Michigan Democrats Pass Bills That Would Give Trans People Exclusive Legal Privileges When Accusing Others Of Violence

Republican state Sen. Jim Runestad expressed concern that prosecutors could politically weaponize the provisions in the bills.

NBA star fined $100K for jokingly saying 'no homo' during postgame interview — league calls remark 'offensive'



Charlotte Hornets star LaMelo Ball was swiftly fined by the NBA for making a joke during a postgame interview that the league deemed "derogatory."

After a 115-114 nail-biting victory over the Milwaukee Bucks on November 16, Ball was asked for his comments on the final play of the game.

"What did you see right here when Giannis [Antetokounmpo] took that shot and everyone was underneath the basket for that rebound?" a reporter asked the 23-year-old.

After confirming what the reporter said, Ball responded with his $100,000 answer.

"We loaded up — no homo — that's what we wanted. Put the hand up and then live with the results," the point guard replied.

It didn't take long for NBA officials to push out a press release calling Ball's joke "offensive" and slapping him with the whopping fine.

"Charlotte Hornets guard LaMelo Ball has been fined $100,000 for making an offensive and derogatory comment in a postgame interview, it was announced today by Joe Dumars, Executive Vice President, Head of Basketball Operations," the league wrote.

— (@)

'... I don't discriminate.'

The next day, head coach Charles Lee said the organization "obviously" does not condone Ball's language.

"Our standards and what is required of our players in our environment that we create is really important to us," the coach claimed during a press conference. "I spoke to Melo and he's obviously very apologetic from what I've seen since I've been around him. He loves everyone and he's a joy to have around in the facility, and that's not typically how he operates."

The coach added that his star player now knows "what's going to be expected of him" and claimed Ball wants to "be better" going forward.

According to TMZ, Ball told journalists following Sunday's 128-114 loss to the Cleveland Cavaliers that he "really didn't mean anything" by the remark and that he doesn't "want to offend anybody."

"I've got love for everybody ... and I don't discriminate," Ball reportedly added.

The fifth-year player is averaging 29.7 points per game in 2024-2025 and is in the first year of a five-year contract extension that has him averaging over $40 million per season.

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

'Hate speech isn't real': UFC contender Sean Strickland says he won't fight in Australia due to its government



UFC middleweight Sean Strickland announced he will not fight in Australia for a championship again, citing the government's disdain for him and the country's lack of free speech.

Strickland last fought down under for the middleweight championship in 2023, beating New Zealander Israel Adesanya at UFC 293. Leading up to the fight, Strickland made it his plight to criticize Australia's laws surrounding speech, guns, and more.

Strickland has since lost the middleweight title to South Africa's Dricus Du Plessis but has battled his way back to the No. 1 contender position for a rematch.

However, the Anaheim, California, native recently declared he has no intention of accepting a fight in Australia for the belt.

"I'm not fighting in Australia. Were thinking Vegas in March," the fighter wrote on his X page.

"I have a love for the aussies BUT I don't think you're government likes me... Which I take as a compliment!! Hate speech isn't real and ill always speak up for my kangaroo homies," Strickland continued, adding an all-caps call for freedom.

— (@)

Strickland responded to several fan comments, including one that claimed Australians are "too liberal."

The fighter took the chance to clarify that his issue is with the state, not the people.

"The government is [too liberal]. The people living there are as much as a Trump supporters as us," Strickland replied.

— (@)

Strickland has been highly critical of Australian policies since the COVID-19 lockdowns, when federal authorities forced citizens into quarantine camps.

"Go to Australia and post something negative about covid. They can enter your home and take you to jail," Strickland said in 2021.

I can just start naming constitutional amendments that most countries don't have? Go to Australia and post something negative about covid. They can enter your home and take you to jail.
— Sean Strickland (@SStricklandMMA) November 30, 2021

Leading up to his fight in 2023, Strickland's outlook was to figuratively liberate Australia by speaking out about its gun control measures.

"A woman can't own a gun.... or a knife... or pepper spray.... My god! I'm coming to save you Australia," the former champion wrote.

Later that same day, Strickland said, "Looks like me going to Australia is becoming a humanitarian mission now," he said in response to a post about gun licensing.

— (@)

It appears the fighter's outlook has changed from liberation to a worry that the government won't be as welcoming of him a second time around.

He may be right to assume so, given that political commentator Candace Owens was recently denied entry to the island nation.

Australia's immigration minister said Owens had the "capacity to incite discord" and therefore should not be allowed into the country.

The minister claimed Owens' comments about the Holocaust and the Islamic slave trade could "incite discord in almost every direction."

Strickland has said he would only fight once to prove he deserves a rematch for the middleweight title and after beating Brazil's Paulo Costa in June has stated he will wait as long as it takes to get his opportunity.

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

Amalgamated Bank’s ‘hate’ crusade hypocrisy exposed



Amalgamated Bank is one of the smaller and lesser-known U.S. financial institutions, controlling less than $10 billion in assets. Yet it has scored numerous high-powered clients, such as Harris for President and the Democratic National Committee, plus a host of Democratic legislators and candidates.

That’s no coincidence: Amalgamated is a partisan, agenda-driven institution. But given that it is both attempting to gaslight America on hate and trying to interfere with contributions to causes with which it disagrees, Amalgamated’s deep associations and influence within the Democratic Party are not only problematic but dangerous.

Democratic donors may be unknowingly supporting hate in America, and it’s up to the campaigns to put an end to it.

Amalgamated presents itself as not merely above reproach but morally advanced. It provided seed funding for the Amalgamated Charitable Foundation, claiming its mission is to “redefine philanthropy,” while, unlike many foundations, it has commingled its leadership, with Priscilla Sims Brown, president and CEO of Amalgamated Bank, also serving as the chairman of the ACF’s board.

It also claims to be in a position to lecture others. Besides operating a donor-advised fund of its own, the ACF also sponsors a campaign called “Hate Is Not Charitable,” directed at other DAF providers. Though it presents itself as reasonable, appropriate, and humanitarian, this campaign is an effort to suppress support for those who oppose Amalgamated’s partisan and even bigoted views.

Donor-advised funds are a common vehicle for donors, desirable for convenience and anonymity. Donors give to a DAF, receive an immediate receipt for their gift, and, over time, instruct the fund to disburse parts of the deposited money to causes of the donor’s choice. Besides permitting donors to schedule tax deductions to maximal advantage, having a DAF write the check means the donor’s contribution to an organization never shows up on the donor’s 1040 or the recipient charity’s Form 990. DAFs routinely reveal the donor’s identity only to the beneficiary; this information is not made public, and thus donors cannot be identified or targeted for the charities that they support.

Where is the IRS?

This is where Hate Is Not Charitable comes into play. Although it claims to be “deeply concerned” that charitable funds can be used to fund “organizations that foment hatred,” Amalgamated’s Hate Is Not Charitable campaign targets other DAFs rather than the organization certifying American charities: the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

“Donor Advised Fund providers,” Amalgamated intones, “should filter out hate,” but not by using the neutral standards of the IRS, which, of course, DAFs are already required to do. Amalgamated arrogates to itself and its partners the ability to decide whom others should consider hate groups. It knows that if deprived of the anonymity of a DAF, donors could be easily targeted and shamed by Amalgamated’s “empowered” activists for supporting unfavored causes.

Amalgamated claims that Hate Is Not Charitable was prompted, in part, by “white nationalist violence in Charlottesville,” where marching neo-Nazis chanted “Jews will not replace us.” Yet a site search of Amalgamated returns no mention of anti-Semitism in its literature, and it isn’t mentioned as an issue the bank cares about. Instead, the campaign concerns itself with allegedly “anti-LGBTQ groups, anti-Muslim groups, anti-immigrant groups, [and] a white nationalist group.”

Amalgamated’s main resource is the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC’s “Hate Map” is hardly neutral; it was used in a hate-fueled terror attack on the offices of the Family Research Council in 2012. According to the Coalition for Jewish Values, the organization I serve as managing director, the Hate Map is inherently “detrimental and even dangerous to the Jewish community.” The SPLC fails to identify radical Islamic groups as hateful, while besmirching those who confront the dangers posed by those groups as “anti-Muslim.”

The SPLC worked together with the Council on American-Islamic Relations on a 40-page guide to “Hate-Free Philanthropy,” which recommends, among other things, Amalgamated’s Hate Is Not Charitable campaign. CAIR was originally identified as a partner in the Biden administration’s national strategy to counter anti-Semitism, only to be unceremoniously dumped after it blamed Israel for the Hamas atrocities of October 2023, a pogrom that CAIR’s director celebrated with glee.

Amalgamated not only touts CAIR as a charter signatory of its campaign but also gave the organization at least $175,000. And this is far from Amalgamated’s only association with groups inciting anti-Semitism and endorsing terrorism.

Ties to October 7

Earlier this month, U.S. and Canadian authorities identified Samidoun, an organization that helped organize anti-Semitic protests on American college campuses and the Freedom Plaza protests that called for “Death to Israel,” as a “sham charity” that existed to support the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a participant in the October 7 attacks. Samidoun is not independent. It is a project fiscally sponsored by the Alliance for Global Justice, a charity that also sponsors campaigns to boycott Israel and other left-wing causes.

According to its own public filings, Amalgamated Charitable Foundation gave over $1 million to AFGJ between 2020 and 2022, the most recent year for which records are available. The Capital Research Center also identifies Amalgamated’s donor-advised fund as a key money conduit for AFGJ. This is especially troubling because, since 2020, credit card companies have blocked donations to Samidoun, and in 2023, several credit providers, including Stripe, PayPal, and Salsa Labs, stopped serving AFGJ directly.

House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) in September called for the IRS to strip AFGJ of its tax-exempt status due to its role as the sponsor of Samidoun’s efforts “to incite violence and instill chaos.” If Amalgamated truly wanted to fight hate, it would have already cut ties with AFGJ, Samidoun, CAIR, and other organizations that celebrate or sponsor terrorism.

Instead, Amalgamated targets neutral groups to advance its partisan agenda — an agenda partially funded through its financial relationships with major Democratic campaigns and the Democratic National Committee. It’s regrettable that Democratic donors may be unknowingly supporting hate in America, and it’s up to the campaigns to put an end to it.

Whistleblower exposes UK prime minister's plan to 'Kill Musk's Twitter'



A whistleblower revealed that a nonprofit focusing on "digital hate" has a stated goal to destroy Elon Musk's X platform.

Leaked documents show that the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a U.S. nonprofit and British charity, have an internal goal to "Kill Musk's Twitter."

Images from January, March, and October 2024 list "Kill Musk's Twitter" as an annual priority. Other priorities included "advertising focus," "Trigger EU & UK regulatory action," and "Progress towards change in USA."

Reporters Paul Thacker and Matt Taibbi posted other screenshots revealing the nonprofit was hoping to discuss policy with Sen. Amy Klobuchar's team and to seek "a quote/press release endorsement" from her. The document showed the nonprofit already had a meeting set up with the senator's team.

According to Thacker, the nonprofit held a private conference with a group of liberal representatives who were organizing against Musk.

Guests included members of the Joe Biden administration, Congressman Adam Schiff's office, Biden State Department officials, Canadian Member of Parliament Peter Julian, and Media Matters for America.

In response to the report, Musk simply stated, "This is war."

— (@)

'Boycott all advertisers on Twitter. Mute all ads.'

The nonprofit uses Musk to garner donations in a few locations on its website; on its homepage, the organization cites a legal victory against the entrepreneur, claiming it is "working to hold social media giants accountable."

"Fighting Elon Musk's lawsuit has cost us thousands of dollars. ... Help us get back on track," the nonprofit wrote.

The CCDH openly states that platforms like X "and their owners" must be "held accountable for enabling the spread of hate and misinformation."

In fact, one of its alleged cohorts is Peter Julian, who recently called for "all advertisers" on X to be boycotted.

"Boycott all advertisers on Twitter. Mute all ads. Let's end the nightmare that is an far right extremist hate speech billionaire controlling this social media platform," Julian wrote.

— (@)

Along with blatantly going after X's advertisers, the CCDH pushes a series of campaigns surrounding vague claims of online hate and misinformation and then complains when posts are not taken down.

One of its campaigns, titled "X Content Moderation Failure," argues that Musk's platform has failed to delete "hateful posts." It alleged that 86% of the posts flagged were still not removed within a week of reporting them.

The company says it also "found dozens of advertisements for household brands, such as Apple and Disney, appearing next to hate speech."

Its "abusing women in politics" report complains that the company found "1,000 abusive comments targeting women politicians running for office" on Instagram.

The company then said that Meta "had taken no action against 926 of these hateful comments."

The CCDH also accuses platforms of harboring climate disinformation and says that "content producers profit by spreading new forms of climate denial."

The nonprofit goes on to claim it is part of the "sensible majority" that seeks to avert a "climate catastrophe" but is stymied by having to deal with a large swath of disinformation that is designed to delay its actions to save the planet.

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

Christian Realtor Persecuted For ‘Hate Speech’ After Posting Bible Verses On Facebook

There have been multiple cases of people having their careers harmed because they expressed their religious beliefs.

Exclusive: Senators Probe TikTok For Spreading Trans Propaganda While Censoring Girls’ Sports Advocates

A pair of female Republican senators are demanding TikTok provide documents to explain the company's censorship of 'hate speech.'

Tulsi Gabbard explains why JD Vance DOMINATED Tim Walz in VP debate



Despite what mainstream news outlets say, JD Vance crushed his debate against Tim Walz, who floundered when trying to defend the Biden administration’s destructive policies.

Tulsi Gabbard confirms that this is true.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

“Anyone who watched with an open mind sincerely interested in listening to what both JD Vance and Tim Walz had to say probably came away with a very different and positive impression of JD Vance as well as the policies that he and President Trump are putting forward,” she tells Glenn Beck.

“I think JD did a fantastic job in talking about these issues in a way that I could relate to, that were very real and really reflect the fact that both he and President Trump are listening to the American people. You contrast that with what we hear from Kamala Harris, what we heard from Tim Walz, who had a really, really tough job tonight trying to defend Kamala Harris and Joe Biden's disastrous policies,” she adds, noting that both Biden and Harris “are so arrogantly dismissive of the reality of the struggles of so many Americans across the country.”

Glenn then asks if there was a singular moment during the debate that might “crystallize things one way or the other” for the undecided voter.

“I honestly think that there were a lot of those moments on every one of the major issues,” Gabbard says.

However, there was one moment that stood out among the rest.

Toward the end of the debate when the subject of censorship was broached, Gabbard felt that the moderators — who, again, were left-leaning — did not devote the time or attention to what is “a very serious issue.”

“We have hard evidence that [censorship] has been taking place” under the Biden administration, she points out. “You have Tim Walz himself who has said that free speech in the First Amendment is a privilege and that it does not apply to misinformation and disinformation and hate speech.”

“The thing that he and Kamala Harris are not telling the American people is that they believe they're the only ones who get to decide what is misinformation and disinformation [and hate speech],” she tells Glenn.

Had she been one of the moderators at the debate, Gabbard says she would have asked, “Would you then support banning Hillary Clinton's hateful, offensive speech in labeling me a traitor to the country that I love and I'm willing to lay my life down for?”

“That was deeply offensive, and it was also 100% false, so their double standard is very real. They want to protect speech that they like, and they want to ban speech that they don't like,” she explains.

“JD was on point when he said fundamentally we cannot have a Democratic Republic unless we protect every American's right to free speech and encourage this vibrant marketplace of ideas where we can debate issues that are important to us, where more speech always wins, and the best ideas will rise to the top.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the clip above.

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.

ROOKE: Walz Solidifies Harris Policy Position That Would Transform Country As We Know It

Americans' free speech rights will be infringed, not by accident but as a policy decision