BRUTAL: Bill Maher just likened his fellow Democrats to 'retarded' children born of 'incest'



Even though Bill Maher was never cured from his Trump derangement syndrome and ended up voting for Kamala Harris, he is still calling the left out on its nonsense.

Dave Rubin plays the clip of Maher brutally roasting his fellow Democrats for their response to Trump’s victory.

Displaying images of “The View” and MSNBC panels, Maher said, “Someone must tell the usual suspects on the far left that the saying is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging,' not 'keep digging.'”

“The one concession I've heard a few people on the losing side offer [is] that liberals should stop saying the Trump voters are stupid comes with a kind of unspoken parenthesis — we know they are stupid; just don't say it,” Maher said.

“Yeah, I got bad news for you. They don't have a monopoly on stupid. You wear 'Queers for Palestine' T-shirts and masks two years after the pandemic ended, and you can't define woman, I mean person who menstruates. You're the teachers' union education party, and you've turned schools and colleges into a joke. You just lost a crazy contest to an actual crazy person,” he added.

“There's a lot to not like already about the new regime, but maybe take one week to ask what you did wrong.”

Then Maher turned up the heat even more.

“Democrats have become like a royal family that because of so much incest has unfortunately had children who are retarded,” he lambasted, pointing to the way the party claims to believe in science and yet called the COVID lab-leak theory “racist.”

“The same thing can happen to ideas if they are also conceived in an atmosphere of intellectual incest. Maybe take the clothespins off your noses and actually converse with the other half of the country. Stop screaming at people to get with the program and instead make a program worth getting with,” he continued, pointing out that “too woke” should be “a cancellable offense.”

Dave still has hope that Maher is “gonna get there” because at least he “cares about truth.”

To see Maher’s epic roast, watch the video above.

Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Leftist editor resigns from Scientific American after foulmouthed rant about Trump supporters



The editor in chief of Scientific American has resigned from her position after going on an unhinged rant about the supporters of President-elect Donald Trump.

On Thursday, Laura Helmuth took to the social media platform Bluesky to announce that she was stepping away from Scientific American, the oldest continuously published magazine in American history.

"I’ve decided to leave Scientific American after an exciting 4.5 years as editor in chief," she wrote. "I’m going to take some time to think about what comes next (and go birdwatching)."

The statement itself is rather innocuous, seemingly obscuring the hate-filled context in which it was made.

On election night, Helmuth descended into a foulmouthed meltdown on Bluesky after Trump emerged the winner. Rather than direct her ire at the once and future president, Helmuth took aim at the 75 million or so Americans who cast a vote for him, as Blaze News previously reported.

Her statements that night included:

  • "I apologize to younger voters that my Gen X is so full of f****** fascists";
  • "Solidarity to everybody whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high-school classmates are celebrating early results because f*** them to the moon and back";
  • "Every four years I remember why I left Indiana (where I grew up) and remember why I respect the people who stayed and are trying to make it less racist and sexist"; and
  • "The moral arc of the universe isn't going to bend itself."
In a post shortly after the election, she added: "Any advice on what workplaces can do to help people who are devastated by the election? Thanks so much."
Her comments quickly went viral online, where users began demanding her resignation.
Helmuth then attempted to quell tempers by issuing an apology a few days later, admitting that her foul-mouthed remarks had been "offensive and inappropriate" and claiming that the "shock and confusion" of the election results had gotten the best of her.
She also insisted that she does "respect and value people across the political spectrum" and remains "committed to civil communication and editorial objectivity."
While her apology seemed to offer a spirit of bipartisanship, Helmuth reverted back to left-wing ideology in the Bluesky thread announcing her resignation. Perhaps in homage to herself, Helmuth also included in the thread a list of Scientific American articles she has "been so proud to support," some of which focus more on promoting far-left narratives than actual science.
Not only does one headline — "Gender-affirming care for trans kids is good health care" — encourage the genital mutilation and possible sterilization of children, but three also profess to tell "justice"-related "stories":
  • "Racial justice is a science story";
  • "Environmental justice is a science story"; and
  • "Reproductive justice is a science story."
Kimberly Lau, president of Scientific American, told CNN that Helmuth left the outlet of her own accord and that leaders there are already in the process of seeking her replacement.
"We thank Laura for her four years leading Scientific American during which time the magazine won major science communications awards and saw the establishment of a reimagined digital newsroom," Lau said in a statement. "We wish her well for the future."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrats held hostage by party's far-left radicals, top Hillary aide admits



Philippe Reines, a longtime aide to Hillary Clinton, lamented how the Democratic Party is being held hostage by the radicals within it, costing the party in elections.

Reines claimed that many Democrats actually are concerned about the Biden-Harris border crisis and oppose men playing in women's sports.

“I think Democrats believe in commonsense stuff more than you realize. I mean, it’s not like we sit at home and don‘t talk to anyone. Most Democrats I know think there is a huge problem at the border. Most Democrats I know think, frankly, that males at birth should not play women’s sports and vice versa," Reines told CNN on Friday.

'If you are going to ignore the political consequences of these kinds of things, then you're asking to lose these elections in the manner that we did.'

"Either way, here‘s the problem: I am not concerned about what the right thinks about the Democratic Party. I am concerned about what I think about the Democratic Party. ... I don‘t like the fact that a small portion of our party is pretty much dictating where we are. Pretty much, we are being branded as the most extreme of us," he continued.

“Again, I’m afraid to say something wrong. The woke stuff, the PC-police stuff. You’ll see Republicans who say they're afraid to say X. I’m afraid to say X. These congressmen are afraid to say X. Why?" Reines said.

— (@)

As if to prove Reines' point, the Boston Globe reported Rep. Seth Moulton's (D-Mass.) campaign manager and PAC director resigned after Moulton said he is against having men playing in women's sports because he has concerns for his daughters.

The long-serving chairman of the Democratic Party in Texas also resigned this week in part because he said the Democrats' embrace of transgenderism at the expense of women made them lose badly in the 2024 election.

“You could, for example, you can support transgender rights up and down all the categories where the issue comes up, or you can understand that there's certain things that we just go too far on, that a big bulk of our population does not support," Gilberto Hinojosa remarked. "If you are going to ignore the political consequences of these kinds of things, then you're asking to lose these elections in the manner that we did."

Moulton's and Hinojosa's comments about transgenderism created a fierce backlash from progressives.

One of the reasons why President-elect Donald Trump won the election is because his campaign was able to successfully highlight the extreme positions Vice President Kamala Harris took on social issues, like wanting to provide taxpayer-funded surgeries to prison inmates and illegal immigrants in U.S. custody.

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

Daily Caller Columnist Mary Rooke Says Harris’ VP Choice Points To Her Potentially Being ‘Very Far Left President’

'This is really the best pick'

Kamala Harris endorses Biden's radical Supreme Court 'reform' proposal



Vice President Kamala Harris has now endorsed a radical proposal from her boss, Joe Biden, that would overhaul the U.S. Supreme Court, signaling that she has not abandoned her far-left record even as she attempts to win over voters in swing states during the 2024 presidential campaign.

On Monday, Biden proposed three major changes to the makeup and inner workings of SCOTUS, as Blaze News previously reported. Biden wants 18-year term limits as well as a "binding code of conduct" for all justices. Taking aim at the lawfare campaigns he has allegedly unleashed on former President Donald Trump as well as a recent SCOTUS decision regarding presidential immunity, Biden also wants a constitutional amendment proclaiming that "no one is above the law."

Harris continues to champion leftist pipe dreams — such as radically altering one of the three branches of government — that likely appeal to idealogues in California but not to blue-collar workers in Rust Belt states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

"I share our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators," Biden apparently wrote.

On Monday evening, Harris announced her support for Biden's SCOTUS "reform" proposal, calling it critical for shoring up public "confidence" in our nation's highest court.

"There is a clear crisis of confidence facing the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why President @JoeBiden and I are calling on Congress to pass important reforms — from imposing term limits to requiring compliance with binding ethics rules," Harris wrote on X.

"And in our democracy, no one should be above the law. So we must also ensure that no former President has immunity for crimes committed while in the White House."

— (@)

As several outlets, including left-wing sources like Vox and the Daily Beast, have noted, the proposal has almost no chance of becoming the law of the land, especially since at least some of the ideas contained within it would require changing the Constitution.

Plus, Biden and Harris have made no effort to advance it along. According to the New York Post, Senate Democrats who would normally be tasked with drawing up legislation about such a proposal were not even briefed on its contents.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) likewise stated that the Biden-Harris proposal has no chance of passing the House:

This proposal is the logical conclusion to the Biden-Harris Administration and Congressional Democrats’ ongoing efforts to delegitimize the Supreme Court. Their calls to expand and pack the Court will soon resume. It is telling that Democrats want to change the system that has guided our nation since its founding simply because they disagree with some of the Court’s recent decisions. This dangerous gambit of the Biden-Harris Administration is dead on arrival in the House.

But perhaps more importantly, Harris' support for the proposal reveals that she is not attempting to moderate some of her left-wing positions even amidst a tough presidential race. Though some in the media have attempted to obscure her record as the Biden administration border czar and her support for a group that bailed out violent rioters in 2020, Harris continues to champion leftist pipe dreams — such as radically altering one of the three branches of government — that likely appeal to idealogues in California but not to blue-collar workers in Rust Belt states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

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

Even Dems alarmed as illegal aliens, 11-year-olds allowed to vote on some Boston expenditures



A new program in Boston will allow illegal aliens and kids as young as 11 to have a say on the way that the city spends millions of dollars.

In 2021, Bostonians voted to approve the establishment of the Office of Participatory Budgeting, and participatory budgeting means exactly what it says: giving voters the opportunity to participate in the way a portion of the city's budget is spent.

'Her decision-making is becoming as juvenile as this latest stunt.'

This year, as part of far-left Democrat Mayor Michelle Wu's fiscal year 2025 budget proposal, that office's purpose will finally be put into practice.

By September, Wu and her team will compile a list of 15 community projects. Then in January, voters will select — either online or in person — five of them to receive a portion of the $2 million allotted for OPB spending. Though $2 million sounds like a lot of money, it's actually just a tiny fraction of the city's overall budget, which in 2024 was more than $4.2 billion.

The concept of participatory budgeting began in Brazil more than three decades ago, but in Boston, it began as the result of a "youth-led participatory budgeting initiative," the Boston OPB website states. True to those roots, all Boston residents at least 11 years old will be able to participate in the OPB vote in January.

Allowing children still five years away from a driver's license to help determine city expenditures may be alarming, but at least many of those kids are U.S. citizens. Even worse, illegal aliens will also be able to participate in Boston's participatory budgeting as well, the New York Post reported, perhaps to help satisfy the OPB's mission to help "achiev[e] and embed[] equity and inclusion into City practices."

The voting process for participatory budgeting in Boston has become such a circus that even some high-profile Democrat leaders have expressed misgivings. Notably, City Councilman Ed Flynn expressed "unequivocal and vehement opposition to the voting process," claiming his constituents would view "allowing children to decide the usage of taxpayer dollars" as "tone-deaf, unserious, and wholly inappropriate."

"During this time of great fiscal uncertainty — with a study warning that remote work policies and the city’s declining commercial property values may cost us $500 million in revenue annually, as well as a subsequent proposal to also tax commercial property at a higher rate — now more than ever, it is critical that we show the taxpayers of Boston that we take our financial responsibilities seriously," Flynn wrote in a letter to OPB director Renato Castelo.

Others on the city council agreed with Flynn but perhaps for different reasons. Democrat Councilor Erin Murphy voiced concerns about the process, the Union-Bulletin reported, though the outlet did not identify Murphy's objections.

Councilor John FitzGerald, who does not mention a party affiliation on either his city bio or his campaign website, worries that participatory budgeting gives residents a greater say over spending than the city council.

Paul Craney of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance finds the whole idea absurd. "Mayor Wu will try almost anything to make a news headline and get attention, even capitulate her responsibilities as mayor and designate children and non-citizens to make budgetary decisions with our tax dollars," Craney told Blaze News.

"Her decision-making is becoming as juvenile as this latest stunt."

Democrat Councilor Liz Breadon, however, is much more optimistic about giving young people voting power. "I really do think this is a huge opportunity to develop civic engagement," Breadon said. "I do hope that it will lead to a more engaged citizenry going forward."

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

Why The Left’s Antisemitic Hysterics Shouldn’t Surprise Anyone

In the wake of Oct. 7, the left's response makes much more sense when you consider the falsehoods they choose to believe about Israeli history.

Jordan Peterson corners Bill Maher with the question no Democrat will answer



If there’s one person you can count on to put the left in its place, it’s Jordan Peterson.

And on a recent "Real Time with Bill Maher" panel, Peterson did exactly that.

After expounding on the “idiot meta-Marxism” that has taken over universities throughout the West, Peterson laid out a simple question that no Democrat will answer.

“One of the things the Democrats also have to pay the price for, I would say, is their absolute refusal to draw a line between the modern Democrats and the extremists,” Peterson begins to Bill Maher and his panel.

“They’re completely incapable of doing that. Like, I've talked to forty senators and congressmen in the last five years. I asked them all the same question, including RFK. He wouldn’t answer either.”

The question, which Peterson then directed at Maher, is, “When does the left go too far?’”

Peterson’s delivery was undoubtedly impressive, and Dave Rubin is more than pleased to hear it.

“Man, if I do nothing else in my career, the fact that I had anything — even, like, the slightest pin drop of a thing — to do with getting people to know that guy, that would be more than enough that they could put on my epitaph,” Rubin says.

Rubin does note, however, that when RFK refused to answer that question, he was still a Democrat.

RFK has since left the Democratic Party and is running as an independent.

“He has finally realized that the left has gone too far,” Rubin says.


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Ilhan Omar's response to Israel attack is SO much worse than you thought



Ilhan Omar is a lot of things — she’s a first-generation Somalian immigrant; she’s a member of the U.S. Congress; and according to Dave Rubin, she’s a “powerful and influential” politician who is “an enemy of the United States of America.”

On October 7, Omar released a statement in response to Hamas’ invasion of Israel:

Reminder, Gaza doesn’t have shelters or an iron dome and to please pray for them. May peace prevail in the region and move us towards a moral awakening to care about the human suffering we are seeing. Palestinians are human beings who have been besieged and are deserving of protection from the international community.

Dave acknowledges that she’s right that “Palestinians are besieged … by Hamas,” but she’s still “a f***ing communist.”


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Start seeing the world NOW, because travel will soon be a thing of the past



Glenn Beck recently returned from vacationing in Europe, and while there, his travel agent told him some disturbing news.

“You know the United Nations’ sustainable goals are to make sure we’re not traveling any more,” he told Glenn.

“You should see Europe now while you can.”

While this certainly sounds outlandish and far-fetched, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that travel will indeed be a thing of the past before long.

Glenn explains the unfortunate situation that’s coming for travel-lovers across the globe.

There’s official documentation showing that in Europe, “air travel … [will be] diminished until they get to zero … there will be no travel unless it is mass travel on trains – easier for Europe; impossible for the United States,” he explains.

They’re already “closing or preparing to close all airports [in the UK] except for Heathrow and Glasgow.”

These are public airports, mind you.

Glenn is certain “the private airports will be open for the personal jets of the elite.”

But this movement isn’t isolated to Europe. There are already steps being taken in the United States to disparage travel.

An article from the New Yorker just came out, and it unabashedly villainizes traveling. Titled, “The Case Against Travel,” the article opens with:

What is the most uninformative statement that people are inclined to make? My nominee would be ‘I love to travel.’ This tells you very little about a person, because nearly everyone likes to travel; and yet people say it, because, for some reason, they pride themselves both on having traveled and on the fact that they look forward to doing so.

In other words, traveling “shows that you’re ignorant, you’re … out of the cool kids’ club,” Beck says.

The notion that travel is synonymous with “[having] a destructive Boomer mentality” is soon to catch fire here in the States, according to Glenn’s travel agent.

“With ESG metrics in place, traveling will be considered harmful and sinful, and in the age of central bank digital currency, [travel will be] penalized in many cases if the algorithm believes that you have traveled too much.”

Did you get that?

The far left intends to penalize people who travel too much.

But it’s all in the name of protecting the fragile environment, right?

Wrong.

“Of course none of this has to do with preserving the environment,” Glenn’s agent writes. “It has everything to do with keeping you in your 15-minute city and in your affinity-based autonomous zones.”

“The people who are behind all of this,” Glenn explains, “are the global elites.” They have “a well thought-out plan” that will ultimately result in us all getting back “on the road to serfdom.”

Watch the full clip here.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.