'Fixing the mess': Retired Navy SEAL aims to flip Connecticut congressional district red



A retired U.S. Navy SEAL with more than 30 years of service announced Tuesday that he is running for Congress in Connecticut’s 5th District, seeking the Republican nomination.

Christopher Shea enters a competitive race against incumbent Democrat Rep. Jahana Hayes, who won re-election in 2024 with 53.4% of the vote. She squeaked through the 2022 general election by just 0.8%.

'This campaign is about restoring trust, normalcy, and accountability.'

“I’ve spent my entire adult life serving this country — overseas in uniform and here at home protecting our communities,” Shea said in a statement given to Blaze News. “That sense of duty doesn’t end at retirement. I’m running for Congress to put people over politics, restore common sense in Washington, and make sure families in Connecticut’s 5th District can get ahead again.”

In an ad to launch his campaign, Shea, founder of the nonprofit Hero to Hero and a North Haven firefighter, indicates he is dedicated to "protecting the vulnerable," "restoring hope," and "fixing the mess."

RELATED: 'Organized obstruction': Leaked alleged Signal chats show anti-ICE radicals tracking ICE agents, chasing vehicles

— (@)

Shea said his campaign will focus on economic growth, public safety, affordability for families, veterans’ issues, and protecting America.

“Connecticut’s 5th District is hardworking and grounded in common sense. Our current representative has chosen a different path — consistently siding with the most extreme voices in Washington and backing policies that drive up energy costs, undermine public safety, and leave working families like mine paying the price,” Shea said. “That’s exactly why we need new leadership. This campaign is about restoring trust, normalcy, and accountability. And most of all, it’s about service to the people of Connecticut’s 5th District. I’m ready for this mission, and I’m honored to stand up for the people of this district.”

RELATED: 'Warfighter' son of a popular Michigan sheriff is now gunning for Congress

Photo given to Blaze News. Used with permission.

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

Bernie Sanders, Chris Murphy To Headline ‘No Kings’ Rally With Activist Who Defended Hamas Attack, Cheered Trump Assassination Attempt

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) passionately defended the anti-Trump No Kings rally in Washington, D.C., this weekend against allegations that it will attract Hamas sympathizers and other far-left radicals. But one of the senators' fellow speakers has praised Hamas’s "resistance" against Israel, cheered the attempted assassination of President Trump, referred to conservative activist Charlie Kirk as a "bitch" after his assassination last month, and expressed her desire for "the West" to "fall."

The post Bernie Sanders, Chris Murphy To Headline ‘No Kings’ Rally With Activist Who Defended Hamas Attack, Cheered Trump Assassination Attempt appeared first on .

Jonathan Karl Blames Trump For Kimmel’s Suspension: All The Questions From ABC’s This Week

Remove the answers and leave just the questions, and Jonathan and Karl’s blatant anti-Trump tone is easy to spot.

'No b*** j** for you': State House silences Republican for reading smut Democrats fought to keep in elementary schools



The Democratic deputy speaker of the Connecticut House silenced a Republican colleague during debate over the state budget on Monday, thereby proving her point: Some of the content in the Constitution State's public schools is far too obscene to be read even before a crowd of adults.

While important, Republican state Rep. Anne Dauphinais' concerns about pornographic content in elementary school libraries would normally be irrelevant to a state budget.

However, in an apparent effort to limit public scrutiny, Democratic lawmakers Trojan-horsed legislation into the Connecticut budget that would greatly restrict concerned parents' ability to have sexually graphic content, LGBT propaganda, and other inappropriate materials removed from school libraries.

'Parents are going to really have to pay attention to their own school libraries.'

In addition to painting resident "school library media specialists" as the experts on what content American children should consume, the legislation:

  • prohibits the removal, exclusion, or censoring of any book on the basis that "a person with a vested interest finds such book offensive";
  • prohibits the removal of content or the cancellation of library programs on the basis of "the origin, background or viewpoints expressed" therein;
  • demands that library materials and programs be excluded only for "pedagogical purposes or for professionally accepted standards of collection maintenance practices";
  • bars challengers of offensive content from favoring or disfavoring "any group based on protected characteristics";
  • requires challengers to file their grievances with a school principal and provide their name, address, and telephone number;
  • requires a review committee, weighed heavy with educational personnel, including a librarian and a teacher, to make the determination; and
  • requires the offensive material to remain available in the school library until a final decision is made.

In the wake of the controversial budget's passage on party-line votes and Gov. Ned Lamont's (D) subsequent indication that he plans to sign it, Dauphinais told Blaze News that "if it should pass, parents are going to really have to pay attention to their own school libraries."

RELATED: Texas bans explicit content in schools — and Democrats are not happy

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D). Photographer: Bing Guan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Some of the books at issue made an appearance during a February press conference where Dauphinais, state Sen. Henri Martin, and other Connecticut Republicans underscored the need for greater parental control. Among the books cited for their sexually graphic content were "Let's Talk About It: The Teen's Guide to Sex, Relationships, and Being a Human (A Graphic Novel)" by Erika Moen and Matthew Nolan, and Cory Silverberg's "You Know, Sex: Bodies, Gender, Puberty and Other Things."

'Let's try to keep some decorum.'

During the budget debate in the state House, Dauphinais, the ranking member of the Children's Committee, provided a better sense of the kinds of obscenities to which state schools are exposing Connecticut children.

After warning onlookers with children to remove them, Dauphinais read an excerpt from Lauren Myracle's book "l8r, g8r," saying, "Have you ever given Logan a blow job? No blow job for you, missy? What about plain old sex?"

The material appeared to make some of Dauphinais' colleagues across the aisle uneasy, even though they were effectively fighting to protect kids' access to it.

Dauphinais, among the Republican lawmakers who stressed that parents should have a say in whether obscene content remains in school libraries, also read from the book, "Me and Early and the Dying Girl," quoting a character as saying, "'Are you gonna eat her p***y?' 'Yeah, Earl, I'm going to eat her p***y.'"

Democratic Deputy Speaker Juan Candelaria interrupted the conservative Republican, banging his gavel and saying, "Madam, I would ask that if we not try to use that type of language in the chamber. Let's try to keep some decorum."

Candelaria asked Dauphinais to refrain from uttering such words out of respect for children and for "others that might get offended."

Dauphinais, who previously suggested that an adult reading such books to kids outside of school would justifiably be accused of "grooming," responded to Candelaria, "This is in elementary school libraries, approved by the very individuals that are supposed to be the experts."

The CT Mirror reported that Democratic state Rep. Larry Butler expressed outrage — not with the fact that such books are in Connecticut school libraries but that Dauphinais read from them.

'It's a game and a gimmick to get what [Democrats] want in there.'

"I will tell you that in my 18 years here, I have never seen the demonstration of such vulgarity tonight, reaching the lowest level that I've ever seen in this chamber," said Butler. "When we're talking about books in libraries, that's one thing. You could just mention a book."

State House Majority Leader Jason Rojas said, "I think it just threw people off quite a bit to hear that kind of language being used on the floor."

RELATED: Parents fight evil in schools — and seek justice at the Supreme Court

Photo by OLIVER CONTRERAS/AFP via Getty Images

Republican state Sen. Rob Sampson told Blaze News, "If Democrats thought this policy was defensible, they wouldn’t have buried it in a 700-page budget. They're shielding graphic, sexually explicit content in school libraries — and they know parents wouldn't stand for it if they saw it in the light of day."

"The irony?" continued Sampson. "When my colleague read a passage from one of these books aloud, they ruled it out of order. If it's too obscene for the House floor, it's too obscene for a school. This isn't about banning books — it's about protecting kids."

"Democrats claim these books are fine for kids in schools, but too explicit for adults in the House Chamber," said Dauphinais. "They’re choosing pornography over parents — and then call us crazy for speaking out. I am appalled but not surprised."

When asked whether this is the end of the story now that the budget has passed, Sampson told Blaze News, "There's still a chance to strip this garbage out of the budget, but it'll take a spine from the governor and a spotlight from the press."

Dauphinais told Blaze News that there is presently uncertainty over whether Lamont can veto the legislation as it is not a budget item.

"It's a game and a gimmick to get what [Democrats] want in there," said the Republican. "The maneuver was putting it in a budget where it didn't belong."

"Because it doesn't have dollars attached to it, we're told that that's not something that he's able to veto," added Dauphinais.

To undo the legislation, a new bill may be needed.

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

In 7 States, Officials Claim To Request Voter ID But Allow Paperwork Loopholes

If someone lacks ID while voting in person... they must simply sign forms claiming to be the voter, and officials will let them cast a ballot.

Cities Offering ‘Sanctuary’ To Illegal Alien Rapists And Killers Deny It To Their Own Residents

Criminals ICE could remove are released from prison into the warm embrace of sanctuary jurisdictions to destroy the lives of more victims.

Appeals court blocks DOGE records-grab ordered by lower court



A federal appeals court on Wednesday blocked a lower court's order seeking records from the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency regarding its plans to significantly reduce the size of the federal government.

Earlier this month, United States District Judge Tanya Chutkan directed the DOGE to turn over the documents in response to a lawsuit filed by 14 Democratic-led states, headed by New Mexico. Additional plaintiffs included Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

'That should be the end of this ill-conceived challenge.'

The states' lawsuit claimed that the DOGE and Elon Musk violated the U.S. Constitution's Appointments Clause and separation of powers, arguing that Musk was not confirmed by the Senate. The states aimed to block the DOGE from accessing several government systems and terminating federal employees.

The complaint requested records from the department as part of the discovery process.

"Defendants argue that the 'inner workings of government' are immaterial to an Appointments Clause claim," Chutkan wrote in her decision. "The court is not convinced, but that is a legal issue appropriate for resolution after fulsome briefing. At this stage, it is sufficient that Plaintiffs' discovery requests intend to reveal the scope of DOGE's and Musk's authority."

She noted that the plaintiffs' requested materials "seek to identify DOGE personnel and the parameters of DOGE's and Musk's authority—a question central to Plaintiffs' claims."

Chutkan ordered the DOGE to produce recordings concerning "agencies, employees, legal agreements, or data management systems" pertaining to the states. The judge gave Musk and the DOGE until April 2 to comply.

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit temporarily blocked Chutkan's order, suggesting she first rule on the Trump administration's motion to dismiss before moving to discovery.

Chutkan canceled a Thursday status hearing following the appeals court's ruling.

The administration's motion to dismiss argued, "By the Complaint's own terms, the States agree that Elon Musk 'does not occupy an office of the United States'; they allege only that he wields 'de facto power.'"

"That should be the end of this ill-conceived challenge," it read. "The States' contrary view rests on conflating influence and authority."

The White House has insisted that Musk is not the head of the DOGE but a senior adviser to President Donald Trump.

Despite facing an onslaught of litigation, the DOGE has not slowed its cost-cutting efforts. On Wednesday, the DOGE applauded the Department of Labor for terminating $557 million in "America Last" grants, totaling $237 million in savings.

According to the department, the wasteful awards included $10 million for "gender equity in the Mexican workplace," over $12 million for "worker empowerment in South America," $5 million for "elevating women's participation in the workplace" in West Africa, more than $4 million for "assisting foreign migrant workers" in Malaysia, $3 million for "enhanc[ing] social security access and worker protections for internal migrant workers" in Bangladesh, another $3 million for "safe and inclusive work environments" in Lesotho, and $6.25 million for "improving respect for Worker's rights in agricultural supply chains" in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

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

20 Democrat AGs sue Trump's Education Department over 'massive' staff cuts



A coalition of attorneys general from 20 states and Washington, D.C., filed a lawsuit on Thursday against the Trump administration over its move to lay off nearly 50% of the Department of Education's workforce.

Earlier this week, the Education Department terminated over 1,300 employees. Education Secretary Linda McMahon called the action the "first step" in President Donald Trump's "mandate" to shut down the department.

'Elected with a mandate from the American public to return education authority to the states.'

"What we did today was to take the first step of eliminating what I think is bureaucratic bloat," McMahon stated.

In February, the Education Department fired 63 probationary workers. Another 600 staffers voluntarily quit as part of the Trump administration buyout offer.

Earlier this week, a DOE spokesperson stated that the layoffs were meant to cut the department's workforce "roughly in half," adding that 131 teams would be eliminated.

"We are focusing on eliminating full teams whose operations are either redundant or not necessary for the functioning of the department," the spokesperson said.

"We're going to have these folks roll over their responsibilities by Friday, March 21. They will then go on paid administrative leave until the reduction in force is complete," the DOE official continued. "They will be teleworking from tomorrow until March 21. Then all of that is being done for safety reasons to protect the 2,183 employees that are going to remain after the [reduction in force] is complete."

The states suing the administration, the department, and McMahon included New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii, California, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The Democratic attorneys general wrote in their lawsuit that the layoffs were "an effective dismantling of the Department." They argued that the Trump administration lacks the authority to eradicate the Education Department.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell stated, "Neither President Trump nor his secretary have the power to demolish a congressionally created department."

New York Attorney General Letitia James said, "This outrageous effort to leave students behind and deprive them of a quality education is reckless and illegal."

The complaint contended that the department is "essential."

"The dismantling of the Department will also result in the termination of afterschool programs," the lawsuit read. "Regardless of what alternative resources are put in the place of the Department of Education, the process of the Department's dismantling will create and has created chaos, disruption, uncertainty, delays and confusion for Plaintiff States and their residents."

Madi Biedermann, an Education Department spokesperson, declared that Trump was "elected with a mandate from the American public to return education authority to the states."

She noted that the layoffs were "strategic, internal-facing" and "will not directly impact students and families."

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