Ken Burns is one of the most famous documentary filmmakers in the entire world. You might know him as the creator of a very well-done documentary on the U.S. Civil War, which came out back in 1990. Over the years, Burns has released several other successful documentaries, covering topics from “Prohibition” to “The Vietnam War” to “Baseball.” His calling card (other than his undying commitment to historical accuracy, allegedly) is that his documentaries take a very long time to produce, and in turn, they also take a long time to watch. Several of his films are more than 11 hours in length. And thanks to his deal with PBS, they’re often available for free to anyone who wants to watch them. A Ken Burns documentary, in other words, is something of an “event” in the world of nonfiction filmmaking. When Ken Burns comes out with something new, a lot of people pay attention. And your tax dollars, which are distributed to Burns via PBS, a public broadcaster, give his films the imprimatur of a legitimate, important historical record. But his most recent project — a six-episode, 12-hour marathon called “The American Revolution” — is not, in fact, a legitimate or important historical record. It is, in many respects, a very well-produced piece of propaganda. Online, you may have seen some commentators dismiss the production as “woke” for one reason or another. But it’s actually far more insidious than that. If this was just another “woke” production, it’d be very easy to dismiss. When you think of a “woke” production, you think of rampant DEI casting and equity-focused writing, which makes the whole thing unwatchable. You think of a show that you can just write off, and forget about entirely. When you think of a woke film about the American Revolution in particular, you imagine something where George Washington is portrayed as a green haired bisexual. Something over the top and egregious and that nobody would take seriously. That’s not the case with “The American Revolution.” Most of this documentary — I’d say around 70 to 80% of it — is actually quite good. Even if you’ve read a lot of books about the Revolutionary War, you’ll probably pick up a thing or two. You get a birds-eye tactical view of major battles in the war, complete with graphics showing troop movements. You get a lot of primary sources, including quotes from key figures, as well as a few interesting segments on the logistical challenges facing the combatants. You’ll learn about battles in the American south during the war, which most people don’t know anything about. The visuals and audio are pleasing enough. It’s a very solid effort, 80% of the time. And that makes the remaining 20% of this documentary worth talking about. “The American Revolution” by Ken Burns is a masterclass in propaganda because it weaves complete nonsense — and I mean total garbage — into a very compelling and factually accurate narrative of the Revolutionary War. So as best I can, I’m going to go through some of the more objectionable moments in the series in order. We’ll start at the beginning, during the introduction of the very first episode. This is the moment that sets the tone, and makes it clear what Burns is going to attempt with this documentary. Watch: Credit: Ken Burns/Florentine Films/PBS You heard that correctly. The six Indian tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy, according to the narrator, were a “thriving democracy.” And the Founding Fathers would go on to create a “similar union.” So the implication is that Ben Franklin saw what the Iroquois had achieved, and like a typical white colonialist demon, he cribbed their work for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Our system of government is based on the appropriation of marginalized people. That’s the idea. We owe our democracy to the Indians, basically. Which is the opening argument of this documentary.  Nevermind the fact that the Iroquois didn’t even have a written language. Nevermind the fact that they didn’t hold any kind of election to choose their leaders. Nevermind the fact that “clan mothers” — the Indian elders who actually selected the leaders — obtained their power because of hereditary right, meaning their bloodline. Nevermind the fact that there wasn’t anything like a western democracy in any Indian tribe anywhere in the hemisphere. Despite all of this, we’re supposed to conclude that, because a bunch of tribes were able to band together and form a primitive confederacy, Ben Franklin was taking notes, and ultimately created a “similar” union.  Notably, Burns doesn’t tell you what he’s basing this claim on, because the claim is obviously ridiculous. So I’ll tell you. I’ll give you the one piece of evidence — the only piece of evidence — that he’s relying on, to make this absurd argument. It’s this letter, which was sent by Ben Franklin to a man named James Parker in 1751 — more than 24 years before the American Revolution. Credit: Benjamin Franklin If that is difficult to read, here’s what Franklin wrote:  It would be a very strange Thing, if six Nations of ignorant Savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such a Union, and be able to execute it in such a Manner, as that it has subsisted Ages, and appears indissoluble; and yet that a like Union should be impracticable for ten or a Dozen English Colonies, to whom it is more necessary, and must be more advantageous; and who cannot be supposed to want an equal Understanding of their Interests. So Franklin isn’t talking about war with Britain, or establishing an independent nation, or anything like that. Remember, this is decades before the American Revolution. And Franklin certainly isn’t praising any “thriving democracy” in the Iroquois Confederacy, because there isn’t one. Instead, he’s talking about a straightforward plan to unite the colonies so that they function more like a political unit, rather than 13 completely separate entities. And he’s saying, “If these savages can form a confederacy to function as a unit, then obviously we can do it, too.” It’s a bit like coming across a pack of dogs on the street, and seeing how they’re all very quiet, and being very respectful of everyone who passes by. And then you turn to your children and say, “If those dogs can behave, you can too.” When you say that, you’re not telling your children that the dogs invented the concept of good behavior, or made you realize what good behavior looks like. You’re not saying that your kids should model their entire lives after the dogs. You’re saying that, if extremely primitive creatures can do something right, then we — as much more advanced creatures — have no excuse for failing in that regard. As Rich Lowry writes in the New York Post, there are other major problems with the logic here as well: “The Iroquois have no role in our constitutional history. The scholar Robert Natelson has noted, the Iroquois don’t show up as a model in the 34-volume “Journals of the Continental Congress”; the three-volume collection “The Records of the Federal Convention” (in other words, the Constitutional Convention); or the more than 40-volume “Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution.”” In other words, Burns deliberately left the viewer with the impression that the Indians — despite being illiterate savages — had somehow influenced Ben Franklin and the Founding Fathers, and laid the groundwork for our system of government. In reality, the Iroquois had created a loose confederacy, which was vaguely similar to many other similar confederacies throughout history — including the confederacy called the Delian League, which the Greeks established to resist the Persian Empire. (Except the Greeks actually had a written language, and great philosophers). And Franklin, decades before the Revolution, was blowing off steam in a letter to a friend. That’s the story here. But we should move on, because the documentary only gets worse from here. But it’s bad in a subtle way. You have to take some time to decode the propaganda, which is what makes the propaganda so effective. For example, see if you notice anything odd about this moment from the first episode, around 20 minutes in. Watch: Credit: Ken Burns/Florentine Films/PBS In general, whenever you hear the passive voice, you should ask yourself: Who’s the subject of this sentence? Think of it this way. If you hear someone say, “John was stabbed to death,” your first question is going to be: Well, who did it? It would be a lot more straightforward, and clear, if the sentence said, “Bob stabbed John to death.” Then you wouldn’t need to ask the question at all. Ken Burns knows that. He’s a very good filmmaker. He’s an experienced writer. He’s intentionally omitting the subject of the sentence here. He’s willing to tell the viewer that “Tens of thousands” of blacks were “captured” as part of the slave trade. But he doesn’t tell you *who* did the capturing. It’s certainly an odd omission, when you’re talking about an act of extreme human cruelty. He’s completely omitting the identity of the people who captured millions of innocent black men, women and children, and put them in chains, and then sold them. Why would he do that? The reason is pretty clear, actually. Ken Burns knows that these black people were enslaved by other black people. The Africans were enslaved by Africans. That’s the dirty little secret you’re not supposed to talk about. The white colonists needed labor because they were living in a vast new continent. And they bought slaves who had been captured by African kings. In some cases, those African kings sent ships as far away as Iceland and Ireland to capture white slaves too. But at this particular time period, for the most part, they were selling Africans to the colonists. Now, you might be inclined to give Burns the benefit of the doubt here. Maybe he just wrote the sentence poorly, for some inexplicable reason. But the problem is that he keeps doing it. He keeps making the same “mistake.” This is another sequence from later on in that same episode, about an hour in. Watch: Credit: Ken Burns/Florentine Films/PBS Who stole this woman from West Africa? Why aren’t we entitled to that information? Again, it’s the passive voice. We’re only told that Phillis Wheatley was “stolen from West Africa” and sent to Massachusetts. It’s as if a ghost just snatched her up, out of nowhere.  But ghosts didn’t snatch her up. In fact, African villagers enslaved her. And they enslaved her when she was seven years old. And Ken Burns knows that. But Ken Burns also knows he’s not allowed to say that out loud. And he’s certainly not allowed to say that, if she had remained in West Africa with the savages who enslaved her, Phillis Wheatley would not have become a published poet. She wouldn’t have been surrounded by kind-hearted Bostonians who taught her how to read and write, and how to read Latin and Greek, and how to interpret the most complicated passages in the Holy Bible. And Burns also isn’t allowed to say that, if she had stayed in West Africa, Phillis Wheatley would not have received praise from George Washington himself, and become a national celebrity. Put simply, being sold to an American family was the best thing that could’ve ever happened to Phillis Wheatley, because it separated her from the savages who enslaved her, and introduced her to civilization. But all of that history is lost in this “documentary.” Instead, you’re simply told that someone — some unidentified person — “stole” this woman from West Africa. And the only credit the Americans get, in this whole story from Ken Burns, is that they “looked after” her education. A total crock, in other words. Now, again, I’m only highlighting the worst parts of this documentary. You have to imagine that, in between these lies, there’s some genuine, good history here. But then, out of nowhere — I’d say it happens every 30 minutes or so — you just get hit with a massive woke bomb, out of nowhere. And some of them are so absurd that you can only conclude they were added in post-production, on a dare or something like that. This is probably the worst moment in that regard. Watch: Credit: Ken Burns/Florentine Films/PBS Did you catch that? If women hadn’t stopped buying things constantly, as a form of protest, then the American Revolution wouldn’t have gotten off the ground. So really, the women are the heroes of the American Revolution. Forget the men who, you know, got shot and died. Sure, that’s a significant sacrifice, by any measure. But it’s nothing compared to the pain that colonial women had to endure, by *not* buying things. They bravely put down their Visa credit cards. And in doing so, they single-handedly created America. What’s great about this segment is that no one, at any point in this 5,000 hour documentary, comes back to this claim. They don’t support this claim in any way. It’s just hanging there, in the middle of the first episode. And we’re supposed to take it at face value, I guess, even though it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Again, that’s probably the most overt, ridiculous moment in the whole series. Most of the propaganda is a lot more subtle. Take this moment, for example, from Episode Two. For the most part, this is a good episode about the battle of Bunker Hill. It tells the story of that battle in a neutral, even-handed, factual way. It also talks about George Washington and — although it keeps mentioning that he owned slaves every now and then — there’s nothing too crazy. And then you get this moment. Watch: Credit: Ken Burns/Florentine Films/PBS When I saw this, admittedly, I had never heard this particular story before. But my first thought was, even if this is true — and it’s probably not — this has to be the single lamest attack on George Washington that anyone could possibly make. They’re trying to find some way to smear our first president, a Founding Father and one of the most consequential men to ever live, anywhere, in world history. And the best hit they can come up with, apparently, is that a black kid said that George Washington was rude to him. Even if it’s true that George Washington was indeed rude to this random six-year-old black kid in 1775, and suggested that he do some chores without pay, there is no possible way to express, in the English language, how little any sane person would possibly care. It’s like saying George Washington jaywalked once. And then you have the big intimidating, voice-of-God narrator trying to sell it, in his super-serious voice. Actually, no, I don’t care if George Washington jaywalked. And I don’t care if he was rude to a random kid. But just out of curiosity, I decided to look into this particular claim. And it turns out, as you might have guessed, it’s complete nonsense. Supposedly this “incident” happened in 1775, but the story didn’t appear in print, in any form, until the 1870s, nearly a century later. And it appeared in some kind of “romanticized” history of the Vassall estate. And here’s the kicker. The first time it appeared in print, the “boy” was a guy named Tony Vassall, who was Darby’s father. But that didn’t make sense, because Tony would have been in his 60s in 1775 — so he definitely wasn’t a “boy swinging on a gate.” So they revised it, after-the-fact, and said Darby was swinging on the gate. So this whole narrative is about as credible as any other modern race hoax, except there’s about a million more reasons to doubt it. But Ken Burns doesn’t mention any of these problems with the narrative. He makes it seem like it happened, definitively.  And the lame hits on Washington didn’t end there. Watch: Credit: Ken Burns/Florentine Films/PBS Again, we have the passive voice, saying the slave “was captured,” without saying who did it. Burns really doesn’t want to use the active voice, for some reason. And then we learn that a black slave fled Washington’s estate, because George Washington was a horrible person, who had slaves, like everyone else at the time. What we didn’t learn from Ken Burns, strangely enough, is that Washington also employed a lot of white indentured servants, many of whom also ran away. And it’s a shame Ken Burns left this out, because it’s a fascinating piece of history that no one ever talks about. This is a paragraph from NPR, of all places. It’s from a transcript of a 2008 interview with historian Michael Walsh: “Just on the week of Lexington, the beginning of your War of Independence, the Revolutionary War, there were ads in the Virginia Gazette for runaways. And I think there were – that week there were something like 11 for white runaways and three for black runaways. And two of the 11 white runaways were being advertised for by George Washington.” Yes, the week the Revolutionary War began, the newspaper in Virginia had 11 ads seeking the return of white runaways, and 3 ads for black runaways. Did you know that? Did you have any idea that white indentured servants — who were treated worse than slaves in many cases, because they weren’t permanent investments — were fleeing George Washington’s estate? That’s the kind of thing that would be interesting to talk about here. But it goes unmentioned.  In the next episode of this documentary, I’ll be honest, I began paying less attention to the interesting history, and started looking for the lies that Ken Burns would try to slip in, without anyone noticing. It became something of a game. And with that in mind, this moment stuck out to me.  Watch: Credit: Ken Burns/Florentine Films/PBS This is one of those claims that, as far as I knew, was accurate. I had never heard of this woman before, or her alleged act of heroism, or her pension. But the little sassy factoid they add at the end — about how the wounded woman only received half a pension, presumably because she’s a woman and the Americans are misogynists who don’t believe in Equal Pay — didn’t seem right to me. It seemed a lot like Ken Burns’ attempt to shoehorn a modern grievance into the narrative.  If you think about it, it’s a strange claim. For one thing, even if they only gave her “half” a pension for life, it’s still quite a generous handout. She wasn’t a member of the military when she was wounded. She was there for love of the game, essentially. They didn’t owe her anything. And they voluntarily awarded her a very reasonable wage for the rest of her life. And on top of that, there are reasons to doubt what Ken Burns is saying, once again. He didn’t provide any explanation for why she might only receive half-pay, which got me thinking that, once again, he was trying to lie by omission. He wanted us to fill in the blanks, and conclude that America’s founders simply hated women — even women who risked their lives on the battlefield. So I looked into it. And here’s what I found, unsurprisingly enough. This was passed by the Continental Congress in 1776: “Resolved, That every commissioned officer, non-commissioned officer, and private soldier, who shall lose a limb in any engagement, or be so disabled in the service of the United States of America as to render him incapable afterwards of getting a livelihood, shall receive, during his life, of the continuance of such disability, the one half monthly pay from and after the time that his pay as an officer or soldier ceases.” In other words, all wounded officers — including the men — received a pension equivalent to one-half of their regular pay. And that appears to be what Margaret Corbin received. I checked a variety of sources, including the National Museum of the US Army, the Daughters of the American Revolution, Wikipedia, and the Lehrman Institute of American History. None of them claimed that Margaret Corbin had been snubbed, or had her pension cut in half, because she was a woman. They didn’t mention anything like that. In fact, here’s what Congress did in 1779. They issued this resolution. “Resolved, That Margaret Corbin, who was wounded and disabled in the attack on Fort Washington . . . do receive, during her natural life, or the continuance of the said disability, the one-half of the monthly pay drawn by a soldier in the service of these states; and that she now receive out of the public stores, one complete suit of cloaths.” In other words, she gets new clothes, plus she gets one-half the pay of any active-duty soldier. Which, in turn, is the same pay that every disabled soldier gets. As far as I can tell, Ken Burns derived his claim — that this woman was given half the pension of a wounded soldier — from this throwaway line from the website of the “National Women’s History Museum,” which stated, “In July 6, 1779, the Continental Congress, in recognition of her brave service, awarded her with a lifelong pension equivalent to half that of male combatants.” But that appears to be false. It contradicts the primary source, which is what the Congress actually said. So what’s going on here? Is Ken Burns just quoting random lines from web pages now? What’s the support for his claim? He doesn’t say. The documentary just moves on. I can’t emphasize enough how insidious and evil this kind of behavior is. A historian — especially one who’s paid with our tax dollars — is not supposed to lie to us. When he presents extremely dubious claims, he shouldn’t do so with confidence. He shouldn’t pretend it’s obviously true. He should show his work. But the reason he doesn’t show his work is that he’s a propagandist. Ken Burns has become a Trump-obsessed weirdo who’s desperate to include racial politics in everything he does. Which, by the way, is how we got interviews like this one, in his latest documentary.  Watch: Credit: Ken Burns/Florentine Films/PBS It’s not hard to see what this “historian” is doing here, or what Ken Burns is trying to do by featuring this interview. He wants you to think that this nation was founded on “diversity” — a modern buzzword that connotes multiculturalism, open borders, DEI, affirmative action, and so on — because the colonists were supposedly “diverse.” But the colonists weren’t “diverse” in the sense that modern Leftists use the word, and Ken Burns knows that. The colonists were overwhelmingly white and British. The fact that Indians were present on the continent, or that fact that 3% of slaves from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade ended up in this country, does not mean that the colonists themselves were “diverse,” in the sense that, say, New York City or Minneapolis are “diverse.” The colonists, unlike the residents of Minneapolis or New York, spoke the same language, and shared similar ancestry. They might not have the same religion, or the same country of origin (although most did). But they still had far, far more in common with one another, than the typical modern-day American has in common with the so-called “newcomers” that are flooding our cities at the moment. And again, Burns knows that. He knows that a Dutch or German colonist had much more in common with an English-born colonist, than a Somali “asylum seeker” has in common with an American today. But we’re supposed to lump all of this together, using the buzzword of “diversity,” which in Ken Burns’ world, is a universal good. We’ll end with just one more clip, from Episode Four. This is one final lie that, all things considered, may be one the most egregious. Watch: Credit: Ken Burns/Florentine Films/PBS This is one of those claims that you’ll hear again and again, predominantly from Marxists and agitators who want to undermine our Christian tradition. They’ll tell you that the United States was founded by men who believed that God is totally indifferent to America’s success or failure, and that we should believe the same lie. In this case, Burns is pretty obvious about his intentions. He starts talking about all the Muslim influence in our founding, and how “Tolerance” is a foundational virtue — almost as if he’s being extremely lazy, and applying 2025 Leftist talking points to 18th century history. The problem is that, in fact, America was not founded by Deists. You will not find a single reference to Deism in a single colonial law or charter. What you will find, if you do any amount of research — which many organizations, including the Christian Heritage Fellowship, have done — is that the Founders explicitly rejected the idea of an absent God, again and again.  Ben Franklin presided over the state constitutional convention in Pennsylvania in 1776, during which members affirmed that, “I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.” The Massachusetts Constitution, which was drafted by John Adams, states that “the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and … cannot be generally discussed through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God.” And then there’s the fact that, as the Christian Heritage Fellowship found, during the Second Continental Congress, as well as the Confederation Congress (which took place after the war ended), members of Congress issued a grand total of 16 spiritual proclamations, which, “asked the states to fast, pray, and give thanks to God.” What Ken Burns and PBS are counting on, of course, is that you won’t look into any of the claims that he makes in this documentary. His narrator delivers every line — from the accurate, interesting factoids to the flagrant lies — with an equal degree of self-confidence. And that’s a deliberate tactic. It’s how history is taught now, in every context — whether you’re talking about public schools or the media. It’s enough to make me think that, in the near future, I should make my own “true history” series, where I tell you what the “Ken Burns” types are leaving out. It wouldn’t be particularly difficult. All I’d have to do, in order to destroy Ken Burns’ documentary, is tell the truth. But there’s a clear need for a project like this, because obviously, no one in the mainstream media is willing to do it.  If there’s anything we’ve learned from the past decade or so in American politics, it’s that the national media is willing to lie to us about everything — even things we can observe with our own eyes. They lie to us about Russiagate, and “climate change,” and “gender ideology,” and so on. If these lies can be effective in the 21st century, then imagine how many lies they’ve been telling us about ancient history. Imagine how many lies they’ve been telling us about slavery, and the Revolutionary War. Imagine how many lies they told us about the Civil War, or about Indian savagery, or about Nixon, or anything else. My goal is that, very soon, you won’t have to ask these questions anymore. You’ll get the truth about our history — not the passive-aggressive innuendo of delusional activists like Ken Burns, but the actual truth. And if Ken Burns accomplished one thing with this bloated mess of a documentary on the American Revolution, he’s demonstrated, probably more than any other living person, the need for exactly that. So my two-word message for you, on the eve of Thanksgiving Day, is simply this: Stay tuned.

'Trump put them in harm's way'

'it just seems ironic to me'

In a recent interview on Fox News, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch remarked, “We need to know our history in order to preserve it.”  As we celebrate another Thanksgiving, that statement rings truer than ever, as many Americans have no idea of the sacrifices made by those who crossed the Atlantic for religious freedom as well as the legacy?for those who would come after. And in some cases, others now deride them for making the trip in the first place.  First, a little context: A little over 400 years ago, a group of devout Pilgrims crossed the Atlantic on an overcrowded ship, seeking the right to freely practice their faith and live their lives in accordance with their conscience without government interference.  The small ship, called the “Mayflower” was rife with disease as it traversed the stormy Atlantic waters to what was being called the “New World.”  Many of the brave souls who had set sail never made it this new land. Those who did make it endured even more suffering through a harsh New England winter, fallow crops, and other hardships.  But sadly, as I have written in my book, “Toward a More Perfect Union: The Moral and Cultural Case for Teaching the Great American Story,” their legacy has fallen prey to the “woke” rewriting of history by Howard Zinn and others. In this rewrite, the Pilgrims are painted as villains, instead of courageous individuals who laid the groundwork for the freest nation in the world’s history via their creation of the Mayflower Compact—a document recognizing that people derive their right of self-government from God and not man.  The Mayflower Compact was the first attempt at self-government on the North American continent. It was also the document that ultimately served as the basis for the religious liberty enshrined in the U.S. Constitution—a precious freedom that we continue to enjoy today.  While the Compact used Christianity as its base and said that all colonists should live in accordance with the Christian faith, it was also a pluralistic document meant for the good of both Christians and non-Christians alike to be able to govern themselves and abide in harmony with each other, regardless of their differences. It proclaimed that the colonists would create and enact “laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices” that would allow the colony to thrive, and they would create one society and work with each other, rather than in opposition to each other, because faith informs good government for all.  In fact, it was these very principles that inspired Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence as they laid the foundation upon which our nation was built—the values of self-government, private property, Christian morals, industry, and religious liberty.  In our present contentious times, when America seems hopelessly divided on practically every issue, I would suggest that it is time for us to reflect on the principles the Pilgrims provided for us and have served as the foundation that resulted in the freest country on earth. Whether it Christian or non-Christian, Republican or Democrat, Baby Boomer or Millennial, we should all appreciate the legacy the Pilgrims gave us.  But if we forget that history and the freedoms the Pilgrims bequeathed us through the Mayflower Compact, we will not be able to preserve that legacy, as Gorsuch noted, for future generations. And with no understanding of the historical foundation the Pilgrims provided, our country will be sway back and forth, just as the Mayflower did, through countless storms. But unlike the sturdy Mayflower, which sustained the storm after storm, America, is not likely to survive.  However, if we thoughtfully remember those principles and the sacrifices the Pilgrims made and express thankfulness for what they provided for us all, I believe we can once again in harmony—respectful of our differences but united in our gratitude for our freedom and respect for each other. That is my prayer for this and every Thanksgiving.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Let’s Give Thanks for the Pilgrims’ Legacy of Freedom appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Amid the tragic news that 2 National Guard members had been shot in Washington, D.C., Wednesday, social media users drew attention to recent comments by Democrat lawmakers on President Donald Trump’s use of the National Guard to combat crime in cities across America. Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser referred to the attack as a “targeted shooting.” “What we know is that this is a targeted shooting, one individual who appeared to target these guardsmen. That individual has been taken into custody,” said Bowser, who announced Tuesday she would be seeking reelection. Reporter: "Does this validate the need for National Guard in DC?"Mayor Bowser: "What we know is this is a targeted shooting, one individual who appeared to target these guardsmen. That individual has been taken into custody." pic.twitter.com/pwKkzzX8Om— Jordan Chamberlain (@jordylancaster) November 26, 2025 “Sen. Elissa Slotkin went on TV last Sunday and claimed that National Guardsmen were going to start shooting at American civilians,” posted Greg Price, who formerly served as a rapid response manager for the Trump White House. Sen. Elissa Slotkin went on TV last Sunday and claimed that National Guardsmen were going to start shooting at American civilians.Two Guardsmen have now been wounded after being shot on the streets in DC. pic.twitter.com/lKKrqxYFWu— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 26, 2025 In an interview Sunday, Slotkin, D-Mich., defended her decision to appear in a video with other Democrats that urged military members to not follow “illegal orders” from the Trump administration. >>>Victor Davis Hanson: Democrats Who Told Military Not to Obey ‘Illegal’ Orders Are ‘Not Being Honest’ “So, for me, my primary concern is the use of U.S. military on American shores, on our city—in our cities and in our streets. We’ve seen now the courts overturn the deployment of U.S. military into our streets, including here in Washington, D.C,” Slotkin said on ABC program “This Week.” “When you look at these videos coming out of places like Chicago, it makes me incredibly nervous that we’re about to see people in law enforcement, people in uniform military get nervous, get stressed, shoot at American civilians,” she added. “It is very—a very, very stressful situation for these law enforcement and for the communities on the ground.” Slotkin’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about her remarks on “This Week.” In an X post Wednesday, she called the shooting “heartbreaking.” Sending prayers and strength to the friends, families and fellow guardsmen of the two West Virginians who were shot in Washington, D.C. These individuals signed up to serve because they cared about their community and their country, and to have this happen the day before…— Sen. Elissa Slotkin (@SenatorSlotkin) November 26, 2025 Price also highlighted remarks by Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, made on Aug. 31. “J.B. Pritzker claimed that President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard was an ‘attack on the American people’ and will be used to ‘stop the 2026 elections,'” wrote Price. Trump sent National Guard troops to Chicago in October. J.B. Pritzker claimed that President Trump's deployment of the National Guard was an "attack on the American people" and will be used to "stop the 2026 elections."Two Guardsmen are now dead about being shot on the streets in DC. pic.twitter.com/XWkqwbNn6R— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 26, 2025 Priztker’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On X, he posted that Wednesday’s attack was “unacceptable violence.” The shooting of National Guard members in Washington, DC today is a horrible tragedy. We must all condemn this kind of unacceptable violence. MK and I are praying for the victims, their families, and all of our service members who sign up to serve our country.— Governor JB Pritzker (@GovPritzker) November 26, 2025 Steve Guest, who formerly worked for Sen. Ted Cruz and the Republican National Committee, highlighted remarks made by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat. “Democrats from Elissa Slotkin to Gavin Newsom need to watch their dangerous rhetoric,” wrote Guest. “Last month, Gavin Newsom said that National Guard troops in cities were ‘right out of the dictator’s handbook.'” Democrats from Elissa Slotkin to Gavin Newsom need to watch their dangerous rhetoric. Last month, Gavin Newsom said that National Guard troops in cities were "right out of the dictator's handbook."pic.twitter.com/1wtgFVuvw7 https://t.co/FqDuooc2jW— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) November 26, 2025 Newsom’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On X, Newsom posted, “There must be zero tolerance for violence — of any kind — against the brave men and women in uniform who selflessly serve our communities and our country.” There must be zero tolerance for violence — of any kind — against the brave men and women in uniform who selflessly serve our communities and our country. The shooting of National Guard members in Washington, D.C. is horrific and unacceptable.Jen and I are praying for the…— Governor Gavin Newsom (@CAgovernor) November 26, 2025 Trump, who pledged on Truth Social Wednesday that the shooter “will pay a very steep price,” first brought the National Guard to Washington, D.C. in August. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced Wednesday more National Guard troops would be coming to D.C. “This happened just steps from the White House and it will not stand and that’s why President Trump has asked me—and I will ask the secretary of the Army to the National Guard—to add 500 additional troops, National Guardsmen, to Washington, D.C.,”  said Hegseth. The post What Democrats Have Recently Said About National Guard appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A cat was found outside, unable to move, but after just a few weeks indoors, he transformed into the happiest cat he was always meant to be. AspenChatonsOrphelinsMontrealA few months ago, a cat was spotted outside with thick mats covering his entire body and an injury along his back. He sat quietly in a yard, as if waiting and hoping for someone to notice him."He had difficulty moving. His knots pulled at his skin. For his fur to be in this state, he must have been without help for a long time and had likely been attacked by another animal," shared Chatons Orphelins Montreal, an all-volunteer rescue group.When a Good Samaritan named Ariane saw a plea for help on social media, she rushed out to find the cat. ChatonsOrphelinsMontrealCompletely exhausted, the cat, named Aspen, didn't resist when Ariane gently picked him up, as if he understood she was there to help him. She brought him home and prepared a quiet space where he could decompress.Aspen could barely move; every shift of his body tugged at the mats on his back. Despite his condition, he never once complained. The moment he was petted, he leaned in, soaking up the affection he'd been missing for so long. ChatonsOrphelinsMontrealChatons Orphelins Montreal stepped in to provide the urgent care he needed. Their first task: remove the thick, crust-like mats that caused him constant pain. "Off to the vet clinic we went," the rescue said.Shaving away his dense mats was a long, delicate process. Aspen also received treatment for the wound on his back and medication for stomach issues that had likely plagued him for quite some time. "He's such a little angel who lets the vet do everything without a peep." ChatonsOrphelinsMontrealAfter his spa day and medical treatments, Aspen left the clinic looking and feeling like a new cat. With a fresh haircut, a clean face, and relief from pain, a spark returned to his eyes along with a renewed zest for life.He arrived at his foster home to continue his recovery. With nourishing meals and attentive care, he healed beautifully, and his soft coat began to grow back in. ChatonsOrphelinsMontreal"Aspen tends to eat too quickly without chewing, so he was given a slow-feeder at mealtime. Shortly after arriving in foster care, he began asking for attention and cuddles. He's a teddy bear at heart, gentle and loving."Now that he's pain-free, Aspen explores the house with confidence, claiming every corner and sunny spot as his own. ChatonsOrphelinsMontrealBut the moment he hears his people, he trots over to them with bright eyes. Along with his love for humans, Aspen also adores the other cats in the house. He lets them wrestle with him and even play with his tail, always acting as the gentle giant in the group."He likes other friendly cats. He wants to be friends with everyone." ChatonsOrphelinsMontrealGone are the days of struggling alone outdoors. Today, Aspen is thriving, surrounded by soft blankets, cozy napping spots, and more toys than he knows what to do with."He loves curling up with his humans at night and will roll onto his back the moment you talk to him. He enjoys sunbathing on the windowsill, watching the world outside. He's also become quite the climber and loves perching on top of the cat tree." ChatonsOrphelinsMontrealAspen is happiest when surrounded by people and cats who make him feel safe. He follows them to bed and rubs his face against their pillow in pure bliss. With his mats gone, he loves being brushed, especially on the cheeks, and fills the room with his contented purrs."He likes listening to his humans and getting petted by them. He's very much a kitten at heart." ChatonsOrphelinsMontrealThanks to those who never gave up on him, Aspen now has a second chance at life. His coat grows fluffier and more gleaming by the day, and his charming personality shines brighter than ever. ChatonsOrphelinsMontrealShare this story with your friends. More on Aspen and Chatons Orphelins Montreal on Instagram and Facebook.Related story: Family and Their Cat Change Everything for Little 4-week-old Kitten in a World He Cannot See

On Wednesday afternoon in the 2:00 p.m. Eastern hour, a suspect opened fire outside the Washington D.C. subway system’s Farragut West station on members of the National Guard who were deployed as part of President Trump’s focus on crushing crime in major U.S. cities. We learned less than an hour after news first broke that both National Guardsmen – a male and female from West Virginia – were shot and in grave condition. The legacy media were quick to respond as, in many cases, their D.C. bureaus were blocks away from the scene. While there were thoughtful and sober coverage (such as here and here from ABC), there were sadly a number of predictably idiotic hot takes. MS NOW host Katy Tur was most emblematic of the compassion needed as she nearly broke down crying over the shooting having taken a deadly turn: WATCH: MS NOW host Katy Tur nearly breaks down in announcing to viewers both National Guard troops shot outside a D.C. metro station had died After reading the announcement, Tur said she's "a bit speechless because it is just so awful and the timing is making it even worse,… pic.twitter.com/zIoVVXHbCV — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 26, 2025   That said, below are some of the worst compiled from the first hour of coverage. First up, we have MS NOW making absolute fools of themselves. Justice reporter and Deep State tool Ken Dilanian blamed Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) for what we would learn was the murder of two U.S. soldiers: MS NOW's Ken Dilanian just after 3pm Eastern on the shooting of two National Guard troops in Washington D.C... "[O]f course, you know, there's so much controversy happening in the United States right now with ice, who are also wearing uniforms and wearing masks. And so there's,… pic.twitter.com/p6IPk6XTWl — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 26, 2025   Before the announcement of the soldiers having passed, Tur and her assembled analysts repeatedly scoffed at the President’s deployment of the Guard and wondered if it served any real purpose since, as we’ve learned, led to two losing their lives: MS NOW’s Katy Tur at 304pm Eastern: “Has there been tension with the National Guard? I mean, NPR spoke with a number of National Guard members from Ohio on the condition of anonymity, and they talked to them just the other day, November 10, and they talked about the deployment to… pic.twitter.com/PTraBRGAaJ — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 26, 2025 Without naming him directly, MS NOW lashes out at President Trump for deploying the National Guard to Washington D.C., putting their lives in danger…. Law enforcement analyst Rob D’Amico: “Well, I think you're going to start seeing some question – more questions again, the… pic.twitter.com/iD0ne9dCXt — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 26, 2025 Going over to CNN, senior law enforcement analyst and liberal toadie Andrew McCabe wondered if the National Guard on scene really knew what they were doing in terms of responding to a hostile actor: CNN's Andrew McCabe on two National Guard troops being shot outside a Washington D.C. metro stop: "So, add to this very confusing picture, the National Guard who've been around in D.C. for a little while. So they're not quite as novel as they were in the first week or two. But… pic.twitter.com/2dZlKv9niN — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 26, 2025   CNN News Central fill-in co-host Omar Jimenez went down this same rabbit hole: CNN's Omar Jimenez speculates on whether the National Guard troops who were shot in Washington D.C. were had any real experience or knowledge to respond to a hostile situation like police officers do pic.twitter.com/TrjMJFAqTt — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 26, 2025   ABC chief investigative correspondent Aaron Katersky surmised on ABC News Live if the suspect’s motivation stemmed from anger over the President’s agenda, including his “immigration policies”: WHAT?! ABC's Aaron Katersky speculating on a motive in the shooting of two National Guard troops in Washington D.C..... "Focus will turn to whether these guardsmen were specifically targeted. If that's the case, it would fit with what we've been hearing from law enforcement… pic.twitter.com/cyB4SFlPMs — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 26, 2025 Katersky had help in peddling this tone-deaf narrative as, on CBS’s streaming channel CBS News 24/7, senior coordinating producer for crime and public safety Anna Schechter cited the “explosive rhetoric around the administration’s policy in terms of deploying the National Guard to cities” and “the immigration policy”: CBS's Anna Schecter, speculating just after 330pm Eastern on a possible motive of the National Guard shooting in Washington D.C.... "What led -- what was going on in that perpetrator's mind to carry out this attack? There's been a lot of tension, a lot of headlines, a lot of… pic.twitter.com/N9vWbNOkEA — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 26, 2025  

A federal judge partially sided with a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union against warrantless detentions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the administration vowed to appeal it.Federal Judge R. Brooke Jackson said in his ruling that the warrantless detentions violated the restriction that said individuals must be deemed a flight risk to be justifiable.'Allegations that DHS law enforcement engages in "racial profiling" are disgusting, reckless, and categorically FALSE. What makes someone a target for immigration enforcement is if they are illegally in the US — NOT their skin color, race, or ethnicity.'"Immigration officials are entrusted with enforcing immigration laws and are authorized to pursue an aggressive deportation agenda," Jackson wrote in the ruling. "They may arrest and initiate removal proceedings against individuals they believe are present without lawful status. But in carrying out these responsibilities, they must follow the law."One of the four plaintiffs in the lawsuit is 19-year-old Caroline Dias Goncalves, a student at the University of Utah who was detained after a routine traffic stop in Mesa, Arizona, in June. The deputy released her with only a warning, but he passed on her information to ICE officials, who detained her a few miles down the road.Jackson said ICE agents had improperly ignored the flight risk stipulation or improperly applied it."Plaintiffs are four individuals who had deep and longstanding ties to their communities, including parents, spouses, children, stable employment histories, and active participation in their local churches," Jackson said. "No reasonable officer could have reasonably concluded that these plaintiffs were likely to flee before a warrant could be obtained."Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, released a statement vowing to challenge the ruling at the Supreme Court."This activist ruling is a brazen effort to hamstring the Trump administration from fulfilling the president's mandate to deport the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens," McLaughlin said."Allegations that DHS law enforcement engages in 'racial profiling' are disgusting, reckless, and categorically FALSE. What makes someone a target for immigration enforcement is if they are illegally in the U.S. — NOT their skin color, race, or ethnicity," she added. "There are no 'indiscriminate' stops being made. DHS conducts enforcement operations in line with the U.S. Constitution and all applicable federal laws without fear, favor, or prejudice."RELATED: Church worker pretended to be ICE agent to extort $500 from massage therapist, police say Jackson further ordered the government to refund the costs incurred by the four defendants. The judge denied a request from the plaintiffs to obtain the training requirements at ICE, but added that if the government did not comply with the order, the plaintiffs could renew the request."The Supreme Court recently vindicated us on this question elsewhere, and we look forward to further vindication in this case as well," McLaughlin concluded.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Ashan M. Benedict, the assistant U.S. Capitol Police chief who a congressman alleges prevented two special agents involved in the discovery of a pipe bomb at the Democratic National Committee building from testifying before a U.S. House panel, has retired from the department, Blaze News has learned.Rumors of Benedict’s retirement came one day after Blaze News published an investigation showing unexplained activity by the Capitol Police officers who discovered that bomb, who were overseen by Benedict. The announcement surprised some at the Capitol Police because his contract with the department was set to expire at the end of the month, on Dec. 1. Benedict came to the Capitol Police on Dec. 4, 2023, as assistant chief for protective and intelligence operations, which includes counter-surveillance teams. He later became assistant chief for standards and training operations.‘They never looked for a third or fourth or fifth pipe bomb.’Before he joined the USCP, Benedict was the DNC pipe-bomb incident commander for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In that post, he oversaw ATF’s response to the J6 pipe-bomb threat.Capitol Police Chief Michael Sullivan distributed a bulletin Monday, Nov. 24, announcing Benedict’s retirement after less than two years with the USCP. Word had already circulated around the department on the Wednesday before that Benedict was leaving, two sources told Blaze News.Word of Benedict’s retirement started percolating a day after Blaze News published an investigation showing the two USCP counter-surveillance agents who discovered the DNC bomb on Jan. 6, 2021, seemingly acting in a suspicious manner. The cops parked their car that afternoon and walked straight past a pipe bomb to another location, which Blaze News’ investigation discovered that the pipe-bomb suspect visited the night before. Then the officers returned to the DNC building, where one of them discovered the device. Pipe-bomb suspect, construction worker, and police at a bush next to Congressional Black Caucus Institute.Photos by U.S. Capitol Police “I went from 90% certain that some Capitol Police were involved in the Jan. 6 pipe bomb to 95% certain, and now I'm at 99% certain after this new story,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) told Blaze News last week in an interview with Steve Baker broadcast on Matt Kibbe’s “Free the People” podcast and posted to X. “I’m doing this on probability. The probability may even be higher than that.”The officers were not seen searching any other areas for explosives in any of the extensive video available and reviewed by Blaze News, and they did not continue searching after the DNC device was found at 1:05 p.m. on Jan. 6.The USCP has since confirmed that one of its agents found the pipe bomb near the DNC park bench, but there is no video showing that because key cameras were turned away from the DNC building at the time. The fact that the DNC bomb was discovered by plainclothes Capitol Police officers, and not merely a pair of passersby, was not made public until Blaze News broke that news in January 2024.Following that story, Massie told Blaze News he was determined to interview the agents, but did not get much cooperation from Capitol Police. Massie referred to the agents as “man-bun guy” and “backpack guy” (the one who discovered the bomb). By this time, the agents were under Benedict’s command. Key cameras that cover the Democratic National Committee building were turned away during bomb discovery and disposal.U.S. Capitol PoliceThe Capitol Police never made “backpack guy” available to Massie, but on Jan. 30, 2024, they did eventually send his partner, accompanied by Benedict, to speak with the congressman in a meeting that was not recorded or transcribed.“So they came over to my office, but not ‘backpack guy,’” Massie said. “’Man-bun guy’ came over, and he had a handler, who would often interrupt and answer questions for him.”‘They just kind of wander off. Their job was done. They had found the second pipe bomb.’Two congressional investigators sat in on the meeting alongside Benedict, the police officer, and Massie. “In the conversation with the counter-surveillance officer in my office, Ashan Benedict would frequently interrupt the officer, answer before the officer could reply, or qualify the officer’s answers,” Massie told Blaze News. “There was an effort by our committee staff to get Benedict to sit for a transcribed interview, but he successfully evaded that effort.”Massie asked the agent who sent him and his partner to the DNC building, as opposed to some other high-visibility potential target.“How did you know to go look there?” Massie said he asked. “And it wasn't a real good answer, something like, ‘That was my sector’ or something. You know, ‘We’re assigned sectors, and that’s just the sector that I look in.’”According to the January 2025 report of the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, three two-man Capitol Police counter-surveillance teams were dispatched to look for other bombs after discovery of the Capitol Hill Club device.Massie said he showed a video to the men, depicting the slow, nonchalant response from the Secret Service, Metropolitan Police Department, and Capitol Police to the discovery of a bomb that potentially could have killed them all.‘He never told me about this other bush.’“Look, there's pedestrians still walking around, and this is allegedly a pipe bomb,” Massie said. “And that's when his handler [Benedict] stepped in and said, ‘Well, you don’t want to alarm people when you have a lot of crowds. You know, when you find a bomb or something, you can’t yell, ‘Bomb!’ You gotta just play it cool.’”Video showed there were no crowds near the DNC bomb site. Occasional pedestrian traffic continued on the sidewalk within feet of the bomb, and vehicle traffic was not immediately stopped on nearby streets. Commuter trains continued to rumble over the adjacent train trestle for 15 minutes after discovery of the bomb.Massie said his next question “elicited the oddest body language I’ve ever seen in a meeting and no real answer.”“Well, so then you obviously went looking for another pipe bomb, right?” Massie recalled. “You found two of them within 30 minutes. You must believe the whole place is riddled with them if you’re finding them this quickly. “I actually knew part of the answer. I watched the video of where he went after,” Massie said. “They just kind of wander off. Their job was done. They had found the second pipe bomb. They never looked for a third or fourth or fifth pipe bomb, and they didn’t have an answer to me for why the search for pipe bombs was over once they found the second pipe bomb. No answer. Weirdest meeting in the world.”Massie said he still wants to see the officer who actually found the bomb and interview him, his partner, and Benedict under oath for transcribed interviews. “Those need to be transcribed interviews. They need to be sworn in. I feel very strongly about that,” he said. “But the reality is the FBI should be doing these things.”“How did they know exactly where to look, including the place [Congressional Black Caucus Institute bush] where the pipe bomber tried to place a bomb?” Massie asked. “It was police, it was Capitol Hill Police that found these bombs, and they got there. But … I hope they went and bought lottery tickets after finding these, after going to these two locations.“But when you take them all together, and the fact that I got to interview these, it’s at least one of these guys [who discovered the bomb], and he never told me about this other bush,” Massie said. “He didn't have answers for why they didn’t look for more bombs after they found the second one. And then we’ve got the ATF person in charge of the bomb stuff happening on Jan. 6 is now at Capitol Police handling the interview?”Sources have said the two special agents, who are known to Blaze News, are still with the Capitol Police. The one who discovered the bomb is now the Capitol Police’s liaison to the FBI — the agency charged with investigating the pipe bombs. His partner, who accompanied Benedict to meet with Massie, still works in the intelligence section.Benedict’s retirement is just the latest disclosure in two months of developments in the long-unsolved pipe-bomb case.Questions and requests for comment sent to Benedict and the two officers were not returned in time for publication.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Hakeem Jeffries Hit With Flashback as He Prays for the National Guard Members Who Were Shot