Biden Engineered A Border Crisis To Secure Political Power
Agree to disagree? More like surrender to the script
Wouldn’t you know it? It was bound to happen.
You’re chatting with a friend about this, that, and the other thing — carefully steering clear of politics, just like always.
You both know you don't see eye to eye when it comes to today’s contentious political landscape, so you do your best to keep things light. But then, out of nowhere, the forbidden topic appears. It sneaks into the conversation, innocently enough — until suddenly, it’s front and center.
I knew my friend Jeffrey didn’t like Trump, so I always tried to avoid politics when we talked. But somehow, I found myself on the phone with him getting a lecture on “how bad Trump is for democracy.”
What happened?
All I did was mention a film I thought we both appreciate: “Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin.”
With people in general justifying the absolute obvious craziness of the far left by being silent and looking the other way, we can announce a brand-new term: ‘political immaturity.’
I genuinely believed it was a safe topic. We’re both Christians, both admirers of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his courageous stand against Hitler and the Nazis. We also share respect for Eric Metaxas, whose book on Bonhoeffer many consider the definitive biography and which inspired the film adaptation.
Plus, Jeffrey knows I was Metaxas’ radio producer for many years. So really, I thought we were on solid, non-controversial ground.
But Jeffrey immediately jumped in to point out that Bonhoeffer’s descendants don’t support Eric Metaxas — because Metaxas supports Trump. That, in his view, proved just how awful Trump is and, dare I say it, how Hitler-like. From there, it was only a short leap to his inevitable conclusion: Trump is bad for democracy.
I calmly responded that descendants of historical figures, while entitled to their opinions, are just as influenced by the culture of their time as anyone else. Then I added what I considered the most glaring problem with his argument: the United States isn’t a democracy — we’re a constitutional republic.
I suggested that, in many ways, democracy can be a lousy form of government. After all, it allows 51% of the people to impose their will on the other 49%, forcing them to live under rules they didn’t choose and might not benefit from. In my quick tutorial on democracy versus the American system, I didn’t even get into the brilliance of the framers’ creation of the Electoral College — a safeguard that gives individual states real power and influence.
To my surprise, Jeffrey actually agreed with me on that point. But then he pivoted, arguing that Trump was just doing whatever he wanted — like sending back all the “asylum-seekers” who crossed the border during Joe Biden’s presidency.
I asked him how he knew all 15 million migrants (give or take) were asylum-seekers. Who vetted them? And I reminded him that Trump had nearly been blocked from deporting even the worst of the worst — violent criminals — by an unelected judge from ... well, somewhere.
Then I said, “It’s hard to imagine the words ‘Christian’ and ‘Democrat’ even appearing in the same sentence these days.”
That didn’t go over well.
I listed just a few of the issues Democrats continue to support. I left out the wide-open borders — which my friend seemed fine with, even after I brought up the rise in sex trafficking, fentanyl deaths, and inner-city crime — and focused on other examples. I mentioned sex-change procedures for children, drag queen story hours in public libraries, and men competing in women’s sports.
That’s when Jeffrey cut me off.
“Of course I don’t agree with those things,” he said.
And then came the words every far-left friend says when he's on the brink of losing an argument to inconvenient facts: “Let’s just agree to disagree.”
End of discussion.
Since Jeffrey is a friend, I let the conversation fizzle out. We exchanged a few more pleasantries and then said our goodbyes.
But not long after I hung up, I realized how disingenuous “agree to disagree” can be in a discussion or debate. That phrase shuts down dialogue. It signals that neither side will reconsider his position and, worse, that neither side is allowed to keep making his case or challenging the other’s facts.
What struck me even more was how casually Jeffrey used the phrase — not just with me, but seemingly with his own party. It was as if he could personally find things like child gender surgeries or men in women’s locker rooms repugnant — especially as a Christian — but still wave it all off because Democrats “stand up for the little guy.”
To avoid making waves, many Christians stepped onto the slippery slope of so-called “political correctness” years ago. The idea was simple: Being on the “right side” of politics meant standing up for marginalized people. And what Christian wouldn’t want to be seen doing that? After all, didn’t the Bible and the saints speak out for the disadvantaged?
But over time, political correctness evolved. Or rather, it escalated. “PC” gave way to “woke,” and suddenly we were all expected to embrace a new worldview — one in which anyone with a shred of sanity and compassion would naturally join the swelling ranks of the awakened. Christians, of course, were included in that expectation — if they knew what was good for them and wanted to belong to the era’s grand new “Awokening.”
So what’s next?
With people in general justifying the absolute obvious craziness of the far left by being silent and looking the other way, we can announce a brand-new term: “political immaturity.”
When you ignore common sense to do whatever you are told is “correct” and “woke,” you have not matured into rationally thinking for yourself. You might start with a wish to "go along to get along," and now you are being led around and told what to think and do like somebody's child.
The only hope for America over these next few critical years is a true Great Awakening to the truth within the church that can lead to a foundational restoration within this great country.
Optimistically speaking, if we take this route, future generations might look back and say with joy: “Wouldn’t you know it? It was bound to happen!”
Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at American Thinker.
Voters Strongly Support Election Integrity Reforms Amid ‘Crisis’ In Confidence
Trump’s blanket pardons offer hope and healing
Processing the events and emotions of the past week has taken time. BlazeTV documented my immediate reaction to President Trump’s sweeping pardons, commutations, and case dismissals. In a five-minute video recorded right after I learned Trump kept his promise, I struggled through tears and jumbled words to share my thoughts.
Over the past few days, I’ve come to terms with the reality of my January 6 case being “dismissed with prejudice.” I’ve also absorbed the reactions of other “J6ers,” whose own legal battles ended last Monday, as well as the responses from media pundits and politicians. As expected, reactions range from positive to negative. (I’ll delve deeper into this in a future piece.)
While Blaze Media and BlazeTV have covered my January 6 journey at length, a quick recap might be helpful for those unfamiliar with my story.
What I did and didn’t do
I traveled to Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, intending only to cover the final rally of Trump’s first presidency. I brought my camera, tripod, a microphone for street interviews, and extra batteries to capture reactions to the speeches scheduled for the day. My primary question was whether the so-called kraken would be unleashed — the final proof of an allegedly “stolen election.”
When it became clear that no such announcement would come from the speechmakers, including President Trump, a colleague and I began a mile-long walk to the Capitol building. Additional speeches were planned on the Capitol lawn at six separate, legally permitted “First Amendment Protest” events.
By the time we reached the west side of the Capitol’s outer perimeter, at about 1:15 p.m., there were no barricades or “Closed Area” signs — something I later learned had been breached and removed before our arrival. Hearing sirens, seeing smoke, and witnessing flash-bang grenades, we sprinted to the Lower West Terrace. There, at exactly 1:19 p.m., I turned on my camera and began documenting the events that would alter my life.
I followed the story wherever it led. An hour later, I was inside the Capitol building with thousands of protesters and around 80 other journalists and media personnel. I exited 37 minutes later through the Hall of Columns and out the south doorway. During that time, I committed no acts of violence, resisted no law enforcement, and caused no damage to Capitol property.
Media and news organizations worldwide quickly licensed my videos, which were featured in documentaries by HBO, the New York Times, the Epoch Times, and numerous others. I began writing accounts of that day and delved into investigations of the key figures and most puzzling anomalies related to January 6.
In July 2021, the FBI contacted me to request a voluntary interview. Because of my recognized status as “media,” the FBI needed written approval from the U.S. Attorney General’s Office. After my attorney negotiated and secured this agreement, I participated in the interview in October of that year. On November 17, 2021, my attorney received an email from Assistant U.S. Attorney Anita Eve, stating, “Your client will be charged within the week.”
To my shock — and admittedly, some amusement — the charges included a felony count of “interstate racketeering.” The Department of Justice alleged that I knowingly conspired to cross state lines (from North Carolina) with foreknowledge of an illegal event to profit from documenting and licensing footage of the activities.
Going public
On the Monday of Thanksgiving week in 2021, we sent a press release to over 200 media outlets, launching a public counteroffensive against the government’s absurd allegation. I did dozens of interviews with various news outlets, including newspapers, magazines, TV shows, podcasters, and bloggers.
This strategy caught the government off guard. No other individual accused of a January 6 crime had taken such an approach. The result? The government went silent for 20 months — no response, no action. During this period, my coverage of the January 6 trials and investigations into the conduct of certain U.S. Capitol Police officers gained attention from members of Congress and major media platforms, including Tucker Carlson.
Sources within the Capitol Police and the Justice Department informed me that officials were “not happy” with my reporting. In the spring of 2023, I was granted access to 41,000 hours of Capitol closed-circuit TV footage — all while I continued working independently, unaffiliated with any news organization.
For nearly 1,600 January 6 defendants, the government went too far. It repeatedly trampled due process, destroyed lives over misdemeanors, and handed down egregiously unfair sentences.
In early July 2023, Matthew Peterson, the new editor in chief of Blaze Media, reached out to discuss bringing my work to the publication as a contributor. In the final week of July, before we finalized my contract, my attorney informed me that a D.C. grand jury had subpoenaed all my January 6 videos.
Grand juries are not convened for misdemeanor offenses, so they were obviously looking for a reason to charge me with a felony. Twenty months after going silent, with growing national attention to my work as an independent journalist, I had become confident that the government had decided not to pursue charges against me.
I was devastated by this news. Not only because of the renewed legal jeopardy, but I was certain that Blaze Media would withdraw the offer. You know the drill.
“Hey, Steve. We really love your work, man. And when you get all this legal stuff behind you, call us back, and we may have a place for you here.”
I sat on this news over the weekend, not informing Peterson at Blaze Media. My attorney picked up the subpoena on Monday morning, confirming my worst fears. I then posted to Twitter that I was back in the government’s crosshairs.
My phone rang. It was Peterson. I assumed this was the bad-news call I expected. Peterson nervously laughed and said, “Uh … it looks like I need to get you a contract … right away.”
I broke down in tears. This wasn’t the response I expected from any corporation. We finalized an agreement that afternoon, and by Wednesday morning, I made my debut on "The Glenn Beck Program" as a Blaze Media contributor.
The government makes its move
After complying with the grand jury subpoena, we heard nothing from the Justice Department until December 14, 2023. While sitting in Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie’s office, I received a text from my attorney: “You need to call me ASAP.”
A message like that is never good news. I stepped into the hallway of the Rayburn Congressional Office Building and called him. He informed me that the FBI had just contacted him, saying I needed to surrender within the week.
My next call was to Peterson. The company sprang into action, booking me on all BlazeTV programs, including Glenn Beck's. Other major media outlets quickly picked up the story. By the end of the next day, the FBI agent called my attorney back to say the bureau would postpone my arrest until “sometime after the holidays.”
Early the following week, Peterson called me again. Was this the other shoe dropping at last? No. Instead, he told me Blaze Media wanted to hire me as a full-time investigative correspondent with full benefits. Once again, the tears flowed. Who are these people?
On March 1, 2024, I was finally compelled to report to the FBI’s Dallas field office for arrest on four basic misdemeanor charges — the same charges leveled against hundreds of January 6 defendants. Despite their efforts, the Justice Department couldn’t make a felony charge stick. Nearly 38 months after January 6, 2021, I was brought before a Dallas magistrate in leg irons — for nonviolent misdemeanor charges.
I’ll spare you the details of the legal battles over the next eight months involving my attorneys, federal prosecutors, and Judge Christopher Cooper. Suffice it to say, I wanted to go to trial despite Cooper’s consistent denial of every motion we filed and his generally hostile attitude toward me. Since then-candidate Trump was openly promising pardons for January 6 defendants, we believed it was crucial for my trial date to occur after January 20, 2025, in hopes that he would win the election and end the proceedings in my case.
Judge Cooper, however, refused to grant a continuance, holding firm to the November 12 trial date originally set on the court’s calendar.
November 12 — exactly one week after the election. The timing wasn’t favorable for me, regardless of the outcome. In 2020, 95% of the D.C. jury pool voted for Biden. If Trump won, jurors might seek revenge. If Kamala Harris won, they’d feel emboldened to bury me. And Cooper’s dislike for me was plain to see.
Still, my attorneys were optimistic. They believed presenting a selective prosecution defense could force the government to explain why it hadn’t charged over 80 other journalists — mainstream, independent, bloggers, podcasters, social media influencers, credentialed, or uncredentialed. If successful, this strategy could lead to a landmark decision.
Alas, it was not to be. On November 6, the day after Trump won the election, I appeared before Judge Cooper at a pretrial hearing. The session was brief and brutal, as he denied every motion for discovery, a continuance, and even my right to argue a selective prosecution defense.
Immediately after the hearing, I joined a Zoom call with my four attorneys. One of them remarked, “This trial will be nothing more than a shaming exercise.” With that in mind, I instructed them to notify the prosecutors and the court that I would not proceed to trial and would instead plead guilty to all four misdemeanor charges.
I fully understood that it would take at least two months to be sentenced after my guilty pleas. I also recognized that if Trump fulfilled his promise to pardon nonviolent January 6 defendants, I would be in a unique legal position. Under federal law, a defendant is not considered “convicted” until sentencing, even after pleading guilty.
I took the risk. After I entered guilty pleas to all four charges, my sentencing was scheduled for March 6, 2025. If Trump kept his word, my case would be dismissed and the entire four-year ordeal would conclude — technically and legally — as if it had never happened.
The truth about January 6
Two months before joining Blaze Media, I spoke at a Wake County Republican Women’s Club luncheon in Raleigh, North Carolina. During my remarks, I made what I thought was a simple filler comment: “Whatever the Oath Keepers may or may not be individually guilty of, the one thing they are not guilty of is the crimes for which they were convicted.”
Unexpectedly, more than 100 women in the audience rose to their feet in a standing ovation. In that moment, I realized that America hadn’t lost its desire for true justice in the January 6 cases, even for those convicted of seditious conspiracy.
This wasn’t just the largest investigation and dragnet in American history — it was the most politically motivated mass persecution.
At the time, Fox News had just fired Tucker Carlson and largely abandoned January 6 coverage. For those of us working to expose the Justice Department’s weaponization, it was clear that the American people’s demand for real justice — and their frustration with the Biden DOJ’s witch-hunt — was growing. Trump must have sensed it too, as his promise of pardons became a centerpiece of his 2024 campaign.
Americans understand government overreach because resisting it is why this nation was founded. It’s in our DNA. Trump’s fulfillment of that promise on his first day back in office wasn’t just anticipated — it was a crucial factor in his November victory. Perhaps the decisive one. Because Americans want true justice for every citizen, regardless of the crimes those citizens may or may not have committed.
For nearly 1,600 January 6 defendants, the government went too far. It repeatedly trampled due process, destroyed lives over simple misdemeanors, and handed down egregiously unfair sentences. This treatment stood in stark contrast to D.C. rioters from 2017 and 2020, who often committed far worse crimes but saw their cases dismissed or received mere slaps on the wrist from the same D.C. judges and juries.
Relief, gratitude, and the need to heal
Initially, I advocated full pardons for all nonviolent January 6 defendants and a case-by-case review for the others. But in recent months, my stance shifted toward blanket pardons for everyone. Why?
It’s straightforward. Pick any case file from the nearly 1,600 defendants, and within five minutes, I could show you where the government violated basic due process rights or where judges allowed prosecutions to proceed under predetermined, unwinnable scenarios for defendants. Worse still, many defendants endured literal torture at the hands of their jailers.
Given the overwhelming complications and extenuating circumstances, reviewing each case individually would have taken months, if not years. Blanket pardons were the only just solution.
On the evening of January 20, I was stunned by Trump’s decision to grant blanket pardons, commutations, and dismissals with prejudice. Vice President-elect JD Vance and attorney general nominee Pam Bondi had already hinted at pardons for the nonviolent with case-by-case reviews for others. Trump’s final announcement and signature left me breathless.
It was the right decision and exactly what was needed. Even the most violent January 6 defendants had their rights trampled by Biden’s Justice Department. Trump’s courage and action brought tears to my eyes — and still do as I write this.
For nearly four years, I’ve said I saw bad people doing bad things on January 6. I also saw good people doing good things. And I saw otherwise good people doing stupid things.
This applied to both sides of the police line that day.
Critics decrying the pardons and commutations of the violent defendants fail to grasp the extent of the Biden administration’s weaponization against all January 6 participants — the violent, the rowdy, and the accidental tourists who walked through open doors to snap a selfie in the Rotunda.
This wasn’t just the largest investigation and dragnet in American history — it was the most politically motivated mass persecution. Nonviolent participants suffered severely for the minor offense of glorified trespassing. Those who assaulted law enforcement officers have already faced severe penalties, some warranted and others unconstitutional.
The president did the right thing. Let the healing begin.
FACT CHECK: Threads Post Makes False Claim About States’ Electoral College Certifications
A post shared on Threads claims 22 states have not uploaded their Electoral College certifications. View on Threads Verdict: False The 2024 Electoral College votes are available via the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)’s website. The results of the 2024 presidential election were certified during a joint session of Congress on January […]
Obama ally pushes Raskin plan for Congress to nullify election, install Harris: 'Insurrectiony'
Despite spending years complaining about threats to democracy, Democrats are scheming to thwart the collective will of the 77.2 million Americans who voted for President-elect Donald Trump in a fair and free election.
In a Dec. 26 op-ed for The Hill titled "Congress has the power to block Trump from taking office, but lawmakers must act now," David Schulte, a Chicago investment banker friend of both Barack Obama and failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, joined the former Democratic president of the New York City Bar Association, Evan Davis, in echoing Rep. Jamie Raskin's (D-Md.) February call for Congress to block Trump from taking office.
The Democratic duo accused Trump at the outset of being an "oath-breaking insurrectionist" — not against the government but against the Constitution — then tried standing up this allegation on the unsuccessful attempt by Democratic lawmakers to convict Trump in early 2021 for supposed incitement of insurrection; on the say-so of the Democratic appointees on the Colorado Supreme Court; and on Democratic Jan. 6 committee members' partisan rhetoric.
Apparently convinced that their appeals to the perceived wisdom of fellow Trump-haters was sufficient to justify their scheme, the duo argued that it was still possible to void the Electoral College votes of the American people when sent to the president of the Senate — failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris — and to give the Washington establishment the unearned win they so desperately crave.
According to Schulte and Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court's 9-0 decision in Trump v. Anderson concerning Democrats' attempt to keep Trump off the ballot in Colorado does not prevent Congress from rejecting electoral votes on Jan. 6 on the basis of a supposed 14th Amendment disqualification.
'Watching Trump's most fanatical opponents argue that they have the right on January 6 to reject his Electoral College victory is one of the funniest things ever.'
Schulte and Davis accused the conservative majority on the high court of "overreach" when indicating that "there must be new implementing federal legislation passed pursuant to the enforcement power specified in the 14th Amendment" and claimed that the Supreme Court does not have a say about the counting of Electoral College votes "because the rejection of the vote on constitutionally specified grounds is a nonreviewable political question."
The Democratic duo then identified the way by which the 2024 election could be stolen and Harris installed as president.
The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022, a rewrite the Electoral Count Act of 1887, identifies two grounds for a congressional objection to an Electoral College vote. The first objection calls into question whether the votes by electors were "regularly given" and whether the recipient was an eligible presidential candidate under the Constitution. The other basis on which Congress could object is if the document submitted by a state governor identifying the electors was defective.
Schulte and Davis figure the way to go would be with the first objection.
"To make an objection under the Count Act requires a petition signed by 20 percent of the members of each House," wrote the Democratic duo. "If the objection is sustained by majority vote in each house, the vote is not counted and the number of votes required to be elected is reduced by the number of disqualified votes. If all votes for Trump were not counted, Kamala Harris would be elected president."
While Democrats may have the numbers in both the House and the Senate to make their objection known, numerically, this strategy is little more than the wishful thinking of anti-democratic radicals. Rep. Raskin contemplated going this route during a Feb. 17 panel discussion at a D.C. book store.
Raskin correctly and begrudgingly predicted at the time that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule that Trump could not be disqualified from Colorado's presidential primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, calling the imminent decision an "abdication of [the court's] very clear duty to disqualify Donald Trump."
Raskin said on camera, "[The justices on the Supreme Court] want to kick it to Congress, so it's going to be up to us on Jan. 6, 2025, to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he's disqualified."
While apparently open to the idea, the Democratic congressman noted that the repeal of the people's will at the counting of the Electoral College votes "really could lead to something akin to civil war."
Raskin indicated further that after lawmakers disqualify the would-be president-elect, "We need bodyguards for everybody in civil war conditions all because the nine justices — not all of them but these justices who have not many cases to look at every year, not that much work to do, a huge staff, great protection — simply do not want to do their job and interpret what the great 14th Amendment means."
Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer responded Thursday to Schulte and Davis' op-ed, writing, "Surprised it took so long but the Left is back at trying to subvert the election."
"You people are sick," tweeted Eric Trump.
BlazeTV host Steve Deace wrote, "This ... feels very insurrectiony."
"Oh, look. Democrats want to steal the election and invalidate the will of the American people," wrote Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Trump. "Threat to Democracy."
"Hey look insurrection," tweeted BlazeTV's Auron MacIntyre. "If people just standing outside the capitol can go to jail for years then journalists absolutely can."
Journalist Glenn Greenwald noted, "Watching Trump's most fanatical opponents argue that they have the right on January 6 to reject his Electoral College victory is one of the funniest things ever. I hope it spreads."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
‘It’s Time To Amend The Constitution’: Hochul Advocates Abolishing Electoral College
'The popular vote should prevail'
Senate Democrats Try To Rip Apart The Republic By Abolishing The Electoral College
The Case For Mass Deportation
Get the Conservative Review delivered right to your inbox.
We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.
Today's top stories