Abbott urged to nuke governor's emergency powers before radical Democrats take office



One of the few Republicans who managed to keep his seat in the Texas House of Representatives through Tuesday's bloodbath is calling on Gov. Greg Abbott (R) to rein in the powers afforded to the governor before Democrats formally take power in January.

Abbott was voted out of office on Tuesday, losing decisively, 52.8%-45.7%, to Texas state Rep. Gina Hinojosa, an open-borders Democrat who has advocated taxpayer-funded health care for illegal aliens and sanctuary cities in the Lone Star State and voted against restrictions on sex-rejection surgeries on kids.

'The grassroots can help us force action now.'

Hinojosa said in her victory speech on Tuesday, "The voters have delivered a mandate for change, and it is change they will get."

On the campaign trail, Hinojosa signaled a desire to use gubernatorial emergency powers as soon as she takes office.

She stated ahead of Election Day, "Within an hour of taking the oath of office, I will declare a high-cost emergency in the state of Texas and issue an emergency executive order to: one, suspend the gas and diesel tax; and two, freeze electricity rates."

Of note, once in office, she will also have the support of a Democrat-controlled Texas House of Representatives as well as a Democrat lieutenant governor, Vikki Goodwin, and a Democrat state attorney general, Nathan Johnson. However, Republicans will retain a majority in the state Senate.

While Texans of various political stripes may be amenable to a tax freeze, state Rep. Brian Harrison (R) suspects Hinojosa might wield her newfound powers for nefarious purposes.

RELATED: Democrats' state-level takeover is staggering

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Harrison sent a letter to Abbott on Wednesday imploring the badly defeated governor to call a special session "to rein in executive emergency powers before it's too late."

"During this time, we Republicans still control the entirety of the Texas government, and we muse use every minute of it and every lever of power lawfully afforded to us to protect Texans against the coming four-year period of near total Democrat rule," wrote the state representative.

Harrison suggested that owing to "Texas's absurd (and almost certainly unconstitutional) emergency powers laws, Gov. Hinojosa will literally inherit the power to modify laws, ignore laws, or create and enforce laws — including criminal laws — on a whim!"

The state representative has a pandemic-era bill ready to go that would bar the governor from suspending or modifying statutes; torpedo emergency orders in 30 days if not ratified by the legislature; bar the governor from reissuing expired or rejected emergency orders; and subject emergency orders to expedited judicial review.

The bill would also require that an order issued by the governor or another state official that infringes on the rights of a private person must be "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling public health or safety purpose" and "limited in duration, applicability, and scope to reduce any infringement on individual liberty."

Neither Abbott's office nor Hinojosa's campaign responded to Blaze News' request for comment.

"Governor Greg Abbott has ignored my numerous requests for special sessions to pass countless conservative policy priorities, but time is really short now for him to act on this imminent threat!" Harrison said in a written statement to Blaze News. "I had no problem calling this out back in 2022 when Republicans were in power. Democrats agreed then; they should agree now."

Harrison, who expressed hope that "the grassroots can help us force action now," stressed the urgency of taking action as quickly as possible, noting that Hinojosa's promised use of emergency powers "could wreak havoc on our oil and gas sector."

The state representative also noted that Hinojosa has before her an opportunity to show consistency on the subject of emergency-power uses.

"Gina Hinojosa has publicly complained that Gov. Abbott has 'abused' emergency powers and told me she wants to limit them," said Harrison. "She has an opportunity to prove she isn’t being hypocritical, and she should be forced to answer if she still believes emergency powers should be limited."

Texas Rep. Chip Roy (D) signaled support for Harrison's proposal, as did Florida's Voice founder Brendon Leslie, who tweeted, "Abbott will do this if he gives a damn about his legacy."

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

Democrats' state-level takeover is profound



Democrats not only won majorities in both chambers of the U.S. Congress but took control of numerous statehouses and the majority of governors' mansions across the country.

By Wednesday evening, the nonprofit State Navigate had tallied the flip of at least 11 state legislative chambers from Republican to Democrat, the formation of six new Democratic trifectas, and the busting of five Republican trifectas.

'This wave is attributable to the economy and to people’s dissatisfaction with the president.'

Republicans lost control in the Arizona House and Senate, the Georgia House, the Michigan House, the New Hampshire House and Senate, the North Carolina House, the Pennsylvania Senate, the Texas House, and the Wisconsin Assembly and Senate — all where they previously enjoyed majorities, according to MultiState and the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.

Democrats now have supermajorities in the Colorado House and Senate, Delaware House, Maine Senate, Nevada Assembly, New Hampshire House, New Mexico House, New York Senate, and Vermont House and Senate.

While there are hundreds of races still outstanding, the DLCC claimed that 483 seats had been flipped in legislative state elections as of Thursday afternoon.

RELATED: Iran conflict was 'crucial' factor in Republican rout: Exit polls

Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto/Getty Images

State Navigate noted that "most of the gains Democrats have made on the state legislative level thus far are in districts Donald Trump won in 2024."

Five governorships have also flipped from Republican to Democrat: Georgia, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas.

Whereas previously, there were 24 Democrat and 26 Republican governors, the National Conference of State Legislatures anticipates that there will now be 30 Democrat and 20 Republican governors.

Chaz Nuttycombe, executive director of State Navigate, told the Guardian, "This wave is attributable to the economy and to people’s dissatisfaction with the president — probably about 80%, 85% of what’s carrying this is that."

"And the rest is maybe attitudes toward state government and incumbency in general. There’s large anti-incumbent resentment, mostly toward incumbent Republicans," added Nuttycombe.

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

Gov. Abbott ousted by open-borders radical Gina Hinojosa



Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott was voted out of office on Tuesday, losing to Gina Hinojosa — an open-borders Democrat who has championed taxpayer-funded health care for illegal aliens and sanctuary cities in the Lone Star State.

Abbott, who first assumed office in 2015 and led his state through the worst of the Biden border crisis, called the Texas Democratic state representative Tuesday evening to concede the race after trailing her by double digits.

'You all helped me to be your governor for 12 years.'

With 82% of the votes in, Hinojosa led Abbott 53%-45.7%, according to the Associated Press.

In response to the Abbott campaign characterizing her as a radical, Hinojosa said, "I plan to spend an entire campaign focused on the fact that working people are too broke," adding that her "pronouns are mom, Texan, and soon-to-be governor."

Hinojosa — who previously voted against restrictions on sex-rejection surgeries on kids — largely ran on a populist platform, promising to "lower healthcare, grocery, and utility costs, make home ownership a reality, and put $1500 in your pocket."

RELATED: Paxton swept away by blue wave after most expensive Senate race on record

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Her win constitutes a major upset — not only for Abbott but in a state that hasn't had a Democratic governor since 1995.

Although the Republican-controlled state legislature can restrict her ability to radically transform Texas, she in turn can torpedo Republican lawmakers' agenda with vetoes and strategic appointments.

Abbott, whom then-Gov. George W. Bush appointed in 1996 to the Texas Supreme Court, battled the Obama administration as the Lone Star State's attorney general and battled the Biden administration as its 48th governor.

He told his supporters after conceding the race, "The thing that I'm most proud about is that you all helped me to be your governor for 12 years. Thank you very much."

The governor also said that he would help his Democratic successor with the transition.

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

If Republicans can’t get Wyoming right, what are they fighting for?



Donald Trump carried Wyoming by 46 points in 2024. If conservatives cannot get the governor they want in the reddest state in America, what exactly is the conservative movement for?

That is the question raised with Tuesday's gubernatorial election. Eric Barlow, a former Wyoming House speaker whom many grassroots conservatives regard as a lukewarm Republican in name only, won the August GOP primary with about 45% of the vote. State Superintendent Megan Degenfelder, endorsed by Trump, and Brent Bien, backed by the state Republican Party, divided most of the remaining vote. Barlow now has the coveted R next to his name.

What is the point of pouring donor money into primaries if the movement is forbidden to hold the winner accountable afterward? A party label is a useful shorthand, not a lifetime warranty.

Imagine the reverse in Massachusetts. Suppose a candidate opposed to abortion, gay marriage, and the climate agenda slipped through a divided Democratic primary. Would the left's donor network, activist groups, and party leaders dutifully fall in line? Of course not. They would wage war over the meaning of their own party's label. Yet in Wyoming, too many conservatives treat that label as the end of the argument.

We're not talking about a swing state where choosing the lesser evil may be the only realistic option. Wyoming is Trump +46 territory. A Republican nominee here ought to make Ron DeSantis look like a squish, not invite comparisons to Lisa Murkowski.

Barlow's record gives conservatives plenty of reason to question what they would get. He supported Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, voting for the 2021 measure that passed the Wyoming House before dying in the Senate. He had previously worked on expansion proposals as a legislator. That policy record should mean something, especially to voters who spent years demanding an end to Obamacare. Since when does a primary victory wipe the slate clean?

His energy views are even more troubling. In testimony before Congress in 2003, Barlow said America must move beyond nonrenewable energy and that fossil fuels should have a role of “transition and not reliance.” In America's leading coal-producing state, the Republican nominee once argued that fossil fuels should be a transitional source of energy. Why pretend that tells us nothing?

The broader legislative record contains more disputes over which bills Barlow advanced and which he stalled as speaker. Those fights should be argued from actual votes, not slogans. One thing is beyond dispute: The Wyoming GOP chairman says his party will not endorse its own gubernatorial nominee. Barlow refused to participate in the party's vetting process, which he considered “improper.”

So why should conservative voters automatically fall into line?

RELATED: A ballot is no substitute for a backbone

Vepar5/iStock/Getty Images

They have another choice. Rebecca Bextel, a longtime conservative activist and donor, is running on the Constitution Party ticket. She campaigns on limited government, immigration enforcement, property rights, gun rights, and opposition to abortion. Her candidacy offers voters a way to register a conservative objection to the Republican nominee without voting for the Democrat.

Immediately the usual suspects howl about “splitting the vote.” In a competitive state, that concern would be serious. But the Democrat running for governor in Wyoming in 2022 received just 15.8% of the vote. Wyoming isn’t Massachusetts. That doesn't make a three-way contest risk-free; it makes the reflexive spoiler argument far less persuasive.

And yet where are the major conservative PACs? Where is the donor machinery that spends fortunes electing people who promptly surrender the movement's priorities? Bextel can secure an alternative place on the ballot, but she cannot manufacture the institutional support that conservative organizations claim to exist to provide.

Rep. Harriet Hageman (R), who backed Degenfelder in the primary and is now running for the Senate, endorsed Barlow in the closing weeks. Sens. John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis joined her in supporting the Republican ticket. That is precisely the establishment reflex I'm talking about: fight over the primary, then insist the letter after the winner’s name settles everything.

RELATED: Conservatives demand competition — except in their own primaries

Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images

Tucker Carlson, whatever disagreements I have with him, was willing to interview Bextel. Too many better-funded conservative personalities and institutions have been conspicuously absent. They should not be surprised when activists seek out the few people prepared to challenge Republican orthodoxy — and begin listening to those people on other questions too.

What is the point of pouring donor money into primaries if the movement is forbidden to hold the winner accountable afterward? Primary voters choose a nominee, but they do not acquire ownership of every conservative's conscience. A party label is a useful shorthand, not a lifetime warranty. If the movement’s only measure of success is keeping that label in office, it can preserve the party while losing every principle that supposedly justifies its existence.

Here is the central irony: In a state where Democrats rarely win statewide, the greatest obstacle to an unapologetically conservative agenda can be the Republicans who wear the party's name. A politician can deliver Democratic policy results without Democrats paying the political price.

At some point, conservatives must stop confusing party loyalty with fidelity to their own cause. If we cannot support our own principles in Wyoming, of all places, what exactly are we fighting for?

Sen. Murkowski betrays GOP once again, this time endorsing pro-abortion Democrat over 3 Republicans



U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — a nominal Republican up for re-election in 2028 — has made a habit out of sabotaging the MAGA agenda and undermining her fellow Republicans.

If she has demonstrated anything this week, it's consistency.

'You just don't get any worse!'

Rather than endorse one of the three Republican candidates in the running for Alaska governor, the 69-year-old has thrown her weight behind former Alaska state Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins.

Kreiss-Tomkins is a Democrat who has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood Alliance and celebrated for being "a proven advocate for reproductive health and LGBTQ2S+ rights."

"Our future is too important to be hamstrung by partisan divisions," Murkowski said in a statement published on Tuesday by the Kreiss-Tomkins campaign. "Jonathan understands that governing requires listening to people with different perspectives and finding common ground to solve the problems all of us face."

In addition to claiming that the Democrat is "committed to working toward solutions that serve all Alaskans," Murkowski claimed that he would "put our state first."

RELATED: Conservatives demand competition — except in their own primaries

Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Kreiss-Tomkins expressed gratitude to Murkowski for her endorsement and stated, "Alaskans deserve a government that can work through disagreements and make progress on the issues that matter."

The campaigns of Republican gubernatorial candidates Dave Bronson, Treg Taylor, and Bernadette Wilson did not respond to Blaze News' requests for comment.

Taylor said in a statement on Facebook, however, that Murkowski's decision was "particularly disappointing."

The Cook Political Report said that the gubernatorial race was leaning Democrat as of Oct. 13.

Murkowksi has been critical of current Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy, telling KTUU-TV this week that she has "found fault" with him.

"I think that they have left federal money on the table," said Murkowski. "I think in certain areas, where we have worked hard to put opportunities from the federal side, here, into the state, the state has failed with it."

This isn't the first time that Murkowski has endorsed a radical Democrat.

In October 2024, the senator endorsed the failed re-election bid of then-Rep. Mary Peltola — a pro-abortion Democrat who voted against Republican legislation that would have barred males from girls' sports.

Peltola, who is now running for the U.S. Senate, also enjoyed reinforcement from Murkowski earlier this year in the wake of allegations that the Democrat — who had the second-highest staff turnover rate in the U.S. House during her final year in office — roughed up an aide, threw around the term "retarded," and wished death by "botched abortion" on the board of a Planned Parenthood chapter.

This also isn't the first time that Murkowski has thrown caltrops in Republicans' way.

In recent months, she unsuccessfully fought Attorney General Todd Blanche's confirmation; repeatedly voted against funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection; voted to rein in President Donald Trump's war powers; voted to block Trump's tariffs; voted unsuccessfully to keep taxpayers on the hook for USAID and other foreign funding; voted against multiple Trump nominees, including Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Under Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao; campaigned against the SAVE America Act; and complained with Democrats about ex-FBI Director James Comey's indictment.

Murkowski's endorsement of Kreiss-Tomkins comes just days after Trump called her "Republicans' Worst Senator" and a "DISGRACE to Alaska and our Country."

"You just don't get any worse!"

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

Backlash EXPLODES over Vivek Ramaswamy's ad featuring opponent’s mom



Political attack ads are nothing new, but Vivek Ramaswamy’s latest one in Ohio’s gubernatorial race takes things to a whole new level.

The ad features Amy Acton’s own mother urging voters not to elect her.

“My name is Donna Arthur, and I’m Amy Acton’s mother. I worked at Children and Family Service Association, building one of the first two sexual abuse programs in America. I love my daughter, but when I saw her lying about her opponent, it’s not easy for a mother to say this, but Amy has a serious problem,” Arthur began in the ad.

“She is a liar. She lies about her past. She says she grew up living in a tent. None of that is true. She’s lied her entire life. My daughter needs help, and she can’t help you if she needs help herself,” she claimed.

“People can change, but first they have to tell the truth,” she continued. “And my daughter still isn’t doing that. Don’t vote for people who lie. Don’t let her become your governor.”


“If you think she’ll make your life better, you’re fooling yourself. It will only get worse,” she added.

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen an ad like that before. It’s brutal,” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere says.

“It’s very powerful,” co-host Dave Landau agrees.

“And you even listen to her, even though she comes off like a woman who you’d have at Christmas that you would ignore,” he adds.

Stu points out that despite the “powerful” ad, there are “complications” to the backstory.

“Reporters are very upset about this. Like they immediately have taken sides in this inter-family dispute. You can say we shouldn’t air these inter-family disputes in the middle of a campaign. That’s a plausible opinion if you want,” Stu says.

“But what’s interesting about what the media has done,” he adds, “is they’ve just immediately embraced Amy Acton’s side of the story, right?”

Stu plays a clip of Ramaswamy addressing the ad, admitting that it is “an ad from our campaign.”

“And the thing that I want to say is that I would love for this race and this election to be about the substantive issues that impact Ohioans. And unfortunately, Amy Acton has been hiding from those issues. She won’t debate me,” he explained.

“She doesn’t allow cameras at her events. And I think her record of continuously, certainly during this campaign, I would say spreading some defamatory, disparaging lies about me and my family that does deserve to be scrutinized,” he continued.

“I’ve never met Amy Acton, which is a regret. I wish I’d met at least my opponent. I’ve also never met her mother. She was not compensated. I asked my team that question because we’ve got the question,” he added.

“Now look, there is a complicating circumstance,” Stu comments. “I did want to bring this up because I think it’s an important part of the story. The reason why there’s all this outrage is the split between Amy Acton and her mom is a terrible, terrible story.”

“Including claims of abuse. The claim was that Amy Acton was abused by her stepfather, and basically the mom sided with the stepfather,” he adds.

“Well, there’s three sides to every story, Stu,” Dave says.

“There’s one side, another side, and then there’s the truth,” he adds.

Under guise of 'math help,' HS pushed girl's gender transition — and state took her away, says her Catholic parents' lawyer



Under the guise of "math help," a Massachusetts high school pushed for a girl's gender transition — and soon the state took her away, her Catholic parents' lawyer tells Blaze News.

Indeed, the Trump administration has launched an investigation into the girl's school district after reports that school officials "allegedly facilitated" her "gender transition" without her parents’ "knowledge or consent."

'Sophie should not only be returned to her parents, but there should be civil and criminal penalties for such misconduct by government agents.'

Joseph and Arlene Kutzko said their daughter Sophie has been in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families since December 2024 — when she was 15 — after the Kutzkos refused to recognize her as a boy or call her by male names and pronouns, the Boston Herald reported, adding that the state also issued a permanent restraining order against the Kutzkos.

Vernadette Broyles, the Kutzkos' attorney, told Blaze News that the parents were kept in the dark and told that Sophie was getting "math help" at Algonquin Regional High School in Northborough while a counselor allegedly "socially transitioned" her — so the parents were "deceived, actually."

"They're a beautiful family," Broyles told Blaze News, adding that "it's been hell on earth" for the Kutzkos as they do battle with three separate courts in their quest to regain custody of her and are stretched to the limit financially.

Meanwhile, Democrat Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey told the Herald that the gender issue has nothing to do with why the Kutzkos' daughter was taken from them.

“Let me be clear about the facts in that matter," Healey said, according to the paper. "First of all, DCF did not remove the child because of a health issue or a gender-affirming care issue. DCF removed the child after there were criminal charges filed against the parents, including the father. As you know, DCF is responsible for the care and well-being of kids, and that’s what happened in this instance.”

But Broyles countered to the Herald that physical and sexual abuse charges against the parents were deemed unfounded in juvenile court, and there was no finding of guilt in criminal court following a non-guilty disposition with prosecutors: “It’s very dishonest, because there are no standing charges against them."

Meanwhile, as the Kutzkos' legal fees ballooned past $150,000, Broyles noted to the paper that an unidentified adult allegedly helped Sophie get a restraining order against her parents when she had been in state custody for nearly a year — and that the order still stands.

Broyles noted to Blaze News that the restraining order includes "no contact" and that "it's my understanding that [the Department of Children and Families] supported" the order.

What's more, an allegation of neglect against the Kutzkos still looms — and "it's never been explained to them," Broyles told Blaze News.

But Broyles said she has a good idea what it's all about.

Broyles told Blaze News the "implication" is that the neglect allegation has to do with the Kutzkos' refusal to agree to their daughter's desire for a medical gender transition — "but Massachusetts doesn't want to say that."

Meanwhile, despite no finding of guilt against the parents, the Kutzkos have "not been allowed to see or talk to their daughter or observe her for 20 months," Broyles told Blaze News.

"You've got to be kidding me," their attorney added to Blaze News. "How are these people so dangerous to her? ... I believe we have a state that, at its core, believes these parents are unsafe, [and] they are hiding behind a nebulous neglect. Nothing else adds up."

Despite Sophie having been a "very faithful Catholic girl" and "so active in the church," Broyles told Blaze News that "girls go down rabbit holes that suck them into this belief system" counter to parents' wishes, and that's "probably what happened to" Sophie, while those in custody of her are "championing" her gender transition. To wit: Broyles also told Blaze News that Sophie has been placed on birth control, is living in a male facility, and "now they want to give her testosterone," which her father — a scientist — is totally against.

"She's probably pretty manipulated by now," Broyles told Blaze News.

RELATED: Blaze News investigates: Democrats attack parents and parental rights in Colorado

C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, added to Blaze News that the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families "is an unelected and unaccountable government bureaucracy with a long and disreputable history of arbitrary, autocratic, and authoritarian behavior, hostile to both parental rights and religious freedom."

Doyle also told Blaze News that the DCF's actions against the Kutzkos amount to "nothing less than state-sponsored kidnapping and government-inflicted child abuse. It is a direct assault, by rogue state actors, on parental authority, family integrity, and constitutionally protected religious liberty."

Doyle also argued that "Sophie should not only be returned to her parents, but there should be civil and criminal penalties for such misconduct by government agents."

As for the Trump administration's involvement, the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office on Thursday launched an investigation into the Public Schools of Northborough and Southborough in Massachusetts to determine whether the school district violated the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act in relation to the Kutzkos' case.

“Parents have a right to know what is happening with their children at school, particularly when it concerns deeply personal matters involving their health and well-being,” said Frank Miller, director of the Student Privacy Policy Office. “These egregious allegations are not an isolated problem. Families deserve answers, and SPPO will thoroughly investigate reports like this and hold any educational institution that violates federal law accountable.”

Algonquin Regional High School and the Northborough-Southborough Regional School District denied all of the Kutzkos' allegations, calling them “baseless” and “grossly insensitive, intrusive, and dangerous toward the child," according to the Herald.

The paper said it has requested comment from the DCF.

The Kutzkos' next court appearance is scheduled for Oct. 29, the Herald said.

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

Scratch a liberal, find a censor



California tried to pass a law squelching dissident speech. Again. People are finally noticing.

Governor Gavin Newsom last week signed Assembly Bill 2624, aptly dubbed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.” The law establishes special privacy protections for qualifying “immigration-service workers” who claim threats or harassment. It also creates a formal process letting those workers demand restrictions on publication of their “personal information” and images — including names, employment, photographs, and video.

The First Amendment was written for precisely this sort of piggish government.

Shirley says this creates an obvious problem for investigative journalism. He’s right.

Suppose he investigates a taxpayer-funded hospice or nonprofit, films the people running it, and asks uncomfortable questions about where the money went. Under his reading of the law, one of those people could hand him a written demand not to publish his name or image. If Shirley publishes anyway and the subject claims fear or receives threats, Shirley says he could face legal consequences simply for reporting what he found.

That would be an outrageous law.

But the final law isn’t as broad as Shirley says it is. Not that it doesn’t deserve to be nuked. We need to be clear.

Somebody cannot simply hand him a piece of paper and prevent him from publishing a video. The enacted version requires “specific intent” to incite imminent great bodily harm or to threaten someone in a manner creating “objectively reasonable fear” for personal safety.

That distinction will matter when the courts take up the inevitable First Amendment challenge.

You know what else matters? What California Democrats originally tried to pass.

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, the designated “victim” in Shirley’s investigations, was not merely a supporter of A.B. 2624. California’s own legislative analysis identifies the taxpayer-funded immigration organization as one of the bill’s co-sponsors.

So an organization receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer money helped sponsor a law creating a special legal regime under which the organization may demand restrictions on the publication of their names, workplace, photographs, and video.

That should raise an eyebrow.

When the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression looked at A.B. 2624 in April, the bill was substantially worse. The original version allowed a “protected person” to send someone a written demand and bar that person for four years from publishing “personal information” or an image — without the specific-intent requirement now written into law.

RELATED: Democrats love free speech — until conservatives get some

Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg/Getty Images

FIRE warned that the bill could suppress criticism, newsworthy reporting, photographs, and ordinary social media posts. The original even contained a special exemption for journalists covered by California’s shield law.

Why would lawmakers need a press exemption if the bill merely prohibited “threats” and “doxxing”?

Then people complained. FIRE complained. UCLA First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh complained. Republicans like Assemblyman Carl DeMaio of San Diego complained loudly.

And Democrats retreated — a little.

The legislature added the specific-intent language, narrowed the publication restriction, and removed the journalist carve-out. FIRE now says the amendments prevent the law from being unconstitutional on its face, although the group still warns that the written-demand system could chill lawful speech.

Could?

At a raucous Capitol rally Wednesday, Shirley insisted that it absolutely will. Newsom’s office responded that critics were either “lying to create up fake conspiracy theories” or did not “know how to read.”

That is awfully cocky coming from an administration defending a law that had to be substantially rewritten to have a prayer of surviving First Amendment scrutiny.

And A.B. 2624 is hardly an aberration.

In 2024, Christopher Kohls, who posts online as “MrReagan USA,” created an obviously satirical AI-generated Kamala Harris campaign ad. Elon Musk shared it. Newsom saw it and declared that manipulating a voice in an ad “should be illegal.”

When Newsom signed A.B. 2839, he reposted Kohls’ parody and bragged: “I just signed a bill to make this illegal in the state of California.”

A federal judge almost immediately blocked the law on First Amendment grounds and later permanently enjoined its enforcement against Kohls and the other plaintiffs.

Newsom’s appalling candor was refreshing in a way. He saw political speech he disliked, announced it should be outlawed, then used the power of the state to try to make it so.

He would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn’t been for that meddling First Amendment.

RELATED: No, the founders did not ‘tell you so’

Wildpixel/Getty Images

Then there is Mirabelli v. Bonta, involving a preposterous law that allowed public schools to hide students’ “gender transitions” from their parents. California defended the law to the hilt. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the parent plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their constitutional claims.

Different subject. Same censorious reflex.

Who gets to say what? Democrats think they decide.

So never confuse retreat with innocence.

California Democrats did not begin with a carefully limited A.B. 2624 and painstakingly protect innocent victims while respecting the First Amendment. They reached much farther into protected speech and backed off only after people caught them.

If the problem was doxxing and threats, why did the original bill reach names, employment information, photographs, and video? Why did lawmakers think they needed a special exception for journalists? And why does the final law retain a formal four-year “do not publish me” demand if the only publication California may punish is a threat or incitement?

Patrick Henry had the proper American disposition toward government power: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.”

Especially in California.

Kohls was no accident. Neither was Mirabelli. Nor did A.B. 2624 accidentally offend the First Amendment. Scratch a “liberal,” find a censor.

Again and again, California Democrats reach for state power to control what people may say, publish, parody, disclose, or hear — then retreat only when courts, civil libertarians, or public outrage force them to.

The First Amendment was written for precisely this sort of piggish government.

‘The most psychotic Democrat’ wants to ‘cancel Thanksgiving’ — and might win her election



Wisconsin Democrats have a new front-runner for the “most psychotic Democrat,” and BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales is sounding the alarm.

“There’s a lot of competition. I get it. But I just would like to introduce you to a new player. Her name is Francesca Hong,” Gonzales begins.

Hong is a self-described democratic socialist who is running for governor in Wisconsin. And she “could win,” Gonzales says, pointing out that she’s “taking charge at 94.3%” in the Democrat primary.

“Now, I mentioned this woman is like a crackpot psycho crazy person. The reason that I say that … because she apparently is a psycho by like the Norman Bates definition,” she adds, before playing a clip from an interview with Hong.


“I think a lot of my insecurities and my struggles with mental health really came from a sense of never really feeling like I belonged. There was a deep shame and fear that I didn’t want to be Korean, and I think that’s where a lot of the mental health struggle started,” Hong recalled.

“I deeply wanted to be American, and I felt shame that my parents sacrificed so much to be here and that wasn’t who I wanted to be,” she added.

Hong went on to explain that “isolation and loneliness led into a lot of despair and depression,” leaving her hospitalized her senior year of high school. Hong explained that she was diagnosed as bipolar.

“She’s also admitted to taking SSRIs and overdosing on lithium,” Gonzales says.

“I feel like that should be pretty disqualifying to say, ‘I should run as governor,’” she adds.

Despite formerly being a restaurant owner and chef, Hong has called tipping “racist” and also lamented serving others on holidays like Valentine's day.

“If that wasn’t bad enough, she also hates Christmas,” Gonzales says.

In a 2019 post on X, Hong wrote: “IT bro who was working on ‘our’ computer remotely changed the background theme to snow and Christmas trees. I feel slightly attacked…”

But that’s not all, as in a now-deleted 2020 post on X, she wrote: “Cancel Thanksgiving. Should have done this in 1621. If it takes a worldwide pandemic for us to realize we should stop celebrating colonialism and the original superspreader event that killed Indegenous [sic] folx and women so be it.”

Even CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked Hong about her past take on Thanksgiving, to which Hong responded, “I always think my hospitality background in owning a restaurant ... to share conversation and build community is always a good thing, but Thanksgiving is also a time that’s incredibly painful for many people in our communities.”

Hong has also posted that she supports “defunding the police as a first step towards abolishing the police.”

And shockingly, it gets worse.

“I guess she wants to get away with calling for the assassination of President Trump, because she openly called for it on a Zoom call,” Gonzales says, before playing yet another damaging clip of Hong.

“In the restaurant industry, when we’re out of something, we say it’s 86’ed. And I’d say it’s about f**king time we 86 Trump. He represents the utter failure of our government to keep us safe from threats, both viral and systemic,” Hong said.

However, there is good news.

“People seem to be waking up to how much of an actual psycho she is. So much so that Republicans are now narrowly favored to win the general. 52% Republican, 48% Democrat,” Gonzales says.

“I will just say in closing,” she adds, “candidates like Francesca Hong are tearing the Democrat Party apart.”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The quiet candidate is making noise in Florida



Political campaigns have a rhythm. At first, the questions are easy: Who raised the most money? Who landed the biggest endorsement? Who dominates the headlines? Consultants love this stage because it allows them to declare winners before most voters have begun paying attention.

Then the race changes.

The primary is no longer simply a contest over money, endorsements, or online attention. It is becoming a test of who understands what comes next — and who has prepared to govern through it.

Momentum gives way to scrutiny. Personality must give way to policy. Candidates who looked inevitable begin answering questions about their records, judgment, and ability to govern.

Florida’s Republican primary for governor has reached that stage.

Only a few months ago, the race appeared nearly settled. U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds had President Donald Trump’s endorsement, national attention, and a fundraising operation that dwarfed the rest of the field. Political insiders spoke of inevitability as though Republican voters had already rendered their verdict.

Donalds remains the front-runner. That position deserves acknowledgment — and scrutiny. Increased attention has brought new questions about his record, campaign, and legal controversies. Voters and the courts, where appropriate, will decide those issues. But they are now part of the race, whether his supporters welcome them or not.

James Fishback entered the race as an energetic outsider with a strong social media operation and a talent for commanding attention. He has proved capable of generating enthusiasm and headlines. Campaigns, however, eventually demand more than velocity.

Voters begin asking harder questions: Can this candidate govern? What’s the plan? How would bold promises become legislation and administration?

Those questions have become more urgent as Fishback defends himself against a legal challenge to his eligibility under Florida’s constitutional residency requirement. Fellow Republican candidate Jay Collins brought the challenge. Fishback disputes the allegations and says he meets the requirement. Whatever the outcome, the case has introduced uncertainty into a campaign built largely on momentum and personality.

Collins faces a different test.

A decorated Green Beret with a compelling personal story, Collins entered the race with credentials few could dismiss. Yet campaigns turn on trust as much as biography. Critics have questioned whether his rhetoric and financial support align, particularly on hyperscale data centers and real estate development. Collins has defended his positions, but the dispute illustrates how quickly Republican voters now demand consistency between campaign language and governing priorities.

That leaves the most overlooked candidate in the field: Paul Renner.

Renner lacks Donalds’ financial advantage and has not relied on celebrity, inevitability, or viral attention. Instead, he has offered voters something less theatrical and potentially more consequential: a governing program.

Voters may disagree with parts of his First 100 Days agenda, but it is a road map rather than a collection of applause lines.

Renner has addressed property insurance, affordability, infrastructure, parental rights, election integrity, illegal immigration, and Florida’s response to the emerging artificial intelligence economy. More important, he has tried to show how those priorities connect.

RELATED: ‘It’s past time’: Florida launches investigation into Fauci

Pedro Portal/El Nuevo Herald/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

That is where the race is changing.

Florida Republicans have spent years fighting over freedom. They are now asking how to preserve the quality of life that freedom was supposed to protect.

How does Florida keep teachers, firefighters, nurses, sheriff’s deputies, and young families from being priced out of the communities they serve? How can the state welcome investment without overwhelming roads, utilities, and water supplies? How should it embrace artificial intelligence while protecting property rights, local communities, and natural resources? How can growth enrich Floridians rather than merely raise their cost of living?

Those are real governing questions, not merely campaign slogans.

The next governor will inherit one of America’s fastest-growing states and most dynamic economies. He will also inherit rising insurance costs, strained infrastructure, rapid population growth, technological disruption, and mounting pressure on the affordability that helped make Florida attractive.

The primary is therefore no longer simply a contest over money, endorsements, or online attention. It is becoming a test of who understands what comes next — and who has prepared to govern through it.

Momentum changes. Fundraising advantages narrow. Polls rise and fall. Eventually, voters stop asking which candidate can win and start asking which candidate should govern.

Florida’s Republican primary has finally reached that question. The candidate who answers it most convincingly may discover that the race was never as settled as the consultants claimed.