A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against government efforts to silence the COVID-19 debate‚ to take effect after a historic Supreme Court ruling. Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his fellow plaintiffs received a partial legal victory on Feb. 14 in their suit against the Biden administration’s collusion with Big Tech to censor Americans. Louisiana District Court Judge Terry Doughty granted part of the plaintiff’s requested preliminary injunction in his ruling for Kennedy v. Biden. He ordered that certain government agencies halt their anti-First Amendment collusion with Big Tech.  Doughty ordered “that the White House Defendants‚ Surgeon General Defendants‚ CDC Defendants‚ FBI Defendants‚ and CISA Defendants‚ and their employees and agents‚ shall take no actions‚ formal or informal‚ directly or indirectly‚ to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove‚ delete‚ suppress or reduce‚ including through altering their algorithms‚ posted social-media content containing protected free speech.” The judge previously issued a similar injunction for Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden)‚ which has been consolidated with Kennedy v. Biden. Because the two cases will be decided together‚ the new Kennedy v. Biden injunction will not go into effect until after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on Murthy v. Missouri. The “Kennedy Plaintiffs” had accused the government defendants‚ including Joe Biden and members of his administration‚ of violating the “Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” Doughty’s ruling agreed that the plaintiffs provided evidence that “not only have the Defendants shown willingness to coerce and/or to give significant encouragement to social-media platforms to suppress free speech with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic and national elections‚ but they have also shown a willingness to do it with regard to other issues.” These include the climate‚ abortion‚ and critiques of Biden. Indeed‚ an MRC Free Speech America study‚ cited in Missouri v. Biden‚ revealed that social media platforms censored public criticism of Biden 646 times between March 10‚ 2020‚ and March 10‚ 2022. Another MRC study‚ based on data from the unique CensorTrack.org database‚ found over 800 cases of COVID-19 censorship as of February 2022. 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.

On Thursday‚ Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple (a frequent Fox News critic) penned an article decrying "MSNBC's Biden Memory Hole." In the aftermath of Robert Hur's report and its passages on Biden's faulty memory‚ Wemple honed in on the Peacock Progressives: "As the debate churns‚ we need to look at the model laid out by MSNBC — one of institutional denial and stubborn unwillingness to level with its viewers." He began with a little pun: "In a discussion last Thursday night on Biden’s age and fitness for office‚ MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said‚ “He rides a bike.” With that remark‚ Maddow put forth one of MSNBC’s more creative means of soft-pedaling the president’s declining faculties." Has Maddow never seen the video of Biden falling off his bike?  Wemple found one episode disturbing: On September 28‚ 2022 at an anti-hunger event in DC‚ Biden offered praise to supportive lawmakers.  “Jackie‚ are you here? Where’s Jackie?” the president said as he scanned the room. “I didn’t think she was — she wasn’t going to be here — to help make this a reality.” That was a reference to Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.)‚ who had died in a car crash more than a month before the event‚ prompting Biden to issue a statement offering his condolences....  NPR‚ The Washington Post and the New York Times were among the many outlets that wrote it up. Yet MSNBC didn’t air it‚ as pointed out by media critics from the Hill‚ Fox News and NewsBusters. There was no excuse‚ considering that the “Where’s Jackie” episode — as well as Jean-Pierre’s subsequent obstructionism — was best appreciated on video. Wemple added "MSNBC‚ though‚ has a particular place among cable news networks in shielding Biden from age-related criticism. Why didn’t it cover the story? We asked the network and have yet to receive a response." He noted MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace interviewed then-White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain on October 3‚ just days after the “Where’s Jackie?” episode‚ "a perfect time for some accountability." As she approached the issue‚ Wallace sounded as though she were going to take it head-on‚ saying she was posing “a question to you that I think our viewers won’t like — I’m not sure you will like.” But the question wasn’t about the actual episode; it was about what happened in a subsequent meeting between the president and Walorski’s grieving family. Her question was this:  The president‚ on Friday‚ signed a bill to honor the late Republican Congresswoman Jackie Walorski‚ Republican from Indiana‚ in a private ceremony with her family and with Kevin McCarthy....I don`t know if you were in the room‚ but to be a fly on the wall is something I would wish for‚ if I had the genie wish. Can you take us inside that conversation with the family? Wemple added: "After Klain gave an unspectacular answer‚ Wallace said‚ 'We’ll leave it at that. Enough has been made of that story.' Viewers were entitled to wonder what she was talking about." The article closed with Jen Psaki shaming reporters on Meet the Press for covering Biden's acuity more than Trump's wild remarks about under-paying NATO countries. Wemple summed up: "Trump‚ who has his own record of lapses‚ inevitably makes critical coverage of his rivals look like small potatoes. But fierce and disinterested coverage of the president — whatever its timing and circumstances — is one norm we can’t let Trump ruin." Sadly‚ the recent Dylan Byers report at Puck demonstrated that the norm among White House reporters was to disregard their own observations about Biden's failings because the subject was "indelicate." That "memory hole" was much bigger than just MSNBC.

Interesting. Over there at Newsmax (where‚ full disclosure‚ I am a contributor) is this interesting headline:  Rep. Banks Warns Ad Agencies: No More NewsGuard for Recruitment The story reports: Rep. Jim Banks‚ R-Ind.‚ said woke Pentagon policies — including the use of left-wing media monitors — have been choking military recruitment and he wants them stopped. Last week Banks sent letters to the CEOs of top advertising agencies warning them that using far-left ratings groups like NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index are a violation of federal law — and that he planned on holding hearings on the impact these groups have had on recruitment. ‘NewsGuard‚ as we already know‚ is a left-wing think tank and we know that they censor conservative outlets like your own‚’ Banks said Wednesday on Newsmax's 'Newsline.' Taking a look at one of the letters Banks has sent‚ (co-signed by Reps. Mike Waltz (FL)‚ Elise Stefanik (NY) and Jack Bergman (MI) ) there is this one to the Austin-based GSD&;M ad agency. It opens by saying this: As you likely know‚ the United States military is facing the worst recruiting crisis in the 50 years of the all-volunteer force. After detailing the specifics of that crisis‚ Banks goes on to say this‚ bold print for emphasis supplied: As the primary advertising agency for the United States Air Force‚ your firm should face significant scrutiny regarding its role in the recruiting crisis. United States taxpayers have entrusted GSD&;M with $741 million over 10 years to make the United States Air Force an attractive career choice for young Americans. The House Committee on Armed Services (HASC) has a significant interest in how you spent those resources and your agency’s failure to appeal to new recruits.  …The extent to which the DoD and its contractors have prioritized social justice and political correctness over national security‚ readiness and lethality will be a major focus of this investigation.  Section 1555 of the Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (FY24 NDAA) requires that any entity placing advertisements on behalf of the Department of Defense certify that the entity does not place advertisements in news sources based on personal or institutional political preferences or biases‚ or determinations of misinformation. This provision responds to concerns that advertising blacklists are effectively created by groups like NewsGuard Technologies and the Global Disinformation Index by providing advertising firms with lists which rank or rate media by subjective and often political criteria which‚ in turn‚ artificially limit military recruitment advertisements’ reach. These organizations’ well-documented bias means that such blacklists exclude media outlets read or viewed by those most likely to be interested in military service. Also‚ it is important to note that Section 1555 prevents the Department of Defense recruitment from contracting with any advertising agency that utilizes such blacklisting services‚ not just for military recruitment purposes. Banks and his colleagues then pose a series of questions focused on the idea that the use by ad agencies of the far-left NewsGuard Technologies and the Global Disinformation Index is itself discouraging recruitment.  Banks begins by asking: Does GSD&;M use NewsGuard and‚ if so‚ when did it start using it?  Were any of these ads placed with NewsGuard paid for by the Defense Department? And if so‚ will the ad agency stop doing this?  The last two questions are these:  “The United States taxpayer expects that military recruitment advertisements will be shown to the broadest possible audience of potential recruits. Do you agree that the use of NewsGuard‚ the Global Disinformation Index‚ or a similar company or service violates your fiduciary duty to the Department of Defense and the United States taxpayer? Why or why not?” “Please provide the committee with the name of the media outlet and the total amount of the advertising buy for all ad placements in excess of $5‚000.” Banks and his colleagues close by saying this:  Because hearings are likely on this matter‚ we are asking you to preserve all records‚ documents‚ communications your firm has had with NewsGuard‚ GDI or other groups who have engaged in censorship using ratings‚ content-based rankings‚ fact-checking services or act as ‘misinformation’ monitors. Well now. What we have here is typical of the way the federal bureaucracy works. Way below the visibility line‚ some lefty bureaucrat buried deep inside sends taxpayer funds to promote X lefty cause of the moment. In this case the subject is the media and the real world effect of using a left-leaning media company - NewsGuard in this case- to promote lefty cause X. That cause here being putting some sort of brake on US military recruitment. Recall back there in 2021‚ NewsBusters own Joseph Vazquez headlined this:  STUDY: NewsGuard Ratings System Heavily Skews in Favor of Left-Wing Outlets Joe reported this‚ bold print for emphasis supplied:  A new analysis reveals the extraordinary left-wing bias of website ratings firm NewsGuard‚ which should concern every American given that it is expanding its reach into cable and broadcast TV news. Liberal outlets were rated 27 points higher on average than news organizations on the right.  MRC Free Speech America analyzed the NewsGuard ratings of media outlets based on a list compiled by AllSides classified by their “bias” on a left-to-right scale. The average NewsGuard score for the “left” and “lean left” outlets — which included leftist outlets like Jacobin and The Nation — was 93/100. While the average rating for “right” and “lean right” outlets — which included Fox News‚ Washington Times and New York Post — was a low 66/100. That’s a 27 point disparity. According to NewsGuard’s skewed ratings‚ left-leaning outlets have substantially more “credibility” on average than right-leaning outlets. Bearing that in mind‚ the fact that this lefty outfit is charged by Congressman Banks with injecting “woke Pentagon policies — including the use of left-wing media monitors” into military recruitment drives? And that as a result this has “been choking military recruitment”? Hmmm. This letter from Congressman Banks and his colleagues  is a serious look at just how‚ in the high-tech world that is the 21st century‚ left-leaning media can have a serious impact on‚ in this case‚ the very basic instrument of advertising for a strong‚ fully recruited‚ American military. With no one taking notice. These four Members of Congress - again they would be Reps. Banks‚ Waltz‚ Bergman‚ and Stefanik - should be applauded for stepping up and taking action. The liberal media response that may be coming be damned. Good for them.

Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965 to end racial discrimination in voting primarily in the South. Among other things‚ the law ended the use of literacy tests to exclude people from voting‚ imposed “preclearance” requirements for new voting rules in certain states‚ and required ballots and election information to be printed in languages other than English. The VRA is credited with vastly expanding black voter registration and participation‚ particularly in the South. The law was originally designed to sunset after five years but went through a series of extensions and amendments over the decades. The law also contains language that protects voters from intimidation‚ threats‚ and coercion while voting or aiding others to vote. These intimidation provisions are now being used as a weapon to fight against election integrity. Allow me to explain. Until Congress‚ a federal court‚ or the U.S. Supreme Court reins in this judicial overreach‚ you can bet more lawsuits like the one in Georgia are coming. The intimidation provision of the Voting Rights Act is commonly known as “Section 11(b)‚” which provides: No person‚ whether acting under color of law or otherwise‚ shall intimidate‚ threaten‚ or coerce‚ or attempt to intimidate‚ threaten‚ or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote‚ or intimidate‚ threaten‚ or coerce‚ or attempt to intimidate‚ threaten‚ or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote‚ or intimidate‚ threaten‚ or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under [other sections of the law]. A plain reading of the law probably would not alarm the average person concerned with election integrity. After all‚ no one should be allowed to intimidate‚ threaten‚ or coerce voters‚ should they? The problem lies in the way leftists and activist courts interpret “intimidate‚ threaten‚ or coerce.” Intimidate‚ threaten‚ and coerce originally had the meaning one might expect‚ involving actual threats of physical violence often employed by the Ku Klux Klan. Federal courts‚ however‚ are beginning to take a more expansive view of what constitutes intimidation‚ threats‚ and coercion. In recent years‚ federal courts ruled that one may “intimidate‚ threaten‚ or coerce” a voter under Section 11(b) using words alone‚ without any threat of physical harm at all. In fact‚ the use of Section 11(b) gets worse. In litigation arising out of the January 2021 U.S. Senate runoff elections in Georgia‚ leftist activists used Section 11(b) to sue election integrity groups and individuals for using available procedures under state law to challenge voter registrations believed to be unlawful. The activists claimed the use of state law‚ and public statements made by the election integrity activists‚ constituted “intimidation‚ threats‚ or coercion.” Here’s what happened. After the 2020 presidential election‚ evidence came to light that a provision of Georgia law requiring voters to vote in the county where they reside may have been violated by thousands of voters‚ in excess of Joe Biden’s 11‚000-vote margin of “victory.” Election integrity groups and activists took action‚ using the procedures provided by Georgia law‚ to challenge some of these voters before the runoff. The suit involved claims made by Fair Fight‚ a leftist public advocacy group founded by Stacey Abrams‚ against a number of parties‚ including True the Vote‚ the election integrity group headed by Catherine Engelbrecht. The Fair Fight plaintiffs claimed‚ “Any mass challenge of voters near an election (especially if negligently or recklessly made) constitutes intimidation‚” as the court described. While the court disagreed with Fair Fight‚ it did so because the Georgia law in question left it up to the county board of elections to pursue or not pursue any of the challenges. In the words of the court‚ the board “intermediary” “breaks the chain of causation for purposes of establishing liability for voter intimidation.” The court also determined the public statements and social media posts made by True the Vote and other defendants did not rise to the level of intimidation. Nevertheless‚ while these election integrity activists successfully defended this suit and prevailed at trial‚ they were forced to endure two years of litigation‚ including extensive discovery‚ motion practice‚ and a trial on the merits — all because they relied upon the procedures provided by Georgia law in an effort to ensure ineligible voters did not vote and because they made public statements in support of those efforts. Anyone using lawful state procedures to challenge voters and voter registration and exercising their First Amendment rights in the process should not be subject to being sued under the Voting Rights Act. Until Congress‚ a federal court‚ or the U.S. Supreme Court reins in this judicial overreach‚ you can bet more lawsuits like the one in Georgia are coming. People fighting for election integrity need to get familiar with the Voting Rights Act‚ retain competent legal counsel‚ and ensure their every effort is beyond question. The fight for election integrity is one worth waging‚ but rest assured the left will fight tooth and nail. The left discovered Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act may be an effective weapon. Americans fighting for the integrity of our elections better be prepared to defend against it.

A proposed public charter school in Brooklyn‚ New York‚ aims to provide a "genderful‚" "affirming" learning environment where young children are encouraged to "explore their gender‚" the New York Post reported Thursday.The Miss Mayor Middle‚ a proposed‚ tuition-free public charter school‚ has recently sparked backlash for attempting to create an educational institution that would "prioritize total inclusivity by ensuring that policies and resources are designed with and for trans‚ gender-nonconforming‚ queer and ally students and families."Children as young as nine years old‚ in grades five through nine‚ would be encouraged to "explore their gender‚ embrace their own identity‚ and decide how they will authentically walk through the world.""MMM empowers all students to learn and achieve individual success within an academically rich‚ joyful‚ inclusive and genderful environment‚" the school's website states.According to MMM‚ the term "genderful" means its facility aims to "create a brave space as we work towards physical and emotional safety for all students.""We imagine the possibility of gender not as a force that restricts us‚ but as an embodied experience that is inherently joyful‚" the website notes.A video on its website features some faculty members and children explaining what "genderful" means to them.Candace Hurley‚ one of the school's board of directors‚ states‚ "Genderful is a word that is open and tolerant. And it means‚ simply‚ to show up as you are. There is no expectation. There is no one-size-fits-all. It is an allowance to be."One child in the school's video says the term encompasses "the full spectrum.""Joy‚ liberation‚ and expansiveness of possibility‚" remarked Jill Glassbrook‚ one of the school's lead educators.Chris Means‚ another lead educator for the proposed campus‚ said‚ "It's a word that just says‚ 'Inclusive.' It includes everyone and that's what's important."The proposed school lists five "major values‚" including "major work‚" "major joy‚" "major pride‚" "major love‚" and "major light."The founder of MMM‚ Joji Florence‚ recently published an article on Chalkbeat explaining the inspiration behind the school's concept. Florence is a "proud nonbinary parent" with three children."I started thinking about the possibility of Miss Major Middle several years back‚ when an eighth grade student of mine bravely came out as non-binary. I noticed that other teachers and administrators were asking the student directly what non-binary meant and what they/them pronouns were. The onus of teaching these adults about their gender identity fell‚ unfairly‚ to the child‚" Florence explained."More of our children want to explore‚ learn about‚ challenge‚ change‚ or move inside and outside the bounds of masculinity and femininity‚" Florence continued. "Many kids seem to get that with increased access to an evolving gender spectrum‚ more people can experience more joy. In the trans community‚ I've heard this idea described as 'genderful.'"According to Maud Maron‚ a parents' rights activist and community education council member in New York City‚ the school "rewards and encourages gender dysphoria.""It's horrifying. No charter school that's aimed at gender ideology indoctrination should ever be approved for children this young‚" Maron told the Post.Helen Qiu‚ a New York City mom running for the 65th State Assembly District in lower Manhattan‚ said she was "shocked" when she learned about the proposed school‚ the news outlet reported."There's a push in schools to normalize the transgender movement‚ to make it younger and younger in age‚ and to exclude parents from knowing about their children's transgender inclination. These three things combined equals child abuse‚" Qiu said. "We need to elect people to oppose it."An evolutionary biologist and Manhattan Institute fellow‚ Colin Wright‚ told the Post that MMM is a "sinister" trap for parents and children."If you're a parent who doesn't know much about gender ideology and you hear that a kid can be themselves‚ not judged‚ it looks so progressive and fantastic. It sounds really good‚" he commented. "These parents probably think the school is about just being yourself‚ free to be you and me‚ but it's absolutely not what's happening. They're saying you can't just be an effeminate boy and masculine girl. It's saying‚ 'If you're an effeminate boy‚ you're actually a girl.'"MMM is one of many applicants vying for charter status in New York City starting in 2025. Nine charter schools will be selected in June.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A Jewish artist and his band were unable to perform two events this week after some staff members at the hosting venues reportedly refused to work them.Matthew Paul Miller‚ better known to fans as Matisyahu‚ was scheduled to perform at Meow Wolf in Santa Fe‚ New Mexico‚ on Wednesday‚ followed by a show at the Rialto Theater in Tucson‚ Arizona‚ on Thursday. However‚ both shows were canceled at the last minute‚ and some leftist and anti-Israel groups quickly took credit for at least one cancellation‚ prompting speculation that the cancellations were motivated by anti-Semitism.Matisyahu certainly sees things that way. On Thursday‚ he wrote a lengthy Instagram statement‚ claiming that "the staff at these venues refused to come to work ... because they are either anti-Semitic or have confused their empathy for the Palestinian people with hatred for someone like me."In the statement‚ Matisyahu even claimed that he had offered to pay for supplementary staff members out of pocket‚ "but to no avail." "It is truly a sad day when dialogue with those you disagree with is abandoned for hate mongering and silencing artistic expression‚" it added. See on Instagram As accusations of anti-Semitism began to swirl‚ Cathy Rivers‚ the executive director of the Rialto‚ issued a statement flatly denying that the abrupt cancellation had anything to do with "politics or religion." "This decision was made based on safety. The temperature of the day changed‚ and the tone was not set by us‚" she wrote in part.According to Rivers‚ Matisyahu still received "full" payment for the canceled show‚ and all ticketholders qualify for a refund. "We have hosted Matisyahu at our theater many times but today was not the day to have him play‚" she said.Yet‚ a statement from a coalition of "local union and pro-Palestinian activists" indicates that anti-Israeli sentiment may be at least partly responsible for the cancellation in Santa Fe. The coalition claimed its members "inundated Meow Wolf with calls and social media posts‚" demanding the venue cancel the Matisyahu event‚ as did "Meow Wolf Workers Collective members and leadership."The coalition says it takes issue with the 44-year-old singer's support for "the genocidal campaign against Palestinians in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories‚" as well as one of his previous social media posts‚ which stated‚ "Your pronouns will not prevent Jihadists from breaking into your home." The group characterized Matisyahu's statements as "Islamophobic and transphobic."Meow Wolf has apparently not responded to the Washington Examiner's request for comment‚ so the reach of the coalition's influence in this matter is difficult to determine. However‚ the Examiner did note that Julie Heinrich‚ wife of Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)‚ is the chief impact officer at Meow Wolf‚ responsible for "social impact &; sustainability‚ government affairs‚ community &; stakeholder engagement‚ employee volunteerism‚ and our nonprofit Meow Wolf Foundation‚" according to her LinkedIn profile."We want to strengthen the art and culture ecosystems in our communities‚ especially among community-based organizations that are serving those who typically don’t have access‚ using art and creativity in innovative ways‚" Mrs. Heinrich said last November in connection with an announcement from the private Meow Wolf foundation.The Examiner likewise suggested that Mrs. Heinrich's connection with accusations of anti-Semitism at the venue may pose problems for her husband‚ who recently called to once again fund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency‚ believed to have ties to Hamas and the October 7 attack against Israelis. Last month‚ Sen. Heinrich also joined 11 of his Senate colleagues in calling for the State Department to investigate Israel for possible war crimes.The Examiner reached out to Mrs. Heinrich for comment.Matisyahu has enjoyed a lengthy career thanks to his unique fusion of reggae and rap. He is best known for hits like "King Without a Crown" and "One Day."He also harbors some left-leaning views. Not only did he declare in his statement that he has "empathy for both Israelis and Palestinians‚" but he also claimed that Americans live on "colonized land" and that the U.S. perpetrated "an actual genocide of Native Americans."He also supposedly held an event at another Tucson location on Thursday after the Rialto backed out. Though technically "free‚" the event was orchestrated to collect donations for Israeli hostages. Whether that event went on as scheduled is unclear.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

For Americans expecting a 2024 tax refund similar to last year's check‚ the Internal Revenue Service is pouring ice-cold water on that prospect. The IRS warned Americans that they may have to expect significantly smaller tax refund checks in 2024 compared to last year‚ according to early data published by the government bureau responsible for assessing and collecting taxes. The IRS noted that the average tax refund was $1‚963 through Feb. 3‚ 2023. At the same period of time in 2024‚ the average refund totaled $1‚395‚ — a whopping decrease of 29% from last year. The IRS attempted to temper concerns over the worrying data. The agency believes that the average could increase as more returns are processed and stressed that all systems are "running well." "Because the 2023 filing season began on Jan. 23‚ the IRS had been receiving returns for 12 days by Feb. 3‚ 2023; compared to only 5 days for the 2024 filing season‚ which opened on Jan. 29. Considering the loss of 7 days in this comparison‚ filing season statistics below show a strong start to filing season 2024‚ with all systems running well‚" the Internal Revenue Service noted. Through Feb. 2‚ 2024‚ there have been a total of more than 2.6 million tax refunds worth $3.6 billion. Through Feb. 3‚ 2023‚ there were a total of nearly 8 million tax refunds worth nearly $15.7 billion. Fox Business reported‚ "Nearly three-quarters of filers received a tax refund in 2023‚ with an average payment worth about $3‚176‚ down about 3% from the previous year."However‚ Americans are still attempting to deal with painful inflation shrinking their wallets. According to Investopedia‚ inflation year-over-year rose 7% in 2021‚ 6.5% in 2022‚ and 3.4% in 2023.Ironically‚ debilitating inflation could actually benefit taxpayers. CBS MoneyWatch reported‚ "That's because the IRS adjusted many of its provisions in 2023 for inflation‚ pushing the standard deduction to a more generous level and raising its tax brackets by 7.1% — a historically large adjustment."Mark Steber‚ chief tax information officer at Jackson Hewitt‚ told the outlet‚ "Say your income didn't keep pace with inflation — you made the same as the prior year but didn't increase your income by that inflation rate of 7% or so — you could see a better refund. We are predicting a higher refund for those people‚ up to 10%."Steber added‚ "There's not a lot of good news for the low- and moderate-income people who didn't keep pace with inflation‚ and that's a lot of people. This is not some outlier group. Those people should see a little better situation on their taxes this year."Taxpayers will have until the April 15 deadline to submit their returns or request an extension.The IRS expects to receive over 128.7 million individual tax returns by this year’s deadline‚ which falls on a Monday.Like Blaze News? Circumvent the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The White House Correspondents' Association rebuked White House spokesman Ian Sams for attempting to dictate members' reporting on special counsel Robert Hur's report.On Wednesday‚ Sams sent a letter to the entire White House press corps accusing them of "misrepresenting" Hur's report and reporting its "striking inaccuracies." Sams called their actions a "mistake" and attempted to re-educate reporters about the "facts." — (@) Specifically‚ Sams took issue with numerous media outlets reporting exactly what Hur's report states‚ namely‚ "President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen." Sams contended that it's not true that Biden "willfully retained" classified documents because the evidence Hur uncovered showed that there could be explanations for the majority of the retained-classified documents. Instead‚ Sams told reporters that Hur should have written that he "found some evidence" of willful retention.But NBC News correspondent Kelly O'Donnell‚ president of the WHCA‚ fired back that Sams' letter and demands are "misdirected" because White House reporters will not regurgitate Biden's narrative to defend him."As a non-profit organization that advocates for its members in their efforts to cover the presidency‚ the WHCA does not‚ cannot and will not serve as a repository for the government’s views of what’s in the news‚" O'Donnell wrote in response.Explaining the WHCA will not control its members‚ O'Donnell then rebuked Sams for using the WHCA's communication channels to distribute his spin."It is inappropriate for the White House to utilize internal pool distribution channels‚ primarily for logistics and the rapid sharing of need- to-know information‚ to disseminate generalized critiques of news coverage. We will not distribute them going forward‚" she promised.Meanwhile‚ Hur's report has generated a bit of a reckoning among the White House press corps.Reporter Dylan Byers conducted a survey among the White House press corps this week and found that media members now believe their coverage of Biden has neglected to reflect his aging."Anyone who covers this White House knows he’s showing the signs of his age—he whispers‚ he shuffles‚ he misremembers‚" one reporter told Byers. "Anyone with an elderly parent knows what this is."Another reporter admitted‚ "The amount of time we spent talking about it versus the time we spent reporting on it was not the same. ... There should have been tougher‚ more scrutinizing coverage of his age earlier."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Over the course of the last year‚ I encountered two interesting questions/propositions on the subject of “the culture war.” While we use the term all the time‚ it is somewhat monolithic‚ used to describe the existential state of affairs when it comes to American politics‚ the direction of our culture‚ and other expressions of what is “American” in the context of what makes us who we are compared to the rest of the world. You might scoff or consider that I'm being hyperbolic when I suggest that the culture war is an existential crisis‚ but it certainly is. The practice of culture and traditions and establishing new ones will carry you forward no matter how dark things get. Which traditions that were born out of the frontier or early settlements‚ or even in the comforts of the prewar era‚ have been carried on today and haven’t been replaced altogether or become some kind of twisted facsimile? Immigration complicates it further. From Cinco de Mayo celebrations to movies about corporate products ranging from Air Jordans to Flamin' Hot Cheetos‚ we are a culture of consumers and little if anything else. This brings me to the two prompts that I encountered earlier last year: First‚ can you escape the culture war? Second‚ culture is perpetuated by practice. What culture are you practicing? Those aren’t bad questions to tackle. In fact‚ the first question is an easy one to answer: No‚ not really. Cultural conflict is escaped essentially by victory in the form of dominance of a cultural expression or group of practitioners (a people‚ nation‚ ethnos‚ etc.). But the victors still need to be vigilant against outside threats and/or rebellion against the culture that is now dominant. Victory and vigilance aren’t the closest you get to escape‚ however. Like all organic interactions in the food chain‚ survival doesn’t mean that you’ve totally escaped the laws of nature. Conflict will eventually continue. The second prompt‚ a question of cultural practice and expression‚ is a great one‚ in part because so much of what makes the American tradition or popular culture gives many on the right some pause‚ whether that’s due to the subversion of institutions like the “antiracist” (which is always code for “anti-white” these days) slogans in the end zones of NFL stadiums or the growth of brand/consumer identities either through parasocial relationships (e.g.‚ YouTubers like Dream) or identities (e.g.‚ K-Pop stans or “Swifties”). Culture wars can be won or lost in many ways‚ but the state of constant critique is something that hits at all ongoing political discourses on the right in general. Whether that’s talking about the Republican establishment or even about the dissident right‚ the claim that “we’re no [other guys] — I mean‚ just look at them!” isn’t always the sales pitch that works‚ especially when people are comfortable with the status quo‚ often leading to questions like this: Heritage Images / Contributor | Getty ImagesNote that if this is actually asked‚ you’re probably not talking to a serious person. The debate over a positive versus negative vision for society on the right is still one that needs to be addressed. Yes‚ a hundred different manifestos can be written on what you believe in or how things should be modeled for the future of society‚ from Charles Haywood’s “Foundationalism” to the concept of Christian nationalism proposed by Stephen Wolfe. Both men‚ despite their theses‚ are not just writing and raging against the progressive zeitgeist. They are also actively practicing and living up to their traditions. Members of the Old Glory Club and various chapters are not just writing on the club’s Substack or offering commentary on Pony Express Radio. If we wanted to be just another podcast‚ we wouldn’t have established a nonprofit or have chapters being developed across the country where men can meet together‚ serve their communities‚ and know that they aren’t alone in this current progressive malaise. A fundamental observation that many‚ even on the mainstream‚ non-online right‚ have made is that things are off track and something has to give. Whatever that breaking point may be‚ allies and potential allies will be looking for what seems to have the most robust sense of vitality. A constant population in critique doesn’t last long in the face of adversity‚ as critique by nature doesn’t build but instead deconstructs. We can acknowledge which traditions of our fathers will carry over‚ to pick up the pigskin ourselves and throw it around the field‚ and to forge new paths to success for ourselves and for fellow Americans. As we enter the throes of another presidential election cycle‚ with the economy teetering on the edge and people looking for answers‚ it is the practice of culture and traditions and establishing new ones that will carry you forward no matter how dark things get. Robust cultures survive by perpetuation‚ by reproduction‚ and by strong defense through gatekeeping and discernment. It is always better to be late than never to act. So whose culture will you practice — the one fed to you or the one whose torch you carry on from your forefathers? Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally on Substack.

District Attorney Fani Willis testified in defense of herself on Thursday in a misconduct hearing‚ and it doesn’t seem like it was the best decision. Willis took the stand to push back against an attempt to disqualify her from heading Georgia’s election interference case against former President Donald Trump. “I don’t know the last time I enjoyed a court case as much as the Fani Willis court case yesterday‚” Glenn Beck says‚ noting that Willis revealed a little too much about her alleged affair with one of her underlings. The man that Willis was having an affair with was Nathan Wade‚ a Trump prosecutor‚ who had apparently been cheating on his wife. The pair testified their relationship started after 2022‚ but evidence is showing that the relationship started earlier — and they lied. “Looks like there’s some ethics problems there‚” Glenn says before Stu Burguiere notes that it gets worse. The more assignments Wade was given‚ the more money he pocketed in cash from Willis and the more vacations they went on. “There’s no record of any of this happening because of course‚ it’s all cash‚” Burguiere says. “This series of events has never occurred between any two beings in American history. There’s never been a case ever in history where a man bought something on his business card for $8‚000 and then when he showed up for the vacation‚ his girlfriend paid him back $4‚000 in cash.” Willis’ real excuse was that no one has any idea what it’s like to be a black woman. “This was her excuse‚ by the way‚ Glenn‚” Stu says‚ laughing. To learn more‚ watch the clip below. Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling‚ thought-provoking analysis‚ and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos‚ subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America‚ defend the Constitution‚ and live the American dream.