “restricted grounds” and went inside the Capitol in the same manner that has resulted in hundreds of protesters being prosecuted — through broken windows and doors. One in particular‚ a freelancer‚ had his lengthy story published in the New Yorker only nine days after and was later promoted for a Pulitzer Prize. He’s never been charged. This has all the earmarks of “selective prosecution.” The government — foolishly in my view — noted in the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint that Steve made comments after January 6 that endorsed or supported the actions of protesters on that day. That is political speech and has always been political speech‚ and the inclusion of that information gives away the game regarding the government’s motives in singling out Steve among the dozens of journalists who could be charged but have not been. This case will not slip beneath the waves. The government is not allowed to decide what press coverage it likes and what press coverage offends it and take prosecutorial action based on those judgments. The outpouring of support on Steve’s behalf has been tremendous. This includes the unwavering support of Blaze Media‚ which now employs him and has been aware for some time that this moment might eventually arrive. I’ve played in this arena all my professional life. Game on.

NYC-based journalist Ashley St. Clair has been blowing the lid off of not only what goes on at our borders but also the deep-rooted corruption endangering basically all major airports. She explains how when immigrants arrive at the U.S. border‚ “border patrol will take [them] to be processed‚” usually after they’ve assisted in cutting the barbed wire. After being processed‚ immigrants are sent away with “a clear bag that has paperwork‚ [their] court dates‚” and “any identification.” However‚ most of the time‚ all identification‚ including IDs and passports‚ are long gone at this point because they’ve been disposed of. “They will bury and burn their IDs at the border because one: either they've claimed asylum somewhere else and they're not supposed to be claiming it here‚ or two: they don't want you knowing who they are‚” Ashley tells Dave Rubin‚ adding that she’s personally been down to the border several times and witnessed this. “So‚ when you go to the southern border‚ you will see buried and burned IDs‚ passports‚ [and] previous asylum claims‚” she explains. Once these migrants make it to the airport‚ they’re given special treatment and put on flights free of charge despite having zero identification. Most of them “don't have to have any ID.” Some even use “arrest warrants” or their “court dates” as identification‚ Ashley explains‚ adding that many of their boarding passes say “no name given.” To make matters worse‚ Ashley says almost all “major airline carriers are complicit in this.” “None of these pilots know who's boarding their planes‚ and they're all receiving vast amounts of money from these NGOs‚ these charities who are flying these migrants all across the country‚” she says. To learn more‚ watch the clip below. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations‚ free speech‚ and big ideas with Dave Rubin‚ subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America‚ defend the Constitution‚ and live the American dream.