Blaze News investigates: ​Democrats attack parents and parental rights in Colorado



Democratic lawmakers in the Colorado Senate are poised to pass a controversial piece of legislation that would grossly undermine parental rights and compel speech.

House Bill 1312 would, specifically, classify "misgendering" and "deadnaming" as child abuse; define both perceived offenses as discriminatory acts under state law; force schools to honor students' "chosen names" for any reason; and prohibit educational institutions from enforcing sex-based dress codes.

Democrats in the state legislature not only invoked House Rule 16 to kill debate before passing HB 1312 in a party-line vote on April 6 but smeared parental rights organizations critical of the legislation as hate groups on par with the Ku Klux Klan, indicating they were undeserving of consultation by virtue of their opposition.

Leftist lawmakers' latest attack on parental rights in the Centennial State might have largely gone under the radar had they not also viciously attacked those parents who expressed concern. The rhetorical attack has, however, helped draw attention to the legislative attack.

Blaze News reached out to some of those parental groups that Democrats have smeared as hateful and apparently want to ignore as well as to other critics of the "unlawful" legislation.

It appears that what leftists regard as "hatred" is actually an admixture of Americans' fidelity to the U.S. Constitution and their concern over further encroachments on parental rights.

As for the legislation, critics made clear that it will be challenged in the courts if ratified — although Focus on the Family culture and policy analyst Jeff Johnson indicated there was hope yet as of Thursday that the bill could die before reaching Democratic Gov. Jared Polis' desk.

Hatred, redefined

When Republican state Rep. Jarvis Caldwell raised the matter last week of whether non-LGBT parent groups were consulted ahead of the bill's passage in the state House, Rep. Yara Zokaie stated, "A well-stakeholdered bill does not need to be discussed with hate groups," adding, "We don't ask someone passing civil rights legislation to go ask the KKK their opinion."

'Colorado parents should be concerned.'

State Rep. Javier Mabrey later noted, "There's no reason to go to the table with people who are echoing the hateful rhetoric going around about the trans community."

Caldwell told Blaze News in a statement that "equating caring and concerned parents to 'hate groups' and the KKK is typical Democrat propaganda."

"Colorado parents should be concerned," continued Caldwell. "It's not hateful to be outraged by their agenda. We have crossed the Rubicon for parental rights in this state."

Blaze News reached out to Zokaie and Mabrey as well to Colorado House Speaker Julie McCluskie (D), the office of Gov. Jared Polis (D), and the Colorado House Democratic Caucus about the Democratic smear of parents across the state. They did not respond by deadline.

The El Paso County chapter of Moms for Liberty is among the groups critical of the legislation that were not consulted and then smeared as hateful by the Democratic lawmakers.

Chapter chair Kristy Davis clarified to Blaze News that Moms for Liberty's opposition to HB 1312 isn't rooted in hatred but rather in the U.S. Constitution. After all, the Democratic bill "infringes on parental rights and compels speech."

"Our advocacy for parental rights is rooted in the U.S. Constitution and should never be labeled as 'hate,'" wrote Davis. "We strive to ensure that all parents' rights are protected, and we oppose HB25-1312, which seeks to use legislation to separate parents from their children."

"Sections 2 and 3 [of HB 1312] represent government overreach by mandating the judicial system to apply transgender ideology in custody cases, while Sections 4, 5, and 6 force policies that limit parental authority over their children's names and gender expression," wrote Davis. "This legislation appears to be anti-family, pushing an agenda that appeals to only a fraction of Colorado taxpayers. It is harmful to both parents and children, creating unnecessary stress, fear, and separation and negatively impacting their mental health."

Davis, who has faced apparent threats online in recent months, noted that "parents have every right to be concerned about policies that affect their children's well-being and their ability to make decisions for their families."

'We hate that children are getting sterilized and mutilated.'

Corey DeAngelis, senior fellow at the American Culture Project and executive director at the Educational Freedom Institute, told Blaze News that Zokaie "let the mask slip."

"She detests parents who disagree with her so much that she doubled down on comparing them to the KKK," said DeAngelis. "Colorado Democrats are control freaks trying to force their insane ideology onto the rest of society. Colorado Democrats want to punish parents who don't accept the delusions of a small child."

"They're stomping on the rights of parents and hoping no one notices," added DeAngelis.

Alvin Lui is the president of the parental rights advocacy group Courage Is a Habit — a group that has furnished some parents in the state and elsewhere with tools to tackle gender ideology and has, along with Moms for Liberty and Parents Defending Education, been designated an "extremist group" by the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center. Lui told Blaze News that his group has neutralized the "hate group" label in part by adopting it.

"I say, 'Absolutely we are a hate group. 100%. We hate what's happening to children. We hate the people that pass transgender trafficking bills, which is what this HB 1312 is, essentially. We hate that children are getting sterilized and mutilated before they can even get their driver's license,'" said Lui. "'We hate everything that you stand for. We want to run you out of schools. We want to run you out of any political office.'"

'Colorado Democrats just told Virginia's Terry McAuliffe "hold my beer."'

Regardless of what parent groups do with Democrats' "hate" label, its use in the first place is telling.

"What these assertions reveal is a troubling disconnect between some Democrats and the real, everyday concerns of parents," said Davis. "It feels as though they're dismissing the legitimate worries of moms and dads who simply want to have a say in their children's well-being. Parents are the ones who know their children best, and when they speak up, they should be heard — not labeled as radicals or adversaries."

Battle lost, war undecided

"Colorado Democrats just told Virginia's Terry McAuliffe 'hold my beer,'" DeAngelis told Blaze News. "Mr. McAuliffe, a Democrat, lost his race for governor after revealing he didn't want parents to have a say in their children's education."

McAuliffe was governor of Virginia from 2014 until 2018. He ran again for governor in 2021. Whereas his opponent, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R), championed parental rights — particularly parents' prime authority over their children's education — the former Democratic governor signaled a desire for a difference balance of power.

During a gubernatorial debate in September 2021, McAuliffe stated, "I'm not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decision."

At the time, the battle over critical race theory and LGBT propaganda in the classroom was a hot-button issue for Virginia parents.

"I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach," added McAuliffe.

Youngkin handily beat the critic of parental authority and remains governor of the state.

With McAuliffe's defeat in mind, DeAngelis told Blaze News, "Colorado Republicans should follow Glenn Youngkin's playbook and capitalize on this issue. They need to fight back to rescue parents from socialist takeover."

Numerous Republican lawmakers in the state Senate — where they are outnumbered 23-12 — have indicated they will oppose the legislation, which as of April 9 had not been assigned to a committee.

In a statement shared with Blaze News, Colorado Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen (R) noted that "HB25-1312 undermines one of the most sacred and time-honored principles of our society: the right of parents to raise their children in accordance with their values, beliefs, and faith."

"When government policies attempt to substitute the judgment of bureaucrats for that of parents, we risk eroding a foundational pillar of liberty and personal responsibility," added Lundeen.

'Colorado used to be very red.'

Lundeen insinuated that the legislation would not only undermine the "sacred right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children without unjust interference," but "pave the way for future intrusions into how families educate, discipline, or spiritually guide their children."

Lundeen vowed to "stand firmly" against the bill and comparable legislation.

While Republicans could, as DeAngelis suggested, capitalize on this issue, it will take time to gain ground in the state legislature.

Both Brittany Vessely, executive director of the Colorado Catholic Conference, and Jeff Johnson of Focus on the Family separately told Blaze News that Colorado's political capture by leftists was decades in the making, orchestrated in part by a cabal of billionaires who poured billions of dollars into the state to strategically flip local districts.

"Colorado used to be very red," Vessely told Blaze News. "It was more of a libertarian state — very rancher-dominated."

"But [entrepreneur] Tim Gill, Jared Polis, and a couple others poured money into the state and flipped these districts," said Johnson. "Once Democrats had control, they passed legislation that appealed to the left, to radicals."

The legalization of marijuana, the promise of other forms of social deregulation, and the state's general leftward shift apparently drew multitudes of radicals to the state, especially from California.

"So there's just been, in the last 10 years specifically, a huge move from Colorado being very red to purple for a while to now being dominated with majorities of progressive Democrats in both chambers and an LGBTQ progressive governor and very progressive courts," said Vessely. "So we have a trifecta in Colorado in the legislation where parental rights are being completely violated."

'HB 1312 is going to end up in litigation.'

The disconnect between leftist lawmakers and traditional Coloradans has been enough to drive majorities in numerous counties to vote either to break away and form their own state, "North Colorado," or to become part of Wyoming.

For the time being, they are stuck with lawmakers who are keen to undermine parental rights; to force them to fund abortion; to bar health benefit insurance plans from denying or limiting coverage for sex-change mutilations; and to keep up the lies about transvestites' sexes even after death.

From Polis' desk to the courts

Opponents of HB 1312 do not presently have sufficient time to change the state of play politically; hence the ongoing discussions of legal action.

Colorado state Rep. Brandi Bradley (R), for instance, vowed to sue and "keep suing" if the bill succeeds, stating, "I've birthed five children" and "will protect them to the Nth degree."

Brittany Vessely told Blaze News that "HB 1312 is going to end up in litigation because it directly impedes upon the religious freedom of conscience and expression for all Coloradans across the state but especially for the faith-based community."

Vessely explained that the public accommodation section of HB 1312 requiring compliance with gender ideology-based speech codes refers to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act — the law at issue in the case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis decided by the Supreme Court in 2023 — which was amended in 2021 to add the terms "gender expression" and "gender identity" to statutes prohibiting discrimination against members of a protected class.

While there is a religious exemption in the state anti-discrimination law, Vessely indicated it really protects only places like parishes and church halls — not diocesan offices, not Catholic schools, hospitals, homeless shelters, or cemeteries.

"These are areas where a lot of our Catholic ministries are going to be directly impacted by the effects of this bill," said Vessely, adding that Christian publications could similarly be impacted.

Jeff Johnson suggested to Blaze News that HB 1312 is clearly unconstitutional and fit for a challenge, adding that he has never seen a piece of legislation "try to do so many things at once."

"So you have the attack on parents' rights, which is unconstitutional," said Johnson. "The Supreme Court has said over and over again that parents have the right to raise their children — they're the ones in charge of their nurture and care and education — and this bill basically usurps that and says, 'No, it's abusive if a parent doesn't go along with the child's sexual identity confusion.'"

Johnson noted that while the bill presently targets court decisions in custody cases, once so-called "deadnaming and misgendering" have been "defined as abusive in this realm, it would be pretty easy for regulations to follow along saying, 'Hey, if you're not affirming your child's sexual identity confusion, that's abusive in any case. And [Child Protective Services] could step in and start taking children away."

In addition to standing on shaky ground because of the abuse classification, Johnson said that HB 1312 is vulnerable to legal challenges both because it tells the court to ignore other states' court mandates regarding parenting and because "it also coerces speech, requiring schools and businesses and employees to agree to the idea that a man can become a woman or a woman can become a man, and it forces people to use a person's 'chosen name' and pronouns rather than going by the biological sex."

'They're waking up to the agenda, and they're saying, "No."'

Courage Is a Habit's Lui suggested that besides legal challenges, Coloradans also have the choice of civil disobedience.

"They can arrest one or two people" for reality-affirming language, said Lui. "They're not going to arrest 1,000 people. They're not going to arrest 5,000 people for calling a man a man."

"It's not an easy answer once you get to this point," continued the parental rights advocate. "Once you make fear a habit, they keep pushing you until they've got you over a barrel. And that's why we always remind people: You got to make courage a habit."

Vesseley noted that while the pro-life cause is presently facing neglect, especially at the federal level, there is a "tremendous amount of momentum right now for the parents in those organizations that are fighting back against the LGBTQ narrative that's happening, especially in schools. We're seeing that across the nation."

Johnson suggested that Democrats have unwittingly awoken the sleeping giant by "trying to get every area of society in Colorado to comply with this agenda."

"I don't know if the pushback is from [the transgender agenda] or if it's the parental rights issue, but I think people are starting to wake up and say, 'A man can't become a woman, a boy can't become a girl, and vice versa.' They're waking up to the agenda, and they're saying, 'No, this is harmful to children and adults, and you can't force me to go along with this,'" said Johnson.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Texas Republican who tried to impeach Ken Paxton now trying to criminalize political memes



Texas state Rep. Dade Phelan (R), the at-times incomprehensible former state House speaker who led the unsuccessful impeachment effort against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, is pushing a bill that would criminalize the publication, distribution, or broadcast of certain political memes or altered media.

Critics have suggested that Phelan's House Bill 366 is unconstitutional, stressing that it would run afoul of the First Amendment.

Phelan's bill would require "political advertising that includes an image, audio recording, or video recording of an officeholder's or candidate's appearance, speech or conduct that did not occur in reality," including media manipulated with generative artificial intelligence, to include a disclosure accounting for the meme's creative deviations from reality.

Under the proposed law, the Texas Ethics Commission would determine what form that disclosure takes, including "the font, size, and color of the disclosure."

Failure to include a disclosure could land Texans in jail with a Class A misdemeanor charge.

Fort Worth attorney Tony McDonald, a specialist in First Amendment litigation, told Texas Scorecard, "It's amazing that this ridiculous bill is the top priority of the Texas House's most powerful committee. This bill is obviously unconstitutional. It would criminalize protected speech on the basis of its content."

'Tryin to bolster my outlaw cred.'

When presiding over a 14-hour state House session in 2023, Phelan appeared to slur his words and have difficulty identifying a colleague. This prompted Paxton and others to allege that he was "in an obviously intoxicated state," and to call for his resignation. Phelan dodged questions about the allegations. In the years since, criticism of Phelan has in some cases incorporated mockery of the incident.

Texas Scorecard suggested that the "Drunk Dade" call-ins to Michael Berry's talk radio show — consisting of an impression of a supposedly inebriated Phelan — might, for instance, qualify as verboten speech under House Bill 366.

Berry noted on Monday, "DrunkDade tryin to bolster my outlaw cred," suggesting that the parodies make Phelan "so mad he's tryin to make it illegal."

Phelan's inspiration to push the bill might instead be the so-called deepfake political advertisement that targeted him ahead of the Republican primary runoff election last year.

The Texas Tribune reported that the offending political mailer, which was paid for by the Club for Growth Action PAC, featured two photoshops: one that swapped House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) out of a photograph and instead depicted Phelan hugging Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.); and another falsely depicting Phelan giving a speech at a Texas House Democratic Caucus news conference.

The mailer stated, "Texas Republicans deserve better than Democrat puppet Dade Phelan!"

Under the proposed legislation, such doctored images would require disclosures "indicating that the image, audio recording, or video recording did not occur in reality."

Texas Scorecard indicated that Phelan did not respond to a request for comment.

The Texas Legislature's state affairs committee will hold a public hearing on the bill on Wednesday. In the meantime, critics are sharing memes and photoshops to social media of Phelan without disclosures, demonstrating what might qualify as criminal should he get his way.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Things are going to get weird': Alex Stein's free-speech case against Dallas Democrats goes to trial



BlazeTV host Alex Stein filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in 2022 against Dallas County Commissioner John Price (D), Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins (D), and a trio of county marshals after he was forcibly removed from a meeting of the Dallas County Commissioners Court.

Price had Stein kicked out for seeking clarification about troubling allegations regarding his Democratic compatriot, Jenkins, who was running for re-election at the time.

Stein accused the Democratic duo and the county by extension of violating his constitutional right to free speech as well as the court’s own rules and the Texas Open Meetings Act.

The case is headed to trial next week, which could have ramifications for free-speech rights and spell trouble for the defendants, one of whom is up for re-election next year.

"This case is not about me as an individual but about all of our rights to publicly criticize our politicians," Stein told Blaze News.

While Stein has a talent for getting under politicians' skin at all levels of government, his apparent bread and butter is confronting officials at local government meetings.

There have been a number of instances where the comedian has donned provocative costumes and engaged in a style of commentary that has discomfited officials and onlookers alike.

For instance, Stein approached the microphone at a January 2022 Dallas City Council meeting dressed in surgical scrubs and mockingly rapped about giving the novel COVID-19 vaccine to virtually everyone and everything, singing, "Vaccinate your mom, vaccinate your dad, vaccinate the happy, vaccinate the sad. Vaccinate your babies, vaccinate them, even if they got rabies. Vaccinate my life, vaccinate my wife."

Later that year, Stein addressed Plano City Council wearing a women's swimsuit and pink swim cap, comically highlighting the absurdity of gender ideologues' arguments in favor of men competing in women's sports.

'I'm just asking.'

Stein took a far more subdued approach when addressing the Dallas County Commissioners Court on May 17, 2022.

Dressed in a suit and tie, Stein — one of three members of the public permitted to speak at the livestreamed meeting —swapped out his customary theatrics for a straight read of an excerpt from a Sept. 23, 2014, article in D magazine about Clay Jenkins, which stated:

In college at Baylor, Jenkins continued to distinguish himself dubiously. He was arrested twice, once for reckless driving after he led Baylor security and Waco police on a car chase he’d planned and a second time for criminal trespassing in a women’s dorm during a panty raid. Strangely enough, he was never arrested for his role as the famous Baylor Pie Man, a hit man for a student-organized ring that offered to throw pies in people’s faces — professors, ex-boyfriends — for a fee.

Neither Price nor Jenkins, whose term ends in December 2026, responded to Blaze News' request for comment.

'You're finished! You’re finished!'

Before Stein could finish reading the excerpt, Price — who was acquitted on seven of 11 counts of criminal wrongdoing in a corruption trial in 2017 — angrily rapped his gavel and stated, "You're not allowed to admonish members of this court."

Price's interruption took place less than a minute into Stein's time. The previous speakers were allotted three uninterrupted minutes each.

"Yeah. I'm asking, I'm just asking," said Stein. "I would like to get some clarification."

When the BlazeTV host attempted to continue reading from the article, Price directed Dallas County marshals to drag Stein out of the court, noting, "You're not allowed to attack members of this court."

Before marshals Robert De Los Santos, Zack Masri, and Charles Johnson descended on him, Stein stressed that he was asking "a simple question." Prompted to articulate his query in full, the comedian said, "What was the panty raid about?"

"You're finished! You're finished!" responded Price, who suggested once again that Stein was attacking a member of the court. "Marshal, move him out. You're finished. You're finished."

The following month, Stein filed suit.

'The First Amendment was meant for exactly this.'

Stein's original complaint included a statement from then-Dallas County Commissioner Justin Koch claiming that Price was in the wrong when ejecting the comedian from the courtroom, reported the Dallas Express.

"Commissioner Price, I believe unlawfully, had Alex Stein removed. Alex Stein started to read about Judge Jenkins in an article about some of his past bad behavior," stated Koch, now chief judge of the Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals. "The statute that someone can be removed under is basically someone who is profane, slanderous, or boisterous."

Koch suggested further that if the D magazine article had indeed been defamatory, Jenkins would have sued the publication sometime in the previous eight years, which he had not bothered to do.

Stein's attorney Jonathan Gross noted around the time of the lawsuit's filing, "Politicians have to remember that they serve the public, not the other way around."

"Criticizing the government is the highest form of protected speech," continued Gross. "It's the right of Stein and every American."

Stein originally claimed that his forceful ejection from the meeting violated his First, Fifth, and 14th Amendment rights. However, in 2023, senior U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater, the judge presiding over Stein's case, granted the defendants' motions to dismiss Stein's claim that they violated his 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the laws.

When asked about the upcoming trial and the current state of play, Stein expressed hope that "this will be a smooth, open-and-shut trial," but told Blaze News that "things are going to get weird since [he and the defense] both have submitted a lot of my craziest speeches at government meetings."

"I think the defendants hope that the jury is made up of people who don't like me, and they will try and paint me as a bad person only doing this for clicks," said Stein. "They will probably argue that I was being disruptive or slanderous and not trying to participate in good faith, which is the farthest thing from the truth."

"The First Amendment was meant for exactly this — to protect our right to criticize our politicians," said Stein. "Limiting the First Amendment is a violation of the Constitution, and that's why this federal lawsuit is so important."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

DOD ‘Social Engineering’ Program Developed Bots Capable Of Psychological Warfare

The Department of Defense has allocated millions of dollars to create phony social media profiles the government could turn against Americans.

A Trump Executive Order Could End The Government-Censorship Complex

President Donald Trump signed an executive order to stop 'federal censorship,' striking a blow to the government-censorship complex.

Yet another SoCal HS teacher allegedly embroiled in anti-Trump controversy — this time it's over a student's MAGA clothing



Blaze News this week has reported on several high school teachers landing in hot water due to their outbursts following Donald Trump's lopsided presidential election win over Kamala Harris.

Two of the teachers are from Southern California schools — and both were placed on administrative leave over their actions the day after the election. One is an English teacher from Chino High School who freaked out in class over a student wearing a Trump hat; the other is an Advanced Placement world history teacher from Valley View High School in Moreno Valley who went on a profane rant in class against Trump.

'If the [teacher] is exercising a First Amendment right, they risk losing their job. It's pretty straightforward.'

Now it looks like there may be a third Southern California high school teacher making the list.

Citing a parent, KABC-TV reported that a teacher departed from class at Cerritos High School last week because a student was wearing "Make America Great Again" attire.

"It was just a student wearing a shirt, probably for some jokes," fellow student Sakura Padilla told the station.

But KABC said the teacher apparently wasn't in a laughing mood and allegedly posted a long note to her students saying it's unfair that they can wear political clothing while teachers cannot.

The school district noted that it's investigating the teacher's actions, but according to the station, it isn't clear whether the teacher has returned.

The district added to KABC that students can exercise free speech within the parameters of school board and state Education Code policies.

"It's different with teachers because the teachers are the ones who are there to do a job," attorney Michael Overing — who teaches First Amendment rights at the University of Southern California — told the station.

Courts have ruled that students have more free speech leeway because they're required to attend school — but Overing noted to WABC that teachers choose to work at schools and are subject to district rules.

"If the [teacher] is exercising a First Amendment right, they risk losing their job," Overing added to the station. "It's pretty straightforward."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Elon Musk to give away $1M daily to swing state voters — and Gov. Shapiro thinks law enforcement should investigate



Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) called for law enforcement officials to look into Elon Musk's America PAC, which has vowed to give $1 million per day away at random to swing state voters who sign its petition.

During a Sunday interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Shapiro questioned the legality of Musk's giveaway.

'It does raise some serious questions.'

Host Kristen Welker asked Shapiro, "Elon Musk says he will be giving away a million dollars every day to random voters who sign his super PAC's petition. You are a former attorney general — is this legal?"

Shapiro responded, "I think there are real questions with how he is spending money in this race, how the dark money is flowing not just into Pennsylvania, but apparently now into the pockets of Pennsylvanians. That is deeply concerning."

According to Federal Elections Commission filings, Musk is the sole donor of the America PAC, despite Shapiro's claims it is comprised of "dark money." Between July and September, Musk provided roughly $75 million in contributions, Fox News Digital reported.

Shapiro continued, "Look, Musk obviously has a right to be able to express his views. He's made it very, very clear that he supports Donald Trump. Obviously, we have a difference of opinion. I don't deny him that right, but when you start flowing this kind of money into politics, I think it raises serious questions that folks may want to take a look at."

Welker pressed Shapiro once more about whether he believed the giveaway was legal.

"I think it's something that law enforcement can take a look at," Shapiro declared. "I'm not the attorney general anymore of Pennsylvania; I'm the governor. But it does raise some serious questions."

In a post on X, Musk responded to Shapiro's comments, writing, "Concerning that he would say such a thing."

Musk's America PAC vowed to give away $1 million each day leading up to Election Day. Winners, two of whom have already been announced, will be chosen at random. To be eligible, individuals must be registered to vote in a swing state — including Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, or North Carolina — and sign a petition pledging support for the First and Second Amendments.

Signers can also receive $47 for each registered voter they refer to sign the petition.

"Sign our petition to support the Constitution of the United States!" Musk wrote on X.

Musk stated during a town hall event that getting the word out about the petition was challenging because the "legacy media won't report it."

"How do we get people to know about it? Well, this news, I think, is gonna really fly," he said, referring to the cash giveaway announcement.

In July, Musk declared his endorsement of former President Donald Trump. The Republican presidential nominee stated that if he secures the upcoming election, Musk will be appointed as the "Secretary of Cost-Cutting" to slash government waste, Blaze News previously reported.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Babylon Bee battles Newsom's chilling anti-speech law to protect humor and satire



The satirical website the Babylon Bee has had enough. Claiming that California's recent laws on online speech have gone too far, those at the Bee have filed a motion against California’s Attorney General Robert Bonta, urging the courts to immediately halt enforcement of what they see as unconstitutional restrictions. Several new laws, including AB 2355, AB 2655, and AB 2839, have been accused of eroding the First Amendment protections of free speech.

In fact, AB 2839 was recently deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge. Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California said the law "acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel" and "hinders humorous expression."

In an exclusive interview with Blaze News, Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom spoke about the ongoing battle on behalf of the Babylon Bee.

"California's laws are a roadmap for widespread censorship. They use vague standards to punish people for posting certain political memes online," Waggoner said. "If Americans can be sued for posting, or even reposting political jokes, then we do not live in a free society."

Perhaps the most egregious law is AB 2655, also known as the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024.

The bill's digest says the law prohibits any person or entity from distributing deceptive audio or visual media about a candidate for elected office within 60 days of the election. If the content intends to "injure the candidate’s reputation or to deceive a voter into voting for or against the candidate," it could be considered illegal.

The law also requires any "large online platform" to block deceptive content before and after an election.

'Individuals must be able to express political beliefs without fear.'

Under the California law, platforms are required to develop reporting procedures for California residents to flag any content that "has not been blocked or labeled in compliance with the act."

The laws "censor parody and satire," Waggoner continued. "When Governor Newsom signed the laws, he said publicly that [California] made it illegal to post a parody video about Kamala Harris. So even Governor Newsom thinks the laws ban satire," she claimed.

Waggoner went on to say that the same government officials can't seem to articulate to the public how far the laws will go. These acts would "kill humor," Waggoner said, adding that they could blur the lines between a democracy and a dictatorship.

Based on what were described as vague standards with steep penalties, the Babylon Bee is asking the government to stop the new laws before they get out of control.

"In a free society, individuals must be able to express political beliefs without fear of being dragged into court to defend a meme. And we shouldn't trust politicians like Gavin Newsom to be arbiters of political truth online," the attorney added.

Newsom's spokesperson, Izzy Gardon, said in a statement that the governor's office was "confident" courts would ultimately uphold the new law against "deepfakes."

"Deepfakes threaten the integrity of our elections, and these new laws protect our democracy while preserving free speech," the spokesperson said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

John Kerry frustrated that First Amendment protects what the World Economic Forum regards as 'disinformation'



Hillary Clinton is apparently not the only failed Democratic presidential candidate presently frustrated over the political establishment's waning narrative control.

Former Biden-Harris climate czar John Kerry noted during a World Economic Forum panel discussion on trade and so-called sustainability last week that the First Amendment remains an obstacle to being able to properly clamp down on so-called disinformation.

According to the WEF's "Global Risks Report 2024," the greatest threats facing humanity over the next two years are "misinformation and disinformation" and bad weather.

Early in the conversation about sustainability, Kerry — to whom President Joe Biden just months ago awarded the Medal of Freedom — bemoaned the loss of a "truth arbiter" in the U.S., noting that "there's no one who defines what the facts really are."

Having an authority equipped to decisively correct would-be climate heresiarchs would apparently help expedite elites' planned transition away from relatively cheap, stable, and reliable fossil fuels.

'If it wasn't for that pesky Constitution, these commies could just roll right over us.'

When responding to a question about "tackling climate misinformation," Kerry said, "Everybody's wrestling with that right now."

"I think the dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing and growing," said the former Obama secretary of state. "It's part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue. It's really hard to govern today."

"The referees we used to have to determine what's a fact and what isn't a fact have kind of been eviscerated, to a certain degree," continued Kerry, likely cognizant of the humiliation that regime-friendly fact-checkers have suffered in recent months. "And people go and self-select where they go for their news or for their information, and then you get into a vicious cycle."

Kerry told the other World Economic Forum panelists, "You know there's a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you're going to have some accountability on facts, et cetera. But, look, if people go to only one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda and they're putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence."

Kerry indicated that in the face of this constitutional obstacle, which Bill Gates recently intimated was only really a notional obstacle, "What we need is to ... win the ground, win the right to govern by hopefully winning enough votes that you're free to to be able to implement change."

Kerry characterized the 2024 election as an opportunity to "break the fever" and "bring ourselves back to a regular order."

The Biden-Harris administration has worked feverishly in recent years to control the flow of information and decide for Americans what qualifies as facts.

During the pandemic, for instance, the Democratic administration leaned on social media companies to suppress and sometimes outright censor Americans' free speech, even if the speech flagged by supposed arbiters of truth — such as those at the Stanford Internet Observatory — was accurate and possibly life-saving.

The desire among Democrats to implement arbiters of truth was not unique to the pandemic.

The Biden-Harris administration also established an outfit in 2022 for the purpose of "countering misinformation related to homeland security." The Department of Homeland Security's Disinformation Governance Board, which was derided by many as a federal "Ministry of Truth," was fortunately short-lived.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. responded to Kerry's comments, writing, "John Kerry is correct. The 1st Amendment DOES stand as a major roadblock to them right now."

Country music star John Rich said, "Yea, if it wasn't for that pesky Constitution, these commies could just roll right over us. Thank you Founding Fathers, for knowing someday we'd have tyrants like John Kerry to deal with."

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) wrote, "John Kerry and other elite democrats hate the Constitution. They see it as a road block to ruling over people. As a matter of fact, that is why it was written."

The arbiters of truth for whom the former secretary of state longs would likely have taken issue with Argentine President Javier Milei's speech to the UN General Assembly last week, in which he characterized the brand of climate goals and other globalist initiatives favored by Kerry as "nothing more than a super-national socialist government program that aims to solve the problems of modernity with solutions that undermine the sovereignty of nation-states and violate the right to life, liberty, and property of individuals."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!