Radicals decry demise of Teen Vogue — the propaganda rag that pushed anal sex and Marx on minors



Teen Vogue was originally launched in 2003 as a teenage girl-targeting print counterpart to publisher Condé Nast's fashion magazine Vogue. Since its quarterly print run was brought to an end in 2017, the leftist propaganda mill continued independently online — until now.

Radicals are clutching pearls as it is clear that the publication will survive in name but not in spirit.

'19 Best Anal Lubes for Slick and Pain-Free Insertion.'

Teen Vogue's leftist editor in chief Versha Sharma is leaving the company, and Teen Vogue is being absorbed into Vogue.com.

According to Vogue, "the title will remain a distinct editorial property, with its own identity and mission"; however, it will now "focus its content on career development, cultural leadership, and other issues that matter most to young people."

The union representing the propagandists at Teen Vogue condemned the decision to park the blog under the broader Vogue.com umbrella, complaining that the shake-up was "disproportionately impacting marginalized employees," as the majority of those now allegedly facing termination are "BIPOC women or trans."

Lex McMenamin, the plural-pronoun-providing radical who served as the blog's news and politics editor since 2021, confirmed that she was laid off along with multiple other staffers on Monday, noting, "To my knowledge, after today, there will be no politics staffers at Teen Vogue."

Condé United, the union representing writers at the blog, suggested that the move was "clearly designed to blunt the award-winning magazine's insightful journalism at a time when it is needed the most."

Some of the usual suspects have echoed this suggestion that the content published on the blog under Sharma's leadership was of journalistic value.

Alejandra Caraballo, a transvestite activist and Harvard Law School clinical instructor, for instance, wrote, "They just gutted Teen Vogue which had top notch political journalism. The media is continuing to purge any sort of political dissent to Trump and the oligarchs."

Caraballo added, "It's resegregation in real time."

Cross-dressing Montana state Rep. Zooey Zephyr (D) stated, "The loss of the politics staff at Teen Vogue is an absolute travesty. In a media marketplace that has been decimated by billionaires, tepid takes, and AI slop, Teen Vogue often stood out as a bastion of principled, purposeful journalism."

Here are a few examples of the supposed "principled, purposeful journalism" Teen Vogue has been churning out in recent years:

  • "How to Finger Someone (Including Yourself), According to Sexperts" — Oct. 31, 2025;
  • "Anal Sex: Safety, How tos, Tips, and More" — Nov. 12, 2019;
  • "The Polyamory Workbook: How I Discovered Nonmonogamy" — Nov. 15, 2022;
  • "6 Intersex People on Why Gender-Affirming Care Bans Are Bad for Everyone" — June 13, 2025; and
  • "19 Best Anal Lubes for Slick and Pain-Free Insertion" — June 3, 2023.

The publication has, in fairness, not limited itself to giving minors advice on sodomy and the latest in sex-toy technology.

It has also often promoted gender ideology and abortion — see the Jan. 23, 2025, piece titled "The Sex Lives of College Girls Needs an Abortion Storyline" — and pushed a significant amount of leftist agitprop.

RELATED: Assata Shakur and 6 more: A rogues' gallery of leftist America's heroes

Photo by Phillip Faraone/Getty Images

For instance, in a piece published last month titled "Trump and Republicans Want to 'Un-Cancel' Columbus Day, Erasing Indigenous Peoples Day," the blog suggested that Christopher Columbus was little more than an Italian "who brought disease, colonization, and enslavement" to the Americas.

Amid the deadly Black Lives Matter riots in 2020, Teen Vogue published a list of bail funds to which readers could contribute in order to spring rioters from jail.

In a politics article explaining how teens can "learn the legacy of Marx's ideas and how they're relevant to the current political climate," the author emphasized to teens that they should think like pinkos even if they aren't card-carrying communists: "While you may not necessarily identify as a Marxist, socialist, or communist, you can still use Karl Marx’s ideas to use history and class struggles to better understand how the current sociopolitical climate in America came to be."

Teen Vogue made clear that thinking like Marx was acceptable but that conservative thought and lifestyles were beyond the pale.

A December Teen Vogue op-ed warned about the threat posed to America's "progressive new future" by those young women who would dare embrace traditional gender roles and stay home to tend children.

"With clearly defined gender roles and responsibilities, trad wife and traditional masculine content in the manopshere works to convince a new generation of would-be population breeders and workers to embrace fundamentalist values," said the piece. "This is not a new trend but an old belief system with worn methods that perform until people who know better, choose better.'

While happy to characterize conservatives as extremists, Teen Vogue routinely painted leftist radicals and thugs as saints, printing, for instance, a hagiography for convicted cop-killer and Marxist fugitive Assata Shakur.

Shakur was a member of a terrorist militant group, the Black Liberation Army. She was convicted in 1977 of the first-degree murder of New Jersey Trooper Werner Foerster. Although she was supposed to spend her life in prison, she escaped in 1979 to communist Cuba.

Teen Vogue's obituary for the cop-killer, titled "Assata Shakur Was a Black Revolutionary Who Fought for Freedom Even in Exile," cast doubt on her guilt and concluded, "To many, including those posting in honor of her after her death, Shakur will be remembered as a revolutionary who fought for her freedom and won."

Chloe Malle, Vogue's head of editorial content, said in a statement, "I remember when Teen Vogue launched. I read every page on the bus home from cross-country practice. I loved it then, and I love and respect it now and am committed to continuing and supporting its point of view and sensibility."

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

BBC allegedly deceptively edited Trump’s Jan. 6 speech into riot lie



President Donald Trump was accused of inciting a riot at the Capitol during his speech to supporters on January 6, 2021. An allegedly deceptively edited clip from that address, which aired on a BBC special just a month before the 2024 presidential election, created the impression that those accusations against Trump were accurate.

The BBC's one-hour Panorama special "Trump: A Second Chance?" featured a clip where the president appeared to say, "We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell."

'As well as altering Mr. Trump's words, the documentary also showed flag-waving men marching on the Capitol in Washington, DC, on Jan. 6, 2021, after the president spoke, which created the impression Trump's supporters had taken up his "call to arms."'

However, an internal memo obtained by the Telegraph accused the BBC of heavily editing the clip by allegedly splicing segments of his speech that were nearly an hour apart.

An unedited version of Trump's speech revealed his actual words.

"We're gonna walk down, and I'll be there with you. We're gonna walk down. We're gonna walk down any one you want, but I think right here, we're gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we're gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness; you have to show strength, and you have to be strong. ... I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said.

Approximately 54 minutes later, while discussing his concerns about election integrity, Trump said, "Most people would stand there at 9 o'clock in the evening and say, 'I wanna thank you very much,' and they go off to some other life, but I said something's wrong here, something's really wrong, can't have happened, and we fight."

"We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not gonna have a country anymore," Trump added.

RELATED: Republicans enraged by weaponized FBI Arctic Frost investigation: 'Biden DOJ's Watergate'

Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

The allegedly manipulated footage, which aired last October, made Trump "'say' things [he] never actually said," according to a 19-page dossier on the BBC's alleged bias.

"As well as altering Mr. Trump's words, the documentary also showed flag-waving men marching on the Capitol in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021, after the president spoke, which created the impression Trump's supporters had taken up his 'call to arms.' In fact, the footage was shot before Mr. Trump had even started speaking," the Telegraph wrote.

When BBC managers were alerted about the misleading edits, they allegedly "refused to accept there had been a breach of standards."

RELATED: Analysis: FBI’s Jan. 6 pipe bomb update omits key evidence, withholds video

Photo by Peter Dazeley/Getty Images

Michael Prescott, a former independent external adviser to the BBC's Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee, wrote the bias dossier before leaving his role in June.

"While we don't comment on leaked documents, when the BBC receives feedback, it takes it seriously and considers it carefully," a BBC spokesperson told Blaze News. "Michael Prescott is a former adviser to a board committee where differing views and opinions of our coverage are routinely discussed and debated."

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

Liberal media remains DEAD SILENT on Biden FBI's Arctic Frost operation against conservatives



Recent history suggests that the liberal media will go to great lengths to amplify a story if it appears beneficial to the left even if the story lacks any basis in fact.

Among the many cases that conform to this apparent pattern were liberal outlets' hysterical coverage of the Russian collusion hoax, Joe Biden's supposed competence as president, Jussie Smollett's apparent hate hoax, the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and Covington Catholic students' harassment by radicals during the 2019 March for Life in the national capital.

On the flip side, factual stories that pose a political threat to the liberal powers that be tend to get little to no mainstream coverage. This is especially true of the latest revelations about the Biden FBI's Arctic Frost operation.

According to recent analysis conducted by the media watchdog outfit NewsBusters, ABC, CBS, and NBC News avoided the story in their television broadcasts in recent days.

'Not one single broadcast network aired one solitary second.'

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) published damning documents on Oct. 6 detailing how the Biden FBI sought private cellphone records from at least nine Republican lawmakers during Operation Arctic Frost — an operation that set the stage for at least one case brought against President Donald Trump by former Attorney General Merrick Garland's dubiously appointed special counsel, Jack Smith.

Grassley released additional documents last week showing that Smith and his team subpoenaed records for over 400 Republican individuals and entities as part of what the Iowa senator called a "fishing expedition."

Blaze News previously noted that as of midday Thursday, liberal news outfits such as ABC News, the Atlantic, CBS News, the New York Times, and the Washington Post had yet to cover the latest tranche of documents exposing how the Biden lawfare regime hounded American conservatives across the country in their print coverage.

RELATED: Damning new docs reveal who's on Biden admin's 'enemies list,' expose extent of FBI's Arctic Frost

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The media blackout was apparently just as bad when it came to television coverage.

ABC, CBS, and NBC News not only neglected to cover the Arctic Frost bombshells on their flagship Wednesday night, Thursday morning, and Friday morning shows but apparently dodged over the weekend as well, reported NewsBusters.

"There was no discussion, at any time and on any of the Sunday shows, about the use of the extraordinary powers of federal law enforcement against those perceived to be in support of President Donald Trump ahead of a potential 2024 presidential run," wrote NewsBusters analyst Jorge Bonilla.

"There was no discussion about the subpoenas, obtained in secret, against 197 individuals — including multiple Members of Congress. There was no mention of the slew of subpoenas against nonpartisan organizations perceived to be in support of the former president," continued Bonilla. "There was no mention of the secretive nature of the subpoenas issued to banks and Big Tech organizations, which came with their own gag order, which may well constitute an impeachable offense for the judges that issued such orders."

"Had any of this happened under a Trump administration, you’d have everyone across the dial howling bloody murder," added Bonilla.

"Not one single broadcast network aired one solitary second," Media Research Center President David Bozell noted on Friday. "Normally they'll mention it in the most innocuous way so they can later say, 'We covered it,' but this time they didn't even bother."

Blaze News confirmed that, except for one sympathetic NBC News article about Jack Smith on Wednesday, news outlets ABC, CBS, and NBC did not report on the Arctic Frost allegations made last week.

Rather than address the historic weaponization of the FBI against sitting senators and conservative groups, talking heads on the liberal networks instead exhausted airtime yammering about the construction of the White House ballroom, the potential expiration of SNAP benefits, Prince Andrew's loss of title, and talk of the weather.

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

'Not. One. Story.' Liberal news outlets' silence regarding Biden's 'enemies list' is deafening



The liberal media wasted a great deal of airtime and ink over the past decade fearmongering about the Russian collusion narrative but clammed up earlier this year when the Trump administration produced receipts demonstrating that the basis of multiple investigations and numerous arrests was nothing more than a hoax perpetrated on the American people by the Obama administration.

In the wake of revelations this week about Operation Arctic Frost — chiefly about the Biden FBI's surveillance of Republican lawmakers and indiscriminate targeting of conservatives — the liberal media has once again proven strategically incurious, evidencing the unidirectional nature of their outrage.

'They screamed when Nixon's "enemy list" was exposed.'

The New York Times, for instance, has concern-mongered in recent weeks about personnel changes at the Justice Department and the Trump administration's alleged use of "the federal government’s vast intelligence gathering and law enforcement authority to cast the specter of criminality on Mr. Trump’s enemies."

However, with the apparent exception of an Oct. 7 article focusing on Republican denunciations of special counsel Jack Smith's covert collection of lawmakers' phone records and an Oct. 21 article boosting denials issued on Smith's behalf by his lawyers, the Times has avoided troubling itself with questions about Arctic Frost or the latest documents highlighting the Biden FBI's targeting of conservatives.

The Times was far from the only liberal publication to ignore the documents released this week by Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) and the House Judiciary Committee revealing the massive scope of the Arctic Frost dragnet.

The Washington Post, CBS News, ABC News, and the Atlantic similarly appear to have largely ignored the matter, publishing little to nothing this week on the latest bombshells.

RELATED: Damning new docs reveal who's on Biden admin's 'enemies list,' expose extent of FBI's Arctic Frost

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

CNN's coverage this month appears to be limited to a piece boosting denials on Smith's behalf and an analysis piece by senior reporter Aaron Blake, who did his apparent best to downplay the finding that Smith had covertly obtained the phone records of Republican lawmakers.

Blake claimed that the "GOP is exaggerating the evidence"; that the evidence does not "fit what is traditionally understood to constitute 'spying'"; that the surveillance of lawmakers' communications is not unprecedented; and that "we certainly don’t have evidence that it was done for political purposes."

While MSNBC, NBC News, and Politico seemed interested in engaging with the story prior to this week, their efforts were apparently focused on downplaying the findings, portraying Smith as a victim, and painting Arctic Frost as an apolitical investigation and Republicans' concerns as unhinged.

Trump ally Roger Stone noted, "They screamed when Nixon's 'enemy list' was exposed. Why aren't the media and the Democrats talking about the Arctic Frost TARGET LIST — the ultimate weaponization of the criminal justice system?"

Tom Bevan, the president of RealClearPolitics, expressed amazement, writing on Thursday morning, "No mention of Arctic Frost in the NY Times or the Washington Post. These are not 'news' organizations any more."

Bevan added, "Same on CNN, ABC News, CBS News ... and NBC News. Not. One. Story."

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) said Wednesday that what is revealed in the latest document dumps regarding Arctic Frost "is nothing short of a Biden administration enemies list. I'm old enough to understand how toxic a term that was under Richard Nixon. This is far worse — far worse, orders of magnitude worse."

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

Stephen King Mocked Mercilessly After Rant Against Donald Trump Backfires

'If anything shows what a louse he is, that's it'

Liberal outlets cry about Pentagon's new media rules — Hegseth bids them farewell



The Department of War has implemented new rules concerning press privileges and news-gathering at the Pentagon.

Even though the policy concerning reporter access is far less restrictive than an earlier version — the draft of which was floated last month — liberal publications have thrown fits and refused to acknowledge the new rules in exchange for press credentials.

'Pentagon access is a privilege, not a right.'

Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell emphasized last week that reporters and publications do not have to agree with the new "common-sense media procedures" but "just to acknowledge that they understand what our policy is."

Despite acknowledging that press credentials are conditioned on an understanding of the rules, not an agreement with them, the Pentagon Press Association characterized the rules as a form of intimidation, going so far as to suggest that they dishonor American military families.

War Secretary Pete Hegseth used an emoji to wave goodbye on Monday to the Atlantic, the New York Times, and the Washington Post when they pushed the PPA's framing and pronounced on X that they were not going to sign the agreement by the 5 p.m. Tuesday deadline.

Matt Murray, the Post's executive editor, who received Hegseth's pixelated adios, stated, "The proposed restrictions undercut First Amendment protections by placing unnecessary constraints on gathering and publishing information."

Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic's editor in chief, who has pushed his weight in fake news, and NYT Washington bureau chief Richard Stevenson similarly complained that the rules violated their teams' First Amendment rights.

The Associated Press, Breaking Defense, CNN, Newsmax, Reuters, Task & Purpose, and the Wall Street Journal are among the other publications that have indicated they will not agree to the new policy by deadline.

After bidding the liberal publications farewell, Hegseth noted for edification of "DUMMIES" in the media that the new rules are, in essence, that reporters can no longer roam free through the halls of the Pentagon; members of the press must wear visible badges; and the "credentialed press [is] no longer permitted to solicit criminal acts."

RELATED: Hegseth restores warrior ethos after years of woke Pentagon rot

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Hegseth added that "Pentagon access is a privilege, not a right." Blaze News reached out to the Pentagon for clarity about that statement.

Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson noted that "despite good faith negotiations with representatives of the Pentagon Press Association, reporters would rather clutch their pearls on social media than stop trying to get warfighters and DOW civilians to commit a crime by violating Department-wide policy."

"We stand by our media policy," continued Wilson. "It's now up to them whether they'd like to report from the Pentagon or their newsroom."

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

Americans’ Trust In Corporate Media Hits Lowest Level Ever

Legacy media have spent years perpetuating some of the biggest hoaxes in modern history — and it appears the American public is continuing to notice. On Thursday, Gallup released the results of its annual survey of Americans’ confidence in media. The poll’s baseline finding is that trust in the country’s “Democracy dies in darkness!” crowd […]

Free speech is more than a slogan. It’s a duty.



Leftists insist that “words are violence.” They also claim that “silence is violence.” Curious. They wield the term “hate speech” as a weapon, though it has no legal definition. It’s a political tool designed for abuse, much like the tactics of China’s Red Guard during the Cultural Revolution.

Recent debates over free speech have shown how few Americans — left, right, powerful, or powerless — actually understand what the First Amendment protects. That ignorance is unnerving.

Every silence either defends or betrays liberty. Kirk lived and taught that truth. Now, in his absence, we carry that responsibility.

To honor Charlie’s legacy, we must defend free speech boldly, graciously, and without compromise.

Free speech flows from God’s gift of free will, enshrined by the founders in our nation’s founding documents. As Charlie Kirk once said, “Without free speech, there is no such thing as truth. The moment you silence opposing voices, you destroy the foundation of democracy.”

Scripture underscores the responsibility that comes with this freedom. Colossians 4:6 reminds us to speak graciously, with words “seasoned with salt.” Matthew 12:36 warns that we will give an account “for every careless word.” Proverbs 18:21 drives the point home: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.”

We are free to speak, but we will be held accountable.

Bondi’s blunder

That accountability is central to the recent firestorm over Attorney General Pam Bondi. Appearing on Katie Miller’s podcast last week, Bondi said, “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime.”

Bondi later cited federal statutes criminalizing threats, doxxing, and swatting, promising full prosecution. She framed her argument as a defense of families, freedoms, and Charlie Kirk’s legacy.

But Bondi blurred a crucial line. Threats of violence have been crimes for centuries. “Hate speech” doesn’t legally exist. By conflating the two, Bondi gives more ammunition to those who want to criminalize speech they dislike.

Kirk himself once wrote: “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And all of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.” He warned that once “hate speech” becomes a category, it will be used against conservatives first.

Consequences, not censorship

Free speech carries consequences, both spiritual and legal. It also carries social consequences, often borne disproportionately by conservatives. Kirk frequently noted that conservatives are branded “bigots” and accused of “hate speech” simply for defending traditional values.

The media’s distortion of his words proves the point. Misquotations, half-truths, and selective edits continue to shape his legacy. Not long ago, speaking ill of the dead — especially the innocent — was taboo. Today, it is routine.

Government-sanctioned propaganda

The erosion of free speech didn’t happen overnight. In 2012, Congress passed the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, allowing government propaganda once restricted to foreign audiences to target Americans directly.

Since then, administrations — especially Joe Biden’s — have funneled taxpayer-funded messaging into “news” outlets indistinguishable from government press releases. That’s what Trump meant when he labeled the media “fake news.” It’s not just bias. It’s legalized propaganda.

The results are obvious: riots over George Floyd but prayer vigils after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Manufactured outrage for causes the left elevates, silence for causes it despises.

The algorithmic censor

Corporate media is only half the machine. Social media algorithms do the rest. Conservatives (myself included) face shadow bans and throttling for speaking truth. Posts about Iryna Zarutska’s stabbing death get sanitized into euphemisms like “poked” or “unalived” to avoid suppression. Kirk’s assassination was reduced online to being “pew pewed.”

RELATED: The market fired Jimmy Kimmel

Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Language itself has been contorted. Political correctness has turned serious matters into absurdist code words. Kirk once warned: “Political correctness is the most deadly of political weaponry.” He was right. If this continues, truth itself will become unspeakable.

Cancel culture vs. accountability

The left wants to erase the difference between cancel culture and accountability. Cancel culture punishes thought, speech, or belief without moral or legal justification. Accountability punishes advocacy of violence. When employees cheer assassination or call for murder, employers have every right to fire them. That is not tyranny. That is justice.

Failing to distinguish between the two plays into the left’s hands. It allows them to conflate legitimate accountability with censorship, further eroding free speech.

The duty to speak

To honor Charlie’s legacy, we must defend free speech boldly, graciously, and without compromise. Free speech is not merely a constitutional right; it is a moral duty.

Every silence either defends or betrays liberty. Kirk lived and taught that truth. Now, in his absence, we carry that responsibility. Speak now — bravely, responsibly, and without fear — so that the freedoms Charlie cherished endure for generations.

Wikipedia editors are trying to scrub the record clean of Iryna Zarutska's slaughter by violent thug



Iryna Zarutska, a 23-year-old refugee from Ukraine, was savagely stabbed to death late last month on a train in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Liberal media outlets that have made a habit out of sensationalizing certain deaths — like Jordan Neely's in 2023 or George Floyd's in 2020 — appear desperate not to acknowledge the horrific attack.

CNN, for instance, waited until Monday morning to report on the stabbing.

NBC News, the Associated Press, and ABC News didn't bother reporting on Zarutska's slaying until later in the day, just around the time President Donald Trump noted that he had expressed his love to Zarutska's family and his hope that her killing was a reminder that "there are evil people."

At the time of writing, the New York Times, Reuters, and the Washington Post still had not reported on the incident. Of the aforementioned publications, only the Associated Press responded to Blaze News' requests for comment but only to indicate it had just published a story on the slaying.

While liberal news outfits did their apparent best to avoid reporting on a story that has garnered significant national interest, comment from lawmakers, and further insights into Democrats' ruinous soft-on-crime policies, editors at Wikipedia tried to scrub any mention of the tragic incident from their platform.

Quick background

Footage of the Aug. 22 slaying shows Zarutska enter a train on the Lynx Blue Line in Charlotte, sit down in front of a black male in a red-hooded sweatshirt, and then look at her phone.

RELATED: Mainstream media turns a blind eye to vicious stabbing of young Ukrainian woman

zmeel via iStock/Getty Images

The alleged stabber seated behind her, whom the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department has identified as repeat offender Decarlos Brown, can be seen in the footage taking what appears to be a folding knife out of his pocket, standing up, then bringing the apparent blade down in a striking motion.

A GoFundMe for her loved ones states, "Ira had recently arrived in the United States, seeking safety from the war and hoping for a new beginning. Tragically, her life was cut short far too soon."

Seventeen days after the slaying and in the face of mounting outrage, North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein (D) said he was "heartbroken for the family of Iryna Zarutska, who lost their loved one to this senseless act of violence," and "appalled by the footage of her murder."

- YouTube

Police indicated that following the slaying, Brown was transported to Atrium Health with non-life-threatening injuries and charged with first-degree murder.

According to the National News Desk, Brown was previously arrested at least 14 times, including for allegedly assaulting his sister, and he was sentenced to five years in prison for a 2014 armed robbery.

Wiki revisionism

On Saturday morning, a handful of Wikipedia editors got to work detailing what happened to Zarutska, only to find their efforts frustrated by radicals who were alternatively keen to leave the public in the dark.

The "Talk" logs for the potentially doomed page show a frantic effort on the part of some editors to conceal Brown's identity.

When one editor suggested, "It's actually standard here not to name suspected perpetrators," another responded, "Unless his name is Kyle Rittenhouse."

At the time of publication, the Wikipedia page omitted any mention of Brown's name except for where it appeared in the titles of referenced articles.

Others tried to downplay the story's significance. One editor claimed that "there is nothing in this story that is significant besides it being recent news."

"Just [because] victim was white doesn't indicate that perpetrator was intentionally racist or had some sort of racial prejudice he was a schizophrenic going through a psychotic episode and the poor girl was in wrong place/time," another editor wrote. "What's atrocious is how white supremacists are flooding this page to create some sort of narrative and trying to devalue Black American's experience of police brutality in U.S."

RELATED: Twisting the truth: Wikipedia’s ongoing misinformation war

Photo by Karl Merton Ferron/Baltimore Sun Staff

Soon, the page bore a label that read, "An editor has nominated this article for deletion."

The deletion label linked to a discussion over whether to keep or eliminate the entry, which was prefaced with a reminder "that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors."

Although a great many contributors appear to have recommended keeping the page, others tried their best to trivialize Zarutska's demise.

"There are some people in social media and other venues who are trying to make this into something far greater than it really merrits [sic]. Nothing is remarkable about this. Even the premise of the immigrant status, nor race of either person, seems to have any indication for a hate crime even. Rather just a random act of violence," one contributor wrote.

Blaze News senior politics editor and Washington correspondent Christopher Bedford, responding to the attempted spin by radicals behind the scenes at Wikipedia, underscored the significance of the story, noting that "you've got comment coming in from the governor, you've got comment coming in from the president, and you have a perpetrator who is free in the first place only because of specific policy decisions made by governments in regard to their crimes and punishments."

"But it doesn't fit into a cozy narrative. It's a beautiful white woman killed by a black man and serial criminal," Bedford continued. "Even though she's a Ukrainian refugee, on the scale of what liberals want to communicate and narratives they want to build, she's lower than he is."

Blaze News has reached out to Wikimedia for comment.

Blaze News previously reported that editors and/or contributors at Wikipedia:

  • Tried to hide Vice President JD Vance's military accomplishments in the lead-up to the 2024 election;
  • Strategically eliminated any mention of Kamala Harris' appointment as border czar on the site's list of executive branch czars;
  • Advocated deleting the entry detailing the mass killings executed by communist regimes, citing an anti-communist bias;
  • Blacklisted right-leaning sources such as Blaze News, the Washington Free Beacon, the Federalist, RedState, the Media Research Center, and the Alexander Hamilton-founded New York Post and effectively prohibits their citation in articles, all but guaranteeing a site-wide leftist bias;
  • Smears right-wing figures;
  • Labeled Elon Musk's temporary suspension of journalists who allegedly violated his platform's terms of service as the "Thursday Night Massacre"; and
  • Deceived readers about the history, existence, and nature of cultural Marxism, characterizing the well-defined and well-chronicled offshoot of Marxism as a "conspiracy theory."

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

The Rube Goldberg election: How Trump turned chaos into victory



In these wild political and cultural times, maybe we can allow ourselves a moment to “have some fun just for the fun of it.” Let’s take an off-beat look at Donald Trump’s 2024 comeback through the lens of Rube Goldberg, the cartoonist who turned everyday tasks into ridiculous, roundabout contraptions.

Goldberg, born July 4, 1883, became famous for illustrating convoluted chain reactions: a ball drops, a lever tilts, a cat jumps, and eventually, the napkin wipes your chin. His crazy spirit seems to have animated the past four years of American politics.

Take the self-operating napkin:

Wikipedia/Public domain

From the waning days of 2020 through November 2024, Democrats and their allies in the media and deep state plotted a simple game. They thought they could topple Trump like dominoes. Line up the indictments, knock over the first tile, and watch the rest fall neatly into place: Trump would give up, his supporters would grow weary, and one or more cases would stick, leaving him ineligible for office and likely even in prison.

Democrats trusted in dominoes. Reality looked more like a Goldberg machine — and divine providence.

The Democrats’ gambit did not pay off.

Instead of dominoes falling in precise order — A into B into C into D — events spun out in unpredictable ways. As I wrote in my 2023 book, “Obvious”:

Instead of things falling domino-style in precise order — A into B into C into D, and so on — life is more like A hitting G falling into C popping up H accelerating M ... all the way to Z. We take an action, start the ball rolling, and through many unseen and sometimes quirky circumstances, incredible results materialize.

That’s what happened. Democrats didn’t set off dominoes. They set loose a Rube Goldberg machine.

Trump’s Goldberg moment

One of the strangest, and most powerful, moments came in Butler, Pennsylvania, in the summer of 2024. An assassin’s bullet nearly took Trump’s life. Instead, Trump sprang up and shouted, “Fight, fight, fight!” That image electrified the nation.

Add to that miraculous scene a wave through a McDonald’s drive-through window, a campaign dump truck plastered with Trump signs, even headlines about people “eating cats and dogs,” and you begin to see the Rube Goldberg contraption click along — until it delivered not chaos but victory.

Courtroom dramas fizzled. Character assassination failed. Even physical assassination attempts backfired. What Democrats had hoped would be Trump’s undoing became the very chain of events that returned him to power.

Rube Goldberg is spinning in his grave (perhaps literally).

The hand behind the chain reaction

Through another lens, the lesson is simpler: “All things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28). What looks chaotic to us is under His direction. He arranges the pieces, sets events in motion, and brings about His will.

Democrats trusted in dominoes. Reality looked more like a Goldberg machine — and divine providence.

The game is not over. More events lie ahead, more unexpected turns in the chain reaction. The real question is not whether the machinery keeps moving but whether we will find ourselves on the winning side when the final result arrives.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at American Thinker.