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.

Changing Names Won’t Fix MSNBC’s Reputation As A Left-Wing Propaganda Machine

MSNBC may be undergoing a major rebranding, but its role as a left-wing propaganda operation is here to stay. On Monday, the network announced that it will be transitioning to “My Source News Opinion World,” or “MS NOW” later this year. The name change comes as part of the outlet’s move to Versant, a new […]

'Pure fiction': CNN shamed for 'fake news' story about a Vance-hosted Epstein strategy session



Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe provided damning insights last month into the apparent role that the liberal media played in perpetuating the Russian collusion hoax on the American people.

The revelations do not appear to have chastened the outlets that vigorously pushed the false narrative for years.

For example, when confronted with the newly declassified Durham annex — which detailed credible intelligence indicating that the Clinton campaign manufactured the Russian collusion hoax, seeded its talking points to the media, and ultimately furnished the FBI with a pretext to hound her opponent — the New York Times spun the declassified report as a distraction from the Epstein files; misled readers about its key findings; and downplayed its significance.

The article has neither aged well nor stood up to scrutiny.

Whereas the Times recently tried to gaslight about an old hoax, CNN — which has not covered the Durham annex — set to work this week on a new story that turned out to be a hoax.

On Tuesday, CNN published a piece titled "Top Trump officials will discuss Epstein strategy in Wednesday meeting at Vice President JD Vance's residence." The article has neither aged well nor stood up to scrutiny.

CNN claimed in the initial version that Vance, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche were expected to meet at the vice president's residence to discuss "the administration's handling of the Epstein case, as well as the need to craft a unified response."

RELATED: From Obama to CNN: How the liberal media helped facilitate the 'treasonous conspiracy' about Russian collusion

Kypros / Andrew Harnik | Getty Images

Citing two anonymous sources, the liberal publication further claimed that "the White House considers those officials the leaders of the Trump administration's ongoing strategy regarding the Epstein files."

CNN has since edited its article to note that Vance is not actually among those whom the White House supposedly considers leaders of the admin's ongoing Epstein strategy.

'Any reporting to the contrary is false.'

"The CNN story is pure fiction," William Martin, communications director to the vice president, said in a statement obtained by Blaze News. "There was never a supposed meeting scheduled at the vice president’s residence to discuss Epstein strategy."

When pressed for comment, the White House referred Blaze News to Martin's statement.

Alayna Treene, the CNN White House reporter on the apparently fake story, began to backpedal on Wednesday, noting first that "administration officials familiar with the meeting said the dinner was now in flux, given its intense coverage, & it was unclear whether it would ultimately be called off, moved to another location or rescheduled."

An hour later, Treene shared the following comment from Martin: "As we've said publicly, there was never a supposed meeting scheduled at the vice president’s residence to discuss Epstein strategy. Any reporting to the contrary is false."

RELATED: House Republicans subpoena Clintons, ex-DOJ officials in Epstein probe

Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The story continued to unravel, now at an accelerated pace.

Citing her anonymous sources once again, Treene indicated on X that the dinner might not be happening, but if it were, it might be happening elsewhere and would not actually be an Epstein strategy session.

"Despite talks of canceling the dinner, two officials said it could still take place, though the location may change," wrote Treene. "They argued the focus of the meeting would likely be broader than solely discussing the administration’s handling of the Epstein case."

'I saw that reported today, and it's completely fake news.'

CNN then rushed out a follow-up piece incorporating Treene's narrative revisions — an article the liberal network also ended up having to alter.

The follow-up article, first titled "Vance dinner seen as potential way to clear the air between Bondi and Patel on Epstein scandal" and now appearing on the CNN website as "Planned dinner for Trump officials to discuss Epstein appears to have been moved amid media scrutiny," states as a fact that the dinner was planned for Wednesday night at Vance's residence and "was seen as an opportunity for Trump administration officials to realign amid the ongoing Jeffrey Epstein scandal."

Whereas previously CNN sold the supposed dinner as an Epstein strategy session, now the publication suggested it was an opportunity for Vance "to reprise his peacemaker role" and smooth things over between Bondi, Bongino, and Patel, who apparently had a falling out following the Justice Department's conclusion that child sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein did not have a client list that could implicate deep-pocketed elites.

"It’s a way to get everyone together in an informal, low-stakes situation," an unnamed source told CNN.

Fielding a question about the supposed gathering posed to President Donald Trump on Wednesday, Vance said, "I saw that reported today, and it's completely fake news. We're not meeting to talk about the Epstein situation, and I think the reporter who reported it needs to get better sources."

— (@)

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

New York Times makes big admission about Trump's tariffs



President Donald Trump began in April to radically transform how trade is conducted internationally, announcing tariffs on friendly and adversarial nations alike in an effort to settle scores and to exact concessions favorable to the United States, such as those made by Japan and the European Union last month.

"Our country and its taxpayers have been ripped off for more than 50 years, but it is not going to happen anymore. It's not going to happen," Trump said at the "Liberation Day" ceremony where he announced a sweeping list of tariffs. "This will be, indeed, the golden age of America. It's coming back. And we're going to come back very strongly."

This tariff-driven upheaval has rankled establishmentarians at home and abroad — some of whom have launched legal challenges, issued condemnations, and threatened retaliation. Of course, the media has also worked feverishly to paint the tariffs as reckless and as more grease down the slope to economic ruin.

'Revenue and reciprocity are the twin benefits of the Trump tariffs.'

Nearly four months after the New York Times characterized Trump's approach as a "burn-it-down-first, figure-out-the-consequences-later recklessness," the paper admitted on Sunday that the tariffs are already netting a great deal of money for the government.

The Times' Washington, D.C., tax policy reporter Andrew Duehren confirmed on Sunday that Trump's recent assertion that "Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!" was correct.

RELATED: Main Street's silent plea: Exempt us from the next tariffs

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

"Even before the latest tariffs kick in, revenue from taxes collected on imported goods has grown dramatically so far this year," Duehren wrote. "Customs duties, along with some excise taxes, generated $152 billion through July, roughly double the $78 billion netted over the same time period last fiscal year, according to Treasury data."

Citing data from the U.S. Treasury Department, the Times indicated that tariffs brought in over $29 billion in the month of July alone.

Analysts reportedly estimated that the tariffs could be worth well over $2 trillion in additional revenue if left untouched over the next 10 years.

"Tariffs are not going to be a huge source of revenue, couple trillion over a decade, but not trivial at all," Christopher Whalen, chairman of Whalen Global Advisors, told Blaze News in a statement. "But the tariffs are appropriate and are a way to get the world to give at least equal treatment to American goods. Revenue and reciprocity are the twin benefits of the Trump tariffs."

'I do not think this is a true source of revenue, only a substitution and reordering of taxes.'

While the tariffs are bringing in boatloads of cash, some critics have noted that Americans are the ones ultimately paying the price — something that might be more tolerable if Trump's idea to scrap American income tax and lean instead on tariffs as the main source of federal revenue were implemented.

Economic expert and Blaze Media contributor Carol Roth said in a statement to Blaze News, "When you think of the word 'revenue' when it comes to the federal government, you should think taxes because that's the primary source of government revenue. When it comes to revenue from tariffs, it is no different."

"The majority of the tariff burden is coming not from foreign exporters, but rather from U.S. consumers and U.S. businesses," Roth said, alluding to a Goldman Sachs analysis that estimated foreign exporters were only absorbing 20% of the higher costs from tariffs.

RELATED: Tariffs vs. free trade: Which is BETTER for the American auto industry?

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Goldman Sachs economists reportedly indicated that eventually, 70% of the direct cost of tariffs would be kicked to consumers through higher prices.

"This means tariffs are mostly revenue that is moving from one pocket to the other, so to speak, as businesses and consumers that pay tariffs then have less money to contribute otherwise to the economy, impacting other tax or government 'revenue' collection," Roth continued. "Unless we fundamentally reorder how taxes are paid (as well as spending) to something that is focused on a consumption tax (which I personally do not think is a good idea given how our economy functions today), I do not think this is a true source of revenue, only a substitution and reordering of taxes."

'I think this is addictive.'

"We all know that making the [Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017] tax cuts permanent through the [One Big Beautiful Bill Act] was important to the economy, so why would anyone think that adding in the equivalent of more taxes through tariffs is a good idea?" Roth added. "Also, given that cost of living remains a top issue for Americans, adding costs — even if it is only in certain areas of the economy — is in conflict with the administration's agenda."

Regardless of where the money is coming from, there are concerns that the U.S. government might become overly reliant on tariffs as a revenue stream.

"I think this is addictive," Joao Gomes, a finance and economics professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, told the Times. "I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are."

The national deficit is presently $1.33 trillion, and the national debt is $36.91 trillion.

Despite Democratic complaints over the tariffs, Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab, suggested that there may be hesitance among both Republicans and Democrats to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a greater federal debt load.

"Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn't have to vote on tariffs in the first place," Tedeschi told the Times.

Rather than scrap the tariffs, Democrats are apparently thinking about ways in which they can blow the money.

Democratic strategist Tyson Brody noted, "The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that 'these will be impossible to withdraw.' It's: 'Oh look, there's now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogram.'"

Some Republicans also have a mind to redistribute the funds.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced legislation last week that would send tariff rebate checks to Americans. The amount of the rebate would be at least $600 per adult and dependent child, or more if tariff revenue exceeds current projections for 2025.

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

NPR Chief Turns to Dem Donors To Drum Up Funds

Katherine Maher, the CEO of National Public Radio, was in San Francisco last week to solicit donations from wealthy Californians after Republicans canceled federal funding for the news nonprofit and its local affiliates. 

The post NPR Chief Turns to Dem Donors To Drum Up Funds appeared first on .

From Obama to CNN: How the liberal media helped facilitate the 'treasonous conspiracy' about Russian collusion



Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has released a treasure trove of evidence revealing how former President Barack Obama and his national security Cabinet members had, as many long suspected, apparently "manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump."

Both before and after the 2016 election, the understanding among intelligence officials appears to have been that Russia had likely not interfered, particularly by using cyber means, to influence the outcome.

Gabbard revealed, however, that before this conclusion could be delivered to the American public, the Obama White House seemingly intervened to set an alternative narrative — a narrative largely based on the Steele dossier, a political opposition research report paid for in part by the Clinton campaign, which the intelligence community knew to be devoid of credibility.

'They weren't in Russia; they never made a phone call to Russia; they never received a phone call.'

This false narrative, which was initially fed piecemeal through leaks to the liberal media and then officially advanced through a reworked intelligence assessment published on Jan. 6, 2017, served "as the basis for countless smears seeking to delegitimize President Trump’s victory, the years-long Mueller investigation, two Congressional impeachments, high-level officials being investigated, arrested, and thrown in jail, heightened U.S.-Russia tensions, and more," Gabbard said.

The success of what Gabbard characterized as a "treasonous conspiracy" was largely reliant on the participation of the liberal media, whose assistance took on various forms but in some cases was as simple as framing unnamed partisan sources from the previous administration not only as credible but noble.

For instance, in March 2017, the New York Times explained away Obama officials' eagerness to push the Russian collusion narrative before President Donald Trump took office not as an attempt to "make an excuse for their own defeat in the election," as then-White House spokesman Sean Spicer put it, but rather as a heroic effort to protect legitimate intelligence from obfuscation or destruction:

Mr. Trump has denied that his campaign had any contact with Russian officials, and at one point he openly suggested that American spy agencies had cooked up intelligence suggesting that the Russian government had tried to meddle in the presidential election. Mr. Trump has accused the Obama administration of hyping the Russia story line as a way to discredit his new administration. At the Obama White House, Mr. Trump's statements stoked fears among some that intelligence could be covered up or destroyed — or its sources exposed — once power changed hands. What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence that underscored the deep anxiety with which the White House and American intelligence agencies had come to view the threat from Moscow.

This explanation was followed paragraphs later by the claim that Obama directed none of the efforts.

RELATED: 'Prosecuting Obama': Trump makes shocking statement as he commends Gabbard for bombshell evidence release

Photo by Saul Loeb - Pool/Getty Images

One month prior, Trump — whose transition team emphasized early on that the intelligence agencies alleging Russian interference were "the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction" — called the Russia narrative a "scam."

"You can talk all you want about Russia, which was all a, you know, fake news, fabricated deal, to try and make up for the loss of the Democrats, and the press plays right into it," Trump said during a Feb. 16, 2017, press conference. "In fact, I saw a couple of the people that were supposedly involved with all of this — that they know nothing about it; they weren't in Russia; they never made a phone call to Russia; they never received a phone call."

The Poynter Institute's PolitiFact, among the publications that made good use of the reworked intelligence assessment, leaned on the apparently Obama-skewed document when insinuating that Trump's remarks at the press conference were false.

The Washington Post, which was among the biggest media proponents of the hoax, readily and routinely leaned on the input and framing of fierce Trump critics, including those apparently involved in the manufacture of the Russian collusion hoax, such as ex-CIA Director John Brennan.

In its long-standing effort to portray Trump as guilty and defensive, the paper also tracked how many times the president and those in the White House denied Russian collusion.

'The integrity of our democratic republic demands that every person involved be investigated and brought to justice to prevent this from ever happening again.'

Unhinged Trump critics such as Anne Applebaum, the writer who smeared as propagandists early proponents of the pandemic lab-leak theory and wasted ink last year imagining parallels between Trump and various 20th-century dictators, kept Washington Post readers' hope alive that they were getting closer to "direct evidence" of collusion, while over at CNN commentators worked as if it there were proof that Russia interfered to get Trump elected.

RELATED: Ex-CIA Director John Brennan's bad year could get a lot worse: 'Maybe they have to pay a price for that'

Photographer: Will Oliver/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Former CNN editor at large Chris Cillizza suggested in a 2018 piece that Trump's refusal to play along with the hoax was a likely sign that Moscow had compromising information on the president. This, for Cillizza, made more sense than the notion "in Trump's mind [that] any talk of Russian interference in the election is an attempt to undermine the 'brilliant campaign' (his words) he ran in 2016 and somehow invalidate his victory."

Days later, CNN's Marshall Cohen identified "10 ways Trump has strayed from his own intelligence agencies on Russian meddling" — a piece that now serves to memorialize the media's misplaced faith in the intelligence community and to vindicate Trump's skepticism.

While the newly released documents from the DNI both salt the remains of the Russian collusion hoax and justify Trump's use of the term "fake news" in reference to numerous publications, the documents could prove far more impactful for those who constructed the false narrative. After all, Gabbard referred the documents to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution.

"These documents detail a treasonous conspiracy by officials at the highest levels of the Obama White House to subvert the will of the American people and try to usurp the President from fulfilling his mandate," Gabbard wrote.

The director of national intelligence added, "The integrity of our democratic republic demands that every person involved be investigated and brought to justice to prevent this from ever happening again."

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

Sandler ‘Happy’ to stick with original love interest for ‘Gilmore’ sequel



Score one for Adam Sandler.

The “Saturday Night Live” alum appears, by all accounts, to be a genuine good guy in the Hollywood ecosystem. He proudly shares his Jewish faith on screen, something you don’t typically see in blockbuster comedies.

When it’s time to make a new project, he calls upon his famous pals. He and Rob Schneider are rarely seen apart on screen. Loyalty matters.

Now, we’re learning how Sandler defied Hollywood ageism on his newest project. “Happy Gilmore 2” reunites much of the 1996 film’s cast, including Christopher McDonald (Shooter McGavin). It’s also set to feature Sandler’s squeeze Virginia Venit, played then and now by Julie Bowen.

The 55-year-old “Modern Family” alum expected the sequel to cast a younger, hotter actress opposite Sandler this time ’round. That’s just how Hollywood rolls.

Instead, Bowen got the call to reprise her “Happy Gilmore” character. And while she doesn’t have as much screen time as in the original, Sandler assured her how vital she is to the project.

“You’re the heart of the movie,” Sandler told her.

While the “Jack and Jill” star may seem an unlikely crusader against the industry’s double standards, it should come as no surprise to those who know anything about Sandler’s personal life.

The SNL alum has been married to wife, Jackie Titone — with whom he shares two daughters — since 2003. And not a whiff of sleazy scandal.

Which is more than we can say for many an outspoken Hollywood “male feminist.”

Perry’s scary stage SNAFU

Can things get worse for Katy Perry?

Her latest album got crushed by critics, and clips of her current tour drew social media mockery. She dipped a manicured toe in space, a trip that also generated a digital drubbing. Plus, she and her longtime steady, Orlando Bloom, just split.

Her latest indignity? A stage prop misbehaved, leaving her clinging for life midair. Her stop in Adelaide, Australia, hit a snag when a stunt involving a suspended sphere went haywire. She clung to the sphere’s bars while technicians rushed to fix the issue.

She emerged unhurt, but her ego took another hit along the way ...

Star Trek: Trump Derangement Syndrome

Oh, my!

George Takei has finally cut the cord on his iconic Sulu character from the original “Star Trek” series and multiple feature films. How? He’s now a full-time Trump critic, and he proved it anew with a pathetic performance on the immersive liberal holodeck known as CNN.

He compared ICE’s deportation efforts to the Japanese-Americans rounded up during World War II by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

They’re not remotely similar, of course. The worst part? Takei was one of those Japanese-Americans swept up in the country’s anti-Japanese fever in the 1940s. He even wrote a play about those memories.

Now, all he can do is summon them to smite Orange Man Bad. Set phasers on “stunned” ...

RELATED: The technology of ‘Star Trek’

Sunset Boulevard/Getty Images

We’d ‘Rather’ not

The very last person who should speak out about CBS’ $16 million settlement with President Donald Trump over a selective editing scandal is Dan Rather.

The disgraced newsman used the “60 Minutes” brand to peddle fake news about then-President George W. Bush to sway the 2004 election. It failed, in part, because an army of citizen journalists rose up and debunked it step by step.

Rather never backed down, despite losing his plush anchor chair. A 2016 movie about the incident asked audiences to believe both that the newsman got the basic story right — and that he could be convincingly played by Robert Redford.

The title? “Truth.” That’s Hollywood.

So, naturally, Variety turned to Rather to weigh in on the Trump settlement.

“It’s a sad day for journalism. ... It’s a sad day for ‘60 Minutes’ and CBS News. I hope people will read the details of this and understand what it was. It was distortion by the president and a kneeling down and saying, ‘Yes, sir,’ by billionaire corporate owners,” Rather said.

Variety couldn’t bother to tell readers who didn’t live through “Rathergate” why the Texas newsman is, to be kind, an unreliable narrator.

Then again, if anyone knows about fake news, it’s Danny Boy ...

Putting the man in ‘romantic’

What can’t the patriarchy do?

Director Celine Song of “Past Lives” fame is blaming men for the death of the rom-com. Her latest film, “Materialists,” isn’t as frothy as most romantic comedies, but it loosely falls under that banner.

And it’s good!

That doesn’t mean Song’s approach to the subject is admirable. She says Hollywood stopped making rom-coms due to the patriarchy. Toxic men dismiss the genre as “chick flicks” and nothing more.

Except we never stopped loving rom-coms. The rom-com giants (Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan) aged out of the genre. The newer versions offered up strained, gimmick-laden plots (“How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days”), and some focused on lust, not love (“Friends with Benefits,” “No Strings Attached”).

And when young, attractive stars get a chance at rom-com glory, they often hit the bull’s-eye. “Anyone But You” wasn’t “good,” but it boasted the attractive duo of Glen Powell and Sydney Sweeney. And it made a whopping $220 million in global theaters.

Scapegoating the patriarchy is always a woke winner, but this time, the blame falls squarely on Hollywood’s stooped shoulders.

DNC Rehashes Debunked Claim Blaming Trump Cuts for Texas Flood Deaths

The Democratic National Committee on Monday blamed President Donald Trump's staffing cuts to the National Weather Service for the deadly Texas floods over the weekend—even after meteorologists and union officials said that forecasts were accurate and staffing levels were sufficient.

The post DNC Rehashes Debunked Claim Blaming Trump Cuts for Texas Flood Deaths appeared first on .

Trump triumphs: Paramount, CBS settle over Kamala Harris' '60 Minutes' interview



Ahead of the 2024 presidential election, the liberal media pulled out all the stops to portray President Donald Trump in a negative light and to present his Democratic opponent as halfway intelligible.

According to an October report from the Media Research Center, the broadcast evening news coverage of the race was the most lopsided in history, with ABC, CBS, and NBC treating Kamala Harris to 78% positive coverage and Trump to 85% negative coverage.

Late in the media's partisan persuasion campaign, Harris sat down for an interview with CBS News' "60 Minutes." The heavily edited version of the interview that aired on Oct. 7 proved to be a complete disaster not only for the Democratic candidate but for the liberal network and its parent company, which now has to pay a steep price to the great displeasure of liberal media personalities.

Trump sued CBS News over the interview on Oct. 31, 2024, accusing the network of "partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference through malicious, deceptive, and substantial news distortion calculated to (a) confuse, deceive, and mislead the public, and (b) attempt to tip the scales in favor of the Democratic Party as the heated 2024 Presidential Election — which President Trump is leading — approaches its conclusion."

Trump initially sued for $10 billion but then increased his claim in a subsequent filing to $20 billion.

'CBS and Paramount Global realized the strength of this historic case and had no choice but to settle.'

Paramount, CBS News' parent company, announced late Tuesday that it will settle the action, which CBS said in a court filing just days earlier was a "meritless lawsuit" that takes aim at a news organization "for editorial decisions Plaintiffs dislike."

RELATED: CNN's fake news fumble: Shaky anonymous sources backfire as Trump's Iran strike proves devastating

Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images

Under the agreement — which the Freedom of the Press Foundation pre-emptively threatened to sue Paramount over — $16 million will be allocated to Trump's future presidential library and to the president's fees and costs, reported CBS News.

Blaze News has reached out to the White House for comment.

"With this record settlement, President Donald J. Trump delivers another win for the American people as he, once again, holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit," a spokesperson for Trump's legal team told Fox News Digital. "CBS and Paramount Global realized the strength of this historic case and had no choice but to settle. President Trump will always ensure that no one gets away with lying to the American People as he continues on his singular mission to Make America Great Again."

This outcome greatly resembles Trump's settlement with ABC.

Trump sued ABC and George Stephanopoulos last year over a March 10, 2024, interview wherein the ABC News host falsely stated that the Republican had been found liable by multiple juries for the rape of E. Jean Carroll.

To the great chagrin of liberal talking heads, ABC settled the action in December, agreeing to pay both $15 million to Trump's future presidential library and $1 million in legal fees to Trump's attorneys.

The big difference between the two settlements appears to be that CBS will not apologize for its Emmy-nominated interview, whereas ABC appended an editor's note to the bottom of the article corresponding with its offending interview that expressed regret for the false statements.

Paramount did, however, agree that moving forward, "60 Minutes" will release transcripts of interviews with presidential candidates in the future, "subject to redactions as required for legal or national security concerns."

'CBS and 60 Minutes defrauded the public by doing something which has never, to this extent, been seen before.'

CBS initially refused to release the unedited transcript of its Harris' "60 Minutes" interview, prompting complaints and finally an intervention by the Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC, which received a formal complaint on Oct. 16 from the Center for American Rights requesting an investigation into possible news distortion, released the raw footage and full transcript on Feb. 5.

The footage confirmed critics' suspicions and demonstrated the great lengths taken by the network to make Harris appear intelligible and concise.

RELATED: When the mainstream media's left-wing bias costs them credibility

Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

For instance, Bill Whitaker of CBS News' "60 Minutes" asked Harris at one stage in the interview whether America lacked influence over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his strategic decisions in the Middle East. Whitaker then stated, "It seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening" to the Biden-Harris administration.

Blaze News previously reported that the version of the interview that went to air and was reflected in CBS News' official transcript was edited so that Harris appears to say in response, "We're not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end."

It's clear from the raw footage that Harris actually responded with one of her signature word salads:

Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we're not going to stop doing that. We're not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.

There were multiple cases of similar edits made with the apparent intention of making Harris appear more coherent.

After the FCC released the full interview in February, Trump stated, "CBS and 60 Minutes defrauded the public by doing something which has never, to this extent, been seen before. They 100% removed Kamala's horrible election changing answers to questions, and replaced them with completely different, and far better, answers, taken from another part of the interview. This was Election changing 'stuff,' Election Interference and, quite simply, Election Fraud at a level never seen before."

The settlement is not the only cause for demoralization at CBS.

Wendy McMahon stepped down as president of CBS News in May, noting in a statement, "It's become clear the company and I do not agree on the path forward."

The previous month, longtime "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens resigned, stating in a memo, "Over the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for '60 Minutes,' right for the audience."

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